The dark side of reefing.

[Anonymous]

I do not propose a ban. I think money can be a positive incenvtive if utilized properly. I adress that in my review paper.

Here it is again:

http://www.arches.uga.edu/~btfreak/management.PDF

 

[cgbexec]

Hi everyone!

This is indeed a serious subject. I think that those on this board and others are among the best educated on this subject. The real cause of the destruction that this hobby has on the environment is the demand for these creatures. If there was no demand, these animals would not be harvasted. As far as licensing the individuals whom operate and maintain reef tanks, this is absurd. That would serve no pupose. Only regulating what species and quantaties may be imported can have an effect on the harm that we are causing. There is only one problem with this. Those that could enact these laws do not have the knowledge to do so for the better of the environment and our hobby. Education seems the only good solution and this board is a major part of that. I once brought up that we should try to buy only aquacultured live rock and was almost blown off the board. It seems alot of you like your Figi rock. I only buy aquacultured rock, captive raised corals and I catch my own fish. I relize that not everyone can catch their own fish, but if I could not catch my own, then I would try to buy captive breed fish. Just trying to do my part.

P.S. I dive on a regular basis and have for over 20 years. I have been collecting my own fish for that same amount of time. The number of tropical fish sought by the aquarium trade has declined dramatically over this period of time. The number of fish not sought after seems to be fine. Some examples are as follows. 15 to 20 years ago I could catch all of the queen angels, french angels, flame scallops I wanted in just a few hours time. Today, it would take all day just to find a queen angel or a flame scallop. Even in the Bahamas I have noticed this although the decline is not nearly as bad as off the cost of Florida. In the state parks where collection is prohibited the numbers of these fish and inverts is much higher. I know this is not scientific, but I know what I see.

Chris

 

[SPC]

Chris, how would you say the ban on wild Fla L/R has gone as far as bringing back some of these areas. I know at one time reefers thought the world was comming to an end when this ban was imposed but I have been very happy with the aquacultured Fla rock I am seeing, and in fact would not purchase anything else. I also see were Walt Smith is culturing rock in the Pacific. I have seen it for sale but don't here of anyone purchasing it on these boards.
Steve

 

[cgbexec]

Steve,

I never really noticed a difference before and after the ban on the collecting of wild live rock. As far as tropical fish what I notice is dramatic. I believe that most of the live rock collected was done on the west coast of Fl. and the gulf side of the keys. I still catch my own fish because the survival rate is very good. Buying wild caught fish is iffy. These fish change hands so much that the stress on the fish must be incredible. I catch the fish and transport them in water collected at the site where they are caught. They only have to make one acclimation to my tank. I only have aquacultured rock and some homemade Agra-crete. I use agronamite sand collected by me in the Bahamas. Good stuff!!!!!!

 

[Anonymous]

It seems to me that a lot of the structure necessary to control what species are sold are already in place. The Georgia DNR has some of the strictest rules about what can and cannot be sold in the state. For example, it is illegal for us to sell pirahna, snakeheads, any freshwater stingray, or any indigenous species of herp (captive bred or not). There are virtually no such rules and regulations about aquaria relared marine organisms. (At least that I'm aware of.) It is illegal to sell many small mammals (sugar gliders, hedgehogs, skunks.) Note that it is illegal to "sell". Our surrounding states do not have such strict regulations so many people just go to Alabama or Tennessee to get these critters. The main reason given for the ban on these species is the "protection of our own state's ecosystem." Because of the climate of our state we could support a feral population of many of thses species if enough people lost them or let them go. Why could we not enact similar legislation to protect an ecosystem on the other side of the world?

Glenn

 

[SPC]

Chris, that is why I buy tank raised, it just amazes me that any fish lives through all of the handling they go through. So you don't dive around Naples?
Steve

 

[esmithiii]

Dr. Reef: I should have read your paper before. Besides, you have to be a pretty good guy if you are at UGA

Good paper, BTW.

Here are some quotes that illustrate my point.

