Banggai Update
- Thread starter Ret_Talbot
- Start date
dizzy":2lgeejcc said:
I can vouch for it and 17 is very very conservative as I have heard 50. We are dealing with one species in one geographic area. Collection and handling is the issue with very high numbers. Fishers don't want to catch the fish because of the high mortality rate and in turn importers dont want to buy suspect fish because they are doa at their facility or the importers facility with justified complaints being made. Thus the supply/demand idea is not the case here|
Fortuneately help is on the way which will stop the high mortality rate making more available to the hobby.
Ron Lilly (associated with LINI) visited the Banggai Islands and interviewed the collectors. Lilly (2008) noted that Banggai Cardinal Fish (BCF) populations occur around many of the 123 islands in the Banggai Archipelago. But, there was general agreement among collectors interviewed that these populations may be suffering from overexploitation. Once a collection area has been stripped of BCF, it is abandoned until stocks recover. It is not clear as to how long this recovery peroid might be.
Vagelli (2008) reviewed the situation and the research he has conducted going back to 1996. .. .In addition to collection by local fishers, boats come directly from Bali to collect in the Banggai region. This outside (illegal) collection was detected as long ago as 2001 (Lunn and Moreau 2004).
Vagelli (2008) noted that "a conservative etimate of the present rate of capture of BCF within the Banggai Archipelago is about 1,000,000 specimens per year. This figure is compared to the estimated total number of individuals inhabiting the entire Banggai region (i.e., 2,200,000). It reveals the bleak conservation status of P. kauderneri. Several populations monitored since 2001, clearly show the impact of overexploitation. For instance, the population at Masotni Island, monitored since 2001, has been dramatically reduced. In 2007, only 37 individuals wer found in the census site (4,800 sq meters), and a search of the entire island uncovered no more than about 150 individuals. The population of southeast Peleng Island, followed since 200, has been pratically exterminated, with only 27 individuals found at the census site. The populition in Bakaken Islands did not recover from the dramatic decline suffered between 2002 and 2004. Approximately 350 individuals remain at both islands, compared with the 6,000 estimated to have been present in 2001. The small populaiton inhabititing the census site in southeast Limbo Island, which had a low density of 0.02 individuals per square meter in 2001, and was determined to be virtually eradicated in 2004, has not recovered. A total of only 4 specimens were found.
It should he noted that Dr. Vagelli is very concerned about habitat degredation and the impacts of removing sea urchins (where BCF often hide in their spines). He goes on to state that despite much talk no managment plan has been put in place. Likewise, despite talk about village-based mariculture of BCF nothing has been done.
In discussing why the Indonesian government did not support putting BCF onto CITES Appendix II, Vagelli (2008) noted that "An Indonesian official had stated that only 6 out of 77 sites surveyed (by Vagelli) were found with a significant decline in population. What the representative did not mention was that out of the 77 sites surveyed, BCF were found in only 35, and that the 2007 census were conducted in only 11 of the sites that had been folllowed since 2001. Therefore the more relevant finding (according to Vagelli) was that 6 of 11 long-term monitoring sites showed significant reductions in population sizes relative to 2004 (including 4 sites with only 38, 27 , and 4 individuals remaining). The conservation implications of this finding were, of course, quite different than those portrayed by CITES Indonesia."
Vagelli (2008) reviewed the situation and the research he has conducted going back to 1996. .. .In addition to collection by local fishers, boats come directly from Bali to collect in the Banggai region. This outside (illegal) collection was detected as long ago as 2001 (Lunn and Moreau 2004).
