PDA

View Full Version : What do you do to help the reef?


dgh5
07/12/2013, 04:13 PM
Hello all,

I know I don't have to tell you all that reefs are in danger, but just to give my question some background: 30% of the world's reefs are gone, possibly forever, 30% further are severely damaged and many scientists predict that tropical coral reefs will cease to exist within 50 to 100 years. (http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=MF99078, http://www.pnas.org/content/104/13/5259.short, also use google.com/scholar and read just about anything on coral reefs for more doom and gloom)

So, as reef hobbyists, I think we are all sympathetic to this problem. What are things that we can do to protect reefs?

I purchased a FL state "protect our reefs" licence plate which funds coral reef research. I also try to find and purchase cultured rock and coral.

lucky_snapper
07/29/2013, 01:26 PM
I use circle hooks when ever I go fishing and always try to vent reef fish when we release them.

Eli Jones
07/29/2013, 05:44 PM
When scientists, especially "conservation" bent scientists, say things like "all the worlds reefs will be gone in 50 to 100 years" I start to wonder... It seems to me that almost every alarming "fact" or "statistic" they spew out seems to, in time, deem itself incorrect... and most of the time VERY incorrect. So, while I certainly support responsible practice, I think most of these so called "scientists" are simply using fear tactics.

billsreef
07/29/2013, 07:25 PM
Having been diving the reefs of the Caribbean, Bahamas and south Florida since the mid 80's, I can tell you that the reefs are currently a shadow of what they were merely 30 years ago...especially the reefs that were once dominated by Acropora sp. in those areas. In the same time frame, I've seen summertime water temps in southern New England waters go from around 10 days of getting slightly over 70, to spending 60 or more days well into the mid 70's...and along with that temp increase has come a major decrease in lobster populations in those waters due to those increasing temps.

Megatrev62
07/29/2013, 11:44 PM
My great grandfather said back on the 60's (my Mother often mentioned it) that there will be "no Newfoundland cod fishery one of these days, if we keep reaping the ocean,especially with these trawlers". The Fishey closed here in 1992. Big uproar by alot of fisherman, but the writing was on the wall. Can't help but wonder about the reefs in the future.

Sk8r
07/30/2013, 01:17 PM
If you look at places with deep cliffs, as in off Australia, as I understand, and maybe the Bahamas, they show drowned reefs; and hills can show stranded reefs.

The world's oceans change level significantly with climate, and in the past, the oceans have been shallower; and deeper, as witness these remnants of corals that used to be closer to the surface (yes, they've taken uplift into account.) There was once a lot of water tied up in mile-thick ice sheets; and now there isn't. But there's getting to be less.

I think, probably since the Cambrian, the corals have survived sea level changes, the Siberian traps and Permian extinction, the formation of Pangaea, the asteroid impact and dinosaur dieoff, and they cope. What we can do is give them as much protection from petroleum runoff and other such things as we can, and just let them do their thing. They send out new corals on the great ocean currents, likely, and stress and breakage only increase their reproduction. I don't think collectors are the problem that oil is. And even it breaks down ultimately.

Allmost
07/30/2013, 01:30 PM
need superman to turn time back ....

if no superman, then earth will age, and as it ages, things change. strong will adapt and survive, and the less strong might be out of luck.... unless they can change.

as mentioned above, corals and fish have shown to be able to adapt to the changes.... the millions of years that we were not around ... I think its rather selfish to think we would have such effects on such old and mature system ... 70 % of earth is water, which means we are nothing compared to it all ... so we wont be able to change anything, good or bad.

surface temp rises ? corals will adapt to lower light and grow deeper ... look at all the limestone islands and .... they were once a coral reef !imagine if we were around at those times ? we would be all worried that we are drinking too much and draining the oceans lol we would try to "solve" evolution of earth, which would not be that smart ... same thing here iMHO. we are just tooooo small and live way too short to get to know the bigger picture.


imagine life of an organism that lives for 1 second, in our reef tanks. each wave produced by MP40 would mean a life time of drought, or flood for that organism . it lives less than duration of a "wave". thats how we are too ... we are looking at a very small window of time and space and trying to guess everything.

JMHO,

billsreef
07/30/2013, 08:03 PM
I think its rather selfish to think we would have such effects on such old and mature system ...

On the flip side, I think quite the opposite, and my thoughts are from the perspective of living on the land, going to sea (quite far offshore), being on top of sea and under the sea. I find it hard not to find mankind's effect on the planet. As for changing climates and acidifying oceans, the current rate of change exceeds anything in the geological record.

Mattewell
07/31/2013, 10:08 AM
need superman to turn time back ....

if no superman, then earth will age, and as it ages, things change. strong will adapt and survive, and the less strong might be out of luck.... unless they can change.

as mentioned above, corals and fish have shown to be able to adapt to the changes.... the millions of years that we were not around ... I think its rather selfish to think we would have such effects on such old and mature system ... 70 % of earth is water, which means we are nothing compared to it all ... so we wont be able to change anything, good or bad.

surface temp rises ? corals will adapt to lower light and grow deeper ... look at all the limestone islands and .... they were once a coral reef !imagine if we were around at those times ? we would be all worried that we are drinking too much and draining the oceans lol we would try to "solve" evolution of earth, which would not be that smart ... same thing here iMHO. we are just tooooo small and live way too short to get to know the bigger picture.


imagine life of an organism that lives for 1 second, in our reef tanks. each wave produced by MP40 would mean a life time of drought, or flood for that organism . it lives less than duration of a "wave". thats how we are too ... we are looking at a very small window of time and space and trying to guess everything.

