Are ethical debates about reefkeeping worthwhile?

[Len]

ztw,

I think mogo and bone are merely speaking on their own behalves, as am I below:

Having been in this hobby for well over a decade, I have to agree that if I'm intellectually honest with myself, this hobby really is a compromise of ethics. The very first time I stepped into a large wholesaler a decade ago, my eyes were immediately opened to how much livestock was actually being removed from the seas for our amusement. It's really a mind-boggling magnitude and I have serious doubts as to whether our hobby's impact is truly minimal. I will agree that relative to other pressures applied on natural reefs today, our hobby may be one of the lesser concerns. But it's impossible for me to wash my hands clean of the responsibilty of the hundreds of deaths that I've directly and indirectly caused. Statistics really show that our hobby has a significant effect on wildlife.

That said, I started in this hobby honestly oblivious to these ethical concerns; hence, I find these debates highly insightful and educational. Being honest with myself, the only reason I continue in this hobby is because I love it so much. But I can no longer justify my activities as free from ethical dilmena. I can justify websites/resources such as Reefs.org because an educationated hobbyist is definitely a more conscientious, capable, and responsible hobbyist. But the very act of reefkeeping is hard to justify in terms of ethics.

IMHO, just because there are other (bigger/older) factors contributing to the reefs' demise does not free ourselves of our own ethical responsibility to them. Ethics is subjective and relative. In a kingdom of murderers and rapists, a petty theft may be considered a saint.

Just curious, but do you recall where you read we had a "slight positive effect" on coral reefs? I do not know how this can be quantified.

 

[Anonymous]

Damn you Len! You said everything I was gonna say before me and better than me - including the welcome!

Interesting discussion.

 

[ztw]

The source for my comments:

1. A book I obtained at the local bookstore, World Atlas of Coral Reefs by Spalding, supported by UNEP, ICLARM, NASA, Aventis, MAC, ICRI, etc. , publisher is U of CA Press. Pgs. 56-65 discusses "Threats to reefs"--no mention of reefkeeping or the aquarium hobby. Pg. 74 mentions MAC certification, but states the hobby is low volume, albiet poorly regulated. BTW, this book is an excellent resource for conservation minded aquarists!

2. Veron's Corals of the World vol. 1, pg. 15, referring to coral collection for the reefkeeping hobby: "these activities have little or no environmental impacts and as they represent an eternally renewable source of income, they are likely to be important in the quest for effective management practices that lead to longtrem conservation".

 

[Len]

I'll definitely give the first book a read.

I question Veron's assertion (if that is indeed what he meant). It's more of a "what should be" then it is a "what is." If his assertion is true, cyanide use would be a non-issue, and anyone in the industry knows that's not the case. I think properly managed reefs can yield sustainable, renewable sources of livestock for aquarium use (albeit probably higher prices and less availability). Unfortunately, we're still a long ways away from this reality.

 

[Mogo]

You shoulda seen the lake trout we raised in a tank and released into lakes where we knew the populations were diminished- or gone. Now they're catching 40 pounders! Yipes. 8)

 

[Mogo]

Len.
Yes. I speak only for myself.

 

[ztw]

I think Veron is referring to coral collection and not fish collection and the cyanide issue.

I have no data for this statement, but it seems resonable that many more fish/eggs/larvae will be removed via predators vs. those shipped for the hobby. And in photos, including many in Veron's series-see as a few examples inside cover photos in vol. 1 such as xii, and pages. 5, 8, 9, 12 13, etc., and TV programs showing corals on reefs I see in just one small spot off one small island, of which there are literally hundreds if not thousands, that there seems to be enough corals in just this one small spot to supply the entire hobby for a long time and this resource is also renewable just as the fish are. Borneman in Aquarium corals details the impact of collection for the hobby for many corals, one example on pg. 231 regarding Acropora "Acropora are fast growing, highly reproductive, and abundant, and new, small colonies are easily collected with minimal reef impact".

