Conservation Thread

[PeterIMA]

Righty, You claim to be impartial. But , now you are taking sides. Steve has already pointed out that it was Dr. Hodgson provoking our responses. I think he needs to be less offensive, if he wants Steve and myself to be more cordial. I for one want to hear about all of the things that ReefCheck, MAC, and CCIF are doing. Then, we can decide whether anything substantive has been accomplished.

Peter Rubec

 

[Anonymous]

I am not taking anyones side. I don't read everything posted on in this forum or in this thread. I have been too busy to do much but get the gist from most of the posts, so if I miss something that you think needs to be addressd, please pm me and I will be happy to take a look.
As I have explained many times , everyone who posts on this forum is responsible for what they write regardless of what anyone else posts. What you post is your choice and no one elses. In other words, you don't get to be 'offensive' just because someone else was 'offensive' first. If you are 'offensive' and I read it, or it is brought to my attention, and if I agree it was 'offensive' I will call you one it regardless of what anyone else has written.
If you actually want others to be less 'offensive' it seems that a minimum requirement to making that a reality would be not being 'offensive' yourself; do as I say not as I do doesn't get anyone very far.

This all has almost nothing to do with anything any of you or groups are doing in regards to reefing, and doesn't impact wheather or not 'anything substansive has been accomplished'. Have great discussions, disagree all you want.

 

[naesco]

I have a positive suggestion.

It appears to me that although Greg made the cyanide comment which has upset many people, the cyanide 'issue' is not within the realm of Reefcheck's fundings and raison d'etre.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe MAC received funding for cyanide testing and had also agreed to set up a 'committee' to recommend 'action'. MAC had agreed that cyanide was a priority.
If I am correct, than the positive suggestion I offer is that MAC appoint the members to the committee and have them meet, set out an action plan and work together with the other parties including Reefcheck.

Greg: You may be 100% successful in acomplishing your mission but unless you take steps to deal with the cyanide users now, it will take very few cyanide fishers to destroy what you have achieved in your locales.

Greg: I liked your suggestion of putting a 'tax' on every fish to fund conservation. A portion of this money can be to used to fund cyanide testing (it keeps everyone honest) and further training.

Was this the positive suggestion that you were working towards?

Wayne Ryan

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Righty,

This is the reason why people do not want to participate in this forum. Constructive dialoge is the only way to go. If some do not accept that..is simple.... go somewhere else.

I think we are due for strong actions from Reefs.org

 

[sdcfish]

I thought it would be appropriate to show this letter from a new Philipine supplier that has just emailed me looking for business. Everyone should understand that what you will read is what we have seen much of over the last two or three years, or more. But what is impressive, is the similarity and continuance of how these suppliers continue to market their company and products.

Company writes:

Dear Madam or Sir:

Good day!!!
This year, we are exploring new horizons and hope to do business with you. Before anything else let me introduce our company."Blank Company" has been one of the leading exporter of Tropical Marine Fishes in the Philippines for almost 4 years. Upholding to our standards we continue to provide the highest quality of tropical Marine fish and invertebrates to clients from all over the world. The Philippines has one of the best varieties and most beautiful marine fishes in the world. Our fishes were hand caught by our net-trained fishermen all over the country. These are then screened by our staff to ensure quality control and are conditioned in our warehouse for a week before shipping them out to ensure the best possible quality. This enables us to supply you with a good selection of high quality fishes at a competitive price. All our fishes are sourced exclusively from all over the Philippines.

I think the important thing to take out of this message is the approach and importance of "net - caught" fish, and high quality that is driving these current suppliers in this region. I also think that this has been improved greatly due to the Industry groups like MAC for creating awareness and demanding a higher quality and properly captured methods. Of'course importers like us have been demanding a higher quality product as well.

It's the awareness and demand that will make this continue to be the core of each company that wishes to survive long term in this industry.

Point made I hope.

Best regards

Eric

 

[Anonymous]

Righty, You claim to be impartial. But , now you are taking sides. Steve has already pointed out that it was Dr. Hodgson provoking our responses. I think he needs to be less offensive, if he wants Steve and myself to be more cordial. I for one want to hear about all of the things that ReefCheck, MAC, and CCIF are doing. Then, we can decide whether anything substantive has been accomplished.

Peter Rubec

Peter, I don't see it that way myelf. I know Righty is not biased towards any group. He's trying to steer this thread/forum to a more solid ground and hopefully to a place where things can be achieved.

I think we've all been a bit rash with each other and quite frankly, I don't think anything can come out of it. I think all parties shouln't take pot shots at each and stick to the facts as they are known.

I as well would like to hear Greg out and I'm more then willing to do so if he sticks to the facts. Taking pot shots at the others whom are posting in regards to his comments solves nothing. He did come in swinging though, which puts everyone on the defense, including himself. We're all human, lets treat each other like such.

 

[Reef Check Scientist Phil]

Hi to all,

There have been numerous questions on what Reef Check does in the project of transforming the aquarium trade. There were also questions on how much survey has been done by Reef Check so far.

First of all, we in Reef Check have had a lot of survey experience in both Philippines and Indonesia. At the latest count, hundreds of sites in the Philippines have been surveyed by Reef Check. The areas with their sites surveyed range from 1 km2 up to 50 km2. In the Philippines, we have surveyed at least 274 km2 of coral reef area. That is 1% of the Philippine coral reef area.

Of course, all of these surveys will be meaningless unless we involve the fishermen. I totally agree with one of the posters. We have considered this. Before our actual surveys, we engage the local collectors and villagers during a community workshop. This is a totally participatory activity. We have created modules where scientists and fishermen can share experience and activities to make recommendations to manage their resource. In my previous postings, I indicated that we also train fishermen to do an actual ornamental resource monitoring. This is important so they can appreciate what we do and we can appreciate what they do and the hardships they endure. It is also standard practice for our survey teams to dive with fishermen, document their practices and the possible impact of their collection methods on reefs. We make films of these interactions that we later show to the community during the evening in the village. (So definitely the scientists can keep up with the collectors.) The film showing is a great tool for communities to appreciate what kind of resources they have. This inculcates a desire for them to preserve the beauty of their coral reefs. This is a great experience as well for our survey teams. The interaction is much easier because our team members speak the same languages. We have survey team members who can speak the languages in the Muslim south, the Visayas region and the northern Philippines.

The MAQTRAC survey ties in with other components of the project. Based on the survey, we can pinpoint and recommend areas for no-take zones based on species diversity and high coral cover criteria. We can also point specific habitats and sites with their specific species distribution. These results are important during our community feedback that happens later after our data analyses. These results are used by the collection area management plan committees to make recommendations.

Yours,

Domingo G. Ochavillo
Reef Check Scientist

 

[reefcheck-rsphil]

Hi all,

Here is a bit of a snapshot of the RC involvement in setting up MPAs in the Philippines…

Filipino fishers are accustomed to the seas as an open access resource. Heavy fishing pressure coupled with illegal and destructive means of fishing led to the decline of the fisheries. This has been, and still is, the Philippine Government’s issue – to manage and restrict access to this resource. Thus, municipal waters have been delineated and governance devolved to the local government unit.

Having actually experienced the decline in most of the fisheries (with a lot of the Philippines’ ~27,000 sq. km. of coral reefs degraded), fishers with other stakeholders involve themselves in the development and establishment of MPAs – a requisite for successful implementation. Effective information dissemination, education (biology and ecology of coral reefs) and communication result to local-level acceptance, and the fishers’ understanding to maintain or improve their fishery, plus the sense of ownership of their municipal waters, move the stakeholders themselves toward management. This makes the MPAs operational with enforcement in place. The sustainability of the setup is addressed through institutional (LGU) financial support or a user-fee system, which was initially developed and practiced in MPAs in Cebu and Bohol and emulated elsewhere.

Some illegal fishers who are educated in this light turn around and are among the courageous of the deputized fish wardens. Being illegal fishers before makes them effective law enforcers because they know how “things” operate. It only takes a few individuals to make a positive difference.