Vagelli (2008) noted that "a conservative etimate of the present rate of capture of BCF within the Banggai Archipelago is about 1,000,000 specimens per year. This figure is compared to the estimated total number of individuals inhabiting the entire Banggai region (i.e., 2,200,000). It reveals the bleak conservation status of P. kauderneri. Several populations monitored since 2001, clearly show the impact of overexploitation. For instance, the population at Masotni Island, monitored since 2001, has been dramatically reduced. In 2007, only 37 individuals wer found in the census site (4,800 sq meters), and a search of the entire island uncovered no more than about 150 individuals. The population of southeast Peleng Island, followed since 200, has been pratically exterminated, with only 27 individuals found at the census site. The populition in Bakaken Islands did not recover from the dramatic decline suffered between 2002 and 2004. Approximately 350 individuals remain at both islands, compared with the 6,000 estimated to have been present in 2001. The small populaiton inhabititing the census site in southeast Limbo Island, which had a low density of 0.02 individuals per square meter in 2001, and was determined to be virtually eradicated in 2004, has not recovered. A total of only 4 specimens were found.
It should he noted that Dr. Vagelli is very concerned about habitat degredation and the impacts of removing sea urchins (where BCF often hide in their spines). He goes on to state that despite much talk no managment plan has been put in place. Likewise, despite talk about village-based mariculture of BCF nothing has been done.
In discussing why the Indonesian government did not support putting BCF onto CITES Appendix II, Vagelli (2008) noted that "An Indonesian official had stated that only 6 out of 77 sites surveyed (by Vagelli) were found with a significant decline in population. What the representative did not mention was that out of the 77 sites surveyed, BCF were found in only 35, and that the 2007 census were conducted in only 11 of the sites that had been folllowed since 2001. Therefore the more relevant finding (according to Vagelli) was that 6 of 11 long-term monitoring sites showed significant reductions in population sizes relative to 2004 (including 4 sites with only 38, 27 , and 4 individuals remaining). The conservation implications of this finding were, of course, quite different than those portrayed by CITES Indonesia."
With respect to the mortality on the fish that are collected, Vagelli (2008) had the following comments.
"Three main collecting centers dominate the capture-trade operations in the Banggai region. One is located in northwest Banggai Island, where about 20 fishers collect BCF (and one of them is a buyer). They collect around Banggai, Labobo, Bakaken, and Peleng Islands. The local buyer puchases about 6,000 specimens per month. In addition, another 4 buyers come to this center to purchase about 30,000 speciments per month. All five buyers, go to Tumback (north Sulawesi) to sell specimens with a reported 25% mortality during this 24-hour trip, and 15% rejection rate by the buyers due to poor specimen condition. The second center is located in southeastern Bangkuru Island, where about 15 fishers collect an average of 15,000 fish per month, mostly around Bangkuru Island. Buyers come 2 or 3 times per month and take fish to Kendari (south Sulawesi). The third center is located around Bokan, Buang Buang, Loisa, Masepe, and Kokuden Islands. He purchases approximately 15,000-20,000 specimens per month and transports them directly to BAli (4-5 day trip) with a 30% mortalty and rejection rate. In addition 3 to 4 buyers come to Bokan from Manado (north Sulawesi) to purchase 35,000 specimens monthly.
Mortality during tranport by boat is usually about 25%, but can reach 50% (photos of fish in bags transported by boat are presented in the LRFIB paper by Vagelli 2008).
In my opinion, training programs in better collection, shipping, and holding methods are needed. In addition, I agree with Dr. Vagelli that zoning to protect benthic habitats is needed. There needs to be restrictions on the number of fishermen allowed to fish in various areas. This might done through implementation of Territorial Use Rights in Fisheries (TURFs). The implementation of no take MPAs (discussed by Lilly 2008) has not worked due to the lack of local suppport and the loss of floats marking the boundaries.
If BCN had been put onto CITES Appendix II, the Indonesian government could have imposed export quotas. This would have no impact if the quotas were imposed on the exporters. It would need to be imposed on the numbers being collected at the local (muncipal and district) levels. Indrawan and Susena (2008) noted the difficulty of the central government doing this, when the control needs to be imposed at the local level. Legislation to decentralize fisheries management has been passed, but remains to be implemented. Whatever laws or regulations that are put into place need to be enforceable.
