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

[livinlifeinBKK]

In the US, you only need a CITES export permit for species that are CITES II listed (corals and seahorses for example). All non-listed species just need to be shown on a USFWS 3-177 import permit.

I should have fact checked that small detail before typing a response on my phone...I believe the my reply gave insight to OP his comment indicated he wasn't aware of, despite my small error.

The export of any CITES listed species from any country requires a permit. This means unless the aquarium coral (or fish, if listed) is from the USA, an export permit is required by the exporting country for shipment. The import permit is dependent on the country and Appendix the species is listed in, if listed. (All stony coral species are Appendix 2). It isn't everything that requires a permit and I dont really want to spend my time reviewing the list of species that do require one, but as you mentioned, there are still permits required since the USA is a member and carries out the provisions set by CITES.

CITES sets the provisions.

I responded to a comment by OP stating he wasn't aware of organizations or agencies regulating the taking or trade in species outside the US and mentioning CITES informed him of am international agreement that does just that.

 

[PharmrJohn]

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)

So this has been (quite literally) a lifelong interest for you! Your report......Did this spring you into the start of your love of marine life, or was it because of?

 

[Jay Hemdal]

So this has been (quite literally) a lifelong interest for you! Your report......Did this spring you into the start of your love of marine life, or was it because of?

It was because of it - my parents bought me Robert Straughan’s marine aquarium book, and I read it cover to cover until the pages fell out (grin). Straughan was one of the first people to identify drugs being used to collect aquarium fishes, and he crusaded against it for a long time.

 

[BeanAnimal]

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

And what makes you think that?

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

And what makes you think that?

I'm sure it still goes on to a limited extent but I personally doubt large extent as mentioned in my comment and feel this way because a lot of reports rely on anecdotal evidence and while the anecdotes are likely true, having someone report seeing or even taking part in the practice isn't very strong evidence that the practice is widespread. A standard testing method agreed to be accurate and widely accepted has historically been absent. Maybe in the past 4 years since a journal article I read was published and made mention of that, things have changed. However, I'm nkt the only one who feels this way. Here's a link from Coral Magazine reporting on the topic:

Cyanide use in global aquarium fish trade is "thing of past" say industry advocates - CORAL Magazine

“The use of cyanide in aquarium fishery is largely a thing of the past and illegal in most source countries," says Australian marine biologist Shane Willis...

www.coralmagazine.com

It isnt that I dont believe the findings of previous research, but many of them were published 15 or more years ago. With so much emphasis on reef conservation, I dont feel that results reflect how prevalent the practice is currently.

Those would be my primary reasons.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I would simply argue that your take is based on the misplaced assumption that people do the right thing because you do.

I would counter by saying that it is almost certainly worse than it has ever been. Demand has skyrocketed, and fast and cheap are mutually exclusive with ethical.

The people involved at this level don’t give two hoots about ‘reef conservation’.

 

[Jay Hemdal]

I'm sure it still goes on to a limited extent but I personally doubt large extent as mentioned in my comment and feel this way because a lot of reports rely on anecdotal evidence and while the anecdotes are likely true, having someone report seeing or even taking part in the practice isn't very strong evidence that the practice is widespread. A standard testing method agreed to be accurate and widely accepted has historically been absent. Maybe in the past 4 years since a journal article I read was published and made mention of that, things have changed. However, I'm nkt the only one who feels this way. Here's a link from Coral Magazine reporting on the topic:

Cyanide use in global aquarium fish trade is "thing of past" say industry advocates - CORAL Magazine

“The use of cyanide in aquarium fishery is largely a thing of the past and illegal in most source countries," says Australian marine biologist Shane Willis...

www.coralmagazine.com

It isnt that I dont believe the findings of previous research, but many of them were published 15 or more years ago. With so much emphasis on reef conservation, I dont feel that results reflect how prevalent the practice is currently.

Those would be my primary reasons.

That person interviewed was just a mouthpiece for OFI, and they have a vested interest in playing down the use of cyanide. I remember a photo op in the early 1980’s of staff from Pet Business magazine saying how cyanide was no longer an issue - and in the line up was Andy Eyas, one of the most notorious Philippine fish exporters handling drugged fish - and he was grinning ear to ear.

This paper from earlier in the year looked at the collection aquarium fish, focusing on blue tangs:

Catching Dory: selling aquarium fish supports coastal
livelihoods in Indonesia

The fishers targeting blue tang often use compressed air
disbursed underwater by hoses known as “hookah” lines when
diving to catch blue tang, a practice which can pose serious health
risks to the diver. Additionally, fishers often employ neurotoxins
such as potassium cyanide (known locally as “potas”) to stun
the fish, making them easier to retrieve, as author S.S.S observed
in this region. These toxic substances are widely considered to
pose sustainability issues, including damaging coral reefs and
causing elevated mortality levels of captured fish.

Here is an abstract from a paper published in 2017 showing 15% of the fish studied had been collected with cyanide:

Live reef fish displaying physiological evidence of cyanide poisoning are still traded in the EU marine aquarium industry - PMC

The illegal use of cyanide poisoning to supply live reef fish to several markets is one of the main threats to coral reefs conservation in the Indo-Pacific. The present study performed the first survey ever monitoring the marine aquarium trade in ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Fish caught with cyanide is illegal in all range countries. Via the Lacy Act, that makes it illegal to sell them in the US, yet this has gone on for over 60 years.

This Wiki entry has some other references:

Cyanide fishing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[threebuoys]

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.

OK, thanks again for mentioning these organizations. I spent some time researching their activities.

One point I was alluding to in my earlier comments is my sense that the collection of fish, especially saltwater fish, for aquarists has not significantly harmed the world-wide populations of the species we purchase, and that those who give us a bad rap don't understand our hobby.

Neither CITES or ESPA have identified any of the species we collect as threatened or endangered. I can't speak to the quality or completeness of the information either of these two organizations are able to gather. Certainly, trying to collect and manage this information world-wide would be a daunting task.

CITES lists two angelfish as threatened. Clarion (holacanthus clarionensis) and Clipperton (holacanthus limbauughi). Neither are harvested in the wild. The Clarion has been captive bred successfully but is rarely offered. The Clipperton is found only at one French atoll which is almost inaccessible in the eastern Pacific.

On the other hand, the USA agressively manages the list of threatened and endangered species within its boundaries as well as foreign species that meet certain criteria through the Endangered Species Act. NOAA is the agency responsible for the implementation of the Act in regard to marine life.

The only marine fish found in our hobby that is listed by NOAA as threatened is the Banggai Cardinalfish. It was listed in 2016 with the region designated as foreign.

Some info from the listing:

Some info about the Endangered Species Act:

Anecdotally, almost all the fish I see available in today's market were available 50 years ago when I first kept saltwater aquariums. A lot of them aren't a lot more expensive now than they were then. The most glaring exception is, wait for it,

THE YELLOW TANG

which is regulated by the state of Hawaii.

Don't misunderstand. I believe we, as hobbyists, must be committed to protecting the fish and coral and their habitats in order to sustain their population for the future. The number of people active in the hobby today, domestically and world-wide must be many multiples of what it was 50 years ago. Yet the populations have survived. Hopefully, regulators will realize the threat from hobbyists are minor compared to a multitude of other factors.

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

That person interviewed was just a mouthpiece for OFI, and they have a vested interest in playing down the use of cyanide. I remember a photo op in the early 1980’s of staff from Pet Business magazine saying how cyanide was no longer an issue - and in the line up was Andy Eyas, one of the most notorious Philippine fish exporters handling drugged fish - and he was grinning ear to ear.

This paper from earlier in the year looked at the collection aquarium fish, focusing on blue tangs:

Catching Dory: selling aquarium fish supports coastal
livelihoods in Indonesia

The fishers targeting blue tang often use compressed air
disbursed underwater by hoses known as “hookah” lines when
diving to catch blue tang, a practice which can pose serious health
risks to the diver. Additionally, fishers often employ neurotoxins
such as potassium cyanide (known locally as “potas”) to stun
the fish, making them easier to retrieve, as author S.S.S observed
in this region. These toxic substances are widely considered to
pose sustainability issues, including damaging coral reefs and
causing elevated mortality levels of captured fish.

Here is an abstract from a paper published in 2017 showing 15% of the fish studied had been collected with cyanide:

Live reef fish displaying physiological evidence of cyanide poisoning are still traded in the EU marine aquarium industry - PMC

The illegal use of cyanide poisoning to supply live reef fish to several markets is one of the main threats to coral reefs conservation in the Indo-Pacific. The present study performed the first survey ever monitoring the marine aquarium trade in ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Fish caught with cyanide is illegal in all range countries. Via the Lacy Act, that makes it illegal to sell them in the US, yet this has gone on for over 60 years.

This Wiki entry has some other references:

Cyanide fishing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Thank you for the paper you linked! I'll give it a read! When it comes to gathering statistics on the prevalence of cyanide use specifically, I'm not sure why the import companies don't have either the water tested for thiocyanate or have fish randomly chosen and tested for thiocyanate. I'm also not sure why testing isn't conducted on a random basis by governmental organizations to gather statistics from exporting countries with either a known history of cyanide use or suspected to be using during collection. Since the use of cyanide (or any other chemical) is highly unfavorable for all parties involved, government based or commercial companies, it seems like random testing wouldn't be difficult but desirable for everyone involved.
Use of compressed air would be far more difficult to detect without an autopsy to examine internal organs but chemicals always leave behind traces, usually in the form of metabolites.

Perhaps the paper you linked will shed light on this.

 

[VintageReefer]

I am not sure if the legal status of collecting / importing, but if anyone wants a fire coral, this seller has 2 on eBay and they are seldom seen for sale

Robbie's Corals LG Aquacultured Fire Coral(Millepora alcicornis) 4"-5 WYSIWYG | eBay

These are a coral from the tropical Atlantic and Caribbean. They grow fast and as they get larger they tend to branch like a tree. This one is the exact one in the picture, it is a large colony 4"-5".

www.ebay.com

 

[Jay Hemdal]

Thank you for the paper you linked! I'll give it a read! When it comes to gathering statistics on the prevalence of cyanide use specifically, I'm not sure why the import companies don't have either the water tested for thiocyanate or have fish randomly chosen and tested for thiocyanate. I'm also not sure why testing isn't conducted on a random basis by governmental organizations to gather statistics from exporting countries with either a known history of cyanide use or suspected to be using during collection. Since the use of cyanide (or any other chemical) is highly unfavorable for all parties involved, government based or commercial companies, it seems like random testing wouldn't be difficult but desirable for everyone involved.
Use of compressed air would be far more difficult to detect without an autopsy to examine internal organs but chemicals always leave behind traces, usually in the form of metabolites.

Perhaps the paper you linked will shed light on this.

I’m not positive, but I think that Dr Rhyne’s studies have shown that the thiocyanate test is not robust enough to test for past exposure of fish to cyanide in the supply chain. If you Google “Rhyne cyanide” you can find where he has given talks about his work. Here is a link to a recent paper he published:

https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/prog/marine_ornamental_fishes/workshops/brisbane_052024/Breenetal_Cyanide_BoMS_APCRSProceedings.pdf

 

[Tamberav]

Isn't the lionfish in florida waters because people released them? And they are part of the problem to the decline of native species?

Just a thought on the impacts of our hobby.

 

[threebuoys]

Isn't the lionfish in florida waters because people released them? And they are part of the problem to the decline of native species?

Just a thought on the impacts of our hobby.

Yes, that's a big problem. I've not seen statistics for the impact on aquarium fish (not many are collected in Florida) but the impact against reef fish is definitely not good. Pet pythons, Boas and Lionfish, fresh-water cichlids

By the way, the Lionfish are at least as far north as North Carolina Outer Banks where I live. They are seen on the offshore deeper water wrecks. Haven't heard of or seen any inshore, fortunately.

 

[Jay Hemdal]

Isn't the lionfish in florida waters because people released them? And they are part of the problem to the decline of native species?

Just a thought on the impacts of our hobby.

The route of lionfish release hasn’t been proven yet. Originally, it was thought that some lionfish were washed into Biscayne bay by hurricane andrew, but that, as well as release from ship’s ballast water has been disproven.

