Another Idea......

Anonymous · Jan 3, 2002

Whats with all the question marks? Looks you're questioning your own validity

. Which makes sense in your case;

<blockquote>quote:<hr> Are the corals we remove from the Pacific reefs mostly branching? off the reef itself? not the floor? And does not most of this type of weed
coral growth end up as rubble on the floor? <hr></blockquote>

You're wasting your time verbalizing these semantics. Even though your comments on where ramose species "end up" after being destroyed naturally aren't wholly correct (they are structural builders to a point, albeit a significant/important one), you are also out of line to insinuate that "weed coral growth ending up as rubble on the floor" isn't important to the geology and morphometrics of the reef and its lagoonal/local components. Storms are natural selection. We are not. Did you even READ what I posted earlier about effects of unnatural selection of morphologies?

Anonymous · Jan 3, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Cappuccino Bay Aquarium:
The idea of coral harvesting for the hobby having any effect on the health of any coral reef in the Pacific is weak... the amount removed is so tiny in pounds <hr></blockquote>

You forgot to add the sarcasm emoticon.

Good one anyways.

Tim Tessier · Jan 3, 2002

Hi Anemone,

Your statement about money making the world go around is very true. The thing that frightens me is if the MAC is for the hobby why are there only governments, World Bank and the World Wildlife Fund funding them? One would think that they should be funded by the stakeholders, the industry and hobbyists. A while ago the World Wildlife Fund tried to pressure Australia into banning collection as it was "destroying" their reefs. The GBRMA told the WWF that they had done their research and had decided on what was a sustainable harvest. The WWF dropped it. Seeing as the same WWF is a major funder for MAC how do you think the data collected by MAC will be used?

I also noticed that MAC's idea of sustainable harvest is if the mortality is less than 1%. 1% because this is what the WWF would accept. In this industry you have good shipments and bad shipments. One time I brought in Domino Damsels on two different shipments from the same supplier using the same cargo route. The shipments were exactly the same as far as travel time was concerned. On the first shipment there were two doa domino's out of 150 because they were squished in the box. The next shipment was quite different, there were over 75 doa domino damsels out of 150. Some questions to ponder. Should Domino damsels not be imported because they do not survive shipping? These domino's were purchased from a Cyanide free supplier in the Philippines. Will bad shipments, due to whatever reason, cause MAC to say that nothing is able to survive the rigours of collection, handling, shipping etc. I have a feeling this would be a deathblow to this hobby.

Another point to consider is that these funding agencies operate on "Results Based Management" and yearly reports must be submitted. If they do not see adequate progress then the funding stops. I have personally witnessed the amount of work that goes into one of these annual reports for the Canadian International Development Agency. btw. They also fund the MAC.

Best Regards,
Tim

Anonymous · Jan 3, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Tim Tessier:
 A while ago the World Wildlife Fund tried to pressure Australia into banning collection as it was "destroying" their reefs. The GBRMA told the WWF that they had done their research and had decided on what was a sustainable harvest<hr></blockquote>

Actually, in June 2001 there was a complete moratorium instituted on harvest of the GBR system.

Anonymous · Jan 3, 2002

Why don't you guys on both sides of the issue cite some real papers in order to further the discussion. Here is some food for thought:

<blockquote>quote:<hr> The global market for coral products is increasing
many-fold due mostly to “the technological advances in lighting, filtration, and an
increased awareness of the dynamics of marine aquaria” (Lovell and Tumuri, 1999).
Many native people have been employed to supply this global market and many
exporting countries have experience related economic booms. However, as noted by
Kunatuba in his presentation at the 1997 Symposium on Sustainable Harvest of Fiji’s
Marine Resources:

“the onset of a cash based economy has really played havoc with the balancing exercise of
conservation versus economic gain within a sustainable backdrop. In areas where local
communities have not been made aware of the implications of over-exploitation, the ready
availability of cash for their products has often driven the people to unprecedented levels of
harvests, with a high disregard to wasteful and harmful practices. In looking at resource
management, one therefore needs to strike a balance between conservation and the economic
needs of the local communities in whose “I qoliqoli” [used here to mean customary ownership]
these resources are found” (Technical Report, 1997).

