Finding Nemo

[moe_k]

Anyone have a link to the LA Times story on this matter? I need to provide some background info.
Thanks!

[MaryHM]

I'm not aware of an LA Times story on this matter. There is a current LA Times story on the "Finding Nemo" movie and its ties with the industry. Is that what you mean?

[Nancy Swart]

'Nemo' May Hook Public on Plight of Marine Life

The pet fish trade, already accused of inhumane treatment, fears the movie could worsen its image.


By Jerry Hirsch, Times Staff Writer
Los Angeles Times, Business Cover Story, May 25, 2003


In "Finding Nemo," a tropical fish named Gil, grizzled and scarred from his many attempts to escape an aquarium in the lobby of a dentist's office, tells a newcomer to the tank: "Fish aren't meant to be in a box, kid. It does things to ya."

The line drew laughs from the audience at an advance screening of the latest computer-animated offering from Walt Disney Co. and Pixar Inc., which opens Friday. But it's eliciting grimaces from people in the international trade of live ocean fish, coral and other marine life, a $200-million industry.

Pet fish importers — whose international hub is in Southern California — worry that the story of the plucky orange-and-white-striped clownfish, kidnapped from his home in the Great Barrier Reef, will create a backlash against an industry already laboring under the perception that it damages fish habitats, particularly coral reefs.

"There is a political message," said Burton Patrick, chief operating officer of six Pet Supplies Plus stores in the Pittsburgh area and a former operations manager for the Detroit Zoo. Disney "wants kids to feel sorry for something that might or might not have a concept of mortality."

Eric Cohen, co-owner of Sea Dwelling Creatures Inc., a Los Angeles distributor of wild-caught marine fish and coral, wonders whether moviegoers will "walk out and say that fish should not be separated from their friends in the ocean."

There's no doubt that the creators of "Finding Nemo" want children to become emotionally attached to the quirky fish characters, said Andrew Stanton, a Pixar veteran who wrote and directed the film. That's what moviemaking is about.

And Stanton doesn't mind if viewers leave theaters thinking about the environment as well.

"The random hobbyist doesn't think that taking one fish out of the ocean will matter," said Stanton, who got the idea for the story from the "funky fish tank in my dentist's office when I was a kid."

"I always assumed these animals were caged and wanted to go home," he said.

The perceived mental state of aquarium-bound fish aside, Adam Summers, a UC Irvine marine biologist and a consultant on "Finding Nemo," said catching sea life "for the pet trade really does have an effect on tropical fish stocks.

"There have been terrible problems in the Philippines and other places where there are pretty-colored fish people want for their aquariums," he said.

Like movies, the trade in marine animals is very much a Southern California industry. The business is dependent on the long supply chain that starts in the coral reefs of the Pacific and Indian oceans and leads to 104th Street near Los Angeles International Airport, a stretch known as Fish Street and regarded as the nucleus of the world's aquarium business.

There, about a dozen firms import live fish, coral, shrimp, crabs and other sea creatures, which arrive by air in foam-lined packing boxes from such places as Fiji, the Philippines and Indonesia. The animals then are resold to pet and fish stores across North America and Europe.

This is a sensitive time for the industry. It has fought off proposals for federal legislation to curtail the numbers and types of sea life that could be imported to the United States, in part by promising to develop a policing program.

At least one nonprofit organization is promoting an independent certification process to help ensure that tropical fish caught in the wild are treated humanely, similar to the dolphin-safe campaign that informs buyers of canned tuna that, presumably, no dolphins were netted in the course of catching tuna.

The Honolulu-based Marine Aquarium Council is in the early stages of a program to award its stamp of approval to businesses within the pet fish supply chain — from reef to retailer — that meet its standards. Its goal is to eliminate harmful collection methods, such as the use of poisonous sodium cyanide to stun wild fish, and to reduce the mortality rate of aquarium fish during transport and storage.

The group also is endorsing attempts to farm-raise tropical fish as a way to avoid endangering species and their reef habitats and to keep hobbyists' aquariums filled with eye-catching specimens. The best success story to come from the captive breeding of tropical fish involves the clownfish, the same species from which the star of "Finding Nemo" hails.

The council hopes the movie will help spotlight its efforts to clean up the industry and "alert new potential hobbyists about the good and the bad ways that tropical fish are harvested."

The organization already has used the film as a marketing opportunity: With the help of Cohen of Sea Dwelling, one of the largest marine fish distributors, it set up an aquarium of clownfish and other marine animals at the "Finding Nemo" premiere party last Sunday.

And although the industry worries about a backlash, some believe the opposite will happen. The film could inspire children to nag their parents for "Nemos" of their own, sparking a boomlet in the saltwater aquarium hobby, said John Brandt, legislative representative for the Marine Aquarium Societies of North America, the umbrella body for hobbyists.

Sales of Dalmatian puppies rose after Disney's 1996 release of its live-action version of "101 Dalmatians." Anticipating a similar reaction, Paul Holthus, executive director of the Marine Aquarium Council, said, "It's important that this demand is met with marine life that's been harvested from the sea or captive-bred in a manner safe for both the fish and the environment."

