I ahev also seen the same as Rover. At the LFS that i work at on the order forms there are no scientific names or orgin. It is a pain because i dont know were i am even doing damage to. I we maek sure not to order butterflies some angels and mandrins but there are so many other fish we just dont have the info on. It would be great if some knowledgable wholesaler on this board wrote up a list of corals and fish. About how most have been collected or if it is unadvisable for the reefs sake to buy them. I know it would take alot of time but if i had the knowledge i deffinantly would write it. Just my 2 cents. We have to take as much responsibility for reef destruction as any one else or we are just as bad as the other guy.
Or the deaths caused by some careless shipping agencies. Example, I had ordered a royal gramma, and a halfblack dwarf angel. The day they where to arrive, at the shipping start location, the air temp was over 95deg f. They waited on the ground, outside, in a box clearly labeled "live fish" for 2 hours. Then, in MN, we had a cold day (about40 deg f). Well, they landed here at around 10 am, but didn't move from the tarmac until 3 pm (they where outdoors in the cold). Then, although the shipper has been told to deliver only to a person, not leave on front doorstep, they left them on the doorstep. They never even checked to see if anyone was home, as I had been all day, and the doorbell never rang. It was 6pm, I called the MO service to find out where they were. They said that UPS delivered to my door at 4pm. Sure enough, I went outside, and there they were. The halfblack was DOA, and the royal gramma died the next morning. The MO had placed a heater pack in the box, and told me when I ordered that there is no outdoor temp restriction about DOA claims. Now, I have them ship to the airport, and I await there for them as it guarantees that I'm doing all I can on my end to assure live arrival.
Here is a good quote about the aquarium trade from a prominent marine biologist named Jerry Kemp:
"There are numerous interest groups involved in making money and a living, or getting enjoyment, from activities that involve the exploitation of coral reef systems and the species which live there. As a marine biologist working on various aspects of Coastal Zone management and biodiversity conservation, it becomes rather tiresome hearing again and again and again the same old 'Not my fault, guv' response to comments such as those made by Prasanna about aquarium collecting. While it is easy to understand that concerned and responsible individuals associated with such activities get tired of being tarred with the same brush as the responsible majority, please don't go defending unsustainable activities (or even appear to be defending them) by proxy while defending yourselves. This problem crops up repeatedly among many groups including fishers, tourist developers and operators, and others.
To take just one example (without wanting to be unfair - there are, as we all know, many other sources and causes of degradation, Sri Lanka being a good example of multiple stressors), the bottom line is that the aquarium industry is one significant cause of coral reef degradation in some areas. Claims that someone criticising the aquarium industry is "blaming the aquarist for the habits of the local collectors" are
ludicrous when those local collectors are collecting marine species for export to the very same hobbyists being defended.
While there is no doubt that there ARE responsible and concerned aquarium hobbyists (and also some responsible collectors, exporters and importers, as well as increasingly organised and coordinated efforts to inject responsibility and sustainability into the hobby internationally) there is also no doubt that the hobby causes real damage to reef systems in certain parts of the world. Claims to the contrary just don't ring true."
Hopefully we can all learn something from that.
Cheers
James
[ November 28, 2001: Message edited by: jamesw ]
[ November 28, 2001: Message edited by: jamesw ]</p>
"There are numerous interest groups involved in making money and a living, or getting enjoyment, from activities that involve the exploitation of coral reef systems and the species which live there. As a marine biologist working on various aspects of Coastal Zone management and biodiversity conservation, it becomes rather tiresome hearing again and again and again the same old 'Not my fault, guv' response to comments such as those made by Prasanna about aquarium collecting. While it is easy to understand that concerned and responsible individuals associated with such activities get tired of being tarred with the same brush as the responsible majority, please don't go defending unsustainable activities (or even appear to be defending them) by proxy while defending yourselves. This problem crops up repeatedly among many groups including fishers, tourist developers and operators, and others.
