Quote:
I agree to a point. But unfortunately most people who argue these ethical points are just way too hypocritical. If you have a tank, you have contributed to a reefs destruction in some way. You have fish in an unnatural environment.
I am all for ethical fish/coral collection and argue it here all the time. I wish more could be done to make certain species less likely to die suddenly in our tanks because they were caught by poison. But in the end, if I really cared as much as I often think I do, I would have given this hobby up so long ago. The day I realized what this hobby does to the reefs around the world should have been enough to discourage me from buying ANY fish or coral. But it hasn't.
Apparently I am selfish enough to continue.
|
My list of fish that shouldn't be kept in captivity regardless of longevity is pretty short. There's a big difference between sustainable harvest of a common species and harvesting a keystone species. Without cleaner wrasses, the ecology of the reef crumbles.
It's like the difference between sustainable softwood harvesting and wholescale clearcutting of old-growth rainforest. Both technically destroy trees and have some ecological impact, but one area will recover, and the other won't.
I believe that it
is possible to practise marine fishkeeping in a more responsible manner, if we're careful. Buying frags instead of corals fresh from the reef, avoiding endangered/keystone species, that kind of thing.
Still selfish? Yeah, probably. Really, when you get down to it, 'sustainability' is just a catchphrase for continuing to do what we want while trying to minimize the impact. But I think that a conscientious aquarist can actually do a lot of good- both for the hobby and the environment as a whole.