New Regulations implemented by Canadian Government

[Todd]

Originally Posted by Matt

Obviously, I wrote this in jest. On a more serious note, how many of us will actually be able to buy wild-collected live rock, coral or fish in 20 years? Should we be able to now? How many of us (still in the hobby) will have specimens that are extinct in the wild? I don't think this hobby is unethical, as the destruction of the reefs is apparently much more about environmental issues (heat, pollution) and commercial fisheries than it is about our minor collection for the marine aquarium trade.

What do you think? Should we be able to?

Allowing proper harvesting of an ecosystem can actually lead to its preservation, and not destruction. For example harvesting fish for the aquarium industry can result in much higher prices for the harvester then harvesting the area for fish. The higher prices give an incentive for an individual to preserve the resource, much as a farmer has an incentive to preserve their soil quality. The problem with this is that the ocean is an open access resource and leads to what Hardin would refer to as 'The Tragedy of the Commons'. There are effective and efficient ways around this, including assigning property rights (a market approach, thousands of books have been written on how to assign these rights), individual tradable quota’s (ITQ’s, similar to the carbon trading systems proposed) and government (Agency) control (Assuming that poaching can be enforced). Each of these have their strengths and weaknesses.

By allowing harvesting below the Maximum sustainable yield of a reef promotes conservation. Additionally, if the value of preserving the reef for the aquarium industry is higher then the value of the reef to a polluting industry, or commercial fishery targeting a specific species, a coase (basically paying someone not to pollute) solution can be reached, leaving the reef in a better situation then it would be with no harvesting for the aquarium industry. In a coase solution, everyone is in the same position or a better position then they were before. If harvesting is banned outright then local individuals have no incentive to conserve it (except for intrinsic purposes, or other industries such as ecotourism).

The second point about maintaining species that are extinct / endangered in the wild refers to ex-situ conservation. I believe that this is an excellent practice and should defiantly be allowed. Hobbyist can establish an impressive amount of information about a species, and can also contribute to the genetic gene pool, this information can often result in the conservation of a species in the wild and the preserved livestock allows the possibility of a re-introduction of the species to the wild in the future. However damaging the species in the wild for this type of conservation is a different conversation…

(Can you tell that I have a degree in Environmental Economics?)