Are Aquaria Good For Wildlife Conservation?

[Joe Cross]

By Joe Cross. Big Blue Scuba School, Cheshire


For many years people have argued over whether aquariums and zoos still have a part to play in wildlife conservation. This argument has been highlighted in resent years with documentaries such as The Cove and Black Fish. In the UK all zoos and aquariums have to have a zoo licence to operate. This licence can be split into 3 key components outlining what an establishment has to do to obtain and keep one of these licences. They have to educate visitors, conserve wildlife and have a high standard of living for the animals living in the establishment.


Wildlife conservation


Zoo’s have made great progress when it comes to conservation of wild animals, although there has been a bias towards mammals as 50% of projects focus on this group whereas fish are largely unrepresented. It has also been found that most projects looking at conserving wild animals would not be financially viable without the financial support provided by zoo and aquaria. The problem comes when you think about the nature of these aquaria and zoo’s. As all of these establishments are business or charities they have their own brand image to push and have to look at their own success. It has been suggested by researchers looking into zoo and aquaria wildlife impact that due to the relatively small amounts of money invested into wildlife conservation they would have more impact if they calibrated together to work on these conservation projects.


As well as research undertaken in the wild aquaria also have to take animals from the wild in order to fill their tanks (it has been estimated that this could be up to 79% of animals in British aquaria). This includes species such as the Regal Tang famous for its appearance in Finding Nemo and Finding Dory. These movies inevitably raise interest in having these species as pets and demand increases. This wasn't a problem with Finding Nemo as researchers have successfully managed to breed these species in captivity. Regal Tang on the other hand have not had much success in the way of captive breeding. Though aquaria did have campaigns saying don't catch Dory in time for the release of the movie, the full impact of this campaign is not yet analysed as the movie is still unavailable at home and therefore the full data set is not yet collected.


Education


Aquaria are a hot spot for school trips, family day outs and marine enthusiasts but are their eduction efforts up to scratch and do people make meaningful changes to their lifestyle after visiting one of these establishments? It has been well researched that in order to gain a visitors interest the exhibits must be engaging. Zoos and aquaria have worked on this by offering visitors a variety of resources to attract them such as touch pools (inverts only in the UK), smells, music, theming and information boards. All these tools are designed to leave lasting impressions on visitors in the hope that they enjoy what they see and also make an impression on how they see aquatic life going forward. Aquariums often also have shows where a member of the aquarium team has the opportunity to talk about the animals, educate people about the species and keep it interesting by feeding them. Sharks have for a long time struggled with an image problem which has been a contributing factor to their extreme fall in numbers for many years. During one of these talks you are likely to hear about the relatively low numbers of deaths that sharks are responsible for. This will only make a difference if the person that hears this information does something about it such as supporting shark eco tourism or by donating to a charity that supports preventing threats against sharks. It won’t influence all the people who hear the talk but it will influence some.


However, it is often considered by certain environmentalists that people don't go to aquaria to be educated they go to be entertained and they argue that the education is falling a deaf ears. As I said earlier you won’t change everyones opinions but hopefully you can change a few. The other problem is whether the information given at aquaria is accurate. In general the information given is not taken from peer reviewed journals and staff like to give there own spin on talks so the information can vary. However I would say that the information comes from a person who cares about the animals they work with and is unlikely to give you a negative impression of the animals.


So what is your opinion on aquaria? Comment below and let us know.

 

[TMHeimer]

I think the answer is pretty simple. They can be educational, interesting, etc. and a way for adults as well as children to see things they probably would never otherwise see. So yes, like zoos, they can be helpful to the Wildlife cause. Just not helpful for those animals in there.

 

[drrich2]

If you want to conserve something via methods costly to some (e.g.: put fishermen out of work, raise the price of seafood by mandating less efficient harvesting methods, outlaw some popular items), you've got to make them aware of and value it.

My personal view; diving with something & beholding it 1st hand 'on equal terms in its home environment' is most impactful, followed by beholding it 1st hand 'but through glass' at a public aquarium, finally followed by watching a program on t.v.

With the huge # of options to watch on t.v., I mainly watch DVR recordings of favorite series, so I probably wouldn't know a reef-related show was on t.v., so I wouldn't watch it. But taking our 4-year old to an aquarium or zoo on a family day out has strong appeal.

Richard.

