Austrailia outlaws coral harvesting

[MaryHM]

Fishaholic:

Forgive me if I am misinterpreting, but you seem to think that I am saying "Natives will starve if we ban collection for the hobby". That is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that they are DIVERS. That is what they do for a living- catch fish. If they are prevented from doing it for the hobby they WILL start doing it for the food fish industry which is much more destructive. I advocate teaching the native people how to properly manage their reefs- collect sustainably, put coral farms into place, etc... I do not advocate stripping them of their livelihood, forcing them to go into a more destructive form of fishing, then feeling good about myself because the "hobby" isn't damaging the reefs. If you ban hobby collection, you don't solve anything (except making reefers feel warm and fuzzy about themselves because they aren't directly contributing to the problem). If you teach the native people how to manange their resource, then you are working toward a positive and tangible change- both for the reefs and the people who rely on them.

 

[Anonymous]

Gavan

I honestly believe you and I could have a few beers and exchange thoughts and the tone would never become heated. I do not know Sen. Hill so I can in no way comment or form a judgement on how he is running his office.

What I fail to understand is why the root of what gives the perception to the public on this issue is not bing addressed. The people who think they ae in a leadership role in this hobby ie Mary and DBW have not at any time that I can find in the searchable data base advocated anyone to use aquacultered rock or tank raised fish. I searched, If they can direct me to just one thread I will retract my statement with full appology. When they do not do this the only thing they are leading this hobby into is extintion.

Look at how long both have been apart of this board. They should have numerous times when they have advised a newbie to seek these avenues. We will only have more bans and more restrictions to fight in the future if we do not change how we purchase.
Hopefully you will defeat this ban but this is only the beginning not the end. It is time for people that want a leadership role in this hobby to wake up and actually try to lead.

 

[DBW]

What Senator Hill is proposing to do is to phase out the collection of coral from the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. It is essentially the same area as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. He will do this be changing the regulations (without having to go through Parliament, community or industry consultation) such that they are not transferrable and the licensee must be in attendence while the license is being worked. The reasoning, that he is putting forth in statements he has made to coral collectors and the media is that such activities (harvesting of coral) is "inappropriate" for a World Heritage Area. This is the same politician that supports uranium mining in the Kakadu World Heritage Area in Northern Territory.

The Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area 25-year Strategic Plan: does not identify coral harvesting as a threat, a conflicting use or an "inappropriate" use. A principle of the Plan is "Limits on natural resource use based on ability of environment to sustain such use". Reports mentioned below (performed by those involved in management of the GBR and who advise Sen. Hill) all state that the coral fishery is sustainable.

The following are bits from the information we have pulled together on the issue.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority states: "The 25 Year Strategic Plan for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area provides a vision for a management approach for the Area that overtly recognises its World Heritage status, and the objectives and strategies to realise this vision. By fulfilling the objectives set out in the Strategic Plan, in particular those relating to education, conservation, legislation and monitoring, Australia will meet its international obligations under the World Heritage Convention". Therefore if an industry is sustainable then it will not conflict with meeting international obligations under the World Heritage Convention.

Report by world recognised scientists, Drs Vicki Harriott, Done and Veron et al at the Cooperative Reef Research Centre (CRC Reef) for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Centre, James Cook University and the Australian Institute of Marine Science, entitled "The sustainability of Queensland's coral harvest fishery" December, 2000, finds that the fishery is:

· Ecologically sustainable and poses no threat to the future of the Great Barrier Reef.

· The total harvest in the fishery is very small relative to coral cover on the GBR.

Dr Vicki Harriott says her research shows that the current level of harvesting is sustainable. She says there needs to be changes to the way the industry is managed, but overall it is causing far less damage than the crown of thorns starfish. "If you restrict the areas from which coral can be taken and there are natural replenishment processes, it is possible for the corals to regrow and replenish themselves over time," she said. "What you need is good management practices, you need to have a strong management system."

Those involved in management of the GBRWHA have been in consultation with the best coral and reef biologists in the world and have been advised that the current levels of coral harvesting are fully maintainable. Why isn't the recommendations of the management organisations being listened to by Sen. Hill?

At The International Workshop on International Trade in Stony Corals: Development of Sustainable Management Guidelines held in Jakarta, 2001: the Marine Aquarium Society (a global organisation for the certification of quality and sustainability in the Marine Aquarium Industry) endorsed Australia as having the world's highest standards of collection and management practices.

Basically it boils down to Sen. Hill taking the easy way to get some green votes. Shut down a small industry that the public will percieve to have major impact on the environment. Don't both looking at the real issues here, such as agriculture run off, tourism, recreational divers, the Kyoto agreement (which Australia, I am ashamed to say, would not support it) etc.

I am not against regulation of the industry. The coral harvesters have actually been wanting the regulations to be overhauled. The reason is that it is out dated, most of it is aimed at the curio trade.

The flow on effects of the industry closure are more wide spread then people realise too. First off there is a monetry issue, those directly employed, those that provide services associated (transport, equipment) etc. Then there is the fact that shutting down the GBRWHA coral fishery will be an end to the marine aquarium hobby in Australia. The other reefs around Australia would not be able to stand the increase demand. That is not because of the actual impact it has, but more to do with the fact that if it increased dramatically people will suddenly sit up and say "hey, that is not good. They have shut it down on the GBRWHA, we should do the same here". Also realise that Australia cannot import or export invertebrates. So the effects are local and fatal.

Note that this does not influence the fish collection industry. If he gets away with this then it is a very easy step to then do the same to that fishery.

 

[Anonymous]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DBW:
<STRONG>Fishaholic, do you realise that this is not a restriction? In effect, if this goes through then that is the end of the reef keeping hobby in Australia. There is already restrictions in place here in Australia. They are not perfect, but they are currently the model for the rest of the world.</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok why are you quoteing me.

You had surely read my post, you used a direct quote from me and then ask if I am aware this is not a restriction.

What part of The end result is Bans and restrictons are you having difficulty reading.

I have read the proposed ban, I have read the page from Mary and now yours, I do not support this ban. But if you and others are this dense maybe it is going to take a major ban to have you and others like you to start advocating captive breed propagation.

If You banned all wild harvesting world wide our hobby would continue. The selection would be smaller and it would be more expensive.

Maybe our planet has bigger problems than if you are going to have the exact coral you want?

 

[Anonymous]

For those that are against the sustainable harvest of creatures, I have a question. What do you eat? Everything on our plate was at one time wild. I don't see too many wild beef, I still do see wild turkey and hog. Chances are your ancestors shot deer, turkey, and pig in the woods. They also lived off the fruit and berries the land has to offer. If the "taking" of these animals was and is ok, why not any other sustainable "taking"?

 

[Anonymous]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SteveNichols:
<STRONG>For those that are against the sustainable harvest of creatures, I have a question. What do you eat? Everything on our plate was at one time wild. I don't see too many wild beef, I still do see wild turkey and hog. Chances are your ancestors shot deer, turkey, and pig in the woods. They also lived off the fruit and berries the land has to offer. If the "taking" of these animals was and is ok, why not any other sustainable "taking"?</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve I am not in any why flaming you. Your statement is just a textbook example of how our society polarizes peope on side of an issue and makes the whole thing melodramatic. In this sense melodramatic meaning, people who are good are only good and people who are bad are only bad> You do not have to be a Vagan to conserve wldlife. Who would have though a bunch of duck hunters would have formed Ducks Unlimited and play a leading role in persrving species.

Cattle are domesticated we Do not impact any wild populations of cattle. Yes Africa and Asia still have wild cattle. You do not see wild cattle in your backyard because we brought these animals to the Americas. This is when we are at our best, when we raise what we consume. I do not Know if you hunt but in my book wild turkey is not worth shooting. Personally I do not wanttoeat a bird that runs a marathon every day.

If it helps you both sets of my grandparents came over from Ireland.
I do not htink my ancester took part in the events you mention and if they did I do not see how that impacts me.

When we have reef tanks we are consuming these fish from the wild. Therefore we should be responsible and raise them. I do not advocate not having wild caught but if you make a legitamate effort to get these the tide will turn and more spcies will be tank raised and not impact the wild populations. Go and dive the reefs and enjoy them. The only thing I have been advocating all along is to buy responsibly and it amazes me how so many people that profess to be very knowledgeable about our hobby want to try and tell me I dont get it. Perhaps it goes againts thier ability to earn a living if these animals are tank raised, I do not Know.

FWIW I am not against the harveting of sustainable wild ceatures. I just believe we as a lifeform have evolved in inteligence to do it a better, low impact way.

