Re: our impact
- From: Yuriy Krushelnytskiy <y.krushel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:27:58 -0700
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 04:07:00 GMT, beanoil@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:45:06 -0700, "Tidepool Geek"
><big_smegma@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>><beanoil@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:ongkg19r3odq8bo8i82d1di7ujb3j4v427@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> Hello everyone,
>>>
>>> I have a basic question to satisfy my own curiosity: Is anyone else
>>> ridden with guilt over this hobby or is it just me? My point is, because
>>> I
>>> wanted that coral beauty, the four others in the cooler with him had
>>> to die. I can rationalize it by saying that I rescued any fish I did
>>> take home, but still....
>>>
>>Hi Grant,
>>
>>It strikes me that your moral dilemma has several levels relating to the
>>history of the animal being considered.
>>
>>1. If it bothers you to keep another living creature for no other reason
>>than personal enjoyment then you probably would be best served by getting
>>out of the hobby. OTOH: If you're OK with having a pet such as a dog or cat
>>or if you don't have a problem with eating meat then you shouldn't worry
>>about the _ethical_ keeping of aquarium pets either.
>>
>>2. If your concern is about mortality connected with collecting animals from
>>the wild then you've got a valid concern that should be shared by everyone.
>>Many aquarium animals are harvested by techniques, such as cyanide, that
>>lead to increased mortality of both the harvested fish and his less saleable
>>neighbors. You do have the option, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, of
>>buying only captive/tank bred animals.
>>
>>2a. There are some of us that are interested in collecting and keeping
>>animals native to our home area. If you do your own collecting then you have
>>control over the whole process and can limit mortality associated with both
>>collection and transport as well as drastically reducing 'collateral damage'
>>compared to what a commercial harvester might cause. Of course, if you live
>>in Kansas this probably isn't an option ;-).
>>
>>3. If the discussion is limited to tank bred animals then it seems to me
>>that it's just a question of statistics - consider a fish that normally has
>>only 10 offspring per breeding and that is capable of breeding annually for
>>only two years. In the wild, just 2 offspring (10%) would be expected to
>>survive to breeding age. Compared to that, the TFP survival rate that you
>>mention (25%) looks pretty good. For an extreme example, the Giant Pacific
>>Octopus lays up to 60,000 eggs of which only two survive to breeding age.
>>That's a cradle to grave survival rate of 0.00167%!
>>
>>It's all a personal decision of course but I think you can do the most good
>>by keeping only tank bred animals AND using your aquarium to occasionally
>>teach something to your family, friends, or associates about the problems
>>faced by the coral reef environment (or whatever habitat you happen to be
>>simulating). BTW: Don't go overboard on the teaching - I'm pretty sure that
>>we have fewer guests at our house because of the fact that I sometimes 'go
>>on a bit'.
>>
>>
>>Ethically yours,
>>
>>TPG
>>
>>
>TPG
>
>Thanks for the interest and your opinions. In response to the
>domestic animal/reef fish comparison, I think there is a big
>difference. Not to get on any moral high horse, but I only get
>animals from shelters. My last cat, I had for 14 years; my last dog,
>for only 2, but he was 16, blind and deaf when we adopted him. My
>point is, for these animals, we truly are helping them by bringing
>them home. These reef fish weren't having a tough life, weren't
>facing euthanasia, weren't even bothering anyone when they were yanked
>from the ocean because of our demand for them. Having said all that,
>I realize that that I'm something of a hypocrite. I'd never shoot an
>animal, but I love a good hamburger...
>
>Incidentally, the tank raised angle sounds good to me. I can remain
>in the hobby with only a fraction of the guilt. Are there any facts
>out there on reef depletion? I'm a scuba diver (occasionally), and if
>you read the scuba magazines, many of the world's reefs that were
>teeming with fish 15 years ago are pretty barren now, due mostly to
>the aquarium trade. I wonder how much of this is true and how much is
>propaganda.
>
>Anyway, thanks again for the reply. It lent some perspective.
>
>Grant
Grant,
My opinion is that the hobby is not going to goo away when couple
people decide not to keep reef tanks. In that sense your staying or
leaving is not going to make much difference. On the other hand, even
handful of conscious aquarists can make a big difference...
In my area there are 5 specialized marine aquarium shops.
One of them sells only captively propagated livestock (mostly inverts)
and second shop is approaching that point. In addition, one of the
remaining three said that he is feeling constant pressure.
With some effort marine hobby can become *almost* self sufficient with
time (freshwater being an example)
Just my $.02 worth
Regards
Yuri
.
- References:
- our impact
- From: beanoil
- Re: our impact
- From: Tidepool Geek
- Re: our impact
- From: beanoil
- our impact
- Prev by Date: Re: Kh/Ph/Ca lesson please
- Next by Date: Re: cooling a tank
- Previous by thread: Re: our impact
- Next by thread: Re: our impact
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