Reef Check has been offering technical assistance to MPAs in the country where results are fed back to the community, informing them of the improvements or needs for better management. The present RC MPA program in MAMTI does involve, and train, selected local stakeholders (from LGU, academe, NGOs, POs, etc.) in the RC coral reef monitoring protocol, information processing, and management planning. With enough iterations, the system should be able to function independently.


Best regards,

Rex Montebon
Reef Check Scientist

 

[Kalkbreath]

Its actualy 270,000 square kilometers of reef fishing areas in The Philppines.
Or about the same size as the state of California.
Imagine that state as a giant reef.
There are alot of people in California......40 million give of take a few.
But even with 40 million most of the state is wide open land mass.
If every person in California took a blow tourch and burned their front and backyards to a crisp , killing every plant tree and flower on their property......this would still only destroy about 5 % of the total land area of the State. Translation: if this was reef instead of back yards even forty million blowtourches/squirt bottles could only make a small dent in the total land /reef.
270,000 is huge!
With a reef system that grand, just how many reef fish live in the Philippines? and what percent does the hobby collect per year? (.001%?)
Currently this hobby imports about 5.4 million fish from a total reef area the size of the golden state.
thats twenty fish per kilometer per year ...
or about two fish per month per square kilometer.
"Two fish per kilometer square per month."
Doesnt sound like much when you look at it that way.
If I collected one damsel and one blenny per month from the J.Penkamp park in the Florida keys.(which is about one kilo2)
Could I over fish that square kilometer of reef by removing two fish per month?
How many fish does a grouper eat per month?
How many grouper per square kilometer in PI?
But I doubt this trade fishes evry square meter of the 270,00 . with 2000 collectors that would be a lot of water to cver each day .
So where do our collectors collect?
Even if this trade only collects from ten percent of the reefs in PI ,
thats 20 fish per month or five fish per week from each square kilometer.
Hardly a case for over fishing the region.
lets use the extreme scenerio,
how bout if this trade only collects the entire 5.4 million fish from one percent of the reefs in PI?
Even thats a scant 7 per day per square Kilometer!
7/day/ 200 fish per month/ times 12 months times (1% of 270,000)=2,700 square kilometers= 5.4 million fish
Even if this trade collects from one percent of the 270,000 square kilometers of the Philippines reefs its not many fish .......and if were only collecting from a limited number of reefs then how can we be responsible for over fishing reefs we dont even collect from?
:Either we collect very few fish from a vast area of PI (2 fish per week).....Or we collect most of the fish from a small portion of the total reefs .(but even thats only 7 fish a week per an area the size of 144 foot ball fields(one Kilometer square)

What am I missing?

 

[Anonymous]

Its actualy 270,000 square kilometers of reefs in The Philppines.
Or about the same size as the state of California.
Imagine that state as a giant reef.
There are alot of people in California......40 million give of take a few.
But even with 40 million most of the state is wide open land mass.
With a reef system that grand, just how many reef fish live in the Philippines? and what percent does the hobby collect per year? (.01%?)
Currently this hobby imports about 5.4 million fish from a total reef area the size of the golden state.
thats twenty fish per kilometer per year ...
or about two fish per month per square kilometer.
Two fish per kilometer square per month.
Doesnt sound like much when you look at it that way.
If I collected one damsel and one blenny per month from the J.Penkamp park in the Florida keys.(which is about one kilo2)
Could I over fish that square kilometer of reef by removing two fish per month?
How many fish does a grouper eat per month?
How many grouper per square kilometer in PI?
But I doubt this trade fishes evry square meter of the 270,00 . with 2000 collectors that would be a lot of water to cver each day .
So where do our collectors collect?
Even if this trade only collects from ten percent of the reefs in PI ,
thats 20 fish per month or five fish per week from each square kilometer.
Hardly a case for over fishing the region.
lets use the extreme scenerio,
how bout if this trade only collects the entire 5.4 million fish from one percent of the reefs in PI?
Even thats a scant 7 per day / 200 fish per month/ times 12 months times (1% of 270,000)=2,700 square kilometers= 5.4 million fish
Even if this trade collects from one percent of the 270,000 square kilometers of the Philippines reefs its not many fish .......and if were only collecting from a limited number of reefs then how can we be responsible for over fishing reefs we dont even collect?
What am I missing?

