Endangered Species Act

Endangered,,,no

I wouldn't mind it seeing large limits placed on wild collection of clownfish.

With today's breeding of clownfish, there is very little reason to bring in wild ones.

Just my opinion of course

 

The reality is that in the next 25 to 50 years there probably will not be a reef aquarium hobby outside of what we cultivate in captivity. Or at least, there probably shouldn't be IMO. I feel that there is much to take, learn, and appreciate about these animals, and I'm proud to be part of that exploration. Time I've lost attending to and learning about the animals in my care troubles me deeply, because of this notion. I feel a great deal of personal responsibility as the steward of my animals, as well as an obligation to utilize their presence under my care to learn about them and the environment I'm cultivating for them. I think that is why I find the newly developed reality shows about aquarium keeping, as well as the general notion of marine aquariums as a status symbol, as perverse, amoral, vapid, and/or distorted. Yet I digress.


If justice exists, at some point there will be a trade embargo on importing marine fish in our country. Because there will come (and I'm merely guessing in our life times, perhaps not) a time when stocks will show great signs of fatigue and distress, and it will be unthinkable (as well as commercially inequitable) to harvest the remaining specimens from the wild. This is not a debate about global warming, in fact, that's not even a debate, it's a FACT. The worlds coral reef systems are all together in general, and for all practical intents and purposes "endangered." Especially specific areas. They are affected by ocean acidification, eutrophication, sedimentation, increases in surface temperature, changes in oceanic flow patterns which coral communities have be accustomed to for the better part of the last 20k years at least, as well as many many many many other minute details which are impossible to ascertain with any degree of certainty. If the stocks of reef aquarium animals were at some point to reach the critical levels we've seen such as in Bluefin Tuna, anchovies, menhadden, atlantic salmon, I will excuse myself collecting anything wild from that point on. If you find yourself perpendicular to my opinion, I implore you to read Charlie Veron's "A Reef In Time."


But, as things are NOW, stocks are thriving, adapting to the many, but mild changes they've seen in their environment, and many collectors are conscientious stewards of their trade, who also care a great deal about their impact. There is probably no single reason to ever import clownfish again for commercial use. They are easy, prolific, and numerous. The blog you've found there is nothing but some *******'s opinion who has probably had scant time with which to consider the facts. Looks like the guy is an avid sport fisherman, if he only knew how the numbers stacked up he would find HIS hobby notwithstanding. Believe me, our impact is NOWHERE near that destructive, or widespread. In fact the harvesting of marine ornamentals is of the very least impact upon wild reef species compared to what they're facing otherwise.


You struck a nerve my friend! That's my 0.02.


As always,

-ANdy

 

Wow andy once again please take some prozac and chill. I think everyone is worried about the future of the wild reefs. The earth has forever shifted and changing itself. To say the flow of current had gone unchanged for 20 thousand years would have to be impossible to tell. For one no man has kept records that long. Not to mention we have not explored to the bottom of it yet. There are many species still being discovered. Some tree huggers might argue if the reefs are in great danger why not pull them all into tanks and aquariums where they can be safe and not destroyed in the wild. Not saying this is a good idea but you will not make a major change in how things work.

If i remember right one of the videos on girs I heard a speaker say one cruise ship drops anchor with the amount of rock it breaks apart is enough to supply the united states with live rock for a year. That seems more destructive than most things we do. For instance how our electricity is made or oil being harvested and made or natural gas being collected.

 

Are you aware that the earth itself keeps records, nick?

 

I have friends in the geoscience department at the University of Iowa that study just that actually. 20 thousand years is incredibly easy, and a short amount of time for geological science. In 20 thousand years there is corroborating evidence spread far and wide and everywhere to determine lots of details about ocean currents, flora/fauna, and stock densities. Things start getting a little more tricky when you get beyond 200 thousand years. Ask our friend Matt Tibbits in the club, his dissertation is about lineage of sclearctinians based on changes in mitochondrial DNA from coral skeletons that are 50k years old. Flow patterns are relatively easy to determine compared to that.

Historical perspecives of flow patterns are largely based on sedimentation rates from cores and the presence/lack of geological sediments in a given area from a specific time frame. Combine these with the most parsimonious explainations of gene flow based on mitochondrial DNA and these records are substaintial enough to provide understanding of what the predominate patterns were during specific periods of time. Some reading suggestions: Swimming in Circles: Aquaculture and the End of Wild Oceans, Shifting Baselines: The Past and Future of Ocean Fisheries, ANY marine ecology book (Levington or Nybakken are great choices), Four Fish: The Future of the Last Wild Food, Against the Tide: The Fate of the New England Fisherman, again Charles Veron's "A Reef in Time." These are all excellent scientific and/or first hand accounts of the way that things are going, and I've looked far and wide for any book that suggests otherwise. Sure each of them has some sort of "silver lining," but I find little peace of mind in those offered.

You know, I don't think it's fair to attack my perspective based on my mental stability. The truth is, I have many reasons for believing the things that I do. I am a rational person. To not feel a little distraught about these topics is to not know, or not care. The picture I've painted in my previous post isn't as fatalist as my usual accounts, so I'd appreciate if you lay off the "prozac" case. Alright?

 

Every hobbyist knows you can't just solve one symptom, you have to solve the whole problem. Just because people stop legally catching clownfish isn't going to stop the reefs from fading away, or the water temperatures from going up. Which this article says is the cause of the decrease population of clownfish. This might slow down the decrease of population but it wont change the outcome in the end.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/01/clownfish/prosek-text/4

 

Your right I am sorry about the prozac comment. You were being calm compared to some other cases.

I just have a hard time believing things that were wrote down as full truth let alone from when man wasnt even around or keeping records. As in most circumstances the way things are explained is often how we feel about it with science as we know it, and if you ask me science is far from knowing anything. It helps to explain alot but leaves and dont understand alot of other things. Theres always more to be left for debate. How ever this topic would be a good talk in person as everyone will be able to understand how people mean things and not assume body language or how things might have been put to come across.
I have only talked once to Andy in person but did enjoy the conversation very much.

I think we can all agree the only way to help slow destruction of the reef or any wildlife on earth is for mankind not to be here and let things evolve as nature sees fit.

 

I believe that in 10-15 years coral reefs will be gone. without reefs the fish that depend on them will die off as well. When new people come over to my house and look at my tank I make sure to explain everything in detail to educate them on the reality of what is happening in the oceans.

some people blame the hobbyist for the destruction of reefs and not the fact that the chemestry/temp in the ocean is the biggest threat. In reality we the "true" reefers will be the ones that will be able to keep corals and certain fish from going extinct. maybe in the future it will be frags and fish from our tanks that will seed the ocean again when and if it stabilizes.

I agree with andy on the stupid tanked shows because it gives brainless impulsive people the idea that they can have a full blown reef tank setup in a day and have everyone think they are cool. Well we all know how that turns out, a post on craigslist for the tanks and everything else with it. I also get annoyed when joe blow asks if i watch that awesome show tanked, I bluntly tell them the truth.

I for one (just like most of us) care deeply for the ocean and for my tank inhabitants. I love to observe the immense diversity that takes place in my little ocean. of course I have had fish and corals die but that is a part of nature or a fish that had a fetish for carpet surfing.

 

That's cool Nick, I quite enjoyed your company as well man! I think the reason people question science is because it often answers questions with more questions and rarely leads to solutions, especially in ecological/environmental cases. But that is merely a question of will, and unfortunately the distractions and the powers that be have not the will to address problems such as these. I don't know if that's because we feel at this point matters are beyond our control, or if it just all boils down to a free for all on making a profit off of natural resources before they're all gone.

and believe me man, I know what you mean about talking in person, my wife sounds like a total ***** in her text messages....oh wait lol

 

Lol I agree andy my wife does too.

Larry that one is a perfect example how greed finds a way to screw up a eco system.