Sources of marine fish for aquaria

In the case of cyanide collection, a common practice in places like the Philippines, there is definitely harm being done to the fish and their natural environment. Most fish caught using this method will die...sometimes without even appearing to be ill. I buy most of my livestock at one certain shop and they do not buy fish collected using cyanide. They either buy hand/net caught fish or captive-raised fish.

Hopefully, if more people educate themselves about cyanide collection, and make an effort to avoid fish collected this way, we will see a decrease in the number of people involved in the practice.

Most pet shops buy their marine fish from wholesalers. The source of wild caught fish is seldom known for certain. Captive bred fish are becoming more common, but the number of species is very limited. Clownfish, seahorses, perhaps a few others, are all that are available in quantity. Captive bred fish are always more expensive, though ultimately worth the price. Nevertheless, most people go for the lower price. Inexperienced aquarists may see a Percula clown at one shop for $6.00, and at another place for $20.00. The more expensive is captive bred and far more hardy, but this distinction may not be as important as price.

The issue is far more global and broader than the ornamental fish industry. Rainforests are disappearing in South America and Asia, along with most of the natural world, including the reefs. Uncontrolled human population growth and associated extreme poverty cause poor nations to sell whatever they have. Immediate survival needs take precedence over any other consideration.

The world's reefs are being destroyed by human expansion and pollution. Fish collecting is insignificant in comparison to the siltation and water quality degradation from expanding human activity. Look at the waters around Miami, and even the Keys.

The use of cyanide reflects poverty. Cyanide is cheap, and lots of fish can be easily collected. Some collecting stations claim to use only nets, but a lot of deception goes on in impoverished areas. I know this from first hand observation.

If you want to save the reefs, support programs that help to bring about a more eqitable distribution of wealth. This runs contrary to most American business interests and (therefore) US government policy. Also support any programs that provides birth control assistance and any other population control measures around the world, including here in the U.S. There are far too many people on this planet. The Earth belongs to other creatures as much as it belongs to us, and we have shamelessly dispossessed whole species and annihilated entitire ecosystems simply because we are unwilling to limit our numbers, or because we want to build a resort or an industrial plant.

China's 1.3 billion people have managed to almost wipe out much of SE Asia's wildlife, simply by the power of their ability to pay for and consume enormous quantities of animals and fish, for food and as traditionl medicine. That, by the way, is where all the seahorses have disappeared to, along with countless other vulnerable populations of animals. This is only one example. We are all at least equally responsible.

As Pogo observed, "we have met the enemy, and it is us". I don't think the fish importation industry is a major issue, though I agree it should be more carefully regulated, and captive breeding expanded. This means all of us have to be willing to pay a lot more for our fish and inverts. If nothing else, the aquarium hobby raises awareness and creates vocal partisans for the protection of sealife.

Originally posted by agilis
The use of cyanide reflects poverty. Cyanide is cheap, and lots of fish can be easily collected. Some collecting stations claim to use only nets, but a lot of deception goes on in impoverished areas. I know this from first hand observation.

Click to expand...

Really? Been to many third world islands ehh? Like where?

I've been to quite a few third-world nations, islands and otherwise. Islands in the Caribbean where I've seen commercial collecting done are Jamaica, Curacao, and Haiti. Only Haiti still permits collecting. I've seen bleach used there to drive out fish from cover. Of course, that was a while back. I've observed collecting in the Philippines and in French Polynesia. I've personally done some collecting in Jamaica, Hawaii, Honduras,and a few other places.

I know from my own observation that fish collected wirth chemicals in the Philippines are mixed with net caught and marketed as all net caught. Collectors have told me that they use nets for species that are easier to capture that way, and use drugs for fish that are difficult to capture. I suspect that economic imperatives make this true elsewhere. Simple logic suggests that fish can be collected in greater numbers and sold more cheaply with drugs, and in a free market, price prevails.

I've traveled enough to be disgusted by the deterioration I've witnessed since the 1970s. Return trips to places I first saw years ago tend fill me with despair, and to turn me into a misanthrope. What horrible damage we have done! We have destroyed so much, and it will never come back. For what? To squeeze a few more million people into an overcrowded world? To squeeze a little more agricultural production or tourist dollars from a groaning abused environment?Shame on us, on us all.

There's an interesting show run occassionally on the National Geographic channel, Sea Stories, that has a show on the collecting of fish for the hobby. The locals are given the cyanide by the large distributors, and then gauranteed that the fish they catch will be purchased. There's a large organization (the name escapes me right now) that is working with the locals (they specify Phillipine areas, but work world wide) to teach them net techniques, and train them in some business 101 techniques about having a long term sustainable economy based on fish collection, as well as coral collection. They're also working to rebuild the reefs that have been ruined with cynanide collection. The Phillipine government is working to stop cyanide collecting, but as with so many things, money only goes so far. They do test shipments at random, and any fish that test positive don't go any further--a total loss to the collectors and the distributors. Hopefull, in the long run, more people will see the value of preserving the reefs, and all the wildlife within them.

Personally, I keep hoping that people will figure out that some things just don't belong in a glass box, and importation will cease entirely. Some species have survival rates around 1-2%--it's ridiculous that they are so commonly for sale.

Education is key. Let your LFS know you will support them in bringing in net-caught fish, even if it dips deeper in your pocket book. More species are being CB--regal tangs, and many inverts are on the list. Be an informed consumer!

I tend to agree with OrionGirl about the unsuitability of some kinds of fish for life in an aquarium. Any of the larger Caribbean angels will outgrow most aquariums. I believe that Germany has made their importation illegal. There are also many fish that have diets or other issues that make life in a "glass box" problematic.

I think the low survival rates for many fish have more to do with shipping trauma and marginal aquarium conditions than any other factor. Low survival rates, from a pragmatic point of view, are not a problem, I believe, if the harvest of that species is fully sustainable, either by self-renewal through natural reproduction, or through captive breeding. If people are free to kill cows, chickens, mackeral and flounders for their own purposes, it makes no moral sense to forbid the eventual killing of Royal Grammas or butterfly fish. Removing a fish from the wild gene pool is equivalent to killing it instantly, in terms of the effect on the ecosystem. That a captive fish survives 1 month or 10 years is of no significance, except in terms of the demand for a replacment. If the wild population is not materially affected, it does not matter how many die, except from an emotional point of view.

I have seen French Angels, Rock Beauties, Queen Triggerfish, and others piled up by the hundreds on a daily basis in some Caribbean fish markets. One form of human exploitation has no moral superiority over any other, and no species has a greater right to life than any other. Only the survival of the species in the wild, the preservation of natural populations, matters in the final analysis.

I think the end use does make a difference. I have no problem with taking a life to sustain another life (I eat meat, I feed meaty foods to my pets). I do have problems taking a life for no reason. A fish that is pulled from the ocean only to die due to improper care, and then be buried is wasteful. I object to that waste. To me, it's similar to killing a beautiful buck mule deer, stripping off the cape and head, only to let the rest rot. Kill the same deer and use the meat all year, no problem. Just killing it for a trophy is objectionable (and illegal in most areas).

I agree that the hobbyist trade will never have a significant impact on the wild populations, but we can be a significant voice in terms on conservation efforts. When I recreate, I try not to damage the area I am in, I clean up trash left by others, ect. Preventing animals from being harvested that are doomed in an aquarium, whose death accomplishes nothing, seems like a small step towards preserving nature.

I would like to add that I am not trying to argue here--I think we agree on quite a bit. I just object to the statement that it doesn't matter if the fish dies immediately, or 2 months later in a glass box. This statement wouldn't make sense if we were talking about a child, or even a cat or dog, so I don't think it makes sense for fish either. If the only concern is for the wild population, then no, there is no difference. As a moral creature, there is a huge difference.