This one of the biggest myths in the hobby, and one that annoys me almost as much 'scale-less fish are allergic to salt' or 'Bettas don't like big tanks'.
I dont think its such a Myth. Many SW hobbyists end up moving to Salt Water from fresh. Its a natural progression for many. You start with something "Easy" and notice the SW sections more and more as you become more accustomed to Fish Keeping and life underwater. Budget also plays a role, as many younger teenagers/young adults have little to no income, but find work as they grow older, being able to afford marine. So I think the statement is correct (whilst you still have a point that not everyone does go FW), but you may have to think about it as not just a progression through the hobby, but availability, ability (easier with equipment you can afford), and knowledge.
I hope I got what I was thinking across!
In terms of conservation issues, 90% of the freshwater aquarium fish traded are captive bred, while virtually all marine aquarium fish and invertebrates are caught from the wild.
Those facts are misleading. Whilst 90% of FW species traded are captive bred, how many species does that represent? And in what quantity are they traded? Mollies, Guppies, Clown Loaches, Tetra's, Pleco's, Rasporas, Cichlids, Malawi's, etc (which are all very easy to breed using manipulating techniques, and even at home), this small list of species might represent a HUGE portion of the "90% of traded FW species captive bred". But what about marine? There are a far greater diversity of imported species, which cannot be manipulated into reproducing, their diet's cannot be replicated as such yet in home aquaria, technology available to the general hobbyist for breeding is extremely poor, life cycles are extreme in some cases, and profit is non-existent. There are clear differences, and whilst more could be done in regards to captive breeding of marine Fish and Invertebrates, efforts are being made, and progress is clearly evident, it is just alot more difficult in many regards, and a simple comparison between the two sides is always going to look misleading and in-accurate.
The problem with marine fishkeeping is that it is very, very expensive to do properly, whereas freshwater fishkeeping can be done far more inexpensively, especially when you consider things like goldfish.
Does that now open the door to much more abuse? I dont see the expense of SW an actual downside. As both an old FW hobbyist and now a SW hobbyist involved with a local marine club, on TFF for my transition both before and after, and being a frequent LFS stall wart, I have noticed a clear difference in the way many hobbyists from the two separate sides treat their individual specimens, and there are far more FW hobbyists willing to spend less money on something that just wont live (and they no it before they spend there money) than compared to many SW hobbyists who truly care about good quality fish/inverts (this is not to say there are not individuals who do/don't care on either side).
Increasingly, marine fishkeeping is suffering from an image problem: there is good evidence that in certain places (e.g. Philippines) and for certain species (e.g. mandarinfish and Banggai cardinals) over-collection has resulted in serious declines in natural populations.
Definitely true. Sustainable management and education is needed. Some countries do, some don't (often because they cant afford too, and the export of marine fish/inverts is a major contribution to their countries economy).
Even if you banned wild-caught freshwater fish outright, that would only affect 10% of the traded species and most casual aquarists would never even notice. If you banned wild-caught marines, the hobby would basically vanish.
It would, and as mentioned above, reasons exist for this. I do agree, more should be done to breed/propagate species in the marine aquarium industry. Im a firm believer more hobbyists could contribute from their home aquaria (without the need of specialized frag tanks or breeding set-ups) much like FW hobbyists (id love to have an opportunity to write something about this in PFK NMonks, Wink Wink! LOL Give me some tips to get noticed!
).
What I'd submit is that to marine aquarists it seems that their side of the hobby is the "natural evolution" of things. But that's often because marine aquarists don't explore the freshwater hobby in any great depth, so they get bored more quickly. They don't, for example, tend to be aquarists who enjoy breeding fish, which in my opinion is one of the very best aspects of the freshwater side of the hobby.
For some the marine environment is a passion, and FW will never excite them (im now completely bored of most FW aspects ((only FW planted tanks do it for me now)), because im thoroughly engrossed in SW) but I bred FW fish and I propagated and traded FW plants interstate. I also now have people requesting my coral and my macro-algae from interstate, so the same can be accomplished through the marine side. Many find the life forms available to keep in marine aquaria alot more exciting. Many find the species more unique/interesting.
IMO, you don't have to experience FW to enjoy SW. I don't think a majority believe turning to SW is an evolutionary step up, but I believe its just a gradual evolution towards something you might appreciate a greater deal with more money/time/space/knowledge etc.
Man that was about the longest post ive ever written! I hope I made some good counter arguements to give people something to think about). I was noticing no reply from the SW crew!
I do disagree though that Coral Collection is the only thing hurting the Ecosystem. Fish collection is more destructive than coral removal. You don't use Cyanide and Dynamite to remove coral, nor nets. The removal of coral removes a habitat for fish etc. to utilize, but thats not whats causing the added destruction. Its the use of chemicals and poor catching techniques. I thoroughly believe removing coral and fish sustainably can be accomplished with management and education.