Hopefully, a combination of local zoning (TURFs and no-take MPAs) can be implemented to ensure sustainable use of marine resources, protection of marine habitats, and consevation of the Banggai Cardinalfish and other marine resources.
Peter Rubec, Ph.D.
East Asian Seas and Terrestrial Initiatives
"Three main collecting centers dominate the capture-trade operations in the Banggai region. One is located in northwest Banggai Island, where about 20 fishers collect BCF (and one of them is a buyer). They collect around Banggai, Labobo, Bakaken, and Peleng Islands. The local buyer puchases about 6,000 specimens per month. In addition, another 4 buyers come to this center to purchase about 30,000 speciments per month. All five buyers, go to Tumback (north Sulawesi) to sell specimens with a reported 25% mortality during this 24-hour trip, and 15% rejection rate by the buyers due to poor specimen condition. The second center is located in southeastern Bangkuru Island, where about 15 fishers collect an average of 15,000 fish per month, mostly around Bangkuru Island. Buyers come 2 or 3 times per month and take fish to Kendari (south Sulawesi). The third center is located around Bokan, Buang Buang, Loisa, Masepe, and Kokuden Islands. He purchases approximately 15,000-20,000 specimens per month and transports them directly to BAli (4-5 day trip) with a 30% mortalty and rejection rate. In addition 3 to 4 buyers come to Bokan from Manado (north Sulawesi) to purchase 35,000 specimens monthly.
Mortality during tranport by boat is usually about 25%, but can reach 50% (photos of fish in bags transported by boat are presented in the LRFIB paper by Vagelli 2008).
In my opinion, training programs in better collection, shipping, and holding methods are needed. In addition, I agree with Dr. Vagelli that zoning to protect benthic habitats is needed. There needs to be restrictions on the number of fishermen allowed to fish in various areas. This might done through implementation of Territorial Use Rights in Fisheries (TURFs). The implementation of no take MPAs (discussed by Lilly 2008) has not worked due to the lack of local suppport and the loss of floats marking the boundaries.
If BCN had been put onto CITES Appendix II, the Indonesian government could have imposed export quotas. This would have no impact if the quotas were imposed on the exporters. It would need to be imposed on the numbers being collected at the local (muncipal and district) levels. Indrawan and Susena (2008) noted the difficulty of the central government doing this, when the control needs to be imposed at the local level. Legislation to decentralize fisheries management has been passed, but remains to be implemented. Whatever laws or regulations that are put into place need to be enforceable.
Hopefully, a combination of local zoning (TURFs and no-take MPAs) can be implemented to ensure sustainable use of marine resources, protection of marine habitats, and consevation of the Banggai Cardinalfish and other marine resources.
Peter Rubec, Ph.D.
East Asian Seas and Terrestrial Initiatives
Jeremy,
First you have to realize that I am only presenting the facts given in Dr. Vagelli's paper and several others. It is possible that that there are more BCF in other regions (outside the Banggai Islands) and these are discussed in the papers.
I tend to agree with Dr. Vagelli that the collection levels that he has documented are unsustainable. Furthermore, they are not necessary to meet the demand. If fewer fish died there would be plenty of fish to meet the demand, with lower rates of capture.
If the present rates of exploitation continue, the BCF fishery will collapse. Then maricultured BCF will be the only choice sold at much higher prices to retailers and marine hobbyists.
Peter
First you have to realize that I am only presenting the facts given in Dr. Vagelli's paper and several others. It is possible that that there are more BCF in other regions (outside the Banggai Islands) and these are discussed in the papers.
I tend to agree with Dr. Vagelli that the collection levels that he has documented are unsustainable. Furthermore, they are not necessary to meet the demand. If fewer fish died there would be plenty of fish to meet the demand, with lower rates of capture.
If the present rates of exploitation continue, the BCF fishery will collapse. Then maricultured BCF will be the only choice sold at much higher prices to retailers and marine hobbyists.