 

[agilis]

A more valid question: Is scuba diving good for wildlife conservation? Every place I've seen that has been regularly dived over has deteriorated. Most aquarium fish, including many salt water species, are captive bred. The destruction caused by scuba diving is readily demonstrable. Collecting wild fishes for aquaria does not seem to have anything approaching the same negative effect. To argue that scuba diving makes people more likely to act in a manner that is more environmentally friendly than if they had not dived has no basis in observable fact and seems to run contrary to human nature. I'm reasonably confident that if all divers had stayed home the reefs would be in far better condition than they are. Whatever wild areas are left in US coastal waters require protection from divers. I've been both a diver and an aquarist for many decades.

 

[tilikum]

I agree with Agillis. The world needs fewer divers and the dive industry is a root cause reef destruction.

 

[PatW]

I agree with Agillis. The world needs fewer divers and the dive industry is a root cause reef destruction.

I would respectfully disagree. You can look at Little Cayman as a case study. Quite some time ago, the Tibbetts family saw the potential of recreational diving as a driver of the out islands economies. In order to have good diving, you need reefs and fish. To further that end, marine sanctuaries were set up. When diving and healthy reefs benefit the locals economically, there is an incentive to protect the reefs. Reefs are degrading, but there are local efforts to protect them that would not exist without recreational diving.

 

[tridacna]

Politely disagree with Agilis. For years, local natives have dynamited the reefs and used cyanide to poison the reefs for fish collection purposes. Corals were ripped up and transported to aquarium shops. (Ameliorated somewhat today by modern aquaculture). The destructive results were unbelievable. I saw it first hand in the Marshall Islands. There was (and still is) a huge industry collecting live rock from many reef sites for reef tanks. Such practices are enormously damaging to the reefs.

Agilis suggests that fish are now bred specifically for aquaria trade. True - but only a few hardy species like Percula. The rest are all captured mostly in the Indo Pacific and Red Sea and have incredibly low survival rates when transported back to Europe and the USA.

I guess being able to identify most fish and coral species when diving is one of the benefits I derived from my reef tank hobby.

 

[drrich2]

IIRC, Palau protects sharks as their value to dive tourism is much higher than as a food source.

Some years back, I read that what turned things around for the Australian saltwater crocodile was finding ways to make them profitable - crocodile farms I think did the trick. There was a time in the U.S. that the American alligator was in trouble; now it seems like there are plenty, and you can attend gator wrestling shows, view them from Everglades airboats, eat 'gator nuggets' and have alligator hide clothing.

And you know one of the prime special interests committed to the conservation of U.S. wetlands and duck populations? Ducks Unlimited, started by sportsmen and I believe a portion of their membership continues to happily blow ducks out of the sky year after year (and they're committed to making sure there are ducks to blow out of the sky).

Finding ways to make a natural resource worth money to somebody is key to preserving it.

I get the idealistic 'purist' view that the best way to preserve something is to 'rope it off' and forbid human violation of the preserve, but human beings are over-populated, run things and tend to be self-serving. Your preservation strategy has to offer them something.

Public aquaria (& zoos) are a way that people get to enjoy the natural world closer to home, without flying overseas and whipping around on a safari jeep or diving the depths. They raise awareness.

Richard.

 

[RyanT]

I strongly agree with @agilis. Here's the rub though. I'm a diver, therefore, I can't in good conscious tell someone else not to dive. @PatW also makes a good point, that when done properly, diving can provide some incentive for marine protection. On the issue of public aquariums for education, I don't have a good sense at how effective they are for education/conservation. Regardless of their effectiveness, I don't have any issues with public aquariums. Given the relatively small number of them, their impact on our marine systems is pretty minimal. Home aquariums, are much more destructive as the number of fish and invertebrates the are harvested for the industry is huge. The destruction to reefs both physically and from over-harvest is pretty well documented.

 

[tridacna]

There is a diner on Rt 22 in Union NJ close to where me and Agilis reside. They have a marine aquarium that I call "The Killing Field". Nothing lasts longer than a week. Everything is replaced or replenished on a weekly basis. They must kill about 10-12 fish every week. Kaching for the supply chain. Store doesn't care - it's a wall hanging as far as they're concerned. Ditto for these POS tanks in car-washes, dentist's offices and big buildings. I understand and support local public aquaria. Animal husbandry is top notch.

Some aquarists, I was one of them, really know how to care for their animals. Most do not. I could go on for hours about how I think that you should have to "qualify" to own a reef tank...