Fundamental misgivings about the hobby?

[MrClean]

I believe the aquarium industry has less negative impact on the reefs (and Gaia in general) than fisheries and agriculture. I also believe most of the methods of capture and collection are no more damaging or stressful than what the organisms encounter in the wild. So I do not choose to feel guilty about keeping wild-caught species; I do choose tank-raised where possible.

I honestly believe the quality-of-life in my reef competes with a natural reef. Fewer predators and less disease can go a long way towards increasing an animals longevity, but animals may die prematurely in an aquarium. The same animals may have died prematurely in the seas.

In my mind, once the decision has been made to keep these organisms, the moral issue becomes how well they are cared-for: make the environment as healthy as we know how, provide a varied diet, and play Inna-Gadda-Davida for them every morning.

On the issue of aptasia and other pests, I have to point to the fact that nature has checks and balances that are dificult to reproduce in an enclosed system, so the aquarist has to intervene for the greater good. (I wonder if there are large wild "aptasia reefs.") If a natural method is available, use it and pass it along to a fellow reefer who needs it when your problem is under control. Or, dispatch the pests as humanely as possible.

In the big picture, there are things we do daily without even thinking about them, that are more detrimental to the environment (including our beloved wild reefs) than the aquarium hobby could ever hope to do.

p.s. I cry if one of my fish dies.

[Shoestring Reefer]

I can't really agree that the quality of life for fish or inverts in a tank is better than a reef if they can't reproduce-either because only one of a species is kept, the larvae can't survive, or some other environmental factor is missing. It's a basic biological need that is not often fulfilled. I mean, stick me in a bomb shelter for 80 years with a cat and a dog and some plants and rocks and some food, and I might be the safest person in the world. No car accidents, murder, or asian bird flue. But if I couldn't make babies, it would suck.

[s0|]

Shoestring: he said competes not beats. (which are diffrent for me.)
about the cats and dogs here....
do you think (domestic) cats and dogs should be “fixed�? or do you have a fixed cat or dog. don't you think keeping their populations at a level which most can be cared for (food, medical, housed...etc) properly. and I might be taking a liberty here comparing a tank raised, or wild collected, species, to a domesticed pet like a cat or dog..... but it's the same idea in a way. Dogs and Cats could be left in the "wild" and not get to "fulfill their basic biological needs" at their will, but food quality and life expectancy might be lower than one whom is in *domestic* care, but whom does not get their needs fulfilled. And in most cases the fish we keep need tend to be quite easy to domesticate some even in the first generation. How many of you have most of the fish swim up to the glass when you walk intot the room, but they hide when anyone else does...?


p.s. I don't cry when my fish die... I figure out what casued the death....

[Shoestring Reefer]

I haven't had a dog since I was a kid, but the only fixed cat I've had was from a shelter.

Dogs and Cats could be left in the "wild" and not get to "fulfill their basic biological needs" at their will, but food quality and life expectancy might be lower than one whom is in *domestic* care, but whom does not get their needs fulfilled.Are you arguing that a nice place to stay and some good food are more important than reproduction? Hey, it's your life, whatever you're into.

And in most cases the fish we keep need tend to be quite easy to domesticate some even in the first generation. Heck, wild horses can be domesticated in one generation. But saying that giving them a stall, some oats, and rubber band around their nut sack is better than leaving them in the wild because they might not reproduce in the wild is nonsense to me.

IMO, a pair of clowns breeding in the tank may have it better than they would in the wild, but not a single one. Any of this "my fish is better off this way" talk is just kidding yourself. I suspect my pajama cardinal's life sucks, tough luck for him/her.

And that nut sack would be full of Planter's Honey Roasted Peanuts, if anyone cares.

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by Shoestring Reefer
It's a basic biological need that is not often fulfilled. I mean, stick me in a bomb shelter for 80 years with a cat and a dog and some plants and rocks and some food, and I might be the safest person in the world. No car accidents, murder, or asian bird flue. But if I couldn't make babies, it would suck.