To take just one example (without wanting to be unfair - there are, as we all know, many other sources and causes of degradation, Sri Lanka being a good example of multiple stressors), the bottom line is that the aquarium industry is one significant cause of coral reef degradation in some areas. Claims that someone criticising the aquarium industry is "blaming the aquarist for the habits of the local collectors" are
ludicrous when those local collectors are collecting marine species for export to the very same hobbyists being defended.
While there is no doubt that there ARE responsible and concerned aquarium hobbyists (and also some responsible collectors, exporters and importers, as well as increasingly organised and coordinated efforts to inject responsibility and sustainability into the hobby internationally) there is also no doubt that the hobby causes real damage to reef systems in certain parts of the world. Claims to the contrary just don't ring true."
Hopefully we can all learn something from that.
Cheers
James
[ November 28, 2001: Message edited by: jamesw ]
[ November 28, 2001: Message edited by: jamesw ]</p>
Anything the human race does has environmental impact. Saying that because the reef hobby is only a small part of the problem has no bearing on how it should be regulated is stupid. The real problem is ocean pollution and construction. IF you want to improve the situation, do not focus on the last 10% of the problem but on the major issues. Eliminate the hobby and measure the impact. Will you sleep better knowing you have reduced a small contributer to the problem while ignoring the major issues. If it makes you feel better do it.
Thanks for the info James, sometimes the truth hurts. I think theres allways more we can do as hobbyists, but i have a sneaky feeling that many of these organiseations that seek to blacken our hobby will have to eat their words should the ocein crash and its up to us to save it. Or maybe im just getting a little romantic.
Is it possible that you and I are a problem as well? Many responsible reefkeepers kept Banggai Cardinals for example, and it is my understanding that it was a near disaster for them in the wild. Are those of us who take great care of our animals guilty of being as bad as the ignorant who don't care?
Well, yes. Even the most responsible reefkeeper is part of the problem. After all, the mortality rates from point of collection to when the animal ends up for sale at a retailer have been cited at being 60% (one source) or 90%(another source). So figure that that for that one fish in your tank that's healthy and well-taken care of, another 6 (or 9) died before ever reaching an aquarist's tank. Just one example, there are others. It's one reason why I tried to stress in the editorial I did that it's not enough anymore for us just to be responsible for our own actions, but rather that we have to start being responsible for the actions of the hobby as a whole.
We should be examining ourselves and the impact we are having, not shifting the blame.
Couldn't agree more.
Well, yes. Even the most responsible reefkeeper is part of the problem. After all, the mortality rates from point of collection to when the animal ends up for sale at a retailer have been cited at being 60% (one source) or 90%(another source). So figure that that for that one fish in your tank that's healthy and well-taken care of, another 6 (or 9) died before ever reaching an aquarist's tank. Just one example, there are others. It's one reason why I tried to stress in the editorial I did that it's not enough anymore for us just to be responsible for our own actions, but rather that we have to start being responsible for the actions of the hobby as a whole.
We should be examining ourselves and the impact we are having, not shifting the blame.
Couldn't agree more.
cjevito, I will be reading your editorial after I post this, thanks for the tip. For others who haven't been around here much lately it is found here http://www.reefs.org/editorial/index.html
I still think much of what is being said is missing the point, and still shifting the blame. New aquarists killing mandarins, coral deaths in shipping on airlines, someone buying goniopora and then coming here to ask how to care for it; these are all bad, but they miss the point.
Is it possible that you and I are a problem as well? Many responsible reefkeepers kept Banggai Cardinals for example, and it is my understanding that it was a near disaster for them in the wild. Are those of us who take great care of our animals guilty of being as bad as the ignorant who don't care? We should be examining ourselves and the impact we are having, not shifting the blame.
Obviously, we must be having some effect, even if it is minimal. But is a minimal effect not also bad? So maybe pollution impacts a much larger percent than aquariums do. But if the effect of pollution is 100 times as much as that of aquariums, then it just takes us 100 times as long to destroy a reef. The final result is the same, it just takes longer.
I still think much of what is being said is missing the point, and still shifting the blame. New aquarists killing mandarins, coral deaths in shipping on airlines, someone buying goniopora and then coming here to ask how to care for it; these are all bad, but they miss the point.
