The dark side of reefing.

[Anonymous]

I would imagine the DNR and Dept. Ag would be a starting point. The only problem is whether or not it is state regulated or federally regulated. As I said before the list for each state is different. The beauracracy is the lesser of two evils I think. I just don't see the "industry" ever policing itself effectively.

Glenn

 

[esmithiii]

Once again, I urge caution when speaking of banning. Those responsible for legislating the proposed ban do not have the expertise to truly understand the complexity of the problem, nor have the track record of seeking that expertise.

Keep in mind the difficulties enforcing species specific bans, especially when identification of many species is further complicated due to the fact that their polyps close for lengthy periods during and following shipping. It is in the legislature's nature to try to ban a host of species to simplify enforcement.

What criteria would you use to determine which species get banned? It would have to be factually based and would have to be above outside influence.

 

[Anonymous]

Why don't you try to answer that for us. It really is a hard question.

I don't know what data they'd use, probably mortality and morbidity reports from trans-shipped stuff entering ports, and from LFS's displays.

 

[SPC]

I agree with Glen and Brian on this, the industry itself will not think far enough ahead to enact measures to protect the reefs. Its going to come down to the government taking on the responsibility if no one else will. This will mean they will simply ban everything reef related from being imported, IMO.
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

I think it should probably be implemented at the wholesale level. That is where the other bans are. (i.e. they are responsible for requiring proper licenses for certain species of fish or turtles for educational uses.) Also there are many interested parties who are involved on the University level who would make excellent advisors to the government on this subject. (Sprung, Delbeek, Fenner, Tullock, Borneman, Michael) Much information could also be gathered from public aquariums as well. The main thing is communication with the collectors and informing them of what will no longer be sold. I'm sure that they are able to identify it pretty closely in the wild. Everything must be identified with a scientific name before it is shipped. Just some suggestions. I think it is very possible to do this in orderly and intelligent way that will avoid banning all reef related stuff. It doesn't need to get that drastic. The reptile trade has already shown that it can thrive with bans on certain species in place.

Glenn

 

[Anonymous]

Unfortunately, I've seen well-respected scientists stammer around trying to identify Acropora species from the Pacific. With over 250 species in the genera, it is an often difficult prospect, and this might make an effective ban more difficult. Coincidentally, this is why acropora species are frequently overlooked in scientific studies. When there is trouble identifying the animal, it makes for very shaky findings and inconclusive studies.

 

[Anonymous]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by cubera:
<strong>Your practices, and mine, should be based on the notion that we will always put more back in nature than we take away.


Don't let some buttmunch from NOAA or anywhere else tell you otherwise. </strong><hr></blockquote>


Are you saying we pollute too much? When we take a resource from nature we pollute too much back? Can you clarify, I don't think I understand what we put back. I've never flown over to put any corals back.


Some buttmunch from NOAA huh? Well, maybe I should rethink my desire to work for them because I wouldn't want to go and be a buttmunch.

It ain't NOAA pal. It's educated scientists everywhere. And they are wrong to make generalizations about reefkeepers, just as wrong as you are to make generalizatios about them. But we let ourselves come under this scrutiny by doing nothing to collectively change the denudation of those reefs harvested. We have only ourselves to blame. They are right to be angry about the fact that we contribute to the problem with our consumerism, yet have done nothing of significance to limit the environmental impact.

And if you disagree, then you know something I don't.

 

[Anonymous]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tomocean:
<strong>
We need to concentrate on pollution, overfishing, over population, and over development before taking aim at reef aquarists as being responsible for the demise of the coral reef.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ooch. We need to look at those impacts NOW. And also the increasing Sea Surface Temperatures that cause bleaching. Those are huge problems.

But it is much easier to impose a moratorium on coral trade, and outlaw the harvesting, then it is to stop polluters and booming populations.

This is why the trade is such an easy target. It has a comparitively simple solution. (Not neccessarily a good one, but it will prevent removal and destruction much quicker than the other causes). So, I think we should look at it FIRST and try to devise a satisfactory solution to the problems caused.

I have already devised one such solution. It's in my paper.

 

[Super Len]

I say ban all corals, period - or at the very least, implement an import limit (eg per weight, which is significantly easier to regulate). We already have a wealth of broodstock in the United States; why import?

I'd apply the same importation limits to fishes, with the outright banning of certain species (to be determined).

Simple fact is the practices of our current industry bares no positve influence on the heatlh of the world's reefs. Regardless of the degree of damage we're responsible for, one can't circumvent the fact that we are still responsible for damage. It's like pouring salt on a open wound, and proclaiming our innocence because there are other more dangerous, infectious agents to worry about.

And I'll tell you want: if regulation drives up prices (which I adamently don't believe will be the case), then so be it. It's a luxury item, and wholly non-essential to our lives. Or would you argue that sailboats and fine art should be priced for everyone as well? Besides, if a coral costs twice as much, maybe consumers would exercise twice as much care.

