What will happen when our pets become critically endangered?
- Thread starter csb123
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
Agreed. I think there is enough out there to do this.
But a big motivation in any hobby is being unique, so we are always going to have that demographic that wants the rare corals and fish that aren’t mainstream and need to be harvested. I think this is obvious from the weird current fad of spending hundreds on mushrooms with tumo... excuse me, ‘bounces’... and how a single zoa polyp can go for $75.
I come to this site in part to get away from politics. I hope that can continue.
If species become endangered, you won't be able to collect them. None of the species you can collect are endangered
If species become endangered, you won't be able to collect them. None of the species you can collect are endangered
Last edited:
jgvergo
Valuable Member
I am not suffering, but I am cautiously watching what is happening on natural reefs. There is no question that bleaching has occurred, but it's entirely possible these cycles have repeated many times without our knowledge. We certainly know there were periods where the oceans were warmer than they are now, and somehow we still have a huge diversity of life on our reefs.
I believe in climate change. I believe that it has been accelerated by mankind. I am worried about my pets becoming endangered.
However, I refuse to admit that these animals are endangered for one reason and one reason only. If they end up on an endangered species list, it will be illegal to possess them. Therefore, they won’t be able to be my pets anymore. I will not support any protection of these animals, as I look at us reefers as some sort of coral bank. Should it become illegal to possess them, then those corals would be doomed to live out their lives in the ocean. Now that’s a scary thought!
However, I refuse to admit that these animals are endangered for one reason and one reason only. If they end up on an endangered species list, it will be illegal to possess them. Therefore, they won’t be able to be my pets anymore. I will not support any protection of these animals, as I look at us reefers as some sort of coral bank. Should it become illegal to possess them, then those corals would be doomed to live out their lives in the ocean. Now that’s a scary thought!
I don’t really see the point of the survey—
Am I worried about my pets becoming endangered? Yes, just as I am worried about humans becoming endangered or even the amount of money in my bank becoming endangered.
Is this just another way of asking if we would be concerned if corals in general become critically endangered? If so, the answer if obvious: it’s the same as asking someone who loves poodles if they would be concerned if poodles become critically endangered.
Two fallacies prevent the survey from leading to any meaningful information - leading the question, as well as providing a false (or unjustified) premise for this sitution .
Or tell me, would you be concerned if your child was critically in danger?
Am I worried about my pets becoming endangered? Yes, just as I am worried about humans becoming endangered or even the amount of money in my bank becoming endangered.
Is this just another way of asking if we would be concerned if corals in general become critically endangered? If so, the answer if obvious: it’s the same as asking someone who loves poodles if they would be concerned if poodles become critically endangered.
Two fallacies prevent the survey from leading to any meaningful information - leading the question, as well as providing a false (or unjustified) premise for this sitution .
Or tell me, would you be concerned if your child was critically in danger?
fish farmer
2500 Club Member
I think to answer the OP question one should look at other animals that were/are collected for the pet trade.
If you say have a federally listed specimen before the ban, does that make you unable to propagate/own said animal? Would you be "grandfathered" to still allow possession? Would this be regulated by CITIES?
I'll take an example from another hobby, dart frogs. They can be captive bred, but I've heard there are issues with wild populations. There are states where you can possess dart frogs as pets. I don't live in one of those states, in order for me to possess a dart frog, I need to buy a permit and more than likely have the local state wildlife bio inspect my dart frog housing, etc, etc before I would be granted a permit to import into my state.
I think the same thing is true of some freshwater fish...asian arrowana I believe is farmed and traded outside the US and they are even micro chipped/certified farm raised. You can't import them into the US.
If you say have a federally listed specimen before the ban, does that make you unable to propagate/own said animal? Would you be "grandfathered" to still allow possession? Would this be regulated by CITIES?
I'll take an example from another hobby, dart frogs. They can be captive bred, but I've heard there are issues with wild populations. There are states where you can possess dart frogs as pets. I don't live in one of those states, in order for me to possess a dart frog, I need to buy a permit and more than likely have the local state wildlife bio inspect my dart frog housing, etc, etc before I would be granted a permit to import into my state.
I think the same thing is true of some freshwater fish...asian arrowana I believe is farmed and traded outside the US and they are even micro chipped/certified farm raised. You can't import them into the US.
