Fiji thread

[Anonymous]

kalk,
Your parrot fish arguement has no merit. It is a natural part of the reef. Kind of like the people that whine the current and hurricanes are taking away their beach.

 

[Contender]

.......I never really thought this hobby had no lasting effect on the fish populations........but thanks to the Woods' report I am now convinced that this too is quite silly{ the idea of the hobby impacting fish populations } So thanks for the info!...... the truth Is a wonderfull thing! Keep those links comming!

When I was a kid, I used to sneak into my brothers room and steal a handful of M&M's from him, and then shake the bag a little, and it was impossible to tell any had been taken. He always suspected I would steal them from him, but he could never prove it unless he sat there and counted every single one every day.

Just because Dr. Woods didn't find enough evidence to convince you that this hobby is destroying the reef, doesn't necessarily mean that it is not. You can't necessarily take lack of support for one argument, and use it to support another. It is very difficult to study what effects this hobby has on the reefs, when there is so much of it to look at. If a couple of miles of reef dissapear, it would be very hard to tell. It is impractical to expect that one person could account for every coral and fish ever taken, then dive down periodically in every reef to see exactly what effects the taking of these corals is having on the reefs, and then differentiate which destruction is caused by coral collection, and which is caused by other means.

If I would have taken enough handfuls of M&M's from my brother, after a week or two, the bag would be empty and he wouldn't know what the heck hit him. Be careful before you jump to conclusions.

 

[Anonymous]

kalk,
Did you read any of the links on the page referenced by dizzy? Did you join? Did you fill out the survey?

 

[Anonymous]

The results of this study indicate that aquarium collectors are having significant impacts on eight of the ten species examined. However, in order to assess whether these abundance patterns are clearly due to aquarium fish collecting requires better knowledge about the intensity and location of collecting activities. Several lines of evidence suggest that the current system of reporting is underestimating the harvest, perhaps by a large margin. It is strongly suggested that additional conservation measures be applied to this fishery and current efforts to establish a marine reserve network in Hawai’i are supported by numerous studies as a successful method to manage reef fisheries.




From: http://www.coralreefnetwork.com/kona/impact/summary.htm

 

[Anonymous]

Oh, and here comes another OUCH!


Furthermore, recent surveys of 300 reefs worldwide showed key target species of
commercial interest were absent, or present in very low numbers, in almost all of the
reefs surveyed

Hodgson, G. 1999. A Global Assessment of Human Effects on Coral Reefs. Mar. Poll. Bull. 38:345-355.

 

[dizzy]

The results of this study indicate that aquarium collectors are having significant impacts on eight of the ten species examined.

From: http://www.coralreefnetwork.com/kona/impact/summary.htm

Dr. Reef I agree this report sounds bad. I wonder what the eight species were. It is interesting that A.achilles numbers were down 57% and I would assume yellow tangs and nasos were down significantly as well, but I didn't see them listed in the summary. The part that struck me as odd was the fact that despite the reduced numbers of herbivores the amount of macro algae had not increased. I also recall a post Dana Riddle made somewhere on this board about eating achilles tangs at a luau.

 

[Anonymous]

The part that struck me as odd was the fact that despite the reduced numbers of herbivores the amount of macro algae had not increased.

Yes, but is that because the macroalgae is already at its highest growth rate and coverage due to human induced eutrophication, as in one recent report in the Keys that found no increase in growth with N addition? The only way to know that would have been to exclude herbivores and compare the macroalgae in the exclusion control versus the reduced herbivore area.

 

[dizzy]

[

Yes, but is that because the macroalgae is already at its highest growth rate and coverage due to human induced eutrophication,

Dr. Reef I had to look it up in the Oxford American Dictionary but anyway here it is for the intellectually challenged: eu-trophic-ic ( of a pond etc.) rich in nutrients and hence having excessive plant growth, which kills animal life by depriving it of oxygen.

Are populations of food fish being affected? I know it said some non-aquarium fish were not affected. I just somehow find it hard to believe that divers with nets could remove 57% of the achilles tangs from an area. I am a retailer and I just don't see very many achilles tangs showing up on availability lists and never have. In 17-years I probably haven't sold more than 80 of them in my store. My story may be somewhat atypical since I am in smaller city, but I would like to hear from other retailers on the subject.

 

[flameangel1]

Dizzy,,
In 10 years of being in business, I have only sold 3 Naso tangs and have ONE small (3 inch) in the shop right now.
"Special order only" type fish and only for larger tanks.

 

[Anonymous]

I just somehow find it hard to believe that divers with nets could remove 57% of the achilles tangs from an area.

Consider this, if you only remove 10 tangs, but they are all of reproductive value and age, then you are reducing next years population of tangs by about 10,000 based on larvae production from those healthy 10 individuals. You do this again each year, and you make a big impact on total populations, without even removing that many. Now, I know most reef fishes are taken well before maturity, but I can tell you, not all those fish end up in U.S. markets, and I don't know how big they want them in other countries. Also, I've only ever see 3 rare Vlamingi tangs, and they were all HUGE and reproductive aged. And these are uncommon in the trade.

 

[flameangel1]

Dr. Reef,,

then you are reducing next years population of tangs by about 10,000 based on larvae production from those healthy 10 individuals.

There might be that many eggs/larvae, but very, very few would survive the predation by the other natural inhabitants of the area.
(I do not mean human, here )

 

[Anonymous]

a point regarding the politics of the industry- no one pointed this one out yet, so:

i'm with the school that claims that other industries(tourism,dead coral deco's,industry)probably create more overall environmental damage than the aquarium collection side.i still feel that does not excuse us from the moral obligation to conduct our related activities in as moral and self sustaining a way as is possible.

my fear is this-the other industries have more economic clout, and more power in the lobbying areas than we do.our hobby is fairly high profile in the public's eye regarding reef health, irrespective of whether we really constitute a major player or not, in these conservation issues(maybe because of efforts on behalf of the other industries, who knows?)many, i'm sure would be happy to see us continue to be percieved as such, for it removes the 'microscope' from their backyards.

at the very least, we owe it to ourselves to keep our impact as beyond reproach as possible, in order to keep other industries interests from painting us as the scapegoat, whether or not we should be.

maybe a parrot does eat more sps's than collection does, and maybe nature's law usually means that a pair of animals is replaced by only a pair-it still doesn't justify not making an attempt to collect wildlife in a more responsible manner than is presently practiced.

the argument of the amount of fry survival is flawed, however- for all of the non survivor's lost from collecting reproductive individuals represent food sources for other individuals/species-who can say how many dominoes are affected by removing a reproducing tang-the number is higher than if a juvenile is removed, though.

kudo's to bornemann, et al, for at least making the attempt,whether flawed or not, to collect the info needed, so we can make sure our own house is in order, or will be-then maybe the other houses can be looked at!-at least we can then know for sure that our consciences are clean, and we are the moral and responsible minded people i would think we'd all like to be able to claim to be.

nothing would make me happier, as both a salt and fresh water hobbyist, to know i can be justified in being smug about the moral character of my hobby/sometime proffesion.

 

[Kalkbreath]

Why is NOW the Woods data not any good? seems like the woods report used many sources.Unlike the last link you provided? Furthermore Achilles tangs migrate from reef to reef so perhaps the day your two friends were out swimming the fish were on leave? Also it seems this research proves again that taking fish from the collection areas, has NO impact on surrounding non collection reef areas fish populations! Which account for 99% of Hawaii waters! This is a fine example of how well these small collection areas work, no harm to the remaining thousands of reefs in Hawaii. And this is how its been for twenty years! Next please?
_________________
Honda Stepwgn
_________________
Turkish Forum

 

[Kalkbreath]

I forgot.....I AM in support for the non collection of adult breeding fish! The removal of these one in a million survivors does Harm the future generations of off spring greatly.....and this can be show to be a fact through sound science! So see Im not evil......just logical.
_________________
Honda FCX
_________________
Airgun Designs

 

[dizzy]

I forgot.....I AM in support for the non collection of adult breeding fish! The removal of these one in a million survivors does Harm the future generations of off spring greatly.....and this can be show to be a fact through sound science! So see Im not evil......just logical.

Kalk and anyone who is interested. That little tidbit on eating achilles tangs by Dana Riddle is over in the forum index page under Advanced Aquarist Online--Aquarium Fish Discussion--Achilles Tang Feeding.

Seems like they are eating the big 10" breeders. Of all the achilles I have had in 17-years none were larger than 3-4". I'm just guessing, but a big naso probably tastes as good as an achilles. If we could switch them over to farm raised Tilapia they might leave the breeders alone. We need to somehow educate them to the fact that these fish have more value as an aquarium fish than a food fish. Also I think they spear a lot of the food fish which would be easier than net catching.

 

[Anonymous]

There might be that many eggs/larvae, but very, very few would survive the predation by the other natural inhabitants of the area.
(I do not mean human, here )

You are correct. But, the point I am making, is that it takes 10,000 larvae in order for 1,000 to survivie. By satiating predators with such high numbers, others end up living. This is only lends credence to the fact that you should not remove 10 reproductive tangs.

 

[Anonymous]

Furthermore Achilles tangs migrate from reef to reef so perhaps the day your two friends were out swimming the fish were on leave? Also it seems this research proves again that taking fish from the collection areas, has NO impact on surrounding non collection reef areas fish populations

No offense, but I'm sure a bunch of researchers with 12 years of schooling each have probably accounted for something like this. It's very rare that any PhD's make it this far and don't know how to design an experiment. Besides, if you read the Hodgson paper, I know you wouldn't be bringing this up. That question is answered in the text.

Furthermore, the research says nothing on the impact of non-collecting areas, therfore you can't make such an invalid generalization. You were the one who mentioned that Achilles tangs are migratory, so wouldn't that lend credence to the fact that removing a fish species does more than impact just one reef?

Who said the Woods paper is no good?

 

[Kalkbreath]

Woods reported that vary little if any fish were missing from the collection areas in Hawaii...... in some areas in fact this report found that there was NO impact even in the collection zone on fish numbers. Even with yellow tangs which account for 72 % of total fish. Its almost impossible to not have some fish missing in an area of daily collection....fish would have to swim in from other reefs instantly! Simple math means remove 40 fish out of 100 and you are left with only 60% .. a fish count reading and WOW 40% of the fish are missing!So finding this result in some species. means that there is a decrease but it also means that this 60 % is stable, otherwise the resulting number of remaining fish would become zero after a few days!{Because fish are removed each day from this area} I have heard that the collection areas were in poor shape even befor the collection of tropical fish begain....this is why the Hawaii Gov allowed collection to take place in these tiny areas in the first place{do you think they would allow collection in the healthiests reefs?} and why in the world would any scientist think all reefs are the same anyway? how can we compare reef one..... to reef two ? The reefs in the Kona area are the most heavily used reefs in hawaii, and have been for decades. Please look at a map of Hawaii and notice the tiny area of the Kona coast , this pin point of an area is all that has even been shown to have been effected by this hobby out of the whole chain of islands. and even this area has been effected vary little , the Coral ,the Algae, the many other species of fish seem to not mind at all......why do you?
_________________
BMW Z9
_________________
pot joints

 

[Anonymous]

You're right. I'm throwing away my graduate degree right now.

I vote we up the harvest of both corals and reef fish by about 1000%. And, I elect we save money by shipping them in smaller boxes and bags with higher numbers in each bag. That alone will benefit the economy of America by about 5 dollars a year. Once the initial changes have been made, I vote we hang all those parties who have been lying to us all along, and we trash all universities and journals that spout off all this malarkey about harming the environment.

Next, we will burn all trees in the world, because, warmer temperatures means we can have reefs along the NY coast line and that means less cost in shipping. Next, we remove all these despots in these tiny Pacific Islands and replace them with marine fish store owners. The new rulers of the islands can change the names of the islands as they see fit. But, I vote we change the name of Fiji to Cappuccino Bay. Oh, and the new natinal language of Fiji mandates that all official published writing must end each sentence with a question mark. This makes sense? Long live the CB island? Down with greeners? I can't wait to laugh at all those people who thought harvesting was negative to the reefs? I will be wiping my backside with hundred dollar bills for the rest of my life and there will be no decrease in coral or fish vitalityon my CB reefs?

All those in favor say aye?


AYE?

 

[Anonymous]

Kalkbreath-
i'm curious-for the record, i think your skepticism(a necessary part of any good debate)is understood,but what do you think about the attempt to collect the data in the first place-after all, if the situation really is as you seem to contend,- that we, collectively, as an industry, are not impacting on reeflife negatively-then the data will support your contention.

i do not understand the apparent vehemence in your position. disagreeing with the premise, while conclusive data has yet to be collected
and analyzed,that collection methods are negatively impacting on reefs, or other environments relating to our hobby, is one thing-but why do you seem so opposed to the effort?if for nothing else, the knowledge gained will still benefit us as a whole, if only to further understand the dynamics of the way these things work.

even if the only result is gaining more knowledge for aquaculture ventures, seems to me it's a win/win situation all around.

research always benefits those involved,if for nothing else, than for the simple furthering of human understanding of the scheme of things...