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.