BANNED! But Is There Still Hope?

[biophilia]

On the whole, the focus over the past half-century on winning the hearts of the general public by introducing them to charismatic carnivores in captivity (Orkas in this case) may have increased public awareness of their plight, sure. That being said, the very same focus is also guilty of fostering a complete ignorance among the general public to the meiobiota/small life which numbers in the millions of species and is arguably even more important for oceanic and terrestrial ecosystem integrity. As a result, it's not really a surprise that while populations of large carnivores are recovering or at least stabilized in many places, meiobiota are suffering on levels that should be actively breaking the hearts of every single person alive (75% of insect populations gone in the last 3 decades for example), yet goes largely unnoticed by all but a small group of biologists/entomologists/etc.

The issue of whether or not it's okay to effectively torture a few highly sensitive individuals for the greater good of the whole is a tough one to justify. I'm not sure most of us would be comfortable with the idea of breeding human beings and keeping them in confined spaces without adequate social stimulation for the sake of medical research that might, say, improve worldwide cancer treatment rates. If that hunch is indeed true, it probably makes sense to extend those same basic ethical considerations to highly social and incredibly intelligent cetaceans like orcas -- a species that has capacity of self-awareness, communication, and most importantly, suffering, that likely approaches any of the great apes (our own species included).

It's important for all people to raise their young with a basic sense of respect and ethical obligations to the rest of life around them -- with or without the ability to show them any particular one of the species locked inside of a tank or a cage.

 

[Trickman2]

On the whole, the focus over the past half-century on winning the hearts of the general public by introducing them to charismatic carnivores in captivity (Orkas in this case) may have increased public awareness of their plight, sure. That being said, the very same focus is also guilty of fostering a complete ignorance among the general public to the meiobiota/small life which numbers in the millions of species and is arguably even more important for oceanic and terrestrial ecosystem integrity. As a result, it's not really a surprise that while populations of large carnivores are recovering or at least stabilized in many places, meiobiota are suffering on levels that should be actively breaking the hearts of every single person alive (75% of insect populations gone in the last 3 decades for example), yet goes largely unnoticed by all but a small group of biologists/entomologists/etc.

The issue of whether or not it's okay to effectively torture a few highly sensitive individuals for the greater good of the whole is a tough one to justify. I'm not sure most of us would be comfortable with the idea of breeding human beings and keeping them in confined spaces without adequate social stimulation for the sake of medical research that might, say, improve worldwide cancer treatment rates. If that hunch is indeed true, it probably makes sense to extend those same basic ethical considerations to highly social and incredibly intelligent cetaceans like orcas -- a species that has capacity of self-awareness, communication, and most importantly, suffering, that likely approaches any of the great apes (our own species included).

It's important for all people to raise their young with a basic sense of respect and ethical obligations to the rest of life around them -- with or without the ability to show them any particular one of the species locked inside of a tank or a cage.

Once again in a perfect world the above would make sense. We do not leave in a perfect world. Our forefathers understood this and sacrificed much for us. Worse has been done than breeding humans and more have sacrificed their lives for us. We confine ourselves on ships, submarines and torturous environments all the time for the greater good. Much worse than any environment seaworld has given them. If we could sacrifice 20 percent of each species of bugs for the greater good would you? We work for jobs we may not love for our families. Otherwise we would not be having this conversation. I prefer to live in the real world. Please stop pretending that sacrifices have not been made nor will be made. Also I could think of a lot worse fates for those poor killer whales living in captivity. They are treated pretty well...........We really went down a pretty deep rabbit whole from the topic. This is the last I will comment about this subject.

 

[biophilia]

Once again in a perfect world the above would make sense. We do not leave in a perfect world. Our forefathers understood this and sacrificed much for us. Worse has been done than breeding humans and more have sacrificed there lives for us. We confine ourselves on ship and submarines all the time for the greater good. We work for jobs we may not love for our families. Otherwise we would not be having this conversation. I prefer to live in the real world.

The crucial ingredient in those examples that is missing from the orca example is the moment of free choice. Choosing to spend a few months in the hull of a submarine or volunteering to potentially die on a battlefield or taking up a difficult career in order to provide for a family is a very different thing than forcing another to a life of torture and captivity outside of their own free will. The argument you're making could, if played out, be used to justify every single one of the worst atrocities ever committed by mankind, though I'm sure you wouldn't use it that way.

