# How the saltwater fishkeeping hobby is destroying the ocean.



## philipraposo1982 (Mar 7, 2014)

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...saltwater-fish-tank-may-be-killing-the-ocean/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...-saltwater-tropical-fish-cyanide-coral-reefs/

Do you know this is how most fish are caught?
Do you care where your fish come from?
Should we stop keeping saltwater fish to save our oceans?

Let's discuss, be respectful and avoid personal insults.

Thanks

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## nanoreefwanabe (Nov 4, 2016)

This kind of stuff has been posted a million times and the general consensus is that it is not the hobby killing the reefs. .. the vast percentage of reefs destroyed and fish killed are by other means. . Fishing. . Natural disasters. .. ocean's temps changing... other industry and infrastructure that impinge on the oceans and reefs. .illegal collecting and harvesting to name a few. .. last time I looked I recall the aquarium industry only had about a 2% impact to the destruction of reefs and fish. .. so as bad as you may think the collection and hobby industry are on the reefs, there are far worse things happening to them. .. same goes for fresh water. ..


----------



## philipraposo1982 (Mar 7, 2014)

I am not saying it's the worse thing not am I ignoring all the main issues surrounding the destruction of our oceans.

Simply trying to discuss this area and what others views are. It's my opinion that redirecting as you just did it counter productive and it's why many issues go u resolved. It's so easy to say hey let look at this bigger problem.

Rather than doing the redirect thing, how about we stay on topic and try to create a scenario that keeps hobbyist happy as well as the reefs.

Anything we can do to help is better than doing nothing at all right?

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## ksimdjembe (Nov 11, 2006)

I don't know all that much about salt water, but I'd imagine that it's similar to freshwater in the sense that likely there are several species that are more difficult to procure, breed, or capture or feed. 
I like species that are more wildtype (killifish, limia, splitfins, etc) but I try to source from local breeders, I've moved away from larger importers and I've (where possible) tried to keep things as local as I can. It's a small impact, but I feel like I'm trying.


----------



## nanoreefwanabe (Nov 4, 2016)

philipraposo1982 said:


> Simply trying to discuss this area and what others views are. It's my opinion that redirecting as you just did it counter productiestablIshedve and it's why many issues go u resolved. It's so easy to say hey let look at this bigger problem.


That said is a one or two percent overall impact really any impact. .. it's kinda like stepping on a hundred ants... are you really having an impact on thier population? : what if you annihilate an entire nest/ colony are you really impacting the overall population? That it's my point. . Yes cyanide and other forms of gassing/ rendering fish unconscious is very inhumane... but the amount of fish effected is so insignificant...

As for reef destruction. .. harvesting and collecting practices have come a very long way. .. plus all the maricultured coral and amount of new reefs being built and established are phenomenal..

That my .02 on the matter


----------



## conix67 (Jul 27, 2008)

So, most fishes are caught the way described in the article? Is that true?

What's the intention of this post? What is OP trying to achieve?


----------



## guelphjay (Mar 10, 2014)

I like to focus on all the positives that have been achieved. Yes there are some bad practices still on going, and more likely will always. You can apply that statement to so many industries though. Mining, timber, diamond, pet, etc. But also look at all the conservation efforts. 

I think for the most part there have been real strides happening in the last number of years between collecting practices, maricultured corals, artificial reefs, more recently captive breeding of rare or hard to breed species. 

There are also so many more resources available to help people understand you need x or y amount of space for this fish or you shouldn't put these two fish together etc. I think for the most part aquarists are pretty well informed. A lot of the reef websites also post conservation articles pretty regularly. 

It's similar to the argument about zoo's. Should animals be held in captivity is one question. Another is would some of the species still be surviving if not for a lot of the breeding programs. 

Really at the end of the day, a fish is not a cute cuddly animal so they will get less funding and attention. Again it's the same thing with other species. Elephants and the ivory trade get a huge amount of funding and publicity, but the "silent" extinction of Giraffe's is currently underway.


----------



## CrankbaitJon (Mar 26, 2012)

Alot of corals are cultured nowadays. I think it's great for the hobby and they can also rebuild reefs in the ocean this way.

For fishes, I think eventually (I might not be alive to see it) is that most of the popular species will be captive bred. For that to happen, governments have to set limits on catching wild populations. This way prices will go up and people will try to breed the fishes for profit. At the moment, there aren't enough funding/economy to support captive breeding. Just imagine captive bred powder blue tangs that are more resistant to ich lol.


