Recently Dr. Ron Shimek wrote a reflection piece for CORAL magazine on the proposed ban of 82 corals via the CBD. [For more information on the specifics of this proposal, see our previous coverage: 82 Coral Species Proposed for ESA listing.]Let me start by saying Dr. Shimek is a true educator and expert in the [...]
Recently Dr. Ron Shimek wrote a reflection piece for CORAL magazine on the proposed ban of 82 corals via the CBD. [For more information on the specifics of this proposal, see our previous coverage: 82 Coral Species Proposed for ESA listing.]Let me start by saying Dr. Shimek is a true educator and expert in the realm of marine aquaria, and one whom who all owe a debt of gratitude. His knowledge (particularly on the smaller side) of marine life is second to none; without his time and effort, countless questions of “what is that?!” would go unanswered.
CORAL magazine has pushed hard against the proposed coral ban. Perhaps the marine print stable is truly unbiased and independent ‘in fact’, however, their stance on the matter certainly does not come off as independent or unbiased in appearance–the economic viability of the magazine (and its advertisers) is directly linked to such legislature. If it were not for the response piece from Rhyne et. al that were simultaneously sent out in a mass e-mail yesterday and offered a different viewpoint on aquarium trade regulation, I think many would have stronger feelings on the matter. [Agree or disagree with any of the pieces written thus far, I do applaud CORAL for offering some different perspectives.]
Back to Shimek’s op ed piece…
CORAL rather carelessly titled their e-mail “Why We Really, Really Need Reef Aquariums” and states Shimek “proves the strongest possible argument” for not listing 82 coral species on the ESA. CORAL and Shimek are suggesting that aquariums are the the strongest possible argument for not listing corals as endangered species and that they offer an insurance-like product to the future of living corals; a credit default swap on scleratinia.
The probability distribution that average aquarists will keep corals alive for more than X years likely has some very fat tails! Mistakes happen, power outages occur, return pumps stop working and animals inevitably die. The rising % of live marine imports are a testament to our cyclical replacement of these animals–we are no caretakers of the reef. While aquarists have made significant strides in the care of marine life, in my opinion, it will be the scientists and public aquariums that will rise should nature come calling–that is if you believe in restitutive justice. Can aquarists contribute to this? Certainly, but in the face of the ESA listing, touting we should be allowed more training as a potential reserve ‘defense system’ is a tough play to pass. From the upcoming CORAL article:
“The reasons to regulate rather than ban collection are logical and valid, but there is another far more important reason for allowing the continued importation of reef creatures: that being the training of aquarists and the maintenance of a large pool (pardon the pun) of people who care deeply about coral reef animals and know how to take care of them.
In the last couple of decades, long strides have been made in aquarists’ abilities to maintain reef animals, and although the total variety of animals that are presently maintained is relatively small, in many of those cases, the organisms are maintained very well, indeed. Growth rates of some corals and other animals can equal or, in a few cases, exceed what occurs in nature, particularly in the systems of knowledgeable aquarists who know enough to disregard some of the persistent and idiotic hobbyist myths.”
I found Shimek’s piece of value for its explanation of carbon dioxide accumulation and the effect on the ocean. It was insightful and enjoyable to read–but alas, a tangent argument that does not fit directly within the confines of aquariums, the aquarium industry and the related ESA listing. And because I do not see private qaquariums as a refugium for live corals, it did little to back why the 82 species should not be listed. Afterall aquariums only contribute to CO2 emissions while also directly taking from the reef.
Behind nearly every coral in your aquarium, at the local pet store and at every wholesalers is a contrail of spent fuel. Contrails are the white vapor trails left by airplanes. Inside these ‘synthetic clouds’ are a mix of water, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides and heavy metals– implicit expenses against nature, and costs that we often forget are embedded in the tropical animals we keep. Their omission, to me, is peculiar when discussing the collection, import and sale of marine life; particularly when also referencing the future effects of ocean acidification due to CO2–and simultaneously mentioning the slight probability that reef aquariums may house the only surviving corals in 50 years. Acta sanctorum…
Comments are now closed for the CBD’s ESA petition and I can only hope they go well. I’m in agreement that the ban is inappropriate , but not because we really need aquariums. I believe it’s inappropriate because of the socio-economic implications and because regulations can be a more sustainable alternative. Ultimately Shimek briefly touched on these points, but the framing (e-mail title, foreword, etc.) of the piece overshadowed these points for me.