Yet some fish trade veterans doubt the Marine Aquarium Council efforts will make a difference in the way the industry operates.

"A lot of people have serious concerns that MAC amounts to little more than greenwashing of business-as-usual in the aquarium trade," said John Tullock, founder of the American Marinelife Dealers Assn. and author of "Natural Reef Aquariums," a respected hobby manual.

Tullock, who has left the AMDA and now objects to collecting tropical fish, sees "Finding Nemo" as helping to make a case on the animals' behalf.

"I am pleased to see that the issue of taking wild fish off coral reefs to decorate dentists' offices is getting some well-deserved attention," he said.

Although there is wide consensus that coral reef habitats are in crisis worldwide, how much damage is inflicted by the aquarium trade is a source of debate even among marine biologists.

"The major threats are overfishing for food, which has destabilized whole reef systems; global warming, which kills corals directly; and in coastal areas, [from] pollution and sedimentation," said Gregor Hodgson, a UCLA marine ecologist and director of the Reef Check global coral reef monitoring program. "In comparison to these threats, the marine aquarium trade is a small problem."

Whether "Finding Nemo" will focus attention on the plight of coral reefs and their inhabitants remains to be seen, Hodgson said. But as pet-store owner Mitch Gibbs of Bowling Green, Ky., put it: " 'Bambi' did not stop deer hunting."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nemo25may25,1,5633680.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dbusiness

[desdemona2]

Re "Finding Nemo" which I haven't seen. I certainly hope it doesn't have the same effect as 101 Dalmations. There are many Dalmations in rescue due to people wanting one and finding out that they are much more of an active dog than what they could handle. Also brought out more "puppy mill dogs", a thing that is not equatable in the fish business (unless perhaps with guppies or gold fish).

As for the negative effect, what was the effect of "Free Willy" beyond the dubious (IMO) effort to free the actual Willy? Were visits to marine parks like Sea World down? Did kids not want to see these dolphins because they were "imprisioned"? I sure doubt it.

I will guess that more kids might want clownfish. I think parents will be a bit dissuaded due to the high cost of setting up a saltwater tank and the maintenance concerns.

I think it won't have much ecological impact, as Free Willy didn't.

--des

[Python73]

More Marxist animal rights drivel from Disney. Who is surprised?

S !

[MrSandman]

Originally posted by desdemona2
I will guess that more kids might want clownfish. I think parents will be a bit dissuaded due to the high cost of setting up a saltwater tank and the maintenance concerns.

I see your point but picture this:

Parent walks into a Petco or some other LFS and says to an employee, "I'd like to setup a tank w/ some clownfish for my child." Employee says, "Oh, no problem just buy that little eclipse tank over there and a small bag of salt and you'll be ok. You can cycle the tank w/ the clownfish since they are very hardy. Tap water will be ok to use since clownfish are also very hardy." Parent walks out of the store w/ the fish in hand and tank/sand in the other paying under 40 dollars for a "complete" setup. Hopefully petstores won't come up w/ a bright marketing idea selling a "Little Nemo Starter Package" for under 50 bucks! If stores would only operate a little more responsibly and ethically, this hobby wouldn't be drawn up so negatively as it is in that LA Times article.

[battplus]

Originally posted by MrSandman
I see your point but picture this:

Parent walks into a Petco or some other LFS and says to an employee, "I'd like to setup a tank w/ some clownfish for my child." Employee says, "Oh, no problem just buy that little eclipse tank over there and a small bag of salt and you'll be ok. You can cycle the tank w/ the clownfish since they are very hardy. Tap water will be ok to use since clownfish are also very hardy." Parent walks out of the store w/ the fish in hand and tank/sand in the other paying under 40 dollars for a "complete" setup. Hopefully petstores won't come up w/ a bright marketing idea selling a "Little Nemo Starter Package" for under 50 bucks! If stores would only operate a little more responsibly and ethically, this hobby wouldn't be drawn up so negatively as it is in that LA Times article.

AMEN! The LFS near me is selling 5 gallon set-ups with two sea
horses, full set-up for 150.00. What kind of stupidy is this you
wonder! It is all in what the uneducated consumer wants not needs. We pride ourselves in ethical keep and maintenance.
www.wmmac.org

[drtherc]

I can see both points, a) that the movie will either make fish keeping more attractive, or b) that the movie will make people aware that, while there's many fish in the sea, it damages the ecosystem to remove too many.

Frankly, I wouldn't mind if it was made harder to obtain fish. If the public had to pay more dearly for their fish, maybe they'd either think twice before buying, or buy their fish, and take care of them.

Someone mentioned being emotionally attached to their fish, well, I'm very emotionally attached. Most of the fish in my aquarium are more than two years old, and a few are older than 4 years in my tank. I make sure their environment is clean, and hope that there's a sense of well-being, if a fish can feel such a thing. I recently lost a blue tang to my anenome, and my wife went into mourning for a few days. I was more stoic, but felt the same way. We decided to leave the tank as it is, as some of my tangs are getting big.

