Ethics article and discussion of marine aquarium trade

[Reefer Matt]

We all act as a god sometimes. Whether it’s smooshing spiders or “nuking” aiptasia, human beings decide the fate of many creatures. Ethics are subjective to the individual. I believe most people want to do the right thing, but our methods aren’t universally accepted. That being said, I believe in aquaculture instead of wild harvesting.

If we wanted to do what’s best for the animals, we probably wouldn’t have reef tanks, imo. Instead the animals would only be available for zoos and scientific research. I believe there will never be a scientific consensus on morals. It is not something that can be measured objectively.

 

[MnFish1]

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.

You seem to not be aware of the fact that there are many groups out there that think keeping aquaria should be banned. Zoos should be banned. Public aquaria should be banned.

 

[MnFish1]

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.

Apologetically, your posts suggest that you are acting in a somewhat hypocritical manner - OR - I completely miss your point. If the person at the end of the supply chain sees fish, etc as 'disposable and replaceable' - I would not supply fish etc to that end user. Thus, you should probably close your shop - and then I would agree with you, the hobby is unethical. It becomes a very slippery slope deciding which animal is more worth saving than another. Most animals in nature have worked it out themselves. The Whale kills the porpoise, the porpoise kills the fish. The fish kill the shrimp, the shrimp kill the smaller shrimp, etc etc etc. Certainly, I think you are in the vast vast (Edit - Minority) who would think that a fish in a tank has the same ethical or moral value as a human being. People eat fish and invertebrates every day across the planet. Are they all immoral? I don't know - and I'm not saying - I'm only saying your logic does not make sense to me

 

[Northern Flicker]

We all act as a god sometimes. Whether it’s smooshing spiders or “nuking” aiptasia, human beings decide the fate of many creatures. Ethics are subjective to the individual. I believe most people want to do the right thing, but our methods aren’t universally accepted. That being said, I believe in aquaculture instead of wild harvesting.

If we wanted to do what’s best for the animals, we probably wouldn’t have reef tanks, imo. Instead the animals would only be available for zoos and scientific research. I believe there will never be a scientific consensus on morals. It is not something that can be measured objectively.

I like this take Matt!

Apologetically, your posts suggest that you are acting in a somewhat hypocritical manner - OR - I completely miss your point. If the person at the end of the supply chain sees fish, etc as 'disposable and replaceable' - I would not supply fish etc to that end user. Thus, you should probably close your shop - and then I would agree with you, the hobby is unethical. It becomes a very slippery slope deciding which animal is more worth saving than another. Most animals in nature have worked it out themselves. The Whale kills the porpoise, the porpoise kills the fish. The fish kill the shrimp, the shrimp kill the smaller shrimp, etc etc etc. Certainly, I think you are in the vast vast (Edit - Minority) who would think that a fish in a tank has the same ethical or moral value as a human being. People eat fish and invertebrates every day across the planet. Are they all immoral? I don't know - and I'm not saying - I'm only saying your logic does not make sense to me

No you are correct - I am a hypocrite. I do think much of this hobby is unethical and I still take part.

I do think there are degrees to it. Trying to make little decisions to minimize the suffering/death/waste that comes with the hobby.

 

[Northern Flicker]

You seem to not be aware of the fact that there are many groups out there that think keeping aquaria should be banned. Zoos should be banned. Public aquaria should be banned.

I mention these people many times in my posts. My concern is that we are constantly giving them ammunition by acting like we have a right to enjoy wild caught fish even if it results in cruelty, suffering and environmental degradation. This is why I am saying it’s dangerous to have people who are financially in the game be the voice of the hobby. Self regulation never works.

Unrelated but someone on another forum mentioned that the populace of Hawaii actually doesn’t want collection and that opposition to the “ban” comes mainly from business interests.

Can anyone comment on if this is true or false?