If you had a catastrophe

[ZoWhat]

If you had a catastrophe where you either lost 100% of your fish or 100% of your coral, which would you rather lose?

 

[Oscaror]

If you had a catastrophe where you either lost 100% of your fish or 100% of your coral, which would you rather lose?

Corals can be replaced but actual sentient animals dying would sadden me so much more

 

[Tastee]

Tough one. Ethically I would have to lean towards the higher order organisms (i.e. the fish). Practically speaking however they would probably take less time and money to replace in the average tank, certainly in mine.

Realistically the corals are the more sensitive specimens so would be the first to go in most situations, particularly the SPS. Diseases like Velvet however can quickly wipe out fish populations from what I have read (happily have no personal experience of this!).

 

[Jvesche20]

Corals can be replaced but actual sentient animals dying would sadden me so much more

100% agree with you on this.

 

[Coralreefer1]

I guess it would depend on some key variables...
Both are living things so you would hate to lose any, however, I guess it would have to be coral.
How long you had had the fish or corals (sentimental value). How much you have invested in your fish and corals. What kind of fish or corals. Do you have rare coral or a rare fish such as a Purple Monster Jawbreaker Mushroom or a Centropyge Boylei (Peppermint Angel). That could sway your answer one way or the other.

 

[hart24601]

I only have fish for coral fertilizer and they are not expensive or rare so I would rather lose them if I was forced to pick

 

[NS Mike D]

I estimate 90% of my time, effort and expense is spent on the corals and keeping them happy. Losing the corals would be more devastating. While I got into saltwater for the fish, it's the invertebrates (and all that goes with them) that have captured me. I hope I never will have to answer this question beyond the theoretical.

 

[Fin]

Neither, but to answer the question, I typically only keep a few fish in my reef. If the fish were gone, I would still have a nice display. If all my coral died, I would only have a few fish swimming around with some rock. Much less interesting.

 

[Ron Reefman]

I have 5 fish worth maybe $100+, but my tank is stuffed full over 100 corals and 20+ anemones that are worth well over $1000. It's an absolute 'No Brainer'.

 

[Radman73]

Fish. The corals don't happily swim towards me at feeding time and I name fish, but not corals.

 

[DSC reef]

@skimjim what's the point of the thread? I'd rather loose nothing as I love the animals we care for. Your question is a loaded one and if we lost 100 percent of each then there wouldn't be much of a choice?

 

[Sorcha2]

I have lost 100% of my fish before and I would much rather have lost all my corals instead.

 

[Lovemyreef2015]

Neither..;Bored

 

[clarity1981]

This is tough. I guess it would also depend on how old the corals are. If I lost a bunch of frags I’ve had for a couple of months, definitely more upset about the fish. If they were colonies I was growing for years, that would be a really tough loss.

 

[braappn]

Losing animals is a bummer/sad/unfortunate, but cant think of much with an aquarium I would really call a catastrophe. Maybe burning the house down would qualify?