cleaner wrasse

[justinl]

my2rotties, I won't be the one to outright bash you, but I have to point out one thing: if you know how important they are in the wild, how do you justify removing them and keeping them in your tank? Does it not occur to you that now the fish in the wild will be "frantically looking all over the place" (and in vain for) their cleaner wrasse? Again, only a handful of fish (in your tank) benefit from this. hundreds of wild fish are deprived of this function now... then multiply that by however many die (lots as with any delicate fish) before yours even reaches the tank.

your cost and benefit analysis of the situation seems lacking. This is not the same case as if we remove a few damsels, who are plentiful and don't serve any "real" ecosystem function; essentially, they're expendable, which makes them a good captivity candidate. But taking out cleaner wrasses is like taking doctors out of the city one by one. things will get messy sooner or later. I can't think of any good reason to speed this process by participating in it.

[my2rotties]

True enough to your point, but I did not take them out of the wild and if they were not readily available I would not have one. How many people on this forum have these fish and have not admitted to it?

My fish were taken out of the wild as well, and why should they be deprived of something essential to their health and well being? If I choose to keep marine fish they should have the right to the things they had in the wild. I had no clue cleaner wrasses were so difficult to keep since I personally have never had an issue with them dying.

This is a brutal hobby and many fish do die, but we as hobbyists choose to keep marine fish. You may as well bash me along with everyone else that chooses to be in this hobby.

Originally Posted by justinl

my2rotties, I won't be the one to outright bash you, but I have to point out one thing: if you know how important they are in the wild, how do you justify removing them and keeping them in your tank? Does it not occur to you that now the fish in the wild will be "frantically looking all over the place" (and in vain for) their cleaner wrasse? Again, only a handful of fish (in your tank) benefit from this. hundreds of wild fish are deprived of this function now... then multiply that by however many die (lots as with any delicate fish) before yours even reaches the tank.

your cost and benefit analysis of the situation seems lacking. This is not the same case as if we remove a few damsels, who are plentiful and don't serve any "real" ecosystem function; essentially, they're expendable, which makes them a good captivity candidate. But taking out cleaner wrasses is like taking doctors out of the city one by one. things will get messy sooner or later. I can't think of any good reason to speed this process by participating in it.

[0sprey]

True enough to your point, but I did not take them out of the wild and if they were not readily available I would not have one. How many people on this forum have these fish and have not admitted to it?

Actually, by purchasing this fish, you have encouraged demand for it- you ARE responsible for removing it from the wild.
Galaxy rasbora were readily available for the aquarium trade at the same time they were being exterminated in their original location... retail availability doesn't guarantee that wild populations are undamaged.
If we aren't careful, these fish will become completely unavailable- to our tanks, to the oceans, to the biosphere as a whole. And they're too important a species to risk driving to extinction, IMO. When/if someone manages to cultivate them in captivity, I might consider buying one. Otherwise, it's pretty unethical.
I heartily wish that some serious CITES restrictions on these fish would make them more or less unavailable to the public.

[justinl]

good post osprey. You're absolutely right. In fact, same thing with Banggai cardinals. Wild ones have always been readily available and are still imported with some frequency, but we were the ones responsible for their current listing on the IUCN redlist as Endangered! How many of us actually knew they were in such a steep decline five years ago? not many, I'll tell you that right now. And the frightening thing is that these are the kind of fish that should be quite resilient to collection because they reproduce easily and often with high quality larvae (relatively low initial mortality of larval forms due to size and life history) so their population growth dynamic is able to offset a pretty steep increase of removal/mortality... yet we still managed to push them right to the edge. This is a classic example of Ludwig's ratchet: as long as we demand a fish, collectors will find that fish; and if that fish gets more rare, collectors will simply look harder and use better tech to find the remainders... the time for the effects of decline show up in the store is delayed by this. This is a well-known phenomenon of human nature/economics. Like you, I find the prospect of losing a fish (from the wild) that serves such an important role as the cleaner wrasse frightening indeed.

Originally Posted by my2rotties

How many people on this forum have these fish and have not admitted to it?

Let us not talk about those who will not admit to housing this fish. They know it's wrong and hopefully they won't do it again.

Originally Posted by my2rotties

My fish were taken out of the wild as well, and why should they be deprived of something essential to their health and well being? If I choose to keep marine fish they should have the right to the things they had in the wild. I had no clue cleaner wrasses were so difficult to keep since I personally have never had an issue with them dying.

Well, you should have known. Always research carefully before you buy; info is so easily available on the net, I can't think of an excuse not to research carefully... It's not like the fish is going to swim away if you put it on hold. As for the fish having the right to a cleaner wrasse? Certainly, but we both walk a fine line here. You have a point that without a cleaner wrasse, I deprive my five fish of the service. My rebuttal is still that you deprive Hundreds of wild fish of the same service. I dunno, I mean, it seems like a pretty clear cost-benefit analysis to me. There is of course the factor of careful choice of tankmates as well; I choose fish that aren't prone to infection, so a cleaner wrasse is not vital to their health/well-being anyways. I don't pretend to be so naive to think that everyone's thinks as i do... I just have a hard time understanding people who don't.

Originally Posted by my2rotties

This is a brutal hobby and many fish do die, but we as hobbyists choose to keep marine fish. You may as well bash me along with everyone else that chooses to be in this hobby.

There's no point in such blanket statements. I think we're all aware of this rhetoric. This hobby is a gray area that we tread within lightly... it's always been the nature of the hobby. Personally, I walk the shade of gray in which I choose livestock with my morals in mind; I buy exclusively aquacultured coral and buy only fish that are well suited to life in captivity and aren't under any real threat that I am aware of; I also research potential candidates very carefully to be sure of my stated requirements and to be sure that I am entirely capable of housing them properly. I also only choose hardy hardy organisms... no ich magnets for me, thanks. Of course, no one is perfect and that certainly includes me; live rock for example is one of my guilty vices although I'm currently setting up a new tank which will incorporate mostly DIY rock. Even one of my current fish, a lyretail anthias, was a risk for me (a successful one, happily).