I do agree with your earlier point that seeing species up close is really helpful in fostering a sense of care and respect for it, though. I think that too much of the conservation narrative these days is framed in the "services" species provide to us. Whereas, having the privilege of seeing the natural world up close and especially spending time in it can instill a sense of care and respect on a more intrinsic level that doesn't just frame it as some type of utility for our own needs. That's part of why I think public aquariums and zoos do a lot more good than harm. I just think there are certain species that show such advanced cognitive capacity that we should be extending them ethical consideration more in line with what we would afford members of our own species.

 

[Trickman2]

The crucial ingredient in those examples that is missing from the orca example is the moment of free choice. Choosing to spend a few months in the hull of a submarine or volunteering to potentially die on a battlefield or taking up a difficult career in order to provide for a family is a very different thing than forcing another to a life of torture and captivity outside of their own free will. The argument you're making could, if played out, be used to justify every single one of the worst atrocities ever committed by mankind, though I'm sure you wouldn't use it that way.

I do agree with your earlier point that seeing species up close is really helpful in fostering a sense of care and respect for it, though. I think that too much of the conservation narrative these days is framed in the "services" species provide to us. Whereas, having the privilege of seeing the natural world up close and especially spending time in it can instill a sense of care and respect on a more intrinsic level that doesn't just frame it as some type of utility for our own needs. That's part of why I think public aquariums and zoos do a lot more good than harm. I just think there are certain species that show such advanced cognitive capacity that we should be extending them respect more in line with what we would afford members of our own species.

We can't ask them that question but I would hope they would have appreciated the opportunity to protect the whole if they understood what was on the line. I am just trying to be realistic and hope we can protect our oceans and learn. Humans are the only species that I am are aware of that understand complete self awareness and are capable of understanding true evil and committing it. This is much too deep of a conversation than I wanted to get into. Let's just leave it at that. I don't think bans are good and we should do our best to understand and try to do better. Ban's are a knee jerk reaction in my opinion and I think we can do better.

 

[Sunny Goold]

The consequences will come down the line. Mark my words in your Marine biologist wishing journal. I know we have all been told we can become whatever we want when we grow up but that is not the real world. I hope to teach my children to wiser than much of our current youth. Ask yourself what compelled you into wanting to be a marine biologist? As far as being cruel, many killer whales have been born and raised in captivity and therefore know nothing different. Why did we stop the breeding program then? A killer whale trainer dying in the grand scale of things is nothing. A couple killer whales in captivity is not a big deal for the larger good. The cost of a couple poor orca's who lived in captivity and didn't get killed due to whaling. While thousands got slaughtered...boo hoo. What would have happened if we never known Shamu, How many more killers whales/whales would have been slaughtered? The Killer whale trainers knew the risks and I am sure trainers would be happy to get back in the water if they could. Do you think my young children have the same understanding and appreciation for the killer whales? Do you think they would care about marine fish if it wasn't for me? I can tell you the answer but it will not be what you want to hear. Have you been in some of the aquariums around the world? Many people will never get the opportunities afforded to you because of this short sided ignorance. Many children cannot afford to see these animals in the wild or have the time. You are also hedging your bets on the ocean and many corals may only exist in the home aquarium now. Many of our home aquariums are more astounding. Some hobbyist are more advanced than your average marine biologist. I hope you will really think about all of this as much of our future depends on the ocean. Please do not be short sided. Fishing has to be astronomically worse for the environment, pollution, etc. I will repeat that seaworld and it's killer whales has done much more for the awareness and environment. It is a small price to pay for the greater whole. One day you may understand that sacrifices have to be made for the greater good. Also you should be thanking your lucky stars for Sea World that you may even have a chance to get a job as a marine biologist. You might not even get that opportunity now depending on your age. I wish you the best in your dream to be a marine biologist and hopefully you will be granted the opportunity.

