Fish that shouldn’t be in the hobby?

[ReefEco]

Then consider that the fish population will likely replenish during that year, and you'll see the absurdity of the idea that overfishing causes meaningful damage to reef fish populations.

I think the disconnect here is the assumption that all the other pressures on reefs and thus reef fish will allow populations to rebound. There is some data to support this, as the locations of MPA (marine protected areas) adjacent to unprotected (i.e. fished) areas are largely credited in helping fish stocks rebound on the fished areas - in healthy reefs. However, I would suggest that we have NO idea what the tipping point is for these populations as conditions continue to change every year. In your calculations you could easily cut your square meters of reef supporting fish drastically in any year due to bleaching and habitat loss, increased storms, ocean warming and acidification (UN suggests 90 percent of all coral reefs will be gone by 2050). And given that many of the reef fish that we don't currently captive breed are broadcast spawners, reducing the critical mass of fish populations, and thinning their distribution, may mean those spawning events are less productive. As the number of marine ornamental fisheries shrinks due to regulation, pressures on fish stocks on the remaining fisheries will likely increase - and we don't know what the impact will be. Given human nature and historical precedent, a dwindling resource is typically exploited to exhaustion due to supply and demand. I think captive breeding is an important part of the trajectory of the hobby, and statements that ascribe ridiculousness or absurdity to that effort I don't think serve the hobby. Anything we can do to, yes, reduce collection pressure on wild populations is a win not just objectively for the hobby, but importantly, for its perception. As a warning to what can happen, we saw the snow crab fishery in Alaska collapse recently (an estimated 11 billion crabs died in 1-2 years) due to ocean warming. There is nothing to say that a similarly acute collapse couldn't happen in any reef at any time - and the 1,000 fish collected in that reef that might otherwise seem insignificant could, or could not, make a difference in a population that is able to recover. I buy captive bred whenever I can, but I do have wild fish in my tank too. (I also run my tank on pure solar, to your point) I look forward to the time when we can build a reef tank with nothing but captive bred specimens. We are already there with corals, but supporting places like Biota is something we can do to keep the progress going. Trying to make the argument that it doesn't matter what we do in this hobby, or what choices we make, is unproductive apathy. I think we can do better.

 

[Anemone_Fanatic]

I think the disconnect here is the assumption that all the other pressures on reefs and thus reef fish will allow populations to rebound. There is some data to support this, as the locations of MPA (marine protected areas) adjacent to unprotected (i.e. fished) areas are largely credited in helping fish stocks rebound on the fished areas - in healthy reefs. However, I would suggest that we have NO idea what the tipping point is for these populations as conditions continue to change every year. In your calculations you could easily cut your square meters of reef supporting fish drastically in any year due to bleaching and habitat loss, increased storms, ocean warming and acidification (UN suggests 90 percent of all coral reefs will be gone by 2050). And given that many of the reef fish that we don't currently captive breed are broadcast spawners, reducing the critical mass of fish populations, and thinning their distribution, may mean those spawning events are less productive. As the number of marine ornamental fisheries shrinks due to regulation, pressures on fish stocks on the remaining fisheries will likely increase - and we don't know what the impact will be. Given human nature and historical precedent, a dwindling resource is typically exploited to exhaustion due to supply and demand. I think captive breeding is an important part of the trajectory of the hobby, and statements that ascribe ridiculousness or absurdity to that effort I don't think serve the hobby. Anything we can do to, yes, reduce collection pressure on wild populations is a win not just objectively for the hobby, but importantly, for its perception. As a warning to what can happen, we saw the snow crab fishery in Alaska collapse recently (an estimated 11 billion crabs died in 1-2 years) due to ocean warming. There is nothing to say that a similarly acute collapse could happen in any reef at any time - and the 1,000 fish collected in that reef that might otherwise seem insignificant could, or could not, make a difference in a population that is able to recover. I buy captive bred whenever I can, but I do have wild fish in my tank too. (I also run my tank on pure solar, to your point) I look forward to the time when we can build a reef tank with nothing but captive bred specimens. We are already there with corals, but supporting places like Biota is something we can do to keep the progress going. Trying to make the argument that it doesn't matter what we do in this hobby, or what choices we make, is unproductive apathy. I think we can do better.

Good points, none can be dismissed out of hand. The way I see it, however, there's not yet conclusive evidence to determine whether or not there's a significant impact from fishing for the hobby on ecosystems. I believe there was a study in Hawaii prior to the ban, which showed no change in population for most species, but I can't find it. I do believe that it found a reduction in Achilles tang populations, which could indicate that the affect varies by species. It would be good to see conclusive data collected on this topic. I severely doubt that there's a noticeable impact, but I guess I really can't say for sure.

For now, I'll buy both wild and captive bred fish.

 

[ReefEco]

From what I recall reading on the Hawaiian drama, you are right - there wasn't an impact from collection. I just think that all the other pressures on reefs that could also effect fish (and corals of course) are orders of magnitude greater than human collection, so any margin we can gain by supporting captive breeding where we can is useful to the hobby long term. And the Hawaiian ban is a good example of how mortality in wild fish collection effects the perception of the hobby - another productive side effect of how captive breeding can counter that.

 

[Anemone_Fanatic]

From what I recall reading on the Hawaiian drama, you are right - there wasn't an impact from collection. I just think that all the other pressures on reefs that could also effect fish (and corals of course) are orders of magnitude greater than human collection, so any margin we can gain by supporting captive breeding where we can is useful to the hobby long term. And the Hawaiian ban is a good example of how mortality in wild fish collection effects the perception of the hobby - another productive side effect of how captive breeding can counter that.

Yes, I generally tend to agree. The problem is that it's currently impossible to captive breed everything. Some day that might be different, but if I want a wrasse or tang, it's going to need to be wild caught.

