几年前，我在当地报纸上读了一篇相当不讨人喜欢的专题文章，内容涉及礁石业余爱好及其对自然珊瑚礁的影响。要说这件作品有偏见，经过恐惧的研究，并且完全不受支持会使它温和。简而言之，作者的观点是，我们的水族馆业余爱好者只是野蛮的世界礁石，因此我们可以用漂亮的珊瑚和鱼来装饰坦克。
As is so often the case in “journalism” today, confirmation bias was on full display in this article. It was readily apparent that the author began with a conclusion (reefkeepers bad!) and worked his way backward, only bothering to include information that supported his preconceived narrative while omitting counterarguments or anything resembling context. I don’t recall that he even bothered to seek insights from local hobbyists or dealers.
当然，没有提及在业余爱好中分享戏剧的角色，也没有提及只能使用圈养的珊瑚和鱼类就可以非常令人满意地储备礁石系统的事实。这位不知情的读者很可能会以我们作为零和游戏的爱好的概念（即，在业余爱好者坦克中出现的每一个珊瑚都等于陷入困境的珊瑚礁中的珊瑚色。
这只是“海洋 - 大党 - 环境 - 梅尼”模因的一个例子。在任何时候，鱼类或其他海洋生物都出现在其自然范围之外的任何地方时，也会出现同样的叙述。例如，以当前的lion鱼入侵of the western Atlantic, Caribbean Sea, and Gulf of Mexico—an ecological disaster of epic proportions, to be sure. I just recently watched a documentary on this phenomenon that was quite interesting but also produced in me a twinge of irritation when the narrator endeavored to explain the source of the invasion.
The first theory he put forth was (naturally) the release of specimens by aquarium hobbyists. A few other possibilities were given brief mention, but despite acknowledging that we don’t know with any degree of certainty how the invasion actually began, the default stance seemed to be release by hobbyists.
现在，明确的是，这种入侵的责任确实在于不负责任的同伴爱好者，他们释放了他们不再能够管理或不再持有兴趣的标本。据我了解，DNA测试表明，侵入性人口可以追溯到少数标本，因此，业余爱好者的释放 - 是故意的还是偶然的（例如，当据报道，当南佛罗里达州的一个私人水族馆在1992年被飓风Andrew Back摧毁时，允许一小群lion鱼逃到比斯坎湾） - 似乎是一个非常合理的结论。
But surely there’s more than one way for a small number of lionfish to find their way into non-native waters. Isn’t it also possible, for instance, that an unscrupulous dive operator intentionally released some specimens in order to offer his/her clientele a “unique” underwater attraction and get a leg up on the competition (another explanation that’s been floated)? I’m certainly not saying that’s the case (so, fellow divers, please don’t barrage me with hate mail); I’m just trying to point out that there are other, equally feasible explanations. What sticks in my craw is the knee-jerk reaction of “Aquarists must have done it!” to every marine environmental mishap.
Where does this mentality come from? As I see it, there are a few factors that tend to put our hobby in the crosshairs. Among them:
- We can’t dispute that there are certain environmentally regrettable practices associated with our hobby. For example, the fact that cyanide collection of fish continues in some parts of the world is a major black eye for us all. And if we’re perceived as tolerating or promoting one form of wrongdoing, we’re then automatically suspect and placed in the untenable position of having to “prove a negative” whenever it’s possible that we’ve had a hand in creating another environmental issue.
- 我们提出一个简单的目标。Though the impact of the marine aquarium hobby on the health of coral reefs is miniscule in comparison to that of agricultural runoff, sewage discharge, sedimentation, rising water temperatures, etc., we’re a much easier problem to fix—lower-hanging fruit, if you will—than these other influences.
- 很少有非旅行者真正理解我们的爱好以及什么使我们打勾。我怀疑很多人都将我们视为水生奖杯猎人，他们只希望有异国情调的东西在我们的家中展示，并且不特别关心我们如何获得它。但是，实际上，我们大多数人都对自然世界（尤其是世界海洋）具有深刻的迷恋，并且非常关注保护它。
那么，我们要做什么？好吧，认识到，有些人很快就会对水族馆的业余爱好者（是否应得的）对此表示可疑，每当海洋环境中出现问题时，我们应该将我们的做法置于责备之外。就像那个“低悬一起”的水果，我们必须尽力避免创造出我们对海洋生物的福利或他们所冰川的福利无动于衷的看法。请记住，如果我们没有竭尽全力向自己警察，我们冒着其他人介入为我们的爱好的风险。
