The dark side of reefing.

[Anonymous]

I in no way want to start a flame war, but I think you guys should always remember where our stuff comes from and try to remain as environmentally sound as possible. I am first a conservationist, and second a reef-keeper, and it is difficult sometimes for me to reconcile the two. The following quotes are from some emails that NOAA researchers and scientists as well as scientists from around the world are sending via the NOAA Coral-list.

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr> I am not so sure if the aquarium enthusiasts are anymore enlightened lot
than the average diver as ursula defined. (may be there is one or two) Down
here in Sri Lanka one of my prime activities is re-settling hundreds of
pieces of coral broken by fish collectors (to extract the fish from their
hiding places)supplying the aquarium industry. Post to the 1998 bleaching
event the reefs down here have suffered tremendously with less than 50% of
the reefs remaining and struggling to survive. there is significant loss in
fish abundance and diversity. But the aquarium fish industry has not been so
"understanding or aware" and continue pumping reef fauna out at the same
rate. they still comb and squeeze the reefs for fish(and inverts) down to
the last one left. If there is even a slight reduction to the numbers
exported it is more due to fish collectors quitting the job as it is no
longer viable; than because of the sensitive Reef keeper hobbyists
voluntarily putting a brake in their demand of live exotics to give a chance
for the reefs to recover.

I don't think the reef keepers have a clue what is going on down here, or
care how much they are contributing to the destruction of the reefs to build
"pretty little artificial reefs' that they can keep at home. May be the
recreational divers who visit the reefs could check out the reefs and make
the aquarists aware.

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.

My apologies if I sound a little hard; but it is hard to sympathize with
aquarists when you are struggling with the long distance effects of their
hobbies on a daily basis.
<hr></blockquote>

a response to the above from another reader

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr> Seems like you are blaming the aquarist for the habits of the local collectors and as far as I know there are very few people that collect for their own tank. In my experience in Fiji, the largest coral exporter in the world I believe, most collection was done by local Fijians. They then transfer the livestock to the various companies exporting it. During my stay there I also became aware of the various destructive habits of Fijians upon their own reefs. I heard of local Fijians eating sea turtles even though it was illegal since January, an article was published in the Fiji Times about how two turtles from a research station in Hawaii were caught and 1 was eaten. I also witnessed a sea turtle in a fish collection system in Suva. I inquired the manager on why it was there and she replied it would be returned to the ocean soon. I also witnessed various large breeding size fish including specimens that would be considered exported by the aquarium trade eaten for food. Am I saying they cannot eat these fish? No, but eating of breeding fish will and does have an impact on the overall fish population and variety of the reef.

While most reef keepers are not marine biologists by title many have become lay marine biologist through the love of their hobby. While I might defend the hobby through words I would like you to take a look at various sites that have been created because of the hobby.

Online magazine created for hobby: http://www.animalnetwork.com/fish2/aqfm/archive/default.asp
1 of the captive breeders of tropical saltwater fish: http://www.orafarm.com/
Largest hobbyist site on the Internet: http://www.reefs.org

While you state
"I don't think the reef keepers have a clue what is going on down here, orcare how much they are contributing to the destruction of the reefs to build"pretty little artificial reefs' that they can keep at home."I implore you inform yourself of the current situation of reef keeping in the United States. My apologies if I sound hard or defensive, but the aquarium industry is no longer a sink hole for fish and inverts, many of the animals that are now imported are now being captive grown and bred. I invite you to join the reef keeping community as an outside observer and if you still believe we don't have a clue after 6 months of active participation then so be it.Bill Crockettwww.reefs.org
<hr></blockquote>


<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr> From the perspective of a researcher wishing to delve into the hard core
science behind the reefs, I am throwing my vote in for maintaining a
sustainable hobby. The advances in rearing, propagating, and breeding both
fish and corals do not come from scientists. And while we might thoroughly
enjoy field work, we cannot expect to achieve the same reproducibility in
biochemical and molecular information as in the laboratory setting. A
distinct lack of control exists. So, as scientists, I propose that we
support a sustainable hobby. Let the hobbiests who "love" their animals
continue to provide input and leaps forward in the technical know-how of
keeping these animals so that in the future, not only can we do solid
research, but we can also begin programs of restoration.

