Live rock Debate

[Anonymous]

Feel Good Bans

It really is time to stop such rhetoric.

25% of coral reefs have been lost in the last 20 years. 80 million acres are gone. - World Resource institute.

58% of the remaining coral reefs are listed in Imminent Danger. 80% of Asias coral reefs are listed in Imminent Danger. It is predicted that if pressures on the reefs are not changed the reefs will be functionally extint by 2050, many of us will see this happen.

So much for a sustainable resource.

 

[Cappuccino Bay Aquarium]

Mary ! We Agree!

 

[Chucker]

I'd also note that apples and oranges are being compared here. Live rock <> coral reef.

 

[Anonymous]

Mary

I beleive wild harvesting is still one of the pressures.

Do you know what the article I pulled those statistics from recomended to help? Making the whole reef systems a No Take Area.

You see everyone is agreeing on the decline of reefs but each industry is intensifying the finger pointing. With this type of blame game it is only a matter of time before the overall bans will be in place. That is why I keep saying the future is aquaculture not harvest.

 

[Bomber]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote

(We add rock and then take it out, but the organisms that we take are still being removed. I don't see how this isn't impacting the reef. There is still less there than there was to begin with.)

Glenn HI

To go back to your original question. You are creating a place for these organisms to settle which was not there before. Without these new places, they would have been just swept away anyway with no where to settle. Part of the food chain.

Jerel

Hi Mary

 

[Anonymous]

So you are saying that by adding more suitable habitat we increase the yield or production of the organisms?

 

[Bomber]

Glenn's had his coffee!

BTW, we are trying to plan a trip first of the year to visit Sarah (Bogart). Wanna do lunch

 

[Anonymous]

But would the sae thing hold true for fish as well? If we were to create artificial reefs for the sole purpose of collecting fish would that reduce pressure on the existing populations?

For example, we created an entire reef (very large) let is settle for two three years (or however long these things take. Then surround the entire thing and pick the entire reef up and sell it piecemeal. We would be taking nothing from the ocean other than what we added or provided homes for. Feasible??

 

[Bomber]

Very feasible, LOL You just have to be careful in not collecting fish too fast or you would be collecting the ones that just moved in and not a sustainable population.

More habitat = more critters

 

[MaryHM]

Fishaholic! Excellent quote!

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote

It is predicted that if pressures on the reefs are not changed the reefs will be functionally extint by 2050, many of us will see this happen.

This is exactly what I've been talking about. There are pressures on the reefs from many sources- pollution, construction, natural phenomenon, food fish industry, etc... Of all of these pressures, the aquarium industry is the one that has the most potential to actually create a positive benefit for the reefs if the hobbyists start demanding it. Banning the industry will do ZERO to help protect the reefs because the other intense pressures will continue and/or increase. The best thing we can do is to help to changethe mentalities of the people who are collecting for this hobby. That is the only way to truly create a positive impact on the reefs as far as this industry/hobby is concerned. By changing their mentalities from one of "get what I can and get paid for it" to "I can get paid more for doing this the right way and insure a future for myself and my children", we have the potential for a postive influence on reef management.

 

[Anonymous]

But if they just moved in (recruitment) where were they living before? If an established untouched habitat were near by our man made habitat what difference would it make if we collected some fish that had previously lived in the existing habitat. Collection of those fish opened up more habitat for more recruitment correct?

Glenn

 

[Bomber]

Let's try this another way!

Say you have 5 piles of rock, and each pile has it's resident blue tang. If you remove tang #1, tang #2 will move up into it's place, tang #3 moves up, etc.Tang #5 is replaced by a juvenile that would not have survived. (No habitat)
In this case you have created no new habitat.

Now add another pile of rocks (#6). Tang #5 moves into it, etc. or just the juv. moves in and survives. Now you have added new habitat.

Jerel

 

[SPC]

I see it the way Jerel has explained it, habitat is the key to conservation. Now, who the heck is Sarah Bogart?

Steve

 

[Anonymous]

So my question is as long as we are adding enough habitat, can we over-collect?

Glenn

 

[Cappuccino Bay Aquarium]

If a baby fish will move into a "NEW" habitat, wont it as well move into a new vacancy in an old habitat? ie; {Harvest the fish in an established habitat} Are the new empty slots ALWAYS filled? Bomber Why are there NO limits on the number of Gorgonians you can harvest in a day or year? and does sand have any restictions ? Im going down to Buds Boats{Marathon} next week and wont to bring back a truck load?

 

[Bomber]

Glenn,

It's not that easy to call or predict. You have too many variables (weather, disease, etc). One way or the other, you should leave enough wiggle room and err on the conservative side.

Steve, that's my cousin (Sarah) in Bogart, Ga. a suburb of Athens. LOL

Jerel

 

[Anonymous]

I guess that makes sense.

 

[SPC]

Oh, old Sarah in Bogart, I thought you were talking about Humphreys daughter.

Steve

 

[Tybond]

I am very new to the hobby of reef keeping so forgive me if this is a dumb question but I have been doing a lot of research in making my own live rock from portland cement and rubble rock for a 250G I want to set up with as low of an impact on natural resources as I possibly can.

Why doesn't the industry use this?

It is well documented that people everywhere have success making their own so why can't the industry simply make man made concrete rock and place it into the ocean to gain the living elements? Cost?

It seems to me that doing this would deffinately make a possitive impact towards the industry's goal of providing hobbiest with the item they need/want and preserve the natural resources at the same time. Also the collection and shipment of this type of rock would be simpler since the rock could be placed in ready made containers to cure so when it was ready to collect, the collector would simply remove the container full and not have to spend time picking individual pieces.

Just my 2cents.
Thanks
ty

 

[Bomber]

Steve. ROTFL

ty,

Here's why. You can buy the rock from the quarry at $24 a ton. Lot cheaper than trying to make it.

>If a baby fish will move into a "NEW" habitat, wont it as well move into a new vacancy in an old habitat? ie; {Harvest the fish in an established habitat}<

Of course. But we're talking about creating new habitat.

>Are the new empty slots ALWAYS filled?<

Yes by something.

>Bomber Why are there NO limits on the number of Gorgonians you can harvest in a day or year?<

Of course there are limits, have you read the regs? >and does sand have any restictions?< it's a no no

>Im going down to Buds Boats{Marathon} next week and wont to bring back a truck load?<

I'll be sure and have my "boys" watch out for you.

LOL

Jerel