Ethics article and discussion of marine aquarium trade

[MnFish1]

The destruction of our reefs is almost inevitable with or without the ornamental fish trade, I believe the statistic is by 2050 90% of natural reefs will be gone which is less than 30 years. My guess is that the reefs will be gone by the next century from the wild. And guess where will be the only place we will be able to see live coral… that’s right aquariums. Also I’m not taking anything you’re writing the wrong way I love hearing peoples opinions and having a discussion

Disagree

 

[Reniva Ma]

Disagree

Is there a reason for disagreement?

Experts: World’s coral reefs could vanish by 2050 without climate action - Responsible Seafood Advocate

An international team of environmental scientists warn that the world’s coral reefs are likely to disappear by 2050 without climate action.

www.globalseafood.org

 

[MnFish1]

Is there a reason for disagreement?

Experts: World’s coral reefs could vanish by 2050 without climate action - Responsible Seafood Advocate

An international team of environmental scientists warn that the world’s coral reefs are likely to disappear by 2050 without climate action.

www.globalseafood.org

"almost inevitable"
"by 2050 90% of natural reefs will be gone "
"And guess where will be the only place we will be able to see live coral… that’s right aquariums. "
There Is no scientific evidence for 1, 2, or 3.

 

[MnFish1]

I'm going to post a heretical post - I think we all can agree that global warming and cooling has happened in cycles over the millennia. Lets agree - the warming this time is more related to humans... OK - all good. My guess is just as in prior times when it was not human related, Coral reefs will come back.

 

[Reniva Ma]

"almost inevitable"
"by 2050 90% of natural reefs will be gone "
"And guess where will be the only place we will be able to see live coral… that’s right aquariums. "
There Is no scientific evidence for 1, 2, or 3.

There is, I’m not pulling this out of my butt surprising, I posted a link to a article, here is another one, with the exact same statistic, or you can just search it up.

Nearly All Coral Reefs Will Disappear Over The Next 20 Years, Scientists Say

Over the next 20 years, scientists estimate about 70 to 90% of all coral reefs will disappear primarily as a result of warming ocean waters, ocean acidity, and pollution.

www.forbes.com

 

[Reniva Ma]

I'm going to post a heretical post - I think we all can agree that global warming and cooling has happened in cycles over the millennia. Lets agree - the warming this time is more related to humans... OK - all good. My guess is just as in prior times when it was not human related, Coral reefs will come back.

That’s… could be true but even in the past if things did go well, how damaged the reefs will be plus prolonged human exposure it’s not a stretch to say that would be a few million years

 

[Reniva Ma]

I'm going to post a heretical post - I think we all can agree that global warming and cooling has happened in cycles over the millennia. Lets agree - the warming this time is more related to humans... OK - all good. My guess is just as in prior times when it was not human related, Coral reefs will come back.

Also global warming is not natural as the temperatures are much higher than regular fluctuations. In fact scientists say that we are approaching a sixth and probably largest mass extinction. I’m not going to argue with you on global warming and how ****** the world is but I hope you find peace and see all the information and research out there proving it

 

[Tony Thompson]

Also global warming is not natural as the temperatures are much higher than regular fluctuations. In fact scientists say that we are approaching a sixth and probably largest mass extinction. I’m not going to argue with you on global warming and how ****** the world is but I hope you find peace and see all the information and research out there proving it

I am becoming more and more confused, what theory are you are attempting to support ?

You seem to be suggesting aquariums are positive because they are other things that are more destructive? Surely an objective viewpoint would be to consider each in its own right.

I don't see how the comparisons you are making support anything, with regards conservation they all seem to have a net negative.

My perception is that the aquarium trade and hobby is in essence, about consumerism not conservation. A pragmatic approach would seem to me to accept, that ethics and morals are about compromise.

Food is a necessity, aquariums are a luxury.

I don't want to deny any one the occasional luxury, however with that comes a great responsibility. I also mentioned earlier 'collateral'. To minimise negative collateral that ones desires produce, one needs to be responsible, open, honest and wiling to constantly review our practices in line with a changing environment.

Pictures of children staring into aquariums is not going to change anything. Its simply a marketing strategy used by lobbyists. The aquarium industry needs to stop looking outside and pay more attention to what's happening inside. It needs to look forward, not a static defence that inevitably develops into a rear guard action. The shape of its future, I believe depends on it.

 

[MnFish1]

Also global warming is not natural as the temperatures are much higher than regular fluctuations. In fact scientists say that we are approaching a sixth and probably largest mass extinction. I’m not going to argue with you on global warming and how ****** the world is but I hope you find peace and see all the information and research out there proving it

I believe I said 'global warming is being influenced by humans'. So - I don't believe we have any argument, except, that if you truly believed what you were saying, it seems that you wouldn't be involved in an industry which is a total luxury, uses a great deal of energy, and at least some people would say (as you pointed out in your OP) - Is unethical

 

[MnFish1]

Is there a reason for disagreement?

Experts: World’s coral reefs could vanish by 2050 without climate action - Responsible Seafood Advocate

An international team of environmental scientists warn that the world’s coral reefs are likely to disappear by 2050 without climate action.

www.globalseafood.org

PS - there are multiple examples for example in the Great Barrier Reef, that the reef is recovering to a degree (whether this will continue or not I don't know) - there are multiple articles about this. https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/is-the-great-barrier-reef-making-a-comeback/

It is my opinion that compared to warming, pollution, is a far greater and potentially easier problem to solve. When countries dump raw sewage into the ocean, etc - its not helping.

 

[jabberwock]

Also global warming is not natural as the temperatures are much higher than regular fluctuations. In fact scientists say that we are approaching a sixth and probably largest mass extinction. I’m not going to argue with you on global warming and how ****** the world is but I hope you find peace and see all the information and research out there proving it

I am a scientist, and I totally disagree with all this global warming garbage. Science does not PROVE things. Please brush up on the scientific method.

 

[Reefering1]

I saw this thread pop up and was surprised its still going..
Looks like I'm just in time

 

[Jay Hemdal]

I am a scientist, and I totally disagree with all this global warming garbage. Science does not PROVE things. Please brush up on the scientific method.

That is a false "appeal to authority" argument. I'm also a scientist and I disagree with you. See how that doesn't work?

Jay

 

[jabberwock]

That is a false "appeal to authority" argument. I'm also a scientist and I disagree with you. See how that doesn't work?

Jay

Which part do you disagree with?

Global warming is garbage?
Science does not prove things?
Or both?

 

[cwk84]

Here’s a mini informal article I wrote about sustainability and ethics of this hobby. Love to see options and enjoy

(Context I’m a reefer and a coral/fish retailer or as u might know a lfs)

I’m a strong believer in the benefits of the hobby, the happiness, money and opportunities it can bring to people as well as giving back to the environment but I do not believe there is a clear cut answer. The marine hobby gets a horrible reputation because the very sentiment of taking a fish from the wild and endangered ecosystem such as the reefs and putting it in a box sounds horrible. From what I’ve seen a lot of evidence from the against side is outdated and not backed. One is that many fish are collected by cyanide, this is absolutely not true anymore as it has been outlawed and the high mortality rates along the supply chain have drastically lowered the demand in favor of healthier specimens. Also that 99% of marine fish die within a year is Not quantified at all and getting a accurate statistic like that is near impossible. I have put points on both sides to explore and I would love to hear your opinions.

Pros:
It’s a good source of money for retailers, wholesalers fish collectors and even hobbyists

Brings immense happiness for the enjoyers of the hobby

Makes way for education learning and love for natural reefs. So this point I picked up because there is large debate between the difference of taking a fish for a aquarium and and one to eat is not much different. Out of some sources it is estimated that about 40-60 million saltwater fish are exported from the oceans each year compared to about 90-95 million tonnes of fish from the fishing industry, going on the high side, assuming that one fish is about 10 lbs each that’s about 19 billion individual fish (probably double) caught by the commercial fishing industry… and OUR practices are considered unsustainable… now a regular consumer who eats a fish sandwich 100% cares less about the fish than someone who is buying one for their tank to love and cherish. In fact one of the guys in chasing coral the Netflix documentary bringing awareness and funding for the loss of our natural reefs was Inspired by his experience owning a home marine aquarium. A lot of the biggest reefers are the largest marine conservation advocates found in high positions in public aquariums etc. I’ve personally found reefers to be the people who care the most about the natural reefs and in my personal experience reefers are some of the people who know most about coral and fish in the world.

Coral banks, because of the marine hobby it has created around 1 million miniature coral banks that propagate and keep coral safe so we can enjoy living specimens even after the impending disappearance of the reefs.

Captive breeding programs (including fish and coral and inverts), development of technology, and research, a lot of these have been done a perfected for the marine aquarium trade and is also used in public aquarium and for reef conservation. The topic of captive breeding coral has been a large topic of many reefers due to the impending shutdown of export for marine Aquaria world wide. It is true that the majority of captive aquarium fish are wild caught but I believe that the shutdown of wild fish imports will drastically lower the amount of people going into the hobby which will lower the awareness for natural reefs.

Cons:
Death, as a hobbyist and retailer, it is undeniable the amount of live stock is loss to shipping, stress, disease, and poor husbandry. The number is much higher than I would like but that being said; how does that compare to the food fishing industry? In both cases the animal ends up dead.

Ethics of keeping aquarium fish in not their natural habitat. Many people argue that fish kept in glass boxes forced to swim in circles is cruel. But I believe that this is a gross personification of a animal which is very rarely acceptable. Animals are not humans they do not feel the same way we do and to my knowledge they do not care as long as their fed and happy, in a correct tank size and husbandry. In my experience being in the reptile hobby for 7 years, it’s a lot less of a nightmare because most marine fish are quite intolerant of inadequate conditions making so that keeping them properly is needed for success compared to reptiles where it is all too often you’ll see a animal being abused but won’t die due to hardiness. I also notice that freshwater fish die wayyy more often for no reason than marine fish when kept well but this is mostly anecdotal so take that as you will. This being said it is unacceptable to abuse fish or any animal. This brings up another topic on how some people in the hobby see fish as disposable which is true but I do not see it as much different than leaving a fish fillet out too long and just buying a new one

Environmental impact. This is a major concern amoung many people for good reason but studies in Hawaii have proven that export of marine species for the fish trade has no environment impact on wild populations and it’s actually the food fishes that are seeing decline. I do not know if this is the case however in other countries who export. Of course collecting fish from the wild should be avoided anyways but due to how niche and small the hobby is I doubt it has any significant impact.

So, what do you think? I personally believe this hobby brings much more positive than negative much of the controversy comes from people who are not involved in the hobby and there fore do not see the beauty in it. They’ll happily tell you to stop your tank but repulse if you tell them to stop eating fish. I’m happy to hear your opinions whatever side your on.

Sources
https://ourworldindata.org/fish-and-overfishing#:~:text=What's%20striking%20is%20that%20global,over%20100%20million%20per%20year.


https://www.csmonitor.com/Environme...l-tropical-fish-trade-loom-perilous-practices

https://www.humanedecisions.com/pet...e-aquarium-trade-why-its-cruel-and-unethical/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7692700/

It’s so telling that 99% of your so called ethics argument is about how ppl can make money and be happy looking at corals and fish in their home. This is so mind boggling lol.

Humans are animals as well. Take an anthropology class at a renowned collage if you don’t understand the basics

You are not a fish. You never have been. Unless you are a fish you cannot tell me or anyone else what a fish likes or doesn’t like or how they feel. The argument that they’re not human and therefore shouldn’t be granted the same moral rights is absolutely absurd to me. Who the heck are you to decide for another species on this planet? Just because they can’t do math or drive a car doesn’t mean they don’t have the ability to suffer in a capacity that would make keeping them in tanks unethical. How would you even study this? We can’t exactly ask a fish how they feel. It’s always better to presume that a living being is capable of suffering and grant it moral rights than to do this tap dance trying to somehow justify that they’re lower in value compared to a human and therefore it’s fine to lock them them up in glass boxes. The whole argument is so absurd it me. The fact that you’re even trying to justify it is. You’re biased like so many reefers and you want to tell yourself you’re a good guy saving the world.


Climate change is caused by industrialization. It’s us. We pump so much co2 in the air and then we tell ourselves by taking ocean life and putting it in a tank we’re saving part of the ocean. The hubris in this view point. Wow. If you want to save the reefs you have to help propagate corals, work with local authorities to cut down on fishing in general because it’s the nets that **** up things when they get lost or caught on rocks, educate ppl on not using plastic anymore, fighting for a ban on combustion engines, holding corporations accountable for polluting the planet and more. Taking a coral out of the ocean isn’t saving the reefs nor is it cutting down on co2 which is the reason for acidification of our oceans therefore death of corals. It’s also not going to lower global temperatures due to the greenhouse effect. Putting corals in a tank is literally just for the human because we can look at it and feel happy about doing so. That’s literally it.

And if you can’t present me a scientific consensus on this topic I’m not even going to bother. There are studies on every stupid little thing you can think of. Just because there is a study on a topic that you can link doesn’t mean that whatever viewpoint you’re trying to push is scientific. My wife is a scientist and does peer review studies in the Pharma industry. There are a lot of mistakes and assumptions in a lot of studies alongisde questionable methodologies. It’s like that in ever field. Scientific consensus is more important than anything. Studies being replicated and subjected to scientific rigor is very important.

 

[Reefering1]

I propose that a human life is of more value than a fish, a lot more. I eat fish

 

[Northern Flicker]

I propose that a human life is of more value than a fish, a lot more.

Why?


As for the main post...my years in the hobby supply chain has taught me that there is a very dark side to this hobby. Many will ignore it or try to minimize it. Unfortunately, it's still there, and it doesn't care if you don't want to feel guilty.

A lot of fish die in collection, export, import, retail and in our tanks long, long before they should. They die suffering, and often they die because the person at the end of the supply chain sees them as disposable and replaceable.

I love the aquarium hobby. It's been a big part of why I care about the environment as a whole. It's helped me understand the world around me. However, I question the ethics of it daily. Ever since I saw the the bags of rotting fish sitting in boxes on the tarmac, or watched the powder blue swirl to death in it's terrible LFS tank, or watched as a yellow tang died in a customers tank because "it's only $50 to replace it and meds are $40, so...".

I think our inability to put the animals before our own low risk monetary concerns will eventually lead us to a sad day where keeping these animals in captivity is frowned upon or even banned. This is what happens when your hobby is represented by industry partners who have $$$ on the table.

 

[Reefering1]

Why?


As for the main post...my years in the hobby supply chain has taught me that there is a very dark side to this hobby. Many will ignore it or try to minimize it. Unfortunately, it's still there, and it doesn't care if you don't want to feel guilty.

A lot of fish die in collection, export, import, retail and in our tanks long, long before they should. They die suffering, and often they die because the person at the end of the supply chain sees them as disposable and replaceable.

I love the aquarium hobby. It's been a big part of why I care about the environment as a whole. It's helped me understand the world around me. However, I question the ethics of it daily. Ever since I saw the the bags of rotting fish sitting in boxes on the tarmac, or watched the powder blue swirl to death in it's terrible LFS tank, or watched as a yellow tang died in a customers tank because "it's only $50 to replace it and meds are $40, so...".

I think our inability to put the animals before our own concerns will eventually lead us to a sad day where keeping these animals in captivity is frowned upon or even banned. This is what happens when your hobby is represented by industry partners who have $$$ on the table.

I didn't read the entire tread and I am at work right now so can't. I was only addressing one specific statement,

The argument that they’re not human and therefore shouldn’t be granted the same moral rights is absolutely absurd to me. Who the heck are you to decide for another species on this planet?

,Which I stand by. It's the way it is. Does a lion ask the gazelle how it feels about being eaten? Do you eat meat? So if I can eat it, I should have the right to keep it alive because I like it. This is far, far away from considering them disposable/ replaceable/ or a life of no value. I very much believe these lives, although not amounting to a human life, deserve the best care available. But, Is it wrong people buy starfish and cut legs off to feed a shrimp? Who decides who is more important? (We, humans, do.)

 

[Reefering1]

Example. If a baby was stuck inside a aquarium, would you break the glass immediately and save the infant or try to catch all the fish/ remove livestock 1st?

 

[Northern Flicker]

Example. If a baby was stuck inside a aquarium, would you break the glass immediately and save the infant or try to catch all the fish/ remove livestock 1st?

I think all of us, as humans, would biologically make what feels like the obvious choice and save the baby.

The difference here is that no human lives are at risk - the trade off is our entertainment and discretionary income. I would argue in some of these discussions, the that's the trade off being discussed.