I see tanks shown on some forums such as tanks of the month and look in awe of their beauty and watch in amazement of the interactions of the inhabitants, and am inspired by the extreme care taken by the owners in ethical and moral husbandry. Too bad that some folks sit and look at the same tanks and ring their hands in self quilt, this is suppose to be an enjoyable endeavor/hobby IMO. Great that you contribute to the learning of other hobbyists in proper care of their animals via the BBs and other forums, but seems wrong to me that some folks will promote guilt when this is your own personal problem and not warranted. Fill these forums with guilt and charges of unethical and immoral actions of others just for keeping a reeftank and you may not have many folks left, other than other hand ringers and those wallowing in self guilt, that would sure be a fun hobby. Work for reform regarding cyanide use, but to promote that reefkeeping is unethical and immoral is the wrong message and just too extreme.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't think you can seperate coral collection and fish collection. They are part of the same hobby.

Coral collection and fish collection do harm the reef. To what extent, hopefully someone with first hand experience will chime in. IIRC, the damage is not minimal - think of all the live rock collected every year. And IIRC, popluations of fish don't necessarily bounce back from collection.

Sure, our hobby is not as bad as some other activities, but that doesn't mean its impact is ignorable.

We do know that for every animal in a living room, lots and lots die during collection, shipment, and transition. Is the one fish that makes it, worth the lives of the others? Why? And if you can't justify 'poor husbandry' (whatever that means - a tang in a 50, trying a goni, pinching a puffer), how can you ignore the deaths incurred during collection, shipment and transition.

The central question in regards to ethics is, it OK to take animals from the wild, and put them in glass boxes?

 

[Apophis924]

You can argue the ethics of the hobby forever. You can try and state how well manged your tanks are or how you care so much for the animals in your charge. The turth is we are all selfish and narrow mined, we are quick to harp on cyanide use, over harvesting and inhumane methods of shipping. But we support a hobby that encopurges these things, We will buy the cheapest prices and take the word of a vendor or company that we use humane means to capture our animals. I know with me it is selfish and i have no problem being selfish and having any animal that my wallet will allow me to keep for my entertainment and pleasure.
If you REALLY care for thsese animals which is the greater act of love, letting stay in an enviroment with virtually unlimited space an enviroment they have evolved in over millions of years, Or putting them in a glass box, unders conditons that you THINK they like and subject to power failures, equipment falures dosing mistakes or the dreaed "i heard this...so i tried it" YOu can debate this all you want to sooth your conscience but the truth is we are no better than the peon that breaks off a slice of live rock to bring you that elegance coral yopu paid dearly for. I myslef have no conflict with it. I am not trying to be moral or holier than thow. I justs want a kick ass reef tank to show off.

 

[ztw]

I have no problems with being a reefkeeper. I am in no way immoral or unethical in doing so. I don't feel like if I have enough money I can do what ever I want, I enjoy the hobby and am a responsible aquarist. I have cited numerous examples from legitimate publications that show the opposite of the belief that this hobby is causing mass, if any, destruction of the reefs. Others here have cited nothing except to make statements like lets lump coral and fish collection together, don't know of anyone using drugs to collect corals, which again are a renewable resource.

Again, the debate becomes pointless as it always does. Each side gets more heavily entrenched, they get emotional and not rational, then it gets personal, then some walk away mad with nothing accomplished at all.

It astounds me that folks have such deep seated guilt over their self choosen hobby. It is as if someone forced you to keep a reef tank. I enjoy the hobby and suspect that the vast majority of hobbyists do so also. Promote proper care, promote reform of bad collection practices, promote continuing education, BUT to say to folks they are unethical to have a reef tank--nonsense, and you defeat any possible legit purpose you have by doing so, you turn folks off from your other legit messages by trying to spread your guilt to others. Talk about a turn off to this forum and the hobby, who wants to come here and be told they are immoral and/or unethical? As is usually the case in these debates there are too many emotions and too few legitimate facts.

