This could end very badly for our hobby ...

[Maacc]

There is a Native American proverb that goes something along the lines of "No single raindrop believes it is responsible for the flood."

Some rain is good, too much rain causes devastation. Some fish harvesting is good (we learn about the species and gain knowledge that may save them in the future) but too much harvesting can be devastating. Using some water from aquafers can actually really help the environment since it puts more water back into the evaporation process that gets filtered by the sand and returns clean to the aquafer. Pulling too much water out of an aquafer can cause the land to sink and the aquafer to be permanently lost.
Every person in the aquarium hobby has an impact on reef collection and we must acknowledge that. Even if you only purchase net collected fish or tank bred fish, that potentially removes a fish from the market that is replaced with a cyanide captured fish. Our aquariums all use water, and most use DI/DO water which wastes more water than it produces. If we live in an area that has limited natural fresh water supplies, we contribute to the total water usage of that area.
In my opinion we really need to work on establishing reasonable regulation on the aquarium industry. Hobbyists alone aren't going to be able to make the aquarium industry operate responsibly in a sustainable manner but we can work to make the industry better.
Just like every aquarist is a raindrop whose collecting fish contributes the flood that potentially overharvests fish from reefs, every aquarist who supports sustainable fish collection can be a raindrop that leads to a flood of positive fish industry reforms.

I agree with that except for the regulation, as more often than not, the extremists will likely populate the boards or bureaucracy. Regulations once enacted are extremely difficult to modify. I think we can as individuals and as groups, either in forums and aquarium societies advocate for needed reform without the side effects and unintended consequences inviting incompetent and/or biased government regulators might create.

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

Do people not sweat, pee, spit, sneeze, bleed, poop, or cry? All of these, are forms of secretion. They evaporate back into the atmosphere. The only water displacement you are talking about are city water reserves and how people manage the water. That water also evaporates. When things evaporate, they get recycled back into the atmosphere. Then condensation begins in the form of rain. Correct me if you disagree?

Apologies for getting more off-topic, where I think we're not meeting, is I'm talking about displacement and the holding of that resource. Though we do emit, through each of the methods you speak of, water, we still hold onto a certain amount, until we die. Sure it's a smaller impact than other ways, but as the population grows, it's accountable. I think of it like setting up a saltwater tank, throwing some food in, and then humans are the bacteria. The growth starts, keeps going, and then grows to the amount the resources are used up. Then through the various ways those resources become available. (mostly death) But the population can never grow beyond a certain point.

It would be like confining people to a football stadium and you give them a couple swimming pools of freshwater along with some trees of fruits, maybe some pigs. At some point the population outgrows the resources available, including the amount of water to sustain.

Taking an average weight of 180 lbs per person, 60% water for an average, that's 108 lbs of water that entity is occupying while alive. Now grow that exponentially like the human race. That's 108 lbs of water that becomes unavailable for every person.

There's numerous ways the human race is screwed. Just like an empty tank growing bacteria that only received one scoop of food to begin with. (now go reread what I was talking about once we start utilizing ocean water, which has already started in some coastal cities)

Back to the movie, I'm sure it's just the beginning. So until we make some major initiatives to produce valid numbers of creatures, or even we as a collective group make rules/etc by which collector's should abide by, like someone said, the governments will eventually do it for us, and it will be extremely bleak at that point because we WON'T be able to attempt to, and possibly breed, some of those organisms that will be blacklisted.

But at the same time, if that were true, that WE can save the creatures, white rhinos wouldn't be <1000. (iirc they're <900 total in the world now; or insert any number of animals that have become extinct)

 

[reeferfoxx]

Apologies for getting more off-topic, where I think we're not meeting, is I'm talking about displacement and the holding of that resource. Though we do emit, through each of the methods you speak of, water, we still hold onto a certain amount, until we die. Sure it's a smaller impact than other ways, but as the population grows, it's accountable. I think of it like setting up a saltwater tank, throwing some food in, and then humans are the bacteria. The growth starts, keeps going, and then grows to the amount the resources are used up. Then through the various ways those resources become available. (mostly death) But the population can never grow beyond a certain point.

It would be like confining people to a football stadium and you give them a couple swimming pools of freshwater along with some trees of fruits, maybe some pigs. At some point the population outgrows the resources available, including the amount of water to sustain.

Taking an average weight of 180 lbs per person, 60% water for an average, that's 108 lbs of water that entity is occupying while alive. Now grow that exponentially like the human race. That's 108 lbs of water that becomes unavailable for every person.