[ November 05, 2001: Message edited by: Leonard v2.01 ]</p>

 

[esmithiii]

Len- did you read Rd. Reef's paper? There are downsides to an outright ban.

I respect your right to an opinion, but I think it is dead wrong. There are so few reef-safe captive propagated fish that an outright ban would kill the hobby. If the hobby dies, so does any chance of adding to the captive propogated reef-safe list. Killing this hobby kills all the interest it generates in preservation of the reef. So few people have ever been to a reef, much less snorkeled or dived and so the awareness is so limited. Every guest that comes in my front door stops and looks at the tank in my home office for at least 10 minutes, some longer. Without awareness, how can we fix the bigger problems, including the destruction of reefs for building materials, etc.

Calling for an all out ban is irresponsible. Do you have a tank? I suggest that those calling for an all out ban stand up for their convictions and tear down their tanks first.

I would love to hear an explaination as to how the hobby would survive without importation.

E

 

[Anonymous]

In a nutshell, my paper makes the following assertions, among other things.

1) Coral trade is bad because collectors scramble to remove as much as possible for profit because they are competing with other collectors. Every piece they leave is one that will probably be gone tomorrow at someone else's gain.

2) Stopping trade completely will see an increase in more destructive practices like dynamite fishing and lime removal because there is no need to keep the reef intact for a more lucrative coral extraction industry.

3) Knowing the two scenarios above, we must keep trade valuable, but end the open-access clamor that causes so much ruin. The best way to do this is to insure that coral not removed today will remain tomorrow to spawn and produce more coral. Luckily, corals are sessile, so ownership of the reefs at a community level is possible, and will prevent the feeling that collectors must remove it to own it and see profit.

I believe my proposition is one which must be heavily looked at because the possiblity for success warrants it. Hell, it is already being done in the Gulf Coast of the US. There is a guy who owns permits to place rocks in the ocean and then remove them for sale. I think the company is Gulf Coast Live Rock or such. He effectively is given ownership of his reef.

 

[Anonymous]

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

I would love to hear an explaination as to how the hobby would survive without importation.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Unfortunately, the industry and market for South American tropical birds and for all Australian reptiles are HUGE!!! And this is following a 10 year ban on S.A. birds and 20 year ban by Australia on the export of their native herps.

It took some time for breeders to catch up with demand, but some of the most common animals today in the reptile industry are carpet pythons, bearded dragons, goannas of all types, and frilled dragons. And these have not been exported for 20 years. So, I do think the industry would survive. And I also think that our choice of animals would be many healthier and more captivity-suited corals and fishes. I think the industry would survive just fine. In fact, I think it might flourish much like the reptile industry has. Current estimates on the number of bearded dragons hatched in the US this year reached 1 million animals. Last year, I personally helped 100 come into life with my own captive breeding efforts.

 

[Lefty1]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by esmithiii:
<strong> I suggest that those calling for an all out ban stand up for their convictions and tear down their tanks first.
E</strong><hr></blockquote>

Watch out for the rhetoric. Tearing down an established tank will do nothing to help the problem. I think it would actually hurt by taking "propagatable" animals out of the pool. A better suggestion for people standing behind their convictions would be to not buy any more imported animals.

Make them more expensive. Less people will buy them and those that do will take better care of them. Once the animals are captive raised the prices will come down again.

RR

 

[Super Len]

To retain commercial value, how about farming, instead of the wholesale practice of stripping entire colonies to complete nonexistance? Place a ban (or, as I've already suggested, a limit) on wild coral importation. NB this is only applicable to corals. I never suggested a complete ban of all fish species.

I think the hobby is quite sustainable without coral importation. Personally, I frag several dozen SPS per month. But if importing a limited about of wild colonies is conducive to retaining the reef's value, then let's go that route. It's clear to me the current, unregulated market isn't doing the reefs any great service.

The idea that this hobby promotes awareness and active participation in preservation is a common fallacy. I'll ask you: how many of hobbyists (including yourself) do you know that has contributed anything substantial to the preservation of wild reefs? Probably no more then a handful. Can you honestly say you've given more then you've taken? I can't.

Concerning prices, I'll redirect you to my opinion already stated earlier.

 

[Anonymous]

Leonard:
To retain commercial value, how about farming, instead of the wholesale practice of stripping entire colonies to complete nonexistance? Place a ban (or, as I've already suggested, a limit) on wild coral importation.

Sure, no argument for me. I prefer the farming model, but it's not practical in all applications, either.

I think the hobby is quite sustainable without coral importation

Agreed. I don't think the hobby would die out if there was a total ban. In my mind, though, the problems with a total import ban have to do with removing commercial incentives that would place monetary value on the reefs themselves.

It's clear to me the current, unregulated market isn't doing the reefs any great service.

Absolutely agreed.

I'll ask you: how many of hobbyists (including yourself) do you know that has contributed anything substantial to the preservation of wild reefs? Probably no more then a handful. Can you honestly say you've given more then you've taken? I can't.

No, I can't either. To be honest, I don't think there are very many who could... and most of the ones I think could would qualify because of what they do in their profession, not in what they do in their hobby.

 

[DKKA]

While regulation may be necessary and important for us. It is not all that effective(and neither would a ban be all that effective) at helping prevent dectruction caused by overcollection.
Wile the U.S. may be the largest market, it's not the only. A complete ban could have the undesired effect of increasing collection as natives and collectors have to sell more, at lower cost to make up for the loss of the US market.
I'm not against regulation, but real reef protection won't happen until local communties take reef ownership.
This is an important part of Dr. Reefs paper (at least from what I remember - it's been a while since I read it)
So...we should really be spending our energy brainstorming ways to promote local ownership, instead of arguing over regulation or bans.
Dan

 

[bowser]

Couldn't agree more with what's been said by Dr. Reef, cjdevito, and Leonard...

I did want to add that if prices of livestock were to go up, it wouldn't deter me from keeping my tanks. I would simply have to be more patient than I am now. I am not a rich person by any means, and even now, I have a budget of sorts that I have to go by.

About the aquacultured rock, don't know if it's the same one Dr. Reef was talking about but Tampa Bay Saltwater leases something like 5 acres to "grow" their LR. Think they have a site here in Tampa and one in or near the Keys. (I have their rocks in my tanks and they are amazing in the amount of life forms on them!)

 

[Anonymous]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by DKKA:
<strong>A complete ban could have the undesired effect of increasing collection as natives and collectors have to sell more, at lower cost to make up for the loss of the US market.
</strong><hr></blockquote>


Hey, good thought here. I think you may be on to something. If an import ban by the US is supposed to help the reefs, then we should spend some time and money looking at the results of other such actions. A scenario like the one above that Dan suggested would be the WORST of both worlds. And I do beleive that could be very believeable and happen.

What happened when the sale of Ivory was banned? We saw huge increases in poaching and death of even more elephants because the new higher prices were worth the risk of capture. I don't think corals will be poached, but I do think a ban could have unintended consequences.

 

[esmithiii]

CJDevito:

A couple of points:

First, the point about the barrier to entry in this hobby being strengthened if a ban was imposed is not nonsence. The analogy to the exotic bird industry is not a good one. Captive breeding of most species of exotic bird is far easier than that of marine fish. I can speak of this from personal experience. We are decades ahead in the area of captive breeding of exotic birds than we are in the area of marine fish, mostly because of efforts of hobbysts. One key point is that we had a good handle on captive breeding BEFORE the ban went in place. Continued advances in the captive breeding of marine fish would be greatly hindered by a ban.

Make a mental list of all the species of marine fish that are captively bred. Now ask yourself, how many aquarists would have been attracted to the hobby with that limited selection. Imagine that all new FO tank sales were to stop. Equipment costs would skyrocket. If you think that prices of captively propagated corals would double, think again; they would be ten times what they are now. If you don't believe me, find out what the price of a cockatau was before the ban, and what it was after. Someone with a modest income can still afford a cockatau, but not 10 or 20. People in this hobby don't want a tank with one or two species of corals. Its not worth it. They want a tank full of different species.

As for the part about taking down your tank, I am sorry if it ticks you off. Deal with it. No one likes to be called a hypocrite. You may want to look that word up, by the way. "it most certainly is hypocrisy to refuse to admit the problem exists and needs to be fixed, simply because that would be inconvenient for your personal desires." What you describe is called selfishness, not hypocrisy. You talk so emphatically about banning and about how this industry is destroying the reefs and about how apalling that is but you continue to support the industry. You may buy only captive propagated species but what about the equipment? What about supplies like fish food, suppliments, bulbs, etc. What about Liverock? The retailers where you buy that stuff ARE DESTROYING THE REEFS! Every thing you buy keeps them in business! Every person that sees your tank will want one! What would you tell them? "I already have mine, but you shouldn't have one, but if you do everything has to be purchased from environmentally friendly organizations and your liverock must be hand-made or aquacultured, your sand also, every fish should be captively propagated, every coral also, just like me."?? By banning imports we will make this hobby all but inaccessible to nearly everyone. Yes it is costly now, but it would be ten times more with a ban. You may not care, because you already have your tank set up. You are "Grandfathered in."

I have some pretty strong beliefs, but I stand up for them, even when it is not convenient. When certain artists or companies publicly express political opinions that I don't agree with I stop supporting them, no matter how much I like their products or work.

I don't think a species specific ban would be a bad thing as long as a few considerations were met. I don't believe our government is capable of an effective species specific ban, and I don't trust our legislators to not screw it up.

 

[Lefty1]

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

I have some pretty strong beliefs, but I stand up for them, even when it is not convenient. When certain artists or companies publicly express political opinions that I don't agree with I stop supporting them, no matter how much I like their products or work.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Just a consistency check: Do you also remove all of their work from you home and business?

RR