Must be a slow time in the Industry...

[Kalkbreath]

Being that Im always way ahead of the game.......No scientists have come out and pointed to the sharks as the reason fish levels have plumited in certain areas of Florida or that having hundreds or thousands cruzing the beach shallows might be excessive.
Just like Global warming or the Koran down the drain stories.............retracting a statement like
{"the more sharks the better"] as was told to use twenty years ago will never come from the same people that assured you of the prior thinking.

 

[mkirda]

Being that Im always way ahead of the game.......No scientists have come out and pointed to the sharks as the reason fish levels have plumited in certain areas of Florida or that having hundreds or thousands cruzing the beach shallows might be excessive.
Just like Global warming or the Koran down the drain stories.............retracting a statement like
{"the more sharks the better"] as was told to use twenty years ago will never come from the same people that assured you of the prior thinking.

Oh, and I forgot, Dustin.

Numerous postings with minimal/no punctuation, like stream of conscienceness ramblings. These are typically filled with things that have absolutely nothing to do with the marine world, nor anything to do with Kalk's original point, really...

How could I forget??? :roll:

Back to my IT budget.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Anonymous]

Sharks being the cause of low fish counts. Gotta admit, on one level, it *is* funny...
Regards.
Mike Kirda

There was a great study on sharks in HI. Every time there was a shark attack and the hordes went out shark huntin (no g in the type of hunting ) to capture the beast they thought killed some one, the fishermans catch rate went down for some time afterwords. They accounted that the large sharks keep the small shark species in check. With out the larger sharks eating the smaller ones, the unchecked smaller ones killed much more fish and actually made a sizable dent in standing stocks. Just another argument for not hunting apex preditors I guess

 

[mkirda]

Sharks being the cause of low fish counts. Gotta admit, on one level, it *is* funny...
Regards.
Mike Kirda

There was a great study on sharks in HI. Every time there was a shark attack and the hordes went out shark huntin (no g in the type of hunting ) to capture the beast they thought killed some one, the fishermans catch rate went down for some time afterwords. They accounted that the large sharks keep the small shark species in check. With out the larger sharks eating the smaller ones, the unchecked smaller ones killed much more fish and actually made a sizable dent in standing stocks. Just another argument for not hunting apex preditors I guess

Blame the sharks. It couldn't possibly be from over-fishing, pollution, sedimentation, or any other combination of factors that have knocked the coral cover percentage back now could it?

Gresh, if you have any idea about that paper, I'd love to grab it.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Anonymous]

Being that Im always way ahead of the game.......No scientists have come out and pointed to the sharks as the reason fish levels have plumited in certain areas of Florida or that having hundreds or thousands cruzing the beach shallows might be excessive.
Just like Global warming or the Koran down the drain stories.............retracting a statement like
{"the more sharks the better"] as was told to use twenty years ago will never come from the same people that assured you of the prior thinking.

Oh, and I forgot, Dustin.

Numerous postings with minimal/no punctuation, like stream of conscienceness ramblings. These are typically filled with things that have absolutely nothing to do with the marine world, nor anything to do with Kalk's original point, really...

How could I forget??? :roll:

Back to my IT budget.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

If you don't like the poster, ignore them. This is borderline trolling IMHO.

 

[Anonymous]

Sharks being the cause of low fish counts. Gotta admit, on one level, it *is* funny...
Regards.
Mike Kirda

There was a great study on sharks in HI. Every time there was a shark attack and the hordes went out shark huntin (no g in the type of hunting ) to capture the beast they thought killed some one, the fishermans catch rate went down for some time afterwords. They accounted that the large sharks keep the small shark species in check. With out the larger sharks eating the smaller ones, the unchecked smaller ones killed much more fish and actually made a sizable dent in standing stocks. Just another argument for not hunting apex preditors I guess

people would do well to study the laws of kashrut-which forbids the eating of anything on both ends of the food chain (and the basis for most of the jewish dietary laws re: apex predators and scavengers )

 

[mkirda]

This is borderline trolling IMHO.

Glen,

If warning someone off by giving examples of what to expect (based on real-life experiences, several times) constitutes trolling, then I'm guilty as charged.

Looking at the bigger picture, have you noticed that Dustin's request for data has gone ignored?

Isn't that really the point that should be focused on here?

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

the large sharks keep the small shark species in check. With out the larger sharks eating the smaller ones, the unchecked smaller ones killed much more fish and actually made a sizable dent in standing stocks. Just another argument for not hunting apex preditors I guess

I never thought about removing the apex predator........Your example highlights the fact that baby sharks are not the top level, their parents are!

 

[Kalkbreath]

Blame the sharks. It couldn't possibly be from over-fishing, pollution, sedimentation, or any other combination of factors that have knocked the coral cover percentage back now could it?
Regards.
Mike Kirda

Good point Mike! Now lets exchange the word "SHARKS" for "COLLECTORS"

Blame the COLLECTORS. It couldn't possibly be from over-fishing, pollution, sedimentation, or any other combination of factors that have knocked the coral cover percentage back now could it?

 

[Kalkbreath]

This is borderline trolling IMHO.

Glen,

If warning someone off by giving examples of what to expect (based on real-life experiences, several times) constitutes trolling, then I'm guilty as charged.

Looking at the bigger picture, have you noticed that Dustin's request for data has gone ignored?

Isn't that really the point that should be focused on here?

Regards.
Mike Kirda

I am the data!
Are we disputing that record sized schools of Sharks have been photographed from the Air in the Sunshine state this season? Or that reports like the one in Hawaii clearly demonstrate that too many small sharks wreak havoc on the ecosystems? If your waiting for the academia to make their past points of view look silly , you should also expect MAC to publish a report on their current sales of certified fish :wink:

 

[mkirda]

I am the data!