Furthermore, recent surveys of 300 reefs worldwide showed key target species of
commercial interest were absent, or present in very low numbers, in almost all of the
reefs surveyed (Hodgson, 1999).

<hr></blockquote>

Kunatuba, P. 1997. Sustainable Harvests of Fiji’s Fisheries Resources. In: South, G.R.
(ed) 1997. Technical Report: Symposium on Sustainable harvest of Fiji’s Marine
Resources. Marine Studies, University of the South Pacific.

Lovell, E.R. and M. Tumuri. 1999. Provisional Environmental Impact Assessment for
the Extraction of Coral Reef Products for the Marine Aquarium and Curio Trade
in Fiji. Fisheries Division, Government of Fiji. June, 1999. Available at:
http://www.ivanetdesign.com/waltsmith/news/pdfs/5lovellreport.PDF

South, G.R. (ed) 1997. Technical Report: Symposium on Sustainable harvest of Fiji’s
Marine Resources. Marine Studies, University of the South Pacific.
Hodgson, G., 1999. A Global Assessment of Human Effects on Coral Reefs.
Marine Pollution Bulletin. 38(5):345-355.

It seems clear to me that there is strong evidence for the destruction of reefs due to commercial export harvest. Hodgson's 1999 expose is of most interest as it details the decline of tang populations in Hawaii in areas of commercial harvest and compares them to adjacent sanctuaries. It also correlates this with algae cover and coral cover. Less tangs = more algae = less coral.

Cappuccino Bay Aquarium · Jan 3, 2002

Picture this ...All the coral for this hobby ever taken from the reefs{forty years.........take all this coral an pile it on a barge{it would easily fit} .......now float this barge over a large reef in Indonesia and ask the coastguard to find it .......it would take some time, because the barge is so tiny compared to the thousands of square miles of reef! Now take all the coral this hobby will use over the next twenty years? pick a number? any number ..Ask Mary ..Then take that amount and determin how large a pile this would be? You could multiply this number by 100 times and it still would fit on a football field...A foot ball field hidden in the Indo Pacific might take years to find even if you were looking? Data? This is silly

Cappuccino Bay Aquarium · Jan 3, 2002

Im sorry I read the post again Dr reef and yes agree that target species of fish and certain corals are in grave danger.. feel that all adult fish should not be taken of the reef, because they are 1 in a million. Its the idea that this hobby with reguard to sps coral removal has any effect on the health of the reefs that I find silly. Its like removing grains of sand from the beach? Fish are another story, With fish I find it silly that with 90 percent of "Hardy fish " dying with in six months some are worried about the few "impossible"fish which have a 99 percent death rate? 90=99 not that different

tazdevil · Jan 3, 2002

Capp, the whole problem with that logic is as follows: Why should fish, that cannot be kept (at least with current methods) be removed at all to a certain death. The "hardy" fish that are dying can be pinpointed to several factors:

1: cyanide capture

2: Being brought up too fast, resulting in the bends.

3: improper treatment during shipping/handling

4: being placed in tanks with many different species of fish, at LFS's, and being killed, or catching disease from there.

5: not being quarantined when they arrive at home tank

6: inexperience of fishkeeper, causing death of "hardy" fish that should've lived.

I'm sure other reasons exist, but this should give an idea as to the reason for a high death rate of "hardy" fish. Btw, do you have a source for your numbers, they seem, well, off.

SPC · Jan 3, 2002

Posted by Taz:
Btw, do you have a source for your numbers, they seem, well, off.

I think its a secret Taz

.
Steve

Anonymous · Jan 3, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Cappuccino Bay Aquarium:
Picture this ...All the coral for this hobby ever taken from the reefs{forty years.........take all this coral an pile it on a barge{it would easily fit} <hr></blockquote>

If you believe that over 200,000 metric tonnes of coral removed each year can fit on one barge, then maybe you should go look at a barge again. You are way underestimating the amount of coral removed, and I believe the reason you are doing so is because you haven't actually read any of the yearly reports filed to CITES or compiled by many of the different country governments.

Furthermore, whether or not lime and building tonnage outweighs aquarium trade harvest is unimportant. There is no conceivable way that most of these nations can use alternative building materials and the only way to lessen this impact is to have outside nations provide lime from inland quarrys. Something unlikely to happen as the cost is too exorbitant. However, when you consider the fact that coral harvest for the aquarium trade is easily diminished by switching to captive bred or thru industry changes or legislative bans, you can see that it has a much more solvable solution. Furthermore, lime removal is not target specific and doesn't tend to denude a reef of vital nursery branching species of corals like acropora-targeted removal does.

Lastly, you have to consider that fact that harvest trade does provide revinue to the collectors of the organisms, but the majority of profits are taken out of country and no benefits are returned to the host countries.

Rarely, some exporters pay royalties to the governments. But, those royalties are so often mismanaged that they seldom are reincorporated toward conservation efforts.

JeremyR · Jan 3, 2002

Does not the weight on the cities info (200k metric tons) also include live rock? I was under the impression that it did.. I"m not saying you could fit it all on a barge, but the live rock being grouped as scleractinian does skew the numbers greatly.

Anonymous · Jan 3, 2002

I think CBA is skewering the numbers well enough on his own.

Anonymous · Jan 3, 2002

Maybe people view the term Marine wildlife from overexplotation as some thing different but I view it as over collecting and this is another view from outside our hobby. This article appears in the Janurary issue of Sport Diver page 28. Te issues that ace our hobby are being discussed a lot more by people outside our hobby.

Helping Hands

by Roger McManus

Biologists, policymakers and fundraisers gathered to focus on Caribbean conservation priorities during a recent meeting in the Dominican Republic cosponsored by Conservation International and the New York Botanical Garden. Speakers included Sylvia Earle and Oscar De La Renta, who has a home in Punta Cana, where the meeting was held.
Part of the meeting touched on the importance and needs of nongovernment organizations (NGOs) working on conservation in the region. In recente years we've seen an explosion in the number of NGOs, and their efforts are making a difference.
Many of these NGOs focus on protecting the quality of the marine environment aned the abundance and diversity of its wildlife-issues of concern to divers worldwide. The work of these groups may include trying to protect caves from pollution, reefs from physical damage and fish and other marine wildlife from overexploitation. Increasingly they are called upon to do tasks formerly reserved for government agencies, including research, education and even management of natural resources and natural areas. These groups also are frequently on the front line fighting unwise development. Their work is important to us all, and we should give consideration to how we can help them.

This article goes on to list Charities that accept contributions, I do not know if I am supposed to list them on reefs.org but they are listed in the article and may be online at sportdiver.com

My point being while we argue over how much is due to our hobby, wild harvesting is not getting good press and very well could affect our hobby's future.

I do not exactly know what the term "Policy Makers" means but I doubt they are hearing the virtues of wild caught species.

Anonymous · Jan 3, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Jeremy Russell:
Does not the weight on the cities info (200k metric tons) also include live rock? I was under the impression that it did.. I"m not saying you could fit it all on a barge, but the live rock being grouped as scleractinian does skew the numbers greatly.<hr></blockquote>

If I remember correctly, there are separate categories for dried curio scleractinians, live scleractinians, and then rock tonnage. Soft corals (alcyonians, corallimorphs, and even anemones) are mostly listed in terms of pieces and number instead of by weight.

So I think they should be a little less skewed then you would think. If anything, they are probably under reporting the true amounts in order to save on export fees and paper filing red-tape while awaiting authorization to export.

Anemone · Jan 4, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Fishaholic:
Kevin You may want to read further, Indo pacific sea farms is not overseas. It was started in Palua but is now located in Kona Hawaii, unaffected by import bans.<hr></blockquote>

Actually, I wasn't thinking of IPSF at all, as I realize it is located in Hawaii.

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Fishaholic:
I think a more appropriate question for Mary would be will you stop bringing in corals that are wild to stop competeing with captive stock.

Her response was NO!<hr></blockquote>

I think my question was appropriate, and Mary's answer was, "yes," indicating that she does indeed support captive propagation programs.

