Losing Nemo...

[bermudaskink]

But I do hug trees and maybe I am a bit of a nutter, and although I don't approve of many types of environmental terrorism. I wouldn't mind pressing the detinator switch for bombs planted up a few folks arses...... the heads of McDonalds, Exxon, you know the types.

So - go on accuse me of that. I am proud to live up to my reputation

I see your point about some of the killifish and other species which have benefitted from aquarium keepers. I wasn't referring to those types of fish though.

Does any organisation actually need you to look after the clown fish or any of the other species you mention?? If they do, well then I would support you, so that said. I still stand by passionate points.

To me it seems that the only reason you keep these types of fish in cages is because you think they are toys and they look pretty in your house.

I did read through all the threads. I mentioned that taking from the wild AND keeping captive bred fish if for no other reason than the ones I accuse you of above, was cruel IMO.

Sorry if I am being overly passionate about this issue but it pains me to read your fish keeping advice.

I would not say I know little about what the future may hold for marine life and how captive breeding may come in handy for future reintroductions and reestablishment of populations. On the contrary that is what a major part of my doctoral research is focused on right now. I may not know a great deal about the aquarium hobby industry but in general captive breeding intended for conservation purposes needs to be done only as a safety precaution and only when required. Inbreeding and loss of genetic variation due to captive breeding over many generations can be detrimental to the success of reintroductions.

If a fish species is listed as threatened and the local government and or organisations are encouraging captive husbandry of this species - all the respect to you for volunteering your services. But that is not the case for any fish you feel like plucking from the ocean or buying form the pet store. Not all species need your help right now. So what's the point of keeping them in a prison?

 

[ScottyK]

Bermuda- A couple of more points to hopefully convince you that we're not demonic.

Finding Nemo was a "cartoon". You are ascribing human emotions to a fish. I have no castles in any of my tanks, by the way My fish are properly kept, happy, healthy and will live longer, healthier lives than their wild counterparts. You need to get the image of real fish plotting a "prison break" out of your head.

Aquarium keeping has inspired many people to care about protecting the liquid natural environment. This includes myself and many people I have come in contact with or shown my tanks to. Our friends little girl spends most of the time she's here glued to my tanks. At eight, she knows more about fish than most adults and wants to be a Marine Biologist now. It's not just public aquariums that do this to people.

When it comes to collecting for the trade with regards to freshwater, you are off base. You do have a point about saltwater, but less of one than you would have had ten tears ago. For the most part, almost all freshwater varieties are farm, or hobbyist raised. A few, like Clown Loaches and Cardinal Tetras are not. These fish are however, harvested in sustainable amounts. Cardinal populations haven't diminished at all in 30 years of collecting. How do I know? Because aquarists care about these things so they are carefuly studied. The fact that native people can make some money doing this is the only thing keeping huge tracts of the Amazon where they're collected from becoming tobacco plantations.

It's a bit fuzzier with Marines. Things have been improving though, and thre are also areas where marines are sustainably collected now, and the environment is being protected because of it. Bottom line is, as I said earlier, you can choose an environmental path when setting up a marine aquarium.

As a final note, when Agilas and I were talking about local dive collecting, we were talking about Gulf Stream tropicals. Every summer, larval caribbean fish get washed up to the Northeast US on the Gulf Stream current. They settle out and live about two months, until October, when the water dips into the sixties. They then all die. The only thing we are doing by collecting them is extending their lives.

Good luck with your environmental work....

Scott

 

[agilis]

Let me start by making the obvious assumption that you are a non-fish-eating strict vegetarian. I mean, if you eat fish, or other critters, objecting to their captivity as pets would be hypocritical. There are some imbeciles out there who not only eat fish, but also eat meat. Such fools do not belong in human company, and would be best advised to stay home and shut up.

As a vegetarian who does not use products made from leather, or use any other products that involve the killing of animals, you have a moral point to make about those of us who do eat fish and other creatures, or keep them alive in captivity. I personally am a semi-vegetarian, and eat no animal meat at all. I do, however, eat fish, shrimp, and a few other sea creatures. Chickens, cows, sheep, pigs, and other animals that seem to have some significant cognitive functions are unacceptable to me as food. I don't want to feel responsible for their deaths, even if some anonynmous person is doing the killing for me.