I haven't been to reefs in the South Pacific where most of the animals we keep come from, would like to some day. I see photos of areas where natural events have caused die off, maybe this is part of natural cycles, maybe it has something to do with man's influence--a debatable subject. But, I have yet to see photos of man's direct destruction of the reef becasue of reefkeeping EXCEPT for cyanide use. OK, there are areas where fish come from where fish are not caught with drugs or other destructive means and corals can and are collected in sustainable ways. So, promote reform of cyanide use, which many are on these forums and in real life where it actually counts, but it goes too far to say reefkeepers are unethical. There are available many items that are captive bred or manmade, including live rock totally man made, captive bred fish-albeit a limited selection, captive grown corals-small and limited, but all are available for those that are guilt ridden. Why not just keep these and stop trying to implant in others that keeping reef tanks is immoral or unethical?

 

[Anonymous]

I have no problems with being a reefkeeper. I am in no way immoral or unethical in doing so.

I am not saying that you are immoral or unethical.
I would like to know how you justify the deaths of the bunches of fish for the one that makes it to your living room.

Others here have cited nothing except to make statements like lets lump coral and fish collection together, don't know of anyone using drugs to collect corals, which again are a renewable resource.

Coral collection and fish collection have to be lumped together, as when cyanide is used it is squirted into coral heads.

From http://www.reefs.org/library/talklog/p_ ... 11900.html :
'Recent research by James Cervino for IMA has conclusively demonstrated that one application of cyanide at concentrations ranging from 50-600 ppm kills coral heads. There are recent scientific studies that also demonstrate that cyanide collecting contributes to high mortality of fish in the trade. Cyanide testing by IMA has helped to curb cyanide fishing in the Philippines. The proportion of fish found with cyanide found present in their tissues dropped from 44% in 1996 to 18% of fish tested in 1998. But, the problem has grown due to the spread of cyanide fishing to other countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Papua New Guinea. '

Sure corals can be a renewable resource, but all too often they arent being managed correctly. From http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/ ... eature.htm

ICoral harvest, rotated among 10 provinces over four years, is prohibited in protected and tourist areas, has size limits, is supposed to occur where assessment of monitoring of the resource occurs, and is supposed to occur at levels below regeneration rates. However, there is question as to the efficacy of this plan. The quota for 2001 included 925,000 live corals, 950,000 pieces of substrate with soft corals or other invertebrates attached, and 450 metric tons of live rock (Table 4)
Indonesia is somewhat unique in providing aquarium corals in that the country seems to "specialize" in providing the vast majority of popular large-polyped genera. These same genera are also the ones that account for the majority of genera in the trade, by far (Graph 1). There are no species given in these figures, only genera. . Included are some genera generally acknowledged to have poor survival in aquariums as well as some thought to be uncommon and slow growing with low rates of recruitment. Hence, there is concern that there may be environmental impact from their harvest. Another aspect of collection is that, despite the vast area of Indonesian coral reefs, relatively few areas are harvested. One reason for this is the requirement that collections take place near to an airport or facility that can adequately handle and transport collected animals. As a result, the majority of collection occurs on Java (near Jakarta in the "Thousand Islands" archipelago), several sites around Bali, and sites near Makassar (Ujung Pandang) and Kendari, Sulawesi. The sites near Jakarta, with a population of over 9 million people, have long been highly over fished and degraded. Bomb fishing is rampant, and many of the reefs of this area are virtually devoid of life. Coral collection does not occur at nearly the degree that it does in Bali or Sulawesi. In fact, the areas we surveyed in the Spermonde Archipelago are part of one of the largest coral reef areas of Indonesia and one of the largest coral collection areas. They are also impacted by bomb fishing, cyanide fishing (for the aquarium trade and the live reef fish food trade), and are adjacent to a large population city that impacts near-shore areas with significant amounts of terrestrial runoff

These are just two articles I found from a quick search. When I get back to the house this afternoon, I will try to be more thorough. Perhaps in the interm, someone else will post some evidence.

Again, the debate becomes pointless as it always does. Each side gets more heavily entrenched, they get emotional and not rational, then it gets personal, then some walk away mad with nothing accomplished at all.

