Is this a good sign or bad? Rare hard to keep fish in LFS.

[Onestep]

The wife and I just walked into a local fish store and I saw 2 juv. emperor angels, one adult emperor angel, and low and behold a moorish idol. Is this a sign that the hobbie is expanding or the stores are just being greedy?

[mrbast74]

Greed, maybe, but the fact that the market supports their sale is maybe a bigger issue. I don't know if we should blame the LFS for providing animals people want. Is the LFS partialy responsible for killing off many of these hard to keep creatures? I think in part they are. I would tend to place more of the blame on casual aquarists who continue to buy these pretty fish without educating themselves on the ramifications of doing so.

The bottom line is, if people stop buying, importers will stop shipping. Simple as that.(riiiight. real simple:rolleyes: )

I think we as educated aquarist need to take the first step in stopping irresponsable importation by educating. I also would say, remind your LFS owners that these species are terribly difficult to keep and that perhaps they should only purchase questionable species on a per request basis.

[INNOVATOR]

Well I haven't heard moorish idols doing well in captivity yet, mostly due to nutrition deficiencies. There are some dedicated aquarists who are able to keep them, but I am sure that is more luck than anything as far as nutrition is concerned. I'd say the lfs is a little greedy and possibly not being informed on what they are selling :)

[OrionN]

LFS sell what people buy. It s just simple as that. Emperator angels are not hard to keep. Young Emporator will not be as colorful if they mature and change color in cativity. This is THE reason I choose an Majestic angle for my tank instead of an Emperator angel.

[naesco]

The Moorish Idol should not be imported.
The LFS should get an earfull from you. He will probably tell you he did not order it. It came as fill. But, at least, next time he will smarten up.
Experts do not have any better luck that newbies. The fish die anyone although there is the rare reefer who claims he has been lucky enough to keep one for a period of time.

[The Perfect Pet]

well Naesco,

I feel you are grossly wrong. it is quite ignorant and irresponsible for you to make such claims.(although there are many on these boards who do the same.)

Yes this is a very delicate and hard species to maintain in captivity
but that does not mean that it can't be done or that someone should be discouraged for researching and attempting to keep one. There are many species that should not be kept in captivity.
IMHO we really should not keep any of these animals in captivity, but we do so why limit it to certain ones. without trying how can we build experience and knowledge. if people hadn't tried to keep reef aquaria in the past 30 yrs, do you think we would be where we are today? I DOUBT IT! don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that anyone should just run out and buy one and try to keep it. but with the proper experience and research(and tank setup) why not try?

as for experience one of my clients has had a Moorish idol in a 220 gal. reef for over 2 yrs.
It is a well established reef(over 5yrs)
and trust me this fish is as beautiful as the day it came in.
now maybe it is just dumb luck or the fact that he designed the tank with keeping this fish 6 yrs ago. but he did not have great luck at first. His first to did not last to long(probably due to the tank not being mature enough) he blames shipping for the loss of the second one. so I guess, so far third times a charm.

sorry if this post offended anyone (and NAESCO this was not directly at you,except the first para. sorry)

this is just my 2 centz!

-B-

[Wild Card-inal]

I have read that Moorish Idols have quite a large range; this means that they can take a variety of different water qualities, right?

Also, I believe that it is better in an aged tank with a lot of coralline algae since Moorish Idols eat that, right? I'm not completely sure...

[Mad Scientist]

I got to agree with B on this one. One should be very careful pointing the finger at someone, without first looking at their own tank.


Let's not forget that even in the 1990s there were proferssional biologists claiming that people would never keep SPS in their homes. As far as keeping some of the more difficult angel and butterflys (that many public aquariums can't maintain) I think it's only a matter of time before someone gets the setup right. Big tank? Another tank growing their speicalized food? Who knows.

[naesco]

I'm irresponsible, and ignorant too!?
So what are you saying. Is it that you should continue to purchase Moorish Idols and sell them to reefers with the hope that someone may stumble on how to keep them alive?
There is no doubt that today experts, scientists, universities are studying the Moorish Idol and other impossible to keep species and may sometime come up with what is necessary to keep them alive.
Unless an expert reefer who is studying this fish, specifically orders a Moorish Idol, you should do the hobby a favour and stop purchasing them for resale in your store.

[Wild Card-inal]

I see both opinions, but we can all agree on one thing:

No inexperienced hobbyist is going to get their hands on a Moorish Idol!

[mrbast74]

Originally posted by Wild Card-inal
I see both opinions, but we can all agree on one thing:

No inexperienced hobbyist is going to get their hands on a Moorish Idol!

Huh????

there are many places that carry them at one time or another. The only thing that keeps some hobbiests from getting them is a relatively high price compared to most "starter fish".

[naesco]

Wildcard that is the problem. Many LFS such as the Perfect Pet's LFS carry them and sell them to unsuspecting reefers.
This fish is not a difficult fish it is an impossible to keep fish.
It is a tragedy in my opinion that we allow Moorish Idol to be imported except by permit.
If we hobbyists do not become involved in stopping their import and the import of other impossible to keep species, the government will become involved,and we will be hoarding our clownfish and damsels and trading brown frags with each other.

[Mad Scientist]

naesco, that's pretty serious charge there, I happen to frequent Perfect Pets' LFS and for you to say that they dump fish on "unsuspecting" reefers is unfounded.

I know MIs are hard, but, impossible? There are people on this board that have them. Also, MI's are not endangered. With rare exception, aquarium keepers are not responislbe for the massive damage todays' reefs are suffering, in fact one day many of these species will probably only exist in people tanks.

If someone has the right setup and has researched it, why can't they try an exotic species?

[The Perfect Pet]

well NAESCO,

Here you go proving your ignorance again.
For your information we do not carry them at the LFS that I work at. They, and many other species of fish(as well as inverts), are available by "paid in full" special order ONLY. and as far as selling anything to an unexpecting reefer you have obviously never been to the LFS that I work at. We even grill our freshwater people about requirements for their fish and other animals. I am quite offended again by your ignorance and rudeness. I take quite a bit of pride in educating our customers, rather than just selling to them.
If we hobbyists do not become involved in stopping their import and the import of other impossible to keep species, the government will become involved,and we will be hoarding our clownfish and damsels and trading brown frags with each other.
Its people like this that will bring this hobby to an abrupt halt.
If you make a big fuss about something so small in the scope of things, then yes the gov. will get involved and then you will be trading brown frags.(while I'll be trading some nice green, red, and purple ones)
But yes the gov. will get involved and then the hobby as we know it will be ruined over a few hard/Impossible(?) species.

Again, just my 2 centz!!!!


-B-

[INNOVATOR]

Well for one they are not impossible. There are people who have kept them for years with a highly varied diet, but this takes determination and an extreme amount of dedication. However, there are species that should not be offered in the trade and this is probably one of them.
As far as who is to blame, everyone plays a part in it, from the diver to the consumer. Often times the lfs' aren't informed enough about the species of fish they carry, this is a problem. Often enough the people are not informed before they buy and the people selling them the fish may not know any better either, so this is a problem as well. Personally, I think if they want something done to stop this trend of selling animals probably better off in the ocean, is to stop importation of certain species, making it illegal or whatever (except maybe to legit scientists). Just a thought :)

[naesco]

I am really happy that your store does not carry them. Yours, I think you will agree is the exception not the rule.
I apologize for lumping you in with the others. I should have asked to first.
If you do not want the government to get involved than give 100% support to the efforts of hobbyists, authors in our hobby who we all respect, and some LFS and wholesalers who refuse to import and sell impossible to keep fish and coral.
If we in the hobby show that we can clean up our own mess, the government will not bother to get involved.
If we ignore it, they will get involved to the detriment of our hobby.

[mrbast74]

It has been talked about a lot, but obviously not enough.

We need to get all online communities to band together and compile a list of standards and make a sort of "ISO" type of certification for LFS's to be able to voluntarily follow in exchange the LFS receives the coalitions seal of approval. Educated reefers can make an impact by only shopping at approved stores.

Until now the only action being taken to curb the sale of difficult species is none at all.

There are so many bright minds in these communities, I can't believe we don't do something like this.

[INNOVATOR]

There might be something like that coming out soon Bast, but not sure if it applies to salt water fish stores. What is being decided for pet stores in general is to have a complete description of everything you stock, live animal wise. This is very smart I think, but I have no idea if it applies to salt water fish stores. Plus, there are alot of rules that must be sorted out regarding the wording of such a law. It would be interesting if this possible new law does include fish stores! :)

[mrbast74]

Originally posted by INNOVATOR
There might be something like that coming out soon Bast, but not sure if it applies to salt water fish stores. What is being decided for pet stores in general is to have a complete description of everything you stock, live animal wise. This is very smart I think, but I have no idea if it applies to salt water fish stores. Plus, there are alot of rules that must be sorted out regarding the wording of such a law. It would be interesting if this possible new law does include fish stores! :)

Do you have any more info on this? Is this to be a government mandate? Who exactly is making this innitiative. If it is a sort of fish store guild, great. If it is governmentally imposed I am not in favor.

Please let me know as much as you can about this because I may want to cast my vote in support.

If not, why don't we start something right here on RC. If we could somehow organize we could then get the word to reefs.org and then on to other message boards. Eventually with enough support we would have the clout to affect change.

[naesco]

Mr. Blast you are right on the money.
We should try to do something that will really make a difference.
Maybe we can do this through Reef Central. I get the feeling that most of the moderators are supportive. They just see to much.
I also think that some LFS would be interested. It is our hobby at stake but it is their livelihood.

[mrbast74]

I wonder, where is a logical place to start. Would an idea like this need a leadership committee or board of directors to make final decisions on what the standards would be? Should we just start to gather info on what possible acceptable standards should be? It would be a large task but a worthy undertaking.
If we are determined we can affect change.

[leigh]

I too find that going into a LFS and finding a beautiful, but extremely hard to kee, fish poses a real dilemma. Do you, as an experienced aquarist, try to "save" this animal from certain death, or do you walk away, let it die somewhere else and hope that the LFS learns a lesson and doesn't import any more of this type of fish.

I, for one do not know enough about how these types of fish are caught. It seems that cyanide poisoning is totally indiscriminate and the person doing it sells what lives. How are net caught fish handled? Somehow I don"t think that a person could make a living catching on fish at a time. Why not drag a large net acrosss a coral reef and get a variety of fish?

My common sense tells me that a fisherman uses the most convenient method to catch the largest number of living fish, and then sells them in lots to a distributor. the distributor then sorts them and ships them in lots to smaller distributors in different countries or different cities in the same country.

The dilemma for me is - where in this process do individual orders for individual species of fish get placed, and at what point are difficult fish for which there should theoretically be no demand, get dumped, and how are they dumped.

I for one, think that many LFS's get most of these fish to sell at a cut rate price to them, and they make the best of a bad situation.

Besides, I always was a soft touch for a beautiful animal that I thought I could try to help. Thay is why I have had a 3" Regal Angel as the only fish in a 30 gallon reef tank for the last six months.

I bought it for $60 and it loves brine shrimp, formula one and finely chopped scallops. The hard part of all of this is that I couldn't help the three other Regals that showed up at the same store in pretty bad shape two weeks later.

[fliberdygibits]

Having worked (briefly) in sales, and having recently become interested in keeping a reef tank I can say with stout certainty that many lfs' will tell customers whatever it takes to make a sale. Even the ones that actually know something about fish..... ultimately they are there to make money and WILL do so regardless. We truly do live in a commercialized world.

I for one fell for their sales pitch, lost fish and plan to not listen to a word they say from here on out. Although, sometimes it breaks my hart to see an expensive fish that will happily be sold to "Joe Schmoe" without so much as a word of warning, mainly because the people truly knowlegable and caring enough to keep said fish wouldn't set foot in the store.

Ok, Off the soap box:)

[mrbast74]

Please, stay on your soapbox and if you and others would be so kind, please help us to start somewhere by making constructive comments and opinions at this thread:
http://archive.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=75513

[naesco]

Leigh I think the answer always must be Do not buy the fish.
If you do with the idea that you 'can save it', the LFS will simply replace it with other impossible to keep fish.
If we reefers refuse to buy these fish and better yet give the LFS hell as well, the fish will die in THEIR tanks and they are then less likely to want to lose money again and will not repurchase these fish or coral.

[scubagirl]

First things first, it saddens me a great deal to hear someone on this site say "well the fish are not endangered". We are extremely lucky to have the oppurtunity to bring these wonderful animals into our homes and we all need to wake up and realize it. As for the LFS problem I have seen it over and over again. Sea Apples and Idols are two that my Lfs has carried on occasion. Hobbyists do not need to buy these animals in "hope" that they can raise them, this just puts dollar signs in MOST lfs's eyes !!! If someone decides to keep a tank they do need to research the animals, however, a new hobbyist usually does not know that buying some fish can have major reporcussions. Therefore the lfs's need to quit carring these animals. Leave the scientific study to the scientists and IF one day we are so lucky that they do discover the secret to keeping an idol then we can begin to buy. bast I am on board for the group for sure!!!!!

[The Perfect Pet]

Again WRONG< WRONG< WRONG<WRONG,

!!! If someone decides to keep a tank they do need to research the animals, however, a new hobbyist usually does not know that buying some fish can have major reporcussions. Therefore the lfs's need to quit carring these animals. Leave the scientific study to the scientists and IF one day we are so lucky that they do discover the secret to keeping an idol then we can begin to buy. bast I am on board for the group for sure!!!!!

The LFS does not need to quit carrying an animal, if they can keep it alive themselves, and are willing to educate the cutomer on the reprocussions of buying certain fish. If the customers become more knowledgable than they will know better than to purchase certain fish. then if the fish dies in the lfs, they are likely not to order ot again(if no one buys it, and it dies they lose $)

As far as you saying that MI or Sea Apples are impossible to keep is very iggnorant. As I know several people who have a great deal of success with these species. Are they extremely difficult yes! but not impossible.
Besides until recently it was thaught that keeping SPS in captivity
was "impossible"
I am glad we didn't all just stop buying or importing SPS.
or we wouldn't have these wondurful captive coral gardens we do today. I for one am glad people took the risks to learn of their requirements. Now we can keep them and propogate them(hopefully to replenish nature deminishing source one day, I mean heck these thing grow like weeds in the home aquarium, who would have thought that 10 yrs ago?)

[mrbast74]

What is the responsibility of the lfs in your opinion, is there any. I know when I first started I had no clue where to find information other than from the lfs, who I was naive enough to believe had the best interest of me and the animal at heart. How many times I was told that if I wanted to keep two tangs in my 55 gallon tank I couldn't. I needed to buy three or the agression would be too focused from the dominant tang. This was always followed up with a suggestion for a tang they conveniently had swimming in their tank. Not until I found an online message board was I even aware that these fish are just not always compatable especially in a 55 gallon tank. The bottom line is money. I foolishly gave my lfs alot of that in the interest of keeping tangs alone. How are new aquarist to know not to put their trust in the lfs, or better yet why not promote lfs's who foster good long term relationships with their customers by making them accountable for such grossly misgiven advice.

[The Perfect Pet]

Mrbast74,

Honestly, the problem with most LFS is that they are not up on the newer technology and information. They recommend thing that are outdated, because they don't know any different.
so what really needs to be done is massive re-education in the field of reefkeeping, among lfs. Kind of hard to fathom.
Our best plan of attack is to praise good stores and give lots of bad PR to the bad ones. Try and educate, or open the door, or show the light to some of these lousy LFS's.
Not sure of a real solution , but definitely an admirable cause and idea.
I really feel this would be a great topic for MACNA XIV.

2 more centz.


-B-

[Mad Scientist]

scubagirl,

Sorry to write that MIs are not endangered, apparently the facts do not matter to you. While I do agree (somewhat I guess) that we have a certain responsibility to research and offer the best captive conditions possible to the fish we raise, the fact that you do not care how the species is doing as a whole clearly show that are very ignornant of the REAL problem. Maybe borad members rallying for laws and regulation have bought in to the misinforamtion out there that us hobbyists are in any way to blame for the vast destruction being wagged on today's reefs. We are not!!! Overfishing, polllution, development,and climate change are going to destroy most of the worlds reefs within the next century (if not sooner). If you really want to help reefs ,picking on your local LFS, because you think you know more them is not the way to go.

Many freshwater species of fish are now only alive in captivity, one day this may be the case with many reef inhabitants.

You seem to ignore a few facts:
1.) If the LFS can keep them alive, why can't they inport them. And a LFS that is only out to make a buck will lose business as people lose fish and either leave the hobby or go elsewhere with their money
2.) Many people where saying the same thing you are saying about MIs only in regard to SPS corals less than 10 years ago. Luckly no one listened to people like you guys who said "it can't be done."
3.) You have picked a poor species to make your point in MIs since your claim that they are impposible to cheap is simply false.

People in this hobby take enough finger pointing from people blaming us for destroying the planets most diverse ecosystems, we don't need it within the hobby as well.

Look at the FACTS, see who is too really blame, instead of having an emotional response to the one fish you see in a store that you can't keep (so no one can?), think of the millions that are dead from overfishing and habitat loss.

[DgenR8]

I cannot tell you if the fish in question is "impossible" to keep or not. From what I've read, the MI, like others, is a definite challenge at best.
The reason I'm chiming in here is that many people are bashing LFS's in general. I am of the same thinking, but want to caution you that what you say in regard to any specific store or business can certainly come back to bite you in the *****. Keep to the facts and be able to back yourself up if it ever comes into question. What you type here can be brought back to the surface at any time and I'm sure at least some of you know about the infamous "PetsWarehouse law suit"
I would like to see hobbyists take responsibility for their own actions and not act in ways that they KNOW will most likely end negatively.
Should LFS's be selling Morish Idols? My opinion is at least not to people without experience and knowledge. Who is gonna draw the line though? I have a 125 gal. established almost two years ago. Does that mean I can buy one if I want or am I as of yet still too inexperienced or maybe my system is still too young?? The fact here is that NOT every aquarist will research, not every LFS will respond to lost fish as a reason not to offer them for sale.
We all know that the Manderin is on the hot debate list, but how often do you see them for sale? Not only that, but how often do you see this Difficult to keep animal for $20.00? People that have not researched will see that as a very small price to pay for such a pretty fish and buy one JUST because it's cheap. This perpetuates the problem.
There are over Ten Thousand people here on RC. How many other Reefers are there out there that have never heard of this board??
The best solution to this problem is education. Education of the aquarist as well as the LFS. How do you pull that off?

[coralite]

Before I chime In,

Perfect pet,
Who taught you communication skills? When a customer tells you something that is untrue do you get in their face and tell them how wrong they are w/ a raised voice?
Well when you type "WRONG WRONG WRONG" that is basically what you are doing. It is not directed at me and I am offended because I really like this place and i don't want people driven away. Just thought id fill you in on the ins of bulletin board etiquette so you don't get your @$$ chewed by someone w/ less
grace than naesco, like MYSELF.
We are all basically throwing out OPINIONS and individual experiences so there is no right or wrong.