I am willing to kill and eat fish, though I will admit to having an occasional feeling of guilt when I do. Naturally, because I am willing to catch fish and eat them, there is no logical reason for me to hesitate to catch them and keep them alive, frequently for a far longer time then they would statistically have remained alive in the wild. Some of these fish, as was pointed out, are doomed to certain death if left in an ocean growing steadily colder. These tropical strays into temperate areas have remained alive in my aquaria for years beyond the time they would have died had I left them in the water.

Even when fish are collected in their natural habitat, their survival rate as juveniles is vanishingly small if left in the ocean. In any case, only a non-fish-eating vegan like you has any right to be critical of the aquarium hobby. If, perchance, you are an eater of fish, than you are not thinking clearly. If you also eat hamburgers and pork chops, than you are a imbecile; though I am sure that cannot be so.

Just for the record, Disney movies are not my idea of moral guides. Your observation suggesting that some of us aquarium keepers have missed "what that movie was all about" assumes that one cares about the moral messages of Hollywood movies. Generally, people over the age of 9, with three digit IQs, understand that these films are worthless, deceptive commercialized drivel.

Nevertheless, I respect your strict vegan lifestyle, and your determination not to consume any animal, however low on the evolutionary scale it may be. More power to you kid, and good luck in freeing Willie.

 

[BacardiSpice]

G’day Bermudaskink –

Always pleased to meet a passionate fellow environmentalist, even if we don’t see eye to eye on these issues (although I can see where you’re coming from). Before I moved overseas I served a stint on the board of the NSW branch of the Australian Marine Conservation Society (AMCS). I spent years actively campaigning on marine conservation issues – from a grassroots level (contacting sportfishing clubs to congratulate them when they implemented responsible tag and release programmes) through to lobbying for causes such as marine parks. I gave an impassioned speech regarding the conservation of Great Whites at a political party conference one year, and the motion I moved made it onto to the agenda at the annual conference and was passed. I’ve also worked around animals – both for wider species preservation and to help various strays and abused animals – all my life. It runs in the family – my mother set up a shelter for injured and sick victims of Singapore’s illegal bird smuggling traffic, and my sister is a full-time employee of the World Wildlife Fund.

I have to reject this statement in the most emphatic of terms:

To me it seems that the only reason you keep these types of fish in cages is because you think they are toys and they look pretty in your house.

I’ve never regarded fish in anything remotely like this light. If you’d ever had a clown loach – a rather sensitive fish – develop the habit of feeding in your hand because it feels comfortable there, you’d laugh at the idea of it being considered a toy. I know each of my fish as an individual – even the schoolers. If you go back to one of my initial posts in this topic, you’ll see that I had some very scathing things to say about anyone that regarded fish as disposable or merely decorative. I am – and have always been – a very strong advocate of responsible animal husbandry. Not just fish, but any animal kept in captivity. There are irresponsible aquarists out there, just as there are irresponsible dog and cat owners. Come to that, there are some folks I believe are not fit to be parents. Whenever anyone takes on an animal they take on a duty of care to keep that animal healthy and content.

I have never kept marine species. The reason I have not done so is that I have held off a marine set up until I was absolutely assured that I could provide the appropriate level of care required. I’ve been asking questions in this thread to broaden my own knowledge and understanding of the subject, as I do not feel it is adequate at the moment.

One of your primary objections seems to be against the idea of fish as ‘prisoners’. As someone who has worked all her life with animals, I object very strongly to anthropomorphism. While it is a great evil to assume that animals are not capable of pain, and – in many cases – ‘emotions’, it does the animals themselves a tremendous disservice to ascribe human thought, reasoning and emotion to them. That does not mean I do not believe them capable of reasoning or emotion (observe an octopus for all three, for example), but for us to assume that they think, feel and reason along the same lines as we do ourselves not only hinders our understanding of animal behaviour and psychology, it also puts unreasonable expectations upon the animal. Fish will not live, thrive and breed in captivity if they are stressed. The fish that Scotty and Agilis describe in their tanks are not stressed – indeed, Agilis mentioned in one of his posts that in one of his tanks the environment is so good that fish introduced with parasites are able to shake them off. If the fish were stressed or unhealthy, the opposite would be the case.

