Another Idea......

[Anonymous]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by SPC:
<strong>Posted by Dave:
The first route a orginization that was not economicly tied to the "Industry" would do is stop bringing in animals that can be tank raised.

The AZA dosen't promote tank raised only, public aquariums are filled with wild caught animals.
Steve</strong><hr></blockquote>

Steve maybe you could further explain how you have come to a working knowledge of what AZA facilities are promoting and trying to achieve. I can not remember you being so schooled in this subject when we were at Butches and I was showing you the projects that Ivy and I had taken place in?

Here maybe this can help www.aza.org
I would love to hear about this.

Perhaps you could explain the stud book process and how almost all animals that are captive breed are from raised stock, the only exceptions being the founders and also "New blood" so as not to skewer the gene pool.

[ January 01, 2002: Message edited by: Fishaholic ]</p>

 

[Cappuccino Bay Aquarium]

There is little research by public aquariums on non food, planktonic larva rearing methods {pets}or non open system coralCaptive} propagation............ Every gain in this area over the last twenty years has come from within the hobby...........furthermore the few non open reef systems that public Aquariums do display ,are quite fuitless when compared to the captive systems run by many hobbists of this board?{which group are the experts?} Rearing a cat shark egg or a new born shark pup after it discharges out the parents hind quarters is not THAT impressive ? How bout rearing butterfly or Angelfish a lava for six months without the aid of an open system? {C-quest and DR MAC have had more RESULTS in Hobby related closed system propagation, then all Public Aquariums\..?

 

[Anonymous]

CBA

What source are you using?

 

[Anemone]

Fishaholic,

I think you need to cut Mary a break. Her point about who is doing what research is well taken. The fact that a zoo organization (AZA) is supporting research is great, but the fact that aquariums/zoos are conducting "most" of the research in a given survey doesn't tell us what is being researched, or what application it may have to the hobby (your Nurse Shark story is a great success story, but I have no intention of trying to keep that in my tank, so captive fertilization methods for these sharks doesn't really help me (or the hobby) a whole lot).

As another example, you make a disparaging comment about "strip-mining" wholesalers wishing to have themsleves associated with C-Quest or ORA (industry organizations conducting research and promoting captive-bred livestock), yet jump all over anyone who suggests that AZA members may not all be sweetness and light. I think everyone here agrees that there are "less than perfect" collectors and wholesalers out there, but in the long run, they have an economic interest in the long-term success of the aquarium hobby industry. This economic self-interest is the basis, at least, for instituting controls that will allow the hobby to exist long term (as versus the total destruction of the reef ecosystem).

As you have already said, you don't care about the existence of the hobby (or actually, whether it exists at all). I do. I think "industry" supported researh is more likely to discover captive breeding and successful feeding strategies for say, mandarin dragonettes, than SeaWorld would. The hobby drives research through its consumer spending. Without the hobby, that economic incentive dries up

No doubt, the "industry" needs to step up and put its house in order. This process has begun, both by fledgeling attempts to address environmental issues (training of collectors, captive propagation of corals and clams in other countries) as well as through the mere existence of forums and discussions such as this (IMO, this discussion would not have occurred 20, or even 10 years ago).

However, I get the impression you want a total import ban now, and nothing less will ever meet with your approval. If that's true, then we really have nothing to discuss.

Sorry,

Kevin

 

[naesco]

I hope Kevin in the 'heat of the argument' you are not in agreement to leave things as they are.
I hope that you fully support the arguments in this forum to ban (except for research as fully discussed) those critters which experts like Fenner, Tullock, Wilkens and others including LFSs have stated to be impossible to keep alive in our tanks.

 

[Anemone]

naesco,

Nah, I'm not willing to leave things as they stand. I just don't agree with a total ban (the species by species discussion we're having is a great idea, and I support a selective ban or restriction). I love this hobby, and just get (occasionally) PO'd by those who are unwilling to accept anything other than what they suggest.

Kevin

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry, hit the wrong key.

[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: Fishaholic ]</p>

 

[Anonymous]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Anemone:
<strong>Fishaholic,

I think you need to cut Mary a break. Her point about who is doing what research is well taken. The fact that a zoo organization (AZA) is supporting research is great, but the fact that aquariums/zoos are conducting "most" of the research in a given survey doesn't tell us what is being researched, or what application it may have to the hobby (your Nurse Shark story is a great success story, but I have no intention of trying to keep that in my tank, so captive fertilization methods for these sharks doesn't really help me (or the hobby) a whole lot).

As another example, you make a disparaging comment about "strip-mining" wholesalers wishing to have themsleves associated with C-Quest or ORA (industry organizations conducting research and promoting captive-bred livestock), yet jump all over anyone who suggests that AZA members may not all be sweetness and light. I think everyone here agrees that there are "less than perfect" collectors and wholesalers out there, but in the long run, they have an economic interest in the long-term success of the aquarium hobby industry. This economic self-interest is the basis, at least, for instituting controls that will allow the hobby to exist long term (as versus the total destruction of the reef ecosystem).

As you have already said, you don't care about the existence of the hobby (or actually, whether it exists at all). I do. I think "industry" supported researh is more likely to discover captive breeding and successful feeding strategies for say, mandarin dragonettes, than SeaWorld would. The hobby drives research through its consumer spending. Without the hobby, that economic incentive dries up

No doubt, the "industry" needs to step up and put its house in order. This process has begun, both by fledgeling attempts to address environmental issues (training of collectors, captive propagation of corals and clams in other countries) </strong><hr></blockquote>

Kevin I high lighted this in an attempt to answer these Questions.

I will cut Mary a break when she posts facts, if she can point to who is doing research that is all fine and good but to say that most of it is being done by The Industry without one stich of supporting fact is nothing short of propaganda.

I will also cut Mary a break when she and others start taking measures to help the fledgling operators who are captive propagating corals. She has said that she would not stop importing corals that are easily propagated because these corals are fast growing and sustainable. Although scientists have shown hat coral reefs need the skeletons of dead corals to keep building and staying healthy, I say healthy because ony certain corals are harvested for this hobby. The reef needs all the corals to help build the reef itself. If the corals that are easily propagated were left to operaters, fledgling or not to grow and those exact corals were left to the wild you would see captive propagating operators raise this hobby to a hobby that adds and helps the wild reefs instead of being a parisite to it.

I do beleive that importers that only take and give nothing back are just that Strip mining. In farming you most sow the fields before harvesting, Aquacultered live rock is a good example of this, do importers that do not put anything in the ocean deserve the right to say the are farming, no. They are definitly not propagating anything, so if you have a more appropriate term than stip mining, thats fine but I think this best describes what they are doing. I do not think it is appropriate for people who only take to say they have anything to do with businesses who tank raise animals because the action of presenting a competeing product that is wild caught takes business away from the people who haveput a great deal of investment into doing what is best, not just what makes a quick buck. We are talking about two different industries that compete with each other for the same money, so I do not at all think it is appropriate for a importer of strictly wild caught fish and corals to say they are helping the captive industry because they are hurting them and our hobby.

As far as AZA goes If someone understands that this is an association, not some people I think they may understand bashing 'Them" means nothing. There are AZA programs that have been in place that would help but again it matters not to me if someone wants to bash somethng they have not taken the time to even learn what they are bashing.

My caring if this hobby exists is more to do with if this hobby can exist without damaging the reefs.

Our hobby should exist in an attempt to educate people of the importance and the beauty of the reefs of this planet. When importers are stipping these reefs when it is not neccessary to do so in order for our hobby to exist, are we doing good or bad?

I do no think a ban is neccesary if importers can see that they should have restraint in what they bring in. However Mary has stated she and others will not stop importing corals that are propagated. So if this is the way this is going to keep going then yes I am for a ban so our hobby can be a hope for the reefs instead of a contibuting factor in the deaths of them.

Whether you want to communicate with people who would support a ban in an attempt to save wild reefs and our hobby, that is up to you. Our hobby would continue and florish if a ban of wild caught corals started today. Myself and others would look to a ban to preserve our hobby and the world we live in. Importers who keep taking corals that can be grown without impacting wild populations are hurting this hobby and only looking to make a buck In my opinion.

 

[MaryHM]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>
Posted by Fishaholic
I will cut Mary a break when she posts facts, if she can point to who is doing research that is all fine and good <hr></blockquote>

Here is the quote from my earlier post stating just who is doing reasearch:

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote

ORA and C-quest- the major breeders of fish for this industry, both of which have made huge advances in reproduction and rearing techniques, are both industry. The overseas clam and coral farms are for the most part extensions of the industry (example: Fiji, Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands).

In that quote I failed to mention TMC in England who does quite a bit of fish breeding, and an organization in Thailand (I believe) that is working on Asfur and Maculosus angels.


Here's another quote from me from an earlier post that was a direct question to you:
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote

If AZA has a policy in place stating that they will not import any fish/corals that are bred in captivity could you please get us a copy of it? I think that would go a long way to help us better understand their position.

Have you been able to track this down yet? I think it would be really helpful and actually quite enlightening. I've listed examples of industry research that is being done, naming specific companies. Is there a list of AZA members that are doing specific research for the breeding of marine ornamentals? Also, since it was stated earlier that they cannot sell to the public unless no other AZA member wants the animals, are they publishing their results so other organizations can reproduce them and make these advances available to hobbyists?

 

[Cappuccino Bay Aquarium]

The idea of coral harvesting for the hobby having any effect on the health of any coral reef in the Pacific is weak... the amount removed is so tiny in pounds ,that one year of storms knocks off more coral then has ever been collected for the trade.........in one year more coral is removed for constuction then has ever been removed for the trade {in forty years}........that one Airport they built killed more coral and live rock then this hobby would in next twenty years..

 

[Anonymous]

CBA

Stating that one industry does more harm than another is weak, its funny that not long ago you came to this board for help and now you have changed your name and made yourself an expert with no sources.

Mary I gave you names of three institutions have you called them yet?

You name three intitutions that your business hurts. I am sure they think as highly of you as you do of them. Tell me have you put one drop of water in that coral pond that you said you were going to build for the last year or is it more profitable to just keep taking?

 

[Anonymous]

Mary I hought maybe you and CBA could use some more examples of institutions producing marine propagated species.

Waikiki Aquarium
Vancouver Aquarium

Oh yea you may want to look into the example you cite ORA is a branch of Harbor Branch Institute. Not a part of "The Industry"

Also Both John Tullock and Martin Moe give a lot of research credit to the public Aquariums for helping to discover ways of propagating marine species.

John Tullock even goes further to say that the ventures that have failed have not been because they could not turn a profit but because Importers (you) bring in cheaper wild caught species and had these institutes been given support there could have been more discovery by now but it will happen.

The president of C-Queat Bill Addison also speaks of the importers bringing in cheaper species tht compete with tank raised species.

I guess even people in the Captive Propagation Industry do not claim Importers to be in the same Industry as they are.

[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: Fishaholic ]</p>

 

[Anemone]

Mary,

Do you import corals and clams from the coral and clam farmers you mentioned?

Fishaholic,

FWIW, an import ban would shut these places down.

You think an import ban would strengthen our hobby? I think that within two years our hobby would dwindle incredibly. No, I have no figures to support this - but consider that a vast amount of money that flows to all the "support" industries associated with the marine hobby (dry goods and equipment manufacturers and retailers) come from the turnover in new hobbyists. A total ban would (IMO) create a incredible barrier to entry into our hobby. Once this influx of funds dries up, the industry-supported (read: money-driven) research would slow to a crawl (if not stop entirely).

AZA organizations aren't going to crack the difficult marine ornamental breeding and husbandry questions - hobbyists and industry-driven projects will. Like it or not, it's the money in the hobby that's driven the real advancements in husbandry over the past 20 years, not "academic research" institutions. Dry up the hobby money and 20 years from now when the reefs are almost completely destroyed by development, we will still have no ideas on how to keep most of these animals alive - and then the academic research institutions will be interested in husbandry and breeding.

All of the above, of course, is just my opinion,
Kevin

 

[Cappuccino Bay Aquarium]

Ive been around a long time,Yet im no expert .......no one is? If you dont Know which Airport im speaking of, or why its silly to not see that the amount of mass removed from a Pacific coral reef for this hobby is so minute that its silly to worry about......then it most likely reflects the dept at which you are wading? The corals this hobby collects from the reef mass itself ,are the type that most often fall off sooner or later anyway. {branching} If you were good you would have noticed that I excluded Caribbean reefs and lagoon habitats{ Brain ,elegans and Anemone}I did so because those areas are small and weak thus very easy to deplete. Example; I feel that A Fla collection of hard corals ban is needed, yet this hobby could never ever make a dent in the Gorgonian population{ its hundreds or thousands of square miles} Thats why I have stated there is or are NO limits on the number of them a collector can bag........Ps the hard coral population and health is WORSE since the hard coral ban went ito affect or effect? So much for saving the reef? This decline is also after the much needed Sewage upgrade theKeys went through, yet cleaner water seemed to only make the coral health worse?

 

[Anonymous]

Kevin You may want to read further, Indo pacific sea farms is not overseas. It was started in Palua but is now located in Kona Hawaii, unaffected by import bans.

Also I think you were typing when I posted my last post. Even the people who are actually doing the captive propagation give credit to the "Acedemic Institutions"

I think a more appropriate question for Mary would be will you stop bringing in corals that are wild to stop competeing with captive stock.

Her response was NO!

[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: Fishaholic ]</p>

 

[Anonymous]

CBA

Again please give the source of the information you are presenting here.

 

[MaryHM]

Fishaholic:

How am I hurting the industry organizations that I mentioned? I order invertebrates from ORA. In fact, I'm working with them on marketing one of their new products. BTW, even though ORA is afflilated with Harbor Branch, they are a FOR PROFIT business. That makes them industry. I have recently starting doing orders from a farm in the Marshall Islands that propagates numerous corals and clams. I order aquacultured corals from the Solomon Islands everytime I place an order with that export facility. We are also in talks with an Australian seahorse breeding facility and plan to start distributing their animals within 3 months. We are in the beginning stages of talks to start our coral propagation farm in Fiji. As this is quite a large undertaking, and is going to require a lot of capital to get started, it will probably be about a year before we actually start propagating- I'm hoping sooner, but it all depends on the economy.

As far as purchasing captive bred fish, I have 3 problems:
1. My fish system is pretty small and ORA and C-quest have quite large minimums.
2. Mixing wild fish with captive bred fish is a bad combination. The captives invaribly break down with some kind of disease they aren't resistant to. Ask the breeders- they even say it's a bad idea. We have an addition to our fish room that we are going to set up a separate system in just for captive breds. That will probably happen next fall.
3. The variety is bad. There is no way that a wholesale company could purchase solely captive bred fish and/or corals and still stay in business.

I have not built my greenhouses yet, as we have been working on finishing our fish building. I am propagating 3 species of xenia, one on a commercial level (we have discontinued importing that species as a result). We also started our Coral Polyp Rescue program a couple of months ago and have numerous frags in the grow out stage and are fragging more every week. We have a graduate student in coral reef ecology that is working on this for us.

I never said that public aquariums do not contribute to marine ornamental research. There is no question that they do. But the point is that the industry has driven much more research that has actually affected the hobby in a positive manner. Does it really matter if a public aquarium can breed a marine organism if they can't get it to the hobbyists or if their results can not be duplicated on a commerical level??

 

[Tim Tessier]

Hi Fishaholic,

You seem to have some hard questions for Mary but something you need to realize is that she imports what the LFS ask for. They ask for what the hobbyists ask for. So for the most part this industry imports unsuitable species because the hobbyists want them. If Mary, or any other importer, can not fill the LFS's order they will buy from someone who will. I won't mention how many times I have discouraged stores from buying Regal Angels and Butterflyfish etc. I don't import cyanide caught indo fish even though my competition does. They even have the balls to say their fish are not caught with cyanide. And you know what?? The hobbyists rave about them because their prices are so "cheap".

As far as the Vancouver Aquarium, they are a customer of mine so I have some experience and knowledge of what they are doing. They were captive breeding two ornamental species, common seahorses and Bangaii cardinals, all the rest were local cold water species. I offered to give them product at 20% below wholesale if they could sell me Bangaii cardinals and seahorses. They were not allowed to do that because of the AZA.