Are you arguing that if you were put in the same bomb shelter with someone to reproduce with you would be able to live a happy life?
I do agree that anyone who thinks they are giving their fish a better life in a small aquarium is just kidding themselves. So if you think about it, this thread is about the lack of care and responsibility some have towards their tanks, but an argument can and has been made that once we set up these boxes of water, we are, from that point on, irresponsible and are putting our desire to have a nice tank above the health and well being of the creatures we care for.

[Shoestring Reefer]

Originally posted by The Punisher
Are you arguing that if you were put in the same bomb shelter with someone to reproduce with you would be able to live a happy life?

Nope, I'm arguing that food, safety, and shelter are not all that are needed for happieness.

< insert joke about how I could be happy depending on who "someone to reproduce with" is here >

[The Punisher]

So the question is, are we all just mean, inconsiderate people who care more about our own enjoyment and pleasure than letting our beloved fish be free in the ocean? If you say no, why not?
For me, I just accept it and do the best I can to provide an adequate environment for the fish I do decide to keep.

And I tried to come up with something wittier than "someone to reproduce with" but couldn't come up with anything, I guess I'm a little slow today.

[MrClean]

Shoestring Reefer, I see your point and I agree. Life in the tank isn't perfect without the chance to reproduce, open seas to swim in, the correct tide and wave effects. And on and on. It can't be perfect. That is 100% true. But if you decide to keep an aquarium, you should get as many details correct as possible.

One problem with this discussion is you can't tell if your fish are happy. You can pretty much tell if they are healthy, but who knows what motivates them? Dogs? You can tell. They have been domesticated for so long, you have a good idea what they need or want. With fish, you guess your best and hope you don't screw it up too bad.

Did we get off-track from Mud's original question?

People are going to keep aquariums. I think it's part of the human psyche to dominate nature. Coupled with the desire to look at pretty things, that sums-up the aquarium hobby to me. I don't think that's bad, it just "is."

Maybe the moral thing to do is to just have photos of reefs. But, no, that would cause an immoral stress on the inhabitants when the flash goes off. That's a joke, folks.

I think I'll go along as I have been: Doing immoral things as morally as possible. Keep my wards as healthy as I can. Provide them with as natural an environment as I can. Learn from my mistakes so I, hopefully, don't repeat them. Try to help newbies do the right thing.

Aside to s0|: I know what killed them. It was me. I wasn't prepared for an extended power outtage. The tank temps rose outrageously. Heck, ambient was over 90F. These were fish I had kept for 6 to 8 years.

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by MrClean
Doing immoral things as morally as possible.

I really like that way of looking at it.

[s0|]

one more time - sustainable populations vs the freedom to get it on.

in this cases a sustainable population is not what nature can handel, but rather what the hobby can handel till it goes back to / becomes even more of an "amature night" and every tom dick and harrry is selling salf water fish, becuase everyone let their breeding saltwater fish propograte at will, and raised up as many of them as possible, and allowed the flooding of the market.

while some of us would love to see the price of some items come down, most populations, (read supply) probably NEED to kept "artifically" low for various reasons, that I am only going to go into if someone thinks otherwise.

When i keep a dog or cat do I let them fulfill their biological needs when they want, or in most cases EVER, simpily beucase I feel that it will make them "happier"? IMO if you do keep a dog or cat there is a very high probablity (read ~90%+ (factors in abuse, and other types of poor ownershuip)) that their life is better becuase of it, even if they never got a chance to repoduce. The lives of many other already living (owned and stray) cats and dogs got better becuase we kept our cats and dogs from repoducing. I would argue that their lives are not deffecient so much in "biological need" area that we should risk the ultmante overall population level.

[The Punisher]

I don't think we can compare a pet dog to a pet fish. I agree that dogs are better off domesticated, but fish are not. I also think that most people would agree with that.

[MrClean]

The more I think about this, the stickier my mind gets.

This discussion has gotten me to wonder mostly about my Hapatus tang and its lack of swimming room and how I decide what animals to keep. I believe the gobies I keep can easily tolerate life in 90g. For the corals, space isn't a worry, but have I chosen animals that are losing habitat? That are sustainable through captive breeding?

If price is an indicator of rarity, the fish I keep are abundant. Most of the corals and such are tank-raised and abundant. I stock small groups of fish more often than singly.

I wouldn't try to keep something I know is endangered, but I must confess to a little "ignorance is bliss" attitude on this in the past. I have made some uninformed purchases that I later regretted, because the organism had requirements I wasn't prepared to meet.

That was the state of the hobby some 20 years ago: not enough information and it was hard to find when it existed. While the hobby has grown, I've also become less blase' about the death of an animal in my care.

And s0|'s point about the captive breeding making the hobby accessible to so many more people: "Toss a ping-pong ball in the glass and win a Nemo." Does a low price devalue the life it's attached to.

I've seen people who shouldn't keep dogs and don't care well for them. If this hobby is perceived as easy due to the low cost of the animals, that would become more prevalent. Are we responsible for the animals that die because we popularize the hobby?

The unexamined life is not worth living, but my brain hurts.

[Mud Shrimp Moe]

Originally posted by MrClean
Did we get off-track from Mud's original question?

No, this discussion has been interesting.

Originally posted by MrClean
People are going to keep aquariums. I think it's part of the human psyche to dominate nature. Coupled with the desire to look at pretty things, that sums-up the aquarium hobby to me. I don't think that's bad, it just "is."

I wouldn't go so far as to call the hobby "immoral," and I intend to stick with the hobby, so I don't have any concerns that outweigh my desire to stick with it.

We can't know if our fish and animals are "happy," but I think it's a fair assumption that the animals that propogate in captivity (I'm including frags here) are showing that they can thrive in an aquarium. And I think a few generations into captive bred, the animals are pretty much suited for tank life. Not that they couldn't adapt back to the sea, but they are as close to "happy" as I'd dare to guess they can be.

I sometimes wonder why we (hobbyists) even bother with so many difficult to thrive species. There are a lot of beautiful animals that are very difficult to keep healthy long term ... Moorish Idols, most anthias, octopuses, a lot of starfish ... but they're still not hard to find and buy. Probably the biggest single problem is a lot of these animals really need HUGE tanks, and we (hobbyiests) continue to put them in smaller than ideal environments. But the irony (to me) is that a lot of animals thrive in our small/mid tanks, whether they propogate or not, and they're STILL very beautiful. I want to stick with the later category, probably forever. I have no desire to keep a fish that requires expert care just for the "challenge" of keeping it alive.

[MrClean]

Hi Mud (your name is Mud)

There are some who would say taking anything away from its natural environment and putting it in a box, no matter how nice the box, is wrong. I wouldn't want to go to the nicest country-club prison. Unless I was bunking with Martha. That would be sweet. Yes, kids, that was sarcasm. Maybe.

But I don't have any problem with keeping aquaria and will continue. I just want to be circumspect in my decisions on stocking and provide the best artificial environment as possible. And I hope others will too.

I also agree with your take on challenging species; they are not for me. But I appreciate the effort of someone who does keep them (well) and the knowledge they gain. Without them, every reef creature would still be challenging.

It is unfortunate that some animals may die before their requirements are understood, but it is "wrong" if a novice or otherwise unprepared hobbyist tries to keep one just to see if he can.

Shades of gray in the fog...

I'm probably contradicting myself with every post, my mind is so roiled with the discussion. It's good.

If I do everything to provide a suitable environment and not intentionally stock an animal I have doubts about maintaining, I will feel good about my aquarium.

[s0|]

true, the comparsion of fish to dogs and cats might not be the best one.... at the time that was the first thing that poped into my head.

Yeah low price might make it eaiser to devaluate the attached life, but also the low price seems to make people not want to spend as much for the care of the animal.

(when people pay more for something they seem more willing to put the time, money, and effort into it's care. when it's a 7 cent gold fish........... this is not a stead fast rule, and I may be preaching to the chior)