Scotty and Agilis have raised some excellent points re the marine trade and its wider implications for the conservation movement. You raise the point of one of the drawback of captive breeding – stagnant genetic pools. This is one reason why we should promote genetic diversity by having as many captive bred sources for these animals as possible, including – where feasible – the introduction of ‘fresh blood’ from the wild. I’m absolutely delighted that, for example, Rainbow fish have turned out to be generally a hardy type that have thrived and bred in captivity...particularly those Papua New Guinea species that are limited to such a small area geographically. Some fish occupy only a few streams or lakes – in advent of an ecological disaster, they could as a species be conceivably wiped out. But now they’re being bred by private aquarists the world over.

Agilis raises some very pertinent points regarding the double standards we apply to fish. Is it only the ‘pretty’ reef fish that are out of bounds, and not to be eaten or kept in captivity? What about the billions of tons harvested from our seas for food? There was a period in my life when I ate no fish at all This decision did not come from an ethical stance regarding the desirability of fish as food (I thoroughly enjoy eating fish, and have no compunctions about it), but rather came from my stand as an environmentalist concerned about the massive overharvesting of fish stocks. I do eat some fish now, but in great moderation and only when I am confident of species and origin. I’ve gone diving in the Solomons with schools of jacks and barracuda and thoroughly enjoyed the experience. Later, I went trolling with some of the Solomon Islander crew – and caught jacks and barracuda. It would have been the height of hypocrisy and cultural arrogance for me to round on and presume to lecture them on harvesting their traditional food because I had anthropomorphic squeamishness about them eating animals I’d dived with.

There have been environmentally destructive practices in harvesting wild stocks for the aquarium trade – cyanide fishing comes to mind. However, aquarists made their objections known, in many cases boycotting any source they believed dubious. Now there is a movement to work with local communities to increase the sustainability of fish stocks for the marine trade. I believe we have a long way to go, but huge progress has been made. I’ve never been afraid to make my views known to a dealer who would sell a Moorish idol, for example. I think most animal trades – either those of hobbyists or for the food industry – have a good deal of room for improvement. I object to irresponsible aquarists just as I object to idiots who abuse or neglect any other animal.

Not everyone can dive or snorkel, or has access to the wonders we enjoy under the sea. For some people, the closest they will get to the underwater world is through their tanks. But I’ve spoken to people who have never visited a tropical location who are as well versed in the behaviour and habitats of the fishes and inverts of coral reefs as any diver out there, through their passionate interest in fishkeeping. They’d be gobsmacked if anyone suggested to them, with their deep love of their hobby and the fish they keep, that they regarded the inhabitants of their tanks as ‘toys’.

 

[BacardiSpice]

You may also want to check out the Marine Aquarium Council (MAC), Bermudaskink:

http://www.aquariumcouncil.org/default.asp

This will give you a better idea of how marine aquarists, government bodies, local groups and environmentalists are working together to ensure a sustainable and humane marine aquarium trade. This site highlights both positive and negative issues facing the trade, and how these are being addressed.

Here's what the WWF has to say about the MAC:

WWF on MAC
As the WWF explains, the marine trade can be a win-win situation for locals, aquarists and conservationists.

 

[Kettle]

Scott - I have my refugium under my tank. Some people worry about pods getting mashed up in the impellers on their way back to the tank. I don't think it's too much of a problem and having it under the tank is far more convenient for me. At the moment I just have a bit of sand and some Caulerpa that I got from someone elses aquarium. The stuff was full of pods and now they are running rampant in the refugium. I'm thinking I might try a DSB in the refugium and see how it goes. What is your experience with DSB's? I fully agree with choosing captive bred specimens were possible. I don't have a whole lot of fish and the corals that I chose I much prefer to buy from a fellow aquarist or from a store if I know it is captive propogated.

