Is our hobby ethical?

[dc]

Originally posted by Sk8r
If it weren't for us and the divers nobody but the scientists would care. When we set up a beautiful tank and people SEE what's down there they wince when they hear some stupid yacht owner dragged an anchor across a reef, or a tanker spilled, etc. Otherwise, out of sight, out of mind: but if somebody flashes on that beautiful image---suddenly the significance is much more. If it weren't for captive dolphins, there wouldn't be the fuss about saving them---they'd just be a casualty of the tuna nets. A throwaway. If it weren't for traveling shows, zoos and documentaries, nobody'd care about gorillas or the occasional rare butterfly: nobody'd learn to care about snakes, or sharks, or what's under the ice sheets at the poles. We're responsible for equipping the g.p. with imagination, if they happened to be born without it. And WE have to care in order to do that.

I think you are dead on here. No matter how many nature shows people watch, they are still in awe that the stuff in your tank is actually alive.

[Mr31415]

Originally posted by Sk8r
If it weren't for us and the divers nobody but the scientists would care...

I think this is the gist of what motivates me - in spite of other concerns - to keep doing this....

[Sheol]

Well someone was joking on a serious issue above. Climate change in the long run along with pollution . In a way, this reminds me of the debate we had years ago on Kingsnake.com about consevation & indigo snakes. The problem being indigos are heavily protected by law. Unfortunately, their habitat is not. So even if no one collected an indigo snake in the wild, the species is not likely to survive many more years in the remnants of its habitat. Its an imperfect world people & its not getting any better. Sigh.

Matthew

[buoymarker28]

Originally posted by LU359TINMAN
Mother Nature will run her course for which we have absolutely no control over. The reefkeeper should be seen as preserving the reef, it's in our systems, that long after the natural reefs disappear, we will still be able to display these fascinating species! OF THE PAST. TinMan

Umm i got some news for you....the reefs will either be here or come back long after we humans have disappeared off this blue planet... The reef fish should put us in some structure so they can enjoy us once the human species is gone...

[raskal311]

Originally posted by Peter Eichler
1.) Only buy aquacultured/maricultured corals and tank raised fish.

The problem is supply, even if a LFS wanted to carry more tank raised fish there isn’t too much too choose from. As far as corals I’m seeing more and more maricultured sps which is great. Piece per piece a maricultured coral are starting to be priced very competitively to a wild colony. I’m even starting to see a lot more cultured leathers and a few other soft corals.

What it comes down to is demand, if you push for more then this will push everyone in the supply chain to offer more.

Farmers/Collectors -> Trans shipper -> Wholesalers -> Retailer -> Consumer .. and everyone else in between.

[greenbean36191]

Also I believe you are confusing aquaculture with mariculture.

As far as our hobby is concerned they're interchangable. Mariculture is just marine aquaculture. Neither term implies anything about the production method.

2.) Propagate those corals and breed those fish so there are more captive raised/grown specimens available. As of now demand outweighs availablility for aquacultured corals and most tank raised fish.

It seems to be a common belief in the hobby that somehow fragging and trading corals will save the reef. It's just not true. The collectors are only collecting for the hobby because it gives them money to put food on their tables. If the hobby stopped collecting from the wild today the collectors would still have to make money and the reef is still one of their best resources to do that. Some of the alternatives are muro ami fishing and coral mining, both of which are much more destructive since they're less profitable. If you think the amount of LR coming into the hobby is shocking, then you should see how much goes into construction just to make the same amount of money.

What needs to be done is to give the collectors a way to make money from the reef, but do it in a sustainable way. That doesn't have to completely rule out wild collection, but a large part needs to be in situ farming. Stateside farming doesn't do a whole lot to promote that.

[useskaforevil]

no its not. you are a bad person.

[ASH]

From IceCap:
This reminds me of environmentalists planting trees or in some other way trying to mitigate the carbon footprint they create. My way of rationalizing keeping a reef tank is to minimize the damage to the reefs by making informed purchases when possible. Voting with your money works and no one can rig the tally.

I think we need to get past the most visible damage (to the reef) and see the whole picture to really have a positive impact. If you grew all your corals from frags, used fake LR and never lost a fish there would still be the electricity you consume and the waste the hobby creates. Lamps are one example. A better one would be the garbage sold to those new to the hobby that lasts several months before needing replacement. Sure it’s a false savings for the hobbyist, but the real toll is on our planet. We live in a throw-away culture.

I’ve had my 180 gallon reef for 10 years + and have educated countless visitors on what the corals are and why it does matter to all of us. But if I’m churning through electricity like it was limitless, running 3 X 400-MH and a chiller besides the necessary water movement and filtration, all I’ve done is won the highest electric bill award and proved I don’t see the big picture.

It’s a great hobby and I love it almost as much as snorkeling at any of the outstanding reefs that still exist. But I also believe in global warming. If the sea level changes are even remotely like predicted scenarios, all of this seems like small stuff. That’s not an excuse to say the hell with it and do what you please. It is a calling to not only avoid being part of the problem but encouraging others to follow suit. I own a hybrid car. I’ve influenced several other people to do the same. I redid my tank’s canopy and lowered the height my lights were placed at. I saved 350-watts per hour when all lights are on, or 28% less than I had (from 1240 to 890 now). I’ve listened to Sanjay about how to have a longer lamp life (from unbiased testing about actual depreciation, don’t prematurely throw them out) and what our tanks need vs. what we’re told we need to buy.

As a source for aquarium products I know whatever I say can be discounted as some clever sales pitch. If working on planet saving goals benefits IceCap too, I’ll live with that. If it was the other way around, I’d have a problem. (We still repair our VHO ballasts, if they ever need it.)

For this country to get significantly inspired to become the cutting edge of sustainability, oil would have to cost double what it is now. If LR had a 100% tax on it to fund reef restorations, we’d treat it differently. I don’t know what it would take to raise consciousness to the level needed to promote real change across the board? Unfortunately, I think we’ll all find out sooner than later.

Andy

[buoymarker28]

Compared to the harm we doing to this earth, which directly affects the reefs, I don't think collecting live specimens even comes close.

Call me pessimistic but i believe that although humans may hurt the reefs and due to humans reefs may die out, once humans are gone from this earth mother nature will find a way to bring the reefs back or allow those that survived thrive.

I guess i'm really pessimistic short term but long term optimistic regarding reefs.

[GreshamH]

Originally posted by greenbean36191
As far as our hobby is concerned they're interchangable. Mariculture is just marine aquaculture. Neither term implies anything about the production method.


It seems to be a common belief in the hobby that somehow fragging and trading corals will save the reef. It's just not true. The collectors are only collecting for the hobby because it gives them money to put food on their tables. If the hobby stopped collecting from the wild today the collectors would still have to make money and the reef is still one of their best resources to do that. Some of the alternatives are muro ami fishing and coral mining, both of which are much more destructive since they're less profitable. If you think the amount of LR coming into the hobby is shocking, then you should see how much goes into construction just to make the same amount of money.

What needs to be done is to give the collectors a way to make money from the reef, but do it in a sustainable way. That doesn't have to completely rule out wild collection, but a large part needs to be in situ farming. Stateside farming doesn't do a whole lot to promote that.

Well said

[looser]

If you consider caring about coral reefs, and the earth in general, as being ethical, than I think this hobby is almost completely inconsistent with being ethical. We can dress up what we do as saying its raising the consensuses of the general public…but lets get real. We do it because we like the challenges, like nice things, we like eye candy, and we are basically selfish.

Not only do we cause damage to reefs during collection, but surprisingly no one has pointed out that we use a lot of energy/put lots of carbon in the air/create global warming/and kill the reefs. Not to mention the energy that goes into manufacturing and shipping our toys and supplies. And if you don’t believe in global warming your just not in touch with reality.

How much we harm the planet and reefs is open for debate I suppose, but everything about this hobby is harming reefs and the planet, and nothing about this hobby is benefiting either in any way.

So why do I do it you might ask? Because I like a challenge, like nice things, enjoy the eye candy, and I’m selfish. Shame on me.

So what am I going to do about it? Find other ways to make it up to Mother Nature. Install some solar panels, maybe a wind turbine, geothermal heating, check the air pressure in my tires, change to high efficiency light bulbs, and my next car will get more MPG.

You might think I’m being preachy but I don't particularly care. The facts are the facts. Do something about it or don’t. The outcome of that decision will be the difference between the question "is our hobby ethical" and "are we ethical people".

[RedSoxReefer]

I second that, this hobby is not ethical at all if preserving the world's reefs are in your best interest...everyone is in it for some kind of personal gain whether it be for pleasure or financial. I do believe that you can be more "conservation minded" when choosing your livestock etc. to try to minimize the damage caused every year to the reefs, but i am willing to bet that at least one thing in everyones tank at some point in their lives came directly from a reef.

[Peter Eichler]

Originally posted by greenbean36191
As far as our hobby is concerned they're interchangable. Mariculture is just marine aquaculture. Neither term implies anything about the production method.


It seems to be a common belief in the hobby that somehow fragging and trading corals will save the reef. It's just not true. The collectors are only collecting for the hobby because it gives them money to put food on their tables. If the hobby stopped collecting from the wild today the collectors would still have to make money and the reef is still one of their best resources to do that. Some of the alternatives are muro ami fishing and coral mining, both of which are much more destructive since they're less profitable. If you think the amount of LR coming into the hobby is shocking, then you should see how much goes into construction just to make the same amount of money.

What needs to be done is to give the collectors a way to make money from the reef, but do it in a sustainable way. That doesn't have to completely rule out wild collection, but a large part needs to be in situ farming. Stateside farming doesn't do a whole lot to promote that.

I guess it depends on who you ask, but to some people at least mariculture and aquaculture are different in their production. But it certainly could be argued mariculture is just a form of aquaculture. Perhaps saying captive propagated vs. maricultured would be a better way to address it.

I absolutely did not imply that we're the only factor is hurting our reefs, nor that fragging corals will save the reef. Being less reliant on wild specimens will beyond a doubt lessen OUR impact as hobbyists on the destruction of reefs. If fewer imports from collections of ornamental fish and corals results in more destructive uses of the reef then that will be another problem to tackle. Just because we fear eliminating a problem with just spawn a bigger problem doesn't mean we should just continue being as destructive as we are in this hobby. What it comes down to is if you want to be part of the problem or not.

I fully admit I'm part of the problem, I don't have all captive raised fish, some of my corals are wild colonies (non reef building). I waste tons of water with my RO unit, I used more than my fair share of electricity, and my car makes gobs of horsepower and spews more nastiness into the air than the guy next to me in his Prius. However, I do try to do my part to make this hobby less wasteful.

[hahnmeister]

The idea of keeping wild critters in captivity is enough to be considered unethical by many.

[reefinmike]

from my research, things that threaten the reefs are the collection of:

live rock
lps corals
and certian fish species


unfortunately you dont typically see aqua or maricultured lps for sale... in fact, ive never seen one. most common are sps and softies. sps collection from what i have read dosent impact the reefs because of the relatively low demand(compared to lps and softies), fast growth rate and the fact that they are the dominate corals of the reefs and cover vast expanses of oceans.

[Peter Eichler]

Originally posted by reefinmike
from my research, things that threaten the reefs are the collection of:

live rock
lps corals
and certian fish species


unfortunately you dont typically see aqua or maricultured lps for sale... in fact, ive never seen one. most common are sps and softies. sps collection from what i have read dosent impact the reefs because of the relatively low demand(compared to lps and softies), fast growth rate and the fact that they are the dominate corals of the reefs and cover vast expanses of oceans.

Live rock isn't usually taken directly from the reef and harvesting it may have some sort of impact it's doubtful that it has large impact on the surrounding reefs.

Many of the LPS corals in this hobby are non reef building corals and the ones that are reef building corals are usually quite young and the impact from their removal as a result of this hobby has yet to be felt. Even wild SPS that are collected are small and the impact from the removal has not been felt yet, and probably never will be.

Poor fishing practices, both for the hobby and for food are the main cause of destruction to the reefs. Well, at least the main cause that would relate to this hobby in some way.

[kathainbowen]

In the long haul, there are pros and cons to just about everything we do as humans.

Take recycled paper. On the one hand, it cuts back on the need for new paper pulps and deforresting for paper production. On the other hand, the production of recycled paper produces chlorines and runoff wastes of bleaches, inks, plastics, and other materials.

On the one hand: yes, we encouraged it, especially during the start of the reef hobby.

On the other hand: hobbyists have made great strides in the rearing of coral, as well as being the first people to really come up with the idea of a frag trading network similar to how zoos have traded animals for breeding. There are certain species of freshwater fish where we are already seeing that hobbyists are making a positive impact, where fish have such a limited habitat that it was doomed to be wiped out (several species of poeciliads come to mind).

For example, in the case of cichlids, hobbyists have maintained and preserved some species that would have been otherwise wiped out by the Nile Perch. However, on the same token, their natural desire for more exotic, more colorful specimens, has fueled the need for hormone treating, dye injection, and tattooing cichlids. Yes, you heard me right on that last one, tattooing fish. One, rather shady LFS actually has tattooed albino oscars, and I have seen tattooed platinum ogon koi in the past.

=/

[davidryder]

Wow! I have read this entire thread and there a lot of good points that have been made.

To address the point that fragged corals at some point came from the ocean:

It's like a tree. The first coral comes from the ocean. It turns into two. Those two turn into four. Those four turn into 8, then 16, 32, 64, then 128. So 7 generations later there are 128 fragments of one coral that have the potential to be fragged. So when you have 128 people supplying frags the demand for wild collected specimens reduce greatly. And that could occur in just 2 years time.

Also, if we sell frags to the LFS for cheaper than they get it for it would greatly reduce demand for wild caught specimens, and the LFS would have healthier specimens.

I think comparing our impact to others' impact is a cop-out and sad justification. It's something to make people feel better at the end of the day. And it's tunnel vision. For example, if there are 10 groups affecting the reefs (fisherman, collectors, etc) does it make sense for each group to say "Well our impact doesn't compare to so and so's impact, so why should we do anything?" It adds up, just like voting. I vote even though I think/know the candidate is going to lose.

The inspiration we create is probably off-set quite a bit by the additional amount of power we consume. Not to say it's even, but you can't say that you are in this hobby just to inspire conservation in others. Just because people see something that is pretty doesn't mean they will ever understand it or want to do anything to save it.

At the end of the day, I do what I can. Just as everyone here as mentioned about creating inspiration, buying aquacultured specimens, etc. I will continue to support this hobby as I know that I give something back. I do as much as I can to reciprocate what nature has done for me. Ethics are subjective to the individual, but I know we have an impact on the reef. The only thing short of shutting my tank down I can do is give back.

[looser]

Originally posted by davidryder
The only thing short of shutting my tank down I can do is give back.

Thanks davidryder. My point exactly.

[Chasmodes]

Webster defines "ethical"

1 : of or relating to ethics
2 : involving or expressing moral approval or disapproval
3 : conforming to accepted standards of conduct

My point is that the ethics depend on who defines them. We, as aquarists, define our own "ethics" and those ethics may differ substancially from those that define what is politically correct or not. The vast majority of people would argue that there is nothing wrong with what we do, probably because they enjoy our tanks and with that they could also keep tanks like ours, seeing life that they wouldn't normally see, and finally see that we are keeping our critters alive and for the most part doing it well. How is this any different than keeping any other pet? Animal rights groups define their own code of ethics and, whether or not we agree with them, often influence the rest of the world and cause people to feel guilty for what they do or what society may do. So, whether or not we are "ethical" or not depends on who deems us ethical or not. As an aquarist, I don't care what other people think about my hobby, I'm enjoy it and if that's selfish, then so what? Rather, I care about the critters that I keep and do my best to keep them healthy and alive for a long lifespan.

Next, about global warming...I'm not so sure that this would be as detrimental to reefs worldwide as much as, if it were true, to humans. The way that I see it, and I'm no scientist, but sea levels would rise, temperature changes would occur, existing reefs may or may not adapt, new reefs will form, and some will die. Along the way we'd probably lose some species due to extinction, but then again such a massive change may give rise to new species. Life goes on with or without us. I think that the bigger danger is that we find other ways to destroy reefs, and I believe that pollution (chemical or siltation) are bigger dangers that may cause our reefs to disappear way before major climactic changes could happen.

In summary, before we beat ourselves up, let's consider that we do what we do, and we as a group determine our own ethics, and we don't need others that don't understand our hobby to do so. And we most certainly do determine our own ethics...Examples include not keeping tangs or queen angels in small tanks, discouraging folks from keeping moorish idols, or mandarins in tanks that aren't established, or any critter that has no chance in even the best aquariums.

Finally, how are we any less ethical than the public aquaria? Ours in some cases may be better maintained and a better environment for our critters than they are with theirs?

OK, I'm going to enjoy my tank now and feel good about what I do for my animals.

Nice read everyone, I enjoyed all of the posts.

[greenbean36191]

I guess it depends on who you ask, but to some people at least mariculture and aquaculture are different in their production. But it certainly could be argued mariculture is just a form of aquaculture. Perhaps saying captive propagated vs. maricultured would be a better way to address it.

There's really no argument to be made about whether or not mariculture is a type of aquaculture. By its very definition, it is. The best answer to the confusion would be to use the terms with appropriate specificity. Aquaculture and mariculture are catch-all terms. They don't imply anything about production methods. When you're talking about production methods you're talking about intensity levels. What you do at home is intensive mariculture. Placing frags in the ocean to grow out is extensive mariculture. Both are also aquaculture. "Captive propagated" is always maricultured (and aquacultured), but can fall under almost any level of intensity. Captive propagated vs. maricultured is no different than the comparison of SPS vs. coral.

Being less reliant on wild specimens will beyond a doubt lessen OUR impact as hobbyists on the destruction of reefs. If fewer imports from collections of ornamental fish and corals results in more destructive uses of the reef then that will be another problem to tackle. Just because we fear eliminating a problem with just spawn a bigger problem doesn't mean we should just continue being as destructive as we are in this hobby. What it comes down to is if you want to be part of the problem or not.

We both agree that we're a part of the problem and we should do something about it. However, simply reducing or limiting our reliance on the reef does absolutely nothing to help the problem. It just shifts it from us to someone else. If we have the choice to either shift the impact to someone else or actually work to solve it, why should we promote action that only does the former?

[Peter Eichler]

Originally posted by Hypsoblennius


Next, about global warming...I'm not so sure that this would be as detrimental to reefs worldwide as much as, if it were true, to humans. The way that I see it, and I'm no scientist, but sea levels would rise, temperature changes would occur, existing reefs may or may not adapt, new reefs will form, and some will die. Along the way we'd probably lose some species due to extinction, but then again such a massive change may give rise to new species. Life goes on with or without us. I think that the bigger danger is that we find other ways to destroy reefs, and I believe that pollution (chemical or siltation) are bigger dangers that may cause our reefs to disappear way before major climactic changes could happen.

Coral bleaching is occuring at an alarming rates and the main factor of that is the incresed water temperatures. Coral bleaching is not a new phenomenon, but how common it has become is. Hopefully corals will adapt quickly, because it's estimated that we'll see a 1 degree celcius rise in the average temperatures around the major corals reef in the world in the next 50 years. In other words, this isn't happening so slowly.

No doubt that we as humans can more directly destroy a reef much faster than global warming can. Dynamite fishing, cyanide fishing, dredging, and commercial development can wipe out reefs rather quickly as has been displayed in the Phillipines. However, global warming is still of concern.

[HBtank]

I eat fish to, so I guess I am really unethical.

Anyways, we are one of the only few who even care. I have long known that some of the biggest allies to the environment are the people that actually use it and find pleasure in it. Hunters, fisherman, reefers etc.. all may damage it some small way but they are also on the forefront of protecting it and passing that interest to other people.

This all would not be an issue if we were not overpopulating the world, the base cause of every environmental issue IMO.

I do try to be as responsible as I can with the hobby as well. I also plan on producing much more coral than I take.

Ok I think I can sleep tonight.....

[davidryder]

Originally posted by greenbean36191


We both agree that we're a part of the problem and we should do something about it. However, simply reducing or limiting our reliance on the reef does absolutely nothing to help the problem. It just shifts it from us to someone else. If we have the choice to either shift the impact to someone else or actually work to solve it, why should we promote action that only does the former?

Are you suggesting that decreasing the demand for wild caught corals and fish by reproducing them amongst our own tanks does absolutely nothing to help the problem? How does less demand not equal less collection? And don't target specific species for the sake of your argument. I'm talking about across the entire hobby. Just because we can't reproduce every species in our tanks doesn't mean that by us lessening the demand for those species we can reproduce makes no difference.

[looser]

Haven't really thought this one all the way through, but just a point of clarification on keeping our fish alive for as long as they might survive in the wild. It might be true that some of them have a chance of living as long, or maybe even longer, but for the most part.... they have zero chance of reproducing in our tanks (or course with some exceptions). So whether or not they live a long life only means that we will take more or less of them from the wild. Not whether or not they will have the opportunity to continue the existence of their species.