JMHO,


Yes we have been here for a very short time geologically. The fact that humans have made such a huge impact in such a short time makes it hard for organisms to adapt. Even if they have survived in the past doesn’t mean they will have the speed to adapt to what we have done.

Kyle918
08/02/2013, 11:34 AM
On the flip side, I think quite the opposite, and my thoughts are from the perspective of living on the land, going to sea (quite far offshore), being on top of sea and under the sea. I find it hard not to find mankind's effect on the planet. As for changing climates and acidifying oceans, the current rate of change exceeds anything in the geological record.

While I see where you are going with this, I can't agree. Just because you see it doesn't mean that that is the problem. Think of it like dilution. With the amount of water on the earth, I can't image our careless oil spills are enough to cause any long term damage, maybe in that region but forever? No. To us it might seem long term because we are only here for a split second really as described by another poster. Say it takes 300 years for the ocean to recoup after we are long gone? That is extremely quick in terms of how long the earth and universe has been around. Even 3,000 years would be a blink of an eye in comparison to really anything else in this universe.

However, in regards to us enjoying the natural reefs in OUR lifetime, we may be SOL but the world was fine before us and will be fine once again after the human race.

billsreef
08/02/2013, 02:38 PM
I don't know about anyone else, but I'd like to enjoy the planet while I'm on it. I'm not so worried about after the human species has gone extinct.

quagmire
08/03/2013, 03:02 AM
So, as reef hobbyists, I think we are all sympathetic to this problem. What are things that we can do to protect reefs?



To sustain this hobby and protect the reefs i think we need to responsibly farm raise corals, fish and inverts. To keep the reefs/oceans stocked with fish for human consumption we must adhear to the size and catch limits set forth by the governing bodies. And equally important, recycle/repurpose used goods and stop polluting.
It amazes me that any human would think we have little impact on the earths oceans. Keep living in denial people.

Kyle918
08/03/2013, 10:14 AM
To sustain this hobby and protect the reefs i think we need to responsibly farm raise corals, fish and inverts. To keep the reefs/oceans stocked with fish for human consumption we must adhear to the size and catch limits set forth by the governing bodies. And equally important, recycle/repurpose used goods and stop polluting.
It amazes me that any human would think we have little impact on the earths oceans. Keep living in denial people.

I still don't agree. It is all about perspective. Maybe to us it may seem detrimental but humanity won't be here forever. After we are long gone the ocean will recoup just fine on its own. To us, having no coral for 50-100 years is nothing. Say the oceans recoup in 3,000 years? You know how long the earth has been around and how much longer it will be? 3,000 years in that perspective is like today and tomorrow for us humans. So, it is really all perspective. You think all these structures we have built will be around forever? We are the Romans or the Egyptians here, our buildings crumble and our homes are stick houses. Really, the world will be fine once the human race is gone. For us though, in our lifetime, it is a lost cause.

Basically you are making us humans look like we matter more in this universe more than we really do. How I am trying to explain it is comparing the life of a mosquito to us humans. To the mosquito, its life could be amazing and a long journey and to them, their life may have a lot of meaning, but that is their perspective. To us, it is a few hours and worthless. But time does not exist. What a day is to us may be years for a mosquito. Our lifetime, and impact on the reefs may be minutes to the universe as a whole.

So, I see your point, but it is based on perspective.

billsreef
08/04/2013, 07:16 PM
Perspective is good. Though I'm not sure why anyone would have a perspective other than "Let's take care of what we have, while we have it." Sure in a million years the human species could well be extinct, and the earth erase all signs of our presence. However, from my perspective that seems like a lousy reason not to take care of what we have now. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't like breathing smog, I don't like being offshore and seeing garbage, I don't like seeing degraded environments that solely degraded to the human species carelessness...not really concerned about after we're extinct, but I am concerned with what I see and what I can expect my daughter to see in her lifetime.

Mattewell
08/06/2013, 12:17 PM
+1 I'm with ya Bill.

Deinonych
08/06/2013, 05:39 PM
Perspective is good. Though I'm not sure why anyone would have a perspective other than "Let's take care of what we have, while we have it." Sure in a million years the human species could well be extinct, and the earth erase all signs of our presence. However, from my perspective that seems like a lousy reason not to take care of what we have now. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't like breathing smog, I don't like being offshore and seeing garbage, I don't like seeing degraded environments that solely degraded to the human species carelessness...not really concerned about after we're extinct, but I am concerned with what I see and what I can expect my daughter to see in her lifetime.

+1

Well said. Even if the predictions about climate change turn out to be inaccurate, what is wrong with trying to be more environmentally aware? Don't waste resources, recycle what you can etc. As the scuba expression goes, "leave only bubbles."

