Just a Rant about environment agency lovers

[Northern Flicker]

Does anyone have percentages of wild fish that die in transport from dealers to the shop . I would say a lot but don’t have any figures anyone know

I can tell you that from importer of record to customer's home, my experience from within the industry is that roughly 50% make it to a home. We used a survival rate to sale calculation based on our own studies to calculate pricing.

This was 10 years ago. I am sure some stores have better, some worse (Petco types), but I would imagine the percentage from ocean to a home would shock most hobbyists. It's truly a trail of death.

Freshwater was captive bred and the quantity of DOAs and deaths within 10 days of arrival was higher but the percentage was significantly lower. We expected closer to 10% losses. All of these fish were captive bred outside of a few cichlids (both SA and African).

 

[Nano_Man]

Do you know the percentage of all invertebrates that blue linckia starfish make up (wild collection). Let's not forget about their typical survival rate...yes I do know the answer and they are plentiful in the ocean.

Yes I am saying everything coming to the hobby should be controlled we as a hobby don’t want restrictions on anything but if we over do it there are people protecting the environment and what’s in it will say ban the removal of anything so hopefully the control measures work for all us reefers in the future

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

This is like me looking at a nuclear physicist's paper, reading the abstract, flipping through some data tables and charts and then saying "you know, I don't think this is true".

Why would we take your word over people who have spent entire decades in a peer-review environment?

Also, your example of reefs dissapearing in 20 years is a strawman.

First of all you don't know me or a single person who's ever written a paper on the topic. If I said I wrote 10 over the past 5 years you would have to search for evidence to dispute it. You're right, you don't know about it but you just assume qualified knowledgeable people are writing the empirical truth that they themselves even believe. Why are they doing research? How are they able? People FUND them. The funders can dictate whatever they want if they wish. What can the 100% honest and educated researcher do if he's facing no funding or slightly skewing results?

 

[Northern Flicker]

Do you know the percentage of all invertebrates that blue linckia starfish make up (wild collection). Let's not forget about their typical survival rate...yes I do know the answer and they are plentiful in the ocean.

So because they are plentiful, it's ok that they die in home aquaria?

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

So because they are plentiful, it's ok that they die in home aquaria?

Wow...that was a stretch.. .OP said we were depleting the fish population. We take far more of these and they are not endangered or even close. Why do you want to argue about this?

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

I'm tired of these circular pointless arguments. I'm done.

 

[Northern Flicker]

First of all you don't know me or a single person who's ever written a paper on the topic. If I said I wrote 10 over the past 5 years you would have to search for evidence to dispute it. You're right, you don't know about it but you just assume qualified knowledgeable people are writing the empirical truth that they themselves even believe. Why are they doing research? How are they able? People FUND them. The funders can dictate whatever they want if they wish. What can the 100% honest and educated researcher do if he's facing no funding or slightly skewing results?

Do you have a pHD in a science field? If so, could you share some papers?

This whole "the funders dictate the results" is just a BS take from people who have never been in the community. Papers with bad methodology or analysis are picked apart.

Just because the scientific community largely disagrees with you doesn't mean you can just hand wave them. This is poor critical thinking, and self-centred.

 

[Northern Flicker]

I'm tired of these circular pointless arguments. I'm done.

It's not circular. It's a matter of are you the kind of person that trusts science and reason, or are you a main-character type who thinks they know better than professionals.

Funny how this "skeptical of science" is so popular among people who already have made up their mind and are going against evidence.

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

Do you have a pHD in a science field? If so, could you share some papers?

This whole "the funders dictate the results" is just a BS take from people who have never been in the community. Papers with bad methodology or analysis are picked apart.

Just because the scientific community largely disagrees with you doesn't mean you can just hand wave them. This is poor critical thinking, and self-centred.

It disagrees with itself on many points. They don't agree with each other so who's superior? I'd go on but you were 20 seconds too late.

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

It's not circular. It's a matter of are you the kind of person that trusts science and reason, or are you a main-character type who thinks they know better than professionals.

Funny how this "skeptical of science" is so popular among people who already have made up their mind and are going against evidence.

Read the bottom bro.

 

[Northern Flicker]

It disagrees with itself on many points. They don't agree with each other so who's superior? I'd go on but you were 20 seconds too late.

What disagrees with itself?

If it is the scientific community, then it only disagrees on the outcomes and how it weighs causes. There is no real debate on what is happening.

Disagreement is a strength, not a weakness. Disagreement based in logical arguments and not feelings are welcome.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Do you have a pHD in a science field? If so, could you share some papers?

This whole "the funders dictate the results" is just a BS take from people who have never been in the community. Papers with bad methodology or analysis are picked apart.

Just because the scientific community largely disagrees with you doesn't mean you can just hand wave them. This is poor critical thinking, and self-centred.

Come on now - there are literal mountains of "Peer Reviewed" horse crap out there that makeup a large portion of policy, accepted "science", public discourse and consume insane amounts of funding.

 

[Northern Flicker]

Come on now - there are literal mountains of "Peer Reviewed" horse crap out there that makeup a large portion of policy, accepted "science", drive public discourse and consume insane amounts of funding.

 

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

Beat me to it. I was about to propose the same question for everyone to argue about, I mean discuss... if the reefs are dying and ocean is becoming un inhabitable "too fast", wouldn't it make sense to pull the creatures to prolong their existence? That's "they" do to land bearing animals on the verge of extinction and nobody has a issue with that.

And this brings up the problem with new hobbyists adding coral to the tank too soon (an often less than ideal environment). When these corals then die, isn't that "ethically" worse than someone with a thriving wild caught coral in their system?

 

[FrugalReefer]

Bring on the ban! I’m ready for it!

 

[Reefering1]

And this brings up the problem with new hobbyists adding coral to the tank too soon (an often less than ideal environment). When these corals then die, isn't that "ethically" worse than someone with a thriving wild caught coral in their system?

Exactly. But nobody bats a eye at that. It is widely accepted as "part of the hobby, try again". But someone wanting wild specimens is met with regulations and outrage

 

[Northern Flicker]

And this brings up the problem with new hobbyists adding coral to the tank too soon (an often less than ideal environment). When these corals then die, isn't that "ethically" worse than someone with a thriving wild caught coral in their system?

I don't think it's a problem. One is systemic, something we as a community have a say in. One is neglect, something only the individual can impact.

All of my coral are locally aquacultured, and I still feel awful when I lose a coral. I would feel a bit worse if buying that coral was monetarily supporting environmental degradation.

Let's be honest, this hobby isn't good for the environment in a lot of ways...shipping, energy, etc. It would be hypocritical to think any tank is environmentally friendly. There are just different degrees.

 

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

I'll be the outlier here. Yes, global warming is real. Yes, it is very detrimental (very must be quantified). No, reefs aren't disappearing in 20 years. I'm sorry to say but it's either very bad statistical errors that are very often made for these future projections (losing entire nations by the year 2000 didn't quite come close by a mile and still isn't), or they're trying to create urgency. When you read these reports and choose between the other 50 that are different timelines, you have to deeply analyze the data and how the computed it. Sometimes it makes 0 sense and is purely a scare tactic and not science.

Since you brought it up... In this and many other areas where science helps dictate policy, why is it that if a prediction from 10 or more years ago does not end up happening that people jump on the "science is just trying to scare us" train rather than consider that changes made between then and now actually worked??

 

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

Exactly. But nobody bats a eye at that. It is widely accepted as "part of the hobby, try again". But someone wanting wild specimens is met with regulations and outrage

For the record, I am a scientist, I don't believe regulations (governmental or otherwise) are inherently bad, and I understand climate change (no need to "believe" in it since it's a fact, not dogma).

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

Since you brought it up... In this and many other areas where science helps dictate policy, why is it that if a prediction from 10 or more years ago does not end up happening that people jump on the "science is just trying to scare us" train rather than consider that changes made between then and now actually worked??

If the science today is as accurate as you believe, why do projections vary enormously? They are all experts with nothing except the truth before them. Why do the years change from 2030 to 2100 for the practical extinction of reefs in a few months? I'm don't with this thread. Believe anything fervently enough and always remember... there could obviously be some reason the experts got completely different calculations. They can't be wrong whoever they are. Think about that. It's doubtful you even know where the data came from and instead read the first sentence of the abstract in or out of context and believe it. Smart. Bye Bye.