The Politics of Aquariculture

In 1973, the Nixon administration, working through the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) attempted to stop the importation of more than 95% of the fishes then being imported into the United States. This was done by proposing a “clean list” approach to control the numbers and species of fishes imported into the US. That is, any fishes not on an arbitrarily derived list of acceptable species would automatically be banned from importation. The proposed clean list contained only twenty-three species of freshwater fishes. Many of the species on the list were those that were readily available from domestic sources. The rest were those that accounted for the majority of the species then imported into the country. The common guppy (Poecilia reticulata), neon tetra (Paracheridon innesi), the angelfish (Pterophyllum scalare), etc. were on the list.

There were no marine (saltwater) species on the list, and there were no invertebrates, either freshwater or marine, on the list. It was assumed by the USFWS that the U.S. aquarium hobby would survive just fine on such a slim list of legal species. There was an immediate and loud out cry from aquarists, both amateur and professional. After a handful of public meetings, at which the USFWS sought reaction to the proposed rules, there was finally a reversal, and the idea of a clean list was dropped.

The author (JFK), working with local aquarists as well as with industry and hobby leaders throughout the U.S. petitioned for and got a public meeting called for Kansas City, Missouri. According to those who had attended one or more of the other meetings, this one meeting was the only one at which the majority of those who spoke favored the abandonment of the clean list approach. There were those in the hobby and industry who actually believed that the USFWS would put an end to the aquarium hobby in the U.S.

The coming together of hobby and industry leaders in Kansas City resulted in the formation of the Federation of American Aquarium Societies (FAAS). FAAS still exists, but its focus has shifted, somewhat, away from the necessity of defending the existence of the hobby to one of promoting aquarium societies around the country (http://www.tomgriffin.com/FAAS/). The pet industry, with the guidance of the movers and shakers in the aquarium industry formed the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC), another organization that exists today, and which still defends the existence of the pet industry while working with government and non-governmental agencies in improving the industry.

It was at this time that the odious term “ornamental fish” came into use. It was obvious that if a hobby and, especially, an industry can be thought of as ornamental, that it is not important. After all, an ornament is something usually seen as frivolous. The aquarium industry certainly is not frivolous.

The correct approach for the prevention of the importation of environmentally undesirable species is to let the individual states make the determinations and to issue dirty list of prohibited species. This is the situation now in the U.S. For instance, the importation of pike cichlids (Crenicichla species) is prohibited into Texas. Florida and California prohibit the importation of species of piranhas (Serrasalminae), while New York has no such prohibition.

In the 1970s, the big concern was the walking catfish, Clarius batrachus, and its relatives. Many states in the U.S. discovered this fish within their native waters. Many, including northern states, banned these fish from being further imported. It turned out that this species did not become the environmental scourge it was feared it would be. During this time, of course, species that were not commonly kept in aquariums but which were prized by food fish farmers and sport fisherpersons have become real environmental nightmares. Fishes such as the grass carp (Ctenopharygeodon idella) was busy crossing state borders and causing serious environmental damage in the 1980s. The grass carp was not an aquarium species; instead it was imported, spawned, and stocked in ponds to control unwanted vegetation. I have warned scores of bass fishing groups that to install grass carps in their favorite lakes and ponds would be a disaster. Mary later reported that these bodies of water became mud holes and the bass stopped growing and spawning due to loss of suitable submerges vegetation. The stocking was done with the goal of improving recreational use of lakes and ponds. I the past few years the bighead carp, Hypophthalmichthys nobilis (Richardson, 1845), has become such a problem that boaters on the rivers (e.g. Missouri and Mississippi) where they are now well established are sometimes smacked in the head by bighead carp shoals startled by the noise of a boat motor.

Recently the importation of snakeheads (family, Channidae) from Asia and Africa for both food and aquarium purposes has been banned. These fishes are considered desirable food fish, and are heavily exploited for this purpose in Asian countries. A few species such as the redline snakehead, Channa micropeltes, are imported in modest numbers for the aquarium hobby. Recent headlines have referred to this fish as the “Frankenfish”, and at the 2002 meeting of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, the bulletin boards outside the meeting rooms had headlines from at least three different newspapers. The snakeheads, of course, were a topic of discussion at the session where exotic species were discussed. The newspaper articles sparked all kinds of comments from radio personalities and comedians. One concerned Missourian called a wholesaler of marine fishes in Kansas City (Musgrave, 2002) to ask, “If an alligator gar and a snakehead were put together, which would kick which one’s ass?”

Meanwhile, tilapia (Oreochromis and Sarotherodon species) are being cultured in the U.S. as food fishes. These same animals are a definite problem where they have become established in non-native waters (e.g. Florida and Texas). Aquarium species have become established in various waters in the southern states (e.g. Florida and Texas) and their presences are a major problem for the environment. The singling out of aquarium species for importation control is easy and because they are considered to be “ornamental” rather than useful there is little political sympathy, by state and federal governments, for easing off on their control.

Environmental responsibility, by aquarium and pond keepers, will be stressed throughout this book. Any person who thinks that it would be a good idea to release their aquarium fishes into a nearby stream, pond or lake is misguided. Some people think it is more humane to release an unwanted fish into a nearby body of water rather than destroying it. The fact is, once a fish has been purchased, it is now and forever the responsibility of that person who acquired it. This will often mean that a cute little pacu (Colosoma nigripinnis) that becomes a three-foot long monster must be maintained for the two or more decades it will live in captivity.

(an exerpt from the MS of Aquariculture: a Hacker's Guide to Aquarium and Pond Keeping)

Ornamental Fishes? Really? Ornamental?

This is a response I sent to Tim Miller-Morgan in Oregon as a reply to why I object so strongly to the use of the term "ornamental fishes" when, in fact, "aquarium fishes" is the correct term:

I have been a professional since 1965. I have seen the aquarium hobby and industry threatened by any number of governmental agencies (e.g. USFWS). In the first case in the ‘70s when the Lacey Act was used in an attempt to sharply curtail the industry, the term “ornamental” came into official governmental use. It was an attempt to make our industry appear to be something less than the food fish industry. The aquarium industry is an economic giant. The term “ornamental” makes it appear as it if is “decorative”, or “frivolous” and therefore certainly not important.

Why not say, “aquarium fishes”, “aquarium industry”, “aquarium fish hobbyists”, “aquarium fish professionals”, etc.? Words are powerful. I think it shows disrespect for our profession and hobby to use the term, “ornamental.” The term “pet fish” is only marginally better, but certainly no more descriptive. The aquarium fishes in my laboratory aquariums or the ones in any research facility anywhere in the world are neither “ornamental”, nor “pets.” They are still aquarium fishes. My participation as the only for-profit facility involved in the Lake Victoria Cichlids Species Survival Program was not one of breeding and studying “ornamental” or “pet” fishes, the eight highly endangered species I maintained were aquarium fishes.

Aquarium and Pond Industry/Hobby and the Environment

Our planet is under siege and its environment is being changed, possibly irrevocably, in such a way that species diversity is being lost at an unprecedented rate. The aquarium hobby has been, and can be expected to continue to be, a target of various animal rights and environmental groups. Aquarists are some of the most ardent environmentalists and conservationists. The ranks of prominent environmentalists and conservationists surely are replete with former and current aquarists. To suspect that aquarists are not supporters of animals’ rights is equally wrong headed. Aquarium hobbyists are not likely to be seen dressing animals in pants so the animals’ genitals are hidden from view, but they certainly should be aware that the animals they keep are worthy of the utmost respect.
As the aquarium hobby comes under increasing pressure from organized groups with great power, concerned aquarists must make ever effort to keep our hobby alive. We must protect the sustaining populations of fishes (even those which are of little or no interest as aquarium inhabitants) and other animals and plants to foster a wider understanding of our hobby and to become better global citizens. We as aquarists must, as the old saying goes, think globally but act locally. These practices will accomplish what is needed for proper aquarium and pond care while promoting re-use, recycling, minimizing impact on fragile natural resources, conservation, species survival or minimizing air and/or water pollution.

