Reef Aquarium Environmental Impact

[Looper121]

I left the hobby because of this. Go snorkeling/scuba diving instead.

https://earthjustice.org/news/press/...-hawaiis-reefs

[MarAquatic]

Sad but people should also buy aquaculture. Just because one stops doesnt mean everyone will. But one can give those fish the best possible home. Instead of letting them waste away at an lfs. This fishing needs to be regulated and the ban reenacted. There is plenty of fish pulled from the ocean in glass boxes now that we dont need to keep pulling them from their home. Same goes with coral. But people are always on the look out for the next best coral.

But when I was in Hawaii I did see a local pulling a ton of 3-4 inch convict tangs. He had a cooler full with about 20. So that in itself is poaching because they have size regulations for fishes.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[ThRoewer]

Everyone going snorkeling and scuba diving harms the reefs more than the collection of a few small fish and corals. This is even more so if people have to take a flight to get to the ocean and lather up with coral killing sunscreen before going into the water.
And general collection bans don't do much good either. What should be regulated are the sizes of the fish that can be collected and how many. Collecting juvenile fish doesn't have the negative impact that comes from removing the larger breeding individuals. Smaller fish and frags also ship easier. On top of that, juvenile fish and small coral frags adopt much better to aquarium life than larger specimen.
Catching fish for food on the other hand targets especially the larger reproductive specimen. And commercial fisheries pull out fish by the tons, not just by a few hundreds. So it is quite debatable who causes the greater damage.
One should also not forget that no collection ban can save the reefs from the impact of climate change.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Vinny Kreyling]

THE MOST WATCHED COLLECTION SECTION OF THE EARTH -- HAWAII
Proven to be sustainable by those keeping records.
BUT the money to fight back is just not there & the press prints a 1 sided view.

[ThRoewer]

Originally Posted by Vinny Kreyling

THE MOST WATCHED COLLECTION SECTION OF THE EARTH -- HAWAII
Proven to be sustainable by those keeping records.
BUT the money to fight back is just not there & the press prints a 1 sided view.

Well, they need someone to take the blame and the aquarium hobby is the easiest target.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[clevername]

Originally Posted by ThRoewer

Everyone going snorkeling and scuba diving harms the reefs more than the collection of a few small fish and corals. This is even more so if people have to take a flight to get to the ocean and lather up with coral killing sunscreen before going into the water.
And general collection bans don't do much good either. What should be regulated are the sizes of the fish that can be collected and how many. Collecting juvenile fish doesn't have the negative impact that comes from removing the larger breeding individuals. Smaller fish and frags also ship easier. On top of that, juvenile fish and small coral frags adopt much better to aquarium life than larger specimen.
Catching fish for food on the other hand targets especially the larger reproductive specimen. And commercial fisheries pull out fish by the tons, not just by a few hundreds. So it is quite debatable who causes the greater damage.
One should also not forget that no collection ban can save the reefs from the impact of climate change.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Good point, people forget about the traveling involved and waste

[Scrubber_steve]

Have to admit to healthy cynicism regarding information put forward by a group with a name such as >>Earth Justice <<

anyway...

Originally Posted by ThRoewer

Everyone going snorkeling and scuba diving harms the reefs more than the collection of a few small fish and corals.

This is even more so if people have to take a flight to get to the ocean

and lather up with coral killing sunscreen before going into the water.

So are you suggesting that scuba diving - snorkling should be banned ?

Are you suggesting travel by plane should be banned ?

Are you suggesting that wearing sunscreen should be banned ? or should swimming be banned?

Lets look at the sunscreen issue first.

Specific sunscreens that contain specific chemicals found to be detrimental to the specific juvenile coral, in lab tests, have been banned in Hawaii.

But why?

Science Daily. https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0401121805.htm
Scientists have completed the first comprehensive assessment of UV-filters in surface seawater, sediment, and coral tissue from multiple coral reefs around the island of Oahu, Hawaii.

UV-filters are active ingredients in sunscreens, but are also added to many other products, including textile, plastics, and paint to prevent photo degradation.

The UV-filters oxybenzone and octinoxate have received attention by policy makers regarding their potential impact on corals.

"Overall, the impacts of oxybenzone and octinoxate to intact corals occur at much higher concentrations than this study found in seawater near coral reefs.

No measured levels of octinoxate were found in any of the seawater samples.

.

[Timfish]

Overfishing and nutrient enrichment are by far the biggest threats to reefs. I would strongly recommend reading Forest Rohwer's "Coral Reefs in the Microbial Seas". Looking at the research showing the major stressors that cause coral disease what's disconcerting are the examples of reefs being destroyed in just a few years by removing the apex preditors and large herbivores, not the smaller herbivores and reef fish favored by aquarists.

Regarding sunscreen, what I find disconcerting is the above research refferenced by ScrubberSteve showing corals are concentrating oxybenzone in their tissues. Surely not a good thing.

https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/imag...25-ga1_lrg.jpg

[Four drachma]

Well, I guess we better ban and regulate the spread of all the lion fish , they’re eating all the smaller reef fish...lol

The reefing community has zero impact on the overall numbers of fish in the enormous ocean..intact there’s probably more food for the others when one is removed.

One natural volcano eruption kills more than humans ever have or ever will.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MarAquatic]

The fish we keep aren't all over the enormous ocean. They are usually around the reefs and the reefs aren't as abundant like the rest of the ocean. And also there should be a ban on lionfish collected from their habitat and they should be collected from where they have become a problem I think that's the Caribbean

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[ThRoewer]

The thing that needs to stop is the collection of reproducing adults. Juvenile fish are actually quite abundant, even on reefs, and only a small percentage of them actually reaches adulthood. Most of them become food for predators. And for every juvenile that is removed a replacement is pretty much in waiting to fill the open position. So impact of removing some of them is far less than removing the individuals who are producing the babies.
Other benefit of juveniles are:
- require less space and water weight to be shipped which is beneficial for cost and environmental impact.
- adapt better to captivity and generally more flexible in the foods they accept.
- you might have them longer which is especially of benefit with short lived species like gobies for example.

I think much of this has already been recognized as I see more and more baby angelfish in the stores here while the larger adults become less often available. And the same is happening with other fish families as well. That is definitely a move into the right direction.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Scrubber_steve]

Originally Posted by Timfish

Regarding sunscreen, what I find disconcerting is the above research refferenced by ScrubberSteve showing corals are concentrating oxybenzone in their tissues. Surely not a good thing.

Don't understand why you would find the research disconcerting?

It states clearly >> "the impacts of oxybenzone to intact corals occur at much higher concentrations than this study found in seawater near coral reefs."

What needs to be done is monitoring. Measurements over time to see if concentrations are rising.
If yes, at what rate?
Whats the time line for nearing detrimental concentrations? 10 years, or 300 years?

All the elements of the periodic table are found in the ocean, & would be in coral tissue. Its the concentration that matters.

Oxybenzone is a naturally occurring organic compound found in various flowering plants.

.