I agree with this too. They still hunt whales you know. Being able to go to Seaworld as a kid inspired a lot of people. If they didn't have Orcas and Dolphins in Captivity there would be a heap more hunting and killing of these great animals. That is just reality.
I wish some people had perspective. These people put so much effort into saving a few Orcas and Dolphins whilst the entire ocean is being destroyed. Aome may think these people care - Some may think that these bans are good. They are not good - they are a massive negative because it lets the real people destroying the ocean off the hook and the politicians say "I have done a good thing for the environment today - no need to do anything else for the future of the planet until after I get elected next time". And everyone that doesn't want anything done to protect ecosystems can point the finger at these stupid bans and say "see this is the madness that happens when you let greenies have their say". In my book people who support bans on sustainable collection are a massive part of the problem.

 

[Sunny Goold]

On the whole, the focus over the past half-century on winning the hearts of the general public by introducing them to charismatic carnivores in captivity (Orkas in this case) may have increased public awareness of their plight, sure. That being said, the very same focus is also guilty of fostering a complete ignorance among the general public to the meiobiota/small life which numbers in the millions of species and is arguably even more important for oceanic and terrestrial ecosystem integrity. As a result, it's not really a surprise that while populations of large carnivores are recovering or at least stabilized in many places, meiobiota are suffering on levels that should be actively breaking the hearts of every single person alive (75% of insect populations gone in the last 3 decades for example), yet goes largely unnoticed by all but a small group of biologists/entomologists/etc.

The issue of whether or not it's okay to effectively torture a few highly sensitive individuals for the greater good of the whole is a tough one to justify. I'm not sure most of us would be comfortable with the idea of breeding human beings and keeping them in confined spaces without adequate social stimulation for the sake of medical research that might, say, improve worldwide cancer treatment rates. If that hunch is indeed true, it probably makes sense to extend those same basic ethical considerations to highly social and incredibly intelligent cetaceans like orcas -- a species that has capacity of self-awareness, communication, and most importantly, suffering, that likely approaches any of the great apes (our own species included).

It's important for all people to raise their young with a basic sense of respect and ethical obligations to the rest of life around them -- with or without the ability to show them any particular one of the species locked inside of a tank or a cage.

I read this and I think it makes the argument for more Orca's in captivity. I think "torture" is a strong word and a lot of care has been put into stimulating these animals. Under these circustances, under the argument you just made, I would 100% argue that it should be done. The extinction rate of large animals would be much higher if you didn't have zoos - you even said it. Whole areas have been protected that would have never been protected if people hadn't seen these animals in zoos and with those large animals many smaller animals have benefited. The destruction has been massive but it definitely would have been bigger.

I also think your hunch is wrong. I think the majority would be comfortable with that. I see today there are millions of people locked in refugee camps under exactly those conditions and the majority of people want them to remain there - not because by doing so would save any lives but because it may make their own life a little less comfortable. I don't agree with that but it's the reality and no one is proposing a sensible alternative solution.

It's a lot easier to blow up a reef if most people haven't ever seen in reality some of the animals that live there. It's not right unfortunately ;(

 

[Reeferdude56]

I hope much as you, that within our life times the reefs will be alive, hopefully thriving. I have never been to a coral reef, as I live in Ohio, over 700 Miles from the nearest oceans, but I have watched countless documentaries and read numerous books on the matter, that is how I interact with the reefs. Sure, seeing the creature live and in person is a wonderful experience. But we have to be aware of actions and the consequences that come from them. According to the New York Times, there are nearly 700,000 saltwater aquariums in the US. If the average tank holds, let just say, 4 fish wild caught fish, We have removed 2,800,000 fish from the ocean. Removing that amount of fish from even a perfectly healthy ecosystem would be hugely disruptive let alone one that is already struggling to stay alive. Those numbers are unsustainable and don’t even include the many fish that perish on their way from the oceans.

As a hobby and as the human race we cannot simply accept the fact that the reefs are dying as it seems you do. According to reef resilience organization 500 million people rely on coral reefs for food. There is no room to “hedge our bets”, the destruction of coral reefs has a much larger significance than our hobby. We as aquarists need to support scientific research and restoration organizations (like coral restoration foundation). No coral reefs, no beautiful fish. We need to give scientists time to figure out how protect corals. These bans allow them to control one of the variables that is wreaking havoc on reefs. Without reefs, people may end up starving which should be a bigger problem then wanting a chevron tang from Hawaii.