----------



## default (May 28, 2011)

nanoreefwanabe said:


> That said is a one or two percent overall impact really any impact. .. it's kinda like stepping on a hundred ants... are you really having an impact on thier population? : what if you annihilate an entire nest/ colony are you really impacting the overall population? That it's my point. . Yes cyanide and other forms of gassing/ rendering fish unconscious is very inhumane... but the amount of fish effected is so insignificant...
> 
> As for reef destruction. .. harvesting and collecting practices have come a very long way. .. plus all the maricultured coral and amount of new reefs being built and established are phenomenal..
> 
> That my .02 on the matter


An impact no matter what amount is an impact. Just my $0.02.

That mentality of X% is such a small amount, is it really an impact? Is how we get into messes. I'm sure corporations or any other body exploiting the oceans ask the same questions - "But aren't we're only impacting it by a small amount?".

Unless we're making positive improvements to the environment, we're destroying it with our actions/hobbies - have you supported charities to improve ocean life? Have you halted purchases of wild caught fauna? You need to compare the ratios of what you've taken from the wild and what you've put back into it - and it's unfortunate, but I'm sure most of us hobbyist have taken more than we've given.

This is the same to be said for freshwater, but I find it unfortunate that most SW/reef life is too difficult or simply not 'worth' farming. I personally love reef tanks and have been itching to get back in, but with how our oceans are, I can't seem to do it.


----------



## conix67 (Jul 27, 2008)

default said:


> An impact no matter what amount is an impact. Just my $0.02.
> 
> That mentality of X% is such a small amount, is it really an impact? Is how we get into messes. I'm sure corporations or any other body exploiting the oceans ask the same questions - "But aren't we're only impacting it by a small amount?".
> 
> Unless we're making positive improvements to the environment, we're destroying it with our actions/hobbies - have you supported charities to improve ocean life? Have you halted purchases of wild caught fauna? You need to compare the ratios of what you've taken from the wild and what you've put back into it - and it's unfortunate, but I'm sure most of us hobbyist have taken more than we've given.


How do we make "positive" improvements to the environment? No, supporting charities doesn't help. Halting the purchase of wild caught fauna? To certain extent, perhaps.

The best way to make "positive" improvements to the environment, unfortunately, is to control the population of humans and abandoning all the modern life style and technology that's been driving it.

Yes, we can all go back to the lifestyle of stone age and things will improve in nature. There's no other way to achieve this. As long as we are relying on the technology of today, we are destroying the environment.



default said:


> This is the same to be said for freshwater, but I find it unfortunate that most SW/reef life is too difficult or simply not 'worth' farming. I personally love reef tanks and have been itching to get back in, but with how our oceans are, I can't seem to do it.


Certain specifies are very easy to farm, but we haven't figured out most of these aquarium fishes yet, true but as far as corals are concerned, the future of corals in the ocean is uncertain for seemingly what we cause, not because of the harvesting practices but due to environment impact humans cause, such as great barrier reef dying

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/07/the-great-barrier-reef-a-catastrophe-laid-bare

If we consider the climate change, mainly driven by increase in carbon dioxide in atmosphere - do you realize one of the major factors driving this is the demand for beef by humans?

Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised to see the live corals in aquariums only in the future, with natural reef all dying off. I believe keeping cultured corals and propagating it (unlike fishes), the reefing hobby is actually contributing to the survival of these animals, not destroying it.


----------



## default (May 28, 2011)

conix67 said:


> How do we make "positive" improvements to the environment? No, supporting charities doesn't help. Halting the purchase of wild caught fauna? To certain extent, perhaps.
> 
> The best way to make "positive" improvements to the environment, unfortunately, is to control the population of humans and abandoning all the modern life style and technology that's been driving it.
> 
> ...


The demand on agriculture which leads to massive amounts of Co2 and the more damaging methane is definitely destroying the Earth as we know it.

However, that doesn't make a 2% direct impact from hobbyist any different than it really is. Wild collections not only gathers wildlife, but the practices can also be damaging to the environment, like the use of cyanide - can you or any hobbyist confirm that they are used responsibly by gatherers? Do we know the amounts they use aren't damaging native livestock afterwards? It's a trickle and domino effect, one fish out of the ocean doesn't just affect that one fish. All that for the enjoyment of having it in a tank?

I agree that it's almost impossible for us to stop our lifestyles which is damaging this Earth, but does that mean we should just destroy it faster? 
Where there's demand, there will be someone supplying, so perhaps one positive approach would be to eliminate as much of the demand as possible, is it doable? Probably not, most hobbyist care more about the cheapest or the most collectable item in this industry, would they pay a premium just for farmed fish?