Rover,

And this ISN'T borderline trolling?

Messianic complex is what I see.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[JennM]

It must be a slow time in the industry when a thread about being a slow time in the industry becomes a p*ssing match, insult-fest and ceases to be about the intended subject altogether, as well as bringing out posters who have been silent for months on end.

How's business this week?

Jenn

 

[mkirda]

Being that Im always way ahead of the game.......No scientists have come out and pointed to the sharks as the reason fish levels have plumited in certain areas of Florida or that having hundreds or thousands cruzing the beach shallows might be excessive.

A simple search yields:

Hundreds of sharks close Florida beaches
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/artic ... a_beaches/
Oh, sounds ominous. Until you realize that this happens EVERY SINGLE YEAR, and the only reason it *SEEMED* more pronounced this year was due to clearer than normal water, making them more visible than in more average years. Yes, they've also come in a bit more closer than average. And it would be pure speculation as to why.

Schools of sharks normal for Florida
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.p ... sharks.xml

Study: Sharks are essential to coral reefs
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.p ... sharks.xml
The central issue Kalk raises, that sharks are the reason why fish levels are getting lower and lower, is not supported by the evidence.
But getting to this means you have to leave the layman's media and delve into the journals - And I realize how unexciting this is.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/102/15/5443
(May not work from outside, Reference
www.pnas.orgcgidoi10.1073pnas.0501562102
PNAS
April 12, 2005
vol. 102
no. 15
5443–5447)

Interaction strength combinations and the overfishing
of a marine food web
Jordi Bascompte*†, Carlos J. Melia´ n*, and Enric Sala‡

Goes on to show how removal of top-level predators leads to reef degradation. A combination of factors in the Carribean has led to the reef degradation there. Removal by overfishing of most of the herbivorous fish led directly to one species becoming the dominant herbivore, the Diadema sea urchin. After a bacteria disease basically wiped this species out, reefs have gone progressively from coral-dominated to algal dominated reefs. Algal dominated reefs do not support the same kinds or levels of species.
So you had the trophic food web destroyed on the one end. Over the past few years (or probably decade now), sharks, the top level predator, have been decimated in much of the Carribean. The paper referenced above shows how this has some pretty massive effects downward and across the trophic food web. Vitz was right, attacking the top and bottom of the food web is a bad idea, and the entire Carribean ecosystem has shifted across the board.

A normal, yearly migration of sharks does not mean the numbers have gone up drastically overall. There is no evidence to support the existence of more sharks than normal. And the evidence that does exist shows the opposite of Kalk's assertion to be true - that lower shark numbers are a leading cause of undesirable trophic cascades, ones that lead to lower fish numbers and reef degradation.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[mkirda]

It must be a slow time in the industry when a thread about being a slow time in the industry becomes a p*ssing match, insult-fest and ceases to be about the intended subject altogether, as well as bringing out posters who have been silent for months on end.

How's business this week?

Jenn

Sorry you feel this way, Jenn.
Maybe the above post will atone for my sins.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

It must be a slow time in the industry when a thread about being a slow time in the industry becomes a p*ssing match, insult-fest and ceases to be about the intended subject altogether, as well as bringing out posters who have been silent for months on end.

How's business this week?

Jenn

We could switch back to idea that this is a slow time in the industry. I have always questioned this notion as well. A local wholesaler [SP, one of the largest in the US]has their weekly sales report numbers on a drawng board[ in the giant table meeting room].
[THERES YOUR HARD DATA MIKE] :wink:

The fifty two week report shows no such big sales drop during the Summer? Is the Summer slump a myth? Does it apply only to certain nitch markets? Is it that the mom and pops store owners take Summer vacations {so they dont order as much live stock when planning to be away from the shop] but the corporate owned chain stores increase sales with business as usual?

 

[bookfish]

I see as many reef freaks in the stores now as in the winter, they're just sweating more.
I definitely spend as much in the summer as winter. I also wonder if it is regional or niche specific. Maybe it's more true of general pet stores and less true for aquarium stores?-Jim

 

[Anonymous]

every store i've worked in has a slow down in the summer (northeast region, mass. and joisey, about 1/2 dozen stores total) and one wholesaler/importer claims to also have one(socal-didn't work there long enough to see if such was the case :wink: )

 

[JennM]

Hard to say. Like I said, last June was my best month ever. This year it's fairly mediocre thusfar. We haven't typically followed the industry "trends" that many talk about.

I guess we anticipate certain times of year - around long weekends, end of school etc., with quieter than usual times.

I've heard sales reps etc., mention that when I'm finding it quiet, "everybody" is slow too, so I guess there are general lulls, in this area anyway.

I'm noticing traffic is quieter for sure - one of the businesses in my plaza shut down and that has cost a bit of foot traffic - however sales as such are about the same as a 'typical' month. The people coming in the door are coming in to buy - versus the looky-lous that come here to kill time while their wife/mother etc., is at the hairdresser down the mall.

Of course all it takes is someone to come in and put money down on a large install, to turn a so-so month into a great one!

Jenn

 

[Anonymous]

It also depends on how into ponds you are. I would imagine that would account for a significant part of SP's summer sales. (Herps and stuff as well.)

 

[JennM]

Good point - I got a bit into pond fish this year and that's taken off quite nicely.

Sun Pet is loaded to the gills (pardon the pun!) with every kind of Koi/Goldfish available right now so I'd bet that keeps their numbers constant.

Jenn