these walls of text are killing me to write. I hope you're actually reading the damned things.
my2rotties, chill. I don't know where you got the impression that I'm bashing you from... I mean my statements to be general, not targeted. That said, you're still ignoring the fact that wild stocks (which FAR outnumber the fish in your tank) are now deprived of the same service. How is it not cruel to hamstring an important ecosystem function, further restricting the hobby's only resource of ALL fish? How is that not cruel to any reefer in our hobby? How is that not cruel to future hobbyists who would like to join? Until someone comes up with a decent rebuttal to that, I'm not even going to think about changing my mind regarding this species.
I know this will sound abrasive, but to think that fish in tanks are more important than wild fish is incredibly arrogant. I can't think of a more suitable word than that. naive is a close second though.
as long as people buy a fish, they supply the demand for it. As long as there's a demand, collectors will collect it; so in the end, it's the reefers who are responsible for what is collected. This topic has been beat to death already. This hobby is selfish by nature, I do agree, but it does not have to be destructive as well. Buying second hand/aquacultured is great, I fully encourage that practice.
as for their being essential to a tank with fish, look at how many successful tanks don't have cleaner wrasses in them and say that again.
edit: when I say "you" in my posts, I don't mean you. I mean yooooouuuuuu in the general sense. I had hoped that would have been assumed. Like I said, I'm not here to bash anyone; I'm not Jesus (believe it or not
), I have no right to pass judgement