Why ban difficult species?

[morepunkthanewe]

ok, I may get flamed for this, but at least look at this side of the coin. As of late it seems that there are many people in the hobby that wish to self regulate and impose bans on certain animals that are too difficult to maintain in captivity. I think that self regulation is great and this is a responible step in the right direction for our hobby but......

Just imagine ourselves in this situation 20 years ago.....

acroporas...impossible to keep
Large Angelfish...don't eat in captivity
corals in general...nearly impossible to keep
Marine fish in general...

just think of what might be running through a marine aquarist's head 20 years ago.."my fish keep getting sick and dying, I can't understand why...they won't eat my flake food...my undergravel filter is setup like I was told...I just invested in a really expensive canister filter, but I keep losing fish...why?

ok, so now we would laugh if anyone ever setup a tank like that and expected their fish to be happy. Just about anyone on this post could probably give advice like "get a protein skimmer, use a deep sand bed, use live rock, buy captive raised fish, don't put 'fish x' in your tank they only eat live foods, etc etc.

Just think of what the future may hold for our hobby. I think many of us would like to think that we have reached the pinnacle of knowledge when it comes to reef keeping. I beg to differ. Who is to say that next year some aquarist who has been searching for the magic formula for feeding Dendronepthyea sp, finally finds a way to get these corals to grow and reproduce. Perhaps this aquarist has been through 25 of these corals in his hunt for the right husbandry techniques. Just think of how many acropras have been killed over the past few decades by aquarists trying to make them grow. THink of how many corals you may have lost when you where learning how to keep a reef tank. Is it worth it now that you can grow xenia like a weed? I think most people would say yes.

I beleive that if we close the door now on species that we deem "too hard to keep", we may be doing a severe disservice to aquarists 15 years from now who might otherwise be keeping a healthy supply of live plankton in their tanks with no trouble at all to feed their crinoids...

I think that it is great that we are all thinking about being ecologically responsible, but maybe we are trying too hard. In many cases it has been aquarists that have paved the way for public aquariums to show off live reef tanks. Was it worth all the dead fish and corals over the past 50 years to be where we are now...?

I agree it is a tough question to answer, and I myself don't even know. I do know that this hoby has providewd me with thousands of hours of enjoyment and I have learned an immeasurable amount from my mistakes alone.

I think that we should be slow to decide whether we need to ban any species from our tanks.

 

[JeremyR]

Because an obligate SPS eating blenny is not going to become easy to keep in captivity any time in the near future.

 

[MaryHM]

No one is saying we should ban things we kill due to lack of knowledge. All of the species on the USL fall into one of 3 categories:

1. Deadly- A Blue Ring octopus bite will be just as deadly 20 years from now.

2. Excessive Size- Unless we invent some sort of drug to supress the growth hormones in fish, none of them are going to decrease in maximum size within the next 20 years.

3. Obligate Feeders- Like Jeremy said, an obligate SPS eating blenny will still be an obligate SPS eating blenny 20 years from now.

I have made it a strict point to NOT include animals on the list that just "die mysteriously"- See our discussions on shrimpfish, etc... As you said, just because we don't have the knowledge/technology to keep something alive now doesn't mean it won't come along in the future. The acropora example is one that I frequently use, and in fact one I used in reports to the Marine Aquarium Council when they originally came up with the idea of their Unsuitable Species List. Rest assured, none of the animals in that ambiguous category will be on the USL- only animals that we have documented evidence of their particular traits that make them unsuitable.

 

[morepunkthanewe]

Yes, I most certainly agree with you. I'm glad that you have made the point not to include species that die mysteriously. May I point out that in the future we may be able to create foods that mimic those that are found in nature. Perhaps artificial SPS food derivitaves will be engeneered. Who knows, like you say it will probably always be prohibitive to keep those obligate feeders. Afterall, why bother with an SPS eating blenny when there are so many others that are simple to keep and attractive.

 

[naesco]

Morepunkthanewe and Mary

So do we continue to allow wholesalers to import and LFS to sell dendroneptheya so that they die in our tanks by the tons until such time as one of us either finds a key to success.
OR
Do we stop this slaughter but allow noted aquarists like Terry Segal who has been experimenting with keep them for the past couple of years to find the key or declare it impossible.
What really burns my butt is that dendro, one of the few really colourful corals and thus a magnet to newbies, are sold to reefers without a gram of caution.
There ought to be a law and there will be one soon.

 

[Anemone]

naesco,

I think you missed Mary's point - once a critter is banned, it will stay that way. No one is going to research aquarium care for a certain species when that species will never be imported for the aquarium.

It's actually the hobbyists (yes, those same hobbyists who kill many of theses animals) who are on the "cutting edge" of developing the knowledge about many of these difficult-to-"impossible" to keep species, and it's certainly the hobby which is fueling the "scientific" research into their captive care.

Perhaps we need to discuss a way of "unbanning" a species if certain criteria are met, that way, certain people within the hobby might be more willing to allow species banning without fighting tooth and nail over every suggested species?

Kevin

 

[naesco]

Anenome I would agree with you if it is the government that does the banning and that is why we must avoid it at all costs.
If it is industry that does the ban, and circumstances change, the ban is lifted.
I do not agree that research, expert trials and errors will not continue and in fact find the answers some day. Guys like Sprung, Wilkens Tullock, Scott, and many reefers on our board, maybe you or I (tangs) can and will continue to find the answer (IMO it's an in your blood kind of thing to find the answer).
I hope you read the article by Borneman which i posted in the Required reading thread. The sentiments he expressed reflect the majority of reefers IMO. "We want to keep these critters but not until we are ready to do it successfully"

But, they would not be available for retail collection and sale until the ban is lifted.

[ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: naesco ]

[ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: naesco ]</p>

 

[morepunkthanewe]

Naesco, may I also add that even those expert reefers that you listed have probably gone through many more corals than either you or I will own in a lifetime. THey aren't going to be bragging about it on this board, but I can gaurantee you that their successes have been the result of many more failures. This is the process of inovation. You must be prepared to lose if you are trying to win. Anyone of us on this board could possibly find the right husbandry techniques. Besides, limiting a certain species to a small group of aquarists is illogical and could never be enforced. Remember this is the land of the free and we are all equal. Either is is banned for everyone (except for scientific research approved with permits), or it is open for importation. Most of those reefers that you listed wouldn't be in a position to get a federal permit to grow banned corals anyway.


p.s. Just to be a wise ass, let me add that corals are clonal animals and aren't limited to size limites. Essentially they can grow to infinity....Doesn't that make them grow too big for our tanks? OK, I'm not serious, but food for thought. Just being a punk.

 

[naesco]

Prior to boards like this which is my case I could only rely on the LFS which I did.
There is no reason to put wildlife through the learning curve at the rate of tons a year.
Perfect the possible and leave the impossible to experts who can do their best.
Think about it. It is nonsense to put tons of these species to waste.
If you are hot on a fish or coral order it with a permit.
What I am against is finding tankfulls of them in LFS wherever I travel. The fish and the reefer need not go through that misery like I did.
Did you read the Eric Borneman article in the Required Reading thread?

[ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: naesco ]</p>

 

[MaryHM]

Naesco,

I just do not agree that animals that don't fit into the 3 categories should be banned on the basis that "we don't know how to keep them yet". Had this been the case, Acropora would have been banned 10 years ago. No one could keep the stuff then except for a few "experts". Now it's our most prolific coral- not only surviving in captivity but growing by leaps and bounds!! Once something is banned, it's pretty much going to stay that way. A handful of experts aren't really going to spend time trying to figure out the husbandry issues for a banned coral. Does that mean that some corals are going to die in the process of experimentation?? Yes. I don't like to see corals die, but it's a fact. And for hard to keep species, who determines what's "hard to keep"? There's no scientific evidence to back up "hard to keep". Many people have excellent success with things like Goniopora and Dendronepthya- we're on the cusp of being able to keep these corals easily just like we were with Acroporas 10 years ago. Anything that is to be banned MUST be backed up with scientific data saying why- like it is an obligate feeder, it exceeds 3' in length, etc... If you get into ambiguities, all that will be accomplished is a bunch of arguing back and forth. Better to have a set criteria and stick to it- no arguing with that.

 

[naesco]

With the greatest respect, your thinking is in the past when it was acceptable to sacrifice stuff until we figured out how to keep it alive.
That is simply not acceptable today.

Your comment "Many people have excellent success with dendronepthya today" Back that statement up Mary. Name these people. I am only aware of the very limited knowledge that has been reported by Terry Segal's research.
When a breakthrough comes it will come from experts/researchers like him not from the masses of reefers you and the industry sell this coral to.

 

[naesco]

Excellent dendro/gonipora summary.
www.reefweb.com/_disc5/000009fe.htm
Both these species need to be on the list until we have researched ways to keep them if possible.

[ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: naesco ]</p>

 

[jake levi]

I am agreeing with both Mary and Naesco......

many species were impossible to maintain ten years ago, but good husbandry today and meeting their needs today lets them thrive and reproduce. that said there is no good reason to import the myriad of anemones that are brought in which die within a year for the most of them, months for a great many.

I would prefer to see a temporary ban on retail sales of a number of species until their needs can be worked out and a reasonable life expectancy can be had under aquaria conditions. There are other genera which would serve for an example other then anemones I just put it out for discussion. A research category needs to be put into place that would allow research into propagation and husbandry of a great number of genera/species. Without a killing permit fee.

The importation of many is still unconscionable. Its not as bad as it was, but that doesnt make it right and gives fuel to the antis. If, we dont self regulate we will have it imposed. BTW, just the presence of this board and this discussion group I find very heartening. Thanks.
jake