I don't know where this is coming from. This discussion is not emotional, and your quotes from Vernon have made several of us check our sources to be sure that we are correct in the belief that collection for our hobby damages reefs. It is not personal, no one is walking away mad, and things are getting accomplished.

Part of the reason these discussions sometimes get emotional is because people insist that they do. They read feelings and attitudes that are not in the text. I hope for the sake of this so far useful and interesting discussion that we avoid such pitfalls.

It astounds me that folks have such deep seated guilt over their self choosen hobby. It is as if someone forced you to keep a reef tank.

I think you are misunderstanding what is being said here. Most don't feel guilt, but they are cognizant of the fact that their hobby does damage to the world. I think this is better than convincing oneself that they are not in some way responsible for the problems facing coral reefs today.

 

[Chucker]

You shoulda seen the lake trout we raised in a tank and released into lakes where we knew the populations were diminished- or gone. Now they're catching 40 pounders! Yipes. 8)

What strain were they though? Most fish that come from hatcheries are optimized for hatchery conditions, and nothing else.

 

[ztw]

Some fish in some areas may be collected with cyanide, but not corals. To lump them together is not correct. Use of cyanide may affect corals, but when corals are collected they are not collected with drugs. I have cited a reference where the impact of coral collection has minimal if any effect on reefs. Skimming through Aquarium Corals by Borneman and checking the collection impact section for all the corals reveals few species where he states that the hobby has any effect at all on reefs. See for example Pocillopora, Seriatopora, Stylophora, Acropora, Montipora, etc, all are listed as having insignificant impact on reefs from collection for the hobby.

Most reefkeepers have only a few fish in their systems and these could all be captive bred if they wished, so no I have no guilt about the so-called hundreds that die for me to get the one fish for my tank, just as I have no guilt for the hundreds of thousands of eggs/larvae that die due to predation naturally every night on the reefs. Don't get me wrong, I am all in favor of active legit efforts to stop cyanide usage, what I don't like is the implication of reefkeepers being unethical or that they should be guilty over having fish when supposedly so many die for them to have just one live one.

 

[Len]

I am with you on coral collection: I believe that corals are a renewable resource that, properly managed (and it isn't right now), can have negligable effects on wild reefs. I'm also with you on promoting captive bred. Lots of SPS corals are now being farmed and that's a great thing. C.B. fish, however, are limited to a handful of species so far.

The use of cyanide is a problem for both corals and fish, and right now, cyanide's usage is rampant. The application of cyanide isn't in minute, targeted amounts per fish but rather a widespread delivery that has dire effects on surrounding corals. I think we can all safely agree that cyanide's usage must cease.

Fish that die in the wild due to natural predation and fish that die for our amusement are two disseperate issues IMO. You can't say that clubbing a baby seal for its fur is ethical just because they may get eaten by an Orca in the wild. Nature has worked itself out a nice balance over the millenia, and dynamically tickering with that balance by selectively removing certain species of fish can not possibily be harmless. Hawaiians will tell you the impact of our hobby on their Potter Angel, Yellow, and Chevron tang population. Of course, these things are rarely reported in hobbyist literature. I invite you to Los Angeles to see how much wildlife actually passes through the US on a daily basis. You may be surprised.

I'm not asking anyone to feel guilt over this issue nor am I trying to define their personal ethics. But perhaps this line of discussion will make people more conscientious about the responsibilty they take on when they choose to assume care for wildlife. To too many people, fish are disposable luxuries.

 

[Len]

You're right to insist on data, so I've dug up a few (more to come):

In 1973, about 90,000 fish from Hawaii were harvested for the aquarium trade; by 1995, that number had increased to 423,000. In 1998 alone, for example, almost 200,000 yellow tang were collected from Hawaiian reefs. Other top species include kole, Achilles tang, longnose butterflyfish, moorish idol, orangespine unicornfish and Potter's angelfish.

To address concerns about marked depopulation of tropical reef fish, Hawaii's DLNR funded a study by marine biologists at the University of Hawaii at Hilo and other institutions. The research compared populations of seven fish species at Big Island sites that had regular collecting activity with populations of the same seven species at Big Island sites where collecting is prohibited. In the study, yellow tang, kole, longnose butterflyfish, Potter's angelfish, Achilles tang, moorish idol and orangespine unicornfish were counted.

Results showed significant population declines in areas where the fish were collected for the aquarium trade. At sites with regular activity, Achilles tang, for example, had been reduced by 63 percent; longnose butterflyfish by 54 percent; and yellow tang by 47 percent. "This indicates that aquarium collectors are having significant impacts on the species examined," said scientist Brian Tissot of Washington State University in Vancouver, B.C., who coordinated the West Hawaii Aquarium Project.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... ge=printer

Another related article in Aquarium Frontiers (read USCRTF's assessement of our hobby halfway down):
http://www.animalnetwork.com/fish2/aqfm ... efault.asp

 

[Len]

To address one point of yours I missed earlier: If this discussion is indeed a turn-off, then so be it. One shouldn't suspend ethics for convenience. Actions should conform to ethics and not vice versa.

I hope this isn't as much a turn-off to the hobby as it is a turn-on for people to be more conscientious with their animal husbandry.

People come to Reefs.org for reefkeeping information and I honestly believe this is one of the internet's richest resource for it. But I can not gloss over or outright ignore important issues such as ethics just because they may be unflattering. Open discussion is strongly encouraged here.

 

[Anonymous]

I understand that corals are not collected with drugs, and I don't belive argument that they are has been made by anyone here.

There are several reasons that fish collection and coral collection must be linked in the minds of hobbiests. First and foremost, cyanide collection kills corals. Secondly, if you purchase a coral from an LFS or most online shops, you are also supporting fish collection because those stores also sell fish. Any money generated by said business supports the rest of the business.
Coral only stores are few and far between, and the argument that they are also connected to fish collection can be made because selling any marine livestock helps perpetuate the hobby in general.


If I only have three fish in my tank, I think it would be safe to say that 30 others died to get them to my living room. The only way you can begin to have no responsibility for fish deaths is if your fish are captive bred, not if they could be captive bred.


At least one of the articles I linked, the one by Eric Borneman, discusses concern about the enviornmental impact of at least some coral collection.

 

[Bone]

I feel about the same way as Len. (Well said, Len. Good post by Seamaiden too. And nice job presenting your case ZTW but I respectfully disagree)

I have been a hobbyist since the 80's. I have been to the keys and seen the beauty of a real reef. I have also been to the large ornamental distributors on the west coast and I have seen the massive amounts of reef life that are taken from the ocean on our behalf. Some of these places are in warehouses and have enough kritters and corals to stock an entire wild reef. There is no way that taking this much from the ocean can be anything but harmful to the already stressed and depleted reefs.

Simply said, our hobby may not single handedly kill the wild reefs but we are clearly causing damage to them. I'm sorry if anyone takes offense to my position on this issue. I only intend to make ppl think twice before they blissfully carry out their reef hobby thinking they are free from any responsibility for damage done to wild reefs. If you think this is casting dispersions then so be it. I include myself among the guilty. If my message makes anyone want to quit the hobby, that is fine with me. It's your personal choice where to draw the line of ethics. But those of us that are firmly hooked should do our best to help direct the ornamental trade toward a sustainable methodology. This will help ease some of our worried minds. (Thanks Seamaiden.)

The dichotomy. Of course there are ways we reefers can band together to help prevent other more serious threats against the wild reefs. But that should be another thread.

 

[mountainbiker619]

Well...if we are to stop having aquariums at home for our pleasure in order to try and save the ocean reefs, then we might as well and go all out and stop driving vehicles that are degrading the ozone, in which will kill the ocean reefs in time.

Every action has a reaction. You eat a steak, one less cow in the world.
You purchase an item made of wood, one less tree in the world.

 

[Anonymous]

Nicely said Mountainbiker.
I try to stay away from term like ethical and moral. I prefer responsible. Is this hobby unethical - I can't tell you that as I believe ethics are relative. However I can easily say that by being in this hobby I/you/we are responsible for some destruction of reefs. It is also important to not that responsible does not equal bad.