I have worked in many pet and aquarium stores and I have managed 3 high end primarily marine stores in Denver and Atlanta. In that time I have had only one MI that a customer brought in that ate that crappy gel food as fast as i could squeeze it out, while he was in the bucket the guy brought him in.
I cannot even begin to describe the sheer number of "unsuitable species" you will find at a wholesaler. Not only are they present but they in fact make up a large percent of what is coming in. macropharyngodon wrasses, orange spot files, singapore angels, seahorses, elegance, regal angels, plenty of MI, flowerpots in rows and rows, and it just goes and goes. I will frankly never forget one morn when red sea and hawaii were fresh and I watched another retailer fill up. more than half her purchase was hawaiian cleaner, regal angels, flowerpots, MI, tons of bflys and just stuff that doesnt live w/o a very narrow range of requirements.

The fact is she did this pretty much every week, just a different locale. She was always basically going for the mascot fish that you see on beach towels and Tshirts.

So waht does that tell me? It tells me that fish are too cheap, people dont care about fish but they care about money so why not tax the fish that need special attention?
That MI I had I sold for $149 because i was not about to let john doe get his hands on it while he was out "shopping".

I know it would be a headache and argument listing those species that should be taxed but IMO, any species that suffers more than 80% mortality in "typical aquarium" should fall under this category. Right now wild banggaiis and clowns fall under this category because I know that everyone from the collector to the end purchser is experiencing large mortalities w/ these. The taxed money can be used to implement guidelines for suitable species and hire inspectors to hand out fines! It might seem a little extreme now but it sure as hell is better than closing down the whole thing. This would also cause an evolutionary effect by weeding out the losers and sorting out the true eco minded and well educated shop keepers.

It is the same retailers that subsist on mascot fish and threaten the public image of this industry, subsiquently endangering the entire future of the hobby by giving antagonists mud to throw, that will be opposed to such legislation.
If they cannot survive in this suggested environment it is because they are dependent on ignorant impulse buyers to subsist and not long time customer relations. The proper minded business man knows that long term customer relations is critical for the success of his shop and that is achieved by being considerate of the client's aquarium and his abilities as a fishkeeper. All else idealy falls into place.

It might sound all utopian but it is POSSIBLE and definitly a better outcome to a total ban.

[naesco]

So what fish are we talking about. How about referring to an textbook accepted and referred to by most reefers in our hobby
John Tullock Natural Reef Aquariums.
The following is on list category 7 "Special requirements for this species, usually dietary needs, cannot be met by the home aquarist. Appropriate conditions for keeping this species are not yet defined."
The list includes the following
shrimpfish
many butterflyfish
clown sweetlips
pencil, cleaner, leopard and tamarin wrasses
purple tile fish
orange spotted filefish
blue/black ribbon eel
red finned bat fish
rock beauty and regal angelfish
parrotfishes
MOORISH IDOL
The reason these fish are on this list are most are obligate feeders.
MAC has a committee to look at unsuitable fish entering our hobby. We should ask for representation on the committee and ensure that our industry stops the import of them before the government stops the import of all species. If we do not clean up our act, the government will IMO.

[Mad Scientist]

Everyone has a right to keep what fish they please, if the fish is not threatened by overcollection in its habitat, does anyone really have any right to tell em that I can't keep it, and if so one what grounds? Because YOU decide it's too hard for me too keep I can't get it. I would rather see an expert try an MI then some newbie walk in and grab a dwarf angel or roayl gramma (easy species right).

It's nice to go emotions and all, but, how aobut looking at the facts, if the fish is not threatened in the wild by overcollection, it should be avialable!

If the fish in question is not rare in nature, why is ok for some gill netter to kill a thousand a day for food, but, I can't keep one at home?

If you an animal rights person, is it really ok to keep any wild caught fish? If you are a conservationalist (like me), take a look at the facts. You want to help out reef fish, tell people to stop overdelveoping every inch of beach front property and the farms to stop using so much chemical fertilizers. Don't point you finger at the little guy, just because he's an easy target.

How long with Tullock list hold true for, 2 years, 5 years?

[The Perfect Pet]

well AQUAFRESH,

well it is a shame that you are offended, because that is the exact reason I posted that reply. Because I am offended by the continuous claims of "IMPOSSIBLE" to keep species.
Again must I remind you that less than 10 yrs ago most SPS corals were said to be impossible to keep. Aren't you glad we did not listen to all those wining people then.
As far as communication skills, I'm quite confident in mine.
I would never get in a customers face, I am all about education.
As far as board etiquette, I am not to worried, as you said this is all just our own personal opinions. I am sure that if someone had read the thread from the start, they would realize that this is quite a heated discussion. Besides I highly doubt that me saying that someone is wrong(especially when they are, nothing is impossible) is going to be scared away. so aquafresh before you but in (I mean chime in) please remember what you yourself said these are all just opinions.:D


-B-

[Wild Card-inal]

Originally posted by Mad Scientist
If you an animal rights person, is it really ok to keep any wild caught fish? If you are a conservationalist (like me), take a look at the facts. You want to help out reef fish, tell people to stop overdelveoping every inch of beach front property and the farms to stop using so much chemical fertilizers. Don't point you finger at the little guy, just because he's an easy target.

I totally agree with that. Also, donations of money for coral reefs are also quite helpful. By keeping these fish at home, we are learning and adding to the information. But only for an expert. I'm not saying this so any newbie can go out there and buy themselves a fresh Moorish Idol and have it starve to death, but for an expert to try his hand at keeping a fish species to add to the experience, be it positive or negative.

How long with Tullock list hold true for, 2 years, 5 years?

I'd say quite a few will be there for longer than that. The cleaner wrasses will probably be there for ages until we actually want other invertebrates climbing on our fish, and then after that they'd still have to have a huge tank to contain all the fish to sustain their diet. That's just one of the examples. I say some other fish are closer; the Moorish Idol is within some people's grasp already, so I see that one in 5 years. 2 years, I only see a few making it. But we are advancing, and there's no denying it.

I say we should get more captive raised fish. According to FFE, there's about a 99% mortality rate from fry; now what if one other percent came from captive raised? That means double the fish already! 2%? Three times the fish! What if we had a whole bunch of companies that will captive raise fish? What if we heighten that percentage to 25%? A little less than 1/4 of all fish will live; and they will be in fish tanks! (numbers are off unless people are getting these fry from every single spawn that happens on Earth, but you get the point, right?) Do you have any idea how much fish we'd be getting? And the advantages go past that. They will be more used to captive life and captive food. They will be more used to crowding and more tolerant of water quality. I think the advantages would be pretty good; we just have to have more people doing it.

[Mad Scientist]

Wild Card-inal,

I could not agree more about the benefits of captive raised fish. The fact of the matter is that fish are going to die while we learn how to keep them, as callous as it sounds, it will be worth it for us and the species of fish/coral.

No one is advocated giving a MI to some guy with 6 months freshwater expericnce to keep in a 20gallon. But, this attitute that only scientists should be trying to raise these fish is absurd.

I also must admit you are probably right about clean wrasses. Still, for many of the fish, I'll bet if you took some guys here on RC gave them the budget to do it, you'd be surprised at the results.

[mrbast74]

Originally posted by Mad Scientist
Wild Card-inal,



No one is advocated giving a MI to some guy with 6 months freshwater expericnce to keep in a 20gallon. But, this attitute that only scientists should be trying to raise these fish is absurd.



The problem is, there is no mechanism in place to even deter this practice. I can walk into nearly any lfs, open up my wallet shell out $75.00 and buy that pretty moorish idol. It doesn't matter if this is day one for me and I don't even know about the nitrogen cycle. I can take home this MI and just through it in my uncycled 20 gallon tank, you know the one that I also purchased that cool peice of bleached staghorn for. Then when I bring its carcass in to the store and ask what happened. They say bring a water sample in and tell me I have ammonia in my tank and they may say thats bad. (oh look, another sale opportunity) then they sell me some bacteria in a bottle and send me on my way with a $20.00 yellow tang. You know eventualy I may figure it out but until then, chances are I am gonna be forking out many dollars, and killing a lot of livestock.

The problem is, that the lfs has NO incentive to educate. The more educated I am the less money they make. The only logical place to provide education to new aquarium keepers is the lfs and currently many of the lfs employees out there are about as educated as the newbie that walks in the store to buy that tank cycleing MI. This must change. Many would like to place the responsibility for education on the reefkeepers shoulders. I do too. But after thinking about it I have realized that many of the new reefkepers don't even understand the need for education. I can buy the incredibly difficult to keep MI as easily as I can buy a painting or a new cd for my car stereo and with the same amount of expertise.

LFS' need to take the first step in educating. People need to show some level of competency at a bare minimum before they are allowed to purchase questionable species, or any species for that matter.

[mrbast74]

I apologize if my posts are comming off a little scattered. It's just that the more I think about it, the more I realize there is so much wrong with this industry I don't even know where to begin or what needs the most immediate attention, but something has to change.

[RooFish]

From working in MY LFS, I have learned a lot of this stuff. Lots of fish don't belong in the AVERAGE persons tank. Some need special care, but others are fine. Most often, however, we only carry the easy to keep species, as they are less likely to die while we have them. If a fish dies while we have it, it means a loss of money for us, but if someone buys a dying fish and saves it, it means profit. I think one of the problems is that often the person who orders doesn't know the fish, they just see that it sold, died, or is still there when they do the next order. Me and Matt usually do the orders and check the list, so we only buy the species that don't die. We do have one mandarin, but he isn't for sale. He lives in a display tank, and is fat and happy. As for other stuff, we only special order it, paid in full, if we can't keep it alive for more than a month easily.

Someone listed Elegance corals as hard to keep. I have one, and we have one at work. Mine was doing great, until it was damaged in a fall. Now it is recovering, and I hope it fully does recover. I also know many other people who have healthy elegances. Moorish Idols are the same way, some have good ones, and others will get them later.

Hobbyists are not the leading cause of coral reef destruction, global warming is. As someone said, soon fish will be found only in aquaria, as has happened with FW fish. As technology improves, so will reef keeping. We might as well keep the fish alive in tanks, so we can have them in the future.

Trying to educate hobbyists in the store is an exercise in futility. There is one guy who comes in a lot to buy stuff from us. At first he started out with the normal stuff, damsels and mushrooms, but then he decided that he was ready for better. One day he wanted to buy an anemone. I know his system pretty well, and it couldn't hold it, and he couldn't care for it. I didn't sell him it, and he left all mad. 2 days later he came back and said he went somewhere else and got one. Then there are the people who come in and say "My fish are dying and they have white spots on them. What's up with your fish man?" And I say, "They have ich, its a common sickness that they get when they're stressed out or moved." Then I tell them to get some medicine, and it'll make them better. Then the person says thanks man, and leaves without the medicine. Later they come back because all their fish died, and try to blame us. SO its useless to try to educate people, since lots of them will either just ignore us or go somewhere else. Its not possible to make it so every LFS is honest and tries to educate people.

As for certifying LFS's who do it right, it'll be hard to get working right. I know a bunch of LFS's (not mine) who wish that places like Reef Central didn't exist. So, they wouldn't want to be certified by them. Also, the set of rules would be very hard to get standardized, since you can't just say "doesn't import impossible species" you have to say each species or requirement specifically.

Oh well, probably just my rambling which will be shot down by you guys who don't believe, but that's my experience. Bottom line is IF YOU DON'T WANT IT TO BE SOLD, DON'T BUY IT BECAUSE IF IT DIES IN THE STORE THEY'RE LESS LIKELY TO BUY ANOTHER!!!

[mrbast74]

What about making marine aquaria a bit more of an exlusive club. Would you people be against some sort of individual certification for hobbiests, much like scuba divers need to be certified. The only way you could buy marine livestock would be if you could flash your cerrtification card. Just an Idea.

[mrbast74]

That would at least put the responsibility on the hobbiests shoulders. Or would that take too much cash out of LFS owners pockets by limiting impulse buying?

[RooFish]

Once again, a good idea, but it wouldn't work. People who do this are often uneducated, and don't want to be educated. I would be all for a certification program, but I think overall it would fail. LFS's would be against it because of loss of profit, and people without brains would be against it because they wouldn't get they're "pretty fishies." You could run it past the board, but coordinating this sort of thing would be a total nightmare.

Remember how good communism looks in theory...

[naesco]

Good post Roofish.
Sounds like you are operating a good store.
IMO with certification the bad guys lose out. They are the ones who bring in and sell impossible to keep species.
They are the ones who sell tangs to people with small tanks etc.
With boards like this and members of boards like this who are prepared to vote with their feet, they will walk right past the bad guys (if they are still in business) and to the good guys.
Good stores now have to compete with the majority of LFS who bring in Philippines poisoned fish and sell anybody anything.
Certification will therefore help the good stores, and help the hobby.
But, we have to start doing something before it is too late.

[Mad Scientist]

WOW, you guys must have had some pretty awful experiences with LFS.


How about if you two decide what types of fish other people can own, not based on how the fish is doing in wild, but, based on you oppinion? Who needs facts, just bash an LFS....

[mrbast74]

Originally posted by Mad Scientist
WOW, you guys must have had some pretty awful experiences with LFS.


How about if you two decide what types of fish other people can own, not based on how the fish is doing in wild, but, based on you oppinion? Who needs facts, just bash an LFS....

Do you even recognize a problem.

I am not trying to institute gestapo, I just think we need to find someplace to start.

[naesco]

Let me help him.
The Issue!
The issue is do we or do we not continue to allow the import and sale of fish that have no chance of surviving in our tanks.

The question
Do we as reefers have the right to demand an ethical and sustainable industry?

[RooFish]

Yeah, we try, but every once and a while our idiot owners do the order instead of me or matt, and we end up with something like our foot long Princess Parrot. (Actually the parrot is doing fine, its just huge and not really all that pretty, that same order got like 10 yellow tangs, 2 hi hats, and a bunch of other crap)

gestapo = bad
moderation = good

Something needs to be done to help idiots with money from getting an killing fish, but still allows people with brains to get the goods.

Unfortunatley there will always be bad LFS's run by greedy people who buy cyanided fish because they're cheaper. The moderation has to be based on if they can actually be kept in the home aquarium. Maybe assign levels of difficulty, and have proof of experiance before you can get to the next level.

Any of you complaining about it should not. Either you shouldn't be buying it since you don't have the skills, or you have the skills and could buy it. Either way, with that sort of system, the people who shouldn't have it won't. BUT we don't have the system, so really its pointless to talk about it.

BTW I have had good experiances with my LFS and Preuss animal house, but other people complain all the time, and I don't know where that guy went, but he obviously wanted the anemone badly. I might add that later he asked why I thought the anemone died. I avoid him when he comes in since he doesn't listen.

[Mad Scientist]

The problem is that the world's reefs are being destroyed. People keeping fish as pets is not a significant cause.

I think it is important that we learn to keep a number difficult species in captivity. Discouraging and bad-mouthing LFS for carry challenging species is very upsetting to me. A lot of people lost alot of wild caught SPS corals learning to keep them, but, now captive propagation is a reality and one day may play a key role in saving our reefs.

Read some stuff from the 1980s about how people would never be able to keep giant clams.

[RooFish]

EXACTLY!!!!

We're only going to learn by experiance. WE need to learn, so we have to keep the hard species. We'll lose a few in the process (okay a lot) but in the end, we'll be able to breed them, so its one of those take a step back to move forward situations. I agree that newbies shouldn't have them, but people need to have them or no one ever will. That's how the hobby moves on.

[mrbast74]

Originally posted by naesco
Let me help him.
The Issue!
The issue is do we or do we not continue to allow the import and sale of fish that have no chance of surviving in our tanks.

The question
Do we as reefers have the right to demand an ethical and sustainable industry?

naesco and my veiws may branch here but i think our hearts are in the same place.

I think difficult species should be available to competent reefers in the interest of research. But the key word here is competent.

Competency must be demonstrated or there is simply no point to killing thousands of moorish idols.

[Mad Scientist]

I don't know, i can see some of your points, But, it seems you want to draw an arbitrary line stating which species you think are ok for OTHER people to keep!!

I lot of people outside the hobby think it is unethical to keep any wild caught reef animal. Why do you get to decide, well that one species has a 40% surivial rate so that's ok, another has a 35% so that shoudl be banned?


There are few if any species that are threatened by overcollecting for aquariums, so your statement about sustainabily really hasno bearing here, espically not with MIs, that while rare in LFS are common in the wild.

[RooFish]

I agree. People need to prove themselves somehow before trying to keep these species. Now it circles back to the LFS thing, since they need to not sell them to people without experience. Somehow they need to find out about peoples past, and enforce stupid people not getting hard stuff. Hopefully a lot of people will read this and spread the word. For hard fish and corals, I ask about peoples experiance, but usually I don't even have to, since they have to ask specifically before I'll even consider ordering one for them. Thats how it should be, until its common practice for people to keep tanks the way harder fish need, which will eventually happen. Then hard fish will be easy, and then they can be sold.

[Rocky Mountain Reef]

I'm a business man at heart. I make my living building software that gets sold at huge margins. I have a huge channel of resellers that sell the products, and they have only one priority. Make money. They could care less that I have integrity, or that I'm a nice guy, unless of course impacts their ability to make money.

So, what does that have to do with this thread, you are asking? ;)

Just this. When I want to change my channel's behavior, I have to show them how changing a specific behavior will evenutally make them more money. It may happen in the form of keeping customers happier, making more money off specific customers, or using their resources more effectively. But, no matter what, it's down to money.

So, how do we change the behavior of the LFS? It's not an issue of educating them on the good and bad of specific critters. Remember, their objective is money. It' not a matter of educating the customer. Someone already mentioned that many of them don't want education. It's a matter of showing the LFS that they will eventually make more money by engaging in certain behaviors and avoiding others. And it can't be based on our emotion. We need to show them very specific instances where an LFS suceeded by engaging or not engaging in these behaviors.

When I have to change a channel (reseller) behavior in my business, I walk them through the life of another reseller who is doing something, and making more money. Then, I give them the formula to do the same.

We need to do the same thing. Provide specific examples and formulae to show the LFS how to be ultimately successful. I don't have the magic formula. But, I can guarantee, based on a very successful career, that it's our educational content that has to change to see any real changes. Empassioned pleas will will create more passion, but no real change. But, educate them on how they can achieve their business objectives, and you will have a very captive audience.

Thanks for letting me rant.
Jim

[naesco]

I do not think we differ very much.
I want to be able to buy and enjoy reef critters and fish for a long time.
I do not want the hobby closed down by government because we have an industry, unresponsive to reefers demands for quality, ethical and sustainable industry.
For a start, industry should stop importing and selling fish that have no chance of success in our tanks.
Researchers, universities, aquariums, including expert reefers should have the right to order through a LFS from the 'fisherman' impossible to keep species with the hope that someday we can find out what its needs are so that we all can keep them.
What I object to is the slaughter of tens of thousands of these fish that are sold by unethical wholesalers, LFS and online fish stores to unsuspecting reefers.
That must stop now. Who can possibly disagree with this?