"Global climate change is the greatest threat to coral reefs"

"The live coral trade receives most of the attention from environmentalists and their lobbyists. Although harvest weights for entire islands typically fall well short of the mark made by harvest for the cement and lime, it is easiest to villify the aquarium trade, perhapse because of the impression that most benefits are derived by foreign investors, and surely because their interests are perceived to be purely profit-driven"

"ideas such as banning import to the US, or banning export from various countries could remove any economic incentives that enhance coral reef protection."

These are exactly the points I was trying to illustrate before.

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the comments.

Sometimes I even surprise myself.


There is another good point here relating to one of the quotes you just listed.

Although total weights of coral removed for lime may be higher in a great many countries (excluding Fiji), the corals removed are done so with much less emphasis on removing the "healthiest" ones so we aren't cropping the survivors to make a weaker future population. There is also less emphasis on target species, the ones removed are more diverse and this doesn't change the assemblage as much as harvest for only acropora does.

And fish aren't involved either so the aquarium takes much of the rap there.

Thanks again,
Brian

Boo Florida Gators!

 

[bowser]

This hobby is a very destructive one. Even though there are other factors out there doing just as much or more damage, the harm is still there.
Regulation on all levels would be appropriate. It wouldn't be fair to the collectors, who are trying to feed their families, to have to be regulated, while the people who are demanding the livestock have no responsibility at all. While it certainly is true that a tremendous amount of the livestock collected never make it alive to their destination, I would bet that a surprising amount of livestock never make it past one year in the hobbyist tank!
How many times have you read about a person having fish die one after the other, on and on, and they still keep getting fish?
I can recall (not on this board) one young fella who had a list of fish a mile long that he had "kept" who hadn't even been in the hobby one year! When asked about the fish, he said they all died! He seemed very surprised when everyone said that he should stop killing fish!!!
How many people have said that they've had their fish for a year and then it died of old age? Hate to tell them that fish live much, much longer than a year......
I don't know how you would go about regulating hobbyists, but it might not be a bad thing. And it doesn't have to be expensive either.

 

[Anonymous]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by bowser:
<strong>Hate to tell them that fish live much, much longer than a year......
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Good. Don't lie. Yes, many marine fish can live 15 or more, but in the wild, a lot of tropical fish do only live a year or two. One indicator taught in some classes, though not 100% accurate, is that the smaller the species of marine fish, the shorter lived. What does this mean for ones that we select to fit in our tanks as adults?


There is absolutely nothing wrong with your point. Just pointing out that generalizations are just that. And there are many exceptions. Anyone that has kept a dwarf angel for more than 4 years has done an impeccable job. Compared to full sized angels, these have a minute live scale.

 

[Anonymous]

Ernie:

Once again Naesco and cjdevito you have missed the point

Really? You wanted numbers, I gave them to you. You wanted material to read, I gave you an excerpt - figuring that you'd realize I was only posting a relevent passage or two, and that you'd just click the link on the first page of the thread to read it in it's entirety. It seemed a reasonable assumption, since you stated how genuinely interested you'd be in seeing the material.

"Tullock discusses" means little to me. Give me numbers, man.

You -still- haven't read the editorial, huh? If you did, perhaps you missed the collection of links to the original papers and publications I included.


This is a good start. What about the other fish that aren't collected by the aquarium industry? Has there been a decline in their numbers as well? What makes us sure it is the aquarium industry? Who did the studies? What fish populations were tallied? Where and when were the studies conducted?

The CRTF did the studies, and published their findings. Again, if you actually read the material linked from the editorial, it's all there. There are -several- CRTF reports I didn't directly reference, but all are in the public domain.

BTW- An editorial is, by definition, anecdotal.

What an amazing degree of insight you possess. It's an editorial because I present my views rather then simply reporting the data. The fact that it's an editorial in no way diminishes the validity of the work done by the CRTF, and to even suggest such is disingenious.

Also, Naesco and CJDevito, have you took down your tanks yet?

Speaking of disingenious, more grist for the mill. For the record, up until my tank was largely wiped out this past summer, every single coral in the tank was captive grown. But regardless, it's utterly besides the point. I don't advocate anyone take down their tank, I advocate the industry be reformed. Again, something somewhat obvious if you read the editorial.