There's numerous ways the human race is screwed. Just like an empty tank growing bacteria that only received one scoop of food to begin with. (now go reread what I was talking about once we start utilizing ocean water, which has already started in some coastal cities)

Back to the movie, I'm sure it's just the beginning. So until we make some major initiatives to produce valid numbers of creatures, or even we as a collective group make rules/etc by which collector's should abide by, like someone said, the governments will eventually do it for us, and it will be extremely bleak at that point because we WON'T be able to attempt to, and possibly breed, some of those organisms that will be blacklisted.

But at the same time, if that were true, that WE can save the creatures, white rhinos wouldn't be <1000. (iirc they're <900 total in the world now; or insert any number of animals that have become extinct)

Not to stretch out the off topic.. topic. Nature finds a balance. Whether natural disasters or disease. As population grows, CO2 rises, plant life becomes more abundant. "Climate change" is just change. It's Earth adapting to our rise.

 

[Ike]

I have a saltwater pamphlet from 1966 that has a fasciatus anthias in it. So they could have been had, they weren't available because they wouldn't live. So yeah, we have come a long way in some of those. Angels can still be sensitive, but flames and coral beauties aren't considered as difficult as they once were. Yes, wild caught bangaii's were considered difficult in published aquarium literature exactly because of unexplained die-offs, that doesn't happen any more. While not all parrots are being kept yet with great success, more of them are. And as somebody that pays particularly close attention to wrasses, I would say that mortality in leopards has been cut in half in the last decade and a half.

Advances will continue to be made, as I've seen more success being had with hobbyists keeping moorish idols too.

Yes, there is still quite a bit of needless waste, but to come up with an idea that some fish should never be captured is unwise and soley reactionary.

Didn't mean to imply they weren't available. I saw them come in dead to wholesalers in the late 80's and early 90's by the hundreds. Certain Anthias, such as square Anthias, were probably more commonly imported then than they are now. If you got healthy specimens and put them in tanks with good flow, no disease, fish that weren't jerks and fed them well they would live. Not much different from now, they just have a better chance due to arriving healthier and overall tank suitability being higher.

I've been in the hobby since the mid 80's and flames and especially coral beauties were considered pretty hardy outside of a lot of mysterious deaths probably from drug collection. Lemonpeels and Bicolor angels were really common in the hobby and died quite often, these two seem to have become far less common in the hobby as have other high mortality Centropyge, hopefully it has something to do with that high mortality rate and not because they're far less common in collection areas. Some others that have seemingly become less common and are still really difficult to keep are multifaciatus and venustus.

I can't recall Bangaii being difficult other than the unexplained deaths, but I do remember them being expensive! As for the die-off, I've seen it within the last few years with groups brought into local fish stores. I've also seen it with red tail cardinals.

I don't know of anyone with long-term success of parrotfish, but I could see it being possible with just the right set-up and some of the smaller species.

Sure, a select few have had success with moorish idols, but again, I'd wager a lot of money that 99% of the moorish idols brought into the aquarium trade are dead. To me, to try toelicit change in something that's detrimental and based on years and years of failure is not reactionary, it's common sense. I never outright said they shouldn't be collected, I said they shouldn't be bought by hobbyists, which is self regulation and has the same end result. if I thought for a second that someone could get the banning of collection right when it comes to species I'd be all for it, but there's zero chance of a government organization getting it right... However, if we don't start trying to regulate our own hobby someone is going to do it for us, and it won't be pretty.

 

[Elementalj]

Didn't mean to imply they weren't available. I saw them come in dead to wholesalers in the late 80's and early 90's by the hundreds. Certain Anthias, such as square Anthias, were probably more commonly imported then than they are now. If you got healthy specimens and put them in tanks with good flow, no disease, fish that weren't jerks and fed them well they would live. Not much different from now, they just have a better chance due to arriving healthier and overall tank suitability being higher.

I've been in the hobby since the mid 80's and flames and especially coral beauties were considered pretty hardy outside of a lot of mysterious deaths probably from drug collection. Lemonpeels and Bicolor angels were really common in the hobby and died quite often, these two seem to have become far less common in the hobby as have other high mortality Centropyge, hopefully it has something to do with that high mortality rate and not because they're far less common in collection areas. Some others that have seemingly become less common and are still really difficult to keep are multifaciatus and venustus.

I can't recall Bangaii being difficult other than the unexplained deaths, but I do remember them being expensive! As for the die-off, I've seen it within the last few years with groups brought into local fish stores. I've also seen it with red tail cardinals.

I don't know of anyone with long-term success of parrotfish, but I could see it being possible with just the right set-up and some of the smaller species.

Sure, a select few have had success with moorish idols, but again, I'd wager a lot of money that 99% of the moorish idols brought into the aquarium trade are dead. To me, to try toelicit change in something that's detrimental and based on years and years of failure is not reactionary, it's common sense. I never outright said they shouldn't be collected, I said they shouldn't be bought by hobbyists, which is self regulation and has the same end result. if I thought for a second that someone could get the banning of collection right when it comes to species I'd be all for it, but there's zero chance of a government organization getting it right... However, if we don't start trying to regulate our own hobby someone is going to do it for us, and it won't be pretty.

Indeed.

 

[eatbreakfast]

Didn't mean to imply they weren't available. I saw them come in dead to wholesalers in the late 80's and early 90's by the hundreds. Certain Anthias, such as square Anthias, were probably more commonly imported then than they are now. If you got healthy specimens and put them in tanks with good flow, no disease, fish that weren't jerks and fed them well they would live. Not much different from now, they just have a better chance due to arriving healthier and overall tank suitability being higher.

I've been in the hobby since the mid 80's and flames and especially coral beauties were considered pretty hardy outside of a lot of mysterious deaths probably from drug collection. Lemonpeels and Bicolor angels were really common in the hobby and died quite often, these two seem to have become far less common in the hobby as have other high mortality Centropyge, hopefully it has something to do with that high mortality rate and not because they're far less common in collection areas. Some others that have seemingly become less common and are still really difficult to keep are multifaciatus and venustus.

I can't recall Bangaii being difficult other than the unexplained deaths, but I do remember them being expensive! As for the die-off, I've seen it within the last few years with groups brought into local fish stores. I've also seen it with red tail cardinals.

I don't know of anyone with long-term success of parrotfish, but I could see it being possible with just the right set-up and some of the smaller species.

Sure, a select few have had success with moorish idols, but again, I'd wager a lot of money that 99% of the moorish idols brought into the aquarium trade are dead. To me, to try toelicit change in something that's detrimental and based on years and years of failure is not reactionary, it's common sense. I never outright said they shouldn't be collected, I said they shouldn't be bought by hobbyists, which is self regulation and has the same end result. if I thought for a second that someone could get the banning of collection right when it comes to species I'd be all for it, but there's zero chance of a government organization getting it right... However, if we don't start trying to regulate our own hobby someone is going to do it for us, and it won't be pretty.

I don't know how you didn't mean to imply that anthias weren't as available when your direct quote was "Anthias were not as commonly availble, neither were wrasses..."

Pink squares still come in all the tome. If there survival has improved just from the shipping side of things, then that is translating to greater success.

I'd be willing to counterwager the moorish idol numbers as not being 99%. Just throwing that hyperbolic number out there doesn't help anything. Their survival rates are slowly coming up because as people are keeping them, and unlocking their secrets, those secrets are being shared, and others are able to emulate them.

To have a self imposed industry ban, or limiting who can get what cuts off the collective intelligence that makes keeping these animals possible in the future. For decisions like that the self imposed ban is on the individual level, not the industry.

I've seen a lot of hardy venusta and multifasciata angels, their suvival record around my area is pretty high, but that is also related to the husbandry provided them particularly in the beginning. But that improvement is again related to others figuring out what works and what doesn't.

What really needs to be done os a census of reefs. Some that are remote and untouched, some where ornamental and commercial fishing occur, some where only commercial fishing occur, and some where only ornamental fishing occurs.

In areas where fish for the trade are net caught the resiliencey of the fish populations will be high. This needs to be supported. The fishermen on the village level have shown an eagerness to work this way.

 

[Ike]

I don't know how you didn't mean to imply that anthias weren't as available when your direct quote was "Anthias were not as commonly availble, neither were wrasses..."

Pink squares still come in all the tome. If there survival has improved just from the shipping side of things, then that is translating to greater success.

I'd be willing to counterwager the moorish idol numbers as not being 99%. Just throwing that hyperbolic number out there doesn't help anything. Their survival rates are slowly coming up because as people are keeping them, and unlocking their secrets, those secrets are being shared, and others are able to emulate them.

To have a self imposed industry ban, or limiting who can get what cuts off the collective intelligence that makes keeping these animals possible in the future. For decisions like that the self imposed ban is on the individual level, not the industry.

I've seen a lot of hardy venusta and multifasciata angels, their suvival record around my area is pretty high, but that is also related to the husbandry provided them particularly in the beginning. But that improvement is again related to others figuring out what works and what doesn't.

What really needs to be done os a census of reefs. Some that are remote and untouched, some where ornamental and commercial fishing occur, some where only commercial fishing occur, and some where only ornamental fishing occurs.

In areas where fish for the trade are net caught the resiliencey of the fish populations will be high. This needs to be supported. The fishermen on the village level have shown an eagerness to work this way.

I said they weren't as commonly available, you took that to mean that they weren't available... There's a big difference between the two. Greater success is nice, but they still have a pretty poor survival rate.

"Self imposed industry ban" seems like an oxy moron, I don't think I've mentioned the industry banning anything. I'm talking about people being more conscientious within the hobby, why is that something you want to debate as being a good thing?

I've been hearing that moorish idol survival rates are slowly coming up for well over a decade, I have seen zero proof of it. Maybe it's not 99%, maybe it's 90%, does it really matter? Do you honestly think 1 in 10 moorish idols is surviving a year. What if it's 1 in 5 (which it's not), is that acceptable? I think it's pathetic. Why do we need to unlock secrets of the moorish idol, to what end? What good does it do the hobby, the reefs, the industry and humanity as a whole? None! Nature unlocked the secrets of keeping the moorish idol alive long ago, why is it important for us to keep them in an aquarium when they have such a dismal record of survival? We're not going to find some magic formula and suddenly moorish idols are hardy and easy to keep. Why can't we let them remain alive in the ocean and pick one of the hundreds of other fish that are relatively easy to keep? Because we want to brag to our fellow fish nerds that we have one that's 3 years old? Because we like a challenge? Attitudes like that will just do damage to this hobby, and sadly they're fairly common.

Lastly, if people in your area have success longterm with those angels I'd love to hear more about it. My sense is that these fish still have dismal survival rates in captivity.

A census of the reefs would be great, but there isn't the money and resources for that to happen. Ultimately does it really matter? Even if the reefs aren't being impacted does that mean we should go around needlessly killing fish for our own enjoyment? I don't, I think it's in the best interest of the hobby and all involved for us to be good stewards to the animals we're keeping and doing what we can to lessen the demand and need for pulling fish from the wild.

 

[eatbreakfast]

I said they weren't as commonly available, you took that to mean that they weren't available... There's a big difference between the two. Greater success is nice, but they still have a pretty poor survival rate.

"Self imposed industry ban" seems like an oxy moron, I don't think I've mentioned the industry banning anything. I'm talking about people being more conscientious within the hobby, why is that something you want to debate as being a good thing?

I've been hearing that moorish idol survival rates are slowly coming up for well over a decade, I have seen zero proof of it. Maybe it's not 99%, maybe it's 90%, does it really matter? Do you honestly think 1 in 10 moorish idols is surviving a year. What if it's 1 in 5 (which it's not), is that acceptable? I think it's pathetic. Why do we need to unlock secrets of the moorish idol, to what end? What good does it do the hobby, the reefs, the industry and humanity as a whole? None! Nature unlocked the secrets of keeping the moorish idol alive long ago, why is it important for us to keep them in an aquarium when they have such a dismal record of survival? We're not going to find some magic formula and suddenly moorish idols are hardy and easy to keep. Why can't we let them remain alive in the ocean and pick one of the hundreds of other fish that are relatively easy to keep? Because we want to brag to our fellow fish nerds that we have one that's 3 years old? Because we like a challenge? Attitudes like that will just do damage to this hobby, and sadly they're fairly common.

Lastly, if people in your area have success longterm with those angels I'd love to hear more about it. My sense is that these fish still have dismal survival rates in captivity.

A census of the reefs would be great, but there isn't the money and resources for that to happen. Ultimately does it really matter? Even if the reefs aren't being impacted does that mean we should go around needlessly killing fish for our own enjoyment? I don't, I think it's in the best interest of the hobby and all involved for us to be good stewards to the animals we're keeping and doing what we can to lessen the demand and need for pulling fish from the wild.

