Another Idea......

MaryHM · Jan 5, 2002

Dr. Reef- The graph that you posted was probably based on CITES information, and as we have stated that information is seriously flawed. Do you have information pertaining to how they collected the data?

Here's an example of a CITES problem. There was a discussion on the NOAA coral list a while back about exports of live rock from Fiji. Someone (a scientist I belive) was quoting a really high, senstational tonnage for a particular year. Bob Mankin (I think) sat down and did some math. He determined that if every flight from Fiji to Los Angeles filled the entire cargo hold AND passenger seating area with live rock that they still couldn't get that much rock out of Fiji in a year.

The problem both in the hobby and on the reefs is directly linked to irresponsible collection and handling methods. If we could clean that up, I think we'd solve most of the problems. I'd be curious to see a study on Indonesia fish mortalities and reef destruction vs. that in Fiji or the Solomon Islands...

Bill2 · Jan 5, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by SPC:
Also lets keep in mind that many of our hobby fish are food fish in other countries.
Steve<hr></blockquote>

Regal angel is quite good. So is parrot fish. Minatus grouper (coral cod) is considered a great eating fish and I'm sure I ate it in fiji.

Is the decline of large groupers due to the aquarium hobby? NOPE!

What is one man's pet is one person's food. While in fiji I tried to get the collectors to understand this becuase they would catch a beautiful fish that we would covet in our tanks but they would do it as a side catch of collection "aquarium" species. When i told them this i told them it was like eating a cat or dog to us. This story went like wild fire through the wherehouse and I knew this becuase they would say "pussy pussy" and then laugh

Bill2 · Jan 5, 2002

Just to prove my point about the CITES reports being inaccurate becuase of the need to anticipate

http://camelreef.geekopolis.com/reef/misc/CITES.jpg

Look at the date the request was submitted and the date the stuff arrived where it was going

Requested Oct 24
Arrive Nov 11

2 weeks

BTW I'm not commenting on the rest of the inaccuracies

[ January 05, 2002: Message edited by: Bill2 ]

Anonymous · Jan 5, 2002

The graph is from the following NMFS and NOAA page. It does not say where the data come from but in similar reports it comes from import docents and quotas.

I believe these data are more reliable than CITES reports because the have to be more accurate. F.W.S. checks crate content with papers on incoming shipments. If the contents are mismatched even slightly I have heard of huge losses as the shipment is "frozen" until proper authorization ensues. This "paper" delay from misquoted docents is best reduced by accurate labeling during transit.

This is also a common problem with imported reptiles, specifically those from CITES watched areas and with CITES species. Luckily, the survival rates from a one day delay are much better for a tortoise than for a coral in a bag, or even those shipped "wet-dry".

It is interesting to me to hear people expound the innocence of the trade, then when presented with numbers and hard evidence, the numbers are attacked and disavowed. It reminds me of how the Arab countries thought Bin Laden was innocent, then the U.S. released the confession tapes, and rather than accept the truth, the Arabs thought it must have been Hollywood magic.

Besides, the important point isn't in the numbers. If I were laying on an operating table, I would not care to know how much blood I had lost, but rather I'd want to know if what was left would enable me to survive, or if additional measures must be taken, such as receiving blood donations.

Similarly, the number of coral removed can be quite arbitrary, but the truth lies in how the affected reefs are impacted.

In some cases, these reefs are devastated. Especially when 60% of adult herbivores have been removed. Or when branching corals have been denuded and habitat for larval fish is gone. On other areas, management has been successful in maintaining an adequate recovery allowance while still being harvestable.

I still have not heard a rebuttal concerning the use of "deflection" tactics among many neighsayers. Do you honestly think that because global temp increases bleach reefs, we should not be worried about trade impacts? It seems to me that gives us even more reason to assess trade impacts and curb negative trends.

And Capp, I don't understand the arguement concerning "it looks like one truck so its okay". What reports have you read that give a definitive answer as to the levels of removal are okay? And I believe they would be reef specific anyway, meaning FLA should not be able to handle any removal, but the Bikini Atoll could probably sustain heavy pruning in one year and recover.

