AMDA - Where are you?!

[Anonymous]

i repeat the question once again

how does reducing mortality post purchase NOT reduce collection pressures?

It only works if demand stays about the same. Increased demand negates the mortality improvement from a reef's perspective.
Mitch

ahhhh

so you'll agree that if atm, let's say, the current replacement per existing cycle of purchasers is 3/1, and then drops to 1/1, then the hobby can then easily afford a triple fold increase in individual hobbyist demand w/o a net increase in collection pressure, yes? :wink:

 

[dizzy]

[ahhhh

so you'll agree that if atm, let's say, the current replacement per existing cycle of purchasers is 3/1, and then drops to 1/1, then the hobby can then easily afford a triple fold increase in individual hobbyist demand w/o a net increase in collection pressure, yes? :wink:

No I don't agree with those figures. Around here replacing a fish once is usually the limit. If it dies again the people often drop out. For every one that replaces a fish three times there is one that drops out after the first loss. Knowing all this certainly contributes to the fact I don't like to offer difficult fish to the public unless they specifically request them. I find it difficult to believe it is that much different anywhere else. Being in a larger city with a greater influx of people into the hobbyis certainly an advantage. FYI I had a store in Nashville for three years and there is a huge difference in making it in a smaller market area. Around here we don't have the luxury of wasting the resource that y'all do. :wink:

 

[clarionreef]

Wow,
Very well put Mitch.
The big market, big city culture breeds a born to run, loyal to none , shop til ya drop, "know nothing but price approach" that is just a tragedy when the product is wildlife thats not sustainable.
Searching for the cheapest price is becoming the greatest talent in the trade instead of shopping for the greatest value. This is allowed by the non-fish people who have invaded the industry and displaced so many of the real tradesman and aquarists.
Comparing dollar amounts is a mediocre talent, but eyeballing and selecting a fat, vibrant butterflyfish that will live from 6 others is a skill that has lost ground and fallen out of favor.
Ya like color? Ya got money? You're in!
More like cut flowers every day.
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

[ahhhh

so you'll agree that if atm, let's say, the current replacement per existing cycle of purchasers is 3/1, and then drops to 1/1, then the hobby can then easily afford a triple fold increase in individual hobbyist demand w/o a net increase in collection pressure, yes? :wink:

No I don't agree with those figures. Around here replacing a fish once is usually the limit. If it dies again the people often drop out. For every one that replaces a fish three times there is one that drops out after the first loss. Knowing all this certainly contributes to the fact I don't like to offer difficult fish to the public unless they specifically request them. I find it difficult to believe it is that much different anywhere else. Being in a larger city with a greater influx of people into the hobbyis certainly an advantage. FYI I had a store in Nashville for three years and there is a huge difference in making it in a smaller market area. Around here we don't have the luxury of wasting the resource that y'all do. :wink:

do you agree w/the concept, even if the figures are wrong, that whatever the current loss/replacement ratio is, if it's lowered, then a corresponding increase in the # of purchasers should still have the same net collection pressure?

the exactness of the numbers i threw in doesn't matter much, and has little to do w/the actual point i'm tryin to address here

why do you think i waste resources? hardly the case, my amda friend

my experiences were nearly identical in 3 states and 2 countries, the only major factor that most hobbyists were concerned with was price. not difficulty :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

[ahhhh

so you'll agree that if atm, let's say, the current replacement per existing cycle of purchasers is 3/1, and then drops to 1/1, then the hobby can then easily afford a triple fold increase in individual hobbyist demand w/o a net increase in collection pressure, yes? :wink:

No I don't agree with those figures. Around here replacing a fish once is usually the limit. If it dies again the people often drop out. For every one that replaces a fish three times there is one that drops out after the first loss. Knowing all this certainly contributes to the fact I don't like to offer difficult fish to the public unless they specifically request them. I find it difficult to believe it is that much different anywhere else. Being in a larger city with a greater influx of people into the hobbyis certainly an advantage. FYI I had a store in Nashville for three years and there is a huge difference in making it in a smaller market area. Around here we don't have the luxury of wasting the resource that y'all do. :wink:

which is more representative of the way the trade behaves, nashville, or the major metropolitan areas on the east/west coasts ? :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

Wow,
Very well put Mitch.
The big market, big city culture breeds a born to run, loyal to none , shop til ya drop, "know nothing but price approach" that is just a tragedy when the product is wildlife thats not sustainable.
Searching for the cheapest price is becoming the greatest talent in the trade instead of shopping for the greatest value. This is allowed by the non-fish people who have invaded the industry and displaced so many of the real tradesman and aquarists. Comparing dollar amounts is a mediocre talent, but eyeballing and selecting a fat, vibrant butterflyfish that will live from 6 others is a skill that has lost ground and fallen out of favor.
Ya like color? Ya got money? You're in!
More like cut flowers every day.
Steve

the majority of wholeale/retail stores/merchants DON"T look for cheapest prices ? 8O

methink you're severely out of touch w/the realities of the majority of the mo biz 8O