 

[SPC]

Dave, I think we have to address the issue of whether it is better to tank raise or farm the reef. Again, my point is that the reefs are being destroyed (along with the rest of the planet) everyday for many different reasons, least of which is the aquarium hobby. So why not give the people who live with these reefs everyday an incentive to maintain them? To me it seems like a win/win situation.
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Steve we can take a trip down to Key Largo and I will take you on a snorkleing trip to Molasses reef. this is just one of the Barrier reefs in the keys. Last year over 650,000 people dived this one reef.

Without removing one fish or coral these reefs are maintained and a ban on harvesting has been in place for all the major reefs in the keys for a barrier of 300 yards all the way around.

Hmmmmm I wonder why Mary is not trying to have this ban lifted?

Just one trip and you for yourself can make that call. This is the 3rd largest barrrier reef in the world and it is right in our backyard.

 

[SPC]

Dave, I know this area well, I was brought up in Miami and my grandfather lived on Key Largo for 23 years. I have spent many wonderful hours in the area you speak of and would never want it to change. Having said that however, I did see it change, it is not even close to the same reef as it was in the 60s. Now, this reef being right on the coast of Florida can be protected quite well do to the affluence of the USA. The reefs I am speaking of are the ones that are located in areas that do not have the resources to protect them. My point was that if the people of these areas were given an insentive to protect the reefs, then there might be a better chance to protect them.
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Steve

In preservingmany speicies it has always been said if people just understood the impact they would want to do preservation on thier own.

This debate started with people would only take from rubble .
Then people would only take from the patch reefs.
Now people should be allowed to take from the main reef.

If the have already consumed many of the patch reefs where would you draw the line.

Would it ot be a better plan of action to raise what you consume

Supply side controls have never been effective. We must control our purchases or Our purchase choices will be made for us.

If we do not purchase rock from certain regions there is no incentive to go out and get it.

We have fallen in love in this contry with banning the import of certain items because it works. It is harsh and many do not like it but I stongly believe in a majority vote and the overwhelming majority do not have SW tanks or will ever visit a reef. If we make it seem even for a second we are contributing to reef destruction, the bans will be swift and in bunches. Preception is reality in polotics.
We need to advance captive propagation so that we can harvest from the wild and hopefuly one day we will not need to.

 

[DBW]

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

<STRONG>Ok why are you quoteing me.</STRONG>

Because you made a statement that stood out to me, and it was incorrect.

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

<STRONG>You had surely read my post, you used a direct quote from me and then ask if I am aware this is not a restriction. What part of The end result is Bans and restrictons are you having difficulty reading.</STRONG>

The quote of yours that I used has two parts to it. The last is more of a general statement which is where you say bans and restrictions, a broad stroke. The first is directed to this current proposal, and you say restriction. I was simply pointing out to you, and to those reading the thread, that it is not infact a restriction.

 

[SPC]

Sorry I didn't get back sooner Dave, had to watch the rest of the US Open. I agree with you 100% about raising what you consume, the only question I have is were is the best place to raise the livestock? Is it better for the environement of the earth to raise marine life on land, or in the ocean? I dont think that farming marine life has to destroy the reefs if done in an educated manner.
Steve

 

[Maquaman]

Fishaholic - Whilst your position and views are admirable, can I suggest that it this case they are misguided or uninformed. You are basing much of what you say on the US experience. This thread is all about the proposed ban in Australia. There are very few parallels.

 Australia does not allow the importation or exportation of invertebrates (incl coral)
 The small size of the market here in Australia has two very important consequences. 1 the amount collected from the GBR is very small and 2. It is not commercially viable to setup coral farms.
 The hobbyist network here in Australia is still quite fragmented. Slowly but surely this is changing and we are starting to see the benefits - coral fragging is starting to take place although it is only on a very small scale.

It is very easy to say that we should be encouraging people to buy captive bred fish and coral for their aquarium when you have easy access to it. When you do not it is totally different. This does not diminish the truth or importance of anything you have said however in our situation you are forced to look at it from a different angle.

Some of us (especially people like Dallas) are very keen to see the frequency of captive bred increase here in Australia and it is something that will come along (we hope). Unfortunately if our good Senator gets his way that will basically be impossible as there will be no more coral collection to help get such an industry (even if it starts off as backyard/garage) off the ground.

Can you imagine what the US coral farms would look like now if the importation into and collection from the US was banned 10 years ago (I'm not that familiar with the US history but I'm guessing that 10 years is a fairly safe bet - it may be 5 or 15). I would suggest that you wouldn't have any. Where would that leave the US aquarist then? The rather enviable position that you are in of being able to say well you should be buying/encouraging captive bred just wouldn't be an option… It is my opinion that this ban will effectively rob Australian's of the opportunity to be in the position that you are now in at any point in the future. Would you deny us that?

In closing just a reminder of what is happening here. Senator Hill wants to close down coral collection. He doesn't want to tighten regulations, he doesn't want to implement better management/collection practices nor does he want to see coral farming be phased in and wild caught phased out. He just wants it stopped - period! He will not discuss this with anyone. He is ignoring scientific advice from some of the best coral scientists in the world. He is ignoring the recommendation of those bodies that are charged with the management of the Great Barrier Reef (who must consider world heritage values in everything they do). He is misrepresenting the World Heritage values to suit his own purposes and making statements in the media that make the whole process seem evil.

Please do not interpret the above as an attack on your views. I happen to pretty much agree with most of what you have said. Where I have a problem is my view that you do not seem to appreciate the problem we face in Australia. The solutions you are suggesting will not help at this point in time.

David

 

[GavAn]

I don't know Mary from a bar of soap but I feel that I have to come to DBW's defense on this point as I doubt that he will himself and I hope that he does not find that offensive.

Dallas (DBW) has probably done more than anybody else in this country to promote captive propogation of inverts and conservation in the hobby. No self respecting Australian reefer would be without a frag of one of Dallas's propogated Acropora. He has put in an enormous amount of time into educating and facilitating the education of people on how to look after reef creatures and to change the perception of some people that these are mere ornaments. He may or may not have advocated the use of aquacultured rock on this board, I don't really know as I don't often drop into it but if he hasn't then I suspect that it is because he would have no experience of it. This is because aquacultured rock is not available in Australia. I doubt whether it will ever be availble if this ban comes in either as the market is too small and the prospect too distant to warrant any commercial ventures getting involved - that is even if our good Senator Hill allowed the practice! I was also told yesterday that if somebody wanted to sell propogated corals commercially that it would cost them a weeks average salary (US$250) per year for a license. With the size of our market I really can't see those sorts of things becoming establised. Despite all of this, I have seen Dallas providing information on our local board on how to make rock for a reef tank. I don't think that you could expect one person to turn the whole hobby around in any one country but he has made a pretty darn big dent IMHO. I must also add that to the best of my knowledge neither he, I nor any other Australian that have posted on this thread have a vested interest in keeping the wild collection trade operating as opposed to aquaculturing, other than for having grave concerns for the future of the hobby here. My attitude has always been to try and help build the hobby up and educate hobbyists as much as possible so that a sufficent market and desire will exist for large scale aquaculuring to become viable. What do you think would have happened to the hobby in the USA if rather phasing wild collection out in the domestic setting and still allowing importation, they had just said "from next month, wild collection is no longer allowed and imporation is not allowed (not that it has ever been in Australia)"? Now Dallas has mentioned that Hill has talked about "phasing it out" here but we just don't know the details (he won't talk to anbody about it!). If he just stops renewing collection license then it could all be over within a year. If he makes it madatory for the license holder to be present then I am reliably informed that many collectors will be out of business almost immediately. As far as I know, the collectors may get compensation but nobody has talked about that being in the form of helping them establish aquaculture programs. An interesting side line to this is that the collector that I deal with has already started aquaculturing some corals for sale but the ban would put them out of business and that would be the end of that.

Gavan

 

[Maquaman]

cjdevito - if you want a summary of all the facts click here. It is a summary page containing link to all the scientific reports, media reports, etc.

David

[ June 17, 2001: Message edited by: Maquaman ]

 

[Anonymous]

Fishaholic,
I get the feeling you think I was addressing you. I was'nt

, Iwas addressing anyone who is for the ban. To me, your previous posts show that. I do hunt and I like wild turkey about 1000 times more than I like farm raised. I also like venison more than I like beef, and hardly anything tastes like chicken

. Thanks for the information on where beef came from, by the way. I didn't know that.

My intention was to show that it is very possible to have creatures that live in the wild and also have them for dinner or pets.
I am quite familiar with the Florida reefs, I lived there for almost 30 years. The reason the ban was put in place was because they were failing to produce as much as was being taken and destroyed. Mary may know that. One of the things I like about Tampa Bay Saltwater, the fact that they use aquaculture. I don't know the law that pertains to this, but it almost seems as though they are taking from the reef, although they are the ones that built it. I can remember the barge going out to start one of their reefs. Excellent idea and implementation

. Again, thanks for the information on the Florida reef

, I didn't know it was the third largest.
I agree that captive propagation and aquaculture is the way to go. That is one reason there are no store bought corals in my 10 gallon. I hope to be able to say the same for my 100, but I don't know if the corals I want are captive produced. As of now, however, there is not enough variety to please everyones desires. If LPS regrew as fast as SPS or softies, this may not be the case. I believe that sometime in the not too distant future, aquaculture and captive propigation will be all we have. But banning a business that is not destroying something makes no sense to me.
I agree with SPC. The harvesting going on in Australia is not detrimental to the reef anymore than the deer hunters, apparenly you and I both share another fantastic hobby, are detrimental to the deer population. Ever hunt Green Swamp? I only kill enough to feed my family and me. The same when I went red or snook fishing. Aint it great, the red comeback!!

I think that we are really trying to say the same thing. It is just difficult to convey emotion and actual meaning when we can't do it face to face.

 

[Anonymous]

Steve Nichols,

It would seem you are giving in to your American Blood. As you said on RTAW American Egos are quite different. I have been following this over there also.

The Tampa collection you speak of is that they must mine there own rock from land and then put it into the ocean at designated permit spots. they then can harvest when they feel it is ready. It has 0 impact on any reef. The barrier reefs I speak of in the keys are the natural reefs not the artificial reef although they are a great idea for both diving and fishing.

Gavan I was speaking of fact. If you search the data base niether DBW or Mary have ever advised someone on this board to seek out captive propagated anything. I have no way possible of Knowing anything that goes on in Australia, if he is doing this over there that is a beautiful thing, it would even be more beautiful seeing as he is an Administrator on this board if he did advice people to do so. Again no such post exists that I can find.

I have seen my name mentioned several times on your board and I have not taken the time to respond because it really serves no purpose. I cannot see how when I know nothing about your law or the history about very much of how things have come to pass. If I remember correctly from my studies Australia is one of the few places on this planet that the fauna evolved without the presence of fauna from anywhere else being present. Madagascar is another but madagascar has a history of very poor regulation and because of this most of thier unique fauna is on the brink of extintion. The ban on importing any fauna into Australia I would say is scientificly brilliant. Of course with this being your area of study and work you woud know better than I.

David
I must say your post is one of the best written of all the posts of the people who have taken the time to read the posts in this thread and then offer to educate me. You must have read all my posts on this long thread because what you summized is absolutley true my view have been formed by what happens in the U.S. I would not expect anyone to understand the state of affiars of something happenng a half a world away and you took the time to recognize this.
If I were to comment on the legitimacy of any ban in Australia that would in fact make me a fraud. I would have to either take your side of the chain of events or your opponents point of view. Either way I would be foolish as both side are making the best case for thier arguement to win. Without knowing the history I could only form a completely unwise conclusion.

I am still amazed at how I have become the whipping boy in all this.

[ June 17, 2001: Message edited by: Fishaholic ]

 

[Anonymous]

I wondered how they could do that. You are a veritible cornucopia of information. Dont' insult me by saying I am giving in to my American blood

. I am a second generation immigrant from German and Scotch-Irish Stock. I think the reason you are addressed so often is that you are one of the few who are adressing issues that they hope to one day get to. It's just that so far their hobby is in it's infancy. I think that's one of the reasons people like DBW and apparently MaryHM are involved over here. It could also be that people just like picking on the Irish

. Have fun and good night.

 

[Anonymous]

Steve Nichols
I am going to click on the qoute button just to carry your post over to the next page as I can not read it. The post have become so long My browser will not show your last one.

 

[Anonymous]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SteveNichols:
<STRONG>I wondered how they could do that. You are a veritible cornucopia of information. Dont' insult me by saying I am giving in to my American blood

. I am a second generation immigrant from German and Scotch-Irish Stock. I think the reason you are addressed so often is that you are one of the few who are adressing issues that they hope to one day get to. It's just that so far their hobby is in it's infancy. I think that's one of the reasons people like DBW and apparently MaryHM are involved over here. It could also be that people just like picking on the Irish

. Have fun and good night.</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>