All good points.

I know what I am missing. Breakfast!

 

[dizzy]

I thought it would be appropriate to show this letter from a new Philipine supplier that has just emailed me looking for business. Everyone should understand that what you will read is what we have seen much of over the last two or three years, or more. But what is impressive, is the similarity and continuance of how these suppliers continue to market their company and products.
Eric

Eric I've also been getting spammed like that for years and I'm just a lowly retailer. All it really proves is that in the past 20-years the exporters have learned which catch words to use. I do however agree that in general the fish supply is much better than it was way back when. There sure seems to be an abundant supply of exporters looking for new customers. I do hope they are practicing what they preach.
Mitch

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, I think your extrapolation may be closer than ones you have done in the past. I published the fact that there was approximately 27,000 square kilometers of coral reef in PI in 1988. Some estimates were as high as 33,000 square kilometers .

Destructive fishing methods (like cyanide fishing, blast fishing, muro-ami, kayakas, illegal trawling) destroy coral reefs and other sensitive habitats. It has been estimated by Dr. Angel Alcala that a healthy coral reef can produce 36 metric tonnes per square kilometer per year of fishery products. Degraded reefs have been documented to produce less than 5 mt/sq kilometer/yr.

Interviews with small-scale fishers by Steve Robinson in 1983 and subsequently by reef scientists found that the fishers' catches had declined from over 24 kilograms per day to less than 4 kilograms per day. Considering that since 1986 the human population in PI has gone from about 55 million to over 80 million there presently are a lot more people to feed from degraded reefs.

So, if ReefCheck can get fishermen, MAF collectors and other members of coastal communities to protect areas long enough tor the corals to regenerate (at least 5 years) there should be increases in the local reef productivity.

Can ReefCheck provide counts of reef-fish densities as a function of various scores for coral reef status (over a range from healthy to degraded) from their surveys?

Peter Rubec

 

[clarionreef]

Drs. Ochavillio and Montebon,
Magandang umaga po,

Rubec asks;
"Can ReefCheck provide counts of reef-fish densities as a function of various scores for coral reef status (over a range from healthy to degraded) from their surveys? "

I'd like to know if Clarin and Batasan were certified as sustainable in both density and diverstiy.
They were certified several years ago as sustainable and I wonder if they were re-certified based on Reefcheck surveys of late.
Is there any recent work done there?
Sincerely, Steve

 

[naesco]

Bumb!

 

[Kalkbreath]

Kalk, I think your extrapolation may be closer than ones you have done in the past. I published the fact that there was approximately 27,000 square kilometers of coral reef in PI in 1988. Some estimates were as high as 33,000 square kilometers .

That 27 to 33K is full blown coral reefs, We collect hobby fish from beach breakers, rock rubble areas and marsh tidal zones.
The Philippines has 2.2 million square Kilometers of salt water to fish from.
Take the Florida Keys as an example: 95 percent of the Florida fish for the trade come from non reef areas. Tangs Angels blennies Gobies...almost all the trade demands can be collected away from the limited coral reefs.
I bet half the fish coming out of the Philippines are not collected on live coral reefs. Damsels make up half the 5.5 million fish and few are collected around true coral reefs,because its easier to throw some loose coral heads in the lagoon then to spend hours prying loose ten feet of living coral to get at ten cent fish. Damsels are still really cheap because their easy to collect. I doubt its even possible to bach a profit collecting damsels with cyanide because the cyanide costs more then the diver gets for the damsels.
Damsels are not the only fish usualy ciollect away from live coral........... Algea blennies Sand sifting gobies etc. make up another huge portion of the 5.5 million fish and most of these are found in sandy and rocky areas respectively. I used 270,000 because represents a little more then ten percent of the total marine fisheries availible to collect in PI.

 

[Reef Check HQ]

Wayne,

Yours is exactly the kind of positive suggestion that we are looking for on this thread.... and in fact that is one of the basic assumptions of MAC ... that we need to find a way to cover the costs of taking better care of the reefs that are providing the basis for the industry -- even if the industry is not solely responsible for the problems facing reefs.

