Ethical husbandry. A discussion

ClearWaterAquarium

ClearWaterAquarium

Supporting Member
LFS Owner
BARcard
I think it would be great to have a discussion on what constitutes ethical husbandry. This is a very opinion based subject with very few true right and wrongs. I am interested in your opinions on what you personally believe to be ethical treatment of saltwater livestock and why. I would like to play devil's advocate on the issues regardless of my personal stance in order to further discussion.

Please keep this nice. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. No personal attacks or this thread will be deleted.

Here are a few stances to start this off. These are not necessarily my beliefs and some might seem downright silly.

- Anthias, chromis, damsels, and cardinal fish should only be kept in schools of 10 or more.
Why: They're schooling fish and can become stressed and aggressive when kept in low numbers.

- Anthias should not be sold.
Why: Due to their high metabolism most aquarists are unable to provide the necessary feeding schedule to keep them healthy

- Dragonettes should never be kept with the exception of reef tanks larger than 500 gallons and pellet trained tank raised specimens.
Why: It is very difficult to get wild dragonettes to eat prepared food and very difficult to keep a copepod population with high enough numbers in smaller tanks

- Harlequin shrimp should never be sold.
Why: Their diet consists of starfish which is an unethical food source.

- Stores should not sell tangs to anyone with a tank smaller than 180 gallons.
Why: Tangs grow large and require lots of free swimming space.

- Stores should not sell livestock without a mandatory water test.
Why: It's the stores responsibility to safeguard the livestock they sell and it would be unethical to sell to a customer with imperfect tank parameters.

- Everyone must have a quarantine tank.
Why: It would be unethical to possibly introduce a pathogen to healthy established livestock.

- It's unethical to dip new coral immediately upon receipt.
Why: transport and acclimation are stressful on the coral and it should have time to settle into a quarantine tank before undergoing the stress of a dip.

- Moorish Idols and regal angels should not be sold with the exception of tank raised specimens.
Why: They are very picky eaters and have high mortality rates when taken from the wild.

- Feeding live food is unethical. Ghost shrimp, brine, copepods...
Why: They're animals too.

- Boxfish should never be kept.
Why: They are considered difficult to keep and can "nuke" a tank when stressed/dead.

- Reef tanks less than 40 gallons should not have fish in them.
Why: Less than 40 gallons is too small to house saltwater fish ethically.

- Keeping fish in hyposaline conditions is unethical.
Why: It's unnatural and in the case of stores it's too difficult for most of their customers to successfully acclimate fish back to normal tank salinity without stressing the fish out.

- Wild collection of fish and coral is unethical.
Why: It lowers wild populations and it's not good to remove fish from their natural home.

- You should have to pass a fish husbandry test before purchasing livestock.
Why: It's the store's ethical responsibility to make sure livestock is being cared for properly.

I could easily post counter arguments to all the statements above but would like the community's input and opinions on subjects like these.
 
Good separate thread! One reason I don’t buy a mariculture piece is that Imlo longer have a holding tank in which to properly support it. My display will absolutely stress the coral out. Second reason is that I have no way to trust the chain of custody, so I can not, in good conscience support the practice

Nearly all reef-building corals are listed under Appendix II of CITES, an international agreement to prevent species from becoming threatened with extinction due to trade. Appendix II species may be traded internationally with proper permits, but "greenwashing" schemes exploit this by falsely labeling wild-caught corals as "maricultured" to bypass regulations.

CITES Appendix II and corals
  • Permit requirement: Species on Appendix II, including stony corals (Scleractinia spp.), require an export permit to be traded internationally. To issue this permit, the exporting country's Scientific Authority must find that the trade is not detrimental to the species' survival in the wild and that the specimens were legally obtained.
  • Stony corals: All stony, or "hard," corals fall under this protection. This includes live corals, coral skeletons, and "live rock" and other reef substrates if they contain or consist of stony corals.
The problem of "greenwashing"
  • Definition: Greenwashing is the act of misleading consumers or regulators into believing that a product is more environmentally sound than it actually is. In the coral trade, this often involves presenting wild-caught specimens as captive-bred or "maricultured."
  • Bypassing permits: Legitimate maricultured (farmed) specimens may be traded more easily under CITES than wild-caught corals. Fraudulent suppliers take advantage of this distinction by mislabeling their wild-caught stock to avoid the scrutiny of CITES export permits and sustainable-use findings.
  • How to spot fraud: The aquarium trade features a lot of corals that are falsely claimed to be maricultured. Experts suggest that if a "maricultured" coral is a large, complete colony rather than a small fragment, it is likely wild-caught. Another red flag is a coral not adapted to tank life, as true maricultured corals are accustomed to controlled environments.
Conservation impacts
  • Environmental damage: Unregulated wild-caught coral harvesting damages fragile coral reef ecosystems. Overcollection can reduce species abundance, hinder reefs' natural recovery from disturbances like bleaching, and disrupt the wider ecosystem.
  • Challenges for authorities: It is notoriously difficult for non-specialists to identify live or dead corals down to the species level, complicating enforcement of CITES regulations. This has led to difficulties in tracking the true volume and origin of corals entering the international trade.
  • What consumers can do: Consumers can combat greenwashing by being aware of the practice and supporting suppliers who transparently source their corals. Purchasing aquacultured corals—which are raised in closed systems and do not harm natural reefs—is often the most responsible choice.
 
Mike Yasin said:
Good separate thread! One reason I don’t buy a mariculture piece is that Imlo longer have a holding tank in which to properly support it. My display will absolutely stress the coral out. Second reason is that I have no way to trust the chain of custody, so I can not, in good conscience support the practice
Click to expand...
Good point! Sources of coral and fish vary widely.

What countries to people trust ethical collection from?

I would say Indonesia is one of the better sources after they had their shutdown. They now prioritized mariculture over wild collection and a % of the sales goes back to conservation efforts. Australia would be another more trustworthy source for similar reasons. On the other hand the Philipeans is known to have poor wildlife management and dinamite and cyanide collection still occurs.

One way to help minimize greenwashing is to insist on purchasing SPS with the base still attached. It's fairly evident when looking at SPS colonies encrusted over artificial bases that they were maricultured.
 
THIS ENTIRE HOBBY IS A ETHICAL DELUSION. Completely gray! Who still brings in and sells Horseshoe Crabs?

Our side (Hobbist side) is the unethical side of the aisle. Should we be putting these living animals to absolute early death at a much higher rate than in the wild? The logical answer is no. But our natural greed is what plays in our bias to make this simple decision. We want more we need the unnecessary more more, more. We place dollar amounts on these living animals and that’s where everything gets worse.

That is what this discussion is truly about MONEY we are choosing to put the cost or LIABILITY(Ethics?) on others simply to make more MONEY or spend less MONEY. In an open marketplace supply/demand and the highest bidder or lowest bidder depending rules all, ethics take a back seat. BAR is not an open marketplace we have the ability to change its landscape to what we would like to see.

I’ve taken place in a few group buys on here and would likely again. I’m on the fence about all of this unfortunately I see both sides of the grass.

Transparency is key in everything.

One thing the really keeps giving me the ick is when our BOD say I’m taking my BOD hat off or this is my opinion and not the BOD. The hat never comes off! Your opinions directly affect your decision making. You are making decisions for BAR and its members based on off your own biases. So your opinion is the BOD opinion be it one of many.

Great discussion non the less! LOL
 
DaddyHook said:
THIS ENTIRE HOBBY IS A ETHICAL DELUSION. Completely gray! Who still brings in and sells Horseshoe Crabs?

Our side (Hobbist side) is the unethical side of the aisle. Should we be putting these living animals to absolute early death at a much higher rate than in the wild? The logical answer is no. But our natural greed is what plays in our bias to make this simple decision. We want more we need the unnecessary more more, more. We place dollar amounts on these living animals and that’s where everything gets worse.

That is what this discussion is truly about MONEY we are choosing to put the cost or LIABILITY(Ethics?) on others simply to make more MONEY or spend less MONEY. In an open marketplace supply/demand and the highest bidder or lowest bidder depending rules all, ethics take a back seat. BAR is not an open marketplace we have the ability to change its landscape to what we would like to see.

I’ve taken place in a few group buys on here and would likely again. I’m on the fence about all of this unfortunately I see both sides of the grass.

Transparency is key in everything.

One thing the really keeps giving me the ick is when our BOD say I’m taking my BOD hat off or this is my opinion and not the BOD. The hat never comes off! Your opinions directly affect your decision making. You are making decisions for BAR and its members based on off your own biases. So your opinion is the BOD opinion be it one of many.

Great discussion non the less! LOL
Click to expand...

I agree but will still play devils advocate:

The largest private contributor to wetland protection and waterfowl management is Ducks Unlimited, a hunting group. By putting commercial emphasis on a natural resource that natural resource is more likely to be managed responsibly. Going back to Indonesia; a decent percent of the GDP is from the export of marine life. Because so much money is at stake they have an extra incentive to protect their natural resources. As sad as it is, without an economic reason to protect natural resources the less they are typically protected.
 
Thales said:
I don't believe that is the case - do you have a source?
Click to expand...
Response of Indonesia’s Fisheries GDP to Interest Rates, Inflation, ExchangeRates and Fisheries Sector Performance: A Blue Economy Perspective States 2.7% of the GDP is from its fisheries and an addition 5%+ from tourism.

That's HUGE. Compared to the US where only 5.6% of the GDP is from all agriculture and associated industries which includes: farms, food services, textiles and leather manufacturing, food and tobacco manufacturing, forestry and fishing, and food and beverage stores. (https://www.uschamber.com/security/agriculture-regulations/how-agriculture-supports-the-american-economy-and-main-street-businesses#:~:text=In 2023, agriculture, food,,, national, and global economies.)
 
Last edited:
Thales said:
Food fish and toruism are very often at odds with the marine ornamental trade.
Click to expand...
I concede. You're totally correct. Indonesia is incentivised to keep it's waters pristine due to it's food fisheries and tourism which greatly depends on it's coral reefs but our hobby itself does not contribute greatly. Indonesia is the #1 exporter of ornamental fish and second largest of coral and shells but that is not a huge % of GDP on its own. However because tourism and fisheries are at odds with the hobby it has driven more sustainable collection methods and has advanced mariculture of coral?

Regardless, the devils advocate point trying to be made was that economic incentive often helps with sustainability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top