BANNED! But Is There Still Hope?

[Sunny Goold]

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.

Sorry I should have been a bit clearer Indonesia has (at least dynamite). The problem is they can't enforce it, however, they can and do enforce preventing coral from being exported.
On Cyanide there is simple, cheap, cyanide tests available - I saw it on some MACNA presentation - they simply test the water in the bag (the fish will excrete a derivative of cyanide from their gills and this means there is a build up of that (non-toxic I think) substance. So there's a standard right there the industry could employ - all importers need to have their fish tested and if there is cyanide the supplier should face a ban (maybe like 1 month or something for 1st time). Suppliers will then have to test as it is a chain (and that could become a problem as costs increase in the chain). But still I am sure the supply chain would adjust rapidly. Hope this helps

Also I have posted a few replies here and I apologise if my language has appeared less than friendly. No one has said anything I was just worried I may be a bit loud. I think there are a lot of passionate voices on this thread and I think it's great. I love all the opinions (even if I don't agree). This stuff is important, it's much broader than just our hobby yet central to it. I love all the passion - it's a great sign and @Mike Paletta really wrote a superb article that has got us all involved. I hope this now spreads and the businesses that rely on our hobby take steps to come together and start being proactive.

 

[biophilia]

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 ;(

Thanks for the response. I'd agree that "torture" is a strong word and normally try to avoid hyperbolic-ish language, but my point is that in this case and a very rare few others, it seems both technically appropriate and backed by empirical evidence. I'm not arguing this on behalf of some uninformed and reactionary radical animal rights agenda, but rather from an position that recognizes that a select few species on earth (orcas and bottlenose dolphins, the great apes, asiatic elephants, possibly european magpies) have passed the mirror self-recognition test and also demonstrated sufficient emotional intelligence to warrant rights that are in line with those we extend to our fellow humans. This is a position held by many who closely study these species (Jane Goodall has been a big advocate of this personhood position for example)

I don't know for sure that the extinction rate of large animals would be higher without places like Sea World. What I meant to say, but did a bad job of communicating, was that populations of some larger species have arguably stabilized because of global awareness and conservation dollars (not necessarily because of Sea World in particular). I wouldn't really consider orcas as being in this category, though, especially since the southern population was just censused at its lowest number in over 3 decades despite the good-intention of the orca shows. My point was that a conservation ethic that depends on parading large, charismatic species in front of crowds to elicit empathy has not been successful in stopping the global extinction crisis in a meaningful way since the vast majority of species on earth are ignored by that strategy and continue to decline -- and delaying the loss of a few charismatic species is really just a delay if the rest of these species go, because they all depend on so many others. So, unless we're going to open up "Microbiota World", "Anthropoda World", "Tree World", "Plankton World" and an endless string of others, it's hard to make a convincing argument that keeping highly intelligent species like orcas in captivity does enough good to justify the associated strain on those individuals.

As for the hunch about breeding humans in captivity for medical research, I'm not really sure what to say. I made that assumption based on the people I personally know -- who I can say with great confidence would not be comfortable with that practice, but I have no doubt there are people out there who would advocate for it. I'd sadly agree that human beings are capable of an appalling lack of empathy under the right circumstances as you pointed out with the refugee example, though. I have to believe we can foster a greater sense of empathy and care for all life through education. I just hope we can figure out a way to elicit that empathy and conservation ethic that doesn't require individual exposure to all ~8-10 million species on earth for each person or we're in big trouble.

 

[Rispa]

Parrots are right up there and possibly past the other intelligent life you mentioned. There is at least one person who is having success teaching them to read and communicate by flash cards. She's working on getting a paper published.