Anonymous · Jan 5, 2002

Bill, the point I'm getting from you seems to be that exporters need to quit lying on their reports if they want to protect their right to trade.

Or that the paperwork delay is long.

When I submit requests to work on CITES species, sometimes it takes 3 months for the report to be issued to me.

What other innaccuracies do you see in the French permit? I was unable to translate much of it.

Anonymous · Jan 5, 2002

I am extreemly amused by Bill and Mary countering by saying that CITES inforamtion is flawed, so lets just throw it out.

It is a shame that one of the largest reef sites on the internet does not take a stand to conserve the natural reefs but yet the people Admnistrating and Moderating want to make light of the over harvesting.

What does it say in your profile Bill about conserving reefs? Do you think that not taking warnings about reef degradation seriously is the type of leadersip that this site should be sending to its members? Most noteably as this site for many is the first time many have ever seen a discussion on the condition of those reefs regardless of who is to blame?

[ January 06, 2002: Message edited by: Fishaholic ]

MaryHM · Jan 5, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr> The graph is from the following NMFS and NOAA page. It does not say where the data come from but in similar reports it comes from import docents and quotas.
I believe these data are more reliable than CITES reports because the have to be more accurate. F.W.S. checks crate content with papers on incoming shipments.
<hr></blockquote>

I agree that the F&W data would be MUCH more accurate than any data obtained from a CITES. Fish & Wildlife requires an invoice to be submitted for every shipment. That would tell you EXACTLY what was coming in. I wonder if they have someone who types all of that information into a database somewhere. If we could get ahold of that, then we'd have some valid statistical data to deal with....Someone see if you can find something like that.

Cappuccino Bay Aquarium · Jan 5, 2002

Even with the amounts of hard coral your estimates are sporting, 100,000 kilos is just one 1/1000th of the total 200,000 metric tons your first post displayed {1/100 of one percent?}These are YOUR figures? Thats like the sand left on your shoes when one comes home from the beach contributing to the habitat loss and beach erosion? Or second hand smoke in a forrest fire? Silly! JUST a one percent decrease in the other industrial related damage {99.999%}Would enable this hobby to increase its take by 100 times,?silly?

Anonymous · Jan 5, 2002

I am in disbelief that you continue to miss the point. Cheer up and breathe. Calmly go read the most recent posts and you will find yourself in agreement with me. It isn't about numbers. And it isn't about being right or wrong. Capp, noone is faulting you for thinking that it "seems" like a trivial amount. The debate does not focus on whether or not xxx,xxx number of pieces are being traded. The discussion concerns the level of impact that removal for trade is causing. It is not debateable that some places have been and continue to be negatively impacted. What is debateable is whether or not people like you and Mary, who choose to profit from such trade, believe that you can contribute to better management choices and sustainable practices. If you believe you can, then you must endorse protocols and procedures that lead to such results. I believe Mary tries for this, although I do not know her personally. But I feel Capp that you do not care about such environmental issues.

Anonymous · Jan 6, 2002

From Hodgson's paper:

<blockquote>quote:<hr> Studies have only recently begun to document the extent and potential impact of collection for the aquarium trade on reef fish populations. For instance, in Kona, Hawaii, five of the top aquarium fish species were 45 to 63 percent less abundant in areas where tropical reef fish collection is allowed.

<hr></blockquote>

JeremyR · Jan 6, 2002

On the yellow tang info:

The yellow tang is one of the most abused aquarium fish by the wholesale world, because it's considered a "bread and butter" or "leader" fish, so everyone price competes, cuts corners on holding facilities.. and you end up with all those bone thin parasite ridden tangs you see all over the place. The answer to this problem as well as the #'s you posted isn't to completely ban collection of the yellow tang.. but export QUOTAS could certainly be discovered that would allow healthy populations.. would probably drive the price of the fish up a bit, but would also probably get everyone better yellow tangs. It's not rocket science.. food fish can be properly managed, sport fish can be properly managed.. if people would just take a common sense approach to the subject things would be ok. Instead, it's either a "take it all while you can (reef rape) or "ban ALL import from EVERYWHERE because the indonesians and phillipinos refused to do it right" approach. In life, most things have a happy medium.

FWIW, yellow tangs may soon be aquacultured as well as many centropyge angels.

Anonymous · Jan 6, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Anemone:


Capp - I think everyone here who isn't into personal attacks understands your point - our hobby has a very small impact on the reefs <hr></blockquote>

Respectfully, I don't think I've made any attacks. And I don't think you or I or anyone else is in the position to make such a sweeping generalization as "very small impact". It varies from reef to reef and until studies are done to determine which removal methods and species and areas have the most dire consequences, it is generally better to err on the safe side and restrict certain species removal. Furthermore, the reef dynamics are different from tract to tract and what is devastating to one reef is harmless to another.

Lastly, when we consider the threats that global temp increases, siltation, and blast fishing have on reefs, it seems we should make a more concerted effort to control those activities which can visibly denude a reef, and which we can actually impact from afar. Instead of accepting the trade impact by making it appear "small" in comparison, we should accept that it does have an impact, and as an American, I can't visibly impact issues like pollution/siltation or hot water in other countries, but I can help the U.S. stop importing certain species and help the reefs.

Furthermore, we cannot, and I fear the U.S. will not ever, legislate controlling human contributions to the rising sea temperature problems. But, legislating export and import is a much more simple task. This seems to make partial restrictions or self restraint within the hobby seem much more surmountable than issues like pollution and hot water, which lack demonstrable causes and surely lack the ability to be legislated.

Tim Tessier · Jan 6, 2002

Someone asked what collectors get paid for fish. In the Philippines they are paid 25 cents for a Coral beauty and 5 cents per 100 or 1000 chromis, damsels etc.

CITES permits are not over reported on to be deceptive. They are over reported in case there are a few extra corals in the shipment. When dealing with people in the developing nations they don't understand the paperwork end of things and could send you a few extra to be nice. If the permit has more listed, then if you have some space in a box that needs to be filled you can do it with coral. Customers do change their orders and it would allow you to fill it. This happened to me and I had to get a new permit which delayed the shipment. Now I deliberately over report by about 10% but I am limited to what is on the original import permit.

<blockquote>quote:<hr> I still have not heard a rebuttal concerning the use of "deflection" tactics among many neighsayers. Do you honestly think that because global temp increases bleach reefs, we should not be worried about trade impacts? It seems to me that gives us even more reason to assess trade impacts and curb negative trends.

<hr></blockquote>

No rebuttal needed. We all realize that something must be done and this industry must clean itself up. But how???

When you compare the effects of global warming/pollution to collection for the aquarium industry this hobbies impacts are miniscule. Something else to ponder, just how much coral is killed by storms and cyclones. The reefs survive this just fine and use it as a means to rebuild. It is similiar to a forest that is healthier if it burns down every now and again.

I remember Bob Fenner talking at MACNA about how much coral a Parrotfish eats every year. I think it was 13 tons but I am not sure. Can someone help?

Shocking statements ahead.

I have noticed that some people view acropora as some type of Holy Grail. This is very far from the truth, acropora is more like a weed than anything else. A friend had a 12" colony growing on the side of one of his gigas clams, the clam was about 3.5 feet long and probably several hunderd years old. The acropora was jeopardizing the clams health so it was hammered off. The reality of the situation is that acropora is only valuable to the hobby. Please don't misunderstand me, I too believe in working towards a sustainable low impact industry but lets put things in perspective.

<blockquote>quote:<hr> Lastly, when we consider the threats that global temp increases, siltation, and blast fishing have on reefs, it seems we should make a more concerted effort to control those activities which can visibly denude a reef, and which we can actually impact from afar. Instead of accepting the trade impact by making it appear "small" in comparison, we should accept that it does have an impact, and as an American, I can't visibly impact issues like pollution/siltation or hot water in other countries, but I can help the U.S. stop importing certain species and help the reefs.

<hr></blockquote>

I know this trade impacts the reefs, some more than others and some not at all. I believe that our effects are negligible compared to the others mentioned. I see no reason not to allow harvest on reefs that are not stressed due to pollution etc. and give the reefs that are stressed a chance to recover. Although, this will not happen when you are telling a man that he can not feed his family because some people on the other side of the world, who don't know what his situation is, say that he can't collect coral. He will go to fishing or shrimp farming etc. Both of which harm a reef far more than this trade. This is one reason why I introduced sponge farming to Vietnam. It is very low impact and non polluting.

There are ways to get involved in stopping the tyranny of the dollar. Ethical funds, when American based transnational companies start abusing the poor, get on their case, ie child labour, paying a mother of 6 25cents to work in the pineapple plantation for 12 hours a day etc.

To try to save the reefs by having the importation of corals, fish banned into the US would only lead to something more destructive being done to the reefs as the poor seek to support their families.

Best Regards,
Tim

dmentnich · Jan 6, 2002

Well, it's about a four A.M. where I am and after reading posts in this forum and others I found my brain starting to rot froam a lack of sleep before an idea suddenly came. We are talking about the reefs overall health and weather the impact that we have on it as a hobby is large or small. I will not debate this point as I am not educated enough on the subject to do so. What I will say is that many posts have given me the impression that while the individual collector is not getting rich that the local economy is somewhat dependant on the trade and that the exporters are doing fairly well for themselves.

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Rover
Because of over fishing and destructive practices such as using cyanide to stun fish for capture, coral mining, and blast fishing, only 5 to 7 percent of Indonesia's reefs were estimated in 1996 to have excellent coral cover.<hr></blockquote>

If this is true then why not "ban" 1/2 of the imports coming from Indonesia until the reef show signs of recovery? By taking such a step the government of Indonesia would be encouraged to take steps to protect the reef against POLUTION and destructive fishing methods while not completely devastating the economy and encouraging the responsible collectors to continue. This would encourage the government to help collectors with their collection methods and when the reef began improving the quotas would be increased.

Please do not tell me that to meddle in other countries business is wrong as our governments do it all the time to "bully" smaller countries into doing what we want weather it is environmental, political or economical. This step would encourage countries which relied even in part on trade of coral for ornamentals to be a little more careful with pollution as well as collection methods.

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Tim Tessier:
Something else to ponder, just how much coral is killed by storms and cyclones. The reefs survive this just fine and use it as a means to rebuild. It is similiar to a forest that is healthier if it burns down every now and again.
<hr></blockquote>

This is fine, but after a forest fire they do not harvest that section of land right away. Perhaps after a reef-damaging storm a moratorium on coral/fish harvest in the affected area and the area adjacent to it should be put on the reef.
(Please forgive me Tim, I know later you said "I see no reason not to allow harvest on reefs that are not stressed due to pollution etc. " so I know you are not saying that we should continue as we have been in the past.)

Also, why keep debating weather or not the CITIES are accurate? I am convinced that almost everyone on the board now suspects that they are not completely accurate- but at least they are documentation rather than pulling figures out of thin air. Lets assume that the figures reported in them are inflated 25%- The amount taken out would still be huge. You can add to that the fact that it does not matter. We are impacting the reefs no matter what figure you want to tag to it. If the chart posted by Dr.Reef is correct then in 1997 we pulled out 550,000 pieces of coral. Now supposing that we only pulled out 400,000 pieces- does that figure mean that we impacted the reefs any less than what we actually did? What I am saying is that you can attach any figure you like- if we are impacting the reef, then we are impacting the reefs. By demanding that the countries which export to us take care of the reefs and try to protect them from damage that is caused by pollution, blast fishing and the likes then we could turn the impact that we have from negative to positive by making it’s protection economically necessary.

On as side note, sorry about the long post (after wondering why the subject changed four times earlier, I now understand.)
Are you an insomniac as well Tim, or is it past your bed time???

[ January 06, 2002: Message edited by: danny150 ]

[ January 07, 2002: Message edited by: danny150 ]

SPC · Jan 6, 2002

I am curious if anyone knows the % of fish imported to the US vs other countries. It is my understanding that the US gets the left overs on alot of the fish. Japan, Germany and some others are willing to pay more for the same animals and therefore they get first pick.
Steve

[ January 06, 2002: Message edited by: SPC ]

Anonymous · Jan 6, 2002

Maybe the management of the reefs should be scrutinized. Implementation of sound economic principles could greatly
benefit coral reefs by providing incomes and market incentives to local users.
Coral reefs are considered fisheries. They usually have few de jure property
rights bequeathed to users by the state. In many island nations, the resource is managed
as an open access resource; harvest restrictions are emplaced mainly to provide the
governments with income from license sales. Open access resources result in increasing
levels of exploitation due to what has often been referred to as game theory, or the
“prisoner’s dilemma” (Baland and Platteau, 1996). For resource users, there is no way in
which, “by refraining from harvest today, the user can be assured that, in the next period
they will receive the amount of resource they have left untouched” (Baland and Platteau,
1996). This leads to a scramble situation where the incentives are to harvest as much as possible in order to have any “right” of ownership. The specific situation just described
is best illustrated in a fishery situation, but is the result of a mounting body of work on
what is described as “The Tragedy of the Commons” (Hardin, 1968).

Full text is here: http://www.arches.uga.edu/~btfreak/management.PDF

Anemone · Jan 6, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Fishaholic:
I am extreemly amused by Bill and Mary countering by saying that CITIES inforamtion is flawed, so lets just throw it out. <hr></blockquote>

What I believe they said was "keep it in mind." You're the one who is using these "sensational" numbers for their emotional appeal. Don't be suprised if someone tries to take a little of the "emotion" out of the number.

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Fishaholic:
It is a shame that one of the largest reef sites on the internet does not take a stand to conserve the natural reefs but yet the people Admnistrating and Moderating want to make light of the over harvesting. <hr></blockquote>

What's a shame is that people keep attacking others here rather than discussing the topic. Your attack on "one of the largest reef sites on the internet" is baseless, and your attack on the people "Administrating and Moderating" is mean spirited, and plainly discounted by this forum and this site.

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Fishaholic:
What does it say in your profile Bill about conserving reefs? Do you think that not taking warnings about reef degradation seriously is the type of leadersip that this site hould be sending to its members? Most noteably as this site for many is the first time many have ever seen a discussion on the condition of those reefs regardless of who is to blame?<hr></blockquote>

Hmmm, let's see if I understand this - people who deal with these numbers on a daily basis say the system is flawed, and in many cases (by personal experience) severely inflated. Your response is a personal attack on the values and ethics of the these same people. Very reasonable <dripping sarcasm added for free>

Cap - I think everyone here who isn't into personal attacks understands your point - our hobby has a very small impact on the reefs (environmental change (global warming), development (both via direct destruction such as construction and through secondary means such as increased run off and pollution), food fishing, and even the curio trade have greater impacts than we do), but the sensationalism-loving, holier-than-thou types will attack our hobby as the easiest way to placate themselves into thinking they're actually doing something. To keep from being controlled by them, we (the hobby) need to exercise some control of ourselves now. Plus, everything has to start somewhere, and saving the reefs might as well start with those of us who really do care (contrary to the beliefs of some).

Kevin

MaryHM · Jan 6, 2002

No dripping sarcasm allowing- either for free or for profit

Anonymous · Jan 6, 2002

Kevin I would love to hear about the "sensational numbers".

Mean Spirited, no I think it would be more accurate to say that puposefuly playing down the damage being done to reefs is mean spirited.

Anemone · Jan 6, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by SPC:
Also lets keep in mind that many of our hobby fish are food fish in other countries.
<hr></blockquote>

Not just in other countries. I was snorkeling and examining tidepool areas with my children off the old Kona airport. A local was there throw-net fishing. In a few hours he had a pretty good number of yellow tangs and other fish (some other tangs, large damsels, and I believe a trigger or two, but I was trying not to look like I was snooping

).

Cleaned them all right there at the beach and took them home for a meal (he had a small son there and ws teaching him how to fish).

Kevin

Another Idea......

Advanced Reefer

Advanced Reefer

Advanced Reefer

Anonymous

Guest

Anonymous

Guest

Anonymous

Guest

Advanced Reefer

Experienced Reefer

Anonymous

Guest

Anonymous

Guest

Advanced Reefer

Anonymous

Guest

Active Reefer

Experienced Reefer

Advanced Reefer

Anonymous

Guest

Advanced Reefer

Advanced Reefer

Anonymous

Guest

Advanced Reefer

Sponsor Reefs