Fiji thread

[Anonymous]

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.

Some would have us believe that conclusive data is already abundant. I would have those people shot. Didn't you read the above post? It is a right-wing conspiracy formed to force us into thinking we are harming the environment!

 

[Anonymous]

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.

Some would have us believe that conclusive data is already abundant. I would have those people shot. Didn't you read the above post? It is a right-wing conspiracy formed to force us into thinking we are harming the environment!

chill, dude- i happen to agree with you-i'm just trying to understand Kalkbreath's seeming vehement opposition to the validity of the possibilty, and the attempt to collect the data.

regards, :wink:

 

[Contender]

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!

I fail to see your point....does the fact that 40% of the fish are dissapearing mean that we are not doing any damage, just because it is occurring at a sustainable level? I see it as being that we are killing 40% of the fish, period. And just because it is at 40% does not mean its stable....it could be decreasing by 1% per year....you cannot increase the percent of fish dissappearing instantaneously in a few days...it takes more time than that. And even if it is occurring at a sustainable level, if we utilize more responsible collecting and shipping techniques, and are able to increase the stable amount to 70%, wouldn't that be a huge boost to the reefs?

Taking fish in the destructive manner that it is done is damaging to a reef, no matter what we you look at it. If you take ten fish out of the ocean, that is ten less fish...."simple math". What if it is done at a sustainable level? That does not mean that the numbers wouldn't be much higher if you got rid of an extra predator like the collectors.

 

[Anonymous]

. If you take ten fish out of the ocean, that is ten less fish...."simple math".

That is way too simplistic. Doesn't the constant stream of plankton replenish the missing fish? Either that fish is a victim of predation by natural causes or human causes. As long as the habitat is not destroyed the supply of fish will maintain itself. Each fish mating results in thousands upon thousands of "potential fish" something like one percent make it to adult hood due to food supplies, habitat availability and predation. As long as the food supply and habitat remain stable the fish population will maintain itself. As far as I know food fishing destroys more habitat than anything.

 

[dizzy]

[
Taking fish in the destructive manner that it is done is damaging to a reef, no matter what we you look at it. If you take ten fish out of the ocean, that is ten less fish...."simple math". What if it is done at a sustainable level? That does not mean that the numbers wouldn't be much higher if you got rid of an extra predator like the collectors.

The Hawaiian report didn't say anything about evidence of destructive fishing. It also didn't suggest that there was much evidence of damage to the reef and the macro algae levels were remaining constant. It did suggest some fish appeared to be missing, but they didn't say that aquarium fish collecting was defintely to blame. It sounds to me like it is being heavily studied and we will know more in the future. I think we need to wait until the jury is in before we blame the aquarium industry. If harvest quotas need to be established I'm on board with that. Kalk often makes a lot of sense to me and I commend him for his courage. If we are over collecting the fish all we have to do is stop and they will come roaring back. Probably just switching the collection zones around is all it would take. Sort of like crop rotation.

 

[Anonymous]

It sounds to me like it is being heavily studied and we will know more in the future.

Try again. Most scientists are focusing on more scientific explorations than the decline of coral and fish due to harvest. That is because there is little to no funding for this kind of research. All the money going toward coral research now seems to be focusing on 1) restoration efforts and 2) bleaching research.

If we are over collecting the fish all we have to do is stop and they will come roaring back.

My great-great grandfather said the same thing about Passenger pigeons. Whoops. While I try to respect the dead, especially my own kin, I think he was mistaken, and I think you are mistaken. There is much more involved in population rebound than you think. Also, we did stop hunting the FL panther but how is it doing these days?

 

[dizzy]

[

My great-great grandfather said the same thing about Passenger pigeons. Whoops. While I try to respect the dead, especially my own kin, I think he was mistaken, and I think you are mistaken. There is much more involved in population rebound than you think. Also, we did stop hunting the FL panther but how is it doing these days?

When I was a child there was no deer hunting in Kentucky because they had nearly been wiped out. Today your lucky if you drive on a country road at night without hitting one. Other extemely successful reintroduction are wild turkeys and elk. Peregrine falcons and bald eagles are back from the graveyard. So are aligators. Same with many marine mammals and stuff like Canadian geese. Stuff does come back. Guys with nets are not the real problem. Today we have a controlled deer hunt and 1000s are taken by gun and by bow and arrow, and the next year they are back to the same levels. There really is such a thing as a sustainable harvest.

 

[SPC]

Posted by Dizzy:

There really is such a thing as a sustainable harvest.

- I agree, as long as you know what those numbers are. The above mentioned animals were regulated in the US, can we expect the same thing in other countries?
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

When I was a child there was no deer hunting in Kentucky because they had nearly been wiped out. Today your lucky if you drive on a country road at night without hitting one. Other extemely successful reintroduction are wild turkeys and elk.

The reason deer, turkey and elk are so plentiful, is because we have done a better job at wiping out their predators. Bobcats, bears, and mountain lions (cougars) are at such low levels, the prey populations are uncontrolled! Good work hunters!

So are aligators. Same with many marine mammals

Alligators have been saved from decline in part due to captive farming markets and a complete cessation of wild harvest. If farming animals is the answer to sustaining a population, then why the need for wild harvest of coral when so many farming options are available? Also, I don't know many marine mammals that were in jeopardy and are no longer. They all have a K selected life history strategy that means it will take 100 or more years of no deaths to be anywhere near "sustaining" levels without management. U.S. manatees have been knocked down to 3,000 from a population of more than 300,000. They are far from recovered. And, thanks to the U.S. Navy, we will be killing many more whales using UL Sonar.

There really is such a thing as a sustainable harvest.

That is 100% true, but it is far safer to determine these levels thru sound science before harvest, not after it is too late. I don't call for a cessation of trade, but rather, a realistic approach to the idea that we are negatively impacting reefs with harvest. Then, I think funding and research should focus on that area. Lastly, published work should allow better management so that sustainable yeilds can be achieved.

 

[dizzy]

Dr. Reef, Steve, everybody,

I'm all for coral farming 100%. I just want to see at least part of it done in the countries of origin. I loved the little acropora frags that Dave Palmer was shipping out of the Solomons a few years ago. You could always tell where they were from by the little concrete disks they were attached to. I think Walt Smith is doing an excellent job in Fiji today. I also think the clam farmers are doing an excellent job. I was just reading an article in Sport Diver magazine by Geri Murphy that talks about a very successful turtle farm in the Cayman Islands. Since 1980 they have released 30,000 green sea turtles back into the wild and they are coming back. check out www.turtle.ky for more information on the farm. Farm what you can and harvest the rest in a sustainable fashion. Limit the freak show breeding please.

 

[Anonymous]

dizzy,
I too support coral farming. Steve Tyree imports corals from farmers in Tonga, and also from other coral farmers. He has agreat network of exactly that set up. That is where I have bought mmost of my coral for the Tonga biotope I have. All are frags and about 1/2 are farmed.

kalk,
See my earlier post and try to answer a question instead of putting everyone down so you can feel better.

 

[Anonymous]

My great-great grandfather said the same thing about Passenger pigeons. Whoops.

But didn't this also have alot to do with habitat destruction? There was nothing for them to come back to.

 

[Anonymous]

Glenn, that could be, but I have never been taught in any of my ecology classes, and a browse of the web does not pull up anything about habitat loss.

Moreover, it blames hunting. I believe that is the accepted culprit.

http://ohld.ag.utk.edu/enr/spotlights/nolt2.htm


Despite their numbers, the passenger pigeons succumbed quickly. .....

Their last precipitous decline surprised even the conservationists. As their numbers fell, the pigeons ceased to mate. Apparently their mating instinct was triggered in a way that we will now never understand by something in the presence of the great flock. The last known passenger pigeon, a female named Martha, died in the Cincinnati zoo in 1914.
The lack of large flock size was from hunting, not habitat loss.

