Is the pet bird industry a good comparison to the pet fish i

[Bill2]

OK some people have made constant comparisions of the pet bird industry and the pet fish industry. I wanted to find out for myself what the facts were.

I found this site:
http://www.defenders.org/wbcafact.html

It states that 80% of bird died in transit. Although still appalling not the 99% stated.

Some may use this link to prove that tight controls work becuase of the sucess of The Wild Bird Conservation Act but the comparisons are only skin deep. Although bird importation dropped dramatically and captive bred birds raised dramatically what percentage of species imported were already being captive bred, just not in quantities? I would imagine 80-90% were.

Once our hobby/biz is able to captive breed even 50% of species imported it may be time to truly make comparisions to the pet bird industry and draw from their experience but until then let's compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

 

[naesco]

You can make them now on a species basis.
By way of example Tullock states that 99% of ribbon eels die within 30 days of capture/keeping.
Why do we continue to import them?

 

[JeremyR]

Because people buy them naesco. That's why ALL of these things are imported. If people quit buying things they shouldn't, not only would the fish market improve and the reefs be saved, but the world would become a utopia.

Why do we still import drugs? We know they are bad.

Why do we still allow cig production? We all know they kill.

Why do we let cars be built that can go 150 miles an hour when the top speed limit is 75?

Why do we let people make babies without taking an IQ test?

Why do we eat lays when we know pringles have less fat and don't give you greasy fingers?

 

[naesco]

So I get your point.
Then drop the speed down a bit a see if more will live.
If we stop the bad stuff in the hobby maybe we can keep the rest.

 

[MaryHM]

Again with the statistics!! Naesco, did Tullock cite any studies showing that 99% of ribbon eels die?

 

[jamesw]

Some things you just don't need statistics for Mary. The 99% death figure for blue ribbon eels is one of them.

It would be rowing upstream to contest something like that, which "everybody knows" is true.

Statistics just don't do anyone any good in these type of debates. Statistics can and are used by politicians/advertisers/NGO's every day to distort the truth.

After all...9 out of 10 dentists approve...

Cheers
James

[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: jamesw ]</p>

 

[MaryHM]

I completely disagree with you James. If someone says "The majority of blue ribbon eels are doomed", they'll get no argument from me. But when they start quoting exact percentages, I will demand to see the data to back it up. People have been throwing "statistics" around in these forums a lot lately. "90% of all marine animals are dead in a year", "99% of ribbon eels are dead within 30 days", "99% of birds die during transport". When you quote exact numbers, the masses (general public) tend to automatically assume there is scientific data to back them up. Unfortunately, you know what making assumptions does...

 

[SPC]

Posted by Todd:
Is 2, dead, *wild* animals from a pristine, increasingly globably rare habitat, out of 10 okay?

Todd, to be fare I feel that we need to discuss what this pristine area is that you speak of. If we use a reef for example that is close enough for humans to capture animals for the aquarium hobby, this reef is also used for fishing and scuba diving. The practice of fishing is notorious for being ruff on the area being fished, dynamite, boat anchors etc...
Steve

 

[farmertodd]

Mary,

So if you don't have *any* statistics or any straight answers to very direct quesitons besides "(givin' the guns) we're on it ma'am"... then we should just feel okay about everything?

When *do* we get answers? When do I get a straight answer. Probably when I stop asking improbably answered questions heh.

It's not like this is Lake Castaic and we're surveying Largemouth Bass populations. There's little shortage in the world where humans have stuck a huge piece of concrete between two mountains... And there's certainly no lack of "bucket biology" concerning our little green Centarchidae friends!

However, concerning the animals that we're all sitting here claiming we genuinely care about...

Why is it so hard to say (and met with such resistance) "It might not be such a bad thing to sit tight for awhile and figure out what kind of surveys need to be taken, what data needs to be collected, and how and who we can certify to ethically carry out a sustainable Industry?"

I know the answer... So I'll just quit asking the question.

It seers me to read words like "ethical" when the only reasons I've had returned are "Because it offers people an economic opportunity" and philosophic ad hominy about utilization of habitat we've *already* destroyed.

I'd just hate to see another habitat (and one so diverse) go down.

Steve,

I'm going to take the redirect to "somebody else's fault" with a

and say... "I agree. Shame on them. And if you're not part of the solution, you're more than likely a part of the..."

Todd

 

[MandarinFish]

See, when the obvious is pointed out that the natural world requires conservation, the typically response is:

"Not enough proof, according to us. We'll look into it. In the meantime let's drill for oil in this pristine wilderness."

Remember - there is always more short-term money in exploiting nature.

[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: MandarinFish ]</p>

 

[MandarinFish]

WILD BIRD CONSERVATION ACT OF 1992
16 U.S.C. §§ 4901-4916, October 23, 1992.
Overview. This Act provides a series of measures to conserve exotic birds and fulfill the obligations of the U.S. under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The Act includes provisions to limit or prohibit U.S. imports of exotic bird species covered by the Convention and authorizes moratoria on the importation of species not covered by the Convention. It also sets standards for qualifying bird breeding facilities and establishes the Exotic Bird Conservation Fund.

