Data: Wrong; Sustainability: Don't care; Robert Wintner: Aquarium trade should stop!

[naesco]

Originally Posted by TimT

Since I have been in the marine industry since 1999 I will respond to this.

1. 18 years ago you could not keep acropora alive. It was shipped but never survived or did well. I remember getting some cultured acros from Waikiki Aquarium and we(VMAS group order) were all very excited when they arrived alive. Even though they were about $50 each and completely brown. If corals had been banned we would not know how to culture them and grow them in aquariums or ocean based farms for reef rehab. So I personally have gone from getting very excited about getting a brown acro frag to having acros spawn in my system. Banning something just because they are supposedly poor survivors is not the solution.


2.There is a reason why cleaner wrasses from Philippines, Indonesia and Vietnam are difficult to keep fish and it has nothing to do with the fish. It is almost entirely how they are caught(with cyanide), how they are packed(2.5" long fish in a 4" bag with 1/2" of water) and how they are handled by the airlines(we put your fish in the cooler as it was warmer than the warehouse or they get left baking under a hot tropical sun in Manila or Bali). Once the pet shops get the fish some are treated very well while other stores just slash the bag and dump the fish straight into the aquarium.

I personally have had cleaner wrasse look dead in the bag. Not breathing and when you touch the fish it had no response. I put the fish aside and 30 minutes later the fish is swimming and looking normal so I acclimated it. 3 weeks later I sold the fish.

In general Cleaner Wrasses from Hawaii and the South Pacific do fine while their Indo-Pacific counterparts don't have a chance. It really is all about the care and treatment of the fish from the reef to retail and not so much that they are difficult.

Cheers,
Tim

Thank you Tim.

So your point is "Continue to import species like the the cleaner wrasse even though they have little chance of sucess because they are caught with cyanide and packed and caught poorly. When they are imported they than die in our tanks.
Considering the good work they do in the sea IMO we should not be importing them if they can't survive whether it is cyanide, shipping or the nature of the fish. (BTW I do not agree with your comment that it has nothing to do with the fish).

[SanguinesDream]

[Reef Pilot]

Originally Posted by daniella3d

I support the Sea Sheppard organization with donations each year, not sure I will keep at it now! hmmmm...

But then how are they going to buy the fuel to fund the Bridgitte Bardot diving excursions to inspect all the fish and coral collection sites? And they need to keep those coolers stocked, too...

[RumRunner]

WOW so this is all Roberts fault......just WOW

[kien]

All of the organisms that we harvest from the wild just simply need to evolve to survive, or they will face extinction. Plain and simple. If they can not adapt or evolve to live in a world with man's habbits, that's partly their challenge to sort out.

For the entire history of the planet, and well before mankind, species have come and gone for the exact same reasons that species are coming and going today. Climate change, loss of habitat, failure to adapt, out competed for resources, hunted to extinction by other animals, etc.

Who was there to help save the hundreds of thousands of species of dinosaurs from extinction? The mammoth? Sabre tooth tigers? Who was there to help save early homanids from extinction? Who was there to help save Neandethals from extinction?

And in fact, in all of our efforts to save species from extinction, are we not then hindering natural selection?

Survival of the fittest. Is that not the natural order of things?

Human beings are a very destructive species. But then so were so many other animals at the top of their food chain. Humans were put here by the same natural forces that put every other organism on this planet. Concepts like morality are artificial constructs that humans invented. Mother Nature knows no such thing.

[kien]

Originally Posted by kien

All of the organisms that we harvest from the wild just simply need to evolve to survive, or they will face extinction. Plain and simple. If they can not adapt or evolve to live in a world with man's habbits, that's partly their challenge to sort out.

For the entire history of the planet, and well before mankind, species have come and gone for the exact same reasons that species are coming and going today. Climate change, loss of habitat, failure to adapt, out competed for resources, hunted to extinction by other animals, etc.

Who was there to help save the hundreds of thousands of species of dinosaurs from extinction? The mammoth? Sabre tooth tigers? Who was there to help save early homanids from extinction? Who was there to help save Neandethals from extinction?

And in fact, in all of our efforts to save species from extinction, are we not then hindering natural selection?

Survival of the fittest. Is that not the natural order of things?

Human beings are a very destructive species. But then so were so many other animals at the top of their food chain. Humans were put here by the same natural forces that put every other organism on this planet. Concepts like morality are artificial constructs that humans invented. Mother Nature knows no such thing.

Having said all that, I totally support conservation efforts and regulatory efforts. We have the power to, so why not.