Bermuda - Collection impacts of marine species is very low in most areas. Some places really exploit there natural resources and this should be discouraged. For example a single tropical storm causes more damage to a reef than collecting does in a year. There is a lot more to worry about regarding our oceans than collecting for aquariums. If anything, keeping these animals teaches people respect for the ocean and makes them want to ensure it is properly looked after, I know I do.

 

[ScottyK]

Kettle- What I was referring to as an NNR Plenum is a deep sand bed with a 1.5" space between the bottom of the tank and the bottom of the bed. My experiece has been very positive. They really stabilize the water parameters like nothing else out there, and it is practically impossible for the PH to drop below 8 with a properly maintained plenum system.

Putting the subtrate in the refugium is an idea that was put forward after my reef was already set up, so I've never tried it. I have heard good things about it though. You should get all the benefits with less cleaning and maintenence. The important thing to remember is that the refugium bottom needs to be at least 2/3 the size of the main aquarium for the sandbed to work. Any smaller and the bed will be overloaded.

Don't worry about mashed copepods. Once your fish get the idea that food blows out of the pipe sometimes, you could shoot a cheeseburger through there and it will get eaten I had some Pajama and Bangaii Cardinals that got the bulk of anything that came out.

You can also treat all your fish to some fresh pods once or twice a week. Get a piece of 1/4" rigid tubing, and attach it to a piece of 1/4" flexible tubing so you have a siphon with a rigid "wand" at the end. Once you have a good population, you can vacuum out a couple of hundred in just a few minutes. Then just dump them into the tank.......Yummy!

 

[bermudaskink]

I really don't want to get in the way of your discussions on how to look after fish. So I'll try to keep it as short as possible thought you have basically requested that I justify my beliefs and that really could take me all day. I have many and most of them require complex details. So I'll try not to bore you!

My argument is based on taking away the freedom of animals and caging them up for no benefit other than your own personal enjoyment, not killing them for use as a sustainable food source after a life in the ocean.

There are concerns to be had for species and then there are concerns to be had for the quality of life of individuals.

Being a strict vegan (which I was for 2 years after being a vegetarian since I was 15) does not mean that you are exempt from all direct and indirect effects on animals and the environment. It is far better IMO to be a "considerate consumer".

Agilis - FYI - I don't wear leather, or anything that to my knowledge has involved cruelty animals or impacted the environment badly in any way if I can help it.

I now eat mostly organic foods and will not touch anything if I know it has been overexploited (cod, salmon, tuna) or if the harvesting methods are environmentally unsound (shrimp and maine lobster for examples). In fact the harvesting of shrimp is incredibly devastating to the environment. For every pound of shrimp caught 15 pounds of other marine organisms are killed and tossed away including turtles, sharks, rays, horseshoe crabs. I also will not eat anything that has been farmed in an unsustainable way (salmon farms often use a range of antibiotics, require huge amounts of other animals taken from the ocean to feed the salmon which is not sustainable, wild population genetics are affected by captive escapees, shrimp farms destroy mangroves and are incredibly wasteful). Also the farming of ANY animals with the exception of mussels is cruel IMO.

A world diet consisting of vegetables will involve a great deal of pressure on the land and I do not think everyone becoming a vegan will solve all our environmental and animal cruelty troubles. If sustainable ways to grow food and harvest fish from the ocean this will ease off our pressures on biodiversity on the land.

This is just an example of my way of life. I try hard to be as environmentally friendly as I can and expect others to do the same. I am not perfect, am open to suggestions and hope that I am improving my lifestyle all the time to create less of an impact on our precious planet. Short of wiping myself off the face of the earth, I think I'm doing pretty well without living a completely impossible and difficult lifestyle.

There are many other environmentally friendly things I include in my lifestyle but my issues here are with caging animals up. For this reason I do not eat any kind of terrestrial meat.

Agilis, you seriously have to take a .look at a text book on biological evolution if you think that humans are at the top of some imaginary scale! Evolution has created a web of life. We are merely an end of a branch but there are many branches out there. Every single species existing today is at the end of one branch or another. Every single species has evolved and become adapted to their specific niche. We are not BETTER than fish! Just because we humans CAN manipulate other animals and cage them up them for our own enjoyment and just because this beautiful creatures may have lower cognitive functions does not give us the right to subject them to any suffering or assume that they are happy in our confined spaces with provide for them.

