Aquarium Fishkeeping - Effect On Nature

[syntax_error]

I think aquarists should not keep fish caught in the wild unless he/she wants to breed it or for study purposes. Keeping them will result in overly extracting fish from the wild that would eventually endanger its existence.

 

[Zeoth]

I agree with the above post

 

[CruX]

While I do agree with your points, how would you stand on fish that are likely to die in their natural environment, not from their natural predetors however. For example I have read articles that claim that water systems in south america are being drained with no regard to the fish that inhabit them. Would you think it was unethical to keep these fish?

On another point how can we measure what our involvment produces scientifically? For instance fishing for food could mean that fish that would themselves be a predetor of that fish would suffer whereas the fish that would be preyed upon may have a greater chance to thrive. There might be areas of the world where certain tropical fish are too populous for their food source to maintain itself, whether it be smaller fish or plant, which could lead to the demise if the food source and in turn the actual fish itself will suffer due to a lack of food.

I don't really have a great enough understanding to make fully informed choice, I do generally go for aquarium or fish farmed livestock though.

I would be interested to see which fish are wild caught and are under strength in terms of their preservation status. One would imagine that under threat species would be significantly more expensive thus making it more likely that the more enthusiastic fishhkeeper would purchase and breed. I believe that if you do have rare fish it is your duty to attempt to breed them.

 

[clinton ><>]

i agree with the top post i breed all the fish i have in mmy tank

 

[syntax_error]

While I do agree with your points, how would you stand on fish that are likely to die in their natural environment, not from their natural predetors however. For example I have read articles that claim that water systems in south america are being drained with no regard to the fish that inhabit them. Would you think it was unethical to keep these fish?

Interesting information. However, the subject is not on about human interaction with nature as a whole, it is narrowed down to the effect of the aquarist on nature. If it is about human interaction with nature, one can say that fish die due to pollution etc etc. As said before, the subject is narrowed down to our involvment with nature.

Say there is a fish that has a demand in the aquarium industry but cannot be bred in captivity. Due to its demand the fish will be extracted from nature. This will obviously reduce the numbers in wild with time. For instance, I’ve read that some authorities now state that dwarf puffers may be endangered. Fortunately, people have now started breeding them.

On another point how can we measure what our involvment produces scientifically?

Exactly, we don’t know. In fact, I doubt how many of us even care to know. By the time the threat is recognized the species will already be on its way to the endangered species list.

However, I do agree with this statement.

I believe that if you do have rare fish it is your duty to attempt to breed them.

 

[wendywc]

I totally disagree. The fish I have currently are either unwanted (given to me by others) and/or been overbred (guppies and platies). The only exception is my bristlenose (locally bred).

 

[rdd1952]

I went with other. I understand the possible threat of extinction however, some fish have yet to be bred in captivity and keeping those fish and experimenting with what is required to breed them may actually save the species some day rather than irradicate it. I think discression should be used and governments should get involved to make sure the taking of wild caught fish is regulated. Unfortunately, a lot of them come from poorer countrys where the governments don't have the resources to regulate it. I think it more depends on the species and how close to extinction they may be. If there are concerns, they should be closely regulate even if they aren't a common fish for aquariums. Even in the wild without humans taking them for aquariums, the existence of a fish can still be in danger just from mother nature.

 

[ArauraDiscus]

I attempt to breed the majority of my fish, but enough aquarists alone will attempt to breed rare fish. Not everyone has to try to breed every fish they have. Also most fish that aren't bred in home aquaria can be bred on farms that mimic their native habitats. This is also enough to keep many species alive. Cherry Barbs are extinct in the wild as well as most species of endlers livebearers. The aquarium trade has kept them on this planet.


THE AQAURIUM TRADE WILL BE ESSENTIAL FOR THE SURVIVAL OF MANY SPECIES

Take that statement to the bank. Many species are being lost to over population and deforestation among other habitat destruction, without the aquarium trade to collect fish from deteriorating areas, many species would already be extinct.

 

[CruX]

While I do agree with your points, how would you stand on fish that are likely to die in their natural environment, not from their natural predetors however. For example I have read articles that claim that water systems in south america are being drained with no regard to the fish that inhabit them. Would you think it was unethical to keep these fish?

Interesting information. However, the subject is not on about human interaction with nature as a whole, it is narrowed down to the effect of the aquarist on nature. If it is about human interaction with nature, one can say that fish die due to pollution etc etc. As said before, the subject is narrowed down to our involvment with nature.

Say there is a fish that has a demand in the aquarium industry but cannot be bred in captivity. Due to its demand the fish will be extracted from nature. This will obviously reduce the numbers in wild with time. For instance, I’ve read that some authorities now state that dwarf puffers may be endangered. Fortunately, people have now started breeding them.

I see your point but I wondered what your thoughts were on my point, would you consider it unethical to keep the actual fish that would be robbed of their habitiat and subsequently their lives?

 

[MHunt]

I generally agree that most experienced fishkeepers would try to breed most of the fish they keep, so sustaining a species that might be threatened in the wild. And less experienced fishkeepers would probably go for the more common species to start with anyway that can be bred easily in captivity. Common tetras, most livebearers, most common cichlids are all tank bred. Arowana are all captive bred as it is illegal to remove them from the wild.

A recent example is the galaxy rasbora (or celestial pearl danio) which has been almost fished to extintion in the wild to satisfy the demands of the hobby. Now it is no longer ordered by many LFS's to preserve the colony's in the wild, and most fishkeepers that have them are now trying to breed them.

The fishkeeping hobby exists for two reasons, for our entertainment, and to preserve the species that would otherwise be threatened in the wild.

 

[gta1628]

I don't think it would be right to take a fish from the wild and stick it in an aquarium.

 

[Lynda B]

Although I have had 2 betta spawns, I keep those and my other tropical fish simply to enjoy them. I adopt bettas that other people have practically bred to death.

Not every aquarist is interested in breeding. And most shouldn't. I don't know how many times I've seen someone come into a forum only to say "Help! I have too many fry! What do I do with them now?" Well geez, shouldn't you have thought of that before?

 

[CruX]

I don't think it would be right to take a fish from the wild and stick it in an aquarium.

While I agree with that, in order for the fish to be bred in captivity this must happen at some stage.

 

[OohFeeshy]

I don't think it would be right to take a fish from the wild and stick it in an aquarium.

Bad luck then, your pictus are most likely wild caught

 

[idlefingers]

I voted yes, but after reading everyone's views I think I might have voted no.. I guess it depends why the fish has been taken from the wild and how it is dealt with.