 

[clarionreef]

No Vitz,
I'm too much in touch and all day every day...[sigh ]
I referred to the "TRADE" as inclusive of the different levels in it...from exporter on to the hobbyists.
If you misunderstand every post , try a pm once in awhile before knee-jerking a response out loud to the public.
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

No Vitz,
I'm too much in touch and all day every day...[sigh ]
I referred to the "TRADE" as inclusive of the different levels in it...from exporter on to the hobbyists.
If you misunderstand every post , try a pm once in awhile before knee-jerking a response out loud to the public.
Steve

i have no problem voicing my 'misunderstandings' in public, and neither should you

you can complain to me here directly, even, in full view, rather than go whining to people you think will have the ability to stop my right to ask public questions, behind my back even :wink:

shame on you :lol:

every aspect of the chain, for the majority, is interested in price, and nothing more, i'm not lending my approval, just stating the way things are

i'm sure you are also interested in showing a proper and good r.o.i., no ?

is it still your contention that the majority of this trade ISN'T interested in price, making a profit,and running a business for personal gain?

how do you sit w/the knowledge that most of your net caught animals are simply being sold to meet an untimely demise in many hobbyists tanks ?

 

[clarionreef]

Vitz,
I'd need an ombudsman or a translator to answer your off the wall and dis-jointed ramblings.
I stated for a fact that the trade was indeed becoming a cheaper, low ball affair and that that explains the lack of genuine interest in coral reef conservation and industry reform.
It is just a fact of life that kills the value and incentive of doing things better.
Competing to be cheapest in non-sustainable marinelife is a sad affair and one that offers little hope for ethics based reforms.
Its an observation...thats all.
Now, could there be 'lowest priced based reforms'?
Steve
PS.
Aside from nay-saying and disagreeing with everyone...I don't know what you mean or stand for. ..[except the contention that cheaper is good and natural...duh]
Really...I have no idea whatsoever...
I'll not confuse you with CORL again.

 

[Anonymous]

Vitz,
I'd need an ombudsman or a translator to answer your off the wall and dis-jointed ramblings.
I stated for a fact that the trade was indeed becoming a cheaper, low ball affair and that that explains the lack of genuine interest in coral reef conservation and industry reform.
It is just a fact of life that kills the value and incentive of doing things better.
Competing to be cheapest in non-sustainable marinelife is a sad affair and one that offers little hope for ethics based reforms.
Its an observation...thats all.
Now, could there be 'lowest priced based reforms'?
Steve
PS.
Aside from nay-saying and disagreeing with everyone...I don't know what you mean or stand for. ..[except the contention that cheaper is good and natural...duh] Really...I have no idea whatsoever...
I'll not confuse you with CORL again.

you never really read my posts, do you ? :lol:

every aspect of the chain, for the majority, is interested in price, and nothing more, i'm not lending my approval, just stating the way things are

how do you sit w/the knowledge that most of your net caught animals are simply being sold to meet an untimely demise in many hobbyists tanks ?

 

[Anonymous]

there are plenty of people and things said here in this forum i agree with, btw

you, for the most part, just don't happen to be one of them, w/regards your contention that netcaught and cyanide issues as being the only things worthwhile focusing on , as opposed to including lfs/hobbyist education as being of equal importance

i do applaude, and have clearly stated that i always have, your efforts at collection reform

your singleminded approach, as i interpret it, based on what i read in your posts, works to your disadvantage, methinks

 

[JennM]

how do you sit w/the knowledge that most of your net caught animals are simply being sold to meet an untimely demise in many hobbyists tanks ?

The reality is, they are ALL dead. Sooner, later, matters not to the ocean - once the animal leaves the sea, to Nature, it is dead. The real issue of conservation, is whether the reef was irreversibly harmed when the animal was taken, and whether or not Nature can sustain the population of that animal, even though specimens are being collected.

A blue tang (P. hepatus) can live 25 years in captivity - we have a client who had one that long. I've got 2 that I've had for 2 years and their previous keeper had for 4 years. Those fish were considered "dead" by the ocean the moment they left - didn't matter if they were swallowed by a net, or by a grouper. However a grouper won't squirt poison on a coral head to catch its prey.

If a retailer is really that poor at keeping his/her livestock alive and well until it is sold, he/she won't stay in business very long. Natural selection will weed out the bad retailers, just as it can weed out bad hobbyists.

Jenn

 

[Anonymous]

how do you sit w/the knowledge that most of your net caught animals are simply being sold to meet an untimely demise in many hobbyists tanks ?