 

[Alexraptor]

The question is, do we event want to have everything captive bred? Personally I'm an advocate of sustainable harvesting, as it puts money back into local communities and incentivizes reef preservation, by the locals.

 

[Spare time]

When I said "I can't think of anything", I meant I can't think of any examples that I actually see at a LFS, which would suggest the industry has already self-regulated them out.

Maybe not your lfs, but there are plenty that will get impossible to keep fish or ones that get way too big and sell them to anyone.

 

[Coach v]

Cleaner wrasse

What about captive bred cleaner wrasse?

 

[Spare time]

Not a fish, but I don't think octopuses should be in the hobby

 

[2020 Worst Year]

What about captive bred cleaner wrasse?

well they are not getting taken out the ocean are they

 

[2020 Worst Year]

i also think sharks should not be in the hobby apex predators should not be in a glass cage @Coach v and this i mean captive bred or taken from the ocean i just don't agree with it

 

[blecki]

The general common denominator of apex predators is that they are lazy as **** so being in a glass cage and fed really seems like something of a life goal for most of them... but maybe that only applies to mammals.

 

[blecki]

Let's give the number at about 25 million (25,000,000), that's what several other studies have given. Now if we do some math, we find that every year, roughly 0.00000879352% of the reef fish population is collected yearly. That's less than a millionth of the total population. To visualize that, take a 100lb bag of rice, and take out a single grain every year. Then consider that the fish population will likely replenish during that year, and you'll see the absurdity of the idea that overfishing causes meaningful damage to reef fish populations.

The real threat to reef fish populations comes in the form of industrial pollution and the spread of invasive species like lionfish. Our hobby has a minimal impact on reef fish populations, that's just an objective statistic. I don't have a problem with captive bred fish, in fact I have several in my tank. But the idea that captive breeding has a meaningful impact on reducing overfishing is frankly ridiculous. The best way to try and help conservation in this hobby is probably by trying to reduce your tank's energy usage or not buying free-growing corals like scolys and trachys, not by avoiding wild fish. The only real advantage that the captive bred fish have is that they're typically already eating.

Indeed, fishing for food has a much larger impact on the oceans than ornamental fishing, especially the big trawling operations that end up catching sharks and dolphins and killing them in the nets. There are a few very specific examples of the aquarium industry having an impact on a specific very localized species, one such is the banggai cardinal, but these examples are few and far between... for example more acanthurus tangs end up on grills in hawaii than were ever exported; but one practice is banned and the other is not.

 

[i cant think]

I think another fish that deserves a mention here;
Spadefish.
Nobody has a tank for one of these guys let alone a group of 4-5 as adults.
Most commonly I see juvenile Platax pinnatus for sale over here and they attract too many people and then someone with a 3-4’ tank buys it unknowing of how big they truly get and not just length, but also in height. Here’s the juvenile against the adults for anyone who doesn’t know this fish.

 

[jasonrusso]

I've always said moorish idols and diamond gobies. Moorish idols don't eat and diamond gobies starve. I the wild they patrol a 8x8 foot area that is constantly replenished by natural microfauna.

Blue Spotted Jawfish - I temperate water fish (~72 degrees) that often is short lived in our reef tanks.

My first one lasted over 2.5 years. I got really lucks and we loved him. I got 3 more that didn't last more than a few weeks each. No more.

Honestly, when writing this I found a photo I got of a leopard/zebra shark and I wonder what happens to the juveniles we often see as they definitely aren’t small.

Nothing that swims miles a day should be in a cage.

I believe that no matter what fish I say someone will chime in with "I kept that fish for 107 years in a 3 gallon tank " so it really, I guess is subjective not only to the fish but also the fish keeper.

I always say, "Just because a fish isn't dead, doesn't mean it is thriving."

Maybe not your lfs, but there are plenty that will get impossible to keep fish or ones that get way too big and sell them to anyone.

Most LFS don't have a fish long enough to die from not eating. That's the buyers heartbreak.

 

[BigDog55]

Not as much these days but people used to bring in a lot of cleaner wrasses.
They should left in the ocean IMO

 

[seamonster]

I’m sure I’m not the only one who has noticed that every so often we see some fish that are questionable. Whether it’s online, in an LFS or even in someone else’s tank.

So, are there fish that you see kept or imported into the hobby that you think shouldn’t be available?
And if there are, what could good alternatives be?

There are a few that’s better off out of our hands: ribbon eel, moorish idol, Achilles tang, sohol tang, blue spotted jawfish or any other temperate water species, or other fish that get too large and boisterous. I understand that there are a few hobbyists that can accommodate large fish because of really large systems, but they are exceptions and not the rule. I also include sharks and ray’s for this reason as well…

 

[Spare time]

I've always said moorish idols and diamond gobies. Moorish idols don't eat and diamond gobies starve. I the wild they patrol a 8x8 foot area that is constantly replenished by natural microfauna.


My first one lasted over 2.5 years. I got really lucks and we loved him. I got 3 more that didn't last more than a few weeks each. No more.

Nothing that swims miles a day should be in a cage.

I always say, "Just because a fish isn't dead, doesn't mean it is thriving."


Most LFS don't have a fish long enough to die from not eating. That's the buyers heartbreak.

I have never had problems with diamond gobies eating but twin spot gobies on the other hand are not very great in captivity from my experience.

 

[vetteguy53081]

Pilot fish, some grunts and most groupers

 

[littlefoxx]

Octopus due to their intelligence level and not being able to give them that in a tank

 

[TWYOUNG]

Blue Spotted Jawfish - I temperate water fish (~72 degrees) that often is short lived in our reef tanks.

I second this! They also require a deep sand bed. Should be left in the ocean unless your willing to set up a species tank for it.