And this was Mark's legitimate concern..... i.e. who will pay for the increased costs of monitoring and management? And I tried to answer that question by pointing out several options of reducing costs and increasing revenues. (By the way, just in case you got the wrong idea, from my perspective Mark and I had a good working relationship and I respect his knowledge about fish husbandry -- in fact I liked him and most of the ex-MAC employees).

I appreciate the number of positive comments received here and offline about trying to put some postive spin on this thread -- although it may make less interesting reading....

The MAMTI project is a team effort and we make decisions through a management team that includes members of all three groups. When one member of the team is not willing to pass the ball or keep up with their work, it hurts the team.

Now, I would like to provide below the Area Profile report outline that we create for each new area prior to certification. Another tonic for insomnia, we create a lot of detailed reports on all of the subjects included here. Under that I have provided the Scoping Process we use to select sites.

We will soon have examples of these completed reports available on line for your reading pleasure.

Greg


AREA PROFILE


Municipality of Inabanga, Bohol Province, Central Visayas, Philippines


Table of Contents Page Number

I. General Description of the Area
a.) Collection Area : The Municipality of Inabanga
b.) The Center of Marine Aquarium Trade:
Barangay Hambongan

II. Status of the Coastal habitats
a.) Seagrass beds
b.) Mangroves
c.) Coral reefs

III. Status of Inabanga Fisheries
a.) Municipal Fisheries
b.) Marine Aquarium Fishery

IV. Marine Aquarium Trade Coral Reef Monitoring Protocol
(MAQTRAC) results
Fish
Invertebrates
Precautionary species
Problem Species
Density approach
Total Allowable Catch (TACs)


V. Management Initiatives and Recommendations
a.) Status of Coastal Resource Management Initiatives
b.) Recommendations
*************************

MAMTI site selection process and criteria

Contents
Introduction 2
Who makes the decision and gathers evidence 2
Site selection criteria 2
Site selection process flow diagram 3
Selection criteria scoring guide 3
Guide questions for data-gathering 3


Introduction
The MAMTI site selection process consists of two (2) main stages: a] desktop analysis and b] site scoping for potential sites that passed the desktop analysis stage. The entire site selection process is shown on page 3.
The site selection process starts with building a long list of potential collection sites from what MAMTI staff and their contacts (LGU, NGOs, exporters, etc) know.
Who makes the decision and gathers evidence
For the desktop analysis stage, anyone from MAMTI can submit information (and their sources – names and telephone numbers) to the Country Director who summarizes this information on a site selection matrix.
Based on this information, the PMC then decides which sites could proceed to the next stage of the site selection process, ie site scoping. A site that gets a score of “weak” on any of the criterion can not proceed to the next level of the site selection process.
For the site scoping stage, a representative from at least two (2) of the three organizations implementing MAMTI should be involved. The Scoping Team (ST) should use a scoping report format prepared for this purpose.
Site selection criteria
The site selection criteria consist of five items. Four of these criteria apply to the PMC decision making discussion after the desktop analysis stage and the fifth apply to the PMC decision making discussion after the site scoping stage.
Table 1: Summary of site selection criteria for desktop analysis and site scoping stages
Selection criteria Desktop analysis stage Site scoping stage
1] Species mix and volume Applies to this stage Evidence more detailed at this stage
2] Presence of aquarium collection and trade Applies to this stage Evidence more detailed at this stage
3] Potential of fishers to adopt a certifiable way of fish collection Applies to this stage Evidence more detailed at this stage
4] Potential buy-in from local government Applies to this stage, if there is enough info Evidence more detailed at this stage
5] Economic viability of certified fish collection Applies to this stage


