MAC has saved the reefs.....now lets go have some sushi!

[Anonymous]

mike:

lol

you sure it's not really self loathing, turned outwards? :wink:

 

[MaryHM]

As someone who actually imports from Fiji, let me make a couple of statements:

1. The CITES numbers out of Fiji are no way indicative of what is actually coming out. My guys continually overestimate and there are many times when we have a CITES permit listing hundreds of pieces of coral when we only have live rock (listed as Scleractinia) on the shipment. Anyone who uses those numbers for an estimate is not getting an accurate picture of the exports. More accurate numbers can be obtained by US Fish & Wildlife, as breakdowns of CITES species are mandatory BASED ON THE INVOICE. This gives an accurate picture.

2. From what I observed of live rock collection in Fiji, it looked to be completely sustainable. Miles upon miles upon miles of nothing but live rock covering the bottom of the shallow areas behind the reefs. I can't even get my guys to go out to the reefs, so I know they are not crowbarring anything. I can't speak for every exporter though, and lord knows the station I work with isn't the biggest. My guys snorkel down about 5-8' , pick up the rock, and put it in the boat.

3. For general information purposes, 2 operations have closed in Fiji in the past few months. One was strictly live rock and one was mainly live animals. The increased freight rates out of there are killing us.

 

[Kalkbreath]

Thats kind of my point...why is it that hobbyists are advising governments about importing or collection ?
_________________
Ferrari 125

 

[Kalkbreath]

Kalk, There is a report that can be obtained from Steven Why of IMA about the Fiji survey concerning live rock and coral harvesting.

This is from IMA's last e-newsletter.
Peter Rubec

Is Fiji's Coral Trade Destructive?

In Fiji over the past year IMA has spearheaded a national assessment of the trade in live corals, live rock and other coral products. Concerned about the impact of the aquarium and curio coral trades, the Fiji Government in early 2002 asked IMA to investigate scientifically and make recommendations about Fiji's coral collection activities and their sustainability. With funding from the Oak Foundation, IMA created a team of scientists from Honolulu's Bishop Museum (coral ecologist), Townsville's James Cook University (fisheries economist), and Suva's University of the South Pacific (USP - sociologists), matching them with local NGO, government and community counterparts for capacity building associated with the coral trade assessment and management.

The IMA team, together with communities and chiefs involved throughout Fiji identified live rock and curio coral harvesting as being destructive. Curio coral (mostly Acropora and Porites species) has for years been harvested live, bleached and shipped out by the container load, causing significant and visible impacts in harvesting areas. Live rock harvesting by communities has also seriously altered reef habitat and fishing areas. A thousand tons of live rock was imported into the US from Fiji in 2001, and considerably more was crow-barred from the reefs by communities desperate for income and unconcerned (or unaware) about the impact. The majority of Fiji's corals and live rock are exported to the United States.

Live coral harvesting for the aquarium trade on the other hand - which is carried out by selectively harvesting coral colonies - did not appear to be having a measurable impact when compared to unharvested areas. Mariculture alternatives for both live rock and coral are available. Given conflicts associated with this industry in Fiji, IMA has throughout the study emphasized strengthening the local management process. This process should lead to more sustained and effective local management, as well as more environmentally conscientious decision-making.

The environmental and economic impacts of these trades are of great concern to the Fijian people. There is opposition locally to these trades, stemming from conflict with Fiji's tourism industry, and the environmental sector. However, there is also wide recognition about the value of the current export trade, and strong awareness that a sustainable trade can provide critical foreign earnings. Overseas concern is also running high, with CITES requiring Fiji to reduce export levels by up to 100% until a management plan is in place for sustainability. IMA's assessment therefore comes at an important time for Fiji. For further details, please contact Steve Why IMA-Pacific Program at [email protected].

Thank you Peter, I would love to read a well done study, and thank you for also pointing out to the readers that hobby is not the only group collecting corals from the reefs there. How many islands are in Fiji? that works out to be about one ton of live rock per island a year?
_________________
Honda CR250M

 

[MaryHM]

How many islands are in Fiji? that works out to be about one ton of live rock per island a year?

Kalk- doesn't matter how many islands there are. What matters is where the collection is taking place. As far as I know all of the live rock is coming from the main island.

 

[Kalkbreath]

Yes , and thats the only reason it can be shown to be unsustainable. maybe we should get those guys to stop pulling 1000 tons from that same {one} Lagoon .{there are a few hundred lagoons in Fiji} Does this mean we could collect 100,000 tons ? {100x1000}
_________________
Honda Shadow 600

 

[mkirda]

Thats kind of my point...why is it that hobbyists are advising governments about importing or collection ?

And all along I thought it was that MAC had saved the reefs!
Gee, no wonder I'm so confused...

{smirk}
Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

: Well, ....the post was ment to point out that there is no way MAC or any other hobby reform group can save the reefs..........there are so many larger industries {mainly the Asian seafood market}effecting the reefs to a much greater degree then this hobby, and that because this hobby only collects 10% of the total giant clams,...................... 5% of the total reef fish {by weight} , ......................................................................less then 1% of the total seahorses remove from the sea, EVEN less then ten percent of the live rock, {if compared to construction and cement removal} ........more live reef hard coral is removed by the curio trade then this hobby {by weight} MAYBE, The only item this hobby collects more of then any other industry is large polyp lagoon corals like brains, elegance and plate corals But because 75% of these are not suitable for collection {BROWN color} Their will only be a few color morphs in danger of over collection { and by the way, CITES is heavily monitoring these type corals to insure no over collection} .....................so}, QUESTION} Does any one here disagree that because our collection only amounts to about 10% of the total removal of reef creatures and even this ten percent is from a very small number of collection places..{ about 5% of the islands that we could collect from}.................That even if this hobby ended ALL collection ........it would have almost NO impact on the reefs of the world? { 5% less collection in 5% of the worlds reefs}?
_________________
Mercedes CLK AMG Black Series

 

[MaryHM]

Kalk,

I know I've said this to you before, but for everyone's sake let me repeat it once again. NO ONE here is saying that by ending the hobby the reefs will be saved. No one here is that naive. What we are saying is that this hobby should not CONTRIBUTE to the detriment of the reefs- whether that contribution is .001% or 100%. This industry can be conducted in a sustainable, environmentally ethical way so why would we not strive for that just because our impact is small?? ANY detrimental impact is just that. Detrimental impact. The degree doesn't matter.

 

[Kalkbreath]

Okay......just how do you propose LESS then .001 % ? That is and still give the natives an income and the coral worth protecting ?........ If you cant , then dont make dangerous statements like .oo1 percentage! .........Even aquaculturing frags in a lagoon is going to disrupt .001 percent.........? This hobby needs to stop preaching total unrealistic ideas! In order for this hobby to give the countries which own these reefs , a reason to keep them healthy and protected........there is a certain amount of unavoidable effects farming the reefs will have.....If you dont see what makes this hobby a "GOOD " friend of the reef, and you really feel .001% is too much ...Then why in the world are you involved in it?
_________________
Acura MDX

 

[Anonymous]

(Just to play devil's advocate for a moment.) I don't think Kalk's point is that any one thinks fixing the hobby will save the reefs. I think his point is that most of us would be satisfied with just fixing the hobby. ie. getting a cyanide test and ending cyanide collection, getting MAC to ensure against over collection, making sure the natives get paid enough money, etc. If we achieved all of those goals most of us would give ourselves a good pat on the back and go out for a nice dinner to reward ourselves for a job well done. When in fact even if we did fix everything about the hobby even beyond our wildest expectations it will really have amounted to little real gloabl progress but at least our consciences will be clean.

 

[MaryHM]

Kalk,

You are absolutely infuriating and ridiculous. That is why no one will take you seriously. I was not claiming .001%- it was an analogy. I have spoken many times to people about how the reefs can be used in a sustainable manner by this industry to both protect the reefs and create income for the native collectors/villages. For you to insinuate otherwise is ignorance. However, the key factor is SUSTAINABLE collection. It can be done. Again, for you to assume otherwise is ignorance. Many of us here are working toward the goal of 0% detriment to the reefs. Here is a quote from a paper I wrote a couple of years ago:

I firmly believe that starting in situ coral farms in every exporting country would go a long way toward protecting the reefs and the industry. It is the only way to solve the problems of providing adequate income and a sense of resource protection for the native people, and lessening the impact of the industry on the reefs. In fact, corals grown on these farms could be utilized to reestablish damaged areas, a case of the industry actually benefiting the reefs!

Bottom line, there is no reason for this industry to cause undue stress and detriment to the reefs via such mechanisms as cyanide fishing. It's people who care more about their pocketbooks than the reefs that started and perpetuate this practice. And no, I'm not blaming the natives. They have been used as pawns for too long by this industry and hopefully one day they will actually be able to prosper from their resource. That is my goal.

 

[MaryHM]

Rover,

Obviously "fixing" the industry will not solve the problems the reefs are facing. But does that mean we should just throw up our hands and say "We can't save the world, so let's just continue the status quo"? I think not.

 

[Anonymous]

But does that mean we should just throw up our hands and say "We can't save the world, so let's just continue the status quo"? I think not.

I agree completely. We should do everything we can to lessen the impact we create on the reefs. I just think that in order for us to achieve long term success, MAC (or some other org) needs to work closely with other reef "watchdog" organizations on the whole food fish thing. To ensure that any regulations passed affecting the food fish industry won't negatively affect the aquarium hobby, and also to make sure that all of the work put into MAC wasn't a waste of time and funds because the food fish industry came right along behind and negated all of the benefits the reef would have seen form our reform.

 

[Kalkbreath]

(Just to play devil's advocate for a moment.) I don't think Kalk's point is that any one thinks fixing the hobby will save the reefs. I think his point is that most of us would be satisfied with just fixing the hobby. ie. getting a cyanide test and ending cyanide collection, getting MAC to ensure against over collection, making sure the natives get paid enough money, etc. If we achieved all of those goals most of us would give ourselves a good pat on the back and go out for a nice dinner to reward ourselves for a job well done. When in fact even if we did fix everything about the hobby even beyond our wildest expectations it will really have amounted to little real gloabl progress but at least our consciences will be clean.