I'm far from trying to tell people not to get into the hobby due to environmental concerns, but I would always urge people to take care of their pets, whether it's a dachsund, a rare fish or coral, or a cat. Nothing irritates me more than watching people's cats run wild.

[BSAJim]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nancy Swart
[B]'Nemo' May Hook Public on Plight of Marine Life


Whether "Finding Nemo" will focus attention on the plight of coral reefs and their inhabitants remains to be seen, Hodgson said. But as pet-store owner Mitch Gibbs of Bowling Green, Ky., put it: " 'Bambi' did not stop deer hunting."


No, but like many newspaper reporters, this one failed
to do his homework / research.

The sales of hunting licenses was off by almost 50%
for the two years following the theatrical release of
Bambi. Those who did buy the license were met at the
door by teary-eyed children who wanted to know if
Daddy was going to go out and shot Bambi's Mommy.

Jim

[GreshamH]

Hey Folks,
Worried about the trade in the aftermath of Finding Nemo? Don't be. I'm a wholesaler and my customers are stocking up on Nemo, his sister, his father and more. This movie carries a small message for the environment and a big one for mindless consumerism.
Ornaments, eclipse tanks and thousands and thousands of tight packed and ammonia burned little Nemos are going to get processed in the coming weeks that ordinariliy wouldn't be.
Thanks to Disney and this movie, pressure will increase to keep up the clownfish and blue tang supply, sales will increase and the extra stress on reefs to come up with the fish will increase. AS SO MANY BLUE TANGS ARE STILL COLLECTED WITH CYANIDE, MORE CYANIDE DAMAGE WILL ALSO RESULT.
Thank you Disney, but if you really cared, you'd help solve the problem, promote training efforts and donate to reform efforts. Marketing Nemo makes you money but does not help save coral reefs.
Steve Robinson, Cortez Marine

[coralreefengr]

I just hope we can advance the captive raised fish industry. It seems like techniques and success are improving and more species are being bred. Good news for those environmental types. There are a lot of cool fish available, but I always get this feeling in the pit of my stomach when I consider wild caught specimens. I'm trying to pick a couple more fish to go in my upgraded tank, but it looks like I might have just 2 captive bred clowns for a while.

CRE

[naesco]

Originally posted by GreshamH
Hey Folks,
Worried about the trade in the aftermath of Finding Nemo? Don't be. I'm a wholesaler and my customers are stocking up on Nemo, his sister, his father and more. This movie carries a small message for the environment and a big one for mindless consumerism.
Ornaments, eclipse tanks and thousands and thousands of tight packed and ammonia burned little Nemos are going to get processed in the coming weeks that ordinariliy wouldn't be.
Thanks to Disney and this movie, pressure will increase to keep up the clownfish and blue tang supply, sales will increase and the extra stress on reefs to come up with the fish will increase. AS SO MANY BLUE TANGS ARE STILL COLLECTED WITH CYANIDE, MORE CYANIDE DAMAGE WILL ALSO RESULT.
Thank you Disney, but if you really cared, you'd help solve the problem, promote training efforts and donate to reform efforts. Marketing Nemo makes you money but does not help save coral reefs.
Steve Robinson, Cortez Marine

Are you saying that you think this will happen or do you have evidence that it is in fact happening?

[Bayliner]

It's been a while since I have been to Disney Land, but I wonder how many fish they have in tanks on thier park grounds....?

Cam

[gregt]

They've got one of the largest saltwater tanks in america. Somewere around a million gallons I believe.

[Wee Man]

i have a frogfish, the BAD fish that wants to nemo his dad an dthat lil regal tang they travel with.

[Chargerfan]

I can see both sides of this story. But the side that resonates with me is the previously submitted scenario at Petco. The thought of hippo tangs in a 3 gallon Spongebob Squarepants tank is repulsive, let alone a clownfish in such tiny quarters. My hippo tang will be 9 years old this August and he's getting to be too large for his 240.

[Duce]

Originally posted by gregt
They've got one of the largest saltwater tanks in america. Somewere around a million gallons I believe.

Isn't Rainforest Cafe own by them as well?

[gregt]

I think rainforest cafe is owned by outback steakhouse.

[SPC]

Tullock, who has left the AMDA and now objects to collecting tropical fish,

Is this correct, Tullock is now against the collection of fish??
Steve

[Chargerfan]

Why did Tullock leave?

[RichSea7]

What about captive raised fish, many of whom would just wind up as someone else's lunch or die of pollution etc. out on the "natural" reef ? Captive raised fish (for species that we cannot breed in captivity) is a responsible practice. It is easy for Disney to Dis an industry that accounts for less than 5 % of the problem, rather than challenge all the other sources of pollution and environmental destruction (many of which are created by companies that Disney most certainly has an economic interest in :rolleyes: )

BTW, If John Tullock has changed his opinion re: fishkeeping, then this directly contradicts his statements at the back of "Natural Reef Aquariums " that captive bred / or captive raised fry (as well as corals ) are good for the environment by: A) Raising awareness in the public re: ocean life, and B) preserving stock whose habitats we (H. Sapiens) are already destroying, for possible later reintroduction into the wild, should the wild species become extinct.

