Finding Nemo

[Dinyar]

We saw Finding Nemo yesterday. An interesting and well-done movie, especially for aquarists. It even tries to be ichthyologically correct. See http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... gnemo.html.

Gotta say that the movie made me think twice about the ethics of keeping rare fish in little glass boxes. This hobby is something we seem to pursue for our own selfish amusement, not for love of the animals we keep. If we were really concerned about conservation of fish species and their habitats, we'd be better off spending the time and money we spend on our fish hobby in other ways. If not blowing up dams and sinking trawlers then at least not eating most wild caught fish and voting for politicians who have some understanding of the consequences of species and habitat loss.

Weekend before, we went to see the newly re-opened Hall of Ocean Life at the American Museum of Natural History. The new exhibition marks a commendable shift from seeing the ocean as merely a resource to be exploited to a rich and diverse ecosystem that must be understood and appreciated in its own right. Gone are the celebrations of whaling and deep sea trawling. But to my mind, the exhibition doesn't do enough to warn the public that the marine biodiversity the exhibition ostensibly celebrates will not be there when the kids who see it now come back as adults with their own children. In that sense, it is more of a requiem for marine biodiversity than a celebration of it.

Dinyar

[dreamcat]

Hmm, i'm glad to hear someone else say it. I've been pondering this a lot lately; whether it is hypocritical to keep fish in glass boxes, especially fish taken from their natural habitat. The only cause i can see is selfishness, born of that habitual sense that 'Humans Own The World'. We can say "Well, at least we can breed up endangered species", and that is a worthwhile motive, but consider why they are endangered in the first place..

What i've come to (a tentative resolution) is that if i am going to keep fish, i will do my best to care for them well. To that end this forum is a wonderful means, providing education and inspiration. It is a joy to be part of a community of people who really love fish.
And i hope that the pleasure i receive from watching and tending 'my' fish has a trickle-effect into the rest of my life, so that i contribute something to the world in return.

(But perhaps this perspective is simply a convenient rationalisation..)
Nim

[Dinyar]

Yes, that is more or less my rationalization too. If imprisoning and killing a few fish can help me realize that soon most of these fish will be gone, and then DO SOMETHING POSITIVE about that realization, then maybe my hypocriscy is in some sense justifiable. Or maybe not...

Dinyar

[dreamcat]

It's a question we face in every other area of life too; what is the true impact of our actions. Its the macrocosm reflecting the microcosm and vice versa in a beautifully simple example. Is it appropriate to do this, and if we do it anyway, how can we make it as worthwhile as possible?
It seems to me that the question about whether fish feel pain ties in here too, because it claryfies the level of cruelty involved. And we can argue that nature itself is cruel, so why should we behave differently. However nature is generally cruel by necessity, whereas we with our privilegded brains have options. Priviledge walks hand in hand with responsibility..
(Please excuse me for digressing into philosophy, and for my basic assumption that humans aspire to be 'good' - whatever that is!)

Nim

[Fooferah]

If not blowing up dams and sinking trawlers then at least not eating most wild caught fish and voting for politicians who have some understanding of the consequences of species and habitat loss.
Dinyar

I was recently at the Aquarium of the Pacific, and they actually handed out cards to keep in your wallet for when you are out to eat and order seafood... it tells which fish are plentiful at this time, and safe to order, which are borderline in terms of their numbers, and which fish are shrinking in numbers, and should be avoided in restaurants or at the market. It was very interesting, and helpful of them, I thought.

I also saw Nemo last Friday and loved it.

[S. Allen]

well... it's not like nature is, at this point, a particularly safe place for most fish. I know nothing of marine fish, so i don't pretend to understand a reef ecosystem... but, there are fish in the hobby now that are extinct in nature, and many more of them who are borderline. Some south american countries seem to totally miss what's killing their fish and see keepers and exporters as the problem. heh, maybe it's easier to govern that than what the locals are doing. I've got a few of my fish before I could really afford to, for the simple reason that I wasn't sure they'd be available next season due either to political issues, habitat loss, rarity, or government regulations. I will concede that staple fish, such as neons and cardinals, are probably taken in numbers for the trade that are irresponsible.

As for my fish, I provide a good home away from predation, lots of food, no toxins in any dangerous level... it's not nature, but I don't really think it's that much worse.

[Dinyar]

Is it enough to just give these fish a good home for a few years in a glass box or should we be doing something to prevent the disappearance of these species from their natural habitats? Is it a good or bad feeling to know this species of fish you are looking at every day may not be around in a generation or two?