In aquariculture the problems start at the sites where our fishes and other aquatic animals are collected. That is, where they are removed from their natural environments. About two-thirds of the freshwater fishes entering the aquarium hobby world wide are raised on farms or in hatcheries and are often many generations away from their original, wild-caught parental stock. Conversely, the majority of marine species are wild-caught and the majority of those are from so called Third World countries. Collecting habits in the industry, in some of these countries, are often as primitive as they were 50 years ago. There is still a persistent problem with the use of cyanide collecting of marine reef fishes. Regardless of the collecting methods used to acquire wild fishes and other aquatic animals, the treatment of the collect animals after collecting is possibly the worst part of the collecting process. The holding and transport of the collected animals is recognized by scientists and hobbyists who have studies the problems to have the largest effect on the ultimate survivability of the animals. A target of 1% loss, or less, on a world-wide basis for wild-caught fishes is an achievable goal, but the industry, especially in the US, has essentially refused to try to achieve such a goal. Few even acknowledge that the goal is desirable.

At the second International Aquariology Congress (IAC) in Monaco in 1989, I presented the first public report on the research I had done on the product ClorAm-X, and its importance to the conservation of fishes. My presentation before the gathered professionals, primarily from public aquariums and zoos, took very little notice. Meanwhile, the aquarium industry and hobby quietly incorporated use of the product into their standard practices and now there are few public aquariums which do not, or have not, used it. At the first IAC, 20 years before, Jacques Cousteau had sounded the alarms I reprised in my paper. I presented a practical way to stop the losses of which Cousteau originally spoke.
I'd like to hear from you about the problems, and their solutions, associated with the collecting, holding and transporting fishes and other aquatic animals for the aquarium and pond trade and hobby. Please comment of what steps you're taking and what research you're doing.

Aquariculture: A Hacker's Guide

For nearly twenty years, my friends, colleagues and family have been gently pushing me to write an “aquarium book.” I suspect the push was gentle because they knew I was resistant to the idea of devoting the time and energy to a project with so little potential for an adequate return. I have always been passionate about the aquarium hobby and the availability of scientifically sound and tested advice. I have always been concerned about the plethora of aquarium books that present themselves as solid information sources when they are, in fact, often no more than a reworking of the same old and inaccurate information. I have often paraphrased Stephen J. Gould in this manner, “the advance of aquarium knowledge is hindered less by factual lacks than by conceptual locks”. Conceptual locks are all over the aquascape.
Instead of a book (which may eventually happen) I have chosen to create this blog. Throughout this blog, I intend to present a wide range of topics, all of which are related directly to aquarium art and science.

In 1979, I coined the term aquariculture to describe this art and science of aquarium keeping: The term was used as the title of an international, scientific journal covering aquarium science and technology that I edited and published along with my wife. The original title was The Journal of Aquariculture but was eventually changed to Journal of Aquariculture & Aquatic Sciences. JAAS ceased publishing in 2000.

I have been an aquarium hobbyist for the majority of my life and I have been involved in the aquarium business for more than half of my life. To create this blog on a subject that is an integral part of my life is to finally layout, for all to see, my principles and beliefs, and to invite criticism. I will keep the exposition of my personal beliefs to a bare minimum, but I will included them as necessary to make points about the practical art of aquarium and pond keeping.

I will always try to lay out the hard, provable science for those aspects of aquariculture that are in little doubt. Unfortunately, these simple facts are often the most frequently misunderstood and endlessly speculated upon by aquarists and pond keepers. Some of this blog’s content will be viewed by some readers as too technical, or too scientific. The field of aquariculture has suffered from a plethora of books, magazine articles and, of course, internet postings that have glossed over, dumbed down, or incorrectly presented its underlying principles. For those aspects that have been little studied by science I have provided the blog followers with as much information as possible to guide conclusions or, at least, to give the push needed to further study. Those aspects of aquariculture that are not prone to study and quantification are what I call the art. One only need read and study to become a successful aquarist or pondkeeper. The basic science is known, and can serve as a simple recipe for success. To become an accomplished aquarist or pondkeeper one needs experience in the application of the science and art. First, be a scientist and then an engineer. As with most endeavors the scientist and engineer working together produce the best results.