If we truly want to "protect " animals and the environment from human destructive practices, I would suggest that we erradicate H. Sapiens as a species. :fun2: Then the "Natural " environment could evolve without human interference. :smokin:

I recently saw a book ( or rather, a large Tome ) dedicated entirely to pictures and info. regarding species that have become extinct since the emergence of H. Sapiens. More then 75% of the book contained species which have become extinct during the past 300 years. I have read that the loss of bio-diversity on planet earth since the emergence of H. Sapiens is similar to many of the historical periods of mass extinction which have occurred periodically throughout earth's history. We have had, do have, and will continue to have, a negative global impact on much of the life on this planet. I believe (to paraphrase) John Tullock himself said that we can choose to preserve as well as destroy. History has many examples of species that because someone (a human) found them valuable, were preserved from extinction.

I still believe this to be true. :cool:

Sincerely,

Rich

[cortez marine]

Tullock Fans,
John didn't abandon the trade. The trade abandoned him.
All the wonderful potential to do what is right, moral, sustainable and positive was the mission as John saw it.
To this end, he was considered for the role of MAC director.
He was passed over by a non aquarium professional and saw the future unfold as it does today:
A cyanide trade hell bent on finding enough Nemos and Dorys to cash in on and to hell with the reefs. Dory damage will be incredible in the coming months. One can debate the aquaculture of modest amounts of clownfish [Nemos] as a "reef saving effort" but don't even talk about the trades sorry effort in saving blue tangs [Dorys] and blue tang habitat.
There was no effort to convert cyanide blue tang fisherman to nets as there were no trainings hardly where they live. In fact there were hardly any trainings at all anywhere by the IMA and now MAC where it counted.
The Tullock approach was a field approach. First we reform supply lines and convert fisherman, then we take it to the market and campaign for change.
MACs founders put Tullock aside and put in their own market based thinker and the difference has been, token field effort, maximum attention to the market side. With nothing to sell but a concept and a position paper, this market based approached has failed.
Tullock would have made a huge difference for the better but was not political and wishy washy enough to win the job.
So NEMO is here and there is scant little training anywhere to meet him.
We need to really train. There is a net fund...next a training support fund.
All the big players cashing in on Nemo this month can contribute to efforts to save Nemo and Nemo habitat with real commerial level trainings and not just the token kind for marketing purposes.
The CORL/AMDA initiatives to train...actually train will come forth more and more in the coming weeks.
Sincerely, Steve Robinson,CORL,AMDA

[RichSea7]

Originally posted by Cortez Marine :

All the big players cashing in on Nemo this month can contribute to efforts to save Nemo and Nemo habitat with real commerial level trainings and not just the token kind for marketing purposes.

Well Cortez, I don't plan to hold my breath waiting for that to happen. :sad2: Sorry to be so Cynical, but I doubt that anyone connected with the profit end of the film gives a d@mn about the reefs.


It was good to hear that John Tullock has stayed true to his beliefs and philosophy. :fish2: It's even more encouraging to hear that some collectors (such as yourself) are aware and are concerned about these issues. :cool:

Sincerely,

Rich

[GreshamH]

Rich-

I do believe Steve (Cortez) was talking about our industry players who are going to cash in on Nemo. The manufactures, wholesalers etc.. Not Disney, Pixar, etc..

The movie just came out last night, here in central California, but last week there was a surge in Blue tangs and Clownfish at our facility. Our retailers confirmed our notion not only by the buying surge, but also verbally. They stated they we're stocking up for "Finding Nemo".

Gresham

[naesco]

Originally posted by GreshamH
Rich-

I do believe Steve (Cortez) was talking about our industry players who are going to cash in on Nemo. The manufactures, wholesalers etc.. Not Disney, Pixar, etc..

The movie just came out last night, here in central California, but last week there was a surge in Blue tangs and Clownfish at our facility. Our retailers confirmed our notion not only by the buying surge, but also verbally. They stated they we're stocking up for "Finding Nemo".

Gresham

What is the feedback today. Are NEMO MOMS buying them for their kids?

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by naesco
What is the feedback today. Are NEMO MOMS buying them for their kids?

Tropicorium hasn't been seeing it.

The people at Pet Connection said they've been having people come in for a couple of weeks about it, with kids running around the store telling everyone they've found Nemo. :rolleyes:

Dave

[SPC]

Originally posted by cortez marine
Tullock Fans,
John didn't abandon the trade. The trade abandoned him.

Hi Steve,
I understand what went on in this situation, my question was to this statement from the article:
Tullock, who has left the AMDA and now objects to collecting tropical fish,
This statement would seem to indicate that he is against the collecting of tropical fish under any circumstances. This of course would lead me to believe that he would not be in favor of the marine hobby, is this true?
Steve

[mr294]

Originally posted by naesco
What is the feedback today. Are NEMO MOMS buying them for their kids?