Site selection process flow diagram

Selection criteria scoring guide
[1] Species mix and volume:
Strong: There is more than enough supply of varied fish [there are at least 5 high end species and volume is consistent with strong income projection, see criterion number 5] in the site that is actively traded.
OK: There is enough supply of varied fish from the site [3 to 4 high end species] and volume is consistent with OK income projection).
Weak: There is not enough supply of varied fish in the site. The fish in this site is found in all other sites.
[2] Presence of aquarium collection and trade
Very Strong: Collectors are actively engaged in collection and trade of ornamental fish as their primary source of income.
OK: Collectors are engaged in collection and trade of ornamental fish as their secondary source of income. Or there used to be collectors who are not engaged in the trade anymore for reasons related to absence of gears but are interested in getting back to it.
Weak: There is no collection and trade of marine ornamentals in the site.
[3] Potential of fishers to be certified
Strong: Collectors are residents in the site and are recognized through a license by their local government.
OK: Collectors are residents in the site, but not necessarily recognized.
Weak: There is collection in the site, but this is done by roaming collectors from other sites.
[4] Potential of buy-in from local government
Strong: Local government and NGO or international organizations supporting it has a coastal resource management program – with allocated funds [at least 500,000 pesos per year] and assigned personnel - that has a component on providing assistance to aquarium fish collectors with dedicated staff for this.
OK: Local government has a coastal resource management program with minimal operational funds [less than 100,000 pesos per year] that has no component on providing assistance to aquarium fish collectors.
Weak: The local government has no coastal resource management program.
[5] Economic viability of certified aquarium fish collection and trade
Strong: Projected income from certified aquarium fish collection is beyond the poverty threshold for each collector.
OK: Projected income from certified aquarium fish collection is higher than what collectors already get.
Weak: Projected income from certified fish collection is lower than what collectors already get.
Guide questions for data-gathering
[1] Species mix and volume

Questions to ask or info to get from our informants [numbered based on order in the file SWAT data gathering checklist]

1] What species of ornamental fish are caught in the area? [2.2]
2] What is the estimated size of total trade in the area? In terms of boxes, numbers of fish [3.1]. To which exporters to they supply fish? [Draw a supply chain diagram.]
3] Describe the situation of access, transportation to the site [provide costs for each node]
4] What is the percentage of coral cover in the area? [2.3]
5] Describe the marine sanctuary in the site.
[2] Presence of aquarium collection and trade

Questions to ask or info to get from our informants:

1] Describe and list all resident collectors in the collection area. [2.2]
2] How are they organized? How many “financiers” are there in the site?
3] What equipment do the collectors use? [2.2] If nets, where do they get these?
4] Describe non-resident fish collectors in the area. [2.2]
5] Identify and describe any previously trained net-caught collectors [2.1]
6] Describe history of cyanide use in the area [2.1]

[3] Potential of fishers to adopt a certifiable way of tropical fish collection

Questions to ask or info to get from our informants:

1] Are marine ornamentals the primary source of income for collectors? [1.8]
2] Is there a collector’s organization? Why was it formed? When was it formed? [1.8]
3] What is the level of education of collectors? What is their potential for handling documentation required by the certification process? [1.8]

[4] Potential buy-in from local government

Questions to ask or info to get from our informants:
1] Is there a ban on aquarium fish collection? If there is a ban, is the local government open in lifting it if assistance is provided on helping fishers with sustainable ways of aquarium fish collection?
2] Does the local government have a CRM plan? Describe the main components of this plan.
3] How much resources (financial, material, human, etc) can the local government contribute towards reef conservation activities?
4] Does the local government get technical assistance from NGOs or international organizations for its CRM program?
[5] Economic viability of certified aquarium fish collection and trade
Questions to ask or info to get from our informants:
1] What are the TAC levels for each species found in the site (or area)? [Get from mini-MAQTRAC activity]
2] What is the income projection for the site (or area)?

[6] Other important information and contacts
List down names, addresses and telephone numbers of key contacts in the site
Note down any other relevant observations made.

 

[Reef Check HQ]

Peter,

Good question!

Yes, the RC volunteer program was designed to collect information on reef health whereas MAMTI was designed to collect data on reef fish and invert populations and their structure.

By collecting both data sets it is possible to make those comparisons.

As noted previously, all the RC volunteer data is publicly available at:
www.reefcheck.org/datamanagement.

In my 1999 publication:
Hodgson, G. 1999. A global assessment of human effects on coral reefs. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 38 (5) 345-355.

