Just reading a recent article by Ret Talbot about Ecolabeling the Aquarium Industry....I wanted to get some opinions about the article:
Talbot writes:
"Not unlike many of the industries named above, the marine aquarium industry has a poor track record when it comes to providing transparent, verifiable information about the real impacts of harvesting marine animals for the aquarium trade".
I am just wondering where the poor track record comes from? Does Ret know about requests for impact studies that have not been provided? I am not sure many impact studies for the aquarium trade have actually been done, but of course cites quotas, and animals exported for the trade that fall under cites (all corals, live rock, clams, seahorses etc) are very transparent and part of a managed system...you would just need to know where to look (USFWL or CITES). I also know that most everywhere that has Aquarium Industry activity, there are licenses, permits, reporting etc.....which is usually managed by the local governments fishery. I think a more practical statement here would have been that there are few impact studies done up to this point about the aquarium industry relative to ornamental fish collection. I say "ornamental fish", because corals and other animals protected under cites, do have a system in place, and have many years of monitoring, with yearly assessments being done.
Talbot also writes:
"Unfortunately, too many of the animals entering the trade have been harvested from unsustainable fisheries by fishers who have been exploited literally to death in extreme cases. Entire reef ecosystems have been negatively impacted, as have local fishers, their families and their communities".
OUCH! I wonder what unsustainable fisheries he's talking about? Does Ret have a good reason to believe that too many animals are coming from unsustainable fisheries? I wonder where the studies are that show we have unsustainable fisheries? Anyone??? Exploited fisherman? Really?? I don't know about Ret, but I know that most divers working in the Aquarium Trade can actually earn more than that Country's average weekly pay. What really is the definition of exploitation anyway....when you put it into relevance? I don't see too many Aquarium Industry operators driving Ferrari's and Rolls Royces....but I do see an industry that does not have big money behind it. With all the labor and expenses this industry demands, simply because you buy something for a nickel and sell it for a dollar doesn't really tell you anything about the profitability due to the high costs of doing business in this trade. The death comment is a sad one, as I have heard of fisherman dying while diving for aquarium related products. Not sure of all the facts, but I would guess that this industry has a lower death rate than most in certain countries, and most industries have some dangers to them. Again...it's all relative and I found this comment to be out of context and unfair to the industry. I believe much more good has been achieved than bad. The "Families and Communities" comment is quite the opposite in most cases where in more cases than not, the industry provides huge benefits to coastal communities and the families that participate.
Talbot also writes about the possibilities of ecolabeling:
"Without it—and, more importantly, without the transparency, documentation and source country impacts that should come with it—there is little hope the trade will be able to defend itself against those who are seeking to shut it down with ever increasing vigor. "
Again...the transparency thing and Ret accusing the industry of not being transparent bothers me. I have never refused to give out information about our business when asked by a legitimate source....and I don't know of anyone, anywhere else who had refused. Maybe Ret is just looking for someone to compile all the information ever recorded, summarize it and post it on a website somewhere, but considering the relatively short lived Marine Aquarium Industry (especially compared to the Freshwater Industry), these types of studies have not yet been done in such great capacity...but some are definitely out there to be read by the public.
What ever happened to "Innocent until proven guilty"? The way Ret portray's the industry's position, it just makes me feel like we are already being made to look guilty, without any evidence or stated facts. I expect a writer to provide documented statistics if they are going to make accusations about something. For Ret to make such a comment about so many unsustainable fisheries....wouldn't he need to have a long list of studies showing unsustainability?
Maybe it's just me....but I want to be fair to Ret (I like Ret actually) and his portrayal of the industry in this article...so looking for some input about it...here's the link if anyone's interested http://www.reefs.com/blog/2011/12/27/ec ... ium-trade/
I am all for ecolabeling.....and hope that the future for the industry does have a positive outlook. After all, the industry has made tremendous strides over the last 20 years alone relating to, but not limited to better collecting methods and shipping techniques. Night and Day differences!
