AMDA - Where are you?!
- Thread starter JT
- Start date
Rover":24futfou said:
I'd hate to think it is any where near that high a percentage. A lot of newbies that have that bad of luck, just drop out instead of spending that much money again. I agree that reducing fish mortalities is a worthy goal but I'm less certain it will make sustainability easier. The main thing that holds this hobby back is the fact that people have heard horror stories about how hard it is. If the word were to spread that keeping marine fish had gotten as easy as keeping convict cichlids or oscars, the new influx of people into the hobby could actually create an even greater demand on the reefs. We could actually end up loving this hobby to death, like the Grand Canyon or Yosemite National Park. 8O
dizzy":3upmnfrp said:
well....
if fish are also an integral part of the checks and balances of the reef ecology, and the demand for huge numbers of them doesn't decrease, due to cavalier losses in large numbers at the consumer end, it could easily be argued that it will contribute to damaging the reefs ecology, and hence the reefs, much in the same way removing anemones harms clownfish by it's effect on clownfish ecology
it may not be as direct, or to the same extent as cyanide damage, but the effects are still occuring, and who is to say what the level of long term effect will be?
what about removal of tangs, and the resulting algae growth that can occur as a result? can't massive algal outbreaks be just as damaging to a reef's corals as cyanide. long term?
it could be argued that creating artificial reefs for nursery habitat is one way to offset the potential, and probable, effects that collection of fish has on reef ecology
it could also be argued that reducing losses through education of hobbyists is another way to reduce collection pressure
of course, then stores would have to sell less fish, possibly losing revenue
net caught, and stopping cyanide, are NOT the only important issues for reef conservation-there are many interlocking pieces to the whole puzzle
quite frankly, i find the repeated message that cyanide and nets as being the only important issues the industry should be dealing with to be disconcerting, and myopic
"in a sustainable manner' directly deals also with eliminating unsustainable losses from the consumer demand side of the equation, no ?
dizzy":1fu1pnq9 said:
ime, the main thing that holds this hobby back is it's inherent higher cost than the fw counterpart
though there are plenty of people who can afford, and do, kill fish unnecessarily for years, before dropping out of a formerly 'neat' thing due to boredom
you seem to be arguing for the closing of the retail fish industry, or the stopping of creating new hobbyists?
vitz,
Believe me there are thousands of fence sitters who drool then frown, everytime they walk by the saltwater section and are directed toward the more drab freshwater. Despite a great saltwater selection we probably have 15-20 freshwater customers for every saltwater customer. I agree that with many people the higher costs of the saltwater fish is a deterrent, but there are also well to do people in this group that are afraid of saltwater because they think it is harder. Our store policy is to just answer people's questions, but not to try and push them toward saltwater fish keeping. We simply try to give them the best information to make their own decisions.
IMO only a small shift of interest from fresh toward salt could have a huge impact on the reefs. All the kids recognize and covet Nemo and Dory. Don't you understand that a hobby with a greatly improved success rate will have have a stronger appeal to the masses? Surely that is not so hard for you to understand. I'm not saying we shouldn't work to improve collection and husbandry techinques. On the contrary I'm 100% in favor of it. All I'm saying in a nutshell is that removing one of the major deterrents to entering the hobby MIGHT make sustainability more difficult instead of easier. As kalk might say let's do some math. :wink: Let's just assume the current demand for blue tangs is 20,000 per year. Let's assume that 60% of these die prematurely. If we are successful in getting that number reduced to 5% and this causes the demand to increase to 30,000 blue tangs per year, how does this make sustainability easier? Granted we can feel better about our hobby, but how does this make sustainability easier? Glenn feel free o jump in here.
Mitch
Believe me there are thousands of fence sitters who drool then frown, everytime they walk by the saltwater section and are directed toward the more drab freshwater. Despite a great saltwater selection we probably have 15-20 freshwater customers for every saltwater customer. I agree that with many people the higher costs of the saltwater fish is a deterrent, but there are also well to do people in this group that are afraid of saltwater because they think it is harder. Our store policy is to just answer people's questions, but not to try and push them toward saltwater fish keeping. We simply try to give them the best information to make their own decisions.
IMO only a small shift of interest from fresh toward salt could have a huge impact on the reefs. All the kids recognize and covet Nemo and Dory. Don't you understand that a hobby with a greatly improved success rate will have have a stronger appeal to the masses? Surely that is not so hard for you to understand. I'm not saying we shouldn't work to improve collection and husbandry techinques. On the contrary I'm 100% in favor of it. All I'm saying in a nutshell is that removing one of the major deterrents to entering the hobby MIGHT make sustainability more difficult instead of easier. As kalk might say let's do some math. :wink: Let's just assume the current demand for blue tangs is 20,000 per year. Let's assume that 60% of these die prematurely. If we are successful in getting that number reduced to 5% and this causes the demand to increase to 30,000 blue tangs per year, how does this make sustainability easier? Granted we can feel better about our hobby, but how does this make sustainability easier? Glenn feel free o jump in here.