I did some analyses on this question. More details were included in the 2001 report:

Hodgson, G. and J. Liebeler. 2002. The global coral reef crisis – trends and solutions. Reef Check, Institute of the Environment, University of California at Los Angeles.77 pp ISBN 0-9723051-0-6.

These and many other papers are downloadable from our website. For the tenth anniversary of Reef Check we will be doing more work on this.

Greg

 

[Reef Check HQ]

Kalk,

You are my hero! Few people actually sit down and take the time to figure out the scale of the issue under discussion.

Your calculations, even if not perfect -- reveal the true scale of both the problem facing reef conservation and required solutions.

Despite this huge scale -- the sad fact is that overfishing -- mainly for food fish has now reached most areas of the Philippines due to the population increase and diaspora of Visayans out of their overfished waters and long distance large ships. Palawan used to be considered the wild wild west in the 1980s and was quickly fished out of reef fish by 1996. Like everywhere else, the fishermen just move farther offshore and fish deeper.

Anyone who visits markets regularly has seen a huge change in mean fish length and diversity over the last 20 years.

It is difficult to quantify the exact impact of the aquarium fishery (CN or no CN) on reefs at the scale of the whole Philippines -- but as you have calculated -- on average it should be relatively small. Unfortunately, those impacts are focused on a relatively small number of reefs where aquarium fishing is practiced -- so the impacts can be heavier on the chosen few. To complicate matters, most aquarium fishermen spend half their time food fishing and may or may not use CN etc for that, and may live in the Visayas but fish half the year in Palawan. There are hundreds of variations on this theme.

But recent work has documented some interesting local consequences such as apparent overfishing of sea anemones on some reefs leading to reduced populations of clown fish.

C.S Shuman, G Hodgson, and RF Ambrose. 2005. Population impacts of collecting sea anemones and anemonefish for the marine aquarium trade in the Philippines. Coral Reefs. 24:564-573.

Greg

 

[naesco]

Greg thank you for your post.
IMO industry must accept the necessary changes and costs which they will pass on to the hobbyist. How to collect it is the issue that needs working on.

Greg this board has some of the keenest conservationists you will find. It also has 'on the ground' experienced people together with those that are experts in their fields. Find a way to get them involved and ask them to help you.

 

[Anonymous]

Greg thank you for your post.
IMO industry must accept the necessary changes and costs which they will pass on to the hobbyist. How to collect it is the issue that needs working on.

Greg this board has some of the keenest conservationists you will find. It also has 'on the ground' experienced people together with those that are experts in their fields. Find a way to get them involved and ask them to help you.

there is absolutely no need at all to pass anything along to any hobbyist....the increased revenue from reduced mortality alone should be more than enough to make funds available for the exporters to pay THEIR OWN EMPLOYEES a higher wage

the exporters should be forced to pay proper wages to their collectors, and an extra small cost should not even require a net price increase, as the reduced mortality will lead to HIGHER PROFITS for the exporter

why should i pay someone elses salary increases to their employees, especially when said employees are getting paid slave wages to begin with ? :roll:

would you like to give me a raise, wayne? :lol:


(unless, of course, the exporters are greedy li'l s.o.b.'s that simply want to live completely off of 'indentured servants' until there's nothing left-in which case said exporter should be shut down, no questions asked, and no reprieve)

i'd suggest a mandatory surcharge to ALL exporters who don't pay their suppliers (read-divers) properly, or a mandatory shutdown, or pressure put on the Fillipino gov't to change their modus operandi

it's funny (sad funny) that our gov't (OR the world hobby market) could have possibly solved the issue in one year with a threat of economic sanctions


why can't the wholesalers/importers here use their money clout to force some of these issues into fruition from the supply side ? :idea:

a simple few weeks long boycott should be enough to get the message across

(of course, the wholesalers here uniting together for a common cause is well beyond the realm of possibility, as things stand today, just as stores can't even 'band together' properly re: the amda )


personally, i'd like to see the divers themselves band together and boycott the ornamental industry for a short while-it may be the very thing needed to shake up orgs like the ptfea to get their act together, and stop leeching off of the poor like a tick (though i know they really can't afford to stop any possible source of revenue they have)



maybe we should do what we do here for farmers-pay them to NOT collect