There is something seriously wrong with your understanding of nature if you think that humans are at the top (e.g I can't live in the arctic sea as well as a fish with anti freeze for blood can!). In geological time, we will certainly be one of the most short lived and unsuccessful species ever to exist because we are pulling the carpet out from under our own feet. We will also have been the cruelest and most destructive towards other species and their habitats.

Homo sapiens..... R. I. P

Maybe your fish are "happy". I can't say they are not. But they are not free to live out their lives naturally. We don't have the right to decide what is best for wild animals. We don't know that they prefer living in your tank so I think it is better to not put them there.

Unless you feel that you raising awareness to many people by keeping a few fish in a tank at home, or seriously following some conservation initiatives. Then I feel that you are encaging animals for no good reason. These animals would otherwise have a lot more freedom.

So what if they would normally die earlier in the wild? I can only base my beliefs on my own experiences. It seems cruel to assume that because fish can't think like we do, they certainly wont mind having their freedom taken away. I would rather die than be in a cage! I can only base my concerns for animal cruelty on my own emotions but having nothing else to go by, I think it's better to do that than to assume they wont mind be subjected to having their freedom taken away. They don't "belong" in your tanks I know that!

I think the way hunter gatherer societies survived. Eating some animals they caught running free in the wild is far more humane that encaging animals and breeding them for slaughter.

You are not slaughtering your fish but if you are caging them up for no other reason then a hobby then I think that is a very poor judgment of ethics on your part.

I commend the aquarium hobbyists that take the initiative to look after fish species or individuals that NEED to be looked after for their future re establishment back into the wild.

But you personally keeping any kind of fish in a tank for your own enjoyment is pretty cruel IMO, unless you are showing those fish to all the passers by and educating them about the environment.

I am not talking specifically about the "finding nemo" fish. I feel sorry for any animal that is caged by humans for no good cause.

If people want to see fish in tanks they can go to an aquarium and see wonderful displays with loads of educational information.

I work at Bermuda Aquarium Museum and Zoo with a research initiative called the Biodiversity Project, which aims to conserve and protect our local wildlife. I have some issues with the animals they keep in the zoo, and I voice my opinions if I think an animal is being kept without any advantages outweighing its rights to freedom. I regularly dive in the aquarium which I feel raises huge amounts of awareness for the locals and tourists, to help clean it


I am not against ALL keeping of fish in tanks. Do you get me?

I'd rather see fish in public aquariums that serve a purpose, I'd rather see fish in the sea, I'd rather see fish in a book than in a little tank in your house unless it was sick or were breeding it cos it was critically endangered and you were releasing them again.

Scotty K - I am appalled at your profile pics! Not only do you think that keeping fish encaged in tanks is a nice thing to do when their original habitat where they belong is still intact but you seem to also approve of marine mammals being kept in captivity!! Shocking! That dolphin is kissing you while you commune with it in it's confined surrounding only because it knows it will get fed it does that. Dolphins will not voluntarily swim into prisons! Dolphins, and whales (is that a beluga whale your other half is embracing in the background?) are animals that have a natural range of thousands of miles. Denying them this freedom is even more cruel than keeping a clown fish in a tank which has a much smaller territory and usually hangs out in an anemone but can go out and about if it so desires. So I don't care what kind of awareness is raised by keeping marine mammals in captivity. It's just way to cruel!

FYI - dolphins in the wild are much more playful and amazing to be around. Make the effort - go find some if you want that experience badly enough, and passively observe them in their natural habitat rather than supporting agencies that fool people into thinking that dolphins naturally act like they do when they robotically come up to kiss you in the water. In my experience, captive dolphins are far more subdued than wild ones.

Animals are not solely on this earth for our own enjoyment (unless you are a religious fundamentalist and believe that God put them here for us in which case I can't argue with your faith). They are not there for us to smother in hugs and poke and touch and keep in tanks and gawp at. I am appalled at yours and Agilis's lack of respect and understanding for nature and your anthropocentric attitudes.

Pet lovers are not animal lovers they are PET lovers.

Taking some animals out of the wild in a sustainable way and killing them for our own survival is one thing - but caging them up for our own selfish pleasures is another.

I just hate seeing animals in cages. Any animal! Maybe you feel good about doing it and I can't change your minds in anyway. But perhaps I can influence some people reading these posts not to encage animals and perhaps some animals will be left alone!

I don't even want to go into how you have come to the conclusion that I was sucked in by some commercial cartoon. My beliefs and knowledge about animals and cruelty are not based on this or any other fictional movie. However, it does illustrate my beliefs to a degree and I brought it up because you were talking about fish from the movie not because I feel it "proves" any point at all.

I resent your patronizing assumptions on that subject.

Open up your eyes and take a look at the way we treat animals and think about what we as humans can do but maybe shouldn't because to our best possible knowledge - it's not nice.

IMO we (animals) are all sentient beings and all deserve compassion and rights to freedom.

_________________________________________________

Sorry if you feel this is personal attack but IMO you are doing something that causes Cruelty to animals and IMO that is not OK.
Nobody succeeded in stopping the German National Socialists by talking to them sweetly! no comparison intended

:livid:

 

[ScottyK]

Bermuda- The pics in my profile are from behind the scenes tours of the research programs of public aquariums, which you have stated twice that you are not opposed to. I was allowed to take both tours because I was a volunteer educator at a "Marine Mammal Rescue Program" and because I donated hundreds of dollars to both programs. It was a reward for helping to be part of rescueing wild marine mammals.

The Beluga whale pics are from The Mystic Aquarium. They started doing the program when the research biologists discovered that having a limited number of visitors actually "lowered" the animals stress levels and helped keep them interested in their surroundings through new experiences. They are not given food during the visits and are not encouraged to come over. They come if they want to, and the ones that did were obviously having as much fun as we were. The money I donated was to fund research into a study of breeding behavior of Beluga Whales. This was to help understand how to best protect wild populations.

This is in defense of just one of almost countless, factless, pointless accusations you have been hurling around without bothering to ask any questions or get any facts first. I am not going to spend the next two hours debunking every one individually.

Thank you for imposing morality according to you on everyone else. Next time try it with actual facts.

Scott

 

[BacardiSpice]

Bermudaskink, you are of course entitled to your own beliefs on keeping animals in captivity. However, your beliefs are no more valid than mine.

As outlined above, I have taken a proactive approach my entire life in both matters of animal cruelty (from abused dogs and horses) to species conservation (through my work with AMCS and political activism).

If you had checked out the websites I directed you towards, you would see that responsible conservation bodies are working with the Aquarium trade, governments and local people to ensure a situation that is a win for everyone - the aquarists, the local people who need employment, and everyone (locals, conservationsists and aquarists) that want to see marine environments preserved. Or is your morality and your conservation qualifications somehow superior to the approach fostered by the World Wildlife Fund, which encourages all these groups to work together for the benefit of all? As they outlined on their site, and as is promoted by responsible aquarists, the marine trade can actually promote conservation by making it economically feasible and desirable for habitats to be conserved.

I don't even want to go into how you have come to the conclusion that I was sucked in by some commercial cartoon. My beliefs and knowledge about animals and cruelty are not based on this or any other fictional movie. However, it does illustrate my beliefs to a degree and I brought it up because you were talking about fish from the movie not because I feel it "proves" any point at all.

Cite one instance in which the term 'sucked in' was used. What the responders to your inflammatory posts have pointed out was in response to your use of the movie to illustrate your arguments about 'caging' fish. It was perfectly justifiable to point out to you that using a fictional movie that relied on anthropomorphising fishes was hardly a strong support for your case.

I resent your patronizing assumptions on that subject.

And I resent your patronising and deeply offensive presumption to judge either my knowledge or moral capability when it comes to conservation issues. I've been out there on the front line - don't presume to lecture me.

Piously preaching to people who care deeply about marine animals because their morality is not in accord with your own will convert no one to your cause.