Mitch
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
Dory,
As mentioned by Mitch, was a P. hepatus, not an A. leucosternan.
This is an extremely basic error and indicative of a quick tigger and a penchant for recreational posting I'm afraid.
Mitches post was clear and the price of blue tangs just shot up another 30% last week because of their accelerating depletion.
The trade was having serious enough trouble on the non performing reform front...it didn't need the marketing machine of Disney and Pixar to accelerate demand and demise of the blue tang.
Steve
PS. Blue tangs are caught mostly w/ dope.
Powder blues, nets. Its simple...leucosternan runs and hepatus holes up in coral heads.
As mentioned by Mitch, was a P. hepatus, not an A. leucosternan.
This is an extremely basic error and indicative of a quick tigger and a penchant for recreational posting I'm afraid.
Mitches post was clear and the price of blue tangs just shot up another 30% last week because of their accelerating depletion.
The trade was having serious enough trouble on the non performing reform front...it didn't need the marketing machine of Disney and Pixar to accelerate demand and demise of the blue tang.
Steve
PS. Blue tangs are caught mostly w/ dope.
Powder blues, nets. Its simple...leucosternan runs and hepatus holes up in coral heads.
cortez marine":3mjqyaw9 said:
i'm well aware of the difference between a powder blue and a hippo :wink:
i'm using the powder blue as an example for my contention that post purchase mortality is a main force behind collection pressures
but let's take a dory, or whatever disney calls it (i haven't seen the movie)
and let's assume for the moment, that cyanide isn't an issue .....
if 8/10 hippos don't make it,(post purchase) doesn't that put a higher collection pressure on the hippos than if 8/10 DO? (even if there wasn't cyanide use ?)
it seems as if the only pressure on the reef y'all seem to think is a valid one is coral damage from cyanide
please don't try and twist me posts to infer that i think that cyanide isn't an issue of prime importance to deal with
focusing on my use of the 'wrong' species was meant to bring up what ?...
the increase in price won't deter beginning uneducated hobbyists from purchasing as many ?
/me scratches head :?
Comments about blue tangs, cyanide, and mortality rates.
The main argument concerning cyanide is that its use kills corals particularly Acroporids. Steve's argument is that the flat top acroporids needed by blue tangs are being destroyed by cyanide fishing.
Mortality due to cyanide, stress, and poor water quality is also high. This is a complex problem but also needs to be dealt with through better shipping and handling procedures.
Protecting the reefs will ensure that blue tangs persist to be sustainably harvested. Reducing post-harvest mortalities means that fewer blue tangs and other species need to be harvested. If demand goes up (because hobbyists' fish live), there will be more fish on the reefs to meet the demand. By taking steps to solve the problems related to reef destruction, the size of the resource (more blue tangs on the reefs) can expand to benefit the collectors, the trade, and the marine hobby.
Peter
The main argument concerning cyanide is that its use kills corals particularly Acroporids. Steve's argument is that the flat top acroporids needed by blue tangs are being destroyed by cyanide fishing.
Mortality due to cyanide, stress, and poor water quality is also high. This is a complex problem but also needs to be dealt with through better shipping and handling procedures.
Protecting the reefs will ensure that blue tangs persist to be sustainably harvested. Reducing post-harvest mortalities means that fewer blue tangs and other species need to be harvested. If demand goes up (because hobbyists' fish live), there will be more fish on the reefs to meet the demand. By taking steps to solve the problems related to reef destruction, the size of the resource (more blue tangs on the reefs) can expand to benefit the collectors, the trade, and the marine hobby.
Peter
dizzy":31a58lyt said:
you're correct, i do/did/will
the biggest complaint i've heard is one of the cost, most couldn't care less about the mortality THEY EXPECT IT TO BEGIN WITH due to the misconceptions they have about difficulty
how many people do you hear beeyotchin bout a $4 damsel, as opposed to a $40 hippo :wink:
high mortality does not affect the continual cycle of noobs starting up systems-inspite of the high mortality, powder blues still sell like hotcakes, as do hippos (happy steve?
),same way they have been year after year for decadesfor every one to survive long term, the typical hobbyist will purchase at least 3, imo
if ALL survive, (or better than 90%) than only one must be purchased per one surviving
seems like pretty simple straightforward math, to me
i repeat the question once again
how does reducing mortality post purchase NOT reduce collection pressures?
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:
