Snakeheads. Available?

[lesley]

Wild collection of saltwater fish has not been fully determined to have negative effects. The way that many reef fish "recruit" to the reef habitat (many, many fry released with few individuals finding niches) means that in the case of some species, population levels may not be affected at all. The removal of one fish just makes way for another to colonize the now opened niche.

This is certainly not true of all saltwater fish, but for some species, wild collection may actually be helping populations by increasing public interest. People are much more likely to want to visit the reefs and want to keep them in good condition if they have personal connections with them.

Still, the key in maintaining sustainable collection is habitat preservation. This is also true of many freshwater fish. Wild collection of Amazon fish may be helping to prevent destruction of the habitat by the influx of agriculture and timber harvesting.

It's not all as simple as "wild collection is bad."

 

[BluEyes]

Originally posted by tyler
i do agree that fish that are routinely unsuccessfull in aquariums should not be marketed, but i wouldn't go so far as outlawing sw. don't want to upset those reefer addicts...

Just to play devils advocate here: why do we say "don't pass this law - wouldn't want to offend the reefers" but OTOH, it's okay to ban a FW fish even though it'll offend the FW hobbyists?
I think it has a bit to do with many non-fish peoples view that FW is just a 'hobby', while SW people are the 'pros'.
Just something to think about...

I do agree many SW fish are collected using unethical methods. Ask your LFS owner - some guys only sell captive-bred fish.

 

[Molino]

I'm not into SW myself, so don't know a lot about it but I would think the worst side effect would be the "live rock/corals" taken from the reef. To my knowledge it grows extremely slowly and a lot of the worlds reefs are in serious trouble. By taking away the fish habitat that probably has a more negative effect than taking a few fish for the aquariast.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm assuming these live rocks and/or corals I see at the LFS are taken from the ocean and not "cultivated" somewhere.

 

[BluEyes]

Yes, live rocks taken from the reef are bad, but they used to (and probably still do in some places) use cyanide bombing to get fish and livestock. Basically, anything they didn't want to haul away ended up dead afterwards

There's also the problem that there are so many of us and so few of them! Now, FW fish exist in tremendous quantities, and a great many die off during the dry season anyways, so captures are not as bad on the wild fish population. BUT, even so I have read that the aquarium fish trade is causing an impact on wild populations in the Amazon. There are simply too many humans.
With our population, I think humanity can pose a serious depopulation issue for the reef fishes very easily. It's not just taking away a few fish when you consider that there are millions of SW reefers around the world, and only so many reefs...

 

[lesley]

Consider that most reef fish release hundreds or thousands of eggs or fry at each spawn. Some reef fish even spawn daily. The habitat is generally thought to be the limiting factor for settlement of the larvae. As long as reproductive adults are left, and the habitat remains suitable, it is probable that the numbers of fish removed for aquarium trade are quickly replaced. This is certainly not true in all cases, but for many fish that have wide distributions and high reproductive rates it may not cause a problem. Certainly, the fish must be caught in a non-destructive manner to avoid damaging the habitat.

 

[tyler]

Originally posted by BluEyes


Just to play devils advocate here: why do we say "don't pass this law - wouldn't want to offend the reefers" but OTOH, it's okay to ban a FW fish even though it'll offend the FW hobbyists?
I think it has a bit to do with many non-fish peoples view that FW is just a 'hobby', while SW people are the 'pros'.
Just something to think about...

I do agree many SW fish are collected using unethical methods. Ask your LFS owner - some guys only sell captive-bred fish.

it was a joke. i have just as much respect for fw keepers, especially plant geeks. nothing, not even a reef(or a snakehead ) is more beautfiul than a planted tank.

 

[slipknottin]

This board will not tolerate people advoacating you break the law.

No matter what your hobby, you are not above the law.

If you dont agree with a law, call your state representive and have them change it.

As far as SW is concerned, the majority of reefers will band together and stop any such laws from being passed. They have come out in force before to prevent such things. There are great strides being taken to captive raise many different SW species, and they are becoming much more common. Dont forget there are more "reefers" that are very into the hobby than FW keepers. That is easily illustrated by the size of the largest FW and the largest SW boards. SW keepers generally spend far more money also, wether it means there more watchful of the govt, or spend more time researching their hobby, they do pay attention and attempt to stop any law that would impose on their hobby.

Do not try to "punish" reefers because a FW fish was banned, they had absolutly nothing to do with.


JBW- I have warned you before about telling people its ok to break laws. That is not tolerated here and you will not be recieving any more warnings on the subject.

 

[OrionGirl]

Many live rocks are in fact cultivated. Very few areas permit the taking of corals and rock from the reef systems. Collection of specimens that fall off (storm damage, ect) is legal, and this helps a great deal. For example, HI allows collection of fish, with permit. I believe rock, sand and corals can't be collected--or even owned legally--in HI. Ask Reefscape if you're interested.


Many soft corals are easily fragged (cut a portion off, attach it to a rock and give it time--it will grow into a new specimen). The average SW hobbyist is very concerned about conservation efforts, probably more so than many FW hobbyists who aren't even aware that the fish they have are wild caught.

 

[BluEyes]

Originally posted by tyler
it was a joke. i have just as much respect for fw keepers, especially plant geeks. nothing, not even a reef(or a snakehead ) is more beautfiul than a planted tank.

I know it was a joke - I don't think there is really anybody on this board who believes that - but there are plenty of people out there in the world at large that DO believe that philospohy. The kind of "why don't you get serious and get a SW tank" thing. Like just because keeping FW costs a load less than SW that we don't aren't as smart about it, or as dedicated or something...
Maybe it plays into the lawmakers minds a bit, too. "it's okay to pass a law banning a FW fish, because they're just hobbyists and not really serious" whereas "oh, we can't restrict SW fishes - those guys are professionals they really must know what they're doing"
Not saying for sure that's what happens, but it's something to think about...

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there have been a few instances (along the coasts, of course) of people releasing SW fishes, and causing disturbances in the local ecosystem?
Have they banned those families of fish that were released?

Remember, they didn't just ban the species of snakehead that was released, they banned the whole blasted family! If I'm remembering classification correctly, that's basically like banning Tetras, or Barbs of all kinds...

 

[slipknottin]

They have tried to ban SW fish before.

Its extremely doubtful any lawmaker takes into consideration the average hobbiest and how much they spend. Its not a factor at all. What is a factor is how much these people care about there hobby and if there willing to take political action to prevent a law like this from passing.