Sparkpaul
08/06/2013, 06:30 PM
Good debate
I can't help but agree with both side of the argument

atreis
08/08/2013, 04:56 PM
I donate the Marine Conservation Society, and try to buy carefully and sparingly.

Sparkpaul
08/10/2013, 06:43 AM
I eat seafood

the green goby
08/23/2013, 04:21 AM
Just 10+ years ago fishing in local stream use be so different, abundance of fish, no silt, cool water but now every thing is dead and that all goes to the Oceans. We should put some more focus on fixing up the streams. People don't always see think link between head waters and the Ocean. I use to donate to TU every year when I could afford and I know they work on cleaning up streams. Any ways aqua culturing things at home is as much as Ill probably be able to do.

vitz
08/26/2013, 07:30 AM
50-100 yrs??!!! lol-that's WAAAAY too generous a timeline.

try closer to 20-30, given only the present rate of decline, and assuming an immediate cessation of all CO2 emissions planetwide. the coral reefs worldwide have basically been given the death sentence already, it's just a q of how much faster the demise given the accelerating and 'newly developing' (e.g. methane release from the now thawing permafrost in the arctic regions) feedback loops we've now started due to colossally high CO2 levels we've produced. the rate of the reefs' decay will only speed up over the 'near future', as the 'developing world' pollutes more as a consequence of said development.

i'd suggest subscribing to NOAA's coral-list, if anyone wants to get aware of the real time developments re: climate change's effects on coral reefs, and what the top reef scientists are saying/observing factually, without populist armchair science 'debates' ;)

and if ANY of the posters here drive a car, or use electricity,plastics, fertilizer, etc., etc., your well intended efforts to 'help the reef' are really nothing but a useless gesture that may make you feel a bit better, but accomplish nothing to mitigate the damage you're causing by your very lifestyle/mode of living, unfortunately :(

all of the collective 'drop in a bucket' contributions of well meaning individuals pale in comparison to the thousands upon thousands of garbage spewing factories/refineries/smokestacks/combustion engines/etc planet wide, to say nothing of the other toxic environmental poisons we release on a massive scale into the environment (pcb's, mercury, etc) every second.

save your money and time- making your carbon footprint as small as possible, and removing toxic chemical use from your lifestyle and culture is really the only meaningful contribution one can make when it comes to taking action to attempt 'saving the reefs'. and it has to happen EVERYWHERE, not just in the u.s. ;)

anything else is feely goody window dressing ;)

in less than 2 generations there will most likely be no more tuna (certainly there won't be any that are considered safe to eat- some tuna species, if not all, and many other apex predator fish are already so full of mercury you shouldn't be eating them at all, e.g.)

vitz
08/26/2013, 07:39 AM
need superman to turn time back ....

if no superman, then earth will age, and as it ages, things change. strong will adapt and survive, and the less strong might be out of luck.... unless they can change.

as mentioned above, corals and fish have shown to be able to adapt to the changes.... the millions of years that we were not around ... I think its rather selfish to think we would have such effects on such old and mature system ... 70 % of earth is water, which means we are nothing compared to it all ... so we wont be able to change anything, good or bad.

surface temp rises ? corals will adapt to lower light and grow deeper ... look at all the limestone islands and .... they were once a coral reef !imagine if we were around at those times ? we would be all worried that we are drinking too much and draining the oceans lol we would try to "solve" evolution of earth, which would not be that smart ... same thing here iMHO. we are just tooooo small and live way too short to get to know the bigger picture.


imagine life of an organism that lives for 1 second, in our reef tanks. each wave produced by MP40 would mean a life time of drought, or flood for that organism . it lives less than duration of a "wave". thats how we are too ... we are looking at a very small window of time and space and trying to guess everything.

JMHO,

how long does it take for a coral to 'adapt' to deeper water/lower light ?

what happens to the entire coral ecosystem while this is happening ?

how is the age alone of any environmental system even relevant to how easily it can be disrupted ?

the mere idea of assuming we can't grasp a bigger picture is ludicrous. you don't think we have a better understanding of the 'bigger pictures' of the natural world, the solar system, moon, universe, oceans, climate dynamics than we did 100 yrs. ago ?

nothing personal, but your post is so full of ignorance of how things really work in the natural world, how we've progressed in our understanding of it, and the issue(S) at hand that it truly saddens me :(

billsreef
08/26/2013, 05:47 PM
in less than 2 generations there will most likely be no more tuna (certainly there won't be any that are considered safe to eat- some tuna species, if not all, and many other apex predator fish are already so full of mercury you shouldn't be eating them at all, e.g.)