 

[Trickman2]

I hope much as you, that within our life times the reefs will be alive, hopefully thriving. I have never been to a coral reef, as I live in Ohio, over 700 Miles from the nearest oceans, but I have watched countless documentaries and read numerous books on the matter, that is how I interact with the reefs. Sure, seeing the creature live and in person is a wonderful experience. But we have to be aware of actions and the consequences that come from them. According to the New York Times, there are nearly 700,000 saltwater aquariums in the US. If the average tank holds, let just say, 4 fish wild caught fish, We have removed 2,800,000 fish from the ocean. Removing that amount of fish from even a perfectly healthy ecosystem would be hugely disruptive let alone one that is already struggling to stay alive. Those numbers are unsustainable and don’t even include the many fish that perish on their way from the oceans.

As a hobby and as the human race we cannot simply accept the fact that the reefs are dying as it seems you do. According to reef resilience organization 500 million people rely on coral reefs for food. There is no room to “hedge our bets”, the destruction of coral reefs has a much larger significance than our hobby. We as aquarists need to support scientific research and restoration organizations (like coral restoration foundation). No coral reefs, no beautiful fish. We need to give scientists time to figure out how protect corals. These bans allow them to control one of the variables that is wreaking havoc on reefs. Without reefs, people may end up starving which should be a bigger problem then wanting a chevron tang from Hawaii.

I think you are missing the point without the hobby and reef keepers. We would not have the knowledge or the resources that we have today. In general the hobby has made great advancements and contributions to the understanding of corals, fish, etc. If you read the article reef you would have seen that Aquarium industry has provided a net positive overall and has contributed to more conservation efforts. Basically we are focusing in on something that is not the root of the problem. I will stand by that we need to give incentives to breeding programs, etc. Banning is not the solution in my personal opinion. We need to innovate and give back to the oceans. We have done this but we can always do more.

 

[that Reef Guy]

Im not sure how or where he gets his stock, He made it sound like he orders direct. I do know there is a big importer/supplier in mid Michigan that directed to this store because of its sheer size. guessing 10,000 gallons of both fresh and salt.

Which Store is it?

10,000 Gallons is Huge.

Is this a New Store that I have never heard of?

I would like to check it out.

 

[that Reef Guy]

I hope much as you, that within our life times the reefs will be alive, hopefully thriving. I have never been to a coral reef, as I live in Ohio, over 700 Miles from the nearest oceans, but I have watched countless documentaries and read numerous books on the matter, that is how I interact with the reefs. Sure, seeing the creature live and in person is a wonderful experience. But we have to be aware of actions and the consequences that come from them. According to the New York Times, there are nearly 700,000 saltwater aquariums in the US. If the average tank holds, let just say, 4 fish wild caught fish, We have removed 2,800,000 fish from the ocean. Removing that amount of fish from even a perfectly healthy ecosystem would be hugely disruptive let alone one that is already struggling to stay alive. Those numbers are unsustainable and don’t even include the many fish that perish on their way from the oceans.

As a hobby and as the human race we cannot simply accept the fact that the reefs are dying as it seems you do. According to reef resilience organization 500 million people rely on coral reefs for food. There is no room to “hedge our bets”, the destruction of coral reefs has a much larger significance than our hobby. We as aquarists need to support scientific research and restoration organizations (like coral restoration foundation). No coral reefs, no beautiful fish. We need to give scientists time to figure out how protect corals. These bans allow them to control one of the variables that is wreaking havoc on reefs. Without reefs, people may end up starving which should be a bigger problem then wanting a chevron tang from Hawaii.

700,000 Saltwater Aquariums?

I watched a Video where Marc Levenson (Melev's Reef) said 100,000

I wonder what the true number is and where they are coming up with that number because both those numbers are very different.

 

[sghera64]

700,000 Saltwater Aquariums?

I watched a Video where Marc Levenson (Melev's Reef) said 100,000

I wonder what the true number is and where they are coming up with that number because both those numbers are very different.

Even if it is 700,000 tanks and four fish; that’s 2.8 million fish each year; assuming all four die and get replaced. Compare that to the poster’s remark that 500,000 people rely on the ocean for food. If they eat only 1/8 of a fish (obviously a fish fit for a family and not a Nemo or Mr. Bubbles- yellow tang), then we are talking about 62.5 Million fish taken from the Earth’s oceans - - EACH DAY!!! I think the reef hobby just got booted off the Pareto chart.

Thank goodness fish replicate quickly.

 

[Sunny Goold]

Even if it is 700,000 tanks and four fish; that’s 2.8 million fish each year; assuming all four die and get replaced. Compare that to the poster’s remark that 500,000 people rely on the ocean for food. If they eat only 1/8 of a fish (obviously a fish fit for a family and not a Nemo or Mr. Bubbles- yellow tang), then we are talking about 62.5 Million fish taken from the Earth’s oceans - - EACH DAY!!! I think the reef hobby just got booted off the Pareto chart.

Thank goodness fish replicate quickly.

I 100% hope the reefs are doing well in 50 years. I also 100% think that most should be protected. Collecting corals and even 10 million fish per year in a large area such as Hawaii can have a minimal impact on reefs as long as it is managed correctly and there are protected areas (fish tend to multiply and gather in areas of safety and the can population explode. This is something often fisherman are opposed to but it's in their best interests because greater numbers of fish are then outside the areas.
I grew up catching animals in the rock pools in Southern Sydney and went to university to study Marine Biology (but switched to Coastal Geography with Marine Science thrown in).
Unfortunately people think 400,000 yellow tangs taken per year from Hawaii is a massive number that's not sustainable. The ocean is amazing and I'd expect the science on it to say it is sustainable.
The problem is certainly not our hobby, except in rare cases. I do believe we would have a much stronger argument to make if the industry ensured the highest possible survival rates across all importers. As a hobby we would be much happier if all importers followed some standards that ensured that through the whole supply chain. We'd get healthier fish too.
Just about everyone in our hobby wants wild reefs to thrive and we should be better advocates for our oceans.
If a small island in Indonesia can make money collecting from that reef and the buyers demand certain standards then I am 100% certain that reef will do better and they will protect that resource. Last year I went surfing on a boat all through the Mentawai Islands off Sumatra Indonesia. The reefs have all been dynamited. You see fish snorkeling but not many and there is the odd piece of live coral. I was happy to pay a fee to help protect what is left. But, although banned, dynamiting still occurs - it's common. A lot of surfers see it and get upset (I'm sure divers do also). So the government can ban both dynamiting and coral collection but only coral collection is stopped because no exports are allowed and dynamiting can return now coral exporting has been banned and there is less opposition.
I'm just trying to paint a picture of the reality. It's about low hanging fruit - for politicians and governments the low hanging fruit is banning coral collection. But what is the low hanging fruit for protecting the oceans? Protecting the reefs I would say is the obvious answer as a great place to start and the simplest way to start on that is to support and manage industries that create jobs and whose best interests are in protecting those resources. I just watched a presentation by Jason Fox. He goes to remote Indo to specify corals that he wants collected. He instructs the collectors to just take a small piece and leave the majority of the coral in the ocean. How can anyone argue against this?
I don't think it's too much to ask that there is better supply chain management of these resources by the industry as a whole. It'd be better for everyone and the reefs and the industry needs to lead it and us as hobbyists need to back them

 

[sghera64]

I 100% hope the reefs are doing well in 50 years. I also 100% think that most should be protected. Collecting corals and even 10 million fish per year in a large area such as Hawaii can have a minimal impact on reefs as long as it is managed correctly and there are protected areas (fish tend to multiply and gather in areas of safety and the can population explode. This is something often fisherman are opposed to but it's in their best interests because greater numbers of fish are then outside the areas.
I grew up catching animals in the rock pools in Southern Sydney and went to university to study Marine Biology (but switched to Coastal Geography with Marine Science thrown in).
Unfortunately people think 400,000 yellow tangs taken per year from Hawaii is a massive number that's not sustainable. The ocean is amazing and I'd expect the science on it to say it is sustainable.
The problem is certainly not our hobby, except in rare cases. I do believe we would have a much stronger argument to make if the industry ensured the highest possible survival rates across all importers. As a hobby we would be much happier if all importers followed some standards that ensured that through the whole supply chain. We'd get healthier fish too.
Just about everyone in our hobby wants wild reefs to thrive and we should be better advocates for our oceans.
If a small island in Indonesia can make money collecting from that reef and the buyers demand certain standards then I am 100% certain that reef will do better and they will protect that resource. Last year I went surfing on a boat all through the Mentawai Islands off Sumatra Indonesia. The reefs have all been dynamited. You see fish snorkeling but not many and there is the odd piece of live coral. I was happy to pay a fee to help protect what is left. But, although banned, dynamiting still occurs - it's common. A lot of surfers see it and get upset (I'm sure divers do also). So the government can ban both dynamiting and coral collection but only coral collection is stopped because no exports are allowed and dynamiting can return now coral exporting has been banned and there is less opposition.
I'm just trying to paint a picture of the reality. It's about low hanging fruit - for politicians and governments the low hanging fruit is banning coral collection. But what is the low hanging fruit for protecting the oceans? Protecting the reefs I would say is the obvious answer as a great place to start and the simplest way to start on that is to support and manage industries that create jobs and whose best interests are in protecting those resources. I just watched a presentation by Jason Fox. He goes to remote Indo to specify corals that he wants collected. He instructs the collectors to just take a small piece and leave the majority of the coral in the ocean. How can anyone argue against this?
I don't think it's too much to ask that there is better supply chain management of these resources by the industry as a whole. It'd be better for everyone and the reefs and the industry needs to lead it and us as hobbyists need to back them