If you think we should ban importation then that relegates this hobby to the rich.

The above was addressed to Naesco, but, excuse me? What are you talking about?

Many people talk casually abou banning and licensing without any real consideration for the consequences or ramifications.

One does not have far to look to find successful models. Both the exotic bird and reptile hobbies survive quite well with bans in place.

So far, you've followed exactly the three approaches everyone who's argued with me on the subject have used. First, a disbelief that the problem is properly documented or even exists, second a charge of 'why don't you take down your tank?', and third, that other industries cause more damage then we do.

Let me address that last point succintly, because I get tired of giving the long version every time it comes up:

I don't care. I don't care if we cause less then 1% of the damage. The bottom line is a tremendous amount of damage is being done to the reefs, and it's outright childishly irresponsible to sit back and declare that since others do worse damage, we should keep on as we are. What would be a nuisance to a healthy person can be life-threatening to one already in critical condition.

That was a metaphor, btw. It's anecdotal by nature.

 

[Anonymous]

Charles--

Who do you think should do the regulating? You mentioned herps and birds and I brought up the bans already in place for fresh water fish. What is preventing the next step to take place in the marine end of things? Should it be done at the state level or federal level? The collectors aren't stupid. If the U.S. suddenly outlaws importation of moorish idols I doubt they would continue to be collected. The studies have shown that declines in natural populations are taking place. Who is to decide the numbers of "harvestable" fish to be allowed imported into the country? Who is to decide between "not suitable for captivity" and "for experts only"? Where should the lines be drawn?

Glenn

 

[naesco]

Rover I would hope that the Marine Fish Industry would have the brains to be able to police their own industry now.They know the mortality rates on the species they deal with but choose to ignore the problem.
The result of this inaction IMO will be the government will regulate (as they should if nothing is done)which is why this thread is up.
You and we all should confront our LFS when we see species abuses at whatever level we feel comfortable with.
We ignore the problem to our detriment IMO>

 

[cubera]

I am sorry I have not read the entire thread but I am tired from a strenous day on the coral farm. Some "scientists" just hate everyone and everything except a single point of view armored in their own arrogance. The same could be said about the impoverished collectors who are simply trying to make enough money to eat. A little damage underwater does not mean much to them because they don't have that luxury. The same could be said for the greedy importers and wholesalers who know better but simply don't care enough about it to change. Some scientists blame us, the average reef keepers, for all these problems. Don't hoist aboard this garbage and don't let this political hogwash dictate your reef keeping practices. Your practices, and mine, should be based on the notion that we will always put more back in nature than we take away. If anyone thinks this notion is absurd, please come visit my farm

Fact is there are thousands of us who have decided to do something for the animals and habitats we love, admire, and understand. Don't let some buttmunch from NOAA or anywhere else tell you otherwise. You know better or you would not be reading this reply.

 

[tomocean]

I've said this before and I will keep saying it. People don't care about things that don't directly affect them. Do you really think the average person cares enough to do anything to help the coral reefs around the world? Unless they are divers then I don't think they even give coral reefs a second thought. So what is left to allow the non-diving public to experience the reef -- aquariums both public and private.
Don't get me wrong, I am completely in favor of captive bred or farmed specimens. But I believe the conscientious, dedicated aquarist is doing great things to promote awareness of the reefs.
We need to concentrate on pollution, overfishing, over population, and over development before taking aim at reef aquarists as being responsible for the demise of the coral reef.

 

[naesco]

esmithiii
Yes you are way off on anecdotal. Dive and you shall see.
And if you agree, what are you doing about it.
It is not acceptable to do nothing or the government will.
Here's what you can do.
Raise hell when the LFS keeps fish like moorish idol etc.
Buy captive grown fish and coral.
Advise newbies on this board to buy captive grown fish and coral. (the survival rate is excellent)
Become an environmental activist on this board gently reminding newbies of things we have learned.
You can think of other positive steps.
If not, every coral in our tanks will be brown and the fish available will be very limited.
We either do something now or we pay later.