Just yesterday a grad student (fisheries biology) was telling me about this big news of a 600lb Blue Fin Tuna being caught. He was amazed when I told him 20 some odd years ago that small of a Tuna wouldn't have made the news. The true giant tuna (1,000lbs) are a thing of the past. Truly a big decline, especially when you consider the loss of fecundity that goes with the loss of the big fish.

vitz
08/26/2013, 07:44 PM
Just yesterday a grad student (fisheries biology) was telling me about this big news of a 600lb Blue Fin Tuna being caught. He was amazed when I told him 20 some odd years ago that small of a Tuna wouldn't have made the news. The true giant tuna (1,000lbs) are a thing of the past. Truly a big decline, especially when you consider the loss of fecundity that goes with the loss of the big fish.


http://www.collapsingintoconsciousness.com/at-the-very-least-your-days-of-eating-pacific-ocean-fish-are-over/

and there's also things like the above we now need to consider

:(

Phixer
09/23/2013, 08:08 PM
Interesting discussion and we have a responsibility not to cause further harm or damage to the environment we live in.

Many think it but few say it. Considering each person is only on this planet for a very short time I would rather live for today the way I want too than hope for tomorrow living a restrained life because the "yellow belly sap sucker" is endangered. I personally dont care what happens after Im gone as there is too much factual probability otherwise, natural disasters, comets etc... Darwin was right.

Peter Eichler
09/24/2013, 12:15 PM
http://www.collapsingintoconsciousness.com/at-the-very-least-your-days-of-eating-pacific-ocean-fish-are-over/

and there's also things like the above we now need to consider

:(

Holy pseudoscience... I'm so tired of people with an agenda manipulating and misrepresenting information. I have not seen information from a single credible source that radiation levels in fish are approaching levels anywhere near dangerous. The test results I've seen for foods absolutely have some of the radioactive compounds mentioned in the article. What they fail to mention is the level these compounds are found at. From what I've seen you get more radiation exposure from walking down an average city street that you would by consuming many servings of these foods. Perhaps seafood is different from agricultural products, but I somehow doubt it.

Allmost
09/24/2013, 12:32 PM
how long does it take for a coral to 'adapt' to deeper water/lower light ?

what happens to the entire coral ecosystem while this is happening ?

how is the age alone of any environmental system even relevant to how easily it can be disrupted ?

the mere idea of assuming we can't grasp a bigger picture is ludicrous. you don't think we have a better understanding of the 'bigger pictures' of the natural world, the solar system, moon, universe, oceans, climate dynamics than we did 100 yrs. ago ?

nothing personal, but your post is so full of ignorance of how things really work in the natural world, how we've progressed in our understanding of it, and the issue(S) at hand that it truly saddens me :(

I'll just tell a story.

imagine an yo-yo. we have all played with one. now imagine an Ant on the floor, right under where I am playing with my "yo-yo"

the Ant looks up, sees a huge sphere coming for it. it gathers its friends and family to leave ... probably screaming "its coming to kill us all" and right at that time, the yo-yo bounces back up and ....

the Ant simply was too small to understand and see the whole picture :)

Earth has gone through Ice ages, thats a fact right ? and there are still fish and corals in the ocean. right ? so the yo-yo will come close ... but it seems like its not hitting the floor where we are sitting.

ocean's water level is rising. maybe the corals reefs we have now will become the bed for the next generation of coral reef ? I really do not have any of the answers. but Im just saying corals and fish have lived and survived this planet millions and millions of years before us ... and if you look at what we think was going on before, they have gone through ALOT worse things and made it back...

we do have a better understanding of the world around us, compared to 100 years ago. But the point is, 100 years in the history of this universe is like a grain of sand on earth ...

Look at the most un-inhabitable places on this planet. there are animals that have adapted to live there. look at the bottom of the ocean ... by volcanos and .... there is life there too !

just my opinion, and by no means am I saying we should sit back and do nothing ... I just feel like we are trying to change something that is much much much bigger than us, and trying to change a path, which we dont know where it started from and where it is supposed to end. on my way to work, I take the highway ... go south. at one point the highway turns and goes east for a bit. since I know the start and finish, I know the east turn is normal, we are just going around a couple of heritage buildings ... but if I didnt, and just started studying that second of time ... I would assume we are going the wrong direction ....

atreis
09/25/2013, 05:53 PM
Many think it but few say it. Considering each person is only on this planet for a very short time I would rather live for today the way I want too than hope for tomorrow living a restrained life because the "yellow belly sap sucker" is endangered. I personally dont care what happens after Im gone as there is too much factual probability otherwise, natural disasters, comets etc... Darwin was right.

While I personally completely, totally, utterly, disagree with most of what you've said here (the exception being the bit about "many think it but few say it") I do appreciate the straight-forward honesty.

It seems most who think like you try to spin things to not sound quite so bad to those who think like me, which is actually fairly pointless.

Phixer
10/09/2013, 04:02 PM
While I personally completely, totally, utterly, disagree with most of what you've said here (the exception being the bit about "many think it but few say it") I do appreciate the straight-forward honesty.

It seems most who think like you try to spin things to not sound quite so bad to those who think like me, which is actually fairly pointless.

Honesty is the best way my friend, that said...Eventually one cannot disagree with reality. Im not the one your argueing with but rather your anger and resentment towards the world is actually frustration within yourself. Im just someone to vent it on because I said what you didnt want to hear.

It is hard to accept the fact that overpopulation is the source of nearly every problem the world has today and few have the strength or courage to change it. Thats not how they get elected in this system designed to keep people dependent.


You will disagree again.... but we both know this true. Arguing against it is arguing with the weather.
I just see your opinion as different because you havent experienced the same things. No man is an island but some need an ocean of support and assurance . I dont think your weak or a p ussy but rather you have just had different life experiences and have become highly dependent upon a man made system.

Allmost is right.

addo
10/16/2013, 12:15 PM
Ok, back on topic.

I am convinced that the only way to help an ecosystem in any significant way, whether its a reef, a forest or something else; is to do it locally, with projects that are well founded on a grassroots level within the local community.

In under developed countries (where most tropical reefs are), that almost always mean that the locals can make a living, or at least profit from the project. Otherwise their only option to make money usually means working with something that is really bad for the environment, like in a waste spewing factory, for a logging company, etc.

So what i do to help the reefs is buying livestock that is wild collected, or farmed in the ocean in the same area as the reefs.
When I'm abroad i try to by the services of as many people as possible who rely on a healthy environment for their business, ie. go diving, fishing, on safaris etc.

In other words i try to give people an economic incentive to help the environment, instead of just the altruistic one (witch sadly but obviously isn't working :deadhorse:)

Ofc. I recycle and try to save energy too, but that is more of a general effort than a direct attempt at helping a specific ecosystem.

necessary_evil
10/16/2013, 03:33 PM
Not reef specific, but its pretty despicable the about of money that gets wasted with RO systems, use a booster pump and find a way to reclaim the "waste" water.

vitz
11/02/2013, 10:19 AM
i'd like to hear not only what actions people take, but also their explanations as to how they think their actions are helping reefs ;)

atreis
11/02/2013, 10:23 AM
Why? What are you hoping to get from this conversation?

vitz
11/02/2013, 11:35 AM
Why? What are you hoping to get from this conversation?

for starters (not that i owe you an explanation, heh), many of the actions people take under the guise of 'saving reefs' or 'reefing responsibly' (i still don't even know what that means-from a conservation or reef health standpoint, this hobby is anything BUT responsible to reefs, and the only 'responsible reefkeeping i can come up with is making sure one's tank stays healthy) are ones that they THINK accomplish something from the actions they take, only to find out when researching that action that it actually accomplishes very little to nothing, and is more a 'feely goody' panacea to alleviate some form of guilt.

nothing wrong w/the feeling, or the intent-but alot of people's contributions to what they THINK is a good thing, more often than not, isn't. (like contributing to a wildlife fund or 'conservation group' that does little more w/their funds other than paying themselves hefty salaries, like the infamous 'mac', e.g.)

so, i'm curious as to people's thought processes regarding not only WHAT action they take, but also why, and to see if folks are actually making *informed* decisions, or just taking 'surface action' to alleviate some 'pang of conscience' and asuming they did their 'good deed'.

or i might simply be curious-why should my 'motive' matter ? ;) if you think i'm trolling, just ignore the question, lol.

another thing i'm curious about is what do folks here think 'responsible reefkeeping' means (to them) ?

Jerzey
11/02/2013, 11:53 AM
No matter what the world does to try and conform to the so called "environmental marine standards" to try to save our precious reefs no one can get mother nature and natural geological shifts to help save the reef environment... We live on a hostile planet and throughout the history of mother earth death and destruction will eventually balance out and over a long drawn out period of time in human years will eventually once again bring construction and balance to our oceans and build our planets reefs to epic beautiful ecosystems that were used to seeing... The Planets been around for millions of years and humans have only been around a fraction of that time to document and study our world, it may be new to us seeing our reefs retreating but trust me this isn't the first time nor is it the last time... I would be more worried about an asteroid or meteor sterilizing the planet!

atreis
11/03/2013, 06:07 AM
for starters (not that i owe you an explanation, heh)

Likewise - not that we owe you any explanation for our actions. My question is as fair a question as yours.

, many of the actions people take under the guise of 'saving reefs' or 'reefing responsibly' (i still don't even know what that means-from a conservation or reef health standpoint, this hobby is anything BUT responsible to reefs, and the only 'responsible reefkeeping i can come up with is making sure one's tank stays healthy) are ones that they THINK accomplish something from the actions they take, only to find out when researching that action that it actually accomplishes very little to nothing

Two points on the hobby:
1. The hobby itself, directly, is not reef friendly. It involves removing very specific animals from the reef without regard to keeping things balanced, and of course that's, at best, neutral and very likely not good.
2. The hobby raises awareness of the wonder and beauty of the reefs, possibly (hopefully) encouraging people to try to do things to help them, and this is, at worst, neutral and very likely good.

I've no idea which of those outweighs the other.

There is only one way to help the reef and truly KNOW that you've done something good to help the reef: Do it yourself and then observe the improvement. Living where I live, that's just not practical.

, and is more a 'feely goody' panacea to alleviate some form of guilt.

Yep. Many people go to church for much the same reason. People feel guilt and like to have it assuaged.

nothing wrong w/the feeling, or the intent-but alot of people's contributions to what they THINK is a good thing, more often than not, isn't. (like contributing to a wildlife fund or 'conservation group' that does little more w/their funds other than paying themselves hefty salaries, like the infamous 'mac', e.g.)

I'm firmly of the belief that most conservation organizations use the majority of funds to do good, or at least to try to do good. (I do research who I donate to.) Obviously, people should get paid for their work, whether they work for a non-profit or for-profit enterprise. I don't begrudge them their pay and fully expect that some portion of any money that I donate will go to that end.

See previous comment - it's not practical for me to help reefs directly, living where I live. If I donate $100 to a conservation organization and they apply only $1 of that to helping a reef, that's $1 more than otherwise.

I've found that most of the time when people make arguments like yours, it's really just an excuse to keep their time/money and do nothing - a form of greed.

...
or i might simply be curious-why should my 'motive' matter ?

Why should mine, or anyone else's, matter? You asked about motives, and so did I.

if you think i'm trolling, just ignore the question, lol.

The jury's still out on that one.

another thing i'm curious about is what do folks here think 'responsible reefkeeping' means (to them) ?

This is a different question from helping the reefs, btw.

Responsible reefkeeping:
1. Keeping your animals healthy and alive.
2. Selecting animals that have been captive-bred, fragged, etc. where possible.
3. Where #2 does not apply, selecting animals that are not being over-harvested. (This requires some research.)
4. Where #2 does not apply, selecting animals harvested in a responsible fashion. (Not the same as #3.)
5. When the inevitable happens (tank shutdown), taking care to insure the animals are passed along to another person who will also care for them responsibly.
6. Not waiting to shutdown the tank until after many animals have died due to neglect. (Roughly the same as #1, but I've seen this variant happen far too often. People lose interest, but leave things run because shutting a tank down is a lot of work...)

vitz
11/03/2013, 09:11 AM
well, i was directly involved (working for) w/a conservation oriented ngo for awhile, so certainly no using of that argument about my points being used as rationaliztions for 'non-participation' towards me, heh. (you'll find some posts by me re: my involvement w/ one of their past efforts) if you do a search on my nick here from '03-04-ish). ;)

vitz
11/03/2013, 09:15 AM
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=324624&highlight=save

there ya go ;)

rest assured i never troll, my questions are always genuine, and my advice and arguments are always offered in earnest :)

addo
11/03/2013, 11:22 AM
Two points on the hobby:
1. The hobby itself, directly, is not reef friendly. It involves removing very specific animals from the reef without regard to keeping things balanced, and of course that's, at best, neutral and very likely not good.

2. Selecting animals that have been captive-bred, fragged, etc. where possible.


I'm very interested in hearing your thoughts on my view on buying wild collected livestock, since you seem pretty convinced that buying captive bred livestock is better for the environment than wild caught.

My view is that the collecting of livestock in the wild, always provides an economic incentive for the collector to protect the whole ecosystem where the collecting is done. Whereas captive breding of that species does not make any difference for that ecosystem what so ever (good or bad), the exception would be locally bred animals.

I share this view both CITES and the WWF, plus every informed person I have ever discussed this with.

I might also ad that no species has ever gone extinct because of collecting for the aquarium hobby, there are allot off rumors of over collecting threatening certain species. But so far all of these rumors have turned out to bee false alarms. There are however certain cases where the collection might in theory have a slim chance of making a species go extinct, but in all in all i think the benefits of wild collecting far outweighs the dangers from an environmental point of view.

There are however a couple of examples where the collection of certain spices has protected that ecosystem, for example the collection of Malavi ciklids vs the introduction of nile perch in lake malavi.

PS, I hope this made sense and didn't come of as rude/blunt or anything. It was harder than I thought to write in English. I just think its interesting to discuss different takes on what is good for the environment with someone who seems as environmentally conscious as I am, but has a very different approach to it :)

JustinLee
11/04/2013, 03:09 AM
It's shocking how deliberately ignorant some people are.
Honestly, what is the point of fighting and saying that we do not effect the ocean at all? Who or what does that benefit? No one and nothing.
Why not just treat the ocean like we do effect it regardless?
What does it hurt to reduce, reuse, recycle? Nothing.
It's also a stupid argument to say the aquarium trade is used as a sort of population control.
I believe anyone in this hobby should treat their fish like a family member.
Treating them like children's toys is a violation of nature.
Though I do respect everyone is entitled to an opinion, it's sad to me to see some of you who call yourself hobbyists to act the way you do.

Reeferz412
11/04/2013, 01:06 PM
Living in FL, I go to the beach almost every two or three weeks. It bothers me whenever I find trash on the beach, especially right where the shore is. I usually start pickin up whatever I can grab or see floating and collect the caps in my shorts pocket. Amazing how many caps you find. I throw it all away when I leave. Just a habit I have every time I go to the beach.

KafudaFish
11/04/2013, 01:35 PM
It's shocking how deliberately ignorant some people are.
Honestly, what is the point of fighting and saying that we do not effect the ocean at all? Who or what does that benefit? No one and nothing.
Why not just treat the ocean like we do effect it regardless?
What does it hurt to reduce, reuse, recycle? Nothing.
It's also a stupid argument to say the aquarium trade is used as a sort of population control.
I believe anyone in this hobby should treat their fish like a family member.
Treating them like children's toys is a violation of nature.
Though I do respect everyone is entitled to an opinion, it's sad to me to see some of you who call yourself hobbyists to act the way you do.

