Jump to content

Why it’s time to put an end to the cult of the aquarium.


Sneeze

Recommended Posts

 

 

Very interesting article.

 

Obviously, very biased, but well written.

I don’t agree with everything(most), but it’s often those nuggets of truth that hurt most.

The one time I visited a wholesaler in LA, attests to his quote of “only one fish in ten makes it to the hobby alive.”

There were dead fish everywhere.

 

“Why it’s time to put an end to the cult of the aquarium.”

 

https://aeon.co/essays/why-it-s-time-to-put-an-end-to-the-cult-of-the-aquarium

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting read, especially the historical side, although I feel like there were a lot of points that were rather cherry-picked to fit his argument. My main issue is when people see problematic things in a hobby they just suggest "well stop doing that hobby" rather than trying to propose ways to make changes for the better.

 

Pushing for more sustainable and ethical practices from larger businesses (looking at you PetCo/Smart) and at the collection level seems much more productive. Over the few years I've been part of the fishkeeping world I've definitely seen an increase in support for captive breeding, ocean-friendly materials, and better catching practices, and while I dont have data to fall back on I imagine that's been just as beneficial as collection bans and the like (note I'm not fully against moratoriums on collecting, I get why they can be beneficial, but full lockdowns seem counterproductive i.e. Indo ban). While it sounds nice to say we should just stop keeping fish in captivity, there are two big things standing in the way of that goal.

 

First, regardless of the aquarium hobby's impact on the environment, the greatest threat to the oceans is widespread human-caused climate change and habitat destruction, which is happening on a scale that the entire fishkeeping industry could probably never manage. While we should prioritize the health and safety of what's left, there is also a case that some of these organisms and ecosystems may be better off preserved in captivity rather than see them be wiped out in nature.

 

The second obstacle is that so long as enough people are profiting from it, the hobby will never truly go away. Therefore I think it's a much better mindset to improve the hobby we have rather than try to eliminate it entirely. It will require a bit more personal investment from all of us to try and change some of the culture in the aquarium hobby, but it's very likely the only way forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why I really limit my purchase of anything not bred or propagated in captivity. I only have a few wild specimens and they are all inverts like snails and crabs. I generally try to propagate whatever I keep to reduce the strain on wild collection as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Luckily more fish have become captive bred. I was happy to see the recent release of yellow tangs. No doubt the hobby takes a toll on reefs. I’ve worked at a store in the past that focused on keeping fish alive. Still you’d end up with a percentage of dead on arrival, and irresponsible buyers.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(edited)

Ah, this business again.   

 

First, there is a problem with the supply chain.  The stereotypical one goes from collector to small island to major depot, thru major airports to LA wholesalers, and from there to the LFS.  The potential for death in all of this is enormous.   People have been saying that big wholesalers like Quality Marine  - despite its claimed efforts to improve the supply chain - have more and more diseased fish. I would like to have a much more direct collector-to-consumer relationship, that is I would like to purchsae from the collector if at all possible.  This is why I generally highly recommend KP Aquatics, an excellent Florida collector.  I would pay good money for similar services from a collector in the East Pacific.  

 

Second, buying fish that have been cyanided, etc. is 100% wrong.  Further, there should be a very careful reckoning of what fish are suitable for aquarium use, and which ones are not due to diet, etc.  This is not new; John Tullock's book "The Natural Reef Aquarium" had a whole chapter on this ("net-caught or nothing"), which unfortunately is not remotely dated.  :(    

 

All that being said, this kind of anti-aquarium argument is ultimately silly.   Not to even hit the points it raises, which have been refuted above:

 

- the number of species purchased for the aquarium hobby is a very small percentage of the total fish on a given coral reef (to say nothing of the broader ocean).  And as we know, careful coral collection is 100% sustainable. (though of course cutting huge swaths of stuff willy nilly and throwing it in bags without any care for its survival is not)

 

- aquarium collection is very low in things that "harm" a coral reef - again, unless it's done poorly with no regard for sustainability).   Local pollution, damage from careless boating or non-aquarium fishing, warming, even using live rock for local buildings is far more "dangerous" than aquarium collecting. (I'll never forget a picture I saw from some south pacific nation where they were hauling a giant boulder-  what we'd call "premium live rock" - out of the ocean to be used as builing material. 

 

[very uncommon species like the Banggai cardinal are an exception: at least last I heard, it was rapidly overfished to the point of being rare in its native waters.  But then, either intentionally or IMO more likely just as a byproduct of fishermen throwing out marginal specimens that recover, it was introduced into areas it's not native to and is doing well.]

 

- which gets to another point: collection of coral reef fish for local human consumption kills way more reef fish that aquarium collecting.  I am told that the export of live reef fish and inverts for dinner tables in East Asia (i.e. China - and mind you I am Chinese) far outweighs export of live fish for aquaria.   (and if one banned the export of life reef fish for East Asian consumption, it would, like drugs, cause the price of smuggled food fishes to rise astronomically.  And besides, I know of no coral reef country that's banned export of live reef animals to China for food, as much as some of them posture about aquarium fish, because that trade is larger and is worth much more money than aquarium fish)

 

- ORA, Sustainable aquatics, etc. have AFAIK basically crowded out the market for wild collected clownfish.  There are numerous small Australian coral farms for apparently the local reef market, and coral farms in other countries supply a good amount of US coral imports.  Of course, not every fish is at comparable levels of aquarium demand/suitability, so I think we will never be at the point where it's reasonable to captive grown every single species.  (I'd also say that some species - e.g. lawnmower blennies - are not nearly as common captive bred as I would like).   But I think it's practical to get maybe 66% of the way there, now.  (and there are a lot of wild caught species that IMO should be caught in much smaller numbers because they're not anywhere near as suitable in an aquarium as their rampant easy availability suggests they should be  -.e.g Yellow Tangs)

 

- Finally, the ethics thing is just a rabbit hole.  Ultimately, a store must treat these animals (as well as parrot, parakeets, even dogs and cats) as livestock.   And before one hem-and-haws about that, I would ask why would one hold a dog owner to task, while ignoring the conditions of farm animals?   For an aquatic parallel, where does the cut off come - why is it acceptable that 100% of oysters harvested in the chesapeake bay die within a few days of harvest and the industry has a waste percentage of (made up number) 10%, but that, say, 10% of yellow tangs don't survive the collector-to-Ifs process?   Why is it acceptable for me to kill thousands of newborn brine shrimp at fish feeding time, while PETA and Sea Shepherd laments the loss of any fish in an aquarium?  

 

Also, I don't buy the "fish would be happier in the sea" argument.  Assuming a (subjectively) decent quality of sustenance, space, habitat can be provided for the fish, I think anything is fair game.  Clownfish in the wild do not stray far from their host anemones because they are not suitable as general reef fish.   Royal grammas do not grow that big and stay IVO a given cave.  Similar with lawnmower blennies.   The criteria need to be changed for each species.   (this is why I'm a member of the tang police).  Finally, each fish produces 1000s of fry over its lifetime; if you have much more than 3 of those fry survive to reproduce, the species will take over the reef.  I don't see why, when 1000s of fish die in the wild before having the chance to reproduce, one would make a big deal of a paltry percentage of those that end up in aquaria.   

 

Now, I can't abide sterotypical factory farming of pigs, and even though they of course in the end they are eaten anyway, I pay a premium for "non factory farmed organic", etc. meat when at all possible.   I am completely against pet abuse and am fine with strict laws against abusers - I can't abide that someone has done the horrible things you'd see if you googled "cat abuse" to something as sweet as my Harriet.   Likewise, I check the source of my fish and corals as much as I can to ensure they're from decent suppliers, and I think carefully if/how my aquarium can reasonably allow something like their wild habits.  

 

Harriet:

IMG_0349.jpg

Edited by KingOfAll_Tyrants
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading "raw lettuce and spinach are commonly used as substitutes," I realized I was reading the drivel of another anti-access zealot that had no interest in learning, or educating, anyone. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(edited)

We can pretend that our fish have a much nicer life in our aquariums, but most wild-collected fish don't live to their natural lifespan in our aquariums. This is not intentional, but it is how things often end up. A perfect example occured when the GFCI my aquarium recently died for no apparent reason while I was at work. I lost a kamohara blenny and an orchid dottyback. My only consolation was that they were captive-bred, so that incident didn't directly contribute to the consumption of our reefs (even in small measure).

 

I do understand the desire to keep wild-collected fish because the captive-bred selection is so limited, but I often hear complaints about the expense of captive-bred fish relative to wild-caught fish. Meanwhile, the same people often spend absurd amounts of money on various tiny frags of trendy corals. Why spend >$100 on a tiny frag of some named coral, but not $90 on a mandarin dragonet every bit as beautiful and interesting? The reality is that our purchasing choices will drive the industry. If the hobby as a community starts paying the premium to preferentially purchase captive-bred fish, more captive-bred fish will become available.

 

Rather than appreciating the truly mind-numbing variety of corals that are already in the hobby, I've seen many focus on how we can't currently take more from the wild in places like Indonesia. Although I'm sure there are plenty of really interesting and beautiful corals that are not yet widely available in the hobby, I don't think anyone truly needs to buy wild-collected corals to have a beautiful aquarium that is fulfilling to maintain.  I would advocate for a system in which only licensed aquaculture facilities can import corals for propagation with some mechanism to prevent resale of the wild coral.

 

It isn't sufficient to simply assert that the aquarium industry isn't the greatest threat to the reefs, so we shouldn't do anything to mitigate its impact.  Traffic accidents aren't the leading cause of death in the US, but we still enact legislation to improve traffic safety. 

 

Finally, I think the gripes about coral importation bans speak to the "collector mentality" of many hobbyists. Unlike Pokemon, the sea creatures we keep are real animals and we don't need to "Catch them all!". I often see people treat corals and fish as consumables or decorations rather than living things. This is the aspect of the hobby I dislike the most. 

Edited by ScooterTDI
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're all complicit in the nasty side of keeping ornamental marine fish. We can try to mitigate our negative impact on the overall environment and on the lives of the fish themselves by purchasing aquacultured fish and corals when possible and doing our best to source our wild-caught purchases to areas that are known to be more humane and have fewer animals killed in transport. We can make ourselves feel better by arguing that the hobby brings awareness to the creatures of the ocean and can spur compassion and funding for various environmental initiatives, etc. Really though, most of us just want to have beautiful fish and corals in our homes, and are willing to accept the relative harm that the industry itself causes. 

 

However, that can be said about many things. Do you eat meat? You're causing harm to the environment. Driving a car that gets less-than-ideal mileage given your own budget, especially if you drive for fun? Damaging the environment. Purchase timber that isn't a fast growing and sustainable type to use for projects? Damage. Play a sport like golf that destroys local environments and uses an enormous amount of water? damage. Etcetcetc. The overall impact of our individual choices is relatively very small, and the best we can do, unless we have an absolute moral issue with a specific activity, is to act in good faith and cause the least harm in achieving our goals (in our case, keeping and growing pretty fish and corals in a window box filled with saltwater). 

 

In my own case, if there's a fish I like that I know I can take good care of and there's an aquacultured option, I buy it, because it also is more likely to survive, even if it's double the price of a wild-caught specimen. However, I still have a few wrasses and a blue spot puffer that I really like and they aren't available aquacultured, so I made the arguably immoral choice to purchase them, and have since justified the purchase  to myself by feeding them high quality foods and taking care of their environment. That said, that has not always been the case, and I've been directly responsible for the deaths of many fish due to a lack of knowledge and user error, and I did a ton of research beforehand. I assume that most of us have been through that phase and many others remain there. I'd imagine that a forum like Wamas will have among the most knowledgable and humane reekeepers, so there's a lot of preaching to the choir here, but most don't really care all that much.

 

These arguments seem to pop up on this board every few years and generally elicit the same reaction. The very long-term reefkeepers will argue that things have improved considerably over the past couple of decades and that it's possible for the industry to be relatively sustainable. It may or may not be better, but the overall impact of the hobby is pretty undeniably negative. I think that, so long as we acknowledge it, it's no worse than many, many other choices we make daily that are almost universally accepted and just as damaging, if not moreso than keeping pretty fish and corals in saltwater boxes..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...