Here’s a thought. These island countries should try banning or regulating dynamite and cyanide. We regulate dynamite and formalin in the US. It’s not that hard.

 

[siggy]

Which Store is it?

10,000 Gallons is Huge.

Is this a New Store that I have never heard of?

I would like to check it out.

sea world roseville

 

[dreamsr]

I know people in their 50s and over who used to get orchids from the wetlands in Florida. That hasn’t been legal for a few decades, yet I see plenty of orchids for sale. Even the owners of Alaskan Huskies I know didn’t get their animal from the wild. I hope to fill my tank entirely with things grown for us, not taken from the oceans. Some places are even propagating jellyfish successfully.

 

[dreamsr]

Here’s a thought. These island countries should try banning or regulating dynamite and cyanide. We regulate dynamite and formalin in the US. It’s not that hard.

“Not that Hard” if you have one of the worlds biggest economies, and absolutely the biggest military. I agree with you that those practices should be stopped, as should the dumping of waste in Somali national waters. It’s popular to talk about Somali “pirates”, but Somalis along the coast got their livelihood from fishing. Now that huge operations from elsewhere have overfished their waters, and sewage dumpin has killed so much, people have to find a way to eat. We should be supporting not just the prohibition notion but also other ways for people to make a living.

Ps. I know the Red Sea & western Indian Ocean are not coral suppliers. The Somali example is just a similar case of dangerous practices that grow out of desperation. I avoid several types of seafood that are gathered by blowing up reefs, and would support sustainable practices to grow and harvest the same animals.

 

[SourAngelfish]

I’m not sure if this has been mentioned, but if fish/coral collection were completely banned wouldn’t the animals become inbred over time? There would only be a limited amount of original parents, so over time wouldn’t they inbreed and cause genetic disfunction? Also we probably wouldn’t have access to CUCs at all. Most inverts aren’t easy to breed (with the exception of snails). Also I would like to mention that I’m just stating an idea and that I don’t understand exactly how fish genetics work, it may not work that way.

 

[Rispa]

I’m not sure if this has been mentioned, but if fish/coral collection were completely banned wouldn’t the animals become inbred over time? There would only be a limited amount of original parents, so over time wouldn’t they inbreed and cause genetic disfunction? Also we probably wouldn’t have access to CUCs at all. Most inverts aren’t easy to breed (with the exception of snails). Also I would like to mention that I’m just stating an idea and that I don’t understand exactly how fish genetics work, it may not work that way.

It could be a problem, but probably won't be. This is less of an issue with animals that have hundreds of offspring at a time. Using a breeding style like the guppies you could have different bloodlines and cross the bloodlines every couple of generations and select for visual variety and health.

Now if we are talking about birds and mammals this definitely factors in.

 

[Lunar Mike]

Ok, what's next? References, credit and background checks?

Oh can't forget income also because we don't need POOR people that cannot afford to keep fish or corals.... Who cares if it gives them peace, enjoyment, pleasure, sanity or is ultimately their decision?

 

[that Reef Guy]

sea world roseville

Heard of it.

Never been there.

I will check it out.