As far as the Waikiki Aquarium, I have imported some captive raised coral from them several years ago. I talked to Charles about another order and he said he could not sell to me because they could only sell to AZA members.

I inquired into AZA membership and found out that because I was a for profit I could not be a member but could be an affiliate for a 1500$ fee. I would still need to pay to have an inspection team come to my facility. As I could not afford this I decided not to do it.

ORA does have a 500 fish minimum order. I know because I spent over 5k on the 500 fish and still had some after 6 months. Guess what, they were too expensive for the stores and I was not even marking them up the usual amount. This was because the hobbyists don't want to pay almost double for a captive raised versus wild caught. BTW the price difference in wild caught versus captive bred is about 500%.

A fellow received funding for a paper on soft coral propagation techniques. I asked to purchase a copy so I could propagate them here and he denied doing it, even though I had grant #'s etc. My point being that most academics don't want their info divulged as their competitors may find out what their doing. This general principle also applies to institutions, research scientists and industry. Isn't politics wonderful!!!!

I have been a hobbyist for 23 years, for some of that time I was uninformed. If hobbyists are given the info they need to make informed decisions about the animals they want to keep then perhaps the reefs will be better for it. I think this website is a great way to do that.

Another thing to realize is that most locals view corals as land fill. The only way they will protect the reef is if they make their living from it. This is sad but true.

Best Regards,
Tim

 

[Anonymous]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>posted by Cappucino Bay Aquarium
The idea of coral harvesting for the hobby having any effect on the health of any coral reef in the Pacific is weak... the amount removed is so tiny in pounds ,that one year of storms knocks off more coral then has ever been collected for the trade <hr></blockquote>

First off, I want numbers... not just your spewing forth of what is nothing but a qualified statement, no quantification; if its even true to begin with. You cannot make unquantified statements like this and expect anybody of any sort of intelligence to take what you say seriously. Dave has asked you repeatedly to cite, and I'll second his request. Where is this coming from? Next, any removal of scleractinia can have implications. Hurricanes are total destroyers, they don't discriminate, and then renewed growth arises in their wake... reseeding; and its natural selection. Our nitpicking unnatural selection of entire colonies of specific morphotype, etc. could cause everything from hydrodymic shifts and shifts in the qualities of microenvironments, to complete alterations of reef morphometrics over time... but, only time will tell... Reefs kept up with changes in sea level for a lot longer than we've been collecting, but through natural selection and an uninterrupted ecology. The iterations we are putting the reefs through may not allow them to keep surviving when natural selection has been sidestepped.

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote

the hard coral population and health is WORSE since the hard coral ban went ito affect or effect

And where does this information come from?

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: galleon ]</p>

 

[Cappuccino Bay Aquarium]

Hi galleon, Yes I agree "cherry picking the most colorfull animals will change the make up of the reef> All brown left..not good And you would win this argument with me . But my statements were about the volume of coral removed and if this would impeed the reefs'ability to grow... Are the corals we remove from the Pacific reefs mostly branching? off the reef itself? not the floor? And does not most of this type of weed coral growth end up as rubble on the floor? Even if this branch coral is not removed by a storm and dies in place its almost always covered in AlgaeAnd then eaten by a Parrot fish ? not a reef "BUILDER" Builders sand yes, Builders reef no. Even if one was to estimate the amount removed for the trade in pounds , and compare this number to the total volume of total reef growth each year or compare the amount removed for thr trade to the amount knocked off in a storm , one might feel silly as he adjusts the decimal points? .............I dont list other data because one, there is not a lot of LOGIC out there,I know of no data directly showing that the airport island they built was thousands of times greater in pounds then this hobby has taken from all the reefs world wide, ever!But I did some quick math and its easy to compare.Yet Im the onlyone to point this out! Or that removing impossible to keep species HELPS to lessen the blow on "Hardy" species removed! No one else is going the bring this up ; Yet no one denies that this is true? its simple math? But most importantly........we need to think for ourselves..there is way too much credence given to whats out there. I dont want anyone to accept and repeat what I say......A Parrot can do this....I want them to think about it and discover the truth on their own , only then have we truly learned?

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: Cappuccino Bay Aquarium ]</p>