Peter
naesco":2jscqzv0 said:
So 50 are taken to get one alive to sell. And then we see this from Bob Fenner
That means 50 are taken so that one can be sold for sometimes as low as 10-cents. That means the collector is receiving about .002 cents for every rare and endangered Banggai cardinal taken. It's certainly not hard to understand why they don't want to collect this fish.
Dizzy, Actually the paper by Vagellli states the collectors received about 2 cents per BCF.
However, I think you guys may be right in being sceptical about the population estimates for BCF in the Banggai Islands. It does seem illogical to me to state that the population is low (about 2 million) yet the fishery numbers being harvested have remained high (about 900,000 BCF per year since 2001.
I would need to closely examine all of the available data to be able to see whether there was a mistake or not in the extrapolations. It is not clear to me how Vagelli derived his population estimates.
EASTI has plans to map nearshore coastal areas in Indonesia and the Philippines using IKONOS imagery. This is high resolution satellite imagery that is collected and sold by GeoEye. IKONOS color imagery has a pixil resolution of 4 square meters. EASTI plans to map coastal collection areas using IKONOS. This will allow the determination of micro-habitats such as the areas for seagrass, mangroves, various subzones of the coral reefs etc. Most satellite imagery available in Indonesia is Landsat Imagery with a pixel resolution of 30 square meters (not high resolution).
EASTI plans to conduct underwater surveys along randomly chosen transects. The numbers per square meter determined from the underwater surveys will be related to micro-habitats. The areas of these microhabitats will be determined from the IKONOS imagery. This provides a method for estimating population numbers of each fish species. The numbers per square meter are extrapolated to the area of each microhabitat type and then summed across the total area to obtain the populaiton estimate. I don't believe this was done by Dr. Vagelli (or anyone else) to estimate BCN population numbers.
My experience with trying to obtain data about tropical fisheries indicates that the data often does not exist or has large errors that make it unreliable. So, it is possible that there is a larger population of BCF or that the estimated rate of exploitation is wrong. However, Dr. Vagelli's data has undergone peer review and it is in the scientific literature. But, this does not fully guarantee that the population extrapolations are correct.
Peter
However, I think you guys may be right in being sceptical about the population estimates for BCF in the Banggai Islands. It does seem illogical to me to state that the population is low (about 2 million) yet the fishery numbers being harvested have remained high (about 900,000 BCF per year since 2001.
I would need to closely examine all of the available data to be able to see whether there was a mistake or not in the extrapolations. It is not clear to me how Vagelli derived his population estimates.
EASTI has plans to map nearshore coastal areas in Indonesia and the Philippines using IKONOS imagery. This is high resolution satellite imagery that is collected and sold by GeoEye. IKONOS color imagery has a pixil resolution of 4 square meters. EASTI plans to map coastal collection areas using IKONOS. This will allow the determination of micro-habitats such as the areas for seagrass, mangroves, various subzones of the coral reefs etc. Most satellite imagery available in Indonesia is Landsat Imagery with a pixel resolution of 30 square meters (not high resolution).
EASTI plans to conduct underwater surveys along randomly chosen transects. The numbers per square meter determined from the underwater surveys will be related to micro-habitats. The areas of these microhabitats will be determined from the IKONOS imagery. This provides a method for estimating population numbers of each fish species. The numbers per square meter are extrapolated to the area of each microhabitat type and then summed across the total area to obtain the populaiton estimate. I don't believe this was done by Dr. Vagelli (or anyone else) to estimate BCN population numbers.
My experience with trying to obtain data about tropical fisheries indicates that the data often does not exist or has large errors that make it unreliable. So, it is possible that there is a larger population of BCF or that the estimated rate of exploitation is wrong. However, Dr. Vagelli's data has undergone peer review and it is in the scientific literature. But, this does not fully guarantee that the population extrapolations are correct.