I have two theories:

1) there used to be a fish wholesaler operating north of Miami. They have been suspected of releasing fish at a park along the ocean there. The thought was either because they wanted to try and develop breeding colonies of exotic fish for divers to collect, or they just dumped fish because they were closing up shop. I think it was the former, as many high value Red Sea fish were collected on reefs north of that park in the following years - no cheap wrasses or damsels, just high end fish.

2) Atlantis resort supposedly had a lionfish exhibit at one time, and water from that went back into the sea with little or no biosecurity. Caulerpa algae got into the Mediterranean Sea from the Monaco aquarium, so this is also plausible.

 

[Jay Hemdal]

Yes, that's a big problem. I've not seen statistics for the impact on aquarium fish (not many are collected in Florida) but the impact against reef fish is definitely not good. Pet pythons, Boas and Lionfish, fresh-water cichlids

By the way, the Lionfish are at least as far north as North Carolina Outer Banks where I live. They are seen on the offshore deeper water wrecks. Haven't heard of or seen any inshore, fortunately.

Early on, baby lionfish were captured off Long Island by Todd Gardner. They don’t survive the winter that far north though.

 

[threebuoys]

Early on, baby lionfish were captured off Long Island by Todd Gardner. They don’t survive the winter that far north though.

That's probably why we don't see them inshore here. Water too cold in the winter. But the gulf stream is 20 miles or less offshore. The water temp there stays in the high 60's all winter.

 

[BeanAnimal]

,I'm not sure why the import companies don't have either the water tested for thiocyanate or have fish randomly chosen and tested for thiocyanate.

They don’t care. It costs money and limits their sources and increases their cost a d reduces their margin.

 

[NoLarvatusplease]

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?

Your final question Does anyone know? should be Does anyone really care?
Does the desire to have multicolored pretty things in a tiny box or rectangle override any salient ecological concerns.I could go on for hours talking about this but it won't change but a tiny miniscule fraction of hobbyists.I don't keep marine life anymore.I have'nt for almost 50 years now because of what I witnessed and found out while being deep in the buisness of wholesale importing and retail selling of fish and dead (killed) coral for decorating our tanks.Go to the Great Barrier Reef and see the bleached coral stretching for miles.Go to the Phillipines where cyanide and explosives are no doubt still used to catch fish.What statistical difference does it make to try and prove whether the hobby is causing extinctions when the question is ultimately a moral one? Not only are individual corals and fish excised from the ocean but these individuals can no longer spawn offspring so there is a potential generational lowering of lifeforms out there to factor in.I will never have a marine aquarium again.I am here at reef2reef solely to marvel at the technological improvements made since my dinosaur days in the hobby.I hope and fervently wish that these improvements can be applied to the actual living ecosysystems on the planet.Props to Biota and all others tank rearing fish and coral.If I had a genie grant me one wish it would be no more wild caught anything but this is a buisness I know all too well and money speaks louder than conservation.Thoughts to ponder on a morning in September.

 

[Tamberav]

For anyone looking to support something better, KPA Aquatics fish are net caught, diver direct so they go from them to your door avoiding the issues of the wholesalers/supply chain. Just sign up for in stock notifications as these fish are obviously not being collected on a massive scale so there is some wait time.

Plus the founder now runs a nonprofit organization that restores coral reefs and critically endangered corals in the Florida area so you are supporting a family that truly cares.

Ken Nedimyer: Steward of Reef Restoration

Ken Nedimyer, an Upper Keys–based director of Reef Renewal Foundation International, is globally recognized as a father of reef restoration, creating strategies to rebuild coral reefs around the world. He oversees three coral nurseries in the Keys — off Tavernier, Big Pine Key and Marathon —...

fla-keys.com

Coral Restoration Foundation | United States

Dive into the largest coral reef restoration effort in the world and join us in creating a climate of change!

www.coralrestoration.org

Welcome to KPAquatics

We are providing healthy, hand-captured Atlantic Sea Life for over 25 years. We would like to tell you more about us and who we are. Please click here to learn more. Ship Days / Guarantee We normally ship every Monday and Tuesday to ensure save arrival of your order. Follow this link for...

www.kpaquatics.com

 

[Kylesreeftank]

Just wanna jump in here and say we didn't even talk about explosives fishing, or that the threatened status for Banggai Cardinals DOES EXIST but in specific parts of the world they are invasive species.