What is your Most desired fish if Hawaii Ban is lifted?

[areefer01]

Would you buy a 100,000 car and then put a 25,000 part on it? With no warranty? And that part was 5000 a few years ago?

Price of the vehicle doesn't matter as people do this all the time. Cars are a huge hobby be it restoration, HPED, drag, SCCA, and more. Take a new car off the lot, modify it in the slightest, warranty is over. Been there and done that.

 

[VanDalsenReef]

Kole tangs

 

[Northern Flicker]

Would you buy a 100,000 car and then put a 25,000 part on it? With no warranty? And that part was 5000 a few years ago?

Again, I’m not against Biota in any way and I do think what they are doing is great. The 900$ price tag on a 150$ Fish was extreme to me. Biota has chimed in and said the program is in infancy and they expect price to drop to 250 in the future. Perfectly reasonable to me

If I was wealthy enough to afford a 100k car and cars were my main hobby, I don't see why not?

It's an animal after all, not a part. Not saying I would pay it, but I don't get the blowback. Biota is the only one breeding them and the project is still young, I don't think it's fair for people to go after them for pricing. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it and they would be less expensive.

I have a harder time accepting $1300 CAD for a Radion personally. Biota has a good mission, Bertram is just a business with obvious goals not tied to causes which matter to me as a reefer.

It's a great discussion, though. The more we support the CB market, the more financial support @Biota_Marine and others will have to produce enough fish to drive down prices. Then we all win

 

[PharmrJohn]

Chevron Tang and Potters Angelfish.

 

[Tamberav]

Potters angel at $300ish or less.

 

[56longroof]

For me it would be a Potter's angel and a Chevron tang. Price would be a huge factor. If the ban is lifted to some extent I'd imagine astronomical prices until the demand subsided.

 

[MarineandReef Jaron]

Where is this coming from?

I don't think Biota or anyone else has said anything to the contrary. Some of us prefer not to remove wild animals from the wild for our own entertainment, but that's a decision we make. There are so many upsides to captive breeding, and really the only downside is that individuals must be willing to pay a bit more (for now).

Using deer as an example is not a fair comparison, as deer overpopulate regions and become pests, while our decorative fish (outside of Lions and a few select others) are not needing intervention due to them becoming pests in their environment. Animals don't exist so you can harvest them, and comparing species that require control or are being used for food, with species that are being captured for a luxury hobby is not a good comparison.

There are a lot of moral and ethical assumptions going into your response that show that you subscribe to a moral framework that I do not. I don't want to get into a philosophical discussion here. I only want to state that for many people taking an animal from the wild is not inherently morally wrong.

The belief that it is wrong is founded on a specific theory of morality and rights that a lot of people don't subscribe to.

What I do hope I can do is stand up for those who like me, are often told we don't care about the environment or animal conservation because we don't have the same theory of animal rights. This is a baseless accusation.

Many people love nature, including the corals reefs and are interested in preserving the reefs for future generations to enjoy but do not feel that fish or other animals have an inherent right to life or right to property/home the way a human being does.

To bring this back to the topic in this thread. For the many who think like I do, there is no selling point in a fish being captive-bred for the sake of it not being taken from the wild. The selling points are that the fish is well adapted to captivity or is presumable cheaper than it would be wild collected. Given that many captive-bred fish are more expensive than the same fish would be wild collected and that many of the species adapt to captivity relatively easily many consumers conclude that they would rather purchase wild-collected fish.

 

[Northern Flicker]

There are a lot of moral and ethical assumptions going into your response that show that you subscribe to a moral framework that I do not. I don't want to get into a philosophical discussion here. I only want to state that for many people taking an animal from the wild is not inherently morally wrong.

The belief that it is wrong is founded on a specific theory of morality and rights that a lot of people don't subscribe to.

What I do hope I can do is stand up for those who like me, are often told we don't care about the environment or animal conservation because we don't have the same theory of animal rights. This is a baseless accusation.