We had 3 or 4 families come in today interested in starting tanks after seeing the movie. After going over tank costs, letting them know that P. hepatus needs something a minimum of six feet, and discussing the associated costs of lighting, filtration, live rock etc. all of them decided against it. I haven't ordered hippos for the past couple weeks for this very reason.

[naesco]

Originally posted by mr294
We had 3 or 4 families come in today interested in starting tanks after seeing the movie. After going over tank costs, letting them know that P. hepatus needs something a minimum of six feet, and discussing the associated costs of lighting, filtration, live rock etc. all of them decided against it. I haven't ordered hippos for the past couple weeks for this very reason.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[dave121]

ive had 3 people come into the lfs i work at in the last 2 days looking to start a tank with a nemo in it. only one is going to start a tank. but i am making shure it is set up properly and have already gone over the cost of the stuff. he seems prety dedicated to it, and i will make shure the tank is done right.....


oh yeah it's a FOWLR.


Dave

[naesco]

In Vancouver today I visited four LFS.
None of them had advertising but BIG ALS Aquarium Services had four tanks of clownfish :(

[drtherc]

Originally posted by Duce
Isn't Rainforest Cafe own by them as well?

Rainforest Cafe is owned by Landry's Seafood Restaurants, also owner of Joe's Crab Shack.

[drtherc]

Originally posted by mr294
We had 3 or 4 families come in today interested in starting tanks after seeing the movie. After going over tank costs, letting them know that P. hepatus needs something a minimum of six feet, and discussing the associated costs of lighting, filtration, live rock etc. all of them decided against it. I haven't ordered hippos for the past couple weeks for this very reason.

Good for you! I believe that any LFS (I know this is pie in the sky) should let the parents know what's involved. When they understand the cost of actually TAKING CARE OF THE FISH, which should be the goal of any aquarist (yes, more pie), most will understand that it's not for them. (A nicely colored goldfish might do just as well for a child.)

My grandson, several years ago, when I was first starting out as an aquarist-with a 40 gallon goldfish tank, went to the LFS with me one day, and fell in love with a clown fish. I had to drag him out of the store (in tears) to explain that I wasn't ready to take care of salt water fish, yet, and that the clownfish was not a fresh water fish. At any rate, this is to say that clownfish and blue regal tangs are very attractive, movie or not, to anyone. So are puppies, kittens, bunnies, etc.

Having seen the movie, so I know what I'm talking about, I didn't see anything wrong. Nemo was caught on a diving trip by a guy who netted Nemo. While in the aquarium, the plight of aqaurium fish is evident in the scars on the Moorish Idol, and the general wish to escape of all the fish in the aquarium. Nemo was to be a present for the man's niece, who was pictured holding a plastic bag with a dead goldfish in it. (This should have some influence on parents who want to give their young kids fish as pets) The rest of the movie was mostly about the hazards in nature for reef fish-from predators to pollution to birds.

This post is long enough, so I'll shut up now.

[diablofish]

I was wondering how long it would take before someone posted about how much humanity is responsible for the extinction of so many species the world over.

I don't think readicating any species, including h. sapiens, is a good idea. I really don't believe I've met anyone who considers themselves a serious hobbyist to wish to eradicate any species of plant or animal, whether marine based or not.

I still have faith in humans to educate those around us about the positives and negatives of everything we do.

All that said, I do not believe that humans are SOLELY responsible for the eradication of any species in the history of the world. I challenege anyone to show me evidence that humans killed every dodo bird, condor, or any other species.

To further play devil's advocate (a role I rather enjoy from time to time), I'm going to propose the arguement that the failure of animals to evolve to compete with humans will give rise to other species which will be better suited to competing with humans as Darwinian evolution continues to runs its course. Remember, dinosaurs once ruled this earth, but we haven't seen one of those in millions of years, and I think it's safe money that the fish we know today didn't exist then, and hundreds of species that did exist then died out completely independent of human interaction.

Of course, we don't have a complete fossil record to tell us exactly how many species went extinct and why, but given humans are infants in relation to the age of the earth, I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were far more species that went extinct before we got here than there are after we got here, which would suggest the world around us is much more complex and than many of us are willing to accept.

[diablofish]

I have found an example of a species that humans were entirely responsible for eradicating: Stegomyia fasciata, the mosquito which carried yellow fever, was successfully eradicated during construction of the Panama Canal. RIP, Stegomyia fasciata. Thousands of people owe their lives to your sacrifice.

Of the estimated 25,000 people that died during the 45 year initial construction of the Panama Canal (including French and American efforts), more than half were due to disease, with yellow fever and malaria being the two most deadly.

[Immortalnight]

"Having seen the movie, so I know what I'm talking about, I didn't see anything wrong. Nemo was caught on a diving trip by a guy who netted Nemo. While in the aquarium, the plight of aqaurium fish is evident in the scars on the Moorish Idol, and the general wish to escape of all the fish in the aquarium. Nemo was to be a present for the man's niece, who was pictured holding a plastic bag with a dead goldfish in it. (This should have some influence on parents who want to give their young kids fish as pets)"





You wouldn't buy a car without knowing how to drive it would you?
As parents, moms and dads are responsible for both their young children's actions and emotions. I hope parents with children who want a "Nemo" or "Dory" are wise enough to realize and admit, they DON'T know what they are doing and NEED help. Then they'll ask for help. Problem is, they may not always get help from the greedy LFS employee.
However, some parents might see getting a marine fish as a pretty goldfish in water with salt, and do just what is expected...buy a little aquarium kit, a bag of salt, and a bag of fish. Not only will fish die becasue parents don't realize that they are not buying a sea monkey, hamster or goldfish, but they will be emotionally hurting their children by LETTING these fish die.
The consequences are all downhill from here.
Luckily, there are a lot of good LFSs out there who will recognize the mistake's of these nemo-seeking-families and rush to the asistance of them, therefore saving both a child from heartbreak and a fish from a needless death.

[drtherc]

If parents would only stop being "friends" of their children... But how many parents feel guilty, give in to any whim of a child (whether that be buying a bunny at Easter or a pet Nemo, or a puppy, or anything that the kid's not equipped to take care of)?

As I said, if they want to start their kids off right, buy a goldfish bowl, and a 10 cent feeder, teach them to take care of it. If the fish can live under the child's care, then, maybe move up a little (to an actual goldfish tank).

I just hope that our LFS's are responsible enough to explain what owning a pet really means...but it's the parent's responsibility to instill that value in children.

[gregt]

Personally, I think clownfish are easier to care for than goldfish and most certainly will live longer than "sea-monkeys".

Why is it better for a kid to kill a 10 cent feeder-fish, than a $15 clownfish? They are both fish. They are both just as likely to be tank-raised so impact to the environment is similar.

I agree that parents should teach their children responsibility, but I'm not convinced that keeping a clownfish healthy is all that difficult, even for a child. I think it's an excellent way to teach responsibility.

Didn't all of us get in over our heads in the care of an animal at some point? None of us still fully understands how to care for the animals in our care. IMO, those that succeed in this hobby do so because they are willing to try new things, pay close attention to the changes in their tanks due to their husbandry, are willing to constantly be learning new techniques, and have a strong sense of passion for the animals.

To me, those sound like good lessons for a child to learn. Of course, parents have a responsibility to determine whether their child is mature enough to take care of the fish. The parent should also realize that inevitably they are responsible for the animal if the child doesn't care for it properly.

[SPC]

Originally posted by diablofish
Remember, dinosaurs once ruled this earth, but we haven't seen one of those in millions of years, and I think it's safe money that the fish we know today didn't exist then, and hundreds of species that did exist then died out completely independent of human interaction.

True, actually I think the number is 99% of all species that have lived on the planet are now extinct. If we believe in the theory of the comet/asteroid causing a (or possibly many) mass extinction, then we should be honest with ourselves that the possibility this will happen to the human species at some point in the future is quite real.
Steve

[drtherc]

Originally posted by gregt
Personally, I think clownfish are easier to care for than goldfish and most certainly will live longer than "sea-monkeys".

Why is it better for a kid to kill a 10 cent feeder-fish, than a $15 clownfish? They are both fish. They are both just as likely to be tank-raised so impact to the environment is similar.

I agree that parents should teach their children responsibility, but I'm not convinced that keeping a clownfish healthy is all that difficult, even for a child. I think it's an excellent way to teach responsibility.

Didn't all of us get in over our heads in the care of an animal at some point? None of us still fully understands how to care for the animals in our care. IMO, those that succeed in this hobby do so because they are willing to try new things, pay close attention to the changes in their tanks due to their husbandry, are willing to constantly be learning new techniques, and have a strong sense of passion for the animals.

To me, those sound like good lessons for a child to learn. Of course, parents have a responsibility to determine whether their child is mature enough to take care of the fish. The parent should also realize that inevitably they are responsible for the animal if the child doesn't care for it properly.

I didn't say it was better, but we DO all have to learn. And don't most "feeders" die as food, anyway? I disagree that clownfish are easier, but let's go with that. Say they are easier. What about the entire setup that goes with buying fish?
You make my point about paying close attention to our fish's habitat, most children of the age to see Finding Nemo are incapable of providing the care that's required for ANY pet, so Mom and Dad had better be prepared to do all that's necessary to provide care to the pet. In the case of fish, it's usually going to be dead livestock that will get the parent's attention. Mostly, children ask for pets, then lose interest.

If Dad wants to be a reef keeper, fine. When Junior expresses an interest in helping Dad, then is the time to start teaching him. Not after watching Finding Nemo.

[gregt]

I agree that younger kids shouldn't be expected to be ultimately responsible for a pet. I don't understand why it's ok to kill a fish "that's going to die anyway", but it's not ok to kill a clownfish. Allowing a pet to die because of neglect is a bad lesson to teach a child no matter whether it's ugly or cute, cheap or expensive, salt or fresh, etc. Notice, I said pet not fish. I do think there is an emotional and moral difference between a fish and a fish that you choose to make a pet.

[drtherc]

Originally posted by gregt
I agree that younger kids shouldn't be expected to be ultimately responsible for a pet. I don't understand why it's ok to kill a fish "that's going to die anyway", but it's not ok to kill a clownfish. Allowing a pet to die because of neglect is a bad lesson to teach a child no matter whether it's ugly or cute, cheap or expensive, salt or fresh, etc. Notice, I said pet not fish. I do think there is an emotional and moral difference between a fish and a fish that you choose to make a pet.

I don't believe I said that it was ok to kill a fish. My implication was that goldfish are a good starter fish to learn with. I believe that it's better for parents to take on the hobby in earnest, and, if the child starts to show interest, then allow the child to take part, and then, eventually, to possibly have a tank of his own (when he's demostrated that he really cares about the fish).

And, yes, I agree that any animal you take into your home is a pet, or should be. (I really get frustrated with cat owners who's care is to leave their tabbys out all night). What I'm surely against is a parent who took his kid to see Nemo, and, as a result, the kid whines about wanting a Nemo, so the parent gutlessly gives in. Any pet should be treated as part of the home, not as another toy for the kid.

But goldfish are a definite starting point, as opposed to any salt water fish. Goldfish and koi are how I "made my bones" as an aquarist. I started out with a 3 gallon goldfish bowl, learned how to care for two goldfish for a year or two (to find out if I really wanted to be an aquarist), then got a 20 gallon setup, learned how to care for more goldfish, built a pond, learned the ins and outs of koi, got a 92 gallon tank for saltwater, started with damsels (the LFS "throwaways"), then increasingly more delicate fish, learning something new about them almost every day. My wife and kids name fish after themselves, and talk to them, etc. as any pet owner does to their beloved pets. I change water for them twice a month, constantly fret over salinity and chemicals, and try to give them a divine place to live.

[gregt]

Interesting. I also had goldfish long before I had a saltwater tank. I found the constant cleaning up after the dirty goldfish much more effort than a clownfish. 10 lbs of live rock and a powerhead and a waterchange every month is about all a clownfish needs to do just fine, we aren't talking a reef tank here. Yes, you've got to get the salinity right and keep the tank full with fresh water, but that's not a real challenge even for a kid.

I don't want to argue, just giving my opinion. I think clowns are easier than goldfish.

Either way, we agree that the parents should take the responsibility.

[drtherc]

Oh, don't worry. I think, like you, we both agree on the main point of parental responsibility.

I agree that goldfish are more dirty, but I learned from that not to feed too much/too often-a quality that extends to s/w fish as well.
One advantage (to a child) of having a goldfish bowl is the relative cost of materials-a bowl, an air pump and some tubing, and carbon filter, and the fish.
I also learned from goldfish that you want to clean less water more often (I do smaller changes every two weeks in my s/w). Many folks will literally change all the water in a tank, scrub the sides with detergent, stick the decorations in the dishwasher, then put it all back together. I guess my biggest benefit from my goldfish was learning how to test water, learning about the biological cycle, and accumulating lots of tubing, brushes, etc., and learning how to observe them.
One thing my pond taught me is that the more natural your habitat, the happier the fish, exhibited by the constant spawn of the goldfish in the pond as opposed to the lack thereof in the aquarium. The difference is only the space they have and the water lillies.

What I'd really love to do is scrap my 40 gal, and make it a reef tank. Maybe some day...

[NTAnnin]

Well, I saw the movie and thought it was great. First of all, can we really be angry at the makers of the movie for generating interest in ocean life, and educating children about saltwater species? I don't think so. Sure, I will agree that many children will have to have a "nemo" set-up after the see the movie, but i think the money involved in purchasing one will deffinately force the parents in on the deal. Parents are generally responsible with animals and are usually good listeners. The movie even did a good job of showing parents how difficult it can be to care for fish and what goes into taking care of a tank. Although the zapper filter was a bit out there. (Maybe in 50 years!) Anyways, I just wanted to write in after i read all the harsh threads toward disney, pixar, and whomever anyone else thought to blame for the destruction of the hobby. Heck, maybe this movie will lead to the destruction of cyanide catching methods and with fish stores generating more revenue, they will be able to better care for and house the fish that we are looking to keep ourselves. Enjoy the movie for what children can learn from it and for entertainment. It's my favorite PIXAR movie to date and a good comedy for a person of any age.

[Algae Blenny]

The owner of my LFS who I always talk to says that everyday people come in with their kids wanting to buy a clownfish or blue tang with a ten gallon, and not cycle it. He has to turn them away. This also happened with 101 Dalmations. Disney should be more responsible.

[RichSea7]

Originally Posted by Diablofish:
I was wondering how long it would take before someone posted about how much humanity is responsible for the extinction of so many species the world over. I don't think readicating any species, including h. sapiens, is a good idea. I really don't believe I've met anyone who considers themselves a serious hobbyist to wish to eradicate any species of plant or animal, whether marine based or not.

I still have faith in humans to educate those around us about the positives and negatives of everything we do.

All that said, I do not believe that humans are SOLELY responsible for the eradication of any species in the history of the world. I challenege anyone to show me evidence that humans killed every dodo bird, condor, or any other species.