Dinyar

[Shane]

Is it enough to just give these fish a good home for a few years in a glass box or should we be doing something to prevent the disappearance of these species from their natural habitats? Is it a good or bad feeling to know this species of fish you are looking at every day may not be around in a generation or two?

Dinyar (and others),
I do not believe that these two objectives are at odds. Most aquarists would not be aware of the disappearance of species or damage to natural habitats if they had not started out (i.e. become interested) by keeping fishes in glass boxes in the first place. The fact is that many (perhaps most) fishes live a better life in captivity than in the wild. I am only speaking about freshwater fishes. I have walked across dried up charcos (pools) in the llanos with so many dead Corydoras that the ground crunches when you walk. If a collector does not happen to come along and net out the thousands of fishes in these pools, the fishes will all die in a few weeks irregardless. Nature is a harsh mistress. The fact is that aquraium fish collecting (once again, I mean freshwater only) has a miniscule impact on the fishes. One has only to the the Amazon basin stretching for thousands of miles and understand that no more than a couple of families in each village make their living collecting tropical fishes to understand that our hobby is not a mosquito bite on an elephant's tail.
The true source of damage is pollution. Look how one overturned gasoline tanker exterminated Panaque sp. "blue eyes" from an area where it had been sustainably collected for 20 years. Sadly, I do not have a solution to this problem. Part of my job is to preach conservation, but Third World governments will always reply that they HAVE to destroy their environments to catch up, and US/European "environmental concerns" are just neocolonialist propaganda to keep the Third World under our thumbs. The SINGLE biggest cause of environmental destruction in Colombia is the cocaine trade because left over chemicals are dumped into the nearest river or lake after production. That said, North Americans and Europeans are ready to scream bloody murder about the destruction of the rain forest and then go home and consume the drugs (they are after all liberated free thinkers) that are destroying Colombia and her rain forests in the first place.
-Shane

[ranchwest]

To the best of my knowledge, most neons now come from Asia.

I agree with those who have said that the destruction and pollution of the rain forest is by far the biggest threat to fish.

[Dinyar]

Shane and all,

Of course, loss of freshwater fish species loss is caused almost entirely by environmental degradation. Collection of freshwater fish for the aquarium trade is an almost insignificant factor overall. That being said, while I can cite no clear statistical evidence, I think it is at least plausible that some freshwater fish species which naturally occur in restricted populations and habitats and for which there's high demand by aquarists may face unsustainable pressure from the aquarium trade. I've come across impressionistic reports that some Rift Lake cîchlids, for example, are becoming much harder to find as a result of collection efforts, and I've also heard this about Synodontis granulosus. This could possibly also become true of some L numbers, etc.

The point of my earlier posts in this thread was that we aquarists should be contributing to a SOLUTION of the problem of species loss, not that we are causing it.

Pollution and environmental degradation is something caused by ALL OF US. Environmental degradation is often more VISIBLE in developing countries, but the facts show clearly that DEVELOPED countries are far larger sources of pollution than developing countries are. Thus for example, on an ABSOLUTE level, the US emits far more greenhouse gases than the largest developing country polluter, China, does. If we look at these emissions on a per capita basis, the difference is even larger. If the Chinese come to use as much energy per capita as Americans do, that will amount to more than the total amount of energy now produced worldwide. Moreover, much pollution produced in developing countries is a result of demand and high living standards in developed countries.

I have two sons whose room is often a big mess. When I ask them to clean it up, they usually say, "I'll clean up my mess after he cleans up HIS mess!" I try to break this deadlock by saying that the older son should be wiser and take the lead. This is the same finger-pointing game that developed and developing countries play, and it gets us nowhere. If developing countries do not want to choke on their own wastes, they should not wait for big developed country polluters to come to their senses. However, as the biggest polluters today, as polluters for a longer period of time and as the countries with the higher standards of living, developed countries should be showing leadership, instead of just passing the buck. Many developed countries, such as those of Northern Europe, HAVE taken a responsible stand on these issues.

In conclusion, I believe that environmental degradation and species loss is one of the greatest challenges -- perhaps, THE greatest challenge -- facing us today. Rather than simply creating an optimized microenvironment in a small glass box, we have a moral obligation to take the next step and work to improve the macroenvironment -- the big glass box -- not only for the fellow species with which we share this planet but for our own children and grandchildren.

Dinyar