JennM;667286 wrote: Actually, Curtis, there have been and are groups that have been trying to create an Unsuitable Species List for many years. There's one group that emails me regularly with their "updates". I have a lot of problems with their lists and how they come about - a lot of their stuff is not based on science or sustainability, and it's a huge task to come up with a set of criteria that can define "unsuitable".
Having said that, in the case of the cleaner wrasse, the study quoted presents a very strong case as to why this particular creature should be deemed unsuitable. Its absence is creating more problems than just its own absence.
There's a big difference between sustainable collection of specimens without a significant impact on the natural habitat, and clear evidence showing that collection (or over-collection) is having a detrimental effect. Now that this knowledge is out there, it behooves us to make more responsible and ethical choices, not just economic ones.
Once something is removed from the wild, it is ecologically dead whether it lives a day, a month or 20 years. There are ethical decisions made within the hobby and trade that can pertain to how long a creature is expected to make it in captivity, but those don't necessarily have a huge impact on the reefs if the remaining populations are stable and sustainable. That's just one part of the issue.
And many hobbyists and stores do make choices based on the chances of survival of a given creature and I encourage people to continue to do so.
The issue at hand with cleaner wrasses goes beyond just whether someone gets a good bang for their buck.
Jenn
