Jag kanske kan referera till ett inlägg jag skrev om just detta för ett tag sedan på reefcentral:
Re: Are we promoting or pillaging the natural reef?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by flamehawkfish
This might be a bit philosophical and broad-based, but I believe that it's in the back for most reef aquarists' minds. By coveting our hobby and reef tanks, are we unintentionally destroying the very marine life which we seek to promote?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the answer is, as you probably already know 'both'.
Yes, harvesting of live rock, corals and fish do contribute to the destruction of coral reefs. Anyone who says otherwise is deluding himself.
However, with the possible exception of a very few species (notably the Banggai cardinal) hardly any of the animals we keep run any real risk of being extinguished by the trade, and the amount of live rock we use is totally insignificant compared to that used for construction.
Lets get more technical. According to this article in National Geographic: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/04/0423_mandarinfish.html
the reef hobby circulates about 40 million fishes per year.
Now, 40 million doubtless sounds like a lot, but is it?
If we assume that the average fish in the hobby weighs 100 grams, which is probably erring on the side of caution, then that means that the total catch for the hobby is 4000 metric tonnes. Worldwide.
For comparison:
* the catch of fish for food just in lake victoria is 120 000 metric tonnes per year (http://www.ilec.or.jp/database/afr/afr-05.html).
* Local fishermen in south-east asia land on average 13 - 25 metric tonnes of coral reef fish per kilometer of coastline
(http://www.geocities.com/korallenriffe/Bali02.html)
* In 1999 Hong Kong alone imported 32000 metric tonnes of live coral reef fish - for human consumption, not reef aquaria (http://www.spc.org.nc/coastfish/News/lrf/6/10-TRAFFIC2.htm)
* Just on the Great Barrier coral reef, where capture of live fish for coral reef aquaria is banned, and which is a world heritage site, about 3500 - 4300 metric tonnes of coral reef fish are caught by recreational fishermen, and about as much again by commercial fishermen in esturies and adjacent waters (http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/info_services/publications/sotr/fish_frame.html)
* The amount of dried seahorses sold for traditional chinese medicine is about 70 metric tonnes each year, which translates to 25 MILLION seahorses(http://www.fisheries.nsw.gov.au/gen/news/fb_03Aug05_seahorses.htm)To this should be added a significant illegal trade.
What does this all add up to?
So - what's the short and sweet?
1) The capture of coral reef fish for the hobby is negligible compared to capture for food, except for species with restricted range, such as the Banggai Cardinal.
2) Politicians love to target the hobby anyway, precisely because it's small and insignificant: it gives the illusion of them taking action without them having to take any difficult decisions or aggravating a lot of people. If there WERE lots of reefers, we would not be having this discussion, 'cause then the politicians would not touch us.
However, there aren't lots of reefers, and my guess is that we'll see this hobby banned within our lifetimes.
3) Even though the hobby is a drop in the ocean wrt the killing of reef fish, it IS true that fish stock are becoming depleted, globally, and it IS true that the hobby contributes to this, and it IS therefore true that it is also our responsibility to do what we can to reduce capture of wild fish.
Akvaristiken har blivit en SYMBOLFRÅGA. Som tyvärr nästan alltid är fallet med symbolfrågor, vare sig det är klorins farlighet eller växthuseffekten, så ignorerar miljörörelsen all information som inte stöder deras åsikt, medan de kraftigt överdriver all information som stöder den. Det är t.ex. helt enkelt inte sant att 90% av alla vildfångade fiskar dör under transporten till det land där de skall säljas.
Ibland, som var fallet med uppgiften att eldstjärten utrotats pga insamling till akvarier, får man intrycket att det rör sig om medvetna lögner.