 

[dizzy]

Dr. Reef,

If passenger pigeons were still here and present in those large flocks everyone would hate them for pooping on their cars. (and heads)

Just joking. :lol:

 

[Kalkbreath]

Why is it that the effects will always happen next year? all these hundreds of reports and surveys have shown little effects even in the collection areas? I truly thought that we were having more of an effect on fish populations, but everyting I read and you people offer as an example show the oposite? I understand the concept of blind faith but why apply it to this idea that the hobby is harming the reefs ? My research shows that the freshwater hobby is harming the streams and waterways of the world much more the the few reefs the salt water hobby is collecting from? Many extreme enviromental efforts I am for....I would actually like to join forces with others to end this stupid practice of dumping sewage into waterways.....when we could dump it on land, let it dry out ,reclaimed by the land and keep it out of our steams !
_________________
Dilaudid Rehab Forum
_________________
Honda CD200 RoadMaster

 

[Anonymous]

all these hundreds of reports and surveys have shown little effects even in the collection areas?

Please don't respond to anything ever again without reading the papers in question. I gave you the Hodgson 1999, if you read it, you wouldn't have made the comment you made above.

 

[Anonymous]

Don't know if he can read, he has yet to respond to my questions even though i have aked twice :roll:

 

[Kalkbreath]

Hodgson made a statement, and backed it up with nothing? {Blind faithagain?} Please offer something anything other then statements of opinion.....I have plenty of those.....I dont believe Hodson even if he or she says Goniopora can fly....I need him to explain why he thinks this using math or logic or any other of the hateful theories I use in my conclusions......PS I agree with your position on the plight of the Gator , Sea cows and dear in America.
_________________
Ferrari F430
_________________
grape ape strain

 

[Anonymous]

Hodgson made a statement, and backed it up with nothing? {Blind faithagain?} Please offer something anything other then statements of opinion.

Hodgson's whole work is a scientific study that performs the fish surveys you are asking for. His is not an opinion. It is a statement of fact. Like all peer-reviewed works, his methods and his findings are valid, and cannot be questioned. What can be questioned, are the implications of such findings. In other words, if he has demonstrated lower fish abundance and coral abundance of commercially harvested species on 300 different reefs, you cannot debate those facts. What you can debate is the why. But, I would highly doubt that a storm or ship grounding came through a reef and damaged and removed only the commercially important species, and left all the less economically valuable species. This leaves other more likely culprits.

Also, I know you haven't read it yet because it took me 2 months just to find it using University resources. It's a shame these types of pubs are not more available to the Gen Public.

Respectfully,
Brian

 

[dizzy]

[

Hodgson's whole work is a scientific study that performs the fish surveys you are asking for. His is not an opinion. It is a statement of fact. Like all peer-reviewed works, his methods and his findings are valid, and cannot be questioned. What can be questioned, are the implications of such findings. In other words, if he has demonstrated lower fish abundance and coral abundance of commercially harvested species on 300 different reefs, you cannot debate those facts. What you can debate is the why.

Let's debate the why then. What was his definition of commercial value? Was he studying fish and coral loss due to food fishing, or aquarium collecting? I think the two are very different and should not be lumped together. If corals are being killed by dynamite blasting to collect food fish can the ornamental fish industry be blamed? Can you blame reefers for the sins of the seashell/curio association? Dr. Woods makes a statement that goes something like: the corals are being killed by various influences so we can't let the aquarium industry add to the problem.

What Dr. Woods and Hodgson ought to be stating is: There seems to be a decline in coral and fish numbers in commercial collection areas, let's find out who is primarily responsible so we can concentrate our efforts on stopping them. The ornamental fish industry is being scapegoated because they are an easier target and less well financed. The green movement needs to prioritize its efforts, just a little. I think that is what Kalk is trying to say. It makes absolutely no kind of sense what so ever to concentrate 90% of your efforts on stopping 5% of the problem.