Peter
My question is how can you not know it is high? If my DOA rates are the same all over (my shipping from LA is fast) then I can only imagine how many die per week. I have tried all sources including one that say "ours Live!" on the invoice. well so far they are about the same as everyone else. I don't think one can justify sending fish to their doom simply to keep people in indo working. I would say this to any importer/wholesaler thinking the DOA's are not huge for this species, offer a 14day gurantee on this fish......
I am in regular at least weekly contact with several exporters in both Bali and Jakarta and they say that these numbers being thrown around are rubbish. I have seen Bangaiis in many exporters tanks in Bali and Jakarta and the tank bottoms are not littered with dead or dying fish. For the most part the fish look healthy. In particular the Jakarta exporters that I visited had very healthy looking Bangaiis. I saw Bangaiis being delivered to the exporters by the fish brokers and again not much mortality, I would guess less than 5 % in the bags I saw delivered. The exporters are very picky about the fish they will take and the 15% rejected figure I can agree with. Many fish were rejected as damaged that I would probably have taken. I have talked to collectors and they told me that they are paid between .10 and .12 cents per fish. The collectors report almost no mortality before the fish are sold to the brokers. Not all brokers bring the fish to exporters by boat. I buy the bulk of my Bangaiis from an exporter who brings them in by plane from the source. His Bangaiis hold up very well for me, they eat well and I lose very few of them. I have not held them long term so I can not vouch for the long term survivability. I do pay almost twice the export price for these compared to the Bali export price but I think that it is worth it for the flown in fish. Personally I think that the main problem with Bangaii death is the tight back requested by many Los Angeles wholesalers to keep the landed price low. I have seen packs as high as 200 coming into L.A. I think that 75 per box is as tight as a pack should be and I prefer 50 - 60 per box.
To think that 17 fish die for every one that is exported is crazy and the 50 figure is just absurd. These fish are money for the people handling them. Once the collector is paid the fish become the same as money for the brokers, if they were killing 17 for everyone they are paid for they would be out of business in a hurry. These people are fairly clever folks, they will find the best way to get the fish to the exporters while minimizing their costs and the mortality. 17 to 1 just does not work out. They catch cardinals to make money, if the money does not work out they will stop catching them. I don't think that the figure is even 2 to 1 but it may be, I have no good data, but if it gets up to 3 or 4 to one then the economics don't work out and you will see the price of the fish go up, not down as we have seen in practice.
I think that these researchers come up with crazy numbers like this to ensure continued funding for their research. If the Indonesian government hired researchers to show that the trade is sustainable they would come up with different numbers. Too much research is funded only if you can show a problem.
What really gets me going though is when respected people in this hobby like John Tullock quotes crazy numbers from a study done years ago and does not even quote the source of the numbers. It is just accepted as fact and starts appearing in articles as fact with no reference as to the source of the numbers. A little bit of rational thought shows that the numbers quoted are greatly in question.
Dave
To think that 17 fish die for every one that is exported is crazy and the 50 figure is just absurd. These fish are money for the people handling them. Once the collector is paid the fish become the same as money for the brokers, if they were killing 17 for everyone they are paid for they would be out of business in a hurry. These people are fairly clever folks, they will find the best way to get the fish to the exporters while minimizing their costs and the mortality. 17 to 1 just does not work out. They catch cardinals to make money, if the money does not work out they will stop catching them. I don't think that the figure is even 2 to 1 but it may be, I have no good data, but if it gets up to 3 or 4 to one then the economics don't work out and you will see the price of the fish go up, not down as we have seen in practice.
I think that these researchers come up with crazy numbers like this to ensure continued funding for their research. If the Indonesian government hired researchers to show that the trade is sustainable they would come up with different numbers. Too much research is funded only if you can show a problem.
What really gets me going though is when respected people in this hobby like John Tullock quotes crazy numbers from a study done years ago and does not even quote the source of the numbers. It is just accepted as fact and starts appearing in articles as fact with no reference as to the source of the numbers. A little bit of rational thought shows that the numbers quoted are greatly in question.