Hope you all find the topic interesting......I appreciate your comments.
Talbot writes:
"Not unlike many of the industries named above, the marine aquarium industry has a poor track record when it comes to providing transparent, verifiable information about the real impacts of harvesting marine animals for the aquarium trade".
I am just wondering where the poor track record comes from? Does Ret know about requests for impact studies that have not been provided? I am not sure many impact studies for the aquarium trade have actually been done, but of course cites quotas, and animals exported for the trade that fall under cites (all corals, live rock, clams, seahorses etc) are very transparent and part of a managed system...you would just need to know where to look (USFWL or CITES). I also know that most everywhere that has Aquarium Industry activity, there are licenses, permits, reporting etc.....which is usually managed by the local governments fishery. I think a more practical statement here would have been that there are few impact studies done up to this point about the aquarium industry relative to ornamental fish collection. I say "ornamental fish", because corals and other animals protected under cites, do have a system in place, and have many years of monitoring, with yearly assessments being done.
Talbot also writes:
"Unfortunately, too many of the animals entering the trade have been harvested from unsustainable fisheries by fishers who have been exploited literally to death in extreme cases. Entire reef ecosystems have been negatively impacted, as have local fishers, their families and their communities".
OUCH! I wonder what unsustainable fisheries he's talking about? Does Ret have a good reason to believe that too many animals are coming from unsustainable fisheries? I wonder where the studies are that show we have unsustainable fisheries? Anyone??? Exploited fisherman? Really?? I don't know about Ret, but I know that most divers working in the Aquarium Trade can actually earn more than that Country's average weekly pay. What really is the definition of exploitation anyway....when you put it into relevance? I don't see too many Aquarium Industry operators driving Ferrari's and Rolls Royces....but I do see an industry that does not have big money behind it. With all the labor and expenses this industry demands, simply because you buy something for a nickel and sell it for a dollar doesn't really tell you anything about the profitability due to the high costs of doing business in this trade. The death comment is a sad one, as I have heard of fisherman dying while diving for aquarium related products. Not sure of all the facts, but I would guess that this industry has a lower death rate than most in certain countries, and most industries have some dangers to them. Again...it's all relative and I found this comment to be out of context and unfair to the industry. I believe much more good has been achieved than bad. The "Families and Communities" comment is quite the opposite in most cases where in more cases than not, the industry provides huge benefits to coastal communities and the families that participate.
Talbot also writes about the possibilities of ecolabeling:
"Without it—and, more importantly, without the transparency, documentation and source country impacts that should come with it—there is little hope the trade will be able to defend itself against those who are seeking to shut it down with ever increasing vigor. "
Again...the transparency thing and Ret accusing the industry of not being transparent bothers me. I have never refused to give out information about our business when asked by a legitimate source....and I don't know of anyone, anywhere else who had refused. Maybe Ret is just looking for someone to compile all the information ever recorded, summarize it and post it on a website somewhere, but considering the relatively short lived Marine Aquarium Industry (especially compared to the Freshwater Industry), these types of studies have not yet been done in such great capacity...but some are definitely out there to be read by the public.
What ever happened to "Innocent until proven guilty"? The way Ret portray's the industry's position, it just makes me feel like we are already being made to look guilty, without any evidence or stated facts. I expect a writer to provide documented statistics if they are going to make accusations about something. For Ret to make such a comment about so many unsustainable fisheries....wouldn't he need to have a long list of studies showing unsustainability?
Maybe it's just me....but I want to be fair to Ret (I like Ret actually) and his portrayal of the industry in this article...so looking for some input about it...here's the link if anyone's interested http://www.reefs.com/blog/2011/12/27/ec ... ium-trade/
I am all for ecolabeling.....and hope that the future for the industry does have a positive outlook. After all, the industry has made tremendous strides over the last 20 years alone relating to, but not limited to better collecting methods and shipping techniques. Night and Day differences!
Hope you all find the topic interesting......I appreciate your comments.