Findings/Policy. Congress finds that: the international pet trade in wild-caught exotic birds is contributing to the decline of species in the wild, and the mortality associated with the trade remains unacceptably high; the U.S., as the world's largest importer of exotic birds and as a party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, should play a substantial role in finding solutions to these problems, including assisting countries of origin to implement wild bird conservation programs and ensuring that the U.S. market does not operate to the detriment of the survival of species in the wild

 

[MaryHM]

Todd,

I have straight answers to your direct question. The answer is that Reef Check is currently in the process of monitoring various collection sites for the MAC program and the statistics should be out soon. I can't make them go any faster.

I also don't think I have ever said everyone should feel "ok" with the status quo until we get hard facts. If I felt that way I wouldn't have been working so hard the past few years to instigate change.

As far as this quote goes...
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote

Why is it so hard to say (and met with such resistance) "It might not be such a bad thing to sit tight for awhile and figure out what kind of surveys need to be taken, what data needs to be collected, and how and who we can certify to ethically carry out a sustainable Industry?"

That stuff is being worked on NOW. Reef Check is doing monitoring for management purposes. MAC is working on certification. The IMA is working on training divers to use nets. One thing to realize is that the movement toward industry reform is a young one. It's only been seriously looked at during the last 4 or so years. You can't get all of the data and all of the facts needed overnight from hundreds of different collection areas/ecosystems in numerous different countries. It takes time. Until that time, all we can do is try to educate hobbyists the best we can and do things (like the USL) to help change industry from the stateside.


Mandarin,

I looked up the Wild Bird Act and read that exact passage. No where does it say 99%. You would have had NO argument from me if you would have said that large numbers of birds died when wild collection was legal. But when you name an exact figure, I'm going to insist that you be responsible for it.

 

[MandarinFish]

But I don't answer to you.

Besides, it has been pointed out to you that nearly any mortality is too much, not to mention high mortality.

I've seen all kinds of #'s with birds, the highest being 99%. I saw it on an information board at a festival, but I didn't see the source.

Perhaps it is up to 99%.

But I believe it. Macaws, cockatiels, and numerous other birds simply can't make the transition and stay healthy.

But that's not the point. The point is that animals need to be bred in captivity, not pulled from their biome, simply.

 

[MaryHM]

One of the main causes for fish death is (brace yourself) HOBBYIST IGNORANCE. In fact, I'd probably rate the causes of mortality as such.

#1 Cause- Mishandling During Collection/Handling/Shipping
#2 Cause- Hobbyist Ignorance
#3 Cause- Cyanide Collection
#4 Cause- Improper Species Importation (animals like what are on the USL)

Ok, I'm going to wave my magic fairy wand and all fish we currently import are now captive bred. There are still a bunch of dumb butt hobbyist out there who will refuse to educate themselves on proper husbandry. Mortality on these captive bred fish after one year we'll say is 40%. Is it ok for this to happen, since we aren't impacting the reefs anymore???

 

[naesco]

I will happily cite the authors to almost 90% of the information I have provided.
Robert Fenner and accepted marine author who has published marine books and numerous articles.
Who has stated that he has handled tens of thousands of butterflyfish alone over the last 30 years.

Robert Tullock, a zoologist and the author of books and numerous marine artilces.

As you have read in other recent threads, their 'list' have been accepted by some LFS.

If you do not believe Fenner or Tulloch when they say 99% die than why are some LFS saying the same thing?

 

[MaryHM]

I've said it once and I'll say it 10,000 more times.

"If you say the majority die or something similar, I won't argue. But if you quote an exact number, I want to see a study that has backed it up"

I do not know of ANY study that has EVER tracked mortality rates for animals from collection to the hobbyists tanks for even 1 day, let alone 30 or 365.

 

[naesco]

You will not accept over 30 years experience in the industry by accepted authors is our hobby?

 

[VkeSu]

In other words, if you don't have the exact report (which is non-existant) or the exact percentage(which is non-existant at this time) don't mention an approximate death toll. It makes the wholsalers look bad. (This was my opinion I was left with from reading this entire thread...not quite what you all wanted huh!) ....IMO...doesn't always mean much, but doesn't really matter anyway.(my opinion)

 

[farmertodd]

Okay "@sses to @sses"... 8 out of 10 dead animals is still 8 dead animals with only two living. Wether it's birds or fish.

How much prime habitat was disturbed to take those aniamls? How much more was lost to keep those two live animals?

What's an acceptable percentage? Where does it start and end?

Let's start with a doom and gloom number like 99%. Okay. That's ridiculous. Only the shipping companies are making money there and completely agree that it's painfully obvious that it's unsubstatiated.

So let's just skip the "scientific data" and drop it by half and make a difference between "they all live" and "they all die".

Is 5 out of 10 acceptable?

I'll even go further and give a more ..

Is 2, dead, *wild* animals from a pristine, increasingly globably rare habitat, out of 10 okay?

And to circle back... The answer isn't "If it's sustainable harvest" because I've yet to see any "scientific data" on what that means for animals, let alone how it works or what it does outside of Tridacna and Trochus.

Todd

 

[MaryHM]

Todd:

I'm not saying that 80% mortality is better or anything like that. My push for people to cite their sources is to make them responsible for the statistics they are throwing out.

As far as sustainable harvest goes, organizations like Reef Check are working on this very issue right now. Other industries have scientific studies and monitoring to determine sustainable harvest levels (whether they follow them or not is another topic), so it's silly to assume that it can't be done for the aquarium trade.