[mrhasan]

Originally Posted by kien

Having said all that, I totally support conservation efforts and regulatory efforts. We have the power to, so why not.

It would be interesting to see "Save the deer; stop tigers from hunting!"

[SanguinesDream]

Originally Posted by kien

Who was there to help save Neandethals from extinction?

Rugby and ale. But in all fairness that only slowed their extinction as some still manage the chance to procreate after title wins.

[IanWR]

Let me first say how much I am enjoying a heated discussion that has not devolved completely into name calling and ad hominum attacks. Kudos all!

I read the original article posted and there seemed to be 2 points that I came away with: Robert Wintner is opposed to aquarium collecting ultimately on moral grounds, and Ret Talbot "suspect[s] that the fishery needs to be better managed if it is to continue to be both robust and sustainable".

I think it seems that most people would agree with point 2, everyone would like to see healthy and robust reefs in Hawaii and around the world. In that sense, I think that makes those that think that way "environmentalists", in that they see the environment as having intrinsic value and would promote actions and policies that protect reefs.

As far as point 1 goes there is little chance for consensus, but as others have pointed out, at least we can understand the position even if we do not agree with it. A similar argument is made against the fur industry: that it is immoral because it is cruel to the creatures kept and killed and is ultimately a vanity and not needed to live. Wintner is saying that unlike fishing for food, fishing for aquaria is a luxury that is not needed. I think we could agree on the point that aquaria are luxuries, if not on the morality of luxury.

As someone who fell in love with reefs after getting over my fear of the ocean and trying snorkeling, I am torn when it comes to harvesting reefs. On the one hand, I would always buy captive, local bred livestock over reef caught. Just me, but it seems different. At least I can try to give the creature the best possible home. I cannot do that for a reef caught critter, as the real ocean is better. But I do understand that by providing a way to monetize reefs for the people who live near them it gives those people incentive to maintain healthy reefs. It is complicated.

I hope everyone who is passionate about reefs, the ocean, the environment, what have you, can always try to find points of agreement and at least understand those points where there is difference. By building on consensus, and understanding (and possibly addressing) differences, real world workable solutions can be achieved.

/ end rant.

- Ian

[mrhasan]

Originally Posted by IanWR

Let me first say how much I am enjoying a heated discussion that has not devolved completely into name calling and ad hominum attacks. Kudos all!

I read the original article posted and there seemed to be 2 points that I came away with: Robert Wintner is opposed to aquarium collecting ultimately on moral grounds, and Ret Talbot "suspect[s] that the fishery needs to be better managed if it is to continue to be both robust and sustainable".

I think it seems that most people would agree with point 2, everyone would like to see healthy and robust reefs in Hawaii and around the world. In that sense, I think that makes those that think that way "environmentalists", in that they see the environment as having intrinsic value and would promote actions and policies that protect reefs.

As far as point 1 goes there is little chance for consensus, but as others have pointed out, at least we can understand the position even if we do not agree with it. A similar argument is made against the fur industry: that it is immoral because it is cruel to the creatures kept and killed and is ultimately a vanity and not needed to live. Wintner is saying that unlike fishing for food, fishing for aquaria is a luxury that is not needed. I think we could agree on the point that aquaria are luxuries, if not on the morality of luxury.

As someone who fell in love with reefs after getting over my fear of the ocean and trying snorkeling, I am torn when it comes to harvesting reefs. On the one hand, I would always buy captive, local bred livestock over reef caught. Just me, but it seems different. At least I can try to give the creature the best possible home. I cannot do that for a reef caught critter, as the real ocean is better. But I do understand that by providing a way to monetize reefs for the people who live near them it gives those people incentive to maintain healthy reefs. It is complicated.

I hope everyone who is passionate about reefs, the ocean, the environment, what have you, can always try to find points of agreement and at least understand those points where there is difference. By building on consensus, and understanding (and possibly addressing) differences, real world workable solutions can be achieved.

/ end rant.

- Ian

Well said Ian I also strongly believe that fisheries have a long way to go before considering sustainable yet.

On the other hand, almost all the concerned reefers always try to pick captive livestock (be it fish or coral) even if it cost more on two possible grounds:
1. They have a higher success rate of surviving in the tank
2. The moral ground
Captive breeding has yet to see the mainstream market because of the price but if people do move to getting more captive livestock like they are doing now, prices are bound to fall and hence this hobby, which is obviously a luxury, will become more sustainable.

On the other hand, from the point of view of wild collected corals, we do try to give them a better home, sometimes better than their wild home by taking away the threat of being eaten by something. So a moral ground can be established over here too.

All in all, solutions have to be built for problems; going against the problem is not the solution.