Hello everyone
we are trying to let you all get back on topic and continue debating this topic in a polite and respectful manner. That being said, I will be forced to issue thread bans if people continue to drag the thread off topic....I am in a very lazy mood today, don't make me have to actually do work.
we are trying to let you all get back on topic and continue debating this topic in a polite and respectful manner. That being said, I will be forced to issue thread bans if people continue to drag the thread off topic....I am in a very lazy mood today, don't make me have to actually do work.
I'm not really worried about my pets becoming endangered. Our cat and Koi in our pond will likely endure. Regarding my corals and aquarium fish, most are captive bred. The amount of captive bred fish, corals, etc. increasing in this hobby is amazing and I see a very bright future for aquarium fish and corals. I consider our hobby (as others have stated) almost like a bank, keeping these amazing specimens thriving, fragging and sharing with others. It would not surprise me if in the near future wild specimens will be cut off, and I don't think I would really mind.
Create a cause. Make money from both sides. The civilized way to do things.
Well, are you worried about our children becoming endangered?
Endangered "means seriously at risk. "
Asking "Are you worried about something that is seriously at risk" is silly.
"To be worried" is to be concerned, to be troubled about a potential problem.
"Something at risk" is a generic example of a problem. You can ask that for anything. To ask if someone is troubled about the possibility of a problem is...... Not a good question.
Are you worried about the potential of your children being in a car accident? Well of course, assuming that they might be in a car accident.
A valid question would be “are you concerned with the state of coral reefs” or something... but not polling whether people are worried about something that is by definition something to worry about?! (Something at risk)
Endangered "means seriously at risk. "
Asking "Are you worried about something that is seriously at risk" is silly.
"To be worried" is to be concerned, to be troubled about a potential problem.
"Something at risk" is a generic example of a problem. You can ask that for anything. To ask if someone is troubled about the possibility of a problem is...... Not a good question.
Are you worried about the potential of your children being in a car accident? Well of course, assuming that they might be in a car accident.
A valid question would be “are you concerned with the state of coral reefs” or something... but not polling whether people are worried about something that is by definition something to worry about?! (Something at risk)
Dancingmad
Well-Known Member
I'm not worried - I predict that our pets that become rare in the wild will either command an exceptionally high price due to scarcity (and without even having some special marketing name like super ultra mambo tango jujitsu coral) and thus add more incentive for folks to aqua/marine culture, seek to learn more about coral/fish breeding in captivity, etc. There are plenty of rare critters and corals out there that are simply beyond my pay grade. I'm not even upset about it.
Thing is, I don't think anyone enters this hobby with the goal of hurting wild populations. There are great folks out there too that'll have some success with coral/fish, frag it, and share it with their reefin' buds. The sustainability of the hobby for those that participate, I believe, is the forefront of a lot of reefer's minds, across all levels: From the researcher working at the academic level to the regular Joe/Jill growing out corals in his basement to give away or sell.
Thing is, I don't think anyone enters this hobby with the goal of hurting wild populations. There are great folks out there too that'll have some success with coral/fish, frag it, and share it with their reefin' buds. The sustainability of the hobby for those that participate, I believe, is the forefront of a lot of reefer's minds, across all levels: From the researcher working at the academic level to the regular Joe/Jill growing out corals in his basement to give away or sell.
alton
Valuable Member
By creating a protected list and stopping the exportation of fish governments are only hurting their people of trying to feed their families. And at the same time preserving the reef so they can have them for future generations. Dr. Mac has written about this in his thread. Look in the Nov/Dec. Coral Magazine on rats and their demise of fish and coral on some islands in the Indian Ocean.
No proof humans have anything to do with it.
the earth has changed itself in the long ago past without any human even being around, how is it that humans are now the cause? Its called a cycle. It will change, with or without us being here to see and note it.
biophilia
Well-Known Member
This is a statement that at a minimum would require a significant body of peer-reviewed research proposing an alternative explanation for the imbalance of short-wave and long-wave radiation in the lower troposphere given the current orbital configuration and solar output to defend. Said research would likely earn you a Nobel prize and make you the most famous atmospheric physicist of the 21st century.
- Status
Similar threads