Is it possible that you and I are a problem as well? Many responsible reefkeepers kept Banggai Cardinals for example, and it is my understanding that it was a near disaster for them in the wild. Are those of us who take great care of our animals guilty of being as bad as the ignorant who don't care? We should be examining ourselves and the impact we are having, not shifting the blame.
Obviously, we must be having some effect, even if it is minimal. But is a minimal effect not also bad? So maybe pollution impacts a much larger percent than aquariums do. But if the effect of pollution is 100 times as much as that of aquariums, then it just takes us 100 times as long to destroy a reef. The final result is the same, it just takes longer.
It seems like the negative reinforcement gets diluted the farther up the chain you go. A few hobbyist put pressure on the LFS's. A few of those LFS's put pressure on the wholesalers. A few wholesalers put pressure on the collectors, but by the time it gets there they are in the vast minority.
Glenn
Glenn
I don't agree that by harvesting for the aquarium industry the reefs are being destroyed entirely. I believe very strongly that actually could be beneficial if and only if very strongly controlled. I think by maintaining nice looking reef aquariums reminds people what a beautiful thing the reefs are.
I think an organization could be established that requires wholesalers collectors to be responsable for what they do would in fact make a huge difference. They could join the organization and then they can put that label on their business. You and your LFS would feel more comfortable knowing that the animals were collected in a very responsable manner. I not talking about another profitable venture either, nor am I refering to a non-profit org that pays execs $200,000 a year.
It's only an idea, but it could be real solution among many.
Yes, we all are partially responsible for what we do, but it is very small proportionatly to what everyone else is doing. If you go to Asia you can eat almost anything that we are putting in tanks in their restaurants. I think we should outlaw hurricanes too cause they seem to do a lot of damage. Last but not least, Why can you go to the paint store and buy dead sponges for $5-10 and it costs $15-60 for one halve the size that is alive. Some things just don't make much sense they.
Andy
I think an organization could be established that requires wholesalers collectors to be responsable for what they do would in fact make a huge difference. They could join the organization and then they can put that label on their business. You and your LFS would feel more comfortable knowing that the animals were collected in a very responsable manner. I not talking about another profitable venture either, nor am I refering to a non-profit org that pays execs $200,000 a year.
It's only an idea, but it could be real solution among many.
Yes, we all are partially responsible for what we do, but it is very small proportionatly to what everyone else is doing. If you go to Asia you can eat almost anything that we are putting in tanks in their restaurants. I think we should outlaw hurricanes too cause they seem to do a lot of damage. Last but not least, Why can you go to the paint store and buy dead sponges for $5-10 and it costs $15-60 for one halve the size that is alive. Some things just don't make much sense they.
Andy
[quote[I think an organization could be established that requires wholesalers collectors to be responsable for what they do would in fact make a huge difference. They could join the organization and then they can put that label on their business. [/quote]
Such an organization already exists. It is called MAC. You can get more information at:
www.aqauriumcouncil.org
Hope that helps,
James Wiseman
Such an organization already exists. It is called MAC. You can get more information at:
www.aqauriumcouncil.org
Hope that helps,
James Wiseman
Andy, I agree with some of what you are saying but you still are trying to discuss other causes for marine life destruction. This thread is for the purpose of what can we as hobbiest do differently. BTW, MAC was set up for the purpose you have mentioned, LFSs that belong to this organization place this sticker on their window. How many of us hobbiest only buy from members of this organization?
Steve
Note: I edited this from AMDA to MAC after reading James comment.
[ November 29, 2001: Message edited by: SPC ]</p>
Steve
Note: I edited this from AMDA to MAC after reading James comment.
[ November 29, 2001: Message edited by: SPC ]</p>
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by jamesw:
<strong>These folks don't profit if the aquarium trade is legislated, so it is not fair to say they are "biased"</strong><hr></blockquote>
The are biased. The conservation industry in this country is huge. If those in the industry don't come up with new problems, they lose their jobs. The conservation industry is just as biased as any other sector.
