Buy a Coral, Save a Reef...

[MaryHM]

I alluded to this presentation by Bruce Bunting (VP of WWF) in an earlier thread where Fishaholic was questioning the fact that many conservation organizations support industry reform vs. bans. Well guess what??!! A letter from Svein Fossa to the AMDA message board provided a link to this document!! I am pleased to offer it here for your viewing. Frankly, I couldn't have said it better myself (even though I've been trying like heck!!

)

http://macweb.inets.com/docs/library/2/11-27-0Buntingspeech.htm

[ January 06, 2002: Message edited by: MaryHM ]</p>

 

[naesco]

Thank you for the reference but what is your point?

 

[MaryHM]

The point is that this paper should be read by everyone arguing that importation should be banned. If you read the paper, you'll see the point. It shows that even one of the largest conservation organizations in the world supports sustainable harvest for the industry.

 

[naesco]

I read the post thank you.
Where does he say that WWF supports the collection and retail of impossible to keep fish and coral?
Are you suggesting that the WWF supports the unrestricted import of Moorish Idol, Regal Angels and the other fish and corals discussed in these threads?

 

[MaryHM]

Naesco,

Not every thread in this forum revolves around the USL, and this one is no exception. This thread is specifically geared to show that major conservation organizations support sustainable trade and not a ban on all importations as has been suggested by some on this board. Since I have stated that the reason for the USL is to help MAC create their list, and have also stated that the WWF supports MAC, that should lead one to the obvious conclusion that the WWF supports a USL.

 

[naesco]

Great!
I am happy to see that the WWF supports an import ban on impossible to keep species of fish and coral.
An I agree with you that many worldwide conservation groups like Greenpeace, Humane Societies etc. also agree.
So, let's do it now.

 

[MaryHM]

Naesco, the last information request I posted on the USL- Sharks and Rays post has basically gone ignored. I just figured everyone was tired of working on it...

 

[Anonymous]

That guy is a little late.


Someone suggested earlier that the economy can be used to benefit conservation. Maybe that paper is worth a read too.

http://www.arches.uga.edu/~btfreak/management.PDF


Thanks Mary for the link. It was quite interesting to see someone with a similar idea but having a different approach.

 

[Anonymous]

Mary

You may want to name who you are saying are callig for a full ban of all imports.

I have talked about stopping the imports of fish that have been proven to be next to impossible to house in an aquarium. I have also said that corals that are easily propagated in captivity and fish that are commercially tank raised, so that wild caught species do not compete with these ventures aned the hobby is furthered.

I have also said that the lack of restraint shown by importers will ultimately hurt the perception of the general public and cause full bans.

You know that if you post half truths, it is nothing short of a full lie.

Did you notice that he qouted the EXACT same numbers that I posted, 58% of reefs in danger and when looked at Indonesia that number rises to 80%. I can not remember did you dispute these numbers?

 

[Anemone]

Mary,

I suggest both papers be put in the required readings folder - they give some facts and figures, as well as explanations, causes, and suggestions for changes.

Kevin

 

[Bill2]

Nice link.

But as the old saying goes... You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

 

[dmentnich]

Nice link. I guess what I am concerned about is how few people are even aware that MAC even exists. I do not know if there is a way to expose reef keepers to this certifications existence, but it seems to be worth it. Is there a link to which stores etc... have the certification.

The only problem that I see is that while it does encourage responsible harvesting it does nothing that I can see to further propagated specimens or the like.

 

[Anonymous]

I just had a rather lengthy conversation with Bruce Bunting. He wrote the paper to address the people of the aquarium trade, in an effort to bring about a change in the very inefficent ways that collection is being done today.

This is an effort to clean up the wild collecting not an endorsement over aquaculture and tank raising species. He went on to say he could not imagine why anyone would want to remove a clownfish or coral off a reef that could be propagated or aquacultered.

He also feels that the wild harvesting is the area that needs the most need of change as because the cost of shipping water wil eventually make the industry change to aquaculture and propagation just by the economics of the situation.

All he could really offer is that if anyone would use his paper in an attempt to say that the World Wildlife Fund endorses wild harvesting over propagation and aquacultering that this is the downside of the internet.

As to the certification he is hopeful that people of the trade adopt it, otherwise it is probably going to take regulation.

 

[SPC]

Posted by Dave:
He went on to say he could not imagine why anyone would want to remove a clownfish or coral off a reef that could be propagated or aquacultered.

Dave, did you ask him why in his speech he never mentioned aquaculture? I have read his speech again and the entire emphasis is placed on economic incentives for the locals to protect their reefs. Did I miss something?
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Yes Steve we did talk about it.

He said he was adressing the Aquarium trade, He speach and paper were to discuss the wild harvesting of coral and how to make it an incentive for local collectors.

He did not in any way mean for this to endorse wild collection over aquaculture or propagation. He feels that economicaly that both Aquaculture and propagation is going to be how this hobby is done. He was suprised that if a company can profit in Michagan with having to deal with a wintr climate that people in the south have not set up masive aquaculturing sites, that just in the saving from having to ship water from oversee's these ventures will out compete wild caught harvesting. He did not mention Aquaculture or captive propagation because that is not the industry he was speaking to. He also said that if anyone was using his paper to endorse anything there is very little he can do about it as it is just one of many ventures that World Wildlife Fund paticipates in to help the Reefs. This is an effort for the collectors to "Clean Up" with a certifacation process that he hopes will be adopted to stop unrestricted collection to the detriment to the reefs. It is not the cure-all but an effort to help the way collection is being done.

It in no means is to replace the persuit of aquaculture and propagation.

 

[SPC]

I am very interested in Mr Buntings view because as I have mentioned before I am a WWF member.
Did you ask him for his opinion on what the native people would do to the reefs if there was no more market for their product, ie all raised in the US?
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Steve

We did not discuss this directly, however we did talk about Aquaculturing fish for commercial fishing. That this is growing much faster than aquarium aquaculture and both will help each other with advancements.

Mary has elluded to many times in the past that if these divers were not collecting for our industry they would be participating in destructive practices to get fish for the food market. This is rather simplistic in that it relies on the fact that there can only be a static number of divers who will only have the time to collect for aquarium use and thus not have time to dive for food fish.

I grew up in Hawaii and you near the
keys, there are always more divers than there are jobs.

The fact that aquaculturing fish for food markets will help relieve some stress on reef populations is great. There will however be people collecting fish for food, no matter how many coral and fish are harveted for this hobby. Now if through education the people collecting for food understand that over collecting is not a good business practice, then you have accomplished more than if you hand them nets and send them off for clownfish and damsels.

 

[npaden]

LOL!

I really get a kick out of how everyone tries to take the same article and twist it to meet their desired results.

As in nearly every argument on this forum there is a nice wide middle of the road approach that is relatively ignored while people try to camp out on one extreme or the other.

I don't think anyone is supporting the importation of impossible to keep animals. The article mentions a viable way to improve the prospect of a sustainable harvest of reef organisms. This is what I hope everyone is working toward. Sustainable Reefs! If they are appreciated in value by the locals then they will hopefully try a little harder to save them from impending destruction from reasons other than overcollection. The complete ceasation of collection would only be one small factor in the destruction of the reefs and would not save them in my opinion.

There have been several studies that show education AND sustainable collection techniques can work.

My point? There is a middle of the road here that would probably result in the best course of action over one extreme or the other.

FWIW, Nathan

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: npaden ]</p>

 

[Anonymous]

FWIW, I simply think that corruption and mis-management on the part of the host countries is contributing to much of the decline of the reefs. That, as well as avoiding the more serious issues such as silt runoff from up-river construction, lime removal from living reefs, and the lack of policing against blast and cyanide fishing.

 

[Anonymous]

Just so I am not being a jerk. Part of our conversation was the fact that he does beleive that if properly managed wild harvesting is sustainable if the other pressures can be controlled.