To further play devil's advocate (a role I rather enjoy from time to time), I'm going to propose the arguement that the failure of animals to evolve to compete with humans will give rise to other species which will be better suited to competing with humans as Darwinian evolution continues to runs its course. Remember, dinosaurs once ruled this earth, but we haven't seen one of those in millions of years, and I think it's safe money that the fish we know today didn't exist then, and hundreds of species that did exist then died out completely independent of human interaction.

Of course, we don't have a complete fossil record to tell us exactly how many species went extinct and why, but given humans are infants in relation to the age of the earth, I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were far more species that went extinct before we got here than there are after we got here, which would suggest the world around us is much more complex and than many of us are willing to accept.

Well, my attempt to use scarcasm to point out the riduculousness of some animal rights advocates who believe we should have no impact on the environment, was obviously missed. :( My point was (and is ) that fishkeeping can be an environmentally responsible hobby. Our hobby puts fewer species at less risk of extinction than: commercial fishing; pesticide and waste runoff from land pollution; wholesale waste dumping in the oceans, oil spills; or numerous other human activites that negatively impact nearly every marine ecosystem.


That humans negatively impact the environment and have been responsible for numerous species extinctions is a fact , not a topic for debate. Ask any biologist. One (of several hundred possible examples) species, the Passenger Pidgeon, was so numerous in North America at the end of the 1700's that a flock of them was said to "blot out the Sun". Within less than 150 years the species became extinct. Both biologists and historians almost universally agree that this species was hunted to extinction by settlers with firearms.

Many Biologists consider the emergence of H. Sapiens as the causeative factor of the this most recent extinction cycle . There have been several prior mass extinctions of species in earths history, all caused by severe climactic change, catastrophic events (like the meteor impact at the end of the age of the dinosaurs). Our impact on the environment is a catastorphic event for most other species on this plant. Check out this link : http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html

if you want to make an informed rebuttle. As I stated before, the human race's negative impact upon the environment is not just my opinion, but the reasoned conclusion of respected biologists and other scientists based upon the evidence at hand.

My problem with Disney/Pixar, is that they never seem to mention all the other human activities that negatively impact fish and marine environments. BTW, when is the sequel coming out ? Will it show Nemo getting munched by the big bad deep sea Angler fish, while his tank raised cousin thrives in the reef tank of a caring and responsible reefkeeper who frequents the board here at RC ? :D

Sincerely,

Rich-*

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by NTAnnin
First of all, can we really be angry at the makers of the movie for generating interest in ocean life, and educating children about saltwater species? I don't think so.

That's not what they're doing. Di$ney doesn't care one bit about doing either of those things. That said, how much true education went on in that movie?
As for interest, that can get back to a question I asked in another thread (and that Borneman has asked in his forum): is interest/awareness necessarily a good thing? It hasn't done much positive so far, but it has created the nice negative of getting more and more people to visit the reefs, leading to more development near them, leading to more runoff and more accidental destruction.

Originally posted by NTAnnin
Sure, I will agree that many children will have to have a "nemo" set-up after the see the movie, but i think the money involved in purchasing one will deffinately force the parents in on the deal. Parents are generally responsible with animals and are usually good listeners.

You must know parents who are very different from many of the parents I know. I've seen many people who won't hesitate to walk into a store to buy their kids a fish.

Originally posted by NTAnnin
Heck, maybe this movie will lead to the destruction of cyanide catching methods and with fish stores generating more revenue, they will be able to better care for and house the fish that we are looking to keep ourselves.

I hardly see how that would happen. The stores to have increased revenue from something like this are going to be the stores that don't care about the animals, and will sell them to anyone who walks in, without "wasting" the time to teach them how to take care of them. For these stores, it will be about an ever increasing level of profit margin: they'll be selling more fish, so they can buy more at a time, so they can get a better bulk discount, etc.

Dave

[Beth]

Did you all see this show? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/13/earlyshow/living/resources/main558701.shtml

Many of us at Saltwaterfish.com are sending letters to CBS and Tetra.

earlyshow@cbs.com

consumer@tetra-fish.com

[MPA]

Here in Central Florida my local LFS says that many people are looking into the nemo for the kids tank. The terrible thing is the ***edited**** sells these quick "easy set up" tanks to people. Not just with clowns but also sea horses, pipefish & frogfish.
He puts people together like you read about. Looking only for big profit. On any given day you can go into his store and see a dozen or more dead fish in his room of tanks. I breaks my heart to think that all these little fish might suffer premature deaths because of uneducated people thinking they can just throw a tank together.

Side note, I have a knowledge of a person that breeds hundreds of perculas in his house in Boca Raton, FL. He then sells them to stores all over Florida's east coast. Does he need a license to do this?

[gregt]

MPA,

That will be the last time I have to edit language like that. :mad:

[CrystalAZ]

I found the PERFECT aquarium for any kid who wants Nemo! They get both a Nemo and a Dory in a tiny tank...

Finding Nemo Aquarium (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2180428440&category=1379)

:D

Crystal