A
Anonymous
Guest
These people never think of the damage that is being caused from the 1000+ watts per hour their tank is consuming.
Is aquiring frags just to make us feel better?
- Thread starter Bill2
- Start date
Sorry, but where is the contention?
If you obtain a wild-harvested specimen, you can be assured there was impact on the wild reef. The more such wild-harvested specimens are purchased by hobbyists, then naturally, the more instances of impact.
Obtaining frags of frags of frags ad nauseam, technically spreads the joy around indefinitely at the cost of just one instance of impact on the reef.
Obtaining such frags noncommercially is the surest way to avoid supporting further impact on the reefs: you are better assured of the organism's pedigree (or rather history, since fragmentation spreads the same organism around). In other words, you try to rely on the material already in the possession of hobbyists, and ditch the commercial harvesters.
Of course, after all is said and done, the real impact of commercial coral harvesting on a reef can be surpisingly marginal (especially for species that lend themselves to fragmentation), and is easy to monitor.
It is IMO the collection of fish and "live rock" that ironically does the most damage. And that pales in comparison to other, non-hobby stressors.
Forcing hobbyists to rely more on domestic/DIY propagation can force them to set up decent environments for coral growth. Certainly a successful home-fragger is more capable of screening recipients for competence AND more capable of providing guidance, than many wholesale and retail agents.
Too much of this commercial aspect of the hobby makes its living on first enticing the uninitiated, and then feeding on their ignorance.
horge
If you obtain a wild-harvested specimen, you can be assured there was impact on the wild reef. The more such wild-harvested specimens are purchased by hobbyists, then naturally, the more instances of impact.
Obtaining frags of frags of frags ad nauseam, technically spreads the joy around indefinitely at the cost of just one instance of impact on the reef.
Obtaining such frags noncommercially is the surest way to avoid supporting further impact on the reefs: you are better assured of the organism's pedigree (or rather history, since fragmentation spreads the same organism around). In other words, you try to rely on the material already in the possession of hobbyists, and ditch the commercial harvesters.
Of course, after all is said and done, the real impact of commercial coral harvesting on a reef can be surpisingly marginal (especially for species that lend themselves to fragmentation), and is easy to monitor.
It is IMO the collection of fish and "live rock" that ironically does the most damage. And that pales in comparison to other, non-hobby stressors.
Forcing hobbyists to rely more on domestic/DIY propagation can force them to set up decent environments for coral growth. Certainly a successful home-fragger is more capable of screening recipients for competence AND more capable of providing guidance, than many wholesale and retail agents.
Too much of this commercial aspect of the hobby makes its living on first enticing the uninitiated, and then feeding on their ignorance.
horge
These type of threads come around every few weeks and seem to go around in circles. I don't think that anyone ever really changes their mind based on comments posted by others, so it should just be a statement of your position and not a battle of who is right and wrong.There is no absolute right or wrong, even interpretations of god's word is open to much debate based on who you listen to.
My personal opinion is that folks that are against wild collection seem to me to overexaggerate the case and I feel that the practices of the hobby/industry are probably not responsible for as much destruction of the natural reefs as may be portrayed. There is an impact and collection of fish probably causes more losses than corals that are harvested in a responsible manner. All collection is certainly not responsible, but much is in my opinion and personal experience. Having said that I think captive propagation is a great thing and should be promoted for many reasons beyond just saving the reefs.
Those that have a strong moral position about not taking from the reef should and can obtain all captive raised specimens and should do so to help support those trying to make this segment of the hobby viable.
Hypocrisy is always present in this type of discussion. as just one example, how many of those that protest the collection of animals from the reef for our personal enjoyment also make your protests known as loudly at public aquariums and zoos? Is a zoo any better that collects wild animals like primates and confines them to small concrete and metal cages for our amusement? I'm not saying that if they do that then we can do whatever we wish, but how far do you take it? I guess it is best if folks just have their personal preferrences and beliefs and act on them as they see fit short of trying to convert everyone else or make others feel guilty for their beliefs. I'm not looking for flames or heated debate, just stating my opinion. Good arguments can be made on each side of the issue, but I don't and resent those that do try to make others feel guilty for "raping" the reefs because they have an aquarium in their home. If you have a tank with all captive raised animals and rock then great for you and if you have one with a mix of captive and wild great too, enjoy it and be responsible with it and everyone should respect that descision.
My personal opinion is that folks that are against wild collection seem to me to overexaggerate the case and I feel that the practices of the hobby/industry are probably not responsible for as much destruction of the natural reefs as may be portrayed. There is an impact and collection of fish probably causes more losses than corals that are harvested in a responsible manner. All collection is certainly not responsible, but much is in my opinion and personal experience. Having said that I think captive propagation is a great thing and should be promoted for many reasons beyond just saving the reefs.
Those that have a strong moral position about not taking from the reef should and can obtain all captive raised specimens and should do so to help support those trying to make this segment of the hobby viable.
Hypocrisy is always present in this type of discussion. as just one example, how many of those that protest the collection of animals from the reef for our personal enjoyment also make your protests known as loudly at public aquariums and zoos? Is a zoo any better that collects wild animals like primates and confines them to small concrete and metal cages for our amusement? I'm not saying that if they do that then we can do whatever we wish, but how far do you take it? I guess it is best if folks just have their personal preferrences and beliefs and act on them as they see fit short of trying to convert everyone else or make others feel guilty for their beliefs. I'm not looking for flames or heated debate, just stating my opinion. Good arguments can be made on each side of the issue, but I don't and resent those that do try to make others feel guilty for "raping" the reefs because they have an aquarium in their home. If you have a tank with all captive raised animals and rock then great for you and if you have one with a mix of captive and wild great too, enjoy it and be responsible with it and everyone should respect that descision.
clkohly makes a great point. How much carbon dioxide emissions do the power plants emit trying to keep up with our power hungry hobby? How much do these emissions contribute to global warming and in turn, to coral bleaching? Some warn that within 30 to 50 years most of the worlds reefs will disappear because of global warming. Is there such a thing as reef friendly tank even in one that is captive bred?
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote
This is unsubstantiated by fact and is just plain untrue. Damage done to the reefs of the world due to mining limestone is hundreds (possibly thousands) of times more extensive than damage due to collection of fish/corals/other inverts for the aquarium industry, just to name one. Not to mention global warming. This is not rhetoric, but documented fact.
This is unsubstantiated by fact and is just plain untrue. Damage done to the reefs of the world due to mining limestone is hundreds (possibly thousands) of times more extensive than damage due to collection of fish/corals/other inverts for the aquarium industry, just to name one. Not to mention global warming. This is not rhetoric, but documented fact.
Jim,
The electricity used by our hobby pales in comparison with what is needed to run Air Conditioners around the globe, just to name one other relatively small consumer of power.
I understand the point, though. Realize though that you would do far more good by selling your car(s) (I own 4 cars) than you would by turning off your aquarium lights.
Don't forget all the consumer goods! Do you know how much power it takes to run an injection mold machine that makes any one of the ten to twenty THOUSAND different plastic items in your home? What about the run off from pesticides and fertilizer from farming? Your not off the hook GregMookelly, my vegan friend.
There is just so much to feel envoronmentally guilty about! The dang Amish aren't even off the hook! They use public roads!
I guess I will have to move to the back woods of Idaho, subsistance farm, live off the land and make my own clothes so I can feel better. I wonder if Ruby Ridge is for sale...
Ernie
The electricity used by our hobby pales in comparison with what is needed to run Air Conditioners around the globe, just to name one other relatively small consumer of power.
I understand the point, though. Realize though that you would do far more good by selling your car(s) (I own 4 cars) than you would by turning off your aquarium lights.
Don't forget all the consumer goods! Do you know how much power it takes to run an injection mold machine that makes any one of the ten to twenty THOUSAND different plastic items in your home? What about the run off from pesticides and fertilizer from farming? Your not off the hook GregMookelly, my vegan friend.
There is just so much to feel envoronmentally guilty about! The dang Amish aren't even off the hook! They use public roads!
I guess I will have to move to the back woods of Idaho, subsistance farm, live off the land and make my own clothes so I can feel better. I wonder if Ruby Ridge is for sale...
Ernie
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote
What an interesting quote!! Shall I point out the fact that the damage caused by collection for the hobby pales in comparison with the food fish industry, global warming, pollution, dredging the reefs, etc.... Ok people, don't jump all over me because I'm defending destructive collection techniques, because I'm not. I'm just pointing out an interesting parallel...
What an interesting quote!! Shall I point out the fact that the damage caused by collection for the hobby pales in comparison with the food fish industry, global warming, pollution, dredging the reefs, etc.... Ok people, don't jump all over me because I'm defending destructive collection techniques, because I'm not. I'm just pointing out an interesting parallel...
If reefs are growing on man-made objects I would not consider them aquacultured. I also appreciate that many people are fragging corals and breeding fish. Is this causing an impact on the world's reefs? Absolutely. But I'd rather see the hobbyists doing this destruction than other more destructive methods. Let me tell you why;
When I first moved to Lauderdale-By-The-Sea the beach had just been dredged. The honeycomb reefs near my house were almost completely dead. Only a few coralheads and fish persisted. In the past 6 years the waves have washed the sand off of the dead reef and many corals are growing, parrotfish are abundant, there are fish everywhere.
Once again the beach is eroding. Dredging is scheduled for next year. The reef I love most will be covered in sand once again, strictly for more tanning space.
Legislators have been listening to a group called The Ocean Reef Foundation, comprised mostly of Boca Raton housewives who have never seen a live reef up close. They proposed that the area near my home be closed to recreational fishing. They did not mention commercial fishing or lobstering. They claim recreational fishing is killing the reef. They never paid any attention to the dredging. So far they've been shot down.
The funny thing is that they would have limited the fishing zone to two piers. Now I fish, and I know how preposterous this is. Most fisherman in this part of Florida are either fishing in the trough before the first reefs, or fishing beyond or over the reefs in search of predatory, pelagic species. There is a bit of bottom fishing for Grouper and Snapper, but not a ton. Now when you dive and snorkel on the reefs down here, it's pretty rare to see snarls of mono line and lead unless you are near the piers. On the piers is where you find inexperienced, ignorant polluters on the hunt for exotic species. I nearly got in a fist fight one night with a guy who was trying to kill an Octopus he had snagged for bait. I got between the Octopus
and the fillet knife. I had to tell the guy he's looking for trouble if he wants to kill this animal. Spend the money at the bait shop.
I'm not sure what my point is. A seawall would help our reef and prevent rapid erosion. Nobody should be allowed to fish without a license, not even on a pier. Nobody should be allowed to fish commercial within 5 miles of a beach. We've had moderate success banning commercial catch of some species in Florida. Unfortunately, Fish and Game seems to be the only Governmental group to truly get things done.
When I first moved to Lauderdale-By-The-Sea the beach had just been dredged. The honeycomb reefs near my house were almost completely dead. Only a few coralheads and fish persisted. In the past 6 years the waves have washed the sand off of the dead reef and many corals are growing, parrotfish are abundant, there are fish everywhere.
Once again the beach is eroding. Dredging is scheduled for next year. The reef I love most will be covered in sand once again, strictly for more tanning space.
Legislators have been listening to a group called The Ocean Reef Foundation, comprised mostly of Boca Raton housewives who have never seen a live reef up close. They proposed that the area near my home be closed to recreational fishing. They did not mention commercial fishing or lobstering. They claim recreational fishing is killing the reef. They never paid any attention to the dredging. So far they've been shot down.
The funny thing is that they would have limited the fishing zone to two piers. Now I fish, and I know how preposterous this is. Most fisherman in this part of Florida are either fishing in the trough before the first reefs, or fishing beyond or over the reefs in search of predatory, pelagic species. There is a bit of bottom fishing for Grouper and Snapper, but not a ton. Now when you dive and snorkel on the reefs down here, it's pretty rare to see snarls of mono line and lead unless you are near the piers. On the piers is where you find inexperienced, ignorant polluters on the hunt for exotic species. I nearly got in a fist fight one night with a guy who was trying to kill an Octopus he had snagged for bait. I got between the Octopus
and the fillet knife. I had to tell the guy he's looking for trouble if he wants to kill this animal. Spend the money at the bait shop.
I'm not sure what my point is. A seawall would help our reef and prevent rapid erosion. Nobody should be allowed to fish without a license, not even on a pier. Nobody should be allowed to fish commercial within 5 miles of a beach. We've had moderate success banning commercial catch of some species in Florida. Unfortunately, Fish and Game seems to be the only Governmental group to truly get things done.
Mary,
My definition of "aquacultured" means captively propogated or bred with the intent to perform a harvest.
Take beekeeping for example. Bees are kept captively in man-made hives with the intent of harvesting honey from these man-made hives. If a swarm of bees enters the atic of an abandoned house and form a hive there, I wouldn't call that beekeeping. Would you?
There is a conservation group that manufactures large concrete "reef-balls" and places them near reefs so they can host corals and fish. I wouldn't call that aquaculture either, since the corals are not intended for harvest.
It is simply a question of semantics.
Ernie
My definition of "aquacultured" means captively propogated or bred with the intent to perform a harvest.
Take beekeeping for example. Bees are kept captively in man-made hives with the intent of harvesting honey from these man-made hives. If a swarm of bees enters the atic of an abandoned house and form a hive there, I wouldn't call that beekeeping. Would you?
There is a conservation group that manufactures large concrete "reef-balls" and places them near reefs so they can host corals and fish. I wouldn't call that aquaculture either, since the corals are not intended for harvest.
It is simply a question of semantics.
Ernie
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Shall I point out the fact that the damage caused by collection for the hobby pales in comparison with the food fish industry, global warming, pollution, dredging the reefs, etc.... Ok people, don't jump all over me because I'm defending destructive collection techniques, because I'm not. I'm just pointing out an interesting parallel...
<hr></blockquote>
I think the point being made here is that it matters little who causes the most damage when we who supposedly love the reef the most are contributing to it's demise with our little hobby. The point about electricity being even in the tank that is the most environmentally friendly, it will still need electricity which in turn can cause a negative impact some where down the line. Not that I'm suggesting that everyone turn their lights off get rid of their tanks and move to a farm, but (to me) the idea that this hobby benefits the reef is ludicrous.
Glenn
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Shall I point out the fact that the damage caused by collection for the hobby pales in comparison with the food fish industry, global warming, pollution, dredging the reefs, etc.... Ok people, don't jump all over me because I'm defending destructive collection techniques, because I'm not. I'm just pointing out an interesting parallel...
<hr></blockquote>
I think the point being made here is that it matters little who causes the most damage when we who supposedly love the reef the most are contributing to it's demise with our little hobby. The point about electricity being even in the tank that is the most environmentally friendly, it will still need electricity which in turn can cause a negative impact some where down the line. Not that I'm suggesting that everyone turn their lights off get rid of their tanks and move to a farm, but (to me) the idea that this hobby benefits the reef is ludicrous.
Glenn
Wow this thread sure has grown since I last logged on Sat. Morn. Taking a break from the puter for a bit. Plus have 95% of xmas shopping done
While captive raised vs wild caught debates come around every week I dont' think we truly address what captive raised it. I don't know who suggested showing a history of the frag offered but that was a great Idea. Then we truly would know that the frag we are getting is the product of someone's hard work
Another point I brought up that no one really addressed and I think it's a good one is on aquacultured rock. Is this truly having no impact upon the environment? On most reefs if you toss anything in the ocean it seems a coral will grow on it. I've seen corals on piers, buoys, all kinds of stuff. Aren't we just placing a medium for the corals to grow on in the ocean and then pulling it out of the ocean. Remember typical wild live rock is not part of the growing reef and is and does not have to be hacked from the reef. It pretty much just has to be picked up out of the lagoon and washed off and voila live rock. Aren't we just putting rocks in the ocean then picking it up and rinsing it off. In a sense are we not doing just as much harm in adding a foreign substance and then removing it from the ocean with the animals that have chosen it as home?
Another point not addressed in my previous post is concerning corals growing on items other than the "reef" what about corals that grow on piers, buoys, and even oil rigs. If we collect corals from rocks we put in the ocean and call it aquaculutred then are not these corals found not on the "reef" aquacultured also just on a metal or concrete medium and not on a live rockish medium.
BTW you guys are doing great to have no flames
Bill
While captive raised vs wild caught debates come around every week I dont' think we truly address what captive raised it. I don't know who suggested showing a history of the frag offered but that was a great Idea. Then we truly would know that the frag we are getting is the product of someone's hard work
Another point I brought up that no one really addressed and I think it's a good one is on aquacultured rock. Is this truly having no impact upon the environment? On most reefs if you toss anything in the ocean it seems a coral will grow on it. I've seen corals on piers, buoys, all kinds of stuff. Aren't we just placing a medium for the corals to grow on in the ocean and then pulling it out of the ocean. Remember typical wild live rock is not part of the growing reef and is and does not have to be hacked from the reef. It pretty much just has to be picked up out of the lagoon and washed off and voila live rock. Aren't we just putting rocks in the ocean then picking it up and rinsing it off. In a sense are we not doing just as much harm in adding a foreign substance and then removing it from the ocean with the animals that have chosen it as home?
Another point not addressed in my previous post is concerning corals growing on items other than the "reef" what about corals that grow on piers, buoys, and even oil rigs. If we collect corals from rocks we put in the ocean and call it aquaculutred then are not these corals found not on the "reef" aquacultured also just on a metal or concrete medium and not on a live rockish medium.
BTW you guys are doing great to have no flames
Bill
When I visited a remote island off the coast of Palawan, Phillipines I was shocked when I dove into the waters.
What lay there were miles and miles of broken large fragments of dead corals. (dead live rock).
It obviously affected tourism there.
But, what one resort did is gathered live frags of various corals and affixed them to this dead stuff in front of there resort. Over time it became just like it used to be.
That my friends is aquaculture.
What lay there were miles and miles of broken large fragments of dead corals. (dead live rock).
It obviously affected tourism there.
But, what one resort did is gathered live frags of various corals and affixed them to this dead stuff in front of there resort. Over time it became just like it used to be.
That my friends is aquaculture.
esmithiii hit it on the head for me. I too believe that all of creation is under the dominion of man. As such it is my responsibility to do the best with it I can. In some cases the best I can do is "wild caught". In others it is captive prop/raised/bred. If all the corlas/fish I wanted were available captive it is my responsibility to use them. I don't think it is anything to brag about, so in that sense i agree with Bill2.
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