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Tim Tessier:
Another thing to realize is that most locals view corals as land fill. The only way they will protect the reef is if they make their living from it. This is sad but true.<hr></blockquote>

I agree, and as I've tried to indicate, money makes the world go 'round, and the industry has it.

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Tim Tessier:
As far as the Waikiki Aquarium, I have imported some captive raised coral from them several years ago. I talked to Charles about another order and he said he could not sell to me because they could only sell to AZA members.<hr></blockquote>

I'm glad you brought this up. I remember Charles speaking at one of the conference I attended and saying that the Waikiki Aquarium destroys a great deal of their captive raised corals every year because they are prohibited from selling it to anyone other than AZA members, and there isn't that much demand among AZA members.

Tim, I appreciate your personal experience and insight confirming some of the things others have said (especially about the "help" AZA has/is providing our hobby).

Kevin

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: Anemone ]

Tim Tessier · Jan 4, 2002

Cites import permits are typically over reported. Take the Solomons for example. They have a generic CITES that they use. For example, on a recent order the CITES lists 600 T. maxima clams, there were none in the shipment. You can not use info from CITES permits to actually calculate removal of reef animals. A much more accurate way to do this would be to use the figures from the US Fish and Wildlife import inspection forms. I beleive Eric has done this. CITES forms list live rock in kg and corals by the piece. So to say that so many metric tons of coral was removed is erroneous for the aquarium trade. If a weight is given it is only for Live rock and live sand.

<blockquote>quote

Furthermore, whether or not lime and building tonnage outweighs aquarium trade harvest is unimportant. There is no conceivable way that most of these nations can use alternative building materials and the only way to lessen this impact is to have outside nations provide lime from inland quarrys. Something unlikely to happen as the cost is too exorbitant. However, when you consider the fact that coral harvest for the aquarium trade is easily diminished by switching to captive bred or thru industry changes or legislative bans, you can see that it has a much more solvable solution. Furthermore, lime removal is not target specific and doesn't tend to denude a reef of vital nursery branching species of corals like acropora-targeted removal does.

Dr. Reef,

I agree with some of what you said but other parts I don't.

The building industries and other industries wipe out whole areas of reef, they are not selective in what they bring up. An example, in Vanuatu an exporter was asked to relocate a reef because they were putting in a barge channel. The reef was completely destroyed for the barge channel.

My belief is that coral reefs are incredibly resilient if the water is not polluted. Take for example the Bikini Atoll nuclear test site. I would say that it is a good guess that the reefs were pretty much destroyed by the blast and consequent radiation from the A-bomb. This area is now attracting divers and they also have a pristine coral reef. Some of it growing on the sides of ships. Or what about the Solomon Islands, namely Guadalcanal. Or how about Million dollar point in Vanuatu where the US Army pushed hundreds of planes, trucks etc into the water after WWII. Reefs can quickly recover from damage if the water is not polluted. Consequently the biggest threat to reefs is global warming, golf courses, tourist hotels and boats constantly spewing oil and gas into the water. Jet skis are the worst!!! Lets also not forget the damage from anchors and nets.

The majority of corals removed are not acroporiids but are soft corals, leather corals, polyps, mushrooms and non acroporiid scleractinians.

I agree fully with you on the fact that most of the profits are taken out of the countries. The collectors in the Philippines are still being exploited by companies that were supposed to be making a difference by paying the collectors more.

Best Regards,
Tim

dmentnich · Jan 4, 2002

I have just finished wading through 4 pages of posts. It seems that the first page was good discussion about the topic. The second page was debating if the AZA was any good. Could somebody not E-mail them a message and ask if they would even be interested in overseeing the hobby and at least reading and responding to the thread? If they are not it was a huge effort defending and attacking them on both sides. If they are, they could respond about their policies and everyone could ask questions directly.

After that the discussion turned to who is responsible for advancements in captive bread fish and corals with a very interesting post by Tim Tessier (thanks for breaking the monotony of the conversation!

)

And the posts finally turned to weather or not we as consumers are hurting the reefs with a nice post by Dr. Reef where he gave some good quotes from actual studies (I realize that for every study saying that we are hurting the reef there is probably a study saying that we are not, but I don't want to debate this in this post.) Regrettably the link in his post is broke.

Now while I do not mean to infer that reading all the posts has been boreing- quite the opposite really, my point is this; while we started out focused on the idea of licenses we have waded into what should have been about three or four separate threads and the original thought has not been talked about for the last three pages and no real progress has been made towards weather or not we as a group would be willing to pay for a license, IF THEY WOULD HAVE ANY EFFECT, and if there is the even the will within the industry to regulate itself. (A question for Marry- is the will for self-regulation there, or is this forum nothing more that a place for very good information and lively debate where three years down the road we will find out that nothing has changed. Are the majority of people in the industry taking hobbyists' seriously, reading the boards and considering captive raised or low-impact species or do they all figure that there will be a never-ending supply of uninformed "newbies" to sell their moorish idols to; and we all know that there WILL always be that supply of uninformed hobbyists.)

Just my response to let you know that I'm still here.

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: danny150 ]

JeremyR · Jan 4, 2002

Tim,

You didn't mention why they overreport on the cities when they export, but I think it's an important point. It's sortof like gov't employees who get X amount of $$$'s to spend in a fiscal period. At the end of the year, if they have money left over, they have to spend it or they don't get the same amount of money the next year. So instead of saving the money and being good boys and girls, they spend it on whatever they can so that they get the same or bigger allocation the next year. In the case of the coral exporters, it's not that they are shipping the full allocation just to meet the amount, but they are making the paperwork look that way so that they don't lose out the next year.

Danny: These threads always go off topic in every forum.. somone brings something up and rather than start a new thread we all go of on tangents. Nature of the human beast. Heh.

Anemone · Jan 4, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Part of the meeting touched on the importance and needs of nongovernment organizations (NGOs) working on conservation in the region. In recente years we've seen an explosion in the number of NGOs, and their efforts are making a difference.
Many of these NGOs focus on protecting the quality of the marine environment aned the abundance and diversity of its wildlife-issues of concern to divers worldwide. The work of these groups may include trying to protect caves from pollution, reefs from physical damage and fish and other marine wildlife from overexploitation. Increasingly they are called upon to do tasks formerly reserved for government agencies, including research, education and even management of natural resources and natural areas. These groups also are frequently on the front line fighting unwise development. Their work is important to us all, and we should give consideration to how we can help them<hr></blockquote>

Um, seems like the "industry" could easily (and rightly) be considered an NGO, and is beginning to participate in exactly these type of activities.

Kevin

Cappuccino Bay Aquarium · Jan 4, 2002

Originally posted by Dr. Reef:
[QB]

If you believe that over 200,000 metric tonnes of coral removed each year can fit on one barge, then maybe you should go look at a barge again. You are way underestimating the amount of coral removed, and I believe the reason you are doing so is because you haven't actually read any of the yearly reports filed to CITES or compiled by many of the different country governments.

Lets do some quick Math 200,000 metric tons? How many sps corals at one pound each ? Thats 2,204 lbs or 2,204x200,000 or four hundered and forty million corals{440,000,000} since the average coral does not weight one pound ,more like 0ne third of a pound= then its one billion two hundred million corals imported for the trade? Thats about one ton of corls for each hobbists if there are 200,000 coral reef tanks out there? ...........Silly? Also Even if this were true, an Ocean Cargo ship holds 4000 containers at 30,000 lbs each container=or 60,000 metric tons? the Airport Made soley out of live coral is one thousand times this? Ecotourism anyone?

Another Idea......

Anonymous

Guest

Anonymous

Guest

Active Reefer

Anonymous

Guest

Anonymous

Guest

Experienced Reefer

Experienced Reefer

Experienced Reefer

Advanced Reefer

Anonymous

Guest

Advanced Reefer

Anonymous

Guest

Anonymous

Guest

Anonymous

Guest

Advanced Reefer

Active Reefer

Experienced Reefer

Advanced Reefer

Advanced Reefer

Experienced Reefer

Sponsor Reefs