So what do you think happens to these wild fish on the reefs? Specific reefs recruit a finite number of fish. They do reach a capacity based on current resources. Established fish drive off recruits and these recruits die. The ocean is not some nice, happy feely place. The competition is fierce and any slip up on the fishes behalf is fatal. The vast majority of fish don't live anywhere near their lifespans in the wild as they do in captivity. Most marine fish have spawns numbering in the 10's of thousands, some hundreds of thousands, the vast majority of these don't make it to be recruited by the reef, even fewer spawning age. If they do make it to attempt recruitment, most are driven off by existing fish to die. If fish are taken off the reefs in reasonable numbers they are replaced almost immediately. That new fish would otherwise be doomed to die. So it's aomehow worse that the fish dies in the care of an aquarist rather than the reef?

If we never attempted to advance or learnmore we would still be back in the dark ages. Who knows when or why having the ability to keep a difficult fish will have beneficial consequences.

 

[ZoaReefer]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/16/science/coral-reef-climate-change.html

If you'll read through the garbage on this article, and just see the gist of it.

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

One thing to think about amongst the tidbits of debate, at least I always think about it..

In the ocean, the wee lil fishies have a chance at a Disney like movie-life. Or some fates end up in more of a corporate fishing show like Deadliest Catch.

But you pull a single fish out of the ocean for a hobbyist, especially if the person houses it by itself with no plans of breeding, that number falls off the radar. Again, unless it's later traded or sold to a breeder, it's a long, solitary death sentence where only time will tell how soon the creature's life is ended.

Either way, you don't mess with the

 

[Ike]

So what do you think happens to these wild fish on the reefs? Specific reefs recruit a finite number of fish. They do reach a capacity based on current resources. Established fish drive off recruits and these recruits die. The ocean is not some nice, happy feely place. The competition is fierce and any slip up on the fishes behalf is fatal. The vast majority of fish don't live anywhere near their lifespans in the wild as they do in captivity. Most marine fish have spawns numbering in the 10's of thousands, some hundreds of thousands, the vast majority of these don't make it to be recruited by the reef, even fewer spawning age. If they do make it to attempt recruitment, most are driven off by existing fish to die. If fish are taken off the reefs in reasonable numbers they are replaced almost immediately. That new fish would otherwise be doomed to die. So it's aomehow worse that the fish dies in the care of an aquarist rather than the reef?

If we never attempted to advance or learnmore we would still be back in the dark ages. Who knows when or why having the ability to keep a difficult fish will have beneficial consequences.

So now the argument is that it doesn't matter if we kill them in our aquariums because they're just going to die on the reef anyways? There's no point in continuing this debate...

 

[that Reef Guy]

LOL, no! Snorkle Bob is the guy behind the documentary. When we were there in Sept. locals told us about him/his group harassaing legal collectors.

How did they harass them?

 

[that Reef Guy]

Too true snorkelers are bad enough but careless divers are worse with both smashing corals with fins. As elemental mentioned "been to the keys recently". I've been a diver for many years and always try to be cognizant and careful of my surroundings when on a reef.

Also like someone touched on these sort of eco terrorists likely have no problem sitting down to a nice lobster, fish or sushi dinner. Commercial fishing IMO does far more damage to the oceans (think Japan in particular) than the, trivial in comparison, ornamental fish industry. That's not even mentioning what China did to a reef to build a military base in contested territory or dredging in Australia. I also think there's a bit of exaggeration in the film (and some non Hawaiian fish) because Hawaii is regulated. Don't know the particulars but I suspect far worse than even strict Florida.

I read a story about somebody who went diving and said there was a 300 pound woman that just stomped on all the coral and could care less!

I am sure Snokel Bob wouldn't care because that woman would pay him money to take her Diving!

Remember he makes money off the ocean.

Perhaps he is doing this keep people's eyes on the aquarium industry to save his own industry that he profits from.

 

[that Reef Guy]

Here's some news to brighten the conversation. Anyone heard of Colin Foord? He and his group are plucking hardier corals out of government cut to save them. When you have a chance YouTube the term 'coral city'.

Yes, he does great things in Miami

 

[Elementalj]

I read a story about somebody who went diving and said there was a 300 pound woman that just stomped on all the coral and could care less!

I am sure Snokel Bob wouldn't care because that woman would pay him money to take her Diving!

Remember he makes money off the ocean.

Perhaps he is doing this keep people's eyes on the aquarium industry to save his own industry that he profits from.

SNAP

 

[that Reef Guy]

All you have to do is search on YouTube and you'll see an EXPLOSION of positive information.

Look for videos from Coralmorpohlogic, and the documentary they did on them named Coral City.

I'm a big fan of their efforts, and the interest that the city of Miami has in their project.

Send that Documentary to Snokel Bob!

Not that he would care

 

[that Reef Guy]

Yes. However, corals aren't the issue in the 'dark hobby' film.

True, but First they go for Fish.

Then they go for Coral.

Someone posted earlier in the Thread about the Humane Society and PETA Wanting to take away all Pets.

Reefers generally do not care about this but those that Keep Reptiles know what I am Talking about.

Give them an Inch and they will Take a Mile.

They are focusing the most on Snakes and other Reptiles because many people are afraid of Snakes.

Get Snakes Banned, Then Birds, Then Fish and Coral, Then Cats and Dogs.

They are focused on taking Baby Steps so they can get to their goal of No Animals (Yes, even Cats and Dogs) in Captivity.

So this Video Focuses on Fish but the Great Things Colin and his Team are doing will Paint the Aquarium Trade as a Whole in Good Light.

 

[that Reef Guy]

oh wake up and smell the coffee , just listen to yourselves in total denial. speak to any diver and ask them how the undersea landscape has changed in the last twenty years. you cant keep taking hundreds or thousands of fish a month, and it not have an impact. they dont breed that fast, and if you look at all the dead fish laid out in rows , well thats not pollution , thats the ones who didnt even make it off the island.
this is as bad if not worst than the ivory trade killing elephants and rhinos. Difference is we can breed elephants and rhinos in zoos to restock if needed in the future, we cannot breed yellow tangs ect so what happens when they are all gone. there should be a three year cycle bought in , no taking for two years then allowed in the third year, then two off again , at least it would give a chance for the stocks to build up

They are breeding Yellow Tangs now and will be available for sale soon if they are not already.

 

[that Reef Guy]

When I was in Maui last year the locals complained about him and not all agreed with him. His style is obnoxious agreesive with divers and licensed collectors.

I am curious.

What did they say about him?

 

[DLHDesign]

I've been SCUBA diving for more than 25 years and now have professional-level certification to do it. In all that time, diving has been about experiencing the ocean - not disturbing it. There is an argument that could be made that our mere presence in the waters disturbs it - and this is certainly correct. But it is my view that observation creates familiarity. And familiarity is what creates change - change for the good of the ocean. My years of diving has only strengthened my resolve to find some way to help protect the oceans. Which is why I went pro - so that I could be sure that as many new divers as possible were taught the correct methods of diving; for their safety, yes, but also for the safety of the environment they are entering.

When I got into reefing, it was mostly because I wanted to have "a little bit of the ocean at home". Even though I had done no research on the topic, I was under no illusions that building a reef in my home could occur without some level of harm to the ocean. My primary goal was - and still is - to minimize that level as much as possible. My secondary goal is to leverage my interactions with those in the industry to do the same. Not via pamphlets and blogs posts (so I'll ask your forgiveness for this one), but simply by being an example to follow. Compared to others on this forum, I have a long way to go in that regard. But compared to friends and family who are not SCUBA divers, my little bit of the ocean is more than they would ever see in so personal a space. Rarely do people enter our home and not ask a question or two about the tank - and keep in mind that most of them are coming over to see the new baby; that's how much of a draw it is to talk about.

To me, that's the value of home salt water aquariums. IMO, reefers are the ones on the front lines creating interest in the oceans - and a desire to keep it healthy. We are the ones showing people our hobby - sharing our passion. We are backed up by the "big guns" of professional aquariums, scientists, and the media outlets that bring all of them to the fore. None of that comes without a cost, however. In order to educate the masses on the value of the ocean, the irony is that we must rip a part of it out and put it on display.

I can't defend the idea that we (aquarists) are efficient stewards of the ocean as we are today. I, personally, welcome anything that drives us to be better in that regard - whether it's comfortable for us or not. If this video ever gets made (and that's a big "if"), then I'll watch it. I will do my best to watch it with an open mind, to boot. Because if there's even one good idea that it contains - if there's even one thing that Snorkel Bob suggests that could improve the goals I outlined above - then I welcome that input. I'm not worried about any fallout, honestly. The number of governments, businesses, and organizations involved are too many and too massive; there's too much that would need to happen for things to make such a radical shift that reefing is no longer fun for me, personally.