Thank you,................ See........ if I expressed myself as well as you explained my point...............I might actually be taken seriously....and we cant have that now, can we..............................?
_________________
chocolate chunk pics

 

[Anonymous]

Must be a Georgia thing. Still plan to stop by your shop one day. Scott (Seachem) said it was nice.

 

[Kalkbreath]

Kalk,

You are absolutely infuriating and ridiculous. That is why no one will take you seriously. I was not claiming .001%- it was an analogy. I have spoken many times to people about how the reefs can be used in a sustainable manner by this industry to both protect the reefs and create income for the native collectors/villages. For you to insinuate otherwise is ignorance. However, the key factor is SUSTAINABLE collection. It can be done. Again, for you to assume otherwise is ignorance. Many of us here are working toward the goal of 0% detriment to the reefs. Here is a quote from a paper I wrote a couple of years ago:

I firmly believe that starting in situ coral farms in every exporting country would go a long way toward protecting the reefs and the industry. It is the only way to solve the problems of providing adequate income and a sense of resource protection for the native people, and lessening the impact of the industry on the reefs. In fact, corals grown on these farms could be utilized to reestablish damaged areas, a case of the industry actually benefiting the reefs!

Bottom line, there is no reason for this industry to cause undue stress and detriment to the reefs via such mechanisms as cyanide fishing. It's people who care more about their pocketbooks than the reefs that started and perpetuate this practice. And no, I'm not blaming the natives. They have been used as pawns for too long by this industry and hopefully one day they will actually be able to prosper from their resource. That is my goal.

Mary , your still missing the point...........Too many leaders of this hobby are touting coral farms as a way to help the reefs{ this gives the impression that hobby CORAL collection is harming the reefs ....................a coral farm here and a coral farm there.........Coral farms cannot fix a problem that does not exist to begin with.... Tell me how or where ending coral collection is going to effect a reef? Last time I checked....very few corals are collected with Cyanide! Cyanide is the ONLY problem this hobby has! PERIOD Coral farms are a feel good approach to placating the misguided ............... its not the tought that counts or the intentions. Only activities that actually effect the reefs that count... Ending cyanide fishing ,both seafood and hobby collection would greatly help the health of reefs where we collect. But . anouncing to the world that new coral farms will somehow help the reefs is a sure way to have the government tricked into believing that as well.......What is wrong with the truth? The truth is that this hobby, even where we collect coral, has no effect on the health of the reef, Zero. There might be a few of the more colorfull corals missing and some of the non reef building lagoon corals. But the simple fact that 99.9998 percent of all reef coral is brown and of no use to collectors assures that the reef itself not effected by our tiny collection . On the otherhand, I think coral farms are a wonderful way of producing in greater number the more rare and collorfull morphs! so I am behind the idea of coral farms, but lets be honest as to what effect more of these farms would have on the reefs.
_________________
ACS bolt

 

[Kalkbreath]

Must be a Georgia thing. Still plan to stop by your shop one day. Scott (Seachem) said it was nice.

If you do stop by the store..........please tap on the huge rock I live under! :wink:
_________________
Ferrari 456

 

[Anonymous]

Must be a Georgia thing. Still plan to stop by your shop one day. Scott (Seachem) said it was nice.

If you do stop by the store..........please tap on the huge rock I live under! :wink:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

i gotta hand it to ya, kalk,-

that was your most intelligent post yet!

also shows a fairly good sense of humour, too :wink:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[PeterIMA]

I also would like to see cyanide testing reinstated, more net training, means to ensure that the reefs are not overexploited (sustainable collecting) etc. I agree with Kalk and others that this will help the trade and hobby but may not save the reefs from degredation by other causes that are not aquarium trade related.

I should point out that it was the IMA that:
a) Found funding and was instrumental in implementation of net training of aquarium fish collectors.
b) Ran six cyanide testing laboratories for BFAR for 8 years. IMA just submitted a proposal by which a new CDT laboratory can be re-established in Manila run jointly with BFAR with funding from NOAA.
c) Advocated sustainable collection methods and assisted the MAC by supplying trainers and Ferdinand Cruz to train the collectors how to do CAMPs.
d) Runs two coral farms and teaches villagers techniques for coral fragmentation/rearing and giant clam propagation.
e) Involved with establishment of marine reserves (Vietnam and Philippines)
f) Does research (Dr. Terry Donaldson in Guam) and monitoring (Frazer McGilvray in Hong Kong and Mainland China) to create statistics on volumes traded and pricing of groupers in the live food fish trade.
g) Implemented the largest coastal cleanup in the world in the Philippines for the past six years.
h) Educates school children by working with teachers in coastal villages (CREST program) and has reached about 1 million children over the past four years.
i) Is now established and working in the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, the USA, Vanuatu, Fiji, Marshall Islands, Hong Kong, and Australia.
j) Working closely with governments, other NGOs, and the MAC to conserve marine resources, protect marine environments, and facilitate sustainable utilization of marine resources for the benefit of local fishers and the aquarium trade.

Peter Rubec
International Marinelife Alliance