The dark side of reefing.

[Anonymous]

Ooops. I hadn't read far enough to see that you said pretty much a similar thing.

What about the thought that perhaps the ownership paradigm could be changed to facilitate wiser use.

Consider a rental car. If you are anything like most people I know, we drive rental cars much harder than our own, especially the sportier ones. Why? Because we don't own them and we incurr no costs associated with heavy wear and tear (except mileage of course). This is why they usually don't rent manual shift cars, we would redline them all the time. Would we treat our own cars this way? Hell no! I want mine to last a lifetime.

With that in mind, I set about to write the following paper in order to explain that further.

It's in a PDF format so you must have the free Acrobat reader.

My Paper

 

[liquid]

Scott,

The 'fuss' over the impeding ban on Caulerpa in California was a little more complicated than you make it out to be. Basically what was happening was that there was one *species* of Caulerpa that was being problematic (C. taxifolia) and the bill was written to ban the entire *genus* of Caulerpa just because one species was problematic. You could liken it to banning all dog sales or even owning a dog just because one particular breed of dog (ex. Rotweiler) is problematic. If the bill were written properly to begin with I'm sure the reefkeeping community would have had no problem supporting it. Also considering that Caulerpa comes in on liverock, liverock would have also been potentially banned if found to harbor Caulerpa and the bill had gone thru. A lot of the liverock the states get comes thru California fwiw.

No flames intended...

Shane (aka 'liquid')

 

[Gatortailale1]

Dr. Reef:

Did you intend to be clever with your title of this post "the dark side of reefing"

Seems to me that all of the harvesting that is damaging the reefs takes place on the "dark side of the planet" where education lacks and people will do anything for a buck.

Sorry, didn't mean to distract from the seriousness of the topic. Just could resist playing on the words. One of the great things of the English language.

I'm looking forward to hearing J. Wiseman of reefs.org talk next week at the W.A.M.A.S. meeting 11.10.01

http://www.wamas.org/meeting_fall_2001.html

 

[Anonymous]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gatortailale:
<strong>

Seems to me that all of the harvesting that is damaging the reefs takes place on the "dark side of the planet" where education lacks and people will do anything for a buck.

Sorry, didn't mean to distract from the seriousness of the topic. Just could resist playing on the words. One of the great things of the English language.

I'm looking forward to hearing J. Wiseman of reefs.org talk next week at the W.A.M.A.S. meeting 11.10.01

http://www.wamas.org/meeting_fall_2001.html</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, there is one important difference. In the US, chasing money can often be a result of greed. Over there, the collectors are often trying to feed their families. An important distinction. I don't think they are as evil as we make them out to be. They are a product of their conditions, we just need to change their conditions.

Also, how do I listen to these talks? What does it entail?

 

[chris_h]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>The aquarists should know that every colourful fish that livens their living
room makes the reefs less and less colourful as the selective predation by
the trade is leaving the reefs full of only the 'bland' fishes. think of
what such high intensity selective extraction does to the reef ecology.

<hr></blockquote>
We are animals. The only reason most people care at all about the environment is that if everthing else dies then we die to. They say we are selfish. But is the total environment really hurt if the pretty fish are replaced with 'bland' fish? I dont think so. The divers are just also being selfish.

Now let we have determined that humans are selfish, lets think about the logical thing to do. Have a pretty fish in the ocean, were chances are, no one will ever see it. Have that same pretty fish in an aquarium were we can enjoy it. The total environment will not be hurt becouse the ugly fish will replace the pretty ones.

I never buy imported corals, fish, or clams. I want them to be there for the next generation when hopefully the corals and fish that we cant propagate now will be propagated.

 

[tazdevil]

So, how do we change the practices? Ex.: LFS here that won an award for "best" shop in the country has some pretty old/outdated ideas and has some very unhealthy setups. Yet, they are one of about three LFS that could be considered to buy anything from. How can we assure that we are getting fish that are either captive bred, or collected in such a way to cause minimal, if any, damage to reefs? Now I know that life on a reef is very hard for most animals-look at the results from trying to get dolphins back into the wild-not good. They are usually harassed and killed by the other dolphin pods. So the question arises, how much collecting is too much: how much puts enough pressure on a reef until species are endangered etc.? At least for fish, I don't now that we can say this amount is/isn't safe. We need to be aware that any amount may not be safe. Captive propigation is the only way to assure that fish are not decimated from reef populations. Corals are a whole other matter! Reefs are being destroyed from their removal and fragging/captive prop. may be the only true way to save reefs from destruction, or even replace lost specimens from reefs (referring to corals). Somehow, in the end, we need to put out of business the collectors, LFS,MOS and others that willingly participate in destruction, instead of instruction about reefs. Otherwise, reefkeeping will end by destruction of reefs, or legislation against having reef tanks.

 

[Anonymous]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by chris_h:
<strong>
Now let we have determined that humans are selfish, lets think about the logical thing to do. Have a pretty fish in the ocean, were chances are, no one will ever see it. Have that same pretty fish in an aquarium were we can enjoy it. The total environment will not be hurt becouse the ugly fish will replace the pretty ones.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Unfortunately, grouping the fish as to whether they are pretty or not is not functional in the real world. It would be more important to consider the ecological niche they fill in their ecosystem (niche = role or function). For example, tangs are heavily collected and some reports found a reduced population to 14% of pre-harvest numbers. This correlated in a statistically significant fashion to the increase of algae cover compared to an protected reef nearby with healthy fish populations. Algae shades corals, corals die, reef degrades, system collapses.

So you see, we must strive to maintain all the functional parts of the ecosystem and keep connectivity in order to preserve the integrity of the reefs. It is less about pretty vs ugly fish.

 

[SPC]

Chris_h, I am having trouble following your pretty fish analogy too.

Steve

 

[esmithiii]

I don't mean to sound skeptical, but I would love to see some actual bonafide research data on the damage to reefs caused by the aquarium industry. Everything I have heard thus far is purely anecdotal. I am not saying it doesn't exist, but rather that the industry may be taking the heat for other factors that play a larger role in destruction of habitat.

As far as legislation/ban goes, Rarely does it work as intended/advertised. See the Brady Bill, Controlled Substances Act, Prohibition, Embargo to Cuba, etc.

Licensing reefkeepers is ludicrous. You guys crack me up. Show me one example where licensing works. Of course a driver's license ensures that only competent drivers are on the road, Firearm licensing ensures that criminals don't have firearms, and fishing licenses ensure that people only take the limit and that fish populations are sustainable.

The question is this: Do we want this hobby to be only for the wealthy?

Don't get me wrong- I try to buy responsibly and to research before I buy. My survival rate is poor inspite of reading several good books cover to cover, and spending more time on this board than watching TV. The bottom line is that the species we keep are fragile. They come from across the world and don't ship as well as a piece of furnature. You either have to ban 100% the importation of fish, corals, liverock and other invertibrates or accept the fact that this hobby kills literally tons of aquatic life each month. For those of you who advocate banning importation, Lets start with y'all giving up your tanks first.

I await your flames.

Ernie

 

[purple_tang2001]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by esmithiii:
<strong>Licensing reefkeepers is ludicrous. You guys crack me up. Show me one example where licensing works. Of course a driver's license ensures that only competent drivers are on the road, Firearm licensing ensures that criminals don't have firearms, and fishing licenses ensure that people only take the limit and that fish populations are sustainable.</strong><hr></blockquote>Good one!!

 

[Anonymous]

I don't mean to sound skeptical, but I would love to see some actual bonafide research data on the damage to reefs caused by the aquarium industry. Everything I have heard thus far is purely anecdotal.

You haven't read my editorial, or any of the reports by the CRTF then, have you?

"The Coral Reef Task force notes that, around Hawaii, the abundance of the top 10 aquarium fish collected has been reduced in just two decades by 59%. Certain species especially targeted by the aquarium trade, such as Yellow Tangs, have had their populations reduced by as much as 80%. The CRTF also makes mention of the secondary habitat destruction caused by the overharvest of herbivores (like the aforementioned Yellow Tangs); removal of these species causes reef areas to be overrun and smothered by algae.

In the draft report “Coral Reefs at Risk and the Role of Trade” , again by the US Coral Reef Task Force, several similar statements are found. Most damning is, “Recent surveys of 300 reefs worldwide found that key target species of commercial interest were absent or present in very low numbers, in almost all of the reefs surveyed. This suggests that almost all reefs have been affected by overharvesting, and that there may not be any pristine reefs left in the world.”

"Another example of this sort of thing is overcollection of the banggai cardinal. Tullock discusses this in a recent column in Aquarium Frontiers online. While it’s mouthbrooding nature makes it a wonderful candidate for breeding in the home aquarium, it translates to a low reproductive rate in the wild. Coupled with the extremely small range of the fish and it’s limited numbers, it should come as a surprise to hear that over five thousand banggai cardinals are caught and shipped every single week. Dr Gerald Allen, who rediscovered and popularized the fish in 1995, has concluded that the current rate of harvest is unsustainable. The Banggai cardinalfish has been proposed to be listed as “Critically Endangered” by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), emphasizing the deep degree of concern among conservationists for its future. At the moment, however, it’s collection is unimpeded. The numbers of this fish in it’s natural environment are dwindling dramatically, and the only pressure it’s population suffers from is collection for the aquarium trade. "

Me, I wouldn't call either the CRTF or the IUCN 'anecdotal'.

 

[naesco]

Tazdevil
Our fish industry should agree to ban the capture and sale of cleaner wrasse in my opinion. This is a very good example because not only is the cleaner wrasse almost impossible to keep but it is a very necessary fish in the wild.
I am not aware of the law in California but if it is against the law to capture it, it should also be against the law to import or sell it. (Mexico??)
On a voluntary basis, the fish industry could agree that they would import only suitable fish and difficult species would have to be specifically ordered.
They have an association that can do this yet they choose to do nothing.

 

[Anonymous]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by esmithiii:
<strong>I don't mean to sound skeptical, but I would love to see some actual bonafide research data on the damage to reefs caused by the aquarium industry. Everything I have heard thus far is purely anecdotal. I am not saying it doesn't exist, but rather that the industry may be taking the heat for other factors that play a larger role in destruction of habitat.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hi Ernie. I respectfully request that you read my paper. It seems you haven't gotten around to it yet. There are studies mentioned and referenced in the Review that indicate losses from aquarium trade. Both coral and fishes are noted. I hope you find the sources satisfactory. There are many more such studies, but the focus of the paper was on reef ownership, and the losses were used for relevance.

The link to it was is in an earlier post within this thread.

Cheers,
Brian

 

[tazdevil]

I remember now, it is the state fish, as it's primary home is located off their coastline, which means it's protected IN CALIFORNIA WATERS.
That is the key then, they aren't protected in mexico. However, they are a hardy damsel, but get as big as emperor's, and can destroy a tank (or at least most of the fish in it). Making them unsuitable for keeping unless dedicated to a species tank, IMHO.

 

[Anonymous]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by esmithiii:
<strong>and fishing licenses ensure that people only take the limit and that fish populations are sustainable.

The question is this: Do we want this hobby to be only for the wealthy?

My survival rate is poor </strong><hr></blockquote>

First of all, if fishing liscenses work, why not institute them in overseas fisheries? This would need participation and recognition by their governments obviously, but I though you were implying that controls don't work.

As far as a wealthy hobby, well it already is. AS much so as eating lobster can be considered a wealthy meal. This is due to expense in capture and is somewhat neccessary.

The secret to conservation, is allowing the price of something to reflect ALL costs involved in production. Corals do cost a lot, in part to make up for those that die in transit. But the cost to the reef ecosystem that is depleted with their removal is not in the equation yet. And if it were, the prices might well be exorbitant, but at least the pricing structure would be truthful and allow consumers to make a more "correct" decision. Externalities of production are the biggest threat to our environment, the worst harm to the consumer, and big corporations' best friends.

As far as your poor survival rate, that surprises me because I know you to be involved and educated. Maybe if a coral was more expensive, you'd have higher survival rates, or you'd at least quit buying them and letting them die.

As another example, I'm a broke graduate student and the same priced coral you buy may constitute 10% of MY monthly income, and much less of yours. For that reason, I've lost only one coral in 3 years, while throwing out and giving away many that have multiplied too much and are too healthy. Although I know you do not think of them as expendable, they are as a matter of fact much less financially significant to lose for you.

With the rest of the General Public, inexpense is cause for lack of concern. Consider gas prices last year and gas now. Most of the big car manufacturers continue to unleash new Elephant sized SUV's with fart pipes the size of coffee cans and they only get 8 miles/gallon. Why did they wait all summer and just now begin to unveil them? Because gas prices dropped. Once you bought it, it's too late to change your mind as prices again climb.

 

[esmithiii]

Look up the word anecdotal in the dictionary folks. "Dive and you shall see" is exactly that. Once again Naesco and cjdevito you have missed the point. How do I know based on the information given that this industry is the primary cause of the issues you mention?

"Tullock discusses" means little to me. Give me numbers, man.

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

"The Coral Reef Task force notes that, around Hawaii, the abundance of the top 10 aquarium fish collected has been reduced in just two decades by 59%. Certain species especially targeted by the aquarium trade, such as Yellow Tangs, have had their populations reduced by as much as 80%. The CRTF also makes mention of the secondary habitat destruction caused by the overharvest of herbivores (like the aforementioned Yellow Tangs); removal of these species causes reef areas to be overrun and smothered by algae

This is a good start. What about the other fish that aren't collected by the aquarium industry? Has there been a decline in their numbers as well? What makes us sure it is the aquarium industry? Who did the studies? What fish populations were tallied? Where and when were the studies conducted?

BTW- An editorial is, by definition, anecdotal.

Also, Naesco and CJDevito, have you took down your tanks yet?

E

 

[esmithiii]

Dr. Reef: I attempted to use sarcasm when citing other examples of licensing. My point was that in the examples I gave, licensing DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE PROBLEM.

As for my having poor survival rates, I mostly meant fish, not corals. Since I started, I would say my survival rate for fish is under 50%, corals probably 80% inspite of much research. Case in point, I researched quite a bit on a fairly hearty, captive raised species for my 180G. I got a pair and within 1 month, both were dead. I think that this happens more than most people on this board care to admit. BTW- they were probably the cheapest fish (other than damsels) that I have ever purchased. Will I try them again? Maybe, maybe not.

 

[naesco]

esmithiii
I do not think that there is any evidence that you are prepared to accept even though it is so obvious.
Nor is it fair to suggest that I quit the hobby because I disagree with you.

 

[SPC]

Ernie, your % are the reason why I buy only captive raised fish.
Steve

 

[esmithiii]

Dr. Reef: Which link are you referring to?

Naesco: My point wasn't that you quit because we disagree. My point was that if you feel so strongly about this industry, why do you continue to support it by buying its products? If you think we should ban importation then that relegates this hobby to the rich. If this is the case, it is only fair that the ones pushing for the ban be willing to give up their tanks. If you advocate licensing based on proving competency, then this closes the door to all those who are not "grandfathered in."

Do you know anything about Falconry? Do you know what it takes to get a license? (You have to apprentice for a year+, catch and train your own first bird, take numerous tests, maintain certification, etc.) The number of falconers in the US barely breaks three digits. Do you think this licensing increased the populations of species that were once endangered or threatened or did it have anything to do with banning DDT?

I support captive propogation. I support responsible reefkeeping. I support LFSs that are responsible in what they stock and what they sell to newcomers to the hobby. I don't support blanket bans or over-legislating the problem. Many people talk casually abou banning and licensing without any real consideration for the consequences or ramifications. They don't realize that those that enact legislation barely understand the issues, much less the science to renewable resources such as these. They also don't realize that banning or licensing results in keeping many people out of this hobby.