[The Perfect Pet]

Again I have to agree,

Who are any of us to say what we can and can't attempt to keep.
If an animal is on a CITIES list because it is endangered, than yes the collection of that animal should be banned. Any distributors/stores that stock/carry/sell those animals should be fined if not shut down. But who will regulate?( I think they already do for that anyway). If it is not on the list than I see no problem with collection.
the problem lies with people.
both the LFS and the customer need to be more educated.(like I have been saying/stressing through these 3 threads. BUT HOW?
Also, I am deeply sorry that your LFS experiences have been so terrible. We are fortunate to have a FEW good store up here in New England.(with tons of terrible one ,trust me)
Maybe it is up to us as a community(here on RC), To make a louder voice in our own communities about the bad practices of the bad LFS. The LFS will either get the message and/or undoubtedly lose business. I still like the idea of sponsored LFS's that you can trust, just sounds like a whole lot to organize. I would love to get involved, unfortunately I have very, very,little free time. Glad to help any way I can. I feel as though I do every day, by trying to educate people about this wonderful hobby/addiction/lifestyle. I feel it is the best place to start.

as always, just my 2 centz.


-B-

[naesco]

Mad Scientist and the Perfect Pet
Would you accept a committee composed of concerned reefers like Mr Bast and myself, a couple of notables like Fenner, Tullock and a couple of 'good guy' LFS' and wholesalers. (industry types)
We would draw up a unsuitable species list and present it for ratification to an industry/conservation 'board' like Marine Aquarium Council (MAC).
They would adopt it and business pressure would be put on all concerned not to import these species until that board felt that that species needs had been identified.

What do you think? Are we starting something here?

[mrbast74]

Rcky Mountain,

That is a great idea. It would be a great solution.

But it is not without problems.... I suspect that the businesses that do follow more responsible practices are not making more money. I would bet that the store that sells the largest quantities of more unique species makes more money.

The number of uninformed potential reefkeepers probably outweighs the number of educated responsible aquarists.
The cash stream from the uninformed has to be larger than that of the latter group.

This takes all of the clout away.

Beggining aquarists don't want education or don't see the need for education or know where to find the education.

LFS owners are unable or unwilling to give the education.

So where does it come from?

I don't really care how we get there, but I do want to be part of a solution.

[mrbast74]

Why is end user certificaWhy is end user certification so bad?
It would solve many problems faced in the hobby today.

1. Overall Education level would rise. People wouldn't buy skiliters and wonder why they cant' keep 20 fish in a 20 gallon.

2. Would force those that are not truly interested in the hobby to either put up or shut up. Get certified or you can't buy animals. Or hire a maintainance guy that is certified.

3. Would create a system of self regulation. It would be the reponsability of the end user to get certified. It would be the reponsability of the lfs to ask for the cert card. Heck even create a small force of watchdogs in every city. Volunteers that would go into Shop A and see if they can buy fish without a cert card. If they can, report back to the certifying agency and state the shop is in violation. If it gets too many violations but them on a black list. Notice I sated nothing about conditions in the shop. It would take no $$$$ for the shop owner to enroll in the program. Circulate the black list to the wholesalers and with a united front the lfs will have to comply.

3. There is an outward appearance to change with little or no investment to the industry.


With technology today. Cert Course could be given online. Cards could be sent out from a central location. And tracking could be kept in basic databases.

I would guess it would take less than $50,000 to create this agency. Hell make it a non-profit so you can get donations.

I'm sure more thoughts will pop into my head but since I just flew 1/2 round the world i'm a bit scatterbrained.

Bill

tion so bad

This is an Idea I found on reefs.org. not my wording but I like the idea as well a naescos idea.

What do you think.

[Rocky Mountain Reef]

Originally posted by mrbast74
Rcky Mountain,

I suspect that the businesses that do follow more responsible practices are not making more money. I would bet that the store that sells the largest quantities of more unique species makes more money.

The number of uninformed potential reefkeepers probably outweighs the number of educated responsible aquarists.
The cash stream from the uninformed has to be larger than that of the latter group.


mrbast74
So, here's the challenge we face. Can we prove to an LFS that they can do better in the long run by adhering to a set of behaviors/practices? I believe it's possible, but it will require a lot of thinking and consolidation of ideas. Understand, companies spend millions trying to understand the behaviors of their resellers (in this case, the LFS), and modify those behaviors. And, the modifications have to take place little by little. I certainly don't tell my channel what my objectives are for them. I just nudge them in the right direction, knowing what I want the ultimate behavior to be.

I'll use my own example. I'm building a brand new 180 gallon reef. I expect to sink between $7k and $10k into this thing. (Don't anyone e-mail my wife with this thread :p ) That money will go to a series of vendors, not always based on price. What would it take for me to move that business to an LFS? What would cause me to choose one vendor over another? And, how does that specifically translate into a good LFS business?

This is not an easy task. I have a huge team of Product Managers that do nothing but focus on how to do this in a very specific market segment. It takes time, and you have to take things a step at a time, knowing what you want the end result to be. But, I can tell you, it's possible. You just have to find the right buttons to push.

Might be a fun exercize for an MBA class to take on...Anyone here affiliated with such a program? I'd certainly include some business types in your committe to keep this aspect included...

More of my two cents...

[Rocky Mountain Reef]

One more thing.

Again, coming from the computer industry, which is full of certifications...

Vendors will climb all over themselves to get certification IF they see the certifications helping their business. Remember, they have to pay salaries while people are getting trained, and the opportunity costs can be huge. Also, they may pay to get someone certified, only to find that they just priced that person out of their market.

But, again, if they can catch the vision of how it will help their business, you won't be able to fill the demand. Also, remember that you will have to aggressively market the value of the certification. This requires branding and targeted marketing to make sure all us consumers understand the value of the certification. Not impossible, but to do it right would require at least some sort of non-profit entity to drive it.

Again, some sort of MBA or university affiliation would probably take this on as a long term project. I know I'd hire the person that figured this one out...

[SPasse]

Hi All,

I have been watching this thread because:

1 It has been skating on thin ice related to personal attacks.

2 But it is an interesting thread, on a recurring subject.

I am of the personal opinion that it is not a question if the hobby will be regulated but when. I also don’t believe that the hobby will self regulate, there are too many short term economic issues. So perhaps this whole discussion is more or less a debating exercise.

On a personal note, there are specimens like Goniopora that are “quote� impossible to keep that I have had good luck with in the past. If this specimen requires a “license� to own in the future, that would not bother me. I could probably come to terms with an outright ban.

Just keep clean, everyone. Labeling peoples views as “ignorant� is probably not a helpful either.

Regards,

Scott

[mrbast74]

Spasse,

as academic as the thread may seem it really has to at least make people think and that is a step in the right direction.

Please don't close it down, I think we are all big enough people to handle it in such a heated discussion.

-Mat

[naesco]

Scott
I think he settled down. As a matter of fact I think he is coming around to our way of thinking.

[SPasse]

Hi All,

I don’t intend closing the thread, just giving people a heads up that it is being watched and to tell people to play nice. :)

Regards,

Scott

[Wild Card-inal]

mrbast,

How would one get a cert? Would they just register onto a site that would send them a card? What prevents any old person from doing this? Or would there be a payment? Or would it have to be something that you pay every month (like a rent)?

[mrbast74]

I really don't know what the details of certification would be, but I could imagine a web based test and traditional forms of testing would be needed. Perhaps lfs could sell or give a packet containing relevant info in pamphlet form. Perhaps then a small processing fee for testing with a percentage going to the lfs that sold the education and the test. Just some ideas.

Possibly graduated level testing could be done moving from beginner, to intermediate to advanced. I really don't know.

[The Perfect Pet]

far from coming over to your side.

I just don't understand where you get off, thinking you can ban something because (for right now) the majority of people do not have success with a particular species.
I will stress again that if this were the case we would never be able to keep the lovely SPS corals that we do today.
The fact is that to say that anything is "impossible", is an ignorant statement. There were no personal attacks.
As far as Goniopora being impossible, Again I would have to say you are quite wrong. Can we keep them alive as long as other corals(in most cases, no , not yet) the key is not yet.
more and more you here of success stories and different husbandry techniques, whish lead to greater longevity.
I know(personally) several people who have kept Goniopora alive for over 2 yrs. I even know One person who has fragged his red Goniopora several times, and all is doing well. So Yes I am sorry, but it is blanket statements like "impossible" which I feel are an ignorant view, and that is one thing this hobby definitely does not need any more of.

Again, didn't mean to offend anyone.

just my 2 centz.

-B-

[mrbast74]

Originally posted by naesco
I do not think we differ very much.
I want to be able to buy and enjoy reef critters and fish for a long time.
I do not want the hobby closed down by government because we have an industry, unresponsive to reefers demands for quality, ethical and sustainable industry.
For a start, industry should stop importing and selling fish that have no chance of success in our tanks.
Researchers, universities, aquariums, including expert reefers should have the right to order through a LFS from the 'fisherman' impossible to keep species with the hope that someday we can find out what its needs are so that we all can keep them.
What I object to is the slaughter of tens of thousands of these fish that are sold by unethical wholesalers, LFS and online fish stores to unsuspecting reefers.
That must stop now. Who can possibly disagree with this?

I think this demonstrates that naesco is not calling for an outright ban on anything. He is just more in favor of leaving the research to the researchers.

If we the hobbiests in cooperation with the LFS' can implement such a system, perhaps when appropriate the questionable species are less questionable, the ability to keep these species could be opened up to all.
If we can do this on our own and avoid government intervention this would be a possibility. If it ever does come down to government regs being implemented, you can kiss all flexibility and hope for that opening up that I talked about earlier from ever happening.

I guess we can stick our heads in the sand about the potential problems in the industry, but the wheels have already been set in motion. If we want the flexibility you desire, we need to develop a feasable compromise or risk an all or nothing scenario.

[Bocaswim]

Just Brainstorming-

What if: An optional certification was available to advanced reefkeepers. By going through a certification course or passing a "test", all CERTIFIED reefkeepers would receive a discount when buying livestock. Say maybe 20%. The LFS would still make money on the newbies, and they could offer the cert. classes for a nominal amount and still make $$. They would also be educating the consumer.

Again this is just off the top of my head, :rolleyes: so take it or leave it, but I believe there is a way to satisfy all sides on this matter. Even the fish.

[Mad Scientist]

Sorry to get a little work on this subject here, I think my background as a law hating libertarian and field trained conservation biologist (although I'm a lab rat now) gets me alittle too worked up for my own good.


For starters,

Since we don't seem to focusing on the problems facing these fish as species in the wild, but, instead we are concerned with the emotional response of see a rare fish in what we see as unfit care along with our fear that the governement is going to step in to fix what I see as a somewhat imaginary problem, let me say that if I walked into PETCO (a horrible chain LFS we have here in the Northeast) and saw a blue ribbon eel, I would be upset (although I know this species is not endangered and it's death will not harm the species).

But, you know what? This would NEVER happen, because I don't go to PETCO. Why anyone would do buisness with a LFS they don't trust is a mystery to me (lazyness, cheapness)? Let your money do the talking:

Only go to stores that cater to advanced hobbyists and you trust are run by people like you. A good LFS realizes there is alot more money to be made selling people species they can keep. Over 80% of new hobbyist quit after a year, that a lot of money being lost hobby. We in Boston are lucky to have some very good stores around here that cater to advanced reef keepers. No good stores around you? Start one up.


One last thing, the certification you guys are talking about would probabley be laughed at by most experts that are not directly linked to the hobby. Most "outside" experts feel that vast majority of reef species imported have such lower life expectancies that none of them should be kept. Hobbyists getting toghter to make a list of exceptable speices strikes me as unworkable. Can anyone name a single wild caught species that grows as large and lives as long in captivity as it does in the wild. Again, What are you guys keeping your reefs?

I say unless its endangered becareful about certfications, regs and laws, its a slippery slope. We already have enough laws.





:D

[SPC]

Posted by Mad Scientist:
One last thing, the certification you guys are talking about would probabley be laughed at by most experts that are not directly linked to the hobby. Most "outside" experts feel that vast majority of reef species imported have such lower life expectancies that none of them should be kept.

-Which experts are you referring to?

Hobbyists getting toghter to make a list of exceptable speices strikes me as unworkable. Can anyone name a single wild caught species that grows as large and lives as long in captivity as it does in the wild. Again, What are you guys keeping your reefs?

-I have a Royal Gramma in a 180, I would expect him to have a life expectancy very close to what he would in the wild. He also has reached the size he would have in the wild.
Even if this entire notion seems unworkable that is no reason not to at least give it a try. As hobbiest we can make a difference, in fact we are the whole reason for this industry to begin with.
Steve

[RooFish]

Any certification will be extremely hard to implement. Even with a test that shows you have the knowledge to take care of things, you haven't proved that you can actually care for it. I know a lot of people who have passed written driving tests, and miserebly failed at the road test. It would be the same situation, you could pass the test, have the certification, then kill 10 of them because your tank is too new or you just don't have the skill.

I don't think a discount for certified people would work, LFS's wouldn't like it. I get a 20% employee discount where I work, and my idiot owners don't even like giving us that. So if they don't get that 20%, they lose a minute amount of money and get mad. (Really, considering how much most LFSs mark up fish from cost, its amazing how little 20% of that is)

To stop the import of bad fish, they have to not sell, so don't buy them, and get as many people as possible not to buy them. If they aren't bought, the LFS won't bring them in, then the suppliers won't sell them. It'll take a lot, but its possible.

I think one of the problems is that most people rely on books to learn about tanks. Most books are outdated by a few months after publication. So, the newbies get the wrong info, then ask the LFS who just wants money. SO thats 2 bad information sources for the poor person. Then they're all screwed up and buy the hard to keep fish on impulse, and because the book is all wrong, and the LFS will do anything to make a few bucks. Then you have a confused newbie with no information a dead fish, and a will to quit. Then he quits, and doesn't buy another fish. BUT the LFS sold the fish, buys another one, and the cycle goes on.

The LFS needs the education as much as the buyer. Reputable ones make sure that they're employees know what they're talking about, and bad ones don't care.

[Mad Scientist]

Hi guys, let me fist say that I hope I have not come off as too much of a jerk, I'm a pretty exterme conservationalist (EARTHFIRST! member) and I can get carried away. Also, check out the new thread I just posted.

SPC,

You are probably right about your royal gramma.

By experts, I was reffering to people with advanced degrees in conservation biology, fisheries biology, ecology, ichthology, etc, that are NOT linked to this hobby. For example, if you have written a book about how to keep marine aquariums, you would be "tied" to the hobbys' interests.

I think you will find alot of these people have a very negative immpression of the fish/coral trade and oppose the wild capture of any reef fish/coral. That's why I'm pushing for captive breeding.

Also, here's my 2 cents, all the world's reefs are dying, we need to learn as much about these creatures as fast as possible. Amatures keeping them at home can make a big impact.

[Agu]

This discussion is all well intentioned, and meaningless imo.

Until the core problem is addressed change will not occur. The core problem?? The attitude that fish and coral are disposable pets. It's assumed by too many aquarists, fresh and marine, that replacing dead livestock is part of the normal cost of the hobby. Those people don't care if it's an easy or darn near impossible because they assume it'll die sooner than later. And they don't really care if it dies because that's just a reason to buy another pretty fish next time they're at the lfs.

A lot of LFS perpetuate this attitude, how else are they going to sell new fish to the same people? Check out the expected lifespan of fish according to one online retailer, http://www.petplace.com/articles/artShow.asp?artID=3588

imo,

Agu

[Aquaman]

cannot tell you if the fish in question is "impossible" to keep or not. From what I've read, the MI, like others, is a definite challenge at best. A challenge yes, Impossible no! The problem I see with the Moorish Idol is, Most people that attempt to keep them have already established tanks, with established fish. My experience with Moorish Idol is they do not do well with other aggresive fish, and most people that I read about have other aggresive fish. Tangs can be very aggresive during feeding. Once a Moorish starts feeding on flake, pellet, Nori, or whatever they can be pigs!!!



Why is end user certification so bad? Not that it would be bad, the problem I see was stated by MontanaRockReefer giving the computer industry as an example, There are dozens of certs for us computer geeks! and many people get the certs by reading books or going to class but have absolutly no experience and end up giving bad advice or service. The same could easly happen in the aquarium industry! Certs popping up by various vendors and agencies, Little control, and no proof that once a person has a cert it will actually mean something.


The issue is do we or do we not continue to allow the import and sale of fish that have no chance of surviving in our tanks. I question this statment I know of several people that are successfully keeping fish that are listed as or have [i]No chance. Yes these fish may have no chance in a number of peoples tanks but that does not mean that all of us cann't keep them.

[Mad Scientist]

Can't disagree with you there. MIs are for sale on Marinedepot.com (A REEF CENTRAL SPONSOR) for $30.00, marine depot says "[MIs] have a dismal survival record."

[RooFish]

That life span list was way off! First of all, in the wild fish can live a lot longer than a few years. Also, I know a couple of people who have had clowns for over 10 years, and that lists life expectancy as 1-3 years. Clearly wrong, and probably based on some novice with a 20 gallon that has a skilter on it.

I think Agu is right that people think of fish as just another disposable pet. Until that stops, people will kill fish after fish, and if they see that list of lifespans, think they aren't doing too badly. If they get a fish, keep it alive for a few months, then kill it, they say, oh well it should only live a year anyway, and I must have gotten it a year or so old, so it wasn't my fault.

That Royal Gramma could do fine in your 180 and be almost as good as in the wild. Thats enought space for a 3-4 inch fish to live normally and for a long time. But, lots of people assume a 20 gallon is as good as a big tank. Speaking from experiance, a nano is a whole different ball game from a big tank. So, opinions that people use should not be based on small tanks.

[SPC]

Posted by Agu:
This discussion is all well intentioned, and meaningless imo.

I agree with all you said with the exception of this. I believe there is hope to change things, the hobbiest can give it a shot and/or the government will definately make a change. I wonder how many of us have contacted the vendor Agu posted to tell them we do not agree with the information they are spreading about fish lifespans. If 200 of us hobbiest contacted them, would it make a difference? If 200 hobbiest contacted Marine Depot and said we did not think they should offer the MI for sale would this matter? I think it would.
Steve

[RooFish]

BUT we aren't trying to get it not for sale, we're trying to get the people who can't handle it not to buy it. Experianced people should have it available to them, just not the novices. Hence the problem, restricting it for some, but not others. Sure, we could get them banned, but we don't want that.

[SPC]

Posted by RooFish:
Sure, we could get them banned, but we don't want that.

-I don't know who you are referring to when you say "we" but I can assure you that there are plenty of hobbiest and experts that would like to see them banned. With all the fish that are available to this hobby it is beyond me why some insist that they have access to all of them.
Before you come back with your SPS analogy let me say that 10 years ago we didn't have the information needed to keep these corals alive. We do have the information about the MI, the question is can we supply them with what they need to thrive?
Steve

[naesco]

Agu
I agree wholeheartedly with what SPC has posted. And, to prove that he is correct let us start with RC.
The list of unsuitable species in found in category 7 of John Tullocks book.
Choose two or three of RC sponsors and discuss with them that we would like them to stop advertising these fish for sale. We would like them to ask their wholesaler to do the same.
If they agree to this we will now have an "RC Certified" supplier.
A supplier that we can buy from and refer newbies to. If one or more of the first ones you contact are not interested go to the next one.
There are thousands of reefers on this board. We CAN make a difference.
Let us here from you and RC. Thank you

[RooFish]

That is a viable option. As long as it was not illegal for places like scientific institutes to get them, it would be fine if hobbyists could not get them. The only problem would be if people didn't care what we thought, since a bunch of people don't have power until they gain momentum. The list would probably change over time, but as long as people understand that it could work. Eventually people will find out the speific needs of hard to keep fish, and then they could be taken off the list.

