NY Times: Are Marine Tanks Too Real?

[mrgreen]

Saw this article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/scien ... arium.html

[Brent]

I disagree with the scientists on this one. The Florida Keys have such huge numbers of invertibrates, I honestly don't believe that we are overharvesting. Some people are just too uptight.

[Flutter]

As a science student I have to agree with the scientists. There's so much more to things that the average person doesn't know.

For example, how do they breed, what is the young viability, how often are young produced, how many, how long does it take to reach breeding age, what is the minimum viable population, etc etc.

I assume that many of the animals that are being removed are of breeding age. This is one of the fastest ways to cause a population crash and possibly extinction/extirpation.

[J-P]

don't forget that a fraction of what is taken actually makes it into the home aquarium

[Flutter]

don't forget that a fraction of what is taken actually makes it into the home aquarium

+1

[Brent]

As far as I can tell (which probably isn't very far in this case) the reefs can support, to an extent, what is being taken... Besides, the aquarium trade is always finding ways to improve things. It is only going to get better (with the case of shipping deaths), I think. Once shipping is improved, less will need to be taken to supply the public and stifle the demands for the livestock.

[J-P]

it is not just the shipping.
Wild takes go to a distributor where there is lots of die off before they rech the retail level. At the retail level there is also lots of die off before it makes it to your home.

That does not include any in transit accidents.

[Brent]

I'm sure, in all good time, the bugs that lead to those deaths will be wormed out as well... Or at least downgraded to an acceptable level.

The most die off is probably during the initial stage, yes? Well if they can minimize the stress of the transfer from the ocean to the distributor then that should help remarkably.

Pet stores are a big killer too, I'm sure. If certain laws were put in place, however, things would be much smoother.

[SammyDee]

Its all in PP's 90 gal LOL. Sad thou you kno they sneak more than the legal amounts. Who's watching them?

[Pufferpunk]

Not ALL of them...

[SammyDee]

I kno I was JK Bc u have such a b-e-a-u-tiful tank

[Nick]

Conservation efforts can be misguided. For instance, in the USA there is a "minimum size"(3" eye to back of carapace) on lobsters. Theoretically, it gives them ONE breeding chance, if that, before they're collectible size. Lobsters increase in fertility with age, VASTLY. For much older ones, more than 100fold.

Also, larger lobsters are much more likely to continue surviving in the wild. Clearly, a "max size" would be a much smarter conservation measure, alas, now the worst breeders are the only ones that get to safely reproduce, and the largest are harvested as prizes and sold at vast prices.

Ironically, the older a lobster is, the tougher, stringier, and nastier-tasting they get. I had a friend from Maine, and apparently people in restaurants there laugh privately when out-of-towners come in asking for the "biggest Maine lobster you have." As far as they're concerned, the big ones are the junk, they have a quite intelligent state law making ones OVER 5" eye socket to back of carapace length illegal to take, and the closer to the minimum size, the more prized. Of course, this protection on the big guys is WHY Maine has such legendary quantities of good lobster.

PS - Personally, I have a sentimental attachment to them because I had giant mutant crayfish as a pet as a kid, and won't eat them. Also, they are giant underwater cockroaches with deadly claws.

[Flutter]

Definitely.

I actually recently wrote a paper on conservation of a marine species and looked at the politics and such. When looking at that sort of thing it would be best to look up what the scientists are saying and what the fishery is saying. Even the conservation societies cannot be trusted as many are corrupt. So the "conservation scientists or committee" may be saying one thing because they're lining their pockets. The best option would be to look at the scientists who have fewer possibilities of financial gain depending on the outcome.

[Nick]

Purely intellectual research is a great place too, from biologists with no involvement with special interest conservation groups or commercial fishery groups.

[Flutter]

Bingo!

For my topic it was those scientists who prompted a country to apply the animal as a threatened species.