The Myth of Responsible Reefkeeping

I am ashamed. Last year I bought a Feather Star/Crinoid because I knew it was just going to die at the LFS. I have pics of it. It was beautiful. So it died in my aquarium. Oh yes, it was lovely... at the same time it was starving to death.  I paid to watch it starve to death.

This is quite negative of course, but I'm quite tired of seeing Sea Stars and other organisms bought and sold just to find their lives cut short in our aquariums by starvation. Sea Apples and Goniapora, Dendronepthia, and Sea Fans are just a few of the other inverts that are generally doomed to die. Will this madness ever stop?

Edited by Mark Peterson

It is more than just killing fish and corals in the aquarium, what you are seeing die in the aquarium is why 20 (or was it 50?) other fish died for that you never see, if that thing was wild caught. I agree that water pollution and human induced climate change are the biggest factors in reef decline and the aquarium hobby is a miniscule part. But thats no excuse for irresponsible reefkeeping. People who tout such excuses probably support sending terminally ill cancer patients to clean up nuclear waste. it will only stop if hobbyists dont encourage their purchase, dont encourage their upkeep and hence indirectly discourage their collection. It is not about one fish or one coral.

There are some who can keep these "pets?" but I agree if we could keep us, the consumers, from buying them, then they wouldn't be collected and then die in our tanks.
Problem is the LFS and internet store will sell what sells.

Adam Haycock wrote: I think the most critical issue we should be worrying about is the proper management of the coral reefs. As long as the collection of sea stars, corals, anemones, clams, scallops, and similar animals are conducted properly, i really don't see the issue. These animals don't have brains and therefore don't feel pain or know they're starving to death. I dont see a difference between putting a sea star into a reef tank that will only live for a few months or killing aiptasia, poisoning flatworms, pulling out those sea stars that breed like crazy, or harvesting macro algae. Once you start getting into the higher organisms like crabs or fish, the ethics change a bit.   The issue is whether or not the ecosystems these animals are collected from are being managed well. Collecting too much of one species or another can create inbalances in the ecosystem which can threaten the survival of many other species.   So... If a sea star is collected in a responsible way, there is no issue. [IMG]height=17 alt=Wink src="smileys/smiley2.gif" width=17 align=absMiddle>

Adam, I agree. But I wouldnt say collectting a certain animal is no issue since it doesnt have brains. I think we agree too that over collection of a certain animal (faster than the population can sustain in its natural way) will impact animals higher up and those that do have brains (humans not included). Perhaps sea stars are nt the issue here, since I dont think they have a problem sustaining their populations in the wild, but the "no brain" argument is rather broad and includes corals. BTW, I am substantially drunk right now.
    

Mark Peterson wrote: <FONT face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size=2>I am ashamed. Last year I bought a Feather Star/Crinoid because I knew it was just going to die at the LFS. I have pics of it. It was beautiful. So it died in my aquarium. Oh yes, it was lovely... at the same time it was starving to death.  I paid to watch it starve to death. <FONT face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size=2>This is quite negative of course, but I'm quite tired of seeing Sea Stars and other organisms bought and sold just to find their lives cut short in our aquariums by starvation. Sea Apples and Goniapora, Dendronepthia, and Sea Fans are just a few of the other inverts that are generally doomed to die. Will this madness ever stop?

I agree with what you say on this Mark. I do think that there is some room for research to try and get these animals to live and even multiply in the home aquarium. I would like to see in the future almost no wild caught livestock. I know that seems unreasonalbe but maybe one day.

    

Adam Haycock wrote: These animals don't have brains and therefore don't feel pain or know they're starving to death.

I am a bit confused with this thread. The topic is "Myth of responsible reef keeping" but it starts with Mark buying a creature he knew was going to die.

So, as far as "responsible reef keeping", I have always thought that being responsible meant researching the organism's needs, feeling comfortable that we could provide these needs and then provinding the care that it requires. If our research proves that we can not provide these needs, knowing our selves and our capabilities, we leave the organism to die in the LFS so the owner suffers the loss and maybe quits ordering the creatures that do not sell and die, thus hurting his bottom line?

What is the myth?

Is it the thought that we make a difference by not buying these creatures? Is it a myth that some LFS dealers do not suffer enough monetary loss to care?

I do see a carnation coral every time I go to The Aquarium....usually with a "sold" sign on it....

But, when was the last time you saw a catalina goby?

jfinch wrote: Will/Can this happen with linkia too?

In my estimation keeping "ANY" Wild Animal goes along these lines....

No one with a reef tank in their living room should pretend to be into the hobby to save the reefs of the world. However, the longer I'm involved, the more appreciation and respect I have for the ecosystems from where my "pets" are harvested. This respect demands that I become a better hobbyist to provide the best possible substitute habitat for my fish, coral, inverts (or whatever). But, regardless of how good of substitute I create, it is still that - a substitute environment.