A
Anonymous
Guest
Sincethe USL (Unsuitable Species List) has popped up in a few threads recently I figured it was due for a little more discussion. I'll give a little background on it, then I'll give you my thoughts on it, and then we can all talk about it nice and civilized. :wink:
The USL was one of the main topics of this forum when it was first started, with the goal being to develop a tentative list that could be brought to the MAC committee for approval and/or comments. It focused on Obligate Feeders, Dangerous Animals, and animals that get too large.
Most of the debate centered around the obligate feeder category, and whether or not excluding certain species would curtail advancement in husbandry, with the analogy being that SPS corals were at one time considered impossible to keep and now they are fragged and traded all over the country. Many people pushed for the adoption of a USL in order to reduce the numbers of needless mortalities attributed to the hobby by inexperience, poor husbandry skills, or lack of information regarding certain more difficult species. The intent was to make the hobby seem less inhumane to outsiders when the short lifespan some of the critters we attempt to keep was taken into consideration. We got through a good many fish, but the urgency waned from MAC and it kind of slipped through the cracks as certifications were given out, before a CDT test or a USL were put into place. Which were two pillars of the MAC gameplan up until that point. So now the debate remains about whether or not we still want it, who should enforce it and how?
My thoughts.
I think a USL when based on the length of time an animal is kept alive in captivity (or how humane it is to capture that animal and make it a pet) is a backwards way to look at it. Once the animal is collected it will never return even if it were to outlive the collector. (Barring any sewer escapes mind you.) First of all tuna, most grouper, snapper etc. would probably be in the unsuitable category without a doubt, but this will in no way prevent them from being taken from the reef. Secondly, I gurantee you that more yellow tangs are killed per week than most of the fish on the USL are killed in a month and no one would attempt to put yellow tangs on the list. Thirdly, depending on who is making the list, it could be argued that it is "inhumane" to capture a wild animal, transport it across the globe and confine it to a little glass box as a decoration, no matter how long it lives or what fish it is. In short, a USL focusing on the end product is missing the big picture.
In my opinion, the USL and industry reform for that matter, is all about reef preservation. Making changes so that the reef is a renewable resource, and not a hack and slash job. The problem with cyanide use is not that it puts unhealthy fish into the trade, but that it destroys the reef itself, thereby reducing the amount of habitat for recruitment for the next generation of fish. How long the fish lives is irrelevant to how long the reef lives. As long as the reef lives there will be plenty of fish. The problem concerning which species are collected is much less about how long the fish lives or how "happy" we think it is, and much more about how many are left on the reef to reproduce and how the collection of that individual affects the community as a whole. If 1,000 gonioporas or obligate coralivores can be collected per month with no impact on over all populations what difference does it make wether they live another 3 months or not, as long as the resource in renewable.
The USL needs to be based on real field numbers and real population data, not some vague "feel good" goals, or some elite (I can keep this but you can't) club mentality. We've all killed our fair share of fish in this hobby, and hopefully we have all learned from the experience. That's how the hobby progress, like it or not, but in a large part through death and learning what not to do.
Your thoughts?
The USL was one of the main topics of this forum when it was first started, with the goal being to develop a tentative list that could be brought to the MAC committee for approval and/or comments. It focused on Obligate Feeders, Dangerous Animals, and animals that get too large.
Most of the debate centered around the obligate feeder category, and whether or not excluding certain species would curtail advancement in husbandry, with the analogy being that SPS corals were at one time considered impossible to keep and now they are fragged and traded all over the country. Many people pushed for the adoption of a USL in order to reduce the numbers of needless mortalities attributed to the hobby by inexperience, poor husbandry skills, or lack of information regarding certain more difficult species. The intent was to make the hobby seem less inhumane to outsiders when the short lifespan some of the critters we attempt to keep was taken into consideration. We got through a good many fish, but the urgency waned from MAC and it kind of slipped through the cracks as certifications were given out, before a CDT test or a USL were put into place. Which were two pillars of the MAC gameplan up until that point. So now the debate remains about whether or not we still want it, who should enforce it and how?
My thoughts.
I think a USL when based on the length of time an animal is kept alive in captivity (or how humane it is to capture that animal and make it a pet) is a backwards way to look at it. Once the animal is collected it will never return even if it were to outlive the collector. (Barring any sewer escapes mind you.) First of all tuna, most grouper, snapper etc. would probably be in the unsuitable category without a doubt, but this will in no way prevent them from being taken from the reef. Secondly, I gurantee you that more yellow tangs are killed per week than most of the fish on the USL are killed in a month and no one would attempt to put yellow tangs on the list. Thirdly, depending on who is making the list, it could be argued that it is "inhumane" to capture a wild animal, transport it across the globe and confine it to a little glass box as a decoration, no matter how long it lives or what fish it is. In short, a USL focusing on the end product is missing the big picture.
In my opinion, the USL and industry reform for that matter, is all about reef preservation. Making changes so that the reef is a renewable resource, and not a hack and slash job. The problem with cyanide use is not that it puts unhealthy fish into the trade, but that it destroys the reef itself, thereby reducing the amount of habitat for recruitment for the next generation of fish. How long the fish lives is irrelevant to how long the reef lives. As long as the reef lives there will be plenty of fish. The problem concerning which species are collected is much less about how long the fish lives or how "happy" we think it is, and much more about how many are left on the reef to reproduce and how the collection of that individual affects the community as a whole. If 1,000 gonioporas or obligate coralivores can be collected per month with no impact on over all populations what difference does it make wether they live another 3 months or not, as long as the resource in renewable.
The USL needs to be based on real field numbers and real population data, not some vague "feel good" goals, or some elite (I can keep this but you can't) club mentality. We've all killed our fair share of fish in this hobby, and hopefully we have all learned from the experience. That's how the hobby progress, like it or not, but in a large part through death and learning what not to do.
Your thoughts?