I think there should be some corals on the list too though.

[Agu]

Actually SPC, we agree more than we disagree :D .

Change is made one step at a time, not in some grandiose gesture. Your example of people contacting aforementioned vendor is a prime example of how a few people making small moves might cause some change to happen.

Same thing with questionable livestock or overstocking issues. It feels like pounding ones head against a brick wall sometimes, but if one person reflects on the moral and ethical implications of their actions, it's progress.

jmo,
Agu

btw, Wild Card-inal posted that link here, I want to give him credit for catching it.

[naesco]

Agu, JohnL, Doug, BrianD, Gregt, Hcs3, Wolverine, SPasse and others

Well, take some time, have a meeting and let us know soon, please.

We are looking for an agreement in principle. We can talk about exceptions and details later.
We are looking for a start here
PM me if you would like.

Thank you:)

[SPC]

I am also interested in helping this effort in any way that I can, let me know if you would like my help.

Agu, I know what you are saying and as always I agree with your views on this hobby. I also am in agreement with us starting small and being able to start things moving in the right direction.
Steve

[Agu]

Naesco,

I'm expending enough time and energy here trying to influence the end consumer to purchase wisely. I receive a lot more accusations (tang police comes to mind), than thank you's, some people think I'm not even allowed to have an opinion on certain subjects :eek1: . Personally my plate is full and I think I'll keep chipping away where I feel I can make a difference.

This does not preclude anyone else from doing what they feel is the right thing for the hobby.

Agu

[coralite]

Holy Mackerel!!!

I cant believe that all the fish listed are expected to live 1-5 yrs. That is definitely an ignorant reatiler w/o any real experience. I guess the havent heard of the many 10-25 yr old angels and bfly at the Nancy aquarium, my blueface is 12, purple tang is 7, coris wrasse is 11, I know of a goldfish that lived 42 yrs and an eel that lived 67 yrs. Shute, ive had cardinal tetras push 8 yrs.

Agu I completely agree w/ you about the core problem, fish are not nearly as much a living thing as they should be to most people. I previously stated that I think a tax to fish should be imposed and especially to those that are difficult in captivity, inverts too. Its all about the dollar so just put more dollars between people and their piscine victims. The tax money can be used for so much and I know that its not the most utopian solution but dang if it isnt implementable. Tell a politician you think something should be taxed and they'll jump on it w/o a reason. If fish are more valuable than people will take better care of them and you will weed out those incompetent to buy and sell that type of livestock.

Take reptiles into consideration, If you want a chameleon, which is hard to maintain and relatively expensive, babies start around $75 for most. Since the animal is hard to maintain and expensive, they are rarely impulse bought, the employee of a reptile store will also be more inclined to let you know something like that is not for you.

Perfect pet, I think we have all read and reread what you're saying about sps. Had you been in the hobby "back then" you would know that sps were never impossible to maintain, the only people I ever heard saying that were those who had never kept them. Europeans and Americans have been growing sps since the early nineties. Once word spread that they could be grown, lots of people started keeping them and they actually became available.
The same people who claimed sps were impossible are the same who still claim it is not possible,or only for experts,who push flowerpots and the like. Think about it, people are still consuming as many "impossible" species w/o any new results. Most species that we consider "impossible" actually have a narrow range of parameters in which they will live but people just refuse to inform themselves, buying whatever falls out of their vendors mouth.

Acroporas were never consumed in masse before they became popular. Once they actually became available and people started having their own experiences, the myth got busted.

As many Flowerpots and MI and bflys are still being tried everyday still always w/ the same percentage of results. These species have been avilable way longer than acros and its still not happening.

Also, those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. So as many species as we have already extinguished do we still wait till an animal is endangered to do something about it? Wait until it is just about too late or until it requires an unattainable amount of resources to undo what we knew was coming? An ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure.

Is it me or are the RC mods being "extra cautious" since the Dr mac thread got pulled? I've seen threads go and go that made this one look like a playground fight. I personally don't feel anyone has crossed a line in this thread.

[BrianD]

I have nothing to add at this point, other than to say this is an interesting thread. I will post something after I have given a response more thought.

Brian

[Mad Scientist]

I not sure I agree with the comments given about SPS corals, that they were never hard to keep. In the next sentence you are talking about the early 1990s, people have been trying to keep stonies since at least the 1960s, when SCUBA become popular. The recente success is do a number of advances that were made (and contiue to be made) by people thorugh educated trial and error. Anyone disagree? Also, few hobbyiest today are able to equal the natural growht rates of many SPS species.

[Anemone]

Originally posted by naesco
Mad Scientist and the Perfect Pet
Would you accept a committee composed of concerned reefers like Mr Bast and myself, a couple of notables like Fenner, Tullock and a couple of 'good guy' LFS' and wholesalers. (industry types)
We would draw up a unsuitable species list and present it for ratification to an industry/conservation 'board' like Marine Aquarium Council (MAC).
They would adopt it and business pressure would be put on all concerned not to import these species until that board felt that that species needs had been identified.

What do you think? Are we starting something here?

Naesco,

Since this list has already been compiled over at Reefs.org on the Behind the Industry board (with exactly the same intent, as you know), are you suggesting that the same work be replicated here and we come up with a competing list?

I would have a real problem with that ("my list is better than your list, nyah, nyah") - we hobbyists are diverse enough that an effort like that would just divide and stall any effort going forward.

Kevin

[coralite]

The advancements made were pretty much regarding basic husbandry techniques for all marine aquaria, not just sps. Yes back in the 60s everything was hard and impossible to keep but the more specific requirements for sps, high flow and high light, were known in the 90s.

I have some texts from the 50s i might quote if anyone is interested.

Im not sure if there is a standardized natural growth rate for stonies but I am certain that some sps grow faster in some of our high nutrient aquaria. You will frequently hear that coral grows an inch a year but we all know many of our stonies bust that in a month.

[naesco]

Kevin the answer is no there is no intent to have a competing list.
The reefs.org list was presented to an industry MAC meeting about one month ago. They nixed any support for any voluntary industry-wide accepted 'Unsuitable Species List' (USL)so that option to see some changes evaporated.
Industry will not support the USL unless they are forced to.

The way I see it there are 3 choices we have.
1. Lobby an organization like MAC to adopt the list including organizations who I understand support MAC and may even help them financially.
2. Use the power of the reefers on this board to see a USL adopted by the people that we do business with ie, sponsors and RC LFS reefer members.
3. Lastly, elicit the support of an organization like GREENPEACE to put pressure on industry. The problem with Greenpeace's involvement is that they may not just stop at a USL they may go for a complete stop to all importation of fish and coral. For this reason, Greenpeace is not an option.

IMO if we can convince ReefCentral to 'certify' it sponsors and others, we have a much better chance with an organization like MAC. Convincing the World Wildlife Federation (WWF) which is a member of MAC to have MAC adopt the USL is another option.

[Mad Scientist]

Not to split hairs, but, the wild growth rates of a number of species of stony coral are well known (published in peer review journals), many of today's top reefers are approaching these levelsafter the basic requirments of high light, current, calcium are being widely met and more and more people are keeping these animals in captivity, advances contiune to be made at a very immpresive rate. But, I do not think we are all the way there at all, sexual reproduction of many species remains rare to name just one example.


I think most people at all levels of this hobby feel that the coming years will contiune to bring more and more success. :)

[RooFish]

Right now we can't have the right environment for some species. However, as technology improves we'll get there. For instance, somebody was talking about how hard cleaner wrasses are to keep, since we don't want parasites on our fish. Thats true, now. A year or two ago, no one wanted to have worms and pods in their tanks, cause they thought they were bad. Now we pay for them. Who knows, in a few years we may pay for ich packets, if someone finds out that they do a good thing for fish. (Okay, maybe not, but its possisble) But we have to get there. The only way to get there is trial and error, so they have to be sold. We don't even know the natural conditions of some species, so maybe people should figure that out, then try to replicate them (MH bulbs) then keep the fish. Studies are probably happening now, but not that are availible to hobbyists.

[naesco]

"The only way to get there is trial and error."

Are you serious?

Having researchers, industry specialists and yes expert reefers try to determine the requirements of impossible to keep species is one thing and should be encouraged.
'
Importing and selling fish that have no chance of success in a reefers tank is unethical and will result in closure of our hobby by government or organizations like Greenpeace.
The only way we can go forward is to police the industry ourselves.

[Wild Card-inal]

Not to be rash, but for many animals it is hard to reach natural expectancies or get natural effects, be it by diet, sunlight, current, tides, water pressure, or know-how. For example, how does one support a tank with a pair or trio of Orange-spotted Filefish (natural numbers) with a diet of Acropora? It's pretty much impossible at this point, and it will be for a long time because of this preference in foods. We know enough, we just can't supply it. This is one reason why many animals cannot survive in the tank; not that we do not know how, but we can't. It might be possible in the future for some species, but it is pretty bleak for a lot of animals.

But since we have the know-how for many species, the ones that we can supply for are now thriving in our tanks. But it is also know-how that will keep other fish from staying out of these tanks. Just plain KNOWING would put a lot of hobbyists in the right direction.

Okay, I think I'm going over ground we already covered...

Well, I guess what we should start at first is with the lfs; I don't think a beginner is going to go online to buy stuff, usually serious fish-keepers even attempt to browse them (right?). Going back to the certification, I think it's a good idea, but it might not work. At the very LEAST, the big stores should adopt their own way of 'membership' to be allowed to buy more advanced species of animals by taking a general test on them. There'd be membership for SPS, for advanced fish, etc. The beginner would start would start out with the ability to buy only fish and live rock (to start an FOWLR tank) and if they stay with interest they'd be allowed to go on and keep other species. Something like that... If it were executed by the lfs themselves it wouldn't have to be a huge system for a whole country to manage, but the lfs would manage it themselves. On top of that, there would be some sort of benefit for the lfs if they applied to give tests such as this. An idea...

[SPC]

Posted by RooFish:
We don't even know the natural conditions of some species, so maybe people should figure that out, then try to replicate them (MH bulbs) then keep the fish. Studies are probably happening now, but not that are availible to hobbyists.

Uh, who are the "people" you are referring to here? Are you suggesting that the best course of action is for this hobby to continue to kill marine life until "people" figure out the natural conditions they live in? Please keep in mind that the oceans of the world are currently under the microscope. 99.999% of the people in the world could care less if this hobby continues. If we continue as a group to practice business as usual I can assure you there will be no sympathy for us when the time comes to ban imports. It makes NO difference how we perceive each other, it is how the world perceives us that matters. We can either pay a small price now or wait and pay a big price later.
Steve

[SPasse]

SPC,

Please keep in mind that the oceans of the world are currently under the microscope. 99.999% of the people in the world could care less if this hobby continues. If we continue as a group to practice business as usual I can assure you there will be no sympathy for us when the time comes to ban imports. It makes NO difference how we perceive each other, it is how the world perceives us that matters. We can either pay a small price now or wait and pay a big price later.

This is, I am afraid, the situation that we face.

I guess that I have (after 20 years) become cynical about the hobbyist/LFS interests doing anything about it.

Regards,

Scott

[Mad Scientist]

Lighten up guys,the end in coming soon, but it's not going to be reefers fault! The end is going to come when all these fish are gone as reefs become a thing of the past. Like I said I'm an EARTHFIRST! guy (don't know about us, do an internet search).

[coralite]

Is EARTHFIRST anything like the Earth Liberation Front, the number one FBI listed domestic terrorist group, 500 attacks in 6 yrs?

Instead of making us search why don't you reprazent w/ a link?

[RooFish]

No I mean there should be a study done on them in their natural habitat, then the info should be released to the public. These studies are done, but then the info is just sent to universities and stuff, not letting us in the hobby see and try to replicate them. Then trial and error comes into play, and we do what we can to replicate the environment, using the technology and developing new stuff. This way we kill a few, but by doing our homework we get them to live in the end.

And theres no time like the present, since studies which WERE released say there won't be reefs in 2050. So if we want the fish we have to keep them now or never.

[Mescalito]

I'm pretty new to the hobby of reefing, my experience with freshwater though is at least 15 years. I'm one of those people that like the exotic, not often seen, and hard to find. I do my research, make my preparations, then do my utmost replicate the natural habitat of the species I'm interested in. When I see a post about the controversial issues of this hobby I'm always interested, because it is on this "cutting edge" where the major advancements in our hobby usually start from. Unfortunately, more often than not, within just a few replies the name-calling starts and I leave feeling disappointed both in the hobby and our own species. How can we profess to care for other species when we don't even care to show respect and courtesy for one another. Are our egos and pride more fragile than the diet of a Moorish Idol? Maybe we can share our opinions without criticizing another's. Perhaps we have the capacity to learn by a shared experience. There are no definites in this world, and as history has shown, in this hobby. Perhaps there were some things of interest said in this thread, but I feel no need to sift through all the anger to find it.

[Mad Scientist]

I think that this disscussion has become a little too heated, and I apologize if this is in part my fault. I really like just coming onto this board and talking about reefs and I noramlly don't get involved with such intense and controversial topics, for some reason this topic just rubbed me the wrong way a little. I think I'll stick to less emotional topics in the future.


Also, EARTHFIRST! is NOT like the ELF(bunch of *******, pseudo terroist Eurotrash punks), it's more like Greenpeace, only grass roots. I have worked in animal reseach centers that have (luckily not when I was there) been the target of attacks by radical animal rights groups, so I don't there to be any confusion on how I feel about groups like that: there is no place for them.

As one last fleeting point , I'm a little surprised no one touched the issue of cyanide. Does everyone think this practice has died out, it is still very common and devasting to reefs. A large number of the tangs sold are still cyanided. This is a biggest issue in terms of collection regualtions today,much more important then stopping people from getting fish WE think are too hard for them. Fortunatley, alot is being done by a variety of groups to end this practice.

Anyone ever see a dying coral reef in person? I'm sure many people have, I saw some stuff in Belize (which is supposed to be in pretty good shape) that would make your stomach turn, clear cut forests, massize argriculutal run-off, dead corals.

Here's a link, these guys are allright, I mainly like them because a favorite author of mine, Ed Abbey (great fiction about The West), helped inspire them. Probably should say how I'ma Siera Club memeber first though.

http://www.earthfirstjournal.org/efj/

[Aquaman]

The only way to get there is trial and error."
Are you serious?
Having researchers, industry specialists and yes expert reefers try to determine the requirements of impossible to keep species is one thing and should be encouraged.

How does a researcher or industry specialist try to determine the requirements?? Aside from disection? Observation, Form a Hypothesis, Experimentation (test the hypothesis), study the results, which should prove or disprove the hypothesis, and so on. This is called the Scientific method.

Although many of us in this hobby do not adhere to the rigorious controls, notes and details that scientist and researchers follow while using the above formula we do in perhaps a more basic formula do the exact thing. If we were to take more carefull notes of our success, failures and setups and provode a way for the experts to review this materal we might actually speed up the discovery process.

Just a little food for thought.

[pathos]

I just wanted to link this to another thread of similar discussion FWIW. (http://archive.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=63686&highlight=look+what+I+saw+LFS+today)

pathos

[mrbast74]

Thanks pathos.

[mrbast74]

Originally posted by Aquaman


How does a researcher or industry specialist try to determine the requirements?? Aside from disection? Observation, Form a Hypothesis, Experimentation (test the hypothesis), study the results, which should prove or disprove the hypothesis, and so on. This is called the Scientific method.

Although many of us in this hobby do not adhere to the rigorious controls, notes and details that scientist and researchers follow while using the above formula we do in perhaps a more basic formula do the exact thing. If we were to take more carefull notes of our success, failures and setups and provode a way for the experts to review this materal we might actually speed up the discovery process.

Just a little food for thought.

rigorious controls, notes and details that scientist and researchers follow are needed or else we are just flooded with anecdotal soup. Anecdotal evidence is nice, but if we were to rely on anecdote while the real research is going on, we just kill alot of fish. In no way can I see how that helps the hobby.

Anyway, if we agree that the majority of newbies get into the hobby on impulse, what makes anyone think they will take the time to document there progress and run controlled tests, while they are trying to figure out how much ammonia and nitrate is OK in a tank before the first fish is added.

I must suggest once again that a manditory graduated certification in conjunction with an approved species list is needed for the protection of the hobby and the millions of fish killed anually.

[Aquaman]

Anyway, if we agree that the majority of newbies get into the hobby on impulse, what makes anyone think they will take the time to document there progress and run controlled tests, while they are trying to figure out how much ammonia and nitrate is OK in a tank before the first fish is added.

I wasn't talking about the newbies, but I do understand what your saying.

I must suggest once again that a manditory graduated certification in conjunction with an approved species list is needed for the protection of the hobby and the millions of fish killed anually I agree something must be done, but as I said in another thread, Who is going to be the one to setup this certification, and will the LFS follow? I'd rather the government not be the one, If you give them an inch they will take this hobby away!

[mrbast74]

I am not sure if I would be qualified, but I and I'm sure many others on this board could give it some deep thought and present it to a few E-tailers and industry experts as wellas other boards and see what kind of feedback we get.

[mrbast74]

3 levels in graduated certification as pertaining to boney fishes:

1) Begginer - any boney marine fish that is a proven and reliable captive reproducer.

2) Intermediate - any other fish including beginner fish but barring the fish from the difficult species list.

3)Advanced - Any fish on the predetermined difficult species list as well as any other fish.



One would need to obtain certification. through demonstrated expertise in some form of testing they can achieve this.


Somebody said something about a tax on marine aquatics, LOL that would be the one way to insure the government does not limit species. I think it would be funny watching a politician argue the merits of a tax increase on marine fish.

[gregt]

I see two problems with certification.

1) Coming up with a test would be very difficult. Contrary to what we see a lot on the forums, there are dozens of ways to be successfull in this hobby. Try coming up with more than a dozen questions that have a descrete answer. It's not as easy as it seems.

2) I've seen too many people become scuba certified and not have the slightest clue what they are doing. And a scuba certification is designed for your personal safety. If you can remember a fact that is beat into your head 6 times a night long enough to take the test you can get certified. Frankly the store is going to MAKE SURE you pass so you can buy from them.

We require drivers licenses, but that doesn't mean everyone drives safely.....

[djoefish]

My .02

If an animal is endangered, it should be controlled at the importer or wholesaler level. Otherwise, it is fair game. This doesn't mean we should stop trying to educate others. Also a newbie (me) who "just jumped in" should try to learn as much as possible after jumping in.

I think we should have to have a license to breed OURSELVES instead of a license to keep fish :eek1: come to think of it that might solve a lot of other problems JK

Joe

[RooFish]

For the certification system, there would have to be some sort of proof that you had passed the first levels on an experiance level, as well as a test. They would need to have a tank running on each level for a certain amount of time before moving on to the next level. That way, the people who are book smart couldn't move on until the certification group saw proof that they can do reefing. Also, aren't there some corals and inverts that should also be restricted? Wouldn't there have to be like a cephalapod endorsment or something before you got an octopus?

As long as the government stays uninvolved the hobby should be able to continue after controls are set.

[cwa46]

This thread sounds like a bunch of drug addicts complaining about the quality of drugs from their suppliers. If there were no demand, there would be no drug sales. But like the Federal Government's "WAR on DRUGS", you focus on the supplier not the addict.