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by SPC:
<strong>Andy, I agree with some of what you are saying but you still are trying to discuss other causes for marine life destruction. This thread is for the purpose of what can we as hobbiest do differently.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No. This thread was started for the purpose of telling the hobbiests to stop using the argument that they aren't doing significant damage to the natural reefs. Given that, plus the fact that the origial post failed to give concrete reasons why the argument was invalid, I would expect those hobbiests to defend themselves.
[ November 29, 2001: Message edited by: slimy ]</p>
<strong>These folks don't profit if the aquarium trade is legislated, so it is not fair to say they are "biased"</strong><hr></blockquote>
The are biased. The conservation industry in this country is huge. If those in the industry don't come up with new problems, they lose their jobs. The conservation industry is just as biased as any other sector.
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by SPC:
<strong>Andy, I agree with some of what you are saying but you still are trying to discuss other causes for marine life destruction. This thread is for the purpose of what can we as hobbiest do differently.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No. This thread was started for the purpose of telling the hobbiests to stop using the argument that they aren't doing significant damage to the natural reefs. Given that, plus the fact that the origial post failed to give concrete reasons why the argument was invalid, I would expect those hobbiests to defend themselves.
[ November 29, 2001: Message edited by: slimy ]</p>
Oh!
I'm too late to save the day.
SPC, "Yes, we all are partially responsible for what we do, but it is very small proportionatly to what everyone else is doing. If you go to Asia you can eat almost anything that we are putting in tanks in their restaurants. I think we should outlaw hurricanes too cause they seem to do a lot of damage."
I know what the purpose of this thread is for. We are not only reef hobbiest we are consumers of alot of things. My point being we can help in many ways not JUST in our reefing. The Hurricane was supposed to be sarcastic.
Andy,
I don't know if I buy MAC approved stuff or not I'll check. Though, most of my stuff is tank raised. I do have Fiji rock. I figure that is okay because Fiji is pretty big it would take a LONG time before Fiji disapears and is spread though out tanks.
I'm too late to save the day.
SPC, "Yes, we all are partially responsible for what we do, but it is very small proportionatly to what everyone else is doing. If you go to Asia you can eat almost anything that we are putting in tanks in their restaurants. I think we should outlaw hurricanes too cause they seem to do a lot of damage."
I know what the purpose of this thread is for. We are not only reef hobbiest we are consumers of alot of things. My point being we can help in many ways not JUST in our reefing. The Hurricane was supposed to be sarcastic.
Andy,
I don't know if I buy MAC approved stuff or not I'll check. Though, most of my stuff is tank raised. I do have Fiji rock. I figure that is okay because Fiji is pretty big it would take a LONG time before Fiji disapears and is spread though out tanks.
Originally posted by slimy:
[QB]
No. This thread was started for the purpose of telling the hobbiests to stop using the argument that they aren't doing significant damage to the natural reefs. Given that, plus the fact that the origial post failed to give concrete reasons why the argument was invalid, I would expect those hobbiests to defend themselves.
Uh, what concrete reasons are you looking for slimey? And I sure don't see this as anyone needing to defend themselves, I thought we were trying to discuss this issue.
Steve
I certainly don't dispute that our hobby has an effect on the deterioration of reefs.
Me personally, I'm a big fan of radical thinking (and keeping the thread on topic!). Instead of limiting the debate to what can be done to change the reefkeeping hobby, why can't we discuss the big picture. How can we address the other causes of Reef Deterioration?
Liam
Me personally, I'm a big fan of radical thinking (and keeping the thread on topic!). Instead of limiting the debate to what can be done to change the reefkeeping hobby, why can't we discuss the big picture. How can we address the other causes of Reef Deterioration?
Liam
I think the big problem is the fact that we get our product from a foreign source. (i.e. our regulations and guidelines don't apply over there.) All we can do is vote with the ol pocketbook. All our government can do is impose restrictions on importation. I personally don't want the government to get involved. I would like for some kind of global department of natural resources to be set up. People hunt all over the country and they do so in a sustained manner. They are in a sense harvesting from nature. I think possibly there should be seasons and protected areas on the reefs similar to the guidelines used for hunting. I wonder what would happen if overnight suddenly al harvesting of the ocean and all impact by man suddenly stopped. Would there suddenly be too much fish and not enough food? Is it possible to harvest the ocean in a sustained manner? I think it is possible. The trick is getting a controlling body with the authority to do what it needs that has jurisdiction over the appropriate countries.