Many people love nature, including the corals reefs and are interested in preserving the reefs for future generations to enjoy but do not feel that fish or other animals have an inherent right to life or right to property/home the way a human being does.

To bring this back to the topic in this thread. For the many who think like I do, there is no selling point in a fish being captive-bred for the sake of it not being taken from the wild. The selling points are that the fish is well adapted to captivity or is presumable cheaper than it would be wild collected. Given that many captive-bred fish are more expensive than the same fish would be wild collected and that many of the species adapt to captivity relatively easily many consumers conclude that they would rather purchase wild-collected fish.

I don't think anyone here has said that - this feels like a target you've painted on yourself in the context of this conversation.

There is no question that the vast majority of the population of the world agrees with you, not the other way around. I've seen so many fish die in the supply chain from poor care or cyanide collection it would make your head spin! But it doesn't stop many from buying wild, even knowing those facts.

I agree with your other comment though; we definitely do disagree on how we view other animals. I think you have a fair point of view, but I do not think you need to confuse a discussion about animals we keep for entertainment with issues like pest deer - these two things are not comparable and I think you will find only the most irrational would want to allow white tails or boars to wipe out ecosystems. Taking wild caught fish so you can watch them in your living room is a separate conversation, and we likely will never see eye to eye on it and that's ok. I am not trying to take away anyone's right to make that decision for themselves.

 

[Biota_Marine]

There are a lot of moral and ethical assumptions going into your response that show that you subscribe to a moral framework that I do not. I don't want to get into a philosophical discussion here. I only want to state that for many people taking an animal from the wild is not inherently morally wrong.

The belief that it is wrong is founded on a specific theory of morality and rights that a lot of people don't subscribe to.

What I do hope I can do is stand up for those who like me, are often told we don't care about the environment or animal conservation because we don't have the same theory of animal rights. This is a baseless accusation.

Many people love nature, including the corals reefs and are interested in preserving the reefs for future generations to enjoy but do not feel that fish or other animals have an inherent right to life or right to property/home the way a human being does.

To bring this back to the topic in this thread. For the many who think like I do, there is no selling point in a fish being captive-bred for the sake of it not being taken from the wild. The selling points are that the fish is well adapted to captivity or is presumable cheaper than it would be wild collected. Given that many captive-bred fish are more expensive than the same fish would be wild collected and that many of the species adapt to captivity relatively easily many consumers conclude that they would rather purchase wild-collected fish.

Apologies if I came off that way in any of my responses as it's not my intention to do so. I fully agree in sustainable wild collection which is why supporting progress in animal care and capture are some of the examples I gave. There previously were programs like MAC certifications which unfortunately no longer exists. Many are out there doing the correct thing but typically that comes at an increased cost and within the boundry of this hobby as you can see changes of pricing are generally percieved as an attack on the hobby or limits on fish availability. This can be due to a collection cap, seasonal restrictions, capture type, ect.

My comments in this thread are simply to let many of those commenting that the pricing of a yellow tang is $1000+ that they're really $165 and readily available or that somehow they're different from their wild counterparts when time and time we've proven they aren't. Also that we're happy to fill niche within the industry especially for difficult to keep or acquire animals.

Relative ease of adaption to a new environment can vary by species or even by expertise level of hobbyist. We find that especially hobbyist that are new prefer to buy captive-bred because they don't have to go through a lengthy QT process or trial and error on prepared diets that more advanced hobbyists are fine with doing.

Apologies if my thoughts came off otherwise, I kept aquariums and worked at fish stores for many years prior to working with Biota and see myself as a hobbyist first and foremost.

 

[Northern Flicker]

Apologies if I came off that way in any of my responses as it's not my intention to do so. I fully agree in sustainable wild collection which is why supporting progress in animal care and capture are some of the examples I gave. There previously were programs like MAC certifications which unfortunately no longer exists. Many are out there doing the correct thing but typically that comes at an increased cost and within the boundry of this hobby as you can see changes of pricing are generally percieved as an attack on the hobby or limits on fish availability. This can be due to a collection cap, seasonal restrictions, capture type, ect.