[Aquaman]

I see two problems with certification.

1) Coming up with a test would be very difficult. Contrary to what we see a lot on the forums, there are dozens of ways to be successfull in this hobby. Try coming up with more than a dozen questions that have a descrete answer. It's not as easy as it seems.

2) I've seen too many people become scuba certified and not have the slightest clue what they are doing. And a scuba certification is designed for your personal safety. If you can remember a fact that is beat into your head 6 times a night long enough to take the test you can get certified. Frankly the store is going to MAKE SURE you pass so you can buy from them.

We require drivers licenses, but that doesn't mean everyone drives safely.....

This is my biggest problem with the whole certification idea! Being in the computer industry for the last 21 years and watching the amount of computer certifications and people that have passed them but still have no clue. I expect that if we did the same thing to this hobby it would end up just like the computer industry. Many people certified but still no clue as to what there doing. Just because a person passes a computer test and has a MCSE or any other of the myrid certs doesn't mean I'm going to hire them, In fact I've kicked several consultants out of our network room for making the most basic of mistakes.

[RooFish]

Thats why they need to prove themselves by having a tank for a set amount of time before advancing through the certification.

[mrbast74]

Originally posted by cwa46
This thread sounds like a bunch of drug addicts complaining about the quality of drugs from their suppliers. If there were no demand, there would be no drug sales. But like the Federal Government's "WAR on DRUGS", you focus on the supplier not the addict.

It is a little different in that the goal would be to be skilled and conservation minded enough to try to help find a way to move a difficult species to the intermediate group and ultimately to the group that reproduces well in captivity.

The war on drugs penalizes drug addicts from being addicted.

This rewards those for being skilled and smart.

[RooFish]

I think Cwa46 is a little right though. Before going after the consumer you should probably educate the workers at LFSs. I know there are a bunch of people selling fish who couldn't keep one alive. The fish survive because there are one or two people there who do know their stuff, but overall, a bunch of workers have no knowledge or outdated knowledge. Maybe you should have a different certificarion for dealers.

[mrbast74]

I think MAC is already working on that.
But I would like to do something on any level. The previous suggestions are just a few of the myriad of possibilities.

[dredawg]

This discussion on who should have what fish, who should sell what fish, what can and cannot be kept in the aquaria is obsurd. Face it folks, it doen't matter what you think; we [USA] live in a capitalist society.

If there is a demand someone will be there to supply the demand. MONEY TALKS! LFS's are in business to make a profit not to serve as social "think tanks." (please pardon the pun) This is the very reason our government has lost the "war on drugs." Supply v. Demand.

It is also hypocritical to condem others for their choice of fish by saying "they shouldn't be kept in the aquarium...need to stay in the ocean." Fact is, all of our fish and corals are better off left in the ocean. With that, what was the last fish you purchased?

Gee, there sure are a lot of RC members who live in ivory towers. Opps...ivory comes from elephants!

[djoefish]

dredawg is right.

[mrbast74]

by that logic, why don't we continue to collect endangered species for our home displays. Or for that matter, maybe we should all try out a feather star or chambered nautilus. Remember when bison roamed north America or wild horses? No,well what does it matter, we can always read about it. As long as we do what WE want. Those bison were a big pain in the butt anyway I bet.

How's this for an idea, maybe we can stop some of the senseless destruction of wild habitat for all creatures BEFORE we cause another treatened or endangered species.

Maybe we can do what ever it takes to minimize the unatural balance we cause in the wild.

The arguement that some other industry causes more harm than reefers is a cop out. We need to take steps and play our part no matter how small a part that may be.

I am not calling for a ban on all species, just a more responsible use of a resource that is to this point, is not being used very responsibly.

I want to see a push for captive bred species. That in itself would have a wonderful economic impact that no lfs would mind the result.

We need to learn from our mistakes or I'm afraid history is doomed to repeat itself.

[dredawg]

I think you miss the point. By vertue of owning an aquarium you support [directly or indirectly] the distruction of the very habitats and animals you expouse to protect.

The argument you make is hypocritical....it's like the enviornmentalist who protest pollution, but REFUSE to give up their gas guzzer SUV's.....oh, brother.....whatever!

P.S. I don't want buffalo roaming in my backyard. And I believe horses were imported to North America by europeans, which makes them a "foreign" or "non-native" species....kinda like the caluerpa thats being banned in certain areas.

[gregt]

dredawg,

Don't you think you are being a little black and white? There is a line that can be drawn between responsible and irresponsible consumption. That is what is being discussed here. Oh, we can't be perfect, so don't bother trying at all? I don't agree with that attitude. I believe we should do our best to minimize the impact we make. Frankly even those without aquariums have impact on marine life. Even if the entire human race committed suicide there would be an impact to marine life.

That does not relinquish us from our responsibility to attempt to minimize the negative impact we have.

[dredawg]

.

[dredawg]

Gregt,

I agree with you to a certain point. What bothers me is the heavy-handed, stuck-up, aristocratic, arrogant, know-it-all demeanor some board members exude.

[gregt]

At the risk of being "heavy-handed, stuck-up, aristocratic, arrogant, and know-it-all", ;) I would like to ask that you keep on the subject, follow the users agreement (http://www.reefcentral.com/agreement.htm), and avoid name-calling. It doesn't help your argument anyway.

[dredawg]

Oh, come on Gregt, is that really the best you can do? If this is the case, pratically everyone who has posted is in violation. LOL :D

I'm not really making an argument...just simply stating facts. Our society IS based upon capitalism. Face it, LFS are in business to make a profit....just like Reef Central is in business...I'm sure you don't allow the commercial advertisements featured here for free. Or, do you?

Supply v. Demand

If someone wants to purchase a Mandrin, chamberd Nautilus, or whatever, and they have the money they can get it and there is nothing you or I can do about it. If the concern is for the earth, I think the thousands of dollars we've spent on aquariums could have been better utilized.

Fact: people drive gas guzzeler SUV's and live in the land guzzeling surburbs taking over the Everglades in your neck of the woods, yet expouse to protect the environment. Hypocrisy I say.

I think sometimes we take ourselves too seriously :D LOL...LOL....LOL

[gregt]

Fact: people drive gas guzzeler SUV's and live in the land guzzeling surburbs taking over the Everglades in your neck of the woods, yet expouse to protect the environment. Hypocrisy I say.

Absolutely. But I chose to focus on what I can do rather than focusing on what others aren't doing.

[dredawg]

Absolutely. But I chose to focus on what I can do rather than focusing on what others aren't doing.

Seems to me this entire thread has become focused on "...what others aren't doing." And will continue to as long as there are differences in opinions.

We [humans] tend to focus on differences more so than commonalities.

[gregt]

I agree that some would fall into your statement, but certainly not all.

I would prefer to educate rather than legislate in this situation.

[mrbast74]

Here is a commonality. We all like to look at pretty fish.

Now can we do it in a responsible manner that will afford generations of people to look at pretty fish. That is up to us.

We can talk into eternity about what we can't do but that just isn't very productive.

The question I have for you is this:

Can the hobby continue down it's current path with out self regulation and still be able to enjoy these creatures in our homes for generations to come?


Can we figure out captive breeding techniques for all desirable aquarium species before government shutdown of our hobby is in place?

I think we can if we take action now to show the organizations that want to use our hobbie as a scape goat for marine habitat destruction.


What do you think?

[The Perfect Pet]

mrbast74,

[Mad Scientist]

Thought I'd jump back into the fray. Let me first say that although this thread has been VERY contentious at times, I think a number of good points have been made on both sides.

I understand the heartbreak that people feel when they see a beautiful fish in a LFS and they know there a good chance it's not going to a qualified owner. Personally, I feel bad even for the neons and tiger barbs heading home with owners who have never heard of the nitrogen cycle.

But, I still feel that the cost of lossing a number of these difficult fish (MIs, Riboon eels, etc), although sad and regreatable enough, does not justify in any way restricting knowledgeable reefers from trying new techiques to learn how to keep and breed these animals. The oceans are dying and it is NOT in any way the fault of aquarium keepers, but, the more species we learn to keep and breed in captivity the better for us and the world.

Also, the truth is that a number of people on this board are the leading "experts" in keeping these species. It is a shame that fish are going to die as we learn, through educated trial and error on how to keep them. But, scientits and "pros" lose lots of animals too. Today, I spoke with a woman who has worked for number of years at New England Aquarium, her first summer there they lost 5 nautilists, the next year they lost a Leafy sea dragon. We should try to prevent the loss of fish whenever possible, but, I do not think it should be used as a reason to stop work on a diffucult and challanging species.

Many of us (not all of us though) keep difficult species because we enjoy a challenge, it is this spirit that has led to some many advances in reef keeping to date. And, despite those who work to make it more difficult to obtain non endangered animals (who dies by millions in nets), we wil continue to make advances in the future. I do not think there are any "impossible" species to keep (although for some the cost will no doubt be prohibitive).


Lastly, a number of friends and I have been affect6ed by laws banning the sale of a number of species of freshwater fish here in MA (although the root fo these laws is different than what we are talking about here), still I can tell you, It's no fun having someone else tell you what you can and can't keep.

As, I write this I'm listening to my neighbor's dog howl, probably hungry or thirsty, maybe I should go and check the dog, bring it to a vet. This brings up my last point (for someone reason missed by the "pro-regulation" members for this thread), maybe if you buy a "difficult" fish someone should come to your home every week and check you tank?

[SPC]

Posted by Dredawg:
If someone wants to purchase a Mandrin, chamberd Nautilus, or whatever, and they have the money they can get it and there is nothing you or I can do about it

- I think you are missing a very important point that this thread is trying to point out, the impulse buyer purchasing difficult to keep marine life. If these animals are not in the LFS to begin with then 99% of them won't be obtained, especially illegaly as you suggest. Sure there will always be some animals smuggled illegaly, but it will be a tiny % of what is offered now.
As an example of where I think the marine hobby is headed lets look at the bird industry. Several years back all wild birds were banned from import to the US. Just days before this ban was announced people in the bird industry were still saying it will never happen, well as we know it did happen. You can also look at the reptile industry to see how the rug was pulled out from under their feet. I will say this again, if we continue with business as usual and don't make an effort to change things, then the government WILL step in and make the changes. When the government makes these changes it will be broad and sweeping. You won't need to worry anymore about your right to own a mandarin or a MI, the only thing you will be able to purchase then will be captive bred. Of course I guess you could purchase a mandarin on the black market if you don't mind that its been in a plastic bag for a week.
Steve

[The Perfect Pet]

mrbast74, (sorry, hit the wrong key)

The question I have for you is this:

Can the hobby continue down it's current path with out self regulation and still be able to enjoy these creatures in our homes for generations to come?

YES

especially with more and more people become environmentally conscious. and especially with places like RC.


Can we figure out captive breeding techniques for all desirable aquarium species before government shutdown of our hobby is in place?

YES, HOPEFULLY

But without experimentation we won't ever know.
As long as we don't make a big fuss about the little things, there is no need for the GOV. to get involved(at least for us in the USA, sorry for the Canadians)
I see the only reason the GOV. getting involved is in about 15yrs.
when there will be very little left of our natural reef ecosystems.
Then they will step in, and we will rely on aquaculture facilities.
So I sure hope that more experienced hobbyists try harder species, so that we may soon unlock the secrets to these so called "impossible" species.

It all comes down to EDUCATION!

We need to find a way to educate the LFS, who can then educate the customer. (trust we it works) You wouldn't believe the amount of people who pledge their loyalty to the LFS that I work at, after they learn a few new things, or learn what they should already know(basics)
"really, the other stores never told me that." I get that all the time. and this is on the topic of conditioning their water.LOL
If LFS's realize how much more they could make having happy,educated customers I think they may want to go along.
Problem is, they themselves are scared because(as said earlier in this thread) they don't have the proper knowledge.
well hopefully by starting something( which it seems we did hear)
stores will have to come round, or eventually the will be out of business. And if the bad store are out of business, then we are half way there.
Problem still!?!?!
SUPPLY vs. DEMAND

These animals will be there, and someone with enough $ will want them.

P.S.
banning something, or putting it on some list, will only cause
stupid people with tons of $ and no experience, to want that animal even more (sort of like a status symbol ie; tigers,crocodile, wolf, monkey,venomous snake/reptile, etc )

[Mad Scientist]

Just to point out the obvious flip side to what you are saying, SPC, if we don't keep importing these species, we won't have them in the future because they will not exist in nature. It's up to us to learn to breed them.

How about before banning MI sales, we ban chemical fertilzation on farms and stop pouring sewage into rivers, which do you think would help more? Which is a real problem?

Also, all the issues you raise with birds do not apply to this discussion because it was realter to Threatened and endangered species, we in the reef trade are already subject to these kinds of regs.

Anyone following the "black water" story off FL (check it out on CNN)>?

[The Perfect Pet]

great point MAD SCIENTIST

[naesco]

If we do not do something will the government come in a ban the import and sale of fish and coral we currently enjoy?

YES

If we as an industry/hobby, self regulate by restricting the import of impossible to keep species will the government come in and ban the import and sale of fish and coral we currently enjoy?

NO

Will researchers, universities and expert reefers who want to import these fish and coral be able to do so to try to find out how to keep them alive so we ALL can enjoy them?

YES

Who decides what is impossible to keep and who is and expert?

ANSWER
An organization like the Marine Aquarium Council (MAC) composed of industry and hobbyists and others ?

When do we start all this?

ANSWER
NOW

Who can disagree with the above? Yes, there will be mechanics to work out etcetera but honestly what is stopping unanimous agreement here?
Tell me what you think?

[Mad Scientist]

Not that I need to repeat to myself again and again, but, I strongly urge RC memebers to re-read this entire thread before they throw their support behind any move that would support a ban on the import NON-threatened species (into the US), you can guys can have all the silly laws you want North of the Border.

Such a ban would do nothing to help reefs the individual species that make up these diverse habitats and would only prevent experienced reef keepers from learing how to keep and breed amny of the species naesco has labled as "impossible."

There are a number of groups (industry, farmers, fellow scientitsts) that are trying to scape-goat reefers, learn the facts before you buy into this hype, it simply is not true and all the twisting of words will not change the fascts.

Naesco, I feel you are more concerned about indivdual fish the a species as a whole and this is the root of our disagreement. I see the value of amatuer reef keepers learning to captive breed species, you see this a side point (or a non-point), but, it is cnentral to my feelings on this issue.

[mrbast74]

I feel there are two things that are stopping people from getting on board:

1) denial that a problem exists.

2) fear that any group or organization that brings attention to the problems will trigger something in the collective government mind and fuel organizations like pita to work harder to shut it all down.

My arguement is that self imposed, agreed upon limits brought to the forefront of the public conscious by organizations like MAC and the loosely knit group that seems to be forming right here and on other boards are our first and only line of defense against such drastic measures.

[naesco]

We have heard from you Mad Scientist but with the greatest respect to your views, it is IMO no longer acceptable to import and sell impossible to keep species (see my prior post for details) that simply die in our tanks.
It is an old view, that IMO opinion should be no longer tolerated that we should ALL experiment with keeping these fish when less than 1% live.
With the greatest respect, that kind of dated thinking will lead the government or organizations like GREENPEACE to control our hobby with the result that we will be left with trading brown frags with eachother.
We reefers have the right to an ethical and sustainable industry.
We must act now to keep it in our hands.

[Mad Scientist]

Ok, well I've said my piece and like I've said before I don't disagree with all your views, and following this post I will try to stop butting into the discussion (I'm not trying to be disruptive).

But, I can't help but add that I hope you take my adivce on one point: stop throwing the term "sustainable" around, you are not using it correctly and it does not support your argument, I recommend you instead use the term "humane". You do not support the keeping of MIs because so of many of them are destined to die in captivity, whether this is sustaianble or not for wild MI populations (it is, they are doing fine) is not relevant to your argument. Just a little heads up on lingo. I also don't think a desire to captive breed a large aray of "impossible" species is "dated", optimistic yes, but, dated? Also, (not to get combative), but, I don't care so much that you respect me views, just, please, respect the facts.
You have out lined your argument well (with the above exception) and although we disagree (sharply) on what the future of reef keeping holds, I certainly respect the fact that you care so much about these creatures and recognize that we both want the same thing, lots of captive bred species that do great in captivity. I also wouldn't mind a halt to the destruction of the world's reefs (but that's a whole different argumnet).

[leigh]

I have been followingm this discussion for the last couple of days with some interest. Having scrolled through six pages of dicussion I find that several thoughts come to mind. Here they are in no particular order--
Re: certification - Any certification system must have certain parameters, or levels if you will, but to mean anything it also has to have some kind of penalties for infractions. What should they be? and who will enforce them at the point of contact with the customer/reefer? The LFS, some sort of agent of the organization that grants the certificate, the "fish & coral police". A certification without some kind of regulatory mechanism IMO is no way to go.

Someone, a while back in the discussion mentioned that 80% of all newbies leave this hobby after a year or so. The LFS's know this and it might just be that their main interest is selling equiipment and supplies, and the fish are incidental. I just set up a small 30-gallon reef tank with a stand, hood, 2 96 watt power compacts, 2 50 watt heaters, 3 inches or so of sand bed, a remora- C hang on skimmer, and 30 pounds or so of marshall islands live rock. A bargain at a thousand dollars. How many moorish idols can I buy for a thousand dollars?

Again Re: the government stepping in. Who is "the government"?
and what level is it? Is it federal, state or local? For the last 25 years or so I have worked as a city planner an have been up to my elbows funding and making development programs work using federal (HUD, HEW, etc) and state (Mass Housing Finance Agency, industrial revenue bonds)funding and regulatory programs. Who put the ban on collecting certain species in Florida? And finally, what about foreign governments in the midle east and indo-pacific countries? When yoyu talk about government stepping in, what are you talking about?

Sometimes I feel that the more I know, the less I know

[mrbast74]

I removed part of this post as I misposted the quote I intended.
Sorry.


I am thinking of the US Federal government. A state like California will take a first step and then it is all downhill from there.

[Wild Card-inal]

Funny thing that an lfs needs a license to sell arowanas, and they seem common enough. Funny I see an endangered species more than I see MI's...

Perhaps there can be an lfs licensing system? That would greatly diminish the amount of fish going to lower lfses, right? Just an idea.

[naesco]

Mad Scientist I did not mean to curtail discussion.
I think that those of us who want a, lets call it an unsuitable species list (USL)and those who for a number of reasons disagree , don't believe it can happen, or present the details as difficult are a lot closer than we were at the beginning of this thread.
If you believe as I do that unless something is done to let us call it 'clean up our image', governments and bureaucrats will step in at the behest of environmental/conservation or animal rights type of groups.
Although there is all kinds of things we can deal with outside the hobby (like clean up pollution on the reefs) I cannot think of anything more visible, acceptable by the public and others than dealing with the (USL).
So we should put it forward. If there are 50 on the proposed USL , personally, I will be happy with acceptance by industry of 10. At least it is a start and we must start now.
What do you think?

[SPC]

Posted by Mad Scientist:
Just to point out the obvious flip side to what you are saying, SPC, if we don't keep importing these species, we won't have them in the future because they will not exist in nature. It's up to us to learn to breed them.


-I don't see this as obvious. How many hobbiest are the least bit interested in breeding marine life, 1 or 2% would be an optomistic # IMO. Now lets look at those 1 or 2% in the context of facilities needed to breed a MI, that # just fell to practically non existent. The breeding efforts for fish such as tangs is being done by large research facilities, not the hobbiest.


How about before banning MI sales, we ban chemical fertilzation on farms and stop pouring sewage into rivers, which do you think would help more? Which is a real problem?

-You are still missing my point, it dosen't matter how many other reasons there are for the destruction of the reefs, the hobbiest is still viewed as one of them. People looking at saving the reefs will take the most visible and the easiest to target first. If we look at it from the non hobbiest perspective we see a very small group of people who are taking animals from the reefs for their pleasure. Now add to this that something like 80% of all corals die before they reach the hobbiest tank and it is pretty easy for me to start seeing this hobby as a waste of marine life. How are we going to defend our actions when banning is called for? What do we do as a hobby that could be looked at as ethical? IMO we are sitting ducks.

Also, all the issues you raise with birds do not apply to this discussion because it was realter to Threatened and endangered species, we in the reef trade are already subject to these kinds of regs.

-My point about birds was that these type of regulations can take place even with long established industries. If you will notice I was trying to point out that people within that industry did not believe it could happen. I was trying to draw a parallel to the marine industry and those with their heads buried in the sand.
Another analogy I could use would be the actions taken in Fla on marine life. It wasen't too many years ago that I heard the industry people saying, oh they will never ban the harvest of marine life in Fla, its a supply and demand thing, too much money is involved.
Steve

[SPC]

Posted by Mad Scientist:
There are a number of groups (industry, farmers, fellow scientitsts) that are trying to scape-goat reefers, learn the facts before you buy into this hype, it simply is not true and all the twisting of words will not change the fascts.

-Learn what facts, that the hobbiest is just an innocent scape-goat? We are not innocent, we ARE a part of the problem. We allow marine life to be collected in ways that destroy the reefs (cyanide) through our purchases. We continue to support vendors that sell difficult to keep species to anyone who has the money. We allow mortality rates of over 80% of wild corals without saying a word. It dosen't matter what % of the problem we are, we are still viewed as a problem.
Steve

[Aquaman]

Several years back all wild birds were banned from import to the US. Just days before this ban was announced people in the bird industry were still saying it will never happen, When that ban took place there were already enough breeders here in the US breeding almost every type of exotic bird that it wasn't really an issue. Besides the ban is not absolute, With the right license you can still import wild birds!

[budhaboy]

Okay, heres one from the enemy...
I am a Marine Only LFS OWNER and I'm probably in the 1% of all LFS's that are concentious about their customers/livestock. I have a day job too, because the way I operate its not likely that I could live my lifestyle and stay open.
I have Gonioporas in my sale tanks (5 of them as a matter of fact, they were already in the tank when I took over)) and I list them as a restricted sale, in other words, sale of this coral will only be done with someone I KNOW that is an expert marine aquarist and has the proper set-up(Including refugium, since all recent papers on goni's show gut analysis to contain copepods and amphipods) I dont order MI's, but IF an expert customer(mind you this is a SMALL shop and I know 80% of my customers by name) would want one, and has a set-up to care for this creature, then I would certainly consider it. I had a customer this past weekend who just cycled a 265 gallon tank and he wanted sharks.(Black tip or some other aggressive species to be exact) I refused sale/order to him and he wasnt happy and probably wont come back.Oh well too bad.I have no guilt.
I'm for education of customers AND LFS employees/owners but as far as certification? Whos gonna enforce that? I have enough licenses and certificates and what not as it is(I have to use EVERY bit of vacation time to get all this to stay open) and do you plan on implementing this yourselves?I'll be damned if I'm gonna let someone who doesnt know anything about reefkeeping test me and judge whether or not I can keep/buy/sell any fish or coral.There are people at the MD. MVA that dont even have drivers licenses and they're that ones issueing them(utterly pathetic)Sell only captive bred species? A good idea and when it becomes feasable to do so and stay in business, sure I do it but right now if I did that, I'd have to charge 250 bucks for a small Percula Clownfish, I would pay that much would you?didnt think so.
Sorry this thread has gotten my dander up a bit, but I see alot of the pot calling the kettle black here, and am betting every one of you has wild caught species, and even some creatures that have/are considered difficult or even a non-thriving in captivity species in their tanks. EDUCATION is the key factor here, and should go hand in hand with a good concience(sp?) If you see a LFS carrying MI's, tell them you and all you friends will boycott them until they change their business practices and stop carrying them, because cost wise, a few deaths doesnt add up to much if they sell 3 out of 6 they still made their money back(I can get MI's for 5 bucks each by the way)
I'm sure I just made some enemies here again sorry.

[djoefish]

Why not have a voluntary program for LFS such as buddaboys'. Then we would know (??) that we are spending our money at responsible stores. This seems much more likely to happen to me. Kinda like the Better Business Bureau for reefs (BFS).

Thanks Joe

[SPC]

Posted by Budhaboy:
, I'd have to charge 250 bucks for a small Percula Clownfish, I would pay that much would you?didnt think so.

-Budha, is this a typo? My LFS buys captive breed Perculas starting at $6 and going up to $10 for large.


Sorry this thread has gotten my dander up a bit, but I see alot of the pot calling the kettle black here, and am betting every one of you has wild caught species, and even some creatures that have/are considered difficult or even a non-thriving in captivity species in their tanks.

-Personally I have no difficult or non-thriving species in my 180 gallon tank. In fact I only have one fish that is not captive bread, a royal gramma.


EDUCATION is the key factor here, and should go hand in hand with a good concience(sp?) If you see a LFS carrying MI's, tell them you and all you friends will boycott them until they change their business practices and stop carrying them, because cost wise, a few deaths doesnt add up to much if they sell 3 out of 6 they still made their money back(I can get MI's for 5 bucks each by the way)

- I agree that education is very important, but how do you educate those that aren't interested in education is the question? I asked my LFS owner once how many SW set ups he sells a year and he replied on average about 10. I told him I was curious because I noticed he never seemed to sell any books. Books he laughed, I maybe sell one book/10 people that set up a tank. Should I boycott his store because the majority of people who set up SW don't buy a book?


I'm sure I just made some enemies here again sorry.

-No enemy here, imput and discussion is what we need to be having on this subject.
Steve

[budhaboy]

sorry, yes it was - I meant to type WOULDNT - If I was to ONLY sell captive bred species and stay in business, then yes, to make my over head, I would have to charge a ridiculous amount for a Percula- 90% of all my livestock unfortunatley is wild caught.I accept any and all trade ins for coral frags, and even have a family that is begining to breed 6 species of Clownfish, including McMcolouchi(sp?) Clowns which I RARELY have ever seen for sale anywhere... But comparatively, the amount of sales I do far exceeds the amount of frags I get back from customers(and I give the best prices I can for them), rare and unusual corals(especially SPS) normally go to the experts, and I have agreements with each and every one of these people to get frags of these corals when they are ready to do so, but even still, that just isnt a viable source for livestock.---YET.

But see you do have something that was wild caught.How long have you been in the marine hobby?Do you have SPS corals in your tank?Many people consider them an expert level coral.Who declared you an expert?or after many years of successfully keeping softies, and LPS coral did you decide to take the final plunge and keep corals that until not too long ago were considered impossible to keep?
I cant ever dream of competing with online prices for drygoods, and as a matter of fact, dont carry any except for those incidental items that you need right away, a small selection of additives, pumps, test kit refills, stuff like that.I stock no tanks, although I sell used from time to time, and I will order set-ups for people but that is so far and few between, it doesnt make sense to stock them.(I have Petsmart and Petco within driving distance) but, on average, I do carry more of and diverse selection of HEALTHY livestock than any other LFS within 45 minutes driving of my shop and try to provide the lowest prices for said animals while still staying in business.
And oh, by the way I do not support the use of Cyanide/TNT netting, and subsequently do not order from places that have not agreed to the ban of these methods.

[naesco]

Budhaboy congratulations you are an exemplary LFS.
Fellow reefers, he is a good LFS and has to compete with the loser LFS who stock their tanks with impossible to keep species and sell them to unsuspecting reefers like us only to have them die in our tanks and often take existing fish and coral with them.
We must level the playing field or the loser LFS get all the business and the good LFS go out of business.
We need to bring in voluntary restrictions on the import of and sale of impossible to keep species except to researchers, universities and expert reefers who specially order them.
We reefers have the right to demand and ethical and sustainable industry.!

[RooFish]

I agree with Budhaboy on a lot of points. At our LFS we could make a bunch of money off rare hard to keep fish, but we don't. We've never had most kinds of fish, since most of the people around here are either at a lower level or go to Preuss's for saltwater stuff and to us for freshwater. Since fish are so cheap to buy from some places a lot of LFS owners will buy them and mark them up to the same price we sell them at. But their fish are cyanided and die, where ours are good and live. As with his place we only special order hard fish for people we know can handle it.

Also I've never even seen some of these things on our order forms. Like chambered nautilus's, I'm sure they've probably been there once or twice, but not from the places we buy from. Order lists come from 10+ suppliers each week, but half of them we ignore because of things like cyanide and TNT.

We all agree that reefs WILL be gone forever in the next 50-100 years right?

Why don't we get what we can out of the oceans now, learn to breed them, and keep the species around for a little longer? That way the hobby can keep fish from becoming extinct. I'm not saying everyone should get their hands on any fish, but they should be available to those who can handle them.

I was looking at some of the past posts and noticed someone suggested species that had bred in the aquarium as one level of certification. I don't agree with this, as people have bred mandarins and recently started breeding a few dwarf angel species. Even though they have been bred, a mandarin fish is still hard to keep if your tank is set up wrong.

[mrbast74]

I absolutely do not agree that the reefs will be gone in 50-100 years. If that is the case... damn.... I can't even think of that as an option. We can't let it come to that. If we can agree on that it will make this entire conversation pointless. I love having my reef tanks and enjoy the educational and awareness opportuities it provides. But if it came down to losing the reefs like we are losing the rainforests. I feel we would have failed as a species. The only way way would not have failed is if our role in the grand scheme of things is the great destructors. I can not accept that possible truth. Statements like that galvanize my feeling that something has to change now.

If losing the reefs is an inevitability. I say ban all importation with the exception of a few licenced breeders. Ban all comercial fishing with the same exception. The total loss of the reefs should be one of the most unfathomable points raised, and we are agreeing with certanty? We can't be that sick. I am as cynical as the next guy about most issues, but if we accept that, we are doomed.

We really are a virus and a cancer on this Earth. What gives us the right?

[cjdevito]

Someone asked me to weigh in here, so I'll just try to correct some misinformation that's been hurled about in this thread.

1. The collection is reef-life in it's current form is sustainable. WRONG. The US Coral Reef Task Force concluded otherwise in their report to congress last year, and backed that finding with a lot of hard numbers. If you haven't read their work as yet, it behooves everyone involved with marine aquariums to do so.

2. No fish in the aquarium trade is endangered. WRONG. The IUCN has moved to place the banggai cardinal on the endangered species list, but the move hasn't happened yet. Many other species that -should- be listed as endangered are not because, due to their rarity in nature, it's difficult to get an accurate idea of their actual numbers. These are not species the average hobbyist is likely to see without spending several hundred to thousands of dollars, however.

3. Populations of marine fish do not decline because of overcollection for the hobby. WRONG. As an example, the number of yellow tangs around hawaii is done 59% in just 20 years (Source: USCRTF draft report).

4. MAC nixed the unsuitable species list. Halfway wrong. MAC is a beauraucracy, nothing happens quickly. Mary Middlebrook is still working with the USL, and I do think you'll see more on that front over time.

The hobby has an impact. This is fact, fact backed up by real numbers. I don't say other stressors don't have more of an impact (they certainly do) but the marine animal trade is anything but an innocent scapegoat.

I applaud the attitudes of some in this thread -- GregT's posts come to mind -- that realize we're responsible for the mess in our own backyards before worrying about the mess in our neighbors.

Like someone else posted several pages back, however, I expect to see us regulated before very much longer. I think if Gore was in the White House, we'd already be regulated in fact. Bush is not an environmental president, however, so I doubt anything will happen til he needs to do something to appease those who criticize his environmental policies. When that time comes, I expect us to be the target. We're visible, we're easy, it's that simple.

That does not mean, however, that we should cease hobbyist and industry initiatives. Anything, anything at all, that we have in place before the government eventually steps in can only help us. If anything is in place, the government is likely to adapt our structure to it's legislation. If nothing is in place, outright complete bans are government's easiest recourse.

[Mescalito]

It seems we have many concerned and/or conscientious hobbyists on this board. While I don't believe certification and restrictions is feasible, I do believe we can start making a difference immediately.

First, we must ask questions about how the livestock we are about to purchase was harvested. In order to do so with any real effectiveness we, ourselves must be educated in that area. Another way to test your lfs is to go in and attempt to purchase a less hardy species or one with highly specialized dietary needs. At some point throughout the purchase set your traps, "Will this tang get along with my other tang in in my 40 gallon tank?", "I don't need any special lighting for this sps, do I?", etc... If they are willing to sell to you anyways, talk to the owner or manager and then leave without purchasing anything. Eventually if this happens enough times they'll get the hint and possibly begin to change their ways.

Second, here on RC we seem to have many authorities on the subject of responsible reef-keeping. Get these people together and let's make a "Hard To Keep Species" list and add it to the menu at the top of the page. At least there, anyone who visits RC will have the opportunity to review it. To show that RC and it's members really care alert all RC sponsors that if any of these items are found for sale on their websites or in their stores they will immediately lose their right to advertise on RC.

[Afishianado]

A note:
Someone mentioned that the animals in the trade should be classified. This is a good idea. But, which classification system should be used? IMHO it should be a classification system that is developed by a VOLUNTARY standards organization. You do not want a mandate from a governmental organization. I don't know how many people here are familiar with ISO but something similar to that concept could work. No company is required by any authority to be ISO certified. But customers of those company's have come to know that this certification can be associated with a product that they want. This places a certain pressure on companies to want to be ISO certified. If a Marinelife Standards organization existed that was not connected to the industry or to an official authority it would be attractive to a customer to see that certification from the LFS/dealer. By the way, ISO certification has a cost associated with it, it is not free, nor is the audit. Also what ISO actually audits you for is different from what is needed here, but it is the concept of how the process works is sound.

Just to point out that earlier in the thread someone mentioned not dealing with CITES protected species. ALL Corals and Anemones are at a minimum protected as CITES category II species. They cannot be be freely imported, one must have proper paperwork. Generally this paperwork consists of permission from the Exporting nation. I don't think anyone wants the official system to be more restrictive than this, as that would walk dangerously close to a ban.

I think that from everything I have been exposed to ,I can conclude that as far as the overall destruction of the world's natural reef ecosystems, the reef keeping hobby is a miniscule part. If this istrue then we are not concerned with wiping out the population. The real concern is that a lack of knoweldge results in animal death. Nobody wants this. Not the skilled Aquariest who hates to see "tough to keep" species get sold to beginners. and Not the beginner who does it. Face it, does anyone think that people are looking to protect thier right to pay alot for a fish that they have no idea how to care for and will ultimate die? no. I think that people would rather know from a reliable source that the animal is outside thier skill range, and what animals are inside thier skill range. This can be accomplished without mandating that they cannot purchase it because they do not have a green lantern secret decoder card.

I vote for...
The spread of knowledge
A voluntary certification process
Happier reefers all around
and the return of the 29 cent cheesburger

There is alot more detail about these ideas that I could go into but this thread is long enough as it is, I just wanted to throw the idea out there and see if sinks or swims, or treads water until it gets tired , then sinks.....

Chris

[Aquaman]

Ban all comercial fishing with the same exception almost impossable, a good portion of the world would starve!

[Afishianado]

I will update my post as it pertains to CJDevito's information. Apparently the Hobby does have an impact and he has numbers to back it up. My original position is the same though. NoOne is interested in protecting thier right to kill animals because they don't know enough about it. I believe peoplewant to be succesful at this, what ever species they ultimately choose.

Chris

[mrbast74]

CJdevito,

Since banggai's are one of the more easily captive bred species, are there any plans on the horizon to reintroduce a number of banngai's into their native habitat or is reintroduction of fish always fround upon?

I think many people think we can just restock the ocean when we have finally gone overboard. This seems a lttle far fetched at best, and terribly damaging at worse.

Does anyone have an the facts?

[budhaboy]

Actually, there are man made reefs in the Caribbean that have used coral frags produced in captivity to start colonies(I just saw a between show docu clip on this on Discover Science the other night) The same has/is being done with the North American Wolf.As long as the creature relies upon natural instinct, and not man for their food supply, this has been demonstrated as feasable.I dont know about any attempts with fish except maybe Salmon(not positive on this though).

Actually CITES has requested that Fiji be put on a ban(temporary) because they have not finished complying with the new CITES regulations(gee have your ENTIRE government colapse and restructure itself and see how fast you can file paper work).Germany in one of the only countries that I know of that has voluntarily gone along with this.

[SPC]

Posted by Budhaboy:
sorry, yes it was - I meant to type WOULDNT - If I was to ONLY sell captive bred species and stay in business, then yes, to make my over head, I would have to charge a ridiculous amount for a Percula.

- Just so I am clear on this, are you saying that if you pay $10 for a captive bred percula that you have to sell it for $250 to make a profit? Help me out here, I still don't understand your point.

But see you do have something that was wild caught.

-Yes, one easy to keep wild fish, you are correct.

How long have you been in the marine hobby?

-2 years

Do you have SPS corals in your tank?

-Yes, 3 that were attached to my Fla aquacultured rock.

Many people consider them an expert level coral.Who declared you an expert?

-Actually my wife has, but as far as SPS goes I didn't have much choice what was on the rock when I bought it. When I did notice that these corals were on my rock I immediately placed them high up in my tank under the 880 watts of VHO. I then posted on Reefs.org asking for ID as well as asking a marine biologist who lives in the keys for ID. My next step was to research the requirements of these corals and do my best to meet them, so far so good.

or after many years of successfully keeping softies, and LPS coral did you decide to take the final plunge and keep corals that until not too long ago were considered impossible to keep?

-Please see above.


I cant ever dream of competing with online prices for drygoods, and as a matter of fact, dont carry any except for those incidental items that you need right away, a small selection of additives, pumps, test kit refills, stuff like that.I stock no tanks, although I sell used from time to time, and I will order set-ups for people but that is so far and few between, it doesnt make sense to stock them.(I have Petsmart and Petco within driving distance) but, on average, I do carry more of and diverse selection of HEALTHY livestock than any other LFS within 45 minutes driving of my shop and try to provide the lowest prices for said animals while still staying in business.

-I commend you for this.
Steve
:D

[SPC]

Posted by Budhaboy:
Germany in one of the only countries that I know of that has voluntarily gone along with this.

-Yes, and Germany has also been the leader in new aquarium technology since day 1.

Charles, thanks for joining in on the discussion. You have been involved with these issues for many years and I for one respect your opinion.
Steve

[budhaboy]

- Just so I am clear on this, are you saying that if you pay $10 for a captive bred percula that you have to sell it for $250 to make a profit? Help me out here, I still don't understand your point.

consider the amount of different captive bred species of fish.Compare that number to the amount of different wild caught species...wild caught specimens (different species of fish) out number the amount of different wild caught species at lest 10 to 1. This would reduce the selection of different types of fish I could carry, and wouold cut the amount of fish I could sell dramatically(Not every one wants a Clownfish, many would like to have an Angel, or Wrasse, etc...)which in turn would most likely see alot of people leave the hobby until such a time as more species became available, Which means less business for me, which means my retail prices increase just so I can stay open so Ican supply creatures to the people that want to stay in the hobby.
When the husbandry techniques are known/supplied to be able to captively raise more species of fish this would become feasable but until then...
Captive raised corals are another thing entirely, this is very quickly becoming a common occurence, but as of yet I cant provide many of these corals to my customers and still compete with Online, and other stores that will/would sell wild specimens.For example - Dr. Mac and Sons- I consider him local(Salsbury, MD) though hes located 1.5 hours from me on the Eastern Shore, He sellls Captive Bred Stock(and beautiful specimens they are) and there isnt a feasable way to purchase from him and any other captive bred/propagated businesss and still keep my prices low enough to even consider covering my overhead(and I have no real employees) and I dont have the facilities to propagate coral(with the exception for an occasional rare/unusual piece) myself.

[SPC]

Thanks Budhaboy, I understand what you are saying now.
Steve

[naesco]

"Marine Aquarium Council (MAC) nixed the unsuitable species list(USL) half way wrong"
Sorry not at all wrong
My information is that a group of MAC industry members met and that MAC Core Standard Annex 4 was discussed. Annex 4 contains the impossible to keep species or USL. This committee recommended the the USL only deal with two categories: too large for average aquarium species and deadly to the public.species This MAC committee nixed what we have been discussion in this thread.
Many of us will be going to MAC and or committee members like the World Wildlife Federation asking them to ensure that the impossible to keep species list be adopted with the exception for research noted in this thread.
We reefers have the right to demand of MAC an ethical and sustainable industry.:)

[Mad Scientist]

naesco,


Could you please clarify/expand on your use of the term "impossible"? It strikes me as very unscientific that you wouldluse such a term (after all you can not prove that something is impossible.) But, as you seem to insist on you using please spell out just what you mean as impossible and list some species that will, by example, let the rest of us know exactly what you mean. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I would just like to known what qualifies as "impossible," to you, you have used a 1% figure for MIs before (although with no citation), is this your standard for "impossible."

Again, not to undermine your point, as although I do not agree with it, I accept it as viable and worthy of debate. But, could you also explain exactly what you mean by ethical and sustainable.
After all, many non-reefers do not feel it is ethical to keep any wild-caught species. And are saying that if a fish has a zero percent chance of captive surival, but, it's harvest is sustainable you would be ok with keeping it. Becareful in your word choice as terms like "impossible", "ethical" and "sustainable", may carry strong conotations with certain groups that you may not be aware of.
For example, (sorry to harp on this), but as soon as fisheries biologists see the term sustainable they are going to be confused by your usage of it, as many of these species are sustainable.
An animal rights person and a reefer might be equally confounded by you repeated use of the terms ethical and impossible.

You have a decent argument, but, I'm not sure you are framing it very well. Thisjust my perception as a biologist, reefer, diver, sport fisherman and envirnomentalist, take it as you wish.

By the way, if I can't get a ribbon eel in a few years, I'm going to one unhappy camper. Heck, I can't have my MIs swimming by all by themselves, that won't impress anyone.



:D

[The Perfect Pet]

Naesco,

Please stop using the term "impossible"

Nothing is impossible.


Thank you



-B-

[naesco]

Impossible species

Bruce Carlson, noted reefer, Director of the Waikiki Aquarium who spoke at a recent Western Marine Conference.
"Among the fish, there are also many IMPOSSIBLE species. At the top of the list are the obligate coral feeding fish......"

Robert Fenner, unquestionably a well respected author in our hobby of the top books recommended by reefers to reefers.
Speaking of butterflyfish on the Unsuitable Species List (USL)
"Here are my opinions about the chaetodonts (certain butterflyfish) after handling tens of thousands over the last 30 years. No apology or vain attempt at completeness is offered. I know there is going to be no absolute agreement on my assessments but I stand by them. They are borne out of my own observations of many individuals of all sizes from many points of origin"

Robert Tullock another will respected author of the most recommended books on reefkeeping.
Commenting of the species on the USL
"Species such as the Common Cleaner wrasse bridge the gap between the category of species that are at the moment "impossible" to those that clearly can be kept alive in captivity but which require an unusually large investment of time and effort from the aquarist"

These are very strong words from very well respected people in our hobby. If to you impossible means 100% than I am wrong in using this word.
In the case of the butterflyfish there are hundreds and hundreds of difference species. How can it hurt us to ban the few on the USL list. As beautiful as they are they do not live in our tanks.
We must choose another.

[naesco]

PS
I appreciate your kind comments and advice on putting my argument forward. Thank you

[beetlejuice]

The only thing that is impossible is keeping a dead fish swimming. Anything else is not impossible. It just takes the right care and research.

[The Perfect Pet]

Well naesco,

as far as your "impossible" species keep em coming, because as I stated many times before. Nothing is impossible. To have that view is very arrogant and ignorant. At one time space flight was said to be impossible, Peace between certain nations was impossible, Many thing that were thought to be impossible today are possible. why? Because people (like myself) know that anything is possible. If you put your mind to it.

as far as your Impossible Fish
Orange spotted Filefish(Oxymonacanthus longirstris)
This is an obligatory coral feeder (Acropora sp. at that)
If one wanted to keep these , first have a large(500g+) well established(3-5yr) sps tank. then do more specific research as to the origin of the one that you are to receive, try and get one as small as you can, make sure you have no predators of the fish in your tank, and I am willing to bet this "impossible fish will not be so Impossible.

Maybe for now the key is for difficult to keep species
you must have a large tank(150g+)
One that is well established(3yr+)
One that is completely designed for that particular species
Basically a species only tank.
Hey hasn't that been the key all along?

Do your homework!




-B-

[mrbast74]

I personally like the term, "unsuitable" or "difficult beyond the realm of expertise and capabilities or level of dedication of most of the human race":) .

Na... Let's stick to unsuitable I think.

[naesco]

Do your homework you say!

Sir, I have. For two to three months in addition to reading noted authors like Fenner, Tullock Scott and reefers like Carlson (by the way perhaps you might quote someone with authority) I searched the internet for every article written about every species on the list. Based on this research I came to the conclusion that indeed those fish on the list were impossible (sorry unsuitable) to be kept by us.
You may argue with semantics but you cannot argue with facts nor can you argue with the experts in our hobby.
The species on the USL are there because Quote Robert Tullock "special requirements for this species, usually dietary needs, cannot be met by the home Aquarist. Appropriate conditions for keeping this species are not yet defined"

I repeat.
Quote "We reefers have the right to demand an ethical and sustainable industry" Mary Middlebrook MAC director, industry wholesaler,

[cwa46]

What gives you the "RIGHT" to demand anything from any industry other than your purchasing power. There must be some laws on the books I haven't heard about.

[SPC]

Posted by Mad Scientist:
For example, (sorry to harp on this), but as soon as fisheries biologists see the term sustainable they are going to be confused by your usage of it, as many of these species are sustainable.

-Which species?
Steve

[SPC]

Posted by The Perfect Pet:
Nothing is impossible. To have that view is very arrogant and ignorant.

- Again you see the need to use personal attacks. Others have pointed this out to you on this thread but somehow its just not sinking in. Please do not resort to personal attacks in order to try and make a point.

Do your homework!

-See above.
Steve

[Wild Card-inal]

Our reefing has an impact, but so do a lot of other things. Namely global warming, which at this very moment is diminishing our reefs (in fact there was an AFM magazine that had an article on this a month or two ago; global warming's effects will not fix until 50 years after it is stopped, so we SHOULD stop now but no one is going to anytime soon). But there are groups that are trying to help out. I believe giant clams are now being aquacultured nowadays and being placed back on reefs. It's probably not just clams either, or that's some wacky reef-saver group.

If a hobbyist has the facilities, they should try to go to their extent to help out the reefs.

[naesco]

SPC
thanks for your support but you have to understand he is a LFS guy and lets face it they are all getting a little nervous.
The fact that reefers are starting to educate themselves and demand an ethical and sustainable industry does not sit well with most LFS guys.
Simply put when when we take back or ship back a dead or dying fish or coral, we are not going to accept their BS that it was our water that is the problem.

CWA
Not me. WE have the right because because we have the power to decide whether we buy from you are not.
We have the right because we are concerned about our reefs and inhabintants.
We have the right because we are concerned about the health of the critters we place in our reef tanks and the ability of them to survive in our tanks
We have the right to return to you sick fish you sell us or fish you sell us without advising us of suitabilityof the fish in our tanks or worse yet the deliberate misrepresentation of the suitability of the fish for our tanks.
Simply put we have the right to demand our money back. Pretty powerful, eh!

[Afishianado]

Hey Perfect Pet, What LFS do you work at?

Chris

[Wild Card-inal]

Originally posted by The Perfect Pet
Maybe for now the key is for difficult to keep species
you must have a large tank(150g+)
One that is well established(3yr+)
One that is completely designed for that particular species
Basically a species only tank.
Hey hasn't that been the key all along?

LoL, how do you have a species tank that's established for a hard to keep fish you haven't gotten yet? LoL, just noticed that and I couldn't resist. :D

I'll just watch some more; right now I don't have anything useful to say.

[mrbast74]

I agree strongly with naesco on the point that we should have a right to quality livestock.

No industry out there operates on the assumption that such a large percentage of it's product will be useless before it even gets to the customer, and then it sets this imaginary line that places the the efficacy of a doomed product on the shoulders of the customers.

Maybe LFS' could sell an extended warranty on the purchase of a fish.

Or would that be a money loosing venture from the start, given the inferior product being sold in the first place?

[coralite]

Do we not have the right to animals that are healthy because they have been treated w/ respect the entire duration of their journey from the reef to our tank?

[budhaboy]

theres a problem with that, people would need to be better educated first before I would implement a warranty on livestock. It amazes me almost everyday how often I have to explain aclimating a cleaner shrimp or starfish to a persons reeftank when they bring it home, even to people I consider an intermediate in the hobby. If the creature dies in transport(which is extremely rare)something can be done for the customer, but the bulk of instant or imminent fatalities can usually be attributed to improper acclimation techniques.
At the moment, I am considering printing mini care fliers to give to my "nebie and intermediate" customers to help ensure their creatures survival, but, this is yet (though small it does add up eventually) another operating expense that I will end up covering, and the more I think about it the more worthwhile I think it will be.
LoL, how do you have a species tank that's established for a hard to keep fish you haven't gotten yet? LoL, just noticed that and I couldn't resist
Well, that requires planning ahead and researching and building that particular set-up in advance. Isnt that what you should be doing instead of impulse buying(not that you personally are of course.)?

[budhaboy]

Do we not have the right to animals that are healthy because they have been treated w/ respect the entire duration of their journey from the reef to our tank?
Part of this I just explained in the above post, and personally I do not permit the sale of sick or diseased fish to my customers and I use pure oxygen in the bags for distances over a 20 minute drive to the creatures new home.Many deaths in my experience occur due to improper acclimation techniques as I posted above. I try my best to educate everyone that is willing to learn when they come in and I certainly do not claim to be the most knowledgable, but I cannot accept responsibility for a customers action once they leave my shop with their livestock. If proper transport techniques are used in the shop with healthy livestock to imply my responsiblity extends past the confines of my store is both callous and unjust.The customers(you, the marine livestock purchaser) is responsible for proper care and husbandry the moment you leave the LFS.

[daign]

Just left Mark's Fish & Pet here in Studio City, CA.

They had 4 5" Moorish Idols for sale for $39.99.

Guy said they were hardy, I didn't reply.

Looks like these poor guys are poppin up everywhere.

-daign

[Anemone]

Daign,

[welcome]


Too bad about Marks, they are generally a pretty good LFS.

Kevin

[daign]

Yeah they are a great LFS. Great corals, great service and nice fish. In no way do I view them in a bad light for carrying such fish.

After all, if we all consider what the general opinion of our hobby in the view of a non-aquanut. Are we responsible for the decline of reefs in the wild and fish populations?

If you consider deforestation. We aren't blowing up reefs for the sake of using the materials and the livestock for food. We are simply moving them into our living rooms for their amazing beauty and the joy it provides us in caring for them.

Now if we can only convince people who buy firewood to plant the trees in their backyards. I think we'd be in good shape.

I'm not one to plant a tree in my backyard that I know will die within a few months. But those who'd like to try and make that tree flourish in their backyard I do not look down upon.

Although they might save a couple bux if they stuck to goldfish ;)

-daign

[SPC]

Budhaboy, do you have a quarantine period for new livestock?
Steve

[RooFish]

Mrbast, Sorry to tell you, but science says that reefs will be gone by the year 2050 because of global warming. I'll quote the AFM article mentioned earlier:

"The worlds coral reefs will be dead within 50 years because of global warming, and there is nothing we can do to save them."

Then later

"Only corals in nontropical regions such as Egypt stand any chance of lasting beyond 2050, but even the days of the marine parks of the Red Sea are numbered, as sea temperatures continue to creep up."

It also says that as the temps. rise, even more corals get hurt for other reasons. Polar icecap melting is raising sea levels, and the corals that have to live in shallow water to get enough light are going to get buried too deep, and die for that reason.

Unfortunatly for us, we're gonna get hit by reef destruction too. All the phytoplankton on reefs is dying too, and phytoplankton produces 70% of the worlds oxygen, so were gonna die of oxygen deprivation. What fun.

While I don't think that the hobby has no effect on reef population, I think we should get them while we can.

[budhaboy]

Yes and no. I do have tanks located on another property to quarantine but as yet, I am just now(in the past month- Ive been running the store and now I'm owning it)starting to turn things around and run things the way they should.I'm in the process of expanding the existing systems so that I can consolidate all my resources/facilities, and in the interim, use one helluva lot of garlic in my foods used as a preventative(YES it works!!).I have a day job to pay for my life so at present, all my store profits are cycling back into the store so that I can shape this store into what I consider the perfect LFS should be.We are closed on Mondays(our shipment day) and any noticably weak, or ill fish are taken to a remote location, and our fish labels are dated with their arrival.To date(knock on wood) there hasnt been any occurance of illness due to new arrivals in customers tanks(at least not that I have bben informed of) and since its a small store, with a large percentage of the customer base being repeat customers, I inquire often any many people have my home number as well, in case of any emergencies.

[Afishianado]

Let's go tell the king that the sky is falling.

[budhaboy]

Roofish- I think its all a matter of which science you want to believe... I have read articles stating that some reefs are making a comeback, and other reefs, previously unknown, are being discovered, and man made reefs are also stemming the tide of disaster.I agree practices should/need to be altered, but the world isnt coming to an end yet.

[RooFish]

Even if the reefs aren't completely destroyed, they are being hurt, and some species are being destroyed. After the last El Nino about 16% of the worlds corals were either destroyed or bleached. At least half of these will never recover to nearly what they were before. Then you add the 11% that people have killed in other ways like pollution and developing industry on or near reefs. After that you add the slow killing effects of global warming and raising sea level. That alone is a bad amount of death.

The next el nino is supposed to be at least as bad as the last one. And with the amount of global warmng it could become a lot worse. Higher heats make it harder for coral polyps to reproduce as they would otherwise, and therefore make it harder for them to grow, or recover from damage. Higher carbon dioxide levels start making it harder for corals to make their skeletons from the calcium they absorb. Without making new skeleton, the corals won't grow more, and will have problems keeping up the structure they already have. Nad there will be more destruction from runoff and other human problems.

Yes the reefs are recovering, but not fast enough to keep up with the destrucion.

Overall the reef situation is grim. So we should get what we can in our aquariums, and keep the species alive.

(BTW these facts came from studies by the Australian Institute of Marine Science and the British Assosiation for the Advancement of Science.)

[Mescalito]

As global warming stays steady and/or increases so does the frequency of El Nino years. :(

[Mad Scientist]

Posted by Mad Scientist:
For example, (sorry to harp on this), but as soon as fisheries biologists see the term sustainable they are going to be confused by your usage of it, as many of these species are sustainable.

-Which species?
Steve

Ok SPC, although I've said my piece on this topic several times, I'll take the time to explain to you what I meant here.

Although I'm not a fisheries biologist myself, I have been luckly enough to work with a number of top fisheries guys here in the Northeast (NOAA, Mass fisheries and some CT people). The term sustainable is the key to all to all fishereis (and wildlife) managment. Basically, fisheries biologist look at the population in question and determine how large of a harvest the specifc species can sustain and have the population remain at a constant level. My understanding is that a number of species, in particular MIs and ribbon eels, are still fairly common in nature and although their fate is ultiamtley tied to the reefs they live in, they are currenlty being removed at a sustainable rate. Now, this does not neccesarily undermine your argument that it is unethical to import these species, but, if you go before a group claiming the collection of certain species (and don't forget the fate of the animal once in capacity has NOTHING to do with this) is NOT sustainable you are going to look like you do know what you are talking about, if, in fact, the species is being removed at a suitainable rate.

Also, naesco, thanks for clarifying your position a little bit, allthough I would caution you on some of the sources espically citing aquarium book authors who don't have PhDs, not to slam Tullock (as I think his book is great and a must read), but, we all know books are atleast a year behind. Having trouble finding good peer reviewed stuff huh? Not your fault, there isn't much of it out there, whether you want to believe it or not, the top guysd on this board are doing some of the most cutting edge stuff in the world. Just like the guys 10yrs ago who not only learned how to keep seahorses, but, now can bred them. Also, anyone who thinks I'm dreaming about the potential of captive breeding to bring an animal back from the very brink of extinction (at least economic), should read about Giant clams.

I respect what you guys are trying to do, personaly I'm more distrubed by cyanide caught fish, althouhg my LFS are now "net only". But, chances are if you have a tang he was cyanided, maybe it's time we learn to breed these guys.


:confused:

RooFish,

You are right on, don't let anyone tell you that the world reef situation is not dire, it is. In fact, all of the world's major ecosytems have been fragmented and are in an advanced state of decay, this is the inside word among top conservation biologists, these guys don't like to speak out, but what's started as wisper has grown to scream among conservation biologist today. Anyone want to read themselves for themselves (don't make word) check out some of Edward O. Wilson's work, the father of modern conservation biology, harvard prof, good guy. Want to read a book that will educate on this branch of sciece, seach amazon.com for "Song of the Dodo." A little depressing to say the least.

[SPC]

Posred by Mad Scientist:
The term sustainable is the key to all to all fishereis (and wildlife) managment. Basically, fisheries biologist look at the population in question and determine how large of a harvest the specifc species can sustain and have the population remain at a constant level. My understanding is that a number of species, in particular MIs and ribbon eels, are still fairly common in nature and although their fate is ultiamtley tied to the reefs they live in, they are currenlty being removed at a sustainable rate.

