Threats to Coral Reefs

[leftovers]

WRI is a Lobbiest organization located in Washington DC. The quotes used in their "research" may/may not accurately reflect the authors context or final analysis. Also their primary report is over 4 years old and as far as I know has not been recently updated.

Thats not say that its all hyperbole but that is in large part its purpose to stir govt. leaders and non-scientists into action.

It is a place to start but read other sources since there is a WIDE gap in the estimated time the reefs have as well as the amount considered destroyed/threatened.

Aquaculture is but ony a small solution and will not succeed on its own. Only a well thought big picture reef/people sustaining solution will help the reefs of the world.

When you can place a recurring $$ value on the reefs only then will the countries and peoples that govern them begin to want to ACTIVELY preserve them.

 

[Anonymous]

If you look at the "Reefs at Risk" there is a small August 2000 update and also links that have been added as recently as dec 26, 2001

 

[Anonymous]

There have been some people who have been playing down the threat to our reefs and the role our hobby has in it. There are many different aspects to the degradation of the world reefs. it almost happens without fail that anytime it is mentioned that we have a impact on the destruction there are people (most of the time people in the profession of importing and sale of aquatic species) who want to point the finger else where. When so much of what goes into out tanks is easily aquacultered and tank raised I find that playing down the destruction of the reefs is almost criminal. In any case here is a link to many reports on the status of th world reefs. I would also incourage all those who read to look at who authored it.

Threats to Coral Reefs

 

[Bill2]

Very Interesting Link although I've seen it before but forgot about it. Since I am a logical person I tend to look at all the facts before making a statement. Some people are playing up our effect upon the coral reefs of the world let's all look at this link
http://www.igc.org/wri/indictrs/reefsmap.htm

Along each site I am basing my coral collection/no coral collection ideas mostly on the country. I Do Not know for sure if coral collecting is or is not going on on that particular reef.

Threatened reefs:
Florida Keys, USA---- No coral collection

Bahia Las Minas, Panama---- Little Coral collection if any

Jamaica's Reefs--- little coral collection if any

Hikkadduwa Reefs, Sri Lanka --- little coral collection if any

Red Sea Riviera, Gulf of Aqaba and Egyptian Red Sea --- litte coral collection

Reefs of the Southern Islands, Singapore - unknown coral collection by me

The Bolinao Reef Complex, Philippines-- coral collection

Scarborough Reef, South China Sea -- minor coral collection

Seribu Islands Reefs, Indonesia-- coral collection

Johnston Atoll, Central Pacific-- no coral collection

Chuuk Lagoon (Truk Lagoon), Micronesia-- no coral collection that I know

Reefs of the Windward Southeastern Hawaiian Islands-- no coral collection


Signs of promise:
Bermuda's Coral Reefs
S2. Tubbataha Reef, Philippines coral collection
S3. Apo and Balicasag Island Reefs, Philippines coral collection
S4. Komodo National Park Reefs, Indonesia coral collection
S5. Palau Rock Islands little if any coral collection
S6. Mombasa Marine National Park, Kenya no coral collection
S7. Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and Marine Park little coral collection


It's funny where 3 of the 12 threatened reefs are in the constraints of the US (I believe Johnston Atoll is within the Hawiian Island chain up near Midway Island)

It's also funny where 3 of the 7 of the signs of hope are in the major coral exporters of Indonesia and Phillippenes

I'm not sure what it says but to Me it says there are other far greater pressures upon the reef than our hobby and I count 11 here
http://www.igc.org/wri/indictrs/rrdecisn.htm#development
Is one the aquarium industry? The ONLY place the aquarium industry is remotly mentioned is the page on cyanide fishing. On that same page it gives the industry a $200 million price tag BUT it gives the live Food fish industry a price tag of $1 billion. 5 times the amount of live aquarium fish. Hmm interesting.

BTW These are my ideas and have no bearing on reefs.org

 

[Anonymous]

Bill

Maybe you should read it again, it is possible you just missed the part that goes on to say the herbivore fish have been made extinct on some reefs because of selected species collection. I guess this does apply to the hobby.

Did you notice this is the same report that Mary's post about the WWF is pulling their information from?

Your disclaimer is sad that you are an Administrator for reefs.org and you do not accept the responsibility for what you post.

Btw, if you want to speak of the funny situation in the Phillipines reef make sure that you explain that the reef are making a come back because the reefs were so disamated from collection for this hobby by the use of cyanide that many importers stopped buying fish from this area to aviod the pollitical mess it was causing.

also you may want to mention that collection in the keys was legislatively banned for 300 feet around reefs, the collection did not stop on its own. It might be good to tell the whole story.

[ January 07, 2002: Message edited by: Fishaholic ]</p>

 

[Bill2]

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

Maybe you should read it again, it is possible you just missed the part that goes on to say the herbivore fish have been made extinct on some reefs because of selected species collection. I guess this does apply to the hobby.</strong>

I did read that and I guess fishing for certain species does not depleat those stocks.PSS btw they eat tangs sea urchins, and parrotfish. All herbivoirs and called "target species" (see p 13 of report

<strong>Did you notice this is the same report that Mary's post about the WWF is pulling their information from?</strong>

So? I guess the question then is where are any of these figures coming from. Just becuase Mary posts something doesn't mean I have to believe the figures. I evaluate all figures I see.

<strong>Your disclaimer is sad that you are an Administrator for reefs.org and you do not accept the responsibility for what you post.</strong>

No, I accept what I post. I'm saying reefs.org is not liable for what I say. Are your thoughts indicitive of the job or any other chrity entity you work for?

<strong>Btw, if you want to speak of the funny situation in the Phillipines reef make sure that you explain that the reef are making a come back because the reefs were so disamated from collection for this hobby by the use of cyanide that many importers stopped buying fish from this area to aviod the pollitical mess it was causing.</strong>

If you think fish from the Phillipenes are not prevelent in the industry think again. I know of only 1 wholesaler , Mary, that flat out does not import from the Phillipenes. There could be more that I am unaware of. What about blast fishing, don't think that is used in aquarium industry and that fall under the destructive fishing part.

<strong> also you may want to mention that collection in the keys was legislatively banned for 300 feet around reefs, the collection did not stop on its own.</strong>

Well if collection is the source of destruction of the reef then why are the keys still in trouble. Notice the keys are in the threatened reefs section

[QB} It might be good to tell the whole story.[/QB]

[ January 07, 2002: Message edited by: Fishaholic ][/QB]<hr></blockquote>

What about the rest of the pressures (10 others), is collection to be blamed for those? Are these pressures greater than collection?

If anyone is going to address the majority of one of my posts directly please analyze the whole post and not part of the sections.

BTW These are my ideas and have no bearing on my employer.

[ January 07, 2002: Message edited by: Bill2 ]</p>

 

[Chucker]

Fishaholic, once again we would politely request that the personal attacks are kept to a bare minimum.

 

[Anonymous]

Chucker

No personal attack, just wanting to know about the reason why only part of the situation is being told when I think we are aware that the person posting knows the whole story.

 

[Anemone]

Fishaholic,

Until this forum opened, I didn't know who you were. At the beginning, I was willing to give you full range and listen to your opinions. Unfortunately, your continual harping, argumentative tone has reduced you (in my eyes) to gadfly status.

Is this the way you want your opinions to be viewed? I believe you are hurting your cause more than helping it. Gadflies are present at all levels of government, and the typical response to them is "yeah whatever," and to completely ignore what they have to say.

I believe in species bans, but your accusatory, conspiracy-theory (the whole of reefs.org is an industry front, and they only present half-truths purposely to mislead the innocent) rhetoric is so incredibly annoying you make me want to jump ship, just so I won't be on your side.

Please, think about what you post. I honestly think you're not helping.

Kevin

 

[Anonymous]

That is a stretch,

I honestly do not care how you view me Kevin.

I have said that I think the facts that Mary and Bill present are extreemly biased and this is supposed to be a educational site. In an eduactional forum you present facts and references, not half qoutes.

 

[SPC]

Dave, your continued personal attacks have promted me to ask this question. I noticed that on the other board you post to often there is a thread entitled "Picked this up at the tropicorium today". This post deals with a fellow who just purchased a wild collected M. capricornis that is quite large. He say's that he got flamed on another board for buying this coral but was glad everyone on this board was so understanding. You posted on other threads all around this guy but never gave your opinion, why is that?
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Steve

There are hundreds of threads on reefs.org that people buy and are happy with what they buy that I would not have bought or even felt that should have been sold. I do not feel I need to tell them what I would have done either.

These discussions on conservation are about if something should be sold or not. In answering these questions you can present facts and the resources that you achieved those facts from. If someone choose to make a statement that has no resources or is only half of a qoute, I fail to see why they should not be asked about it, do you.

The BB you speak of www.thereeftank.com clearly states it is availiable to help promote aquacultered livestock.

Are you asking me if I would have bought that coral, the answer is no.

BTW I expressed how I feel in the post about Coral Ecology that Gallion started, The one you were reading a couple of nights ago, so my opinions have been voiced there too.

[ January 07, 2002: Message edited by: Fishaholic ]</p>

 

[MaryHM]

There is no coral collection in the Philippines. Fish only.

 

[Kalkbreath]

REALLY ! ?
_________________
schrom marijuana

 

[Bill2]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MaryHM:
<strong>There is no coral collection in the Philippines. Fish only.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Did not know that.

 

[tazdevil]

O.k., for all that have been discussing where the corals have been propigated from, here's a scary thought for you. Any rock/coral removed from the Marshall Islands (esp. Bikini Atoll) area is laced with radioactivity. Yet, coral removal has been permitted in the Marshall Islands. The reason for the radioactivity is our testing of nuclear weapons that went on between 1946-1960's. The radioactivity present in any rock will remain for the next 10,000 years (some types of radioactive substances have half lives of over 50,000 years). Here's a link to maps of known testing: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/maps/index.html
Notice any popular collection sites? You can also find in this link much information about government coverups during the testing. They claim that these areas are safe to dive in, yet also state that you should still not eat fruit grown locally (Bikini Islands). In my profession, I deal with radioactivity. I can tell you that no amount is "safe". Example: 1 chest xray (which is considered very low-dose) to a pregnant women increases fetal risk for genetic problems 10 times-per each xray. Now, is anyone just a little nervous about what may be in their tanks? I think the solution to this problem may present itself in the short term. If we have been maintaining a collection of coral level that is too great for the reefs to re-supply, we eventually will get down to the level where radioactive contamination presents itself. The areas that are "safe" now, will no longer be, and collection from these areas will be banned for a very long time. Just another thought that seemed to apply here.

[ January 07, 2002: Message edited by: tazdevil ]</p>

 

[ChaoticReefer]

Tazdevil,

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

In my profession, I deal with radioactivity. I can tell you that no amount is "safe".

Than you better not eat, breathe or drink anything. Radioactivitly is in EVERYTHING. People just want to mention "radioactivity" just to emflame an issue, instead of explaining the meanings of the amounts and ratios compared to other samples.

I hope someday I will get a glowing green fish from that highly radioactive water.

 

[leftovers]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Fishaholic:
<strong>If you look at the "Reefs at Risk" there is a small August 2000 update and also links that have been added as recently as dec 26, 2001</strong><hr></blockquote>

Their original work as yet has not been updated... there is a blurb on a www page about additional working being done and that they hope to update to www cd/rom etc i didn't see any 2001 update... i would like to see it ..i guess i just missed it in my search....

http://www.igc.org/wri/marine/reefrisk.html

While dated the doc does have relevant citations and searches via google will lead you many other resources current and old regarding reef health status

 

[tazdevil]

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

Than you better not eat, breathe or drink anything. Radioactivitly is in EVERYTHING

.
Ok, I'm going to get technical on you. This definition is true in that everything emits radiation (lights radiate light). However, it is not IONIZING radiation as would be present in fallout (or xray's for that matter). I'm just stating that if we take more than the reefs can produce, we simply will "dig" down to the layers of contamination that have been made "safe" as reefs continued to grow above them, hence absorbing the radioactivity before its detectable. Also, most of the food borne radioactivity is natural, not man made (uncontrolled from fallout).