I love how you stated that people are deliberately ignorant (Is that even possible? Once one learns of this, then one is aware of it therefore one is no longer ignorant) and then you tell us how you respect everyone.

vitz
11/04/2013, 02:33 PM
It's shocking how deliberately ignorant some people are.
Honestly, what is the point of fighting and saying that we do not effect the ocean at all? Who or what does that benefit? No one and nothing.
Why not just treat the ocean like we do effect it regardless?
What does it hurt to reduce, reuse, recycle? Nothing.
It's also a stupid argument to say the aquarium trade is used as a sort of population control.
I believe anyone in this hobby should treat their fish like a family member.
Treating them like children's toys is a violation of nature.
Though I do respect everyone is entitled to an opinion, it's sad to me to see some of you who call yourself hobbyists to act the way you do.

calling an argument 'stupid' without explaining why is mutually exclusive to respecting someone-just food for thought...

whether by intent or not-extraction of livestock from the wild does indeed act as a form of 'population control'. it might not be of benefit to anything in that environment, and it may be the worst type of population control possible (as in not considering the balance upset from over harvesting, e.g.,), but it's a control of sorts nonetheless.

but as far as the reef is concerned, there's absolutely no diff between a shark eating a grouper, or a net doing the same. something non-grouperish removed the grouper. ;)

vitz
11/04/2013, 02:46 PM
I'm very interested in hearing your thoughts on my view on buying wild collected livestock, since you seem pretty convinced that buying captive bred livestock is better for the environment than wild caught.

My view is that the collecting of livestock in the wild, always provides an economic incentive for the collector to protect the whole ecosystem where the collecting is done. Whereas captive breding of that species does not make any difference for that ecosystem what so ever (good or bad), the exception would be locally bred animals.

I share this view both CITES and the WWF, plus every informed person I have ever discussed this with.

I might also ad that no species has ever gone extinct because of collecting for the aquarium hobby, there are allot off rumors of over collecting threatening certain species. But so far all of these rumors have turned out to bee false alarms. There are however certain cases where the collection might in theory have a slim chance of making a species go extinct, but in all in all i think the benefits of wild collecting far outweighs the dangers from an environmental point of view.

There are however a couple of examples where the collection of certain spices has protected that ecosystem, for example the collection of Malavi ciklids vs the introduction of nile perch in lake malavi.

PS, I hope this made sense and didn't come of as rude/blunt or anything. It was harder than I thought to write in English. I just think its interesting to discuss different takes on what is good for the environment with someone who seems as environmentally conscious as I am, but has a very different approach to it :)


fwiw, the wwf is one of the biggest, most inefficient lies on the planet, in the world of conservation.

given the still rampant use of cyanide in this industry, it appears that your belief that all collection benefits an area because the collectors realize the vested interest they have in continuing to help the resource exists, is for the most part, purely utopian.

most of the areas of tropical marine ornamental collection suffer nothing BUT decline from the collecting community-the areas where collectors actually make the effort to benefit the ecosystem they collect in is few and very far between.

the only reason why the aquarium hobby has yet to push anything to extinction, is that it's a very tiny industry, all things considered. but if this industry's present behavior and attitude was working on a far larger scale, you'd see anemones and clownfish gone in 10 yrs, i'll bet. you're confusing a practice result (too small a scale to do enough large scale damage to wipe something out), with an attitude/belief system (of sorts).

you should do some research on what happened to entire tracts of reef in the phillipines in the 70's/80s/90s.

searching 'the industry behind the hobby' forum on rdo for yrs 2002-2008 will turn up LOTS of info as to what this industry ACTUALLY does/did/is still doing to reef environs the world over. for the most part, it isn't pretty (though it's certainly not a major factor, given the present pollution issues the reefs are facing worldwide, as well as overfishing for commercial food harvest.).

e.g.-over fishing of sharks will then lead to an increase of disease, because the sharks aren't there any longer to eat the sick fish, instead of letting it hang around to infect others. this is but one of many real concerns facing the reefs today, and there are hundreds.

;)

JustinLee
11/04/2013, 08:01 PM
but as far as the reef is concerned, there's absolutely no diff between a shark eating a grouper, or a net doing the same. something non-grouperish removed the grouper. ;)

what do you think starts happening to sharks when they don't have as many groupers to eat?
There is absolutely a difference.

JustinLee
11/04/2013, 08:08 PM
I love how you stated that people are deliberately ignorant (Is that even possible? Once one learns of this, then one is aware of it therefore one is no longer ignorant) and then you tell us how you respect everyone.

It is very possible. You are deliberately refusing to open your eyes to the truth.
You would rather live in a fantasy that you are not part of the problem.
There for, you are remaining ignorant because you do not want to acknowledge the truth.

I didn't say I respect everyone. I said I respect that they are entitled to an opinion. Does not mean I won't disagree and think the opinion is stupid.

vitz
11/04/2013, 08:34 PM
what do you think starts happening to sharks when they don't have as many groupers to eat?
There is absolutely a difference.

a does not=b ;)

we are just another apex predator-the reason for the predation is the only difference between why we take a fish, or a shark does.

from the ecosystem's standpoint, there's more of a loss when we take something, because it doesn't get recycled directly/immediately back into the food chain of the ocean.

objectively, that's about it, as far as REMOVING things from the reef go.

our problem is that we don't have to (short term) do the removal under the immediate constraints/checks/balances of that ecosystem, the way a shark does. (e.g.-overfishing-something a shark CAN'T do, because it's directly limited by the food source availability for the removal by the shark).

top predators also can get outcompeted for groupers by other top predators. i'm sure there's been plenty of times when sharks went hungry because lionfish ate future adult groupers as fry, or a particular species of grouper out competing another for food. that kind of thing happens all the time naturally, AND when we do it 'un-naturally'.

vitz
11/04/2013, 08:44 PM
It's shocking how deliberately ignorant some people are.
Honestly, what is the point of fighting and saying that we do not effect the ocean at all? Who or what does that benefit? No one and nothing.
Why not just treat the ocean like we do effect it regardless?
What does it hurt to reduce, reuse, recycle? Nothing.
It's also a stupid argument to say the aquarium trade is used as a sort of population control.
I believe anyone in this hobby should treat their fish like a family member.
Treating them like children's toys is a violation of nature.
Though I do respect everyone is entitled to an opinion, it's sad to me to see some of you who call yourself hobbyists to act the way you do.

i'm willing to wager i'm far less ignorant than you on every reef related subject in your above post, especially when it comes to what actually happens during collection for this hobby, and how it impacts upon the various reefs worldwide where it occurs, having been involved in most parts of the coc (chain of custody) of this industry for awhile. ;)

if you knew what your 'family members' had to go through just to get to this country, let alone your tank, you would never be in this hobby to begin with. the very fact of being in this hobby, or supporting it economically, pretty much puts you on equal moral ground with everyone here ;)

JustinLee
11/04/2013, 08:51 PM
i'm willing to wager i'm far less ignorant than you on every reef related subject in your above post, especially when it comes to what actually happens during collection for this hobby, and how it impacts upon the various reefs worldwide where it occurs, having been involved in most parts of the coc (chain of custody) of this industry for awhile. ;)

if you knew what your 'family members' had to go through just to get to this country, let alone your tank, you would never be in this hobby to begin with. the very fact of being in this hobby, or supporting it economically, pretty much puts you on equal moral ground with everyone here ;)

Try me. I am fully aware of what my fish had to go through to get to my tank.
They say that for 1 fish to make to an aquarium 10 fish had to die. I'm willing to wager that number is higher.
I quit my job at a fish store for this reason when my boss told me to let go of emotional attachments to fish because money is more important and to sell as many fish as possible regardless of the tank.

The only fish I have in my aquarium are either rescue fish or donations from other hobbyists who tore down their tank. That is why I take the best care possible for my fish and haven't had a single fish die in my system. I don't mindlessly smash big fish in a small tank to let them die.

And quit with the winky faces. You come off as a jerk who is losing an argument.

JustinLee
11/04/2013, 09:01 PM
A quick browse through your posts made me realize you are not worth the argument. You are a troll who literally has nothing better to do than to talk crap on the Internet.
Nothing any human on earth could say would change your twisted views.
Funny you have nearly zero positive threads on your page.

billsreef
11/04/2013, 09:19 PM
[flamealert]...

vitz
11/04/2013, 09:25 PM
Try me. I am fully aware of what my fish had to go through to get to my tank.
They say that for 1 fish to make to an aquarium 10 fish had to die.
I quit my job at a fish store for this reason when my boss told me to let go of emotional attachments to fish because money is more important and to sell as many fish as possible regardless of the tank.

The only fish I have in my aquarium are either rescue fish or donations from other hobbyists who tore down their tank.

And quit with the winky faces. You come off as a jerk who is losing an argument.

please describe how a fish is collected, and how it's transported/held prior to export.

please explain what %age of fish die at each point of the coc, and what those coc points are

please explain what collecting w/cyanide does to reefs, it's use history w/the ptfea, how and why it's used, and what the cyanide situation is today.

please explain how the trade has improved the doa/daa to initial catch rates, and what they are today (hint, it's far BETTER than 10/1, after export, at the wholesale and retail level (pers exp).

how long have you been following this industry ? have you ever been involved in any part of the industry other than an lfs? wholesale ? distribution? an lfs is hardly reflective of the industry as a whole.

how many lfs's have you worked at total ? if it's a couple, do you think that 2 are a representative example of all lfs's ?

have you ever talked/chatted/emailed people who work in the other aspects of the industry to make yourself aware of what they see, think, and do ?


i think you might be making extrapolations on things you (probably) know very little about based on a VERY limited experience level vis-a-vis the industry as a whole ;)


why do you hate the omniscient winky ? ;)

addo
11/05/2013, 06:10 AM
1) fwiw, the wwf is one of the biggest, most inefficient lies on the planet, in the world of conservation.

2) given the still rampant use of cyanide in this industry, it appears that your belief that all collection benefits an area because the collectors realize the vested interest they have in continuing to help the resource exists, is for the