Glenn
Glenn
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by SPC:
<strong>Uh, what concrete reasons are you looking for slimey? And I sure don't see this as anyone needing to defend themselves
, I thought we were trying to discuss this issue.
Steve</strong><hr></blockquote>
The original post stated the the argument that hobbyists use (specifically: the aquarium hobby's impact on the natural reefs is negligable) is invalid. However, it failed to provide any proof or evidence of the contrary. Now, given that, wouldn't you expect the people who use that argument to defend their use of the argument? I certainly do, especially since I am one of them. The only issue being brought up in the original post was the validity of that argument.
Let's take a look at two paragraphs:
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>
To take just one example (without wanting to be unfair - there are, as we all know, many other sources and causes of degradation, Sri Lanka being a good example of multiple stressors), the bottom line is that the aquarium industry is one significant cause of coral reef degradation in some areas.
<hr></blockquote>
Here, the author makes the assertion that the aquarium industry is a significant cause of coral reef degradation. He than fails to back up his claim. Now, if I was to make the assertion that the real reason for reef degradation was because too many people were peeing in the ocean, and I failed to produce any evidence, would you believe me? I hope not. The same holds true above. He has presented his belief as fact, but not bothered to back it up.
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Claims that someone criticising the aquarium industry is "blaming the aquarist for the habits of the local collectors" are ludicrous when those local collectors are collecting marine species for export to the very same hobbyists being defended.[/qoute]
No, they are not ludicrous because the local collectors are also collecting for the export of food. Is this author actually convinced that a significant percentage of critters harvested from the reefs goes to the aquarium hobby? What are those percentages? If you want to assert that this hobby is doing any significant damage to the reefs, (thereby backing up his clam that the argument is invalid) the least he could do is show some numbers showing how much damage this hobby is doing relative to pollution and fishing.
<strong>Uh, what concrete reasons are you looking for slimey? And I sure don't see this as anyone needing to defend themselves
Steve</strong><hr></blockquote>
The original post stated the the argument that hobbyists use (specifically: the aquarium hobby's impact on the natural reefs is negligable) is invalid. However, it failed to provide any proof or evidence of the contrary. Now, given that, wouldn't you expect the people who use that argument to defend their use of the argument? I certainly do, especially since I am one of them. The only issue being brought up in the original post was the validity of that argument.
Let's take a look at two paragraphs:
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>
To take just one example (without wanting to be unfair - there are, as we all know, many other sources and causes of degradation, Sri Lanka being a good example of multiple stressors), the bottom line is that the aquarium industry is one significant cause of coral reef degradation in some areas.
<hr></blockquote>
Here, the author makes the assertion that the aquarium industry is a significant cause of coral reef degradation. He than fails to back up his claim. Now, if I was to make the assertion that the real reason for reef degradation was because too many people were peeing in the ocean, and I failed to produce any evidence, would you believe me? I hope not. The same holds true above. He has presented his belief as fact, but not bothered to back it up.
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Claims that someone criticising the aquarium industry is "blaming the aquarist for the habits of the local collectors" are ludicrous when those local collectors are collecting marine species for export to the very same hobbyists being defended.[/qoute]
No, they are not ludicrous because the local collectors are also collecting for the export of food. Is this author actually convinced that a significant percentage of critters harvested from the reefs goes to the aquarium hobby? What are those percentages? If you want to assert that this hobby is doing any significant damage to the reefs, (thereby backing up his clam that the argument is invalid) the least he could do is show some numbers showing how much damage this hobby is doing relative to pollution and fishing.
Slimy, I think I was confused by your statement because I just presumed that you had read of some damage that occurs to the reefs due to this hobby. The editorial that Charles wrote points out several examples of this and once again I was going under the assumption that you had already read this.
Steve
Steve
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