 

[tazdevil]

Just to give a little guilt where its do, Divers have also caused some problems. A certain pacific reef that was completely closed to any kind of collecting, suffered "major damage" by several years of uninformed divers continually kicking up sand/silt underwater, which covered up many corals, resulting in their deaths. Granted, this is not as much damage as caused by poor collection methodologies, but there are other reasons for reef damage as well.
naesco, what would you say about one that sells cleaner wrasses? (this is the one that won an award that I have fumed/flamed about before). Also, aren't garabaldi damsels protected by California law, have seen thos at this LFS as well.

 

[esmithiii]

TomOcean: Well said.

CJDevito:

I will read the links. Thanks for providing them. A couple of points: I am less than familiar with the reptile trade, but know that most species of exotic birds are bred captively, and you don't need a license to own them.

My point about banning importation relegating this hobby to the wealthy is one that I think is easy to see and difficult to dismiss. A ban would raise prices, which are already incredibly high and the less economically affluent would be barred by the cost. Our friend, Dr. Reef would be shut out of the hobby.

The question of when you will take down your tank is really one of pointing out hypocricy. Many people bash the industry and cry for reforms and yet still support it by purchasing products from it. BTW- I am not just referring to corals. Was your liverock homemade or aquacultured? How about your fish? Inverts? Did you make all your own equipment? Did you buy all your equipment from suppliers who only sell captive propogated specimens? If not you are funding the plundering of the reefs of the world.

Dr. Reef's article does not call for a ban, nor for licensing. He suggests that a ban could cause more harm than good.

As for your comments on the idea that "other industries may cause more damage but that doesn't absolve us from our own culpability." That may be so. I don't totally disagree, but would point out that the aquarium industry gets more than its share of blame in the disapearing coral reef problem. This draws attention away from the bigger issues and is a dangerous practice.

Did you read Dr. Reef's paper? I believe that sustainable harvesting of corals can be attained, and that the answer is not in banning imports to the US. If there is no economic gain in harvesting the reefs, why will the people in those areas think them important enough to save? What will keep them from digging up the reef for lime and cement to make homes?

 

[Anonymous]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr> Rover I would hope that the Marine Fish Industry would have the brains to be able to police their own industry now.They know the mortality rates on the species they deal with but choose to ignore the problem.
<hr></blockquote>

I'm not sure what you mean by the "Marine Fish Industry." Basically it's just a loose collection of various wholesalers, transhippers, importer/exporters, and collectors. There is no centralized industry. Right now it seems as though the collectors are running the show. They send up a list of what has been collected and then it all starts changing hands. They wouldn't be collecting unsuitable species if they couldn't sell it. Much has been said about the plight of the poor collector. Do you really think that they would take precious time and use limited space on species that were worthless? They don't catch the ugly fish because they can't sell them. They're smart. Why do wholesalers sell goniopora? Because the LFS will buy it. Why does the LFS buy it? Because they can sell it for a profit. It's a big pretty coral that wiggles and sways and is the epitome of the reef. It's usually fairly inexpensive. It's usually sold to beginners who chalk it's demise up to the "learning curve." This cycle will never stop. This industry exists for one reason and one reason only. TO MAKE MONEY. Don't kid yourself for a second that any collector, wholesaler, or LFS exists for any other reason. (Farming operations aside) Are there some reputable ones out there? Sure. But not most. As long as there is money to be made off of these "inappropriate species" some one will. That is why a ban on those species will be neccessary. It is impossible and naive to think that this problem can be solved through education of the consumer. The problem is just too big. A ban on "unsuitable" species along with the guidleines and ideas presented in Brian's paper of sustainable and intelligent harvesting will go along way towards solving some of the problems. The structure for "policing" the LFS and preventing these species from being sold is already in place through the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Agriculture. We just need to get those species added to the list.

Glenn

 

[Anonymous]

I second the motion...

Oh wait, who cares that we feel this way?

Do you know of anyone we can write to accomplish this task Glenn? I'd be willing to write a few letters even if they fall on deaf ears, as long as they make it to the correct office.

Nothing gets accomplished in a beauracracy.