My comments in this thread are simply to let many of those commenting that the pricing of a yellow tang is $1000+ that they're really $165 and readily available or that somehow they're different from their wild counterparts when time and time we've proven they aren't. Also that we're happy to fill niche within the industry especially for difficult to keep or acquire animals.

Relative ease of adaption to a new environment can vary by species or even by expertise level of hobbyist. We find that especially hobbyist that are new prefer to buy captive-bred because they don't have to go through a lengthy QT process or trial and error on prepared diets that more advanced hobbyists are fine with doing.

Apologies if my thoughts came off otherwise, I kept aquariums and worked at fish stores for many years prior to working with Biota and see myself as a hobbyist first and foremost.

You rep Biota well, Jake!

 

[Kathy Floyd]

There are a lot of moral and ethical assumptions going into your response that show that you subscribe to a moral framework that I do not. I don't want to get into a philosophical discussion here. I only want to state that for many people taking an animal from the wild is not inherently morally wrong.

The belief that it is wrong is founded on a specific theory of morality and rights that a lot of people don't subscribe to.

What I do hope I can do is stand up for those who like me, are often told we don't care about the environment or animal conservation because we don't have the same theory of animal rights. This is a baseless accusation.

Many people love nature, including the corals reefs and are interested in preserving the reefs for future generations to enjoy but do not feel that fish or other animals have an inherent right to life or right to property/home the way a human being does.

To bring this back to the topic in this thread. For the many who think like I do, there is no selling point in a fish being captive-bred for the sake of it not being taken from the wild. The selling points are that the fish is well adapted to captivity or is presumable cheaper than it would be wild collected. Given that many captive-bred fish are more expensive than the same fish would be wild collected and that many of the species adapt to captivity relatively easily many consumers conclude that they would rather purchase wild-collected fish.

While I am not a fish rescuer, I am a parrot rescuer. I'm going to play devil's advocate here. Taking ANY animal from the wild is wrong! What gives human that right to do so? Because they can? Entitlement? Greed? Simple pleasure?
What's wrong with this picture. You may feel it not be morally wrong, but it should be ethically wrong. Why don't fish or any animal have the right to life the way a human does? What if someone possessed you and took you out of your home? Instead of it's just a fish, why would it not be considered, just a human?
Fish breathe, we breathe, although differently. Both needed to sustain life.

Do fish really adapt to captivity after being caught? Look at killer whales. Do they do well in a swimming pool? Did you ever see the size of their pool versus the parking lot? Have you seen the size of the ocean versus a fish tank. Ever really think about why convict tangs don't really do well in captivity overall?

I'm not looking for a debate or bashing, and sorry to get off the original topic, but I would hope that more humans would have more empathy overall.

 

[Mattiejay6]

Flame wrasse!!!!

 

[VintageReefer]

If I was wealthy enough to afford a 100k car and cars were my main hobby, I don't see why not?

It's an animal after all, not a part. Not saying I would pay it, but I don't get the blowback. Biota is the only one breeding them and the project is still young, I don't think it's fair for people to go after them for pricing. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it and they would be less expensive.

I have a harder time accepting $1300 CAD for a Radion personally

I get it and there is a market for everything. We have people that are well off and can afford the 100k car, but wouldn’t spend another 25k to customize it. And we have very well off people who buy the 100k car and wouldn’t think twice about dropping another 50 on it.

I didn’t know the program was young and price was high due to the early stage it’s in. I applaud biota for their efforts and commitment to get prices down to the $250 area.

 

[Naekuh]

definitely potters angel... however i am done stocking my tank..

I am not going to do any more new additions, because i tore down my QT tank, and i probably am too lazy to set it up again.

Also my fishes are all healthy and my system is scrubbed clean because it was started fresh, and with QT, so i am not gonna make the noobish mistake i did last time by dropping in a power blue tang.. or any other chromis/anthias and have Ich, or Uro nuke my tank.

 

[Gumbies R Us]

Flame wrasse!!!!

Ooooo that would be a good one to have!

 

[sky414]

Mine is now 5 years old

Where'd you get your yellow tang from?

 

[areefer01]

While I am not a fish rescuer, I am a parrot rescuer. I'm going to play devil's advocate here. Taking ANY animal from the wild is wrong! What gives human that right to do so? Because they can? Entitlement? Greed? Simple pleasure?
What's wrong with this picture. You may feel it not be morally wrong, but it should be ethically wrong. Why don't fish or any animal have the right to life the way a human does? What if someone possessed you and took you out of your home? Instead of it's just a fish, why would it not be considered, just a human?
Fish breathe, we breathe, although differently. Both needed to sustain life.

Do fish really adapt to captivity after being caught? Look at killer whales. Do they do well in a swimming pool? Did you ever see the size of their pool versus the parking lot? Have you seen the size of the ocean versus a fish tank. Ever really think about why convict tangs don't really do well in captivity overall?

I'm not looking for a debate or bashing, and sorry to get off the original topic, but I would hope that more humans would have more empathy overall.

It comes down to scale. The onus is on the hobbyist to provide the best possible environment for the fish and coral to thrive. Thrive is live as close to their estimated life span in the wild to include spawning. On a simple level that is what we should all strive for.

Regarding the rest I'll stay out of that lane. I understand your perspective. By the way some people laugh when they hear "parrot or bird" rescue. Ill trained or ignorant owners of their needs is one thing. What people often overlook or do not know is that parrots can outlive their owners. I've read stories, and have known, this to happen and the estate (family) doesn't know what to do with the animal after.

Why did I add that last part - great job on doing the rescue. It is noble in my opinion. Second is that we should all in this hobby have a letter to a loved one for this very reason. Reefs can outlive us if properly take care of. Some fish over 20 years. Nothing more than having something go unexpectedly and we can't care for our systems. That love letter, on what to do, how it runs, estimated cost, worth, etc, could make those we leave behind less stress...

Hope your day is well.

 

[vetteguy53081]

Where'd you get your yellow tang from?

Mine from LFS in 2018 and early 2019

 

[PharmrJohn]

Would you buy a 100,000 car and then put a 25,000 part on it? With no warranty? And that part was 5000 a few years ago?

Again, I’m not against Biota in any way and I do think what they are doing is great. The 900$ price tag on a 150$ Fish was extreme to me. Biota has chimed in and said the program is in infancy and they expect price to drop to 250 in the future. Perfectly reasonable to me

I MIGHT be able to convince my wife that 250 is cool. But 9 bills? She'd make that decision for me. LOL, and I would listen! Hey! I've been with her x37 years.....I know when to push and when to RUN!

 

[OrionN]

Apologies if I came off that way in any of my responses as it's not my intention to do so. I fully agree in sustainable wild collection which is why supporting progress in animal care and capture are some of the examples I gave. There previously were programs like MAC certifications which unfortunately no longer exists. Many are out there doing the correct thing but typically that comes at an increased cost and within the boundry of this hobby as you can see changes of pricing are generally percieved as an attack on the hobby or limits on fish availability. This can be due to a collection cap, seasonal restrictions, capture type, ect.

My comments in this thread are simply to let many of those commenting that the pricing of a yellow tang is $1000+ that they're really $165 and readily available or that somehow they're different from their wild counterparts when time and time we've proven they aren't. Also that we're happy to fill niche within the industry especially for difficult to keep or acquire animals.

Relative ease of adaption to a new environment can vary by species or even by expertise level of hobbyist. We find that especially hobbyist that are new prefer to buy captive-bred because they don't have to go through a lengthy QT process or trial and error on prepared diets that more advanced hobbyists are fine with doing.

Apologies if my thoughts came off otherwise, I kept aquariums and worked at fish stores for many years prior to working with Biota and see myself as a hobbyist first and foremost.

I am not in the market for a yellow tang, but if I am, I would not hesitate at all to buy from Biota.