-Thanks for the explanation but I was already aware of what sustainable meant. My question to you was directed at your statement that "many species are sustainable". You have listed two, what are some of the other many species? These two that you listed, where did you see the data for this?
Steve

[naesco]

Daign
Welcome
But, if the LFS told you a Moorish Idol is hardy everyone on this board would advise you find another LFS.
Get your advice from this board and not any LFS except for (budaboy) (did I miss anyone?).
Not one of the 10,000 reefers on this board would call a Moorish Idol hardy.

[Hainer]

I now have had a MOorish Idol alive in my tank for approximately six weeks. It eats practically everything that I feed it.

This is not the first Moorish Idol that I have purchased. However, I have been in this hobby for about fiftewen years and have learned quite alot. I recognze the Moorish Idol to be one of the most sought after and hard to keep fish available in the trade. That being said:

The one thing I know for sure, the things that have benefitted all of us hobbyists, is the trials and tribulations of other hobbyists. We have learned the most from trial and error. Unfortunately it may come at the cost of a fish life. Although unfortunate, I think I can speak for all of us that have lost fish along the way, we need to keep at it. We all cherish the incredible beauty and endless hours of joy and frustration, but the hobby is about preserving life. If a fish dies in our care, although sad, perhaps our experience can help another hobbyist keep the next one alive.

We need to continue to learn.
Hainer

[naesco]

I don't want to appear disrespectful but that is a dated and totally unacceptable view of improving keeping difficult species.
What you are really saying is continue to make almost impossible to keep fish available to everyone with the hope that out of the thousands of deaths someone will luck upon a way of keeping them alive.
In todays reefing society, that kind of thinking can no longer be tolerated.
Sorry to be so curt.

[naesco]

As usual California is leading the way. There new law is a good first step. Please see the California thread.:D :D :D :D :D

[daign]

I think one of the most important lessons i've learned in this hobby is not to listen to a word the LFS tells me. Although there are exceptions.

I find that sources like this are a better place to ask questions and get a variety of responses.

[naesco]

That's right .
You can't trust anyone who would sell you a Moorish Idol as a hardy fish.
There ought to be a law:eek1:

[Mad Scientist]

Posted by naesco:

The species on the USL are there because Quote Robert Tullock "special requirements for this species, usually dietary needs, cannot be met by the home Aquarist. Appropriate conditions for keeping this species are not yet defined"




This is a major misrepresentation of Tullocks point of view, many of you have this book so look up this quote that naesco is using in support of his argument that many fish should be labled "impossible"

Right below this quote Tullock writes (in regard to this category) "These species should not dogmatically be regarded as 'impossible'." (page 294). You and SPC have been doing exactly what Tullock, who you sighted as an expert, has adviced reefers not to do.

SPC, since you insist on splitting hairs with me, let ask you have you read the Borneman (I presume you have), he lists the collection impact for every one of the hundreds of corals he describes, less that 10 are being affected by collection for the aquarium trade. I chose this book because everyone has access to it and can check it for themselves.

I do not know of any species that is being harvest for collection now in the US that is not being taken at a sustainable rate (again just because a fish is rare in hobby does not mean it is rare in nature).

You must know a few species, though, that you think are not sutaianble at our current rate of collection, what are they and why not share this information with US gov (Endangered Species Act)? The vast majority of fish we see in our LFS are being taken a sustainble rate, those that are in danger of being overcollected, such as leafy sea dragons, are illegal to sell (without special permits).


Does anyone really doubt that we are not going to be able keep MIs with more and more success as the years go on and that the advances in husbandry are going to come from educated, experienced reefers and the end result will be captive breeding? Lots of stony corals died before we leaned to keep them (which is quite sad), but, now many are being cative bred and the impact is HUGE (READ Borenmans' Book).


Also, why are you guys bashing LFS when this site(RC) sponsors companies that carry MIs and other very advancned species, I don't understand? Are you saying we shouldn't "trust" RC sponsors?

[Hainer]

Naesco,
No disrespect taken. Perhaps I should clarify myself by having not stated the obvious. The lfs has a respnsibility to determine what fish they stock and how they sell them. It is also their responsibilty to know their customer and qualify them as a proper candidate for a delicate fish.
That being said, it is not unlikely to find delicate fish in many lfs showrooms. I am assuming that the hobbyist need also be responsible and ackknowledge his or her level of the hobby to determine what the odds are of keeping a delicate or otherwise hard to keep fish.

If a local fish store has these delicate fish available for sale, I believe that the chances of an experienced hobbyist keeping the fish thriving is much greater than a beginner. So therefore I think you would probably concur with me that all things considered, if a lfs has the fish, and an advanced hobbyist trys his hand and fails. this is a far better outcome than if a beginner does it and fails without reason.
At least with the advanced hobbyist, thechances are greater and real.

Best regards
Hainer

[naesco]

Hainer it is unfortunate that 99% of the LFS do not give a damn.
They are only interested in selling you stuff so that they can make money like the LFS who told you that a Moorish Idol is hardy.
The net result is reefers end up with fish which are almost impossible to keep even if you are the expert of experts. They die and we replace them with something else.
These fish IMO should not even be imported.
All other fish and coral should come with a difficulty rating sanctioned by an organization like the Marine Aquarium Council (MAC) and instructions are each species specific care.
Nothing less than that should be acceptable by us because we have the right to demand...........

[SPC]

Posted by Mad Scientist:
SPC, since you insist on splitting hairs with me, let ask you have you read the Borneman (I presume you have), he lists the collection impact for every one of the hundreds of corals he describes, less that 10 are being affected by collection for the aquarium trade. I chose this book because everyone has access to it and can check it for themselves.

-What you see as splitting hairs I see as important information. My question to you was not about corals but about "many species are sustainable" statement you made, which BTW was in referrence to fish. If you will notice in Eric Bornemans book he is not presenting hard data on the collection impact of corals. The conclusions he draws are based on the best information available at this time.Personally I have not seen this data published on many of the fish we commonly keep in our aquariums. If you have this data please share it with us.

I do not know of any species that is being harvest for collection now in the US that is not being taken at a sustainable rate (again just because a fish is rare in hobby does not mean it is rare in nature).

-Data, links please.

You must know a few species, though, that you think are not sutaianble at our current rate of collection, what are they and why not share this information with US gov (Endangered Species Act)?

-No actually I don't know but I would be interested in reading more about this data if it has been published.


The vast majority of fish we see in our LFS are being taken a sustainble rate, those that are in danger of being overcollected, such as leafy sea dragons, are illegal to sell (without special permits).

-Once again you are using a term such as "vast majority" here. I know of no study that has been done to determine this. Any hard data would be very useful in this thread.
Steve

[RooFish]

you know steve, your not using a lot of hard facts yourself.

[SPC]

RooFish, thats because their aren't many when dealing with reef fish sustainability which is the point I am trying to make.
Steve

[Mad Scientist]

SPC, you are the one claiming that there are number of FISH that we are not taking at a sustainable rate, you are the one making this charge, how about you show some facts. Have you read Bornemans bibliography?

Although you have leveled these charges and offered no facts to back them, thus you are the one who should be citing sources (as I cited Borneman, which I stand by); I'll try to dig around the ol' lab and see I can find some peer reviewed studies. But, like I said before, if there is not a problem, i.e. a fish species that does not seems to be in trouble, there probably isn't a study.

But, give me tonight and tommorow and I'll see if I can interject a few facts into this argument and make all of us look a little more educated. So, before you back off you argument that these fish are being overharvested(you are now saying there aren't enough to facts to know), sit tight.

Again, if I stumble onto a species that is being overharvested, I will be the fist to support regulation on it's import to protect its wild population.

[Mad Scientist]

Ok here's the deal, there's TONS of info on reef fish and coral destruction out there, most of it seems very biased against reefers though.

That said, CITES requires all fish imported for the aquarium trade be taken in a suatinable manner (points for me right?).

Not exactly, I guess there's all kinds of loop holes and because of pollution and other factors, many fish are not being taken at a sustainable rate. Too bad, these fish though, are not necessarliy fish like MIs but, most of the fish in our trade.

SPC, check out this link and the other links, good stuff, next time find your own facts, as the person you are arguing with won't always find your supporting facts for you.

http://www.aaas.org/international/ssa/coralreefs/overview.shtml

Search around there, looks like most people want the trade shut down all the way. See my previos post about cyanide, I told you it was a huge problem.


Bottom line in my view:
There is NO justification for cyanide collection and I would never shop at a place that bouhgt cyanided fish.
Reefs are dying, collection for aquariums is certainly not a root cause, but, because reefs have been weakened so much, collection for aquariums may now be the "straw that broke the camel back," in some cases.

The future is in captive breeding, as a reefer becomes more experienced they should keep this in mind and put their skills to good use.

In closing, I would again advise those who advocating selective import bans from expecting much sympathy from coral protection groups around the world, atlthough we as reefers did not create this problem, we are being scapegoated beyhond any degree by which we may be causing damage. Most envirmental and scientifc groups favor a ban on all coral and reef fish imports and they don't discrimate between a blue devil and a dwarf angel and a MI and a ribbon eel.
I say gett them while you can and breed 'em. ;)

[SPC]

Posted by Mad Scientist:
SPC, you are the one claiming that there are number of FISH that we are not taking at a sustainable rate, you are the one making this charge, how about you show some facts.

-No I think you are a bit confused here, I never used the word sustainable until you brought it up. You decided to make the statement that most fish are sustainable, I simply asked you to prove your statement.

Have you read Bornemans bibliography?

-Yes, and the entire book about three times.

Although you have leveled these charges and offered no facts to back them, thus you are the one who should be citing sources (as I cited Borneman, which I stand by);

-I leveled no charges about sustainability of fish, you did, then I asked you to back it with data.

I'll try to dig around the ol' lab and see I can find some peer reviewed studies. But, like I said before, if there is not a problem, i.e. a fish species that does not seems to be in trouble, there probably isn't a study.

-Do you actually think that in the middle of the Pacific ocean there is someone standing there to collect data so they can write up a report? Species on this planet go extinct each day before they have even been discovered.


But, give me tonight and tommorow and I'll see if I can interject a few facts into this argument and make all of us look a little more educated. So, before you back off you argument that these fish are being overharvested(you are now saying there aren't enough to facts to know), sit tight.

-I never said this in this thread, once again you presumed I did.

Again, if I stumble onto a species that is being overharvested, I will be the fist to support regulation on it's import to protect its wild population.

-Ok


Ok here's the deal, there's TONS of info on reef fish and coral destruction out there, most of it seems very biased against reefers though.

-Ah, now this was one of the points I was trying to make.

That said, CITES requires all fish imported for the aquarium trade be taken in a suatinable manner (points for me right?).
Not exactly, I guess there's all kinds of loop holes and because of pollution and other factors, many fish are not being taken at a sustainable rate. Too bad, these fish though, are not necessarliy fish like MIs but, most of the fish in our trade.

-That and the time it takes to compile this data. Also please keep in mind that not all exporting nations are members of CITES.

SPC, check out this link and the other links, good stuff, next time find your own facts, as the person you are arguing with won't always find your supporting facts for you.

-Thanks, I already knew about that site. Any facts you found were to support the statements you made.

http://www.aaas.org/international/s.../overview.shtml

Search around there, looks like most people want the trade shut down all the way. See my previos post about cyanide, I told you it was a huge problem.

-Yes they do, I am glad you are learning this.


Bottom line in my view:
There is NO justification for cyanide collection and I would never shop at a place that bouhgt cyanided fish.
Reefs are dying, collection for aquariums is certainly not a root cause, but, because reefs have been weakened so much, collection for aquariums may now be the "straw that broke the camel back," in some cases.

-Exactly.

The future is in captive breeding, as a reefer becomes more experienced they should keep this in mind and put their skills to good use.

-But will they? IMO no they won't as long as the fish is still for sale at the LFS.

In closing, I would again advise those who advocating selective import bans from expecting much sympathy from coral protection groups around the world, atlthough we as reefers did not create this problem, we are being scapegoated beyhond any degree by which we may be causing damage. Most envirmental and scientifc groups favor a ban on all coral and reef fish imports and they don't discrimate between a blue devil and a dwarf angel and a MI and a ribbon eel.

-My point exactly!


I say gett them while you can and breed 'em.

- Thats nice to think, but I don't see it happening until we are forced.
Steve

[Mad Scientist]

SPC,

After reviewing this thread you will see that it was naesco who first introduced the term sustainability to this discussion, not me. I do not feel the need to go go through each of your points but, could you clarify what you meant by this one:

"Do you actually think that in the middle of the Pacific ocean there is someone standing there to collect data so they can write up a report? Species on this planet go extinct each day before they have even been discovered "

Also, I'm sorry if I have attributed other people's statements to you. So, just so I'm clear in the future could you clarify your postion on a few issues (If you have any questions for me I will galdely answer them): I'll try to as narrow as possible,


1.) Do you support a US ban on the import of Moorsih Idols and blue ribbon eels?
2.) Do you support a boycott of any LFS carrying these species?
3.) Do you think that is acceptable that RC sponsors sell both these fish?
4.) Do you support a ban on the import of all corals?
5.) Do you think it should be legal for non-proffessionals to keep wild caught reef species (fish/corals)?
6.) Do you feel that amature reefers are capable of making major advances in reef animal husbandry?

Again, feel free to ask me any questions in return.
Also, I suggest anyone just starting to follow this thread, resturn to the first page and read up.

[SPC]

Posted by Mad Scientist:
1.) Do you support a US ban on the import of Moorsih Idols and blue ribbon eels?

-Yes, as I stated earlier I do not think that we should be attempting to keep marine animals with this kind of track record in our aquariums. By doing so we are only giving more ammunition to those who would ban all imports.

2.) Do you support a boycott of any LFS carrying these species?

-Yes, in fact I already boycott these vendors.

3.) Do you think that is acceptable that RC sponsors sell both these fish?

-That is not for me to decide, I do feel that RC is doing a great job educating reefers. In other words I feel that the reef hobby would suffer greatly if RC was no longer around, I don't feel the same way about most vendors.

4.) Do you support a ban on the import of all corals?

No, If there is data to suggest there is a sustainable harvest for a species then I feel it can be imported. Let me add to this that I feel the most important factor for coral reef conservation is the value of the reefs to the native people. Where there is value, there is protection. If the native peoples are educated to this fact I feel they will put preasure on the rest of the world to help protect their reefs.

5.) Do you think it should be legal for non-proffessionals to keep wild caught reef species (fish/corals)?

-Yes

6.) Do you feel that amature reefers are capable of making major advances in reef animal husbandry?

-Yes, no question they are and have in the past. The problem I have is there are so few that will be dedicated enough (obtaining actual hard data) that I don't think it is worth the black eye this hobby gets at this time. At one time in this hobby experimentation might have been acceptable. As you pointed out however there are many who want to shut down the import of marine animals, and I think that the death of thousands of animals will not be accepted by them. If we as a hobby do not take this threat seriously and at least make an effort to change our image then we will not have any animals to keep, much less to experiment with.
You mentioned Eric Borneman earlier and I just wanted to say that there is no one I respect more. He is truly compassionate about the oceans of the world, not for profit, but from the gut. I just wanted to point this out in case you got the wrong impression.
Steve

[naesco]

Just want to make a friendly comment. Why is it when I quote authors and well know reefers in support of my argument you ignore the post yet you insist that SPC quote authors in support of his position?

Answers to your questions.
1. I support a total ban on the import of Moorish Idol and black/blue ribbon eel except for research because they belong on the unsuitable species list (USL).
2. I will not support a LFS who sells these fish as I demand an ethical and sustainable industry.
3. IMO RC should take a look at it sponsors advertising and ensure that the sponsors are not selling fish and coral that belong on the unsuitable species list (USL).. I intend to speak with RC and ask them to do so. RC can take leadership in this important issue.
4. I am a reefer I support the collection of wild corals if sustainable. I encourage the hobby to share frags and I prefer to purchase frags.
5. Yes of course for I am a reefer.
6. Quite frankly no. Advances on the keeping of fish and coral on the proposed unsuitable species list (USL) are and will be done by researchers, universities, industry and advanced reefers.

[RooFish]

Mad Scientist, I think what SPC was saying about people in the pacific counting fish was that even though CITES says not to import more than X amount of fish, people still do.

A thought just occured to me. Maybe we should support places that legaly sell MI's and such. If they are banned, people will not stop wanting them, they'll just have to find another place to get them. This means the black market, and that brings in scum. People on the black market won;t care how they're collected, so that means cyanide and TNT. That's more destruction than is going on now. So, if we support it being legal, the numbers can be somewhat regulated, and they will be collected in good ways.

I'm not saying everyone should get them, but lets keep the ones that are coming, coming well.

[naesco]

We have had a lot of discussion and I think that if we get down to business we will be surprised had how much we agree with the rare exception.
So what I propose to do is start a thread soon which starts in motion our compiling an unsuitable species list (USL). A list of fish and coral which should not be imported or sold except for research.
Start thinking of what might be on that list please. I think it is fair to quote expert authors and reefers and ones own experience but it is not fair to post that "you know somebody that............
When a reasonable list is compiled we will ask RC to adopt it and support those vendors who support it. We can also ask MAC to adopt it as part of their policy.
I am looking forward to everyone's species input.
Thank you
Any comments before I start?

[mrbast74]

Are we talking about a completely new USL, or one with the same criteria that Mary Middlebrook speaks of at the other MB?

[naesco]

I think we need imput from people on this board. I will try to do a fair definition of the word unsuitable which is acceptable to most and start the ball rolling with a few species for the unsuitable species list. (USL).
Any questions or suggestions would be appreciated.
I will start the thread tomorrow.

[Mad Scientist]

Well,

I think we have mad a good deal of progress on this thread and I think I have learned alot. SPC, your point about the native populations in areas where reef fish are collected is well taken, many of these people make their livings selling fish for the aquarium trade (and reef fish as food to Asian resturants) so they should not be forgotten in the equation. My understanding is that there is a concern that if they are forced to stop collecting for the aquarium trade, they may turn to fishing (gill netting etc.) which is even more damaging. This is kind of a side not, but I think it is important.

If you guys are going to make a list, I vote that you include a statement against cyanide and TNT collection methods, there is a lot of awareness of how damaging these methods are and some LFS are "net caught only" these days, but, I still think this is an important. I peronally feel very strongly about this issue adn I don't think we should tolerate these means of collection, there is no justifying them. Also, are you going to include species that grow to large for most people? I know thanks to MTV's Cribs program, alot of people are looking for nurse sharks.

One last thing, although this was heated argument, I appreciate you guys answering my questions.

[Wild Card-inal]

Originally posted by Onestep
The wife and I just walked into a local fish store and I saw 2 juv. emperor angels, one adult emperor angel, and low and behold a moorish idol. Is this a sign that the hobbie is expanding or the stores are just being greedy?

:lmao: Are we still answering the question?

[Technobuyer]

Hi guys,

Just wanted to throw this out there.... Before a lot of time is spent trying to come up with a list a prohibited species and collection practices, you do realize that there is already an organization set up to try and accomplish this very thing? It is called the Marine Aquarium Council. You can read more about it here.


http://www.aquariumcouncil.org/


Perhaps our energy and enthusiasm could be better spent supporting and educating others about this existing organization? :) JMO..

[naesco]

Technobuyer
Thanks for the information on MAC.
We certainly will let them know the opinions of the members of reef central relative to the Unsuitable Species List (USL)