 

[Sunny Goold]

Thanks for the response. I'd agree that "torture" is a strong word and normally try to avoid hyperbolic-ish language, but my point is that in this case and a very rare few others, it seems both technically appropriate and backed by empirical evidence. I'm not arguing this on behalf of some uninformed and reactionary radical animal rights agenda, but rather from an educated place that recognizes that a select few species on earth (orcas and bottlenose dolphins, the great apes, asiatic elephants, possibly european magpies) have passed the mirror self-recognition test and also demonstrated sufficient emotional intelligence to warrant rights that are in line with those we extend to our fellow humans. This is a position held by many who closely study these species (Jane Goodall has been a big advocate of this personhood position for example)

I don't know for sure that the extinction rate of large animals would be higher without places like Sea World. What I meant to say, but miss-communicated, was that populations of some larger species have arguably stabilized because of global awareness and conservation dollars (not necessarily because of Sea World in particular). I wouldn't really consider orcas as being in this category, though, especially since the southern population was just censused at its lowest number in over 3 decades despite the good-intention of the orca shows. My point was that a conservation ethic that depends on parading large, charismatic species in front of crowds to elicit empathy has not been successful in stopping the global extinction crisis in a meaningful way since the vast majority of species on earth are ignored by that strategy and continue to decline -- and delaying the loss of a few charismatic species is really just a delay if the rest of these species go, because they all depend on so many others. So, unless we're going to open up "Microbiota World", "Anthropoda World", "Tree World", "Plankton World" and an endless string of others, it's hard to make a convincing argument that keeping highly intelligent species like orcas in captivity does enough good to justify the associated strain on those individuals.

As for the hunch about breeding humans in captivity for medical research, I'm not really sure what to say. I made that assumption based on the people I personally know -- who I can say with great confidence would not be comfortable with that practice, but I have no doubt there are people out there who would advocate for it. I'd sadly agree that human beings are capable of an appalling lack of empathy under the right circumstances as you pointed out with the refugee example, though. I have to believe we can foster a greater sense of empathy and care for all life through education. I just hope we can figure out a way to elicit that empathy and conservation ethic that doesn't require individual exposure to all ~8-10 million species on earth for each person or we're in big trouble.

Yep this is a great response and well put.
I guess I'm thinking about what are the most important things to focus on if we want to protect not just our hobby but the ecosystems we love so much. I think you are and I are pretty close on what we would like to see done in a perfect world.
But unfortunately we are living in a polarized world and I think we, as a hobby, should think about where we should be. Right now we don't have standards so we are spread out and are open to criticisms to both extremes and just about anyone in the middle. Worse I believe the level of responsibility for looking after the reefs by the industry as a whole is well below the standards the majority of hobbyists would believe is acceptable - it's likely only a few bad players but the majority of the industry does very little.
I think this part of the conversation (Seaworld / Zoos) etc. is relevant because if people don't 'experience' these animals then they are not going to care about what happens beneath the surface on 2/3rds of our planet. As hobbyists we can give friends and family an experience and show how amazing these creatures are. We are keeping an ecosystem.
Our hobby also creates jobs on islands far away and these people can see a value in the reef and can learn how to manage it 'sustainably'. The levels of sustainability are often not good enough for me but it provides a place to improve from and it's better than losing reefing jobs on an island and the locals then going in and taking every fish out of the ecosystem.
Plus unfortunately I think the only realistic hope for those less well known members of ecosystems is that areas are protected for those 'headline' creatures. Humanity can't even look after bees, a species critical to our agricultural system.

 

[Sunny Goold]

Parrots are right up there and possibly past the other intelligent life you mentioned. There is at least one person who is having success teaching them to read and communicate by flash cards. She's working on getting a paper published.

Any Cephalopod gets a vote from me

 

[biophilia]

Any Cephalopod gets a vote from me

If this new paper is correct, not only do the cephs get my vote, maybe it’s time to start worshiping them as some sort of cosmic overlords! ;Cyclops;Nailbiting

http://www.newsweek.com/alien-octopuses-outer-space-930942?amp=1

 

[Rispa]

So what are some small ideas for improving things for both the hobby and wild populations? Encourage our more advanced aquarist to try propagating? Convert swimming pools in wealthier countries into test mariculture vats, so be ideas and tech can be developed faster? Donate more to specific organizations that are not only successful, but share their success to push things forward? Proposal writing to Indonesia and the like about ways to monitor the affects of collecting marine life and keep said affects minimal?

 

[Sunny Goold]

So what are some small ideas for improving things for both the hobby and wild populations? Encourage our more advanced aquarist to try propagating? Convert swimming pools in wealthier countries into test mariculture vats, so be ideas and tech can be developed faster? Donate more to specific organizations that are not only successful, but share their success to push things forward? Proposal writing to Indonesia and the like about ways to monitor the affects of collecting marine life and keep said affects minimal?

I think there should be an industry group formed where there are standards agreed upon (for collecting, transporting and handling for example). Then this group can write to the Indonesian Government etc. (as you have said) and us reefers can add our signatures. This group can push for these standards be adhered to and be proactive with Governments in the US too on importing etc. Because otherwise some states are going to start imposing their own rules on importing and they probably won't be good for us.
That's easy. There could be a lot of benefits too. Like they could organise trips where hobbyists could go and work on a project to help local communities and protect reefs etc. - maybe on these trips (partnering with exporters / importers) reefers could collect some pieces of coral from colonies they are helping to protect.

Just some ideas

 

[Rispa]

I think there should be an industry group formed where there are standards agreed upon (for collecting, transporting and handling for example). Then this group can write to the Indonesian Government etc. (as you have said) and us reefers can add our signatures. This group can push for these standards be adhered to and be proactive with Governments in the US too on importing etc. Because otherwise some states are going to start imposing their own rules on importing and they probably won't be good for us.
That's easy. There could be a lot of benefits too. Like they could organise trips where hobbyists could go and work on a project to help local communities and protect reefs etc. - maybe on these trips (partnering with exporters / importers) reefers could collect some pieces of coral from colonies they are helping to protect.

Just some ideas

Do we have any importers on this forum that you know of?

 

[Sunny Goold]

Do we have any importers on this forum that you know of?

It shouldn't just be importers. It should be manufacturers, distributers and big retailers too. They could at least discuss it at Macna in my view I say this because there are a few of the importers who have standards - a lot of the big ones actually. But I feel like they get no support and undercut on price.

 

[ReefWithCare]

I think there should be an industry group formed where there are standards agreed upon (for collecting, transporting and handling for example). Then this group can write to the Indonesian Government etc. (as you have said) and us reefers can add our signatures. This group can push for these standards be adhered to and be proactive with Governments in the US too on importing etc. Because otherwise some states are going to start imposing their own rules on importing and they probably won't be good for us.
That's easy. There could be a lot of benefits too. Like they could organise trips where hobbyists could go and work on a project to help local communities and protect reefs etc. - maybe on these trips (partnering with exporters / importers) reefers could collect some pieces of coral from colonies they are helping to protect.

Just some ideas

If standards were made it would drive up the costs. I’d much rather prefer the banning to drive us more towards more expensive aquaculturing fish. I feel corals will be fine regardless since many folks are fragging.

 

[miyags]

Just buy aussie corals,cut them up and call them rare Indo corals and mark them up 1000% Or just buy up Indo's now,their still everywhere.

 

[shred5]

If standards were made it would drive up the costs. I’d much rather prefer the banning to drive us more towards more expensive aquaculturing fish. I feel corals will be fine regardless since many folks are fragging.

With these bans in wont be more expensive for aquaculture fish it will be way more expensive. The amount of aqua-cultured fish in this industry is rather small right now and takes time. There also are not allot of species that can not be produced in numbers. Just because some species have been bred in captivity does not mean they can be mass produced, this is not freshwater fish. We have a long way to go and just having the rug pulled out will hurt bad. It is not easy breeding saltwater fish other than a few, I have done both freshwater and Saltwater and there is no comparison. Most freshwater specifics spawn on a medium where allot saltwater broadcast spawn and are done in large numbers. These large numbers are hard to reproduce, not only that most saltwater fish have a larvae stage where they float with the plankton not a fry stage.
With the rise in prices allot of the people will drop out of the hobby because they can not afford it which will solve the issue of having to produce more fish and the aquaculture places know this.
It is not impossible but it will take time. i do not think people realise the amount of fish being stopped. Yellow tangs alone from Hawaii is around 400,000.

As far as corals it is sustainable but prices will go up. So many buy frags and think they are captive raised but are not, they are wild or mari-cultured cut up. just like all these people thinking they are buying rare corals and are buying fakes from allot of places.

 

[chad vossen]

The critical role private keepers play in conservation cannot be ignored.

Zoos indeed play an important role in species conservation and recovery programs. Their role is indispensable and should not be downplayed. However, there are simply not enough zoos to work with every species in need, let alone to keep up with the needed breeding projects. Collaboration between zoos and the private sector is vital!

The private sector can be utilized for the keeping of assurance colonies of many species. Sadly, the native habitat for many threatened species simply does not exist, or is hanging on by a weak thread, often dangerously fragmented. Furthermore, zoos and private keepers alike have to fight against animal rights activists and enviro radicals whose view can be effectively summarized as “better to go extinct than to be kept by humans.” Such extremists like to lean on contrived statistics and emotionally charged statements that have more basis in their philosophy than in reality.

It is a fact that not all animal species are equally suited for success in private, or indeed even in professional hands. The diverse nature of biodiversity itself means (among other things) that efforts with some species will be more successful than with others. While certain more demanding or sensitive species must be directed into the hands of qualified and experienced aquarist until their husbandry and physiology are well understood, such experts are often found outside of zoological and academic institutions, investing their own time and resources for little more reward than seeing their animals thrive. The findings of successful private keepers have even been utilized for in situ conservation efforts. Indeed the efforts of private keepers have had tremendous positive impacts on species conservation.

More and more humans means less and less wild. This means less and less available habitat, and ultimately fewer species on Earth. The last available resort for many species can be in the care of dedicated private keepers and zoos. Human activity has already destroyed too much wild. Every valid effort to conserve and protect what remains should be valued.

 

[chad vossen]

While the loss of these exporters will drive up prices for some corals, such as trachy and brain corals. We will always have inexpensive corals for the new hobbyist. Xenia, mushrooms, palys, cyphastrea, and much more are regularly aquacultured and are cheap! Acropora are also easily farmed, just look at what ORA is doing. I can see fish prices going up due to the reduction of coral filling the boxes.

Many people are working on unlocking more species in aquaculture. There are relatively recent developments in larval foods that are making big impacts in what we can raise. I'm certain that we can commercially produce angelfish, once we work out the bottlenecks. Check out my article on raising bellus angels. We had thousands of larvae till about 15 days when we ran out of food for them. I'm certain we would have had vastly better results if we had enough copepods. Many reef fish have not been commercially raised simply because nobody has tried them yet. There's a race to breed flame hawkfish. Who knows, these could be super easy to raise in large numbers.

 

[Rispa]

The critical role private keepers play in conservation cannot be ignored.

Zoos indeed play an important role in species conservation and recovery programs. Their role is indispensable and should not be downplayed. However, there are simply not enough zoos to work with every species in need, let alone to keep up with the needed breeding projects. Collaboration between zoos and the private sector is vital!

The private sector can be utilized for the keeping of assurance colonies of many species. Sadly, the native habitat for many threatened species simply does not exist, or is hanging on by a weak thread, often dangerously fragmented. Furthermore, zoos and private keepers alike have to fight against animal rights activists and enviro radicals whose view can be effectively summarized as “better to go extinct than to be kept by humans.” Such extremists like to lean on contrived statistics and emotionally charged statements that have more basis in their philosophy than in reality.

It is a fact that not all animal species are equally suited for success in private, or indeed even in professional hands. The diverse nature of biodiversity itself means (among other things) that efforts with some species will be more successful than with others. While certain more demanding or sensitive species must be directed into the hands of qualified and experienced aquarist until their husbandry and physiology are well understood, such experts are often found outside of zoological and academic institutions, investing their own time and resources for little more reward than seeing their animals thrive. The findings of successful private keepers have even been utilized for in situ conservation efforts. Indeed the efforts of private keepers have had tremendous positive impacts on species conservation.

More and more humans means less and less wild. This means less and less available habitat, and ultimately fewer species on Earth. The last available resort for many species can be in the care of dedicated private keepers and zoos. Human activity has already destroyed too much wild. Every valid effort to conserve and protect what remains should be valued.

Yet sadly private keepers are looked down upon while zoos are put on pedestals.

We are the hidden ark.

 

[Rispa]

While the loss of these exporters will drive up prices for some corals, such as trachy and brain corals. We will always have inexpensive corals for the new hobbyist. Xenia, mushrooms, palys, cyphastrea, and much more are regularly aquacultured and are cheap! Acropora are also easily farmed, just look at what ORA is doing. I can see fish prices going up due to the reduction of coral filling the boxes.

Many people are working on unlocking more species in aquaculture. There are relatively recent developments in larval foods that are making big impacts in what we can raise. I'm certain that we can commercially produce angelfish, once we work out the bottlenecks. Check out my article on raising bellus angels. We had thousands of larvae till about 15 days when we ran out of food for them. I'm certain we would have had vastly better results if we had enough copepods. Many reef fish have not been commercially raised simply because nobody has tried them yet. There's a race to breed flame hawkfish. Who knows, these could be super easy to raise in large numbers.

You're article both inspired me and set me dreaming haha. The room where the tanks are going isn't even done yet.

 

[Rispa]

Now for something we can actually do ourselves. What about creating contests or live food parties and at the end all the live food is sent out delivered to certain local aquaculturists that are working on a new species? Or a topic of the week where you need to try explain this topic to I've person unfamiliar with it.

 

[Sunny Goold]

If standards were made it would drive up the costs. I’d much rather prefer the banning to drive us more towards more expensive aquaculturing fish. I feel corals will be fine regardless since many folks are fragging.

Would the prices really go up that much due to standards?

Cyanide testing is very cheap - There would be a higher survival rate of fish - There would be a higher % of healthy looking fish that you would want to chose from.

But there are other benefits for us too - We could even know where and by whom the fish or coral was collected. Governments (including Indonesia) require livestock to have the proper paperwork, which each individual fish properly accounted for. It can't be that hard for us to get more information on a lot of the fish and livestock we by. It would actually be much better for all the collectors who do the right thing.

I'm sure there would be many places that would sell 'uncertified' livestock so you would still have that choice - until imports of those livestock are banned.

I'm sure most LFS would prefer to sell certified fish and it would provide a huge point of difference for them. There would be some sellers who would cheat. We may end up being able to order specific fish from a specific collector.

I think aquacultured fish would do much better in this environment than in the current one or under a scenario where fish imports were banned.

If imports were banned we would then have less diversity to chose from. No one would join the hobby. Prices would more than double on aquacultured fish. I could easily see yellow tangs going for the price of a gem tang today under that scenario.

Corals would not increase by the same amounts but they would definitely increase.

Plus it's not all about our hobby - it's also about the reefs and these bans mean more fishing and dynamiting - not to mention the livelihoods of the collectors being taken away.

 

[Sunny Goold]

While the loss of these exporters will drive up prices for some corals, such as trachy and brain corals. We will always have inexpensive corals for the new hobbyist. Xenia, mushrooms, palys, cyphastrea, and much more are regularly aquacultured and are cheap! Acropora are also easily farmed, just look at what ORA is doing. I can see fish prices going up due to the reduction of coral filling the boxes.

Many people are working on unlocking more species in aquaculture. There are relatively recent developments in larval foods that are making big impacts in what we can raise. I'm certain that we can commercially produce angelfish, once we work out the bottlenecks. Check out my article on raising bellus angels. We had thousands of larvae till about 15 days when we ran out of food for them. I'm certain we would have had vastly better results if we had enough copepods. Many reef fish have not been commercially raised simply because nobody has tried them yet. There's a race to breed flame hawkfish. Who knows, these could be super easy to raise in large numbers.

I read that article a while back. I definitely want to see much more aquaculture and I think with equipment advances it's becoming more accessible.

I wanted to ask at what point it starts becoming a viable business? Like do you have a price point you believe you can continuously sell these fish at and then what is the survival rate you need to achieve?

Since I was a kid I wanted an Emperor Angel so I'm hoping that in a few years captive bred will be available that I hope will come with a 'reef safe' label

Still I think we need both. Wild collection continuing but with much better information and standards and transport plus a much stronger aquaculture. I don't think the hobby can continue in it's present form without both and I am sure with both our hobby will thrive.