It seems to me after reading these posts that everyone seems to have a
somewhat blanket view of the whole process of collection and keeping. A
couple of points I feel that should be made: It is blanket accusations
(from both sides of the issue) which cause problems and many hobbiests and
organizations are working hard to set up sustainable programs. I would
urge both sides to look at all the angles. Collections for reef aquaria, as
we all know, is but one aspect of a much larger picture.
<hr></blockquote>

 

[jamesw]

Please read:

http://www.reefs.org/editorial/september_2000.html

And:

www.reefs.org/editorial

James Wiseman

 

[oafie2244]

I completely agree with both of you that we need to watch what we are doing to the envirnoment. But the reason this BB was setup was to help reefers meet other reefers. This allows for trading of aquariam raised species. And hobbyist should be aware from where there speciemens come from. But the main reason this webpage is so that trading can exist and allow for less captured species to be taken from their natural habitats.

Brett

 

[Super Len]

I've been in favor of regulation for the last decade now, preferably at federal level. A industry with self-serving interests shouldn't be trusted to regulate itself. Nor can we trust anyone to enforce regulations on collectors who have historically displayed blantant disregard for responsible collection.

Of course, the government doesn't exactly have a glorious track record when it comes to matters of laws and regulation. But at the same time, the reef hobbyists has not demonstrated their ability to self-regulate; most of us don't even want to shoulder any responsibility for the reef's declining health.

Therefore, it's imperative hobbyists who are aware and concerned about the situation accurately and adamently voice their ideas.

per Charle's editorial:
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote

I absolutely believe the future of the hobby lies with regulation and import bans on key species (those with low recruitment rates, low population numbers or are otherwise not suitable). I also completely believe the hobby can survive and, indeed, thrive with regulation in place. Regulation and key species banning do not spell the end of the reef aquarium hobby – just an end to the unconscionable irresponsibility and waste so prevalent in the hobby and industry currently.

I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[SPC]

I agree with Len and Charles statements 100%.

Brett, I agree that is one reason that this BB is here, but we must realize also that many don't trade animals and many that come to this board have not done even simple research before purchasing animals. Also there is the side that believes reef life is here for their pleasure. If this thread is like the others there will be those posting here that do not see the difference between eating seafood vs keeping a tang in a 40 gallon tank.
Steve

 

[White-Queen]

I know, too many are not learning anything about the hobby and it's long-term implications on the environment. One of the thigns I've enjoyed most about this board is the fact that I'm able to hear a point of view that isn't too often mentioned in my neck-of-the-woods.

Angela <><

 

[dbman]

I don't mean to put on a halo or anything here but I think it's important to distinguish between reefkeepers and the general saltwater aquarium consumer. In general, reefkeepers are much more conscious of the entire reef ecosystem, generally have lower mortality, pick their tank occupants more carefully, and do everything we can to encourage captive propagation of fish and invertebrates.

We also make up a relatively small portion of the total sales of imported saltwater fish. The vast majority of the specimens which are literally harvested from the world's reefs end up in someone's tank because they "look pretty" and when that animal dies unexpectedly, a replacement is purchased.

I guess my point is we can be as ecologically conscious as we want here in the reefers boards but we're still vastly outnumbered by the masses of uninformed buyers out there.

 

[Anonymous]

I agree with the articles 100%.

Regulation will be the incentive for companies to develope captive raised programs. Yes things will be a little more expensive to begin with, but look at the price of captive clowns when it began vs now.

OK..for those nthat need a selfish reason for regulation:The addional bonus to stumilating this industry will be the knowlege gained for animal husbandry. To date he majority of reef husbandry has been driven by the hobbiest. Now large companies will be applying whole labs to determine why goniperas do well in some systems and not in others.

Once large scale breeding programs are in production, it becomes finacially feasable to restock the oceans. We would be able to put back what was taken or destroyed. Areas decimated by cyanide can be repopulated.

However, none of this can be done as long as distributors have access to cheap wild livestock.

My .02

-Greg

[ November 02, 2001: Message edited by: GDawson ]</p>

 

[Super Len]

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

I guess my point is we can be as ecologically conscious as we want here in the reefers boards but we're still vastly outnumbered by the masses of uninformed buyers out there.

All the more reason for industry-wide regulation.

It's also sobering to realize that for every one pound of organisms a hobbyist successfully husbands, at least 3 pounds of organisms had to die to indirectly provide for your success. Along the chains of custody, things die, regardless of how responsible and educated the end user is.

 

[AnotherGoldenTeapot]

"Fedral" level legislation is inadequate. The vast majority of the world's population,including a large part of the affluent population, chooses (in the later case entirely by themselves) not to live in the US.

An international treaty might work, assuming everyone signs up.

I've read that many of the reefs are doomed due to enviroemental changes that can't be reversed. It's better to strip these clean and try to get some captive care programs in place - at least the organisms would survive.

Maybe reef aquarium owners should be licenesed. Proving they have the knowledge required and the financial resources needed to be able to keep these organisms happily.

For any given reef the first question is "Why is this reef no longer doing too well?". The answer to that should be used to decide what is done. Assuming that over harvesting is always the problem is nieve.

Assuming my african violet is wilting because it does not have enough light might be true from time to time. Often though, it really needs to be watered.

If *moving* the reef is necesasry then that is exactly what should be done.

 

[jamesw]

Reintroduction of any marine species once it has been in an aquarium is highly frowned upon[\b] by the academic/conservation community.

This is not likely to change in the near or even the far future - so I wouldn't even consider it one of the "plusses" of the hobby.

There will be no point reintroducing species if their natural habitat has already been destroyed. They will just die.

HTH
James

 

[Anonymous]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by jamesw:
<strong>Reintroduction of any marine species once it has been in an aquarium is highly frowned upon[\b] by the academic/conservation community.

This is not likely to change in the near or even the far future - so I wouldn't even consider it one of the "plusses" of the hobby.

There will be no point reintroducing species if their natural habitat has already been destroyed. They will just die.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Why is it "highly frowned upon"? If a species is on the verge of extinction or has disappeared from a native habitat, why is re-introduction not an option? We have done this with many captive raised terrestrial organisms (e.g. wolves, beavers, otters, buffalo, California condor, etc...). Need I mention Born Free?

Granted that some of the habitats are uninhabitable for the short term. If there is no reason to dump cyanide to catch fish fish why can't there be programs to gradually bring the reef back in those areas? Start with hardy native soft corals and algae harvesting to keep areas clear and progress from there. It may not be the same as the original, however, unless we make the effort we'll never know what we can do.

-Greg

 

[Super Len]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by AnotherGoldenTeapot:
<strong>"Fedral" level legislation is inadequate. The vast majority of the world's population,including a large part of the affluent population, chooses (in the later case entirely by themselves) not to live in the US.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Beyond legistating our own people, the US is not empowered to do much else. But just because we can't control the world's population, it should not be a deterrent for regulating what's under our legal jurisdiction. And what we are capable of regulating is the single largest consumer of live ornamental marine goods. Countries in Europe have implemented some regulatory policies (whether all of them makes sense can be left open to another discussion). I see no good reason why we can't, or shouldn't. Although enforcement is difficult and/or expensive (like any regulatory enforcement is), absolute standards backed by the threat of punishment will make for a more responsible industry overall.

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

Assuming that over harvesting is always the problem is nieve.

Over harvesting is always the problem. It may not be the only problem, but it's always a problem nonetheless. It's tantamount to clear-cutting of the coral reefs.

 

[Chucker]

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

Why is it "highly frowned upon"? If a species is on the verge of extinction or has disappeared from a native habitat, why is re-introduction not an option? We have done this with many captive raised terrestrial organisms (e.g. wolves, beavers, otters, buffalo, California condor, etc...). Need I mention Born Free?

Greg, it is frowned up mainly due to the risk of introducing pathogens from aquaria to the wild, and risking the loss of much more than we could ever hope to replace.

 

[Super Len]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by GDawson:
<strong>
Why is it "highly frowned upon"? If a species is on the verge of extinction or has disappeared from a native habitat, why is re-introduction not an option? We have done this with many captive raised terrestrial organisms (e.g. wolves, beavers, otters, buffalo, California condor, etc...). Need I mention Born Free?

</strong><hr></blockquote>

The problem is we're not just killing species from their ecosystems - we're killing the very ecosystems they live in. It's not feasible to reintroduce an endangered species back into a nonexistant habitat.

In addition, captive raised species selected for reintroduction is highly frowned upon because of the narrow range of genetic diversity. It's always a last ditch effort, but one that is never considered if there are alternative methods of preservation.

Needless to say, reconstruction of an ecosystem is a herculian task. Wouldn't it not be far more reasonable to be proactive rather then corrective?

[ November 02, 2001: Message edited by: Leonard v2.01 ]</p>

 

[Gatortailale1]

Everyone has good points.

Bottom line IMO, is we need more education at the local collecting country level. The way I understand collection in some of these countries is low paid workers go out and collect almost everything that moves and is alive. Result, 75% or more of collected stuff will probably parish in aquaria or transportation. If the collector was educated to only collect the stuff that hobbyists know will survive, then there would be less damage to the reefs.

There are also beneficial collecting after storms to remove rubble so future storms don't toss rubble into reef. (Problem, collectors grab rubble and pick away at reef while in area cleaning up because no education and no oversight to tell them it's wrong.

Sum, pay more, but tank raised if possible, support LFS that follow this practice. Don't buy from the fish store that stores 30 tangs in a 30 gallon tank and sells them for $10 dollars. YOU ARE JUST SUPPORTING THE DARK SIDE OF THE HOBBY.

My 2 cents.

 

[naesco]

I agree with commentary.
It is too bad that the fish store/wholesale industry does not take positive and immediate steps to at least prohibit the importation of species which are highly likely to die in our tanks.
There failure will result in broad legislation and eventually their demise.
Wake up LFS's!! Wake up reefers!!

 

[scott324]

I agree that the trade needs to be regulated, but I want to throw this out there. A couple months back when California was outlawing Caulerpa in their state the reef community made a huge fuss about it and eventually (i believe) the bill was thrown out. What do you think would happen if they did this for species that were had a higher demand. Plus these people that are collecting the items are barely surviving. They don't oven 3000 dollar aquariums and have nice cars. They barely get paid enough to eat. If that is all you can do to make money then you'll never stop them, just create a black market. The problem needs to be addresses here by the DEMAND and then supply will grow. Just food for thought.
Scott

 

[naesco]

Scott if we could voluntary start with not importing the delicate stuff than the government would view the industry as responsible. Right now the industry is irresponsible and deserves to be regulated. Too bad though! And the industry is running out of time to correct this problem.

 

[Anonymous]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by jamesw:
<strong>Reintroduction of any marine species once it has been in an aquarium is highly frowned upon by the academic/conservation community.

This is not likely to change in the near or even the far future - so I wouldn't even consider it one of the "plusses" of the hobby.

There will be no point reintroducing species if their natural habitat has already been destroyed. They will just die.

HTH
James</strong><hr></blockquote>

You are correct, but the trend is much broader than just marine. Reintroductions of any animal are becoming increasingly discouraged as genetic techniques facilitate our better understanding of the natural populations' diversities. It is a dogma that was central to conservation in the late 80's and early 90's and fraught with successes, but has become more rare.

And I'm afraid that many species are doomed from the perspective that there are very few healthy habitats left to recolonize.

[sigh]