It's true and unfortunate that soon, some species are only going to be available in captivity, and that having them available in captivity offers the possibility of reintroductions, but that's the likely the final straw for those species, we're not talking about cute and cuddly pandas or some other attractive mammals.

There are a lot of impacts not caused by this hobby, and they are definitely impacting the environment more, but adding to the total just for enjoyment is not going to help the situation.


----------



## conix67 (Jul 27, 2008)

default said:


> The demand on agriculture which leads to massive amounts of Co2 and the more damaging methane is definitely destroying the Earth as we know it.
> 
> However, that doesn't make a 2% direct impact from hobbyist any different than it really is. Wild collections not only gathers wildlife, but the practices can also be damaging to the environment, like the use of cyanide - can you or any hobbyist confirm that they are used responsibly by gatherers? Do we know the amounts they use aren't damaging native livestock afterwards? It's a trickle and domino effect, one fish out of the ocean doesn't just affect that one fish. All that for the enjoyment of having it in a tank?
> 
> ...


I do not know how you come up with 2%, but I asked this to OP already. How do we know the use of the cyanide is the typical way to capture these fishes? What is the intention of bringing up such story here? It would have been better if these questions came up from someone who's already keeping the salt water fishes and bringing up these concerns.

Is stopping the hobby altogether going to make a difference? Perhaps, but is the difference going to be measurable by any means? I do not know.

Should I feel guilty about keeping salt water fishes at home? Actually, after learning that just about everything we do negatively impact environment, I don't know how to answer that question.

Making positive impact? Without changing the fundamental issues, anything else is basically an illusion. After all, shouldn't we focus on something that really matter first?

If what is being asked here is to stop this hobby, we should also ask the same questions about pets, zoos and even consumption of wild caught fishes/sea creatures for human consumption.


----------



## TBemba (Jan 11, 2010)

I agree, most pets should never be owned and absolutely close every zoo, animal park and don't get me started on circuses.

Total ban on any holistic medicine. there are cultures that are mainly responsible for the near extinction of elephants, rhinoceros 

Then the pillaging of the oceans by commercial fishing.

The amount of unrecycled plastic in the ocean is the size of some state.

The cruise ships drag their anchors across coral reef and the oil spills and drilling into the ocean.

The ever encroaching population growing outward and building subdivisions on prime green belt land.

Cities having so much traffic they start charging tolls to drive on the roads


----------



## default (May 28, 2011)

conix67 said:


> I do not know how you come up with 2%, but I asked this to OP already. How do we know the use of the cyanide is the typical way to capture these fishes? What is the intention of bringing up such story here? It would have been better if these questions came up from someone who's already keeping the salt water fishes and bringing up these concerns.
> 
> Is stopping the hobby altogether going to make a difference? Perhaps, but is the difference going to be measurable by any means? I do not know.
> 
> ...


That number was from the member I quoted in my first post, I have also seen that number thrown around from time to time from other hobbyist, but I personally wouldn't believe that number to be accurate - it could be more or less, and I don't think any test or survey would ever offer a precise number - think of all the possible illegal captures and lingering effects that must be happening. However, it's not the number that bothers me, it's the fact that some people would dismiss a small number as having any impact.

The use of cyanide is still used for certain freshwater species - think of certain catfishes in South America, and I don't dismiss the idea that it's still used for SW fauna as well. As small amounts could temporary paralyze fish and allow easy capture with little to no escape. How would we know it's the typical method? We don't, I think that's one of the issues with the suppliers of wild caught fauna - transparency (same could be said for almost every company that exploits nature). Unfortunately, when you look at it in a business perspective, it doesn't look good, would they spend the extra amount of time chasing and catching fish that are darting everywhere or would using some cyanide to catch the same fish in a fraction of the time and sell it for the same price?

Stopping this hobby is not going to happen, should you feel guilty? I don't think so. All we can do as hobbyist is try to find captive-bred fish and environmentally friendly farmed corals/rock. Bigger issues do need to be fixed on this Earth that has a direct impact on almost everything.

Also, I personally dislike zoos and aquariums, certain smaller species in captivity I don't mind, but larger creatures? Elephants, sharks, rhinos,..etc, it's just plain cruel, no matter what conservation marketing ploy they have to say, it's just downright terrible. Humans definitely do need to stop consuming wild caught fish as well, but like I said, supply and demand.


----------