The reality is, they are ALL dead. Sooner, later, matters not to the ocean - once the animal leaves the sea, to Nature, it is dead. The real issue of conservation, is whether the reef was irreversibly harmed when the animal was taken, and whether or not Nature can sustain the population of that animal, even though specimens are being collected.

A blue tang (P. hepatus) can live 25 years in captivity - we have a client who had one that long. I've got 2 that I've had for 2 years and their previous keeper had for 4 years. Those fish were considered "dead" by the ocean the moment they left - didn't matter if they were swallowed by a net, or by a grouper. However a grouper won't squirt poison on a coral head to catch its prey.

If a retailer is really that poor at keeping his/her livestock alive and well until it is sold, he/she won't stay in business very long. Natural selection will weed out the bad retailers, just as it can weed out bad hobbyists.

Jenn

this is one of the biggest fallacies spewed out by the industry, imo

you do realize that a tang caught can no longer feed the grouper ? or reproduce? :wink:

we still have no clue whatsoever as to how our 'harvesting' of fish affects the reef ecology long term

to presume that our removal of fish incessantly from food chains on the reef has absolutly no impact on a reef's ecology is pure rationalized arrogance on our part, especially given the incredibly tiny time frame it's been going on for, imo

we won't know exactly what effects, if any, there are, for many years to come, and to state that the rate at which WE remove them is akin to nature's removal is ludicrous

when a fish is predated, it contributes something back, netting a fish doesn't contribute back anything at all

what about tang populations and algae cover/growth in hawaii ? :idea: :wink:

 

[JennM]

I never said the removal had NO impact...I think you have me confused with someone else who has said that repeatedly. I was simply answering the hypothetical about how a wholesaler/importer should "feel" about the idea that the fish they sell are likely to die a premature death. The truth is, they all die. Some take days, some weeks, some months and some, many many years. None of them ever goes back.

I also said The real issue of conservation, is whether the reef was irreversibly harmed when the animal was taken, and whether or not Nature can sustain the population of that animal, even though specimens are being collected. I did not specify that other specimens affected by the P hepatus populations should also be monitored, but perhaps I should have. The real question in this case, is whether Man as a predator, is taking more than his share of the fish, than Nature can compensate for. Some fisheries (food and ornamentals) have been sustained for hundreds of years, with Man as the top predator, some fisheries have collapsed... the question is, where are we, the Marine Ornamentals trade, in this scenario?

 

[Anonymous]

I never said the removal had NO impact...I think you have me confused with someone else who has said that repeatedly. I was simply answering the hypothetical about how a wholesaler/importer should "feel" about the idea that the fish they sell are likely to die a premature death. The truth is, they all die. Some take days, some weeks, some months and some, many many years. None of them ever goes back.

I also said The real issue of conservation, is whether the reef was irreversibly harmed when the animal was taken, and whether or not Nature can sustain the population of that animal, even though specimens are being collected. I did not specify that other specimens affected by the P hepatus populations should also be monitored, but perhaps I should have. The real question in this case, is whether Man as a predator, is taking more than his share of the fish, than Nature can compensate for. Some fisheries (food and ornamentals) have been sustained for hundreds of years, with Man as the top predator, some fisheries have collapsed... the question is, where are we, the Marine Ornamentals trade, in this scenario?

 

[clarionreef]

You're right Jenn,
Once its removed its pretty much gone from the 'out of whack' eco-system it came from.
Bear in mind that taking tropicals is IN LIEU of taking predators and other edible fish.
Tropical fish collectors are food fisherman also. Before and after trops, they always did and always will kill food fish which tend to be predators. In fact, due to the overkill of predators, many tropicals have grown in numbers beyond what a reef full of groupers and snappers would normally allow. This is why the yellow tang has survived as the most intensely collected fish in a limited range year after year.
The option is not between tropical fish collecting and non extraction. The option is food fishing or 'color' fishing for tropicals.
Just taking tangs has less effect then most. Compromising vital, critical habitat in the process is the problem. The issues involving population and recruitment can hardly be understood unless habitat is not damaged.
Imagining what collecting would be like without coral destruction vs. serious coral destruction is what brings the cyanide issue into focus.
To say that cyanide fishing is not the fundamental issue would imply that we're not talking about S.E.Asia.
If the center of the fish trades supply is in fact the question...then the way habitat is compromised is very serious indeed.
Few fish come from dead reefs....
Issue fatigue is a side-effect of recreational posters. Coral reef fatigue and destruction is an ongoing, relevant and chronic problem for all of us in the industry...and we cannot afford the luxury of fatigue.
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Issue fatigue is a side-effect of recreational posters.

:lol: :lol: :lol: