Hey Mary,
Like I said a couple of posts ago...this is not an indictment on your business. From all I've read, you are one of the few that does the right thing. You have to do what is best for your business. I was just trying to point out what seemed, to me, to be a change of Wayne's hardline position.
Like I said a couple of posts ago...this is not an indictment on your business. From all I've read, you are one of the few that does the right thing. You have to do what is best for your business. I was just trying to point out what seemed, to me, to be a change of Wayne's hardline position.
This has to be the most depressing thread ever. I couldn't believe what I was reading, Mary. Then I read your explanation...and I understand. I still find it disturbing and depressing, but then clearly, so do you...and you were the one who saw the net caught shipments of dead fish first hand.
Sad. Sad for the fish, sad for the reefs, and sad for you
I naively thought net caught meant healthy arrival.
Sad. Sad for the fish, sad for the reefs, and sad for you
I naively thought net caught meant healthy arrival.
You want depressing? You should have been at the presentation I did in San Jose about all of this. It's one thing to read it in print and another to hear me speak about it first hand. I have no doubt that some of those poor hobbyists went home and took a Prozac.
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
Mary,
Every quarter MAC puts out a quarterly report of their achievements.
Every year they address half a dozen conferences or so...
They have staff all over Asia & the So Pacific.
Every year they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on the industry reform question.
If, after all this effort, they have not been of assistance in developing netcaught fish supply...I wonder what they have been doing?
I mean that even if a small wholesaler cannot run an all netcaught business off the fruit of their labor...what indeed was the point of that group in the first place?
Steve
PS. What was the gist of the depressing message @ Sebay?
Every quarter MAC puts out a quarterly report of their achievements.
Every year they address half a dozen conferences or so...
They have staff all over Asia & the So Pacific.
Every year they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on the industry reform question.
If, after all this effort, they have not been of assistance in developing netcaught fish supply...I wonder what they have been doing?
I mean that even if a small wholesaler cannot run an all netcaught business off the fruit of their labor...what indeed was the point of that group in the first place?
Steve
PS. What was the gist of the depressing message @ Sebay?
Now Steve, I shouldn't tell you anything about the presentation since you were a NO SHOW!!! :twisted:
But being the congenial person I am, I'll tell you anyway.
The presentation was "Inside the Marine Aquarium Industry- The good, the bad and the ugly."
First I talked about the bad- sustainability issues, cyanide, handling issues, apathy. Pretty pictures and everything. That got them pretty down in the dumps. Then I raised their spirits with "the good"- net trainings, net funds (gave a plug for AMDA), etc... Then- the UGLY. How people die in the Philippines for striving to eradicate cyanide use, how the net caught fish SUCK because of handling issues, how no one cares about net caught fish they just want cheap variety, and a serious explanation of why I was forced to sell out and what affect it has had on me.
Mitch wondered aloud in another post about "what's bothering me?" since I haven't been little Miss Merry Sunshine around here lately. Well gee, I wonder. I realize that to people like Mitch selling cyanide caught fish is just part of the game. If they can get net caught, then great (but only if it's cheaper than the cyanide caught fish). If not, no big deal- hey, we can't all be Mother Theresa. Well, to me it IS a big deal. About the biggest, hairiest, gnarliest deal in the world. I hate myself for doing what I'm doing. But I have no choice if I want to stay in business. So what am I doing?? GETTING THE HELL OUT. Out of an industry I've put 15 years of blood, sweat and tears into. So if I seem a little bitter and on edge, forgive me. That nasty ethical conscience of mine is so bloodied and brusied that it tends to scream out here lately.
But being the congenial person I am, I'll tell you anyway.
The presentation was "Inside the Marine Aquarium Industry- The good, the bad and the ugly."
First I talked about the bad- sustainability issues, cyanide, handling issues, apathy. Pretty pictures and everything. That got them pretty down in the dumps. Then I raised their spirits with "the good"- net trainings, net funds (gave a plug for AMDA), etc... Then- the UGLY. How people die in the Philippines for striving to eradicate cyanide use, how the net caught fish SUCK because of handling issues, how no one cares about net caught fish they just want cheap variety, and a serious explanation of why I was forced to sell out and what affect it has had on me.
Mitch wondered aloud in another post about "what's bothering me?" since I haven't been little Miss Merry Sunshine around here lately. Well gee, I wonder. I realize that to people like Mitch selling cyanide caught fish is just part of the game. If they can get net caught, then great (but only if it's cheaper than the cyanide caught fish). If not, no big deal- hey, we can't all be Mother Theresa. Well, to me it IS a big deal. About the biggest, hairiest, gnarliest deal in the world. I hate myself for doing what I'm doing. But I have no choice if I want to stay in business. So what am I doing?? GETTING THE HELL OUT. Out of an industry I've put 15 years of blood, sweat and tears into. So if I seem a little bitter and on edge, forgive me. That nasty ethical conscience of mine is so bloodied and brusied that it tends to scream out here lately.
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
Mary,
We can't turn this thing around alone. No one can do that.
MAC has had the mandate and the funding for half a decade now.
Packard and Macarthur foundations, US AID and the WWF have seen to it that they got the attention, the money and the centerstage on a regular basis.
No one at those groups know much about aquarium fish and even less about solving field problems.
Their failures are the real story...not you.
And their continued, predictable funding of failures to come are the story next year.
They are not ever going to be part of the solution is appears and guess what? It bothers them not one bit.
WE cannot look to outsiders to solve inside problems. They can't do it yet are well paid regardless...lessening the drive to produce and perform at a professional clip.
MAC was their choice to lead the trade to reform. It didn't happen...It got covered up...and muddled up while the budget was balanced. The field trainings were to real fish collecting and training like the Keystone cops were to law enforcement. Packard et al, were so inept at the subject matter that they were oblivious at the failures to reach the divers and fish handlers...and repeatedly funded them.
We in the trade got nothing from it.
Don't go quietly. Recognize where the real no-show was. Not a few retailers but the ones who really engineered this debacle from day one.
Steve
We can't turn this thing around alone. No one can do that.
MAC has had the mandate and the funding for half a decade now.
Packard and Macarthur foundations, US AID and the WWF have seen to it that they got the attention, the money and the centerstage on a regular basis.
No one at those groups know much about aquarium fish and even less about solving field problems.
Their failures are the real story...not you.
And their continued, predictable funding of failures to come are the story next year.
They are not ever going to be part of the solution is appears and guess what? It bothers them not one bit.
WE cannot look to outsiders to solve inside problems. They can't do it yet are well paid regardless...lessening the drive to produce and perform at a professional clip.
MAC was their choice to lead the trade to reform. It didn't happen...It got covered up...and muddled up while the budget was balanced. The field trainings were to real fish collecting and training like the Keystone cops were to law enforcement. Packard et al, were so inept at the subject matter that they were oblivious at the failures to reach the divers and fish handlers...and repeatedly funded them.
We in the trade got nothing from it.
Don't go quietly. Recognize where the real no-show was. Not a few retailers but the ones who really engineered this debacle from day one.
Steve
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
ahhh!
A fellow fan!
Steve
ps. As a hard-working wholesaler...I get home late. What else is on?
Jeff Corwins already gone to bed.
A fellow fan!
Steve
ps. As a hard-working wholesaler...I get home late. What else is on?
Jeff Corwins already gone to bed.
cortez marine":28bof28d said:
Fellow fan??? NO WAY!
I hate all that reality tv crapola. I only know of that program b/c my ex-fianee used to watch it while I was waiting to have sex with her.
You have a VCR...use it to record something worth watching!
Peace,
Chip
MaryHM":38ywcuso said:
Mary,
You would be well advised to keep your comments to things you have personal knowledge of. For the most part I tend to order fish from countries that are known to not use cyanide. Countries like the Red Sea, Fiji, Australia, Brazil, Marshall Islands, Vanuatu, and the USA. (Hawaii & Florida) At least one of the major wholesalers on 104th uses this same strategy. Fish that would be an obvious cyanide target I try to get from Steve as netcaught PI. Often I do without. This industry appears to be headed for a shakeout. I believe the internet is really starting to hurt a lot of the smaller retailers. Good luck in your next endeavor.
Mitch
Getting back to bangaii cardinalfish, I thought the following article titled "Wild Populations of a Reef Fish Suffer from the "Nondestructive" Aquarium Trade Fishery" should be of interest. It was published in Conservation Biology Vol. 3:910-914 (2003). The authors are Niclas Kalm and Anders Bergulund of the Evolutionary Biology Center, Department of Animal Ecology, Uppsala University, Sweden.
The URL is the following:
http://www.ebc.uu.se/zooeko/andersb/ConsBiol2003.pdf
The authors claim that bangaii cardinalfish are captured by pushing their symbiotic host species (black sea urchins) into traps. The cardinalfish stay in the spines of the sea urchins, allowing the fish to be captured in the traps. They provide evidence from underwater surveys in the Bangaii archipelago (Sulawesi region of Indonesia) that the population of bangaii cardinalfish is declining due to overcollecting by the aquarium trade.
Peter Rubec
The URL is the following:
http://www.ebc.uu.se/zooeko/andersb/ConsBiol2003.pdf
The authors claim that bangaii cardinalfish are captured by pushing their symbiotic host species (black sea urchins) into traps. The cardinalfish stay in the spines of the sea urchins, allowing the fish to be captured in the traps. They provide evidence from underwater surveys in the Bangaii archipelago (Sulawesi region of Indonesia) that the population of bangaii cardinalfish is declining due to overcollecting by the aquarium trade.
Peter Rubec
Thats the way its been done for years........And yes , we collect quite a few each year. Some estimates are that we as a hobby collect one half of the total poulation of the species each year ! But whats even more shocking is that the population still rebounds the following spring! Ten years of collecting fifty percent of the species and the total population seems to be effected only slightly!
The spin is in the paper...They title the paper ."Wild Populations of a Reef Fish Suffer from
the “Nondestructive” Aquarium Trade Fishery"..Yet they only include a single species....the single most intensely collected species at that..........Then six times they state that collection is effecting the populations .....yet they are very vague when it comes down to actually proving that the populations are being effected. Like simular studies in Hawaii, the authors are careful not to explain issues like what time of year fish counts took place and if collection by the trade took place the day before this study counted the remaining fish stocks. Did the author look for other explanations for the missing Urchins? Did the Author provide fish counts on other non aquarium trade species in the area, to see if only the Cardinals were experiencing changes in stock populations in certain areas? I read the paper twice and I still read a lot of opinions and very little Data..........I wonder why that is?
the “Nondestructive” Aquarium Trade Fishery"..Yet they only include a single species....the single most intensely collected species at that..........Then six times they state that collection is effecting the populations .....yet they are very vague when it comes down to actually proving that the populations are being effected. Like simular studies in Hawaii, the authors are careful not to explain issues like what time of year fish counts took place and if collection by the trade took place the day before this study counted the remaining fish stocks. Did the author look for other explanations for the missing Urchins? Did the Author provide fish counts on other non aquarium trade species in the area, to see if only the Cardinals were experiencing changes in stock populations in certain areas? I read the paper twice and I still read a lot of opinions and very little Data..........I wonder why that is?
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
Shuffling the urchins caused them harm AND DEPLETION?? Yeah right!
Not if thats all you're doing.
When the Norsemen leave howver, commercial activity can resume in the normal manner.
When the white guys are there w/ clip boards and cameras, there is a temporary suspension of the normal game plan.
Steve
Not if thats all you're doing.
When the Norsemen leave howver, commercial activity can resume in the normal manner.
When the white guys are there w/ clip boards and cameras, there is a temporary suspension of the normal game plan.
Steve
Kalk, I am not clear where you got your information given in your posting that 50% of the bangaii cardinalfish population was being captured and removed each year, and that it rebounds every spring. Where did you get this information?
Have you read the two papers cited by Vagelli et al. published in Environmental Biology of Fishes? I read the article in TFH about a year ago that described population changes. I need to consult the literature again before I can comment in an informed manner. However, I doubt that 50% of the bangaii cardinalfish population could be removed each year and have it "only decline slightly". This does not make sense considering the species has a limited range (no recruits from elsewhere) and limited fecundity (mouthbrooder). It also does not make sense based on my experience with having conducted quantitative fisheries stock assessments. Generally speaking, most fishery quotas do not allocate more than 20% of the population for harvest each year.
I would agree that the information provided in the paper does not provide a strong case that the population is being overexploited. There is an association between bangaii cardinalfish and the sea uchin species. Hence, it should not come as a surprise that their population numbers are correlated (e.g., numbers of cardinalfish increase with increasing numbers of urchins). Fishing pressure was only assessed by asking the fishermen where they fished the most. There were no counts of the number of fishermen, the number of boats observed in the area, the number of fishing trips, or the numbers of cardinalfish caught in the present study to assess "fishing effort".
The authors appear to believe what the fishermen told them about using traps to capture bangaii cardinalfish. I tend to believe Ferdinand and Steve when they tell me that the fishermen use cyanide. Most other MO
species are caught with cyanide, and while bangaii cardinalfish can be caught with traps, I believe they are mostly caught with cyanide. The
IMA does not have any CDT test results for this species, because the IMA did not test fish captured in Indonesia. So it depends on who you believe.
Peter Rubec
Have you read the two papers cited by Vagelli et al. published in Environmental Biology of Fishes? I read the article in TFH about a year ago that described population changes. I need to consult the literature again before I can comment in an informed manner. However, I doubt that 50% of the bangaii cardinalfish population could be removed each year and have it "only decline slightly". This does not make sense considering the species has a limited range (no recruits from elsewhere) and limited fecundity (mouthbrooder). It also does not make sense based on my experience with having conducted quantitative fisheries stock assessments. Generally speaking, most fishery quotas do not allocate more than 20% of the population for harvest each year.
I would agree that the information provided in the paper does not provide a strong case that the population is being overexploited. There is an association between bangaii cardinalfish and the sea uchin species. Hence, it should not come as a surprise that their population numbers are correlated (e.g., numbers of cardinalfish increase with increasing numbers of urchins). Fishing pressure was only assessed by asking the fishermen where they fished the most. There were no counts of the number of fishermen, the number of boats observed in the area, the number of fishing trips, or the numbers of cardinalfish caught in the present study to assess "fishing effort".
The authors appear to believe what the fishermen told them about using traps to capture bangaii cardinalfish. I tend to believe Ferdinand and Steve when they tell me that the fishermen use cyanide. Most other MO
species are caught with cyanide, and while bangaii cardinalfish can be caught with traps, I believe they are mostly caught with cyanide. The
IMA does not have any CDT test results for this species, because the IMA did not test fish captured in Indonesia. So it depends on who you believe.
Peter Rubec
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:
