I am going to generalize things here, so be forewarned, but most people think they have the right requirements, when they basically dont.....
[URL="http/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanide_fishing"]http/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanide_fishing[/URL]The fishermen dive into the sea usually without artificial breathing aids, although some use illegal and highly-dangerous apparatus whereby compressed air is sent down thin breathing tubes. When they reach the coral reefs, they spray the poison between the individual layers, after which the yield is collected. Edible fish, of which a number are sold for general consumption, are first placed for ten to fourteen days in fresh water for "rinsing".
>90% of fish we keep are difficult or impossible to successfully spawn/raise. This is a highly unreasonable preposition you have here ("not workable" to the max). If we were to switch to nothing but captive spawned fish, the hobby would be impoverished, and out would come the dynamite, cyanide or chainsaws (for the forests) in Indonesia, the Phillipines, etc. to replace the lost income. Fish collecting can be a big business there; and I'm sure no one would argue against the fact that some fish removed is better than a rainforest acre cut or a whole coral head blown to smithereens.I do think the hobby should stop unless your main intention is to breed/propagate fish or corals, i for one advocate pairing ALL fish that go in your aquarium
Some people's interests do run beyond the "bread and butter" fish and to single them out as "ecologically damaging" is simply not fair. Furthermore, what exactly constitutes a "threatened" or "important" species? Tangs, for instance, eat massive amounts of algae that would otherwise smother a reef, and their spawning is no more prolific than, say, that of large angels.So in a general sense, yes i am against the hobby in a certain way. I am more lenient on this on sustainable creatures, such as damsels or chromis, certain tangs, certain wrasses etc. but when you get to the more threatened or "important" species such as anemones and harlequin shrimp, i am against them in all cases, unless they are put in a tank with proper conditions for uptop survival and in pairs for breeding.
I never accused you of this. I merely inferred that by your logic it should be ended as a whole.Notice i am against a small majority, you are exaggerating everything when you say i think the WHOLE reefkeeping hobby should end.
You are comparing apples to oranges. I personally do not totally support the removal of Acanthaster planci from reefs and am among those who consider them to be a sort of "forest fire" event, albeit helped along by anthropogenic eutrophication and removal of triton trumpets from reefs.And in the end, your solution is not working, there is no proof that manually removing predators from the wild will help anything, its like taking sharks and large predators off the reef, people used to think that was good for the environment, as well as a good source of food. Lo-and behold bacterial levels rose as smaller prey species started to reproduce, skyrocketing bacterial levels which for some strange reason, stopped/slowed the growth of certain corals. Now if we had let the smaller fish prey die by larger predators, the eco-system would remain stable. Read the one of the reef articles in one of the national geographic magazine, i think it was the kingsman reef or something, i'll try and find my copy somewhere.
Perhaps, though you must surely concede that manual removal of the stars, if their population is booming, can't hurt.Human intervention, no matter how intentioned (good or bad) has a knack for causing something worse. I wouldnt be surprised to see in the near future another article condemning the removal of crown of thorns starfish for whatever reason. Sure "your" solution is doable, but does it work? I guess we'll find out soon.
There are some already set up. Most have proven financially unsustainable and have closed.And as a final note, if we cared enough for the environment, we would be helping those third world countries that would do illegal forms of fishing to support their family, why not have some aquaculturing sites promoting jobs for them
The principle sources of income and food for archipelago people seems to be the destruction of a biodiversity hot-spot. They don't have to use dynamite or cyanide, but unfortunately most other fishing methods are as bad or worse ecologically, and the others do not generate enough income. People need to eat and people need to make money, regardless of how much comparatively rich Westerners want to preserve the environment.i doubt they care what they do as long as they make money to feed their family, its not like they HAVE to fish using dynamite and cyanide like you say? But that would mean money out of our pocket and thats a big no no. Sorry, i forgot.
?And lastly, i would very much appreciate it if you would stop "generalizing" me and my ideals, when you are undoubtably wrong, in case you werent sure, i think i know more about myself than you do .
Unfortunately that can only go so far. Many (most) marine fish have a larval stage lasting for months. Raising them would require a huge tank (thousands of gallons) that could simulate pelagic environments and constant food; it isn't that we don't know how to breed them. It's that it's impossible for us to raise the fry, and the scale of equipment needed is unattainable.It is a step by step process, and it is workable, im sure 10 years ago we would have thought it would be impossible to breed mandarins, now look, there have been documented cases of fry being raised. Check out MOFIB, it is another forum with a community of breeders that share that ideology of sharing information to unlock the next step of breeding and raising.
That wasn't the point.You've forgotten about the fact of when my ideals came to me, i bought the yellow fiji when i did not know about them, it was a mistaken buy, i thought i was buying any regular leather that was fragged (i got it at a frag swap). Unfortunately i was incorrect of this matter. Add to the fact that i did not necissarily have my harsh ideals on sustaining reefs back then as i do now. Its been a year, things change.
There are seven levels of threat as recognized by the IUCN. Least concern, near threatened, vulnerable, endangered, critically endangered, extinct in the wild, and extinct. The grouping criteria is rather complex, as numbers that constitute "endangered" for one species might be "least concern" for another.Bangaiis dont seem to be the case. There is a difference between having a regular amount, and have a less amount but not threatened with extinction. An animal does not need to be threatened with extinction to have low numbers.
You believe in evolution but clearly don't understand it. Corals do have a few defenses against the stars, an interesting one being that acropora crabs seem to prevent their host corals from being eaten.Nope, nature has its way of balancing itself out, sure the starfish may kill millions of corals, but they will starve themselves out, or if in a long enough time, a number of the corals will "evolve" (i believe in evolution) and create a natural defense against these starfish. So, i dont concede.
The current set-up of sustainable ornamental fish collection is doing the same. Like I said before, aquaculture facilities are usually not financially sustainable, so are a non-option in impoverished areas.It will earn them money, helping not only the local economy, but making it not as imperative to use destructive methods to feed their family. Sure some would still need to fish to feed the rest, but with less competition and the fact that those destructive fishing methods kill more than gets caught, there should be enough to go around without the need for destructive methods.
Anyway the short of it is if you feel disheartened by the fish keeping hobby then sell your tanks and fish and take up stamp collecting or knitting, just dont make posts which help towards getting the hobby that most of love abolished.
A very small percentage of the fish available are actually farm bred, the wild fish trade is massive and supports whole villages in tropical South America, Africa and Asia.
The most common fish like bronze and peppered corys, bala sharks, tiger barbs and neons are indeed captive bred, as are many Cichlid species but please dont kid yourself that captive bred species are the norm because they really arent, if you cant stand the thought of fish being taken from the wild then give up the hobby now because its not going away and there will always be wild fish for sale.
Mass scale breeding takes up a lot of room so it just isnt possible to breed every species, some fish are also just not financialy viable for captive breeding as they are pleantiful in the wild so its not worth dedicating the space to breed them and spending the money on feed to raise fry to a selling size when you can simply net a few thousand out of the river.
Farms concentrate on breeding the "bread and butter" staple fish that every fish store in the world stocks or the high price tag fish like Discus and Asian arowana's.