Dave
To Southwest Saltwater:
Do you not think that all fish caught and exported are sent to their doom? If that is the criteria then we should stop with all animal pets with maybe an exception for some dogs and cats. Are not most fresh water fish bred to go to their doom?
Coastal village peoples need some income from some source. The aquarium trade can be that source and is generally one of the best sources environmentally speaking. To cut off this source of income to them on the basis that it is sending the fish to its doom does not make sense. All aquarium fish caught and exported are dead to the ocean. They are all going to their doom at our hands. I know of no aquarium fish that live forever happier in our tanks.
I think that supporting the coastal villagers that make our hobby possible is the most important thing that our hobby can do. What other positive item can the aquarium trade point to? Supporting some fat cat americans who sell the fish? Supporting airlines that ship the fish? NO! The most positive action the aquarium trade has is supporting coastal villagers and giving them income generation that is quite environmentally friendly.
Dave
Do you not think that all fish caught and exported are sent to their doom? If that is the criteria then we should stop with all animal pets with maybe an exception for some dogs and cats. Are not most fresh water fish bred to go to their doom?
Coastal village peoples need some income from some source. The aquarium trade can be that source and is generally one of the best sources environmentally speaking. To cut off this source of income to them on the basis that it is sending the fish to its doom does not make sense. All aquarium fish caught and exported are dead to the ocean. They are all going to their doom at our hands. I know of no aquarium fish that live forever happier in our tanks.
I think that supporting the coastal villagers that make our hobby possible is the most important thing that our hobby can do. What other positive item can the aquarium trade point to? Supporting some fat cat americans who sell the fish? Supporting airlines that ship the fish? NO! The most positive action the aquarium trade has is supporting coastal villagers and giving them income generation that is quite environmentally friendly.
Dave
Naesco,
Thanks so much for your contributions to this thread.
Unfortunately, with absolutely zero past or current involvement in the trade of marine ornamentals there are some folks here is this community that might take your comments somewhat lightly.
I respect your efforts and hope that you continue to stay involved. All good teams have people cheering for them on the sidelines, out of play.
Warmest regards,
Thanks so much for your contributions to this thread.
Unfortunately, with absolutely zero past or current involvement in the trade of marine ornamentals there are some folks here is this community that might take your comments somewhat lightly.
I respect your efforts and hope that you continue to stay involved. All good teams have people cheering for them on the sidelines, out of play.
Warmest regards,
PeterIMA":1d5limf9 said:
That is a lot of over exageration. Let me get this straight. There are three centers identified as major BCF areas. Let's do the math on this.
Area 1 - 5 buyers - 1 buys 5,000 per month - 60,000 per year
4 buy 30,000 per month - 360,000 per year
TOTAL - 420,000 per year
Area 2 - 15 collectors - 15,000 per month - 180,000 per year
Area 3 - 1 buyer - 15,000 per month - 180,000 per year
3-4 buyers - 35,000 per month - 420,000 per year
TOTAL - 600,000 per year
That is a grand total of 1,200,000 per year. Some great math. Obviously numbers are made up to make the point that they want.
JeremyR":pd1og99r said:
Anthias I cut off most the sensitive species like Purple Queens, purple velvets, etc.... Bangaii just have too much demand, but I try for tank bred when avail(have a breeding pair myself also) . I would be glad to stop offering them, but it is a simple fact that someone will sell them and you have to take care of the customers or they go elsewhere. If no one could sell them I would be happy to say they were banned.
GreshamH":1mvg6q8x said:naesco":1mvg6q8x said:
How can you vouch for it? You honestley have no credibility in this area.
"Heard" means nothing at all, we're looking for numbers derived from actual scientific studies
Science is fine Gresh but there is nothing like being on the ground and finding out what is truely happening.
I have more credibility on this issue than you, Gresh.
My on the ground discussions with those involved confirms the science.
Fortuneatley, the problems assoicated with capture and holding are solvable.
In the short term aqua-cultured are the best bet until the problems are solved, hopefully soon.
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:
