Stocking an Aquarium with Fish Caught in the Wild, What's the Problem?

[threebuoys]

On a fairly regular basis, this topic is discussed on this forum. I believe the vast majority of reef keepers care about the sustainability of wild reef life. I also think the majority of reef keepers have purchased wild fish and/or coral on multiple occasions. I suspect many of us have also purchased aquacultured fish and coral.

We all have our ideas of the pros and cons of keeping aquatic life. Each of us decide if we believe it is ethical. Each of us set our personal parameters for how we decide what to buy or not.

We are all aware of banned collection activities such as yellow tangs (et. al.) from Hawaii, or corals from various locations.

We are also aware of unscrupulous collection techniques (e.g. cyanide) used in some locations.

We are also aware of organizations dedicated to the preservation of natural wildlife and resources that are quick to mount campaigns against practices they abhor.

I am all for the advancement of cultured corals and fish. I also believe wild populations can be successfully harvested but should be sustained.

Questions I hope someone can answer:

Has our hobby led to any fish or coral being designated by world authorities as "threatened" or "endangered"?

Are any species designated by the process enacted by the U.S. "Endangered Species Act"?

Are unscrupulous collection methods/locations documented and available for reef keepers to consider before making purchases?

Does anyone know?

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

On a fairly regular basis, this topic is discussed on this forum. I believe the vast majority of reef keepers care about the sustainability of wild reef life. I also think the majority of reef keepers have purchased wild fish and/or coral on multiple occasions. I suspect many of us have also purchased aquacultured fish and coral.

We all have our ideas of the pros and cons of keeping aquatic life. Each of us decide if we believe it is ethical. Each of us set our personal parameters for how we decide what to buy or not.

We are all aware of banned collection activities such as yellow tangs (et. al.) from Hawaii, or corals from various locations.

We are also aware of unscrupulous collection techniques (e.g. cyanide) used in some locations.

We are also aware of organizations dedicated to the preservation of natural wildlife and resources that are quick to mount campaigns against practices they abhor.

I am all for the advancement of cultured corals and fish. I also believe wild populations can be successfully harvested but should be sustained.

Questions I hope someone can answer:

Has our hobby led to any fish or coral being designated by world authorities as "threatened" or "endangered"?

Are any species designated by the process enacted by the U.S. "Endangered Species Act"?

Are unscrupulous collection methods/locations documented and available for reef keepers to consider before making purchases?

Does anyone know?

Regarding your first question, I'd assume the answer is no but am not certain.

To answer your second question, if a coral is endangered it's 100% illegal to collect or sell. I'd hope most would feel that to do so would be highly unethical, to say the least.

I doubt your third question can be answered. Why would a coral or fish be marketed as collected using deadly clemicals or illegally? Thats the only way a hobbyist could consider the purchase of a specimen before buying it. That doesnt seem like it would be a great marketing tactic...

I also highly doubt collection involving cyanide, bleach, etc. is very common at all these days, contrary to common belief.

 

[littlebeard]

I believe banggai cardinal fish has become threatened due to the aquarium trade... at least from the articles I've found. Easy to breed in the home aquarium.

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

I believe banggai cardinal fish has become threatened due to the aquarium trade... at least from the articles I've found. Easy to breed in the home aquarium.

They used to be but I dont think they currently are. I could be mistaken though.

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

Although I used to be on the opposite side of the fence, I now feel that both captive bred fish and corals are more ethical if you want to get down to ethics.

 

[JayM]

I would guess if there was a definitive answer to any of those, it would be relatively easy to find them.

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

An answer to the title of the thread would depend on the species being collected (regardless of whether threatened or not) and how many are collected in a specific area. I think people commonly view the lack of a significant decrease in local populations of a fish species as a sign that there is no impact at all on the reefs and doesnt have any impact on future generations of the species collected. Just because the population hasn't been found to be declining does not imply that theres no impact at all since different species fill different niches, some more or less redundant than others. Future generations could also be negatively impacted due to a reduction in genetic diversity, meaning they may not be able to adapt to changes in the environment as well as they otherwise would be. I believe this is particularly true for corals which are selectively collected based on color and other rare and desirable morphological traits. Color and rare morphologies generally indicate that the coral has differing genetics in comparison to common colors of the same species. Since uncommon genetic variations can lead to adaptations, removing what we consider to be the most beautiful corals could potentially hinder their ability to adapt in the future.

Lets also bear in mind that wild collection of corals and fish is a numbers game and instead of meeting the goal of having X number of corals or fish imported alive and healthy by offering great care, high mortality rates are generally accounted for by simply collecting a high number of fish or corals, expecting enough to survive and arrive healthy to meet their quota.

 

[Jay Hemdal]

As you know, this topic has been a focus of mine pretty much forever. I wrote a school report against cyanide collection in 1968 (grin)

Over collecting for the aquarium trade has been seen in sea anemones, condylactus in Florida, carpet anemones in the pacific.

This article has a section on sustainability:

Sustainability in the Aquarium Trade, Longevity and Animal Costs

This article is a bit of a mashup – combining portions of a previous public aquarium article on animal sustainability, with some longevity data and fish pricing through the supply chain.

www.reef2reef.com

Here is my list of animals to avoid:

MARINE FISH AND INVERTEBRATES TO AVOID

Knowing which species have extra challenges helps home aquarists avoid heartbreak down the road. The following are some species that may pose problems for you, despite the level of care that you offer them.

www.reef2reef.com

Cyanide is still a huge issue, so is improper handling. This article attempts to identify poor quality regions:

Sourcing Marine Fishes and Invertebrates

. Sourcing Marine Fishes and Invertebrates Experienced aquarists are aware that fishes from different regions of the world can have different levels of sustainability when acquired for their aquariums. The reasons for these differences may...

www.reef2reef.com

Jay

 

[Jay Hemdal]

They used to be but I dont think they currently are. I could be mistaken though.

Banggai are still listed as endangered by the IUCN. The US proposed them to be listed under the ESA. That may have been withdrawn. Here is a post:

Proposed Protective Regulations for the Banggai Cardinalfish

Proposed Protective Regulations for the Banggai Cardinalfish

www.fisheries.noaa.gov

Edit: the proposal was passed, but the listing was made at “threatened”:

Banggai Cardinalfish

The Banggai cardinalfish is a small marine bony fish. The species is endemic to the Banggai Archipelago in Indonesia but has been introduced outside of its natural range through the ornamental live reef trade. Learn more about the Banggai cardinalfish!

www.fisheries.noaa.gov

Cause given was the pet trade.

 

[Doctorgori]

Has our hobby led to any fish or coral being designated by world authorities as "threatened" or "endangered"?

Are any species designated by the process enacted by the U.S. "Endangered Species Act"?

Are unscrupulous collection methods/locations documented and available for reef keepers to consider before making purchases?

My opinion is the aquarium trade is a drop in the bucket compared to harvesting for food….

as mentioned, I think bangai cardinal is the only over collected species AFAIK

And yes, this has come up before and I’m on record as stating IMO the Endangered Species act is either over or under applied…but that might sidetrack into politics: a awkward mix with hobby discourse

edit/add: the 80’s cyanide days of Philippine collected fish was terrible…saltwater fish might last two weeks back then…it was terrible

 

[Jay Hemdal]

Regarding your first question, I'd assume the answer is no but am not certain.

To answer your second question, if a coral is endangered it's 100% illegal to collect or sell. I'd hope most would feel that to do so would be highly unethical, to say the least.

I doubt your third question can be answered. Why would a coral or fish be marketed as collected using deadly clemicals or illegally? Thats the only way a hobbyist could consider the purchase of a specimen before buying it. That doesnt seem like it would be a great marketing tactic...

I also highly doubt collection involving cyanide, bleach, etc. is very common at all these days, contrary to common belief.

Cyanide collection is still widespread in Indonesia. It has reported to have been a bit reduced in the Philippines recently, but only with select, high quality exporters. There are persistent rumors of it being used in Vietnam and the Cook Islands. Haiti uses some other drug, probably quinaldine. Bleach and explosives are mostly used for collecting human food fishes.

 

[threebuoys]

My opinion is the aquarium trade is a drop in the bucket compared to harvesting for food….

as mentioned, I think bangai cardinal is the only over collected species AFAIK

And yes, this has come up before and I’m on record as stating IMO the Endangered Species act is either over or under applied…but that might sidetrack into politics: a awkward mix with hobby discourse

I agree with your comments. Getting into the politics of the ESA isn't very helpful. It is what it is, as they say.

If a species is threatened or endangered based on scientific evidence, then no take should be permitted and our vendors should not offer them for sale.

On the other hand, many species have been harvested for decades without significantly affected the survival of the species.

As you know, this topic has been a focus of mine pretty much forever. I wrote a school report against cyanide collection in 1968 (grin)

Over collecting for the aquarium trade has been seen in sea anemones, condylactus in Florida, carpet anemones in the pacific.

This article has a section on sustainability:

Sustainability in the Aquarium Trade, Longevity and Animal Costs

This article is a bit of a mashup – combining portions of a previous public aquarium article on animal sustainability, with some longevity data and fish pricing through the supply chain.

www.reef2reef.com

Here is my list of animals to avoid:

MARINE FISH AND INVERTEBRATES TO AVOID

Knowing which species have extra challenges helps home aquarists avoid heartbreak down the road. The following are some species that may pose problems for you, despite the level of care that you offer them.

www.reef2reef.com

Cyanide is still a huge issue, so is improper handling. This article attempts to identify poor quality regions:

Sourcing Marine Fishes and Invertebrates

. Sourcing Marine Fishes and Invertebrates Experienced aquarists are aware that fishes from different regions of the world can have different levels of sustainability when acquired for their aquariums. The reasons for these differences may...

www.reef2reef.com

Jay

I also agree with Jay's comments. I fear that most collectors, vendors and reef keepers give little if any thought on which animals should be avoided and why. I doubt many are aware that fish that are regularly offered for sale are very unlikely to survive, either because of issues specific to the species, or, just as bad, issues with the capture and supply chain processes. I wish an effective way could be developed to share this kind of information

 

[KrisReef]

As you know, this topic has been a focus of mine pretty much forever. I wrote a school report against cyanide collection in 1968 (grin)

Over collecting for the aquarium trade has been seen in sea anemones, condylactus in Florida, carpet anemones in the pacific.

This article has a section on sustainability:

Sustainability in the Aquarium Trade, Longevity and Animal Costs

This article is a bit of a mashup – combining portions of a previous public aquarium article on animal sustainability, with some longevity data and fish pricing through the supply chain.

www.reef2reef.com

Here is my list of animals to avoid:

MARINE FISH AND INVERTEBRATES TO AVOID

Knowing which species have extra challenges helps home aquarists avoid heartbreak down the road. The following are some species that may pose problems for you, despite the level of care that you offer them.

www.reef2reef.com

Cyanide is still a huge issue, so is improper handling. This article attempts to identify poor quality regions:

Sourcing Marine Fishes and Invertebrates

. Sourcing Marine Fishes and Invertebrates Experienced aquarists are aware that fishes from different regions of the world can have different levels of sustainability when acquired for their aquariums. The reasons for these differences may...

www.reef2reef.com

Jay

Do you still have a copy of your findings on cyanide collection from 1968?
(I wrote mine on the Ambrose Light ship in Los Angeles harbor. The light ships are all gone now.)

 

[KrisReef]

On a fairly regular basis, this topic is discussed on this forum. I believe the vast majority of reef keepers care about the sustainability of wild reef life. I also think the majority of reef keepers have purchased wild fish and/or coral on multiple occasions. I suspect many of us have also purchased aquacultured fish and coral.

We all have our ideas of the pros and cons of keeping aquatic life. Each of us decide if we believe it is ethical. Each of us set our personal parameters for how we decide what to buy or not.

We are all aware of banned collection activities such as yellow tangs (et. al.) from Hawaii, or corals from various locations.

We are also aware of unscrupulous collection techniques (e.g. cyanide) used in some locations.

We are also aware of organizations dedicated to the preservation of natural wildlife and resources that are quick to mount campaigns against practices they abhor.

I am all for the advancement of cultured corals and fish. I also believe wild populations can be successfully harvested but should be sustained.

Questions I hope someone can answer:

Has our hobby led to any fish or coral being designated by world authorities as "threatened" or "endangered"?

Are any species designated by the process enacted by the U.S. "Endangered Species Act"?

Are unscrupulous collection methods/locations documented and available for reef keepers to consider before making purchases?

Does anyone know?

The first question is obviously yes. Others pointed to the Bangai cardinal fishery but I think we need to include Hawaiian aquarium fishes that have been closed to harvesting under law, and I think these fishes are were protected using the ESA protections.

The sad part about the latter problem in Hawaii is that many years of efforts and research have shown that the fisheries are sustainable but the ESI is still being used in court to prevent fishing for most of the fisheries that were shown to be sustainable with the protections in place.

Which bring us to unscrupulous methods, and I can't see how folks can continue supporting many of the groups that have been wrangling in court to prevent sustainable harvests of fishes in Hawaii? I am not going to name them here, as someone else mentioned the information requested in the first questions is fairly optionable in Google, although I suspect that solicitations for donations to the groups I detest would also likely pop up since money runs the internet now of days.

I should like to mention that many native natives of Hawaii would like to prevent harvesting of fishes for cultural purposes to honor their understanding of the Sea. I think the natives ability to fish should be protected by the same considerations as other fisheries and not bent and twisted by outside organizations to pollute the process of treating people with dignity and respect.

Does anyone but God know how the oceans work?

 

[Jay Hemdal]

Do you still have a copy of your findings on cyanide collection from 1968?
(I wrote mine on the Ambrose Light ship in Los Angeles harbor. The light ships are all gone now.)

I should have been clearer, my report was from the third grade - I wrote, “anyone who uses drugs to catch fish is a dumb cluck” (grin). I think my first published editorial was in FAMA magazine in 1981.

 

[threebuoys]

The first question is obviously yes. Others pointed to the Bangai cardinal fishery but I think we need to include Hawaiian aquarium fishes that have been closed to harvesting under law, and I think these fishes are were protected using the ESA protections.

The sad part about the latter problem in Hawaii is that many years of efforts and research have shown that the fisheries are sustainable but the ESI is still being used in court to prevent fishing for most of the fisheries that were shown to be sustainable with the protections in place.

Which bring us to unscrupulous methods, and I can't see how folks can continue supporting many of the groups that have been wrangling in court to prevent sustainable harvests of fishes in Hawaii? I am not going to name them here, as someone else mentioned the information requested in the first questions is fairly optionable in Google, although I suspect that solicitations for donations to the groups I detest would also likely pop up since money runs the internet now of days.

I should like to mention that many native natives of Hawaii would like to prevent harvesting of fishes for cultural purposes to honor their understanding of the Sea. I think the natives ability to fish should be protected by the same considerations as other fisheries and not bent and twisted by outside organizations to pollute the process of treating people with dignity and respect.

Does anyone but God know how the oceans work?

I don't think the Hawaiin fish are covered by the ESA, but by Hawaiin laws. The ESA is federal and is pretty cut and dry. If an animal or plant species has by process (as defined in the ESA) been classified as threatened or endangered, takes are not allowed except in very rare circumstances (e.g. wind farms in locations where eagles fly have a very small number of accidental takes allowed). Certainly, takes to provide for commercial resale are never allowed.

I haven't found much info outside of the U.S. regarding regulations that prevent takes or an equivalent to our ESA, but perhaps I haven't looked hard enough.

I agree with your comments concerning cultural purposes and natives' abilities. Some recent postings suggest the door preventing any harvests in Hawaii may have a crack, but anytime something like this goes to court, the timeframe is unpredictably long.

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

I haven't found much info outside of the U.S. regarding regulations that prevent takes or an equivalent to our ESA, but perhaps I haven't looked hard enough.

Are you aware of the Endangered Species Protection Agency? They work internationally.

Also, what about regulations set by CITES? CITES ensures international trade doesn't endanger or threaten any species and is an international agreement among 184 nations. It absolutely prohibits species from being taken from the wild for commercial purposes if they're listed in Appendix 1.

You might be unaware of the ESPA but I'm sure you've heard of CITES. What do you mean precisely by "equivalent to the ESA" if you don't consider either of these equivalent?

 

[threebuoys]

Are you aware of the Endangered Species Protection Agency? They work internationally.

Also, what about regulations set by CITES? CITES ensures international trade doesn't endanger or threaten any species and is an international agreement among 184 nations. It absolutely prohibits species from being taken from the wild for commercial purposes if they're listed in Appendix 1.

You might be unaware of the ESPA but I'm sure you've heard of CITES. What do you mean precisely by "equivalent to the ESA" if you don't consider either of these equivalent?

Thanks for your suggestion. I'm very aware of the U.S. ESA and the procedures it enacted to designate threatened and endangered species under U.S. law. No, I am not as familiar with the procedures required by the two international organizations you mention. I'll take some time to look at both of these organizations.

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

Thanks for your suggestion. I'm very aware of the U.S. ESA and the procedures it enacted to designate threatened and endangered species under U.S. law. No, I am not as familiar with the procedures required by the two international organizations you mention. I'll take some time to look at both of these organizations.

No problem! I wrongly assumed you knew about CITES because in order to legally import or export anything in the hobby you need a CITES permit.

 

[Jay Hemdal]

No problem! I wrongly assumed you knew about CITES because in order to legally import or export anything in the hobby you need a CITES permit.

In the US, you only need a CITES export permit for species that are CITES II listed (corals and seahorses for example). Commercial trade in CITES I species is not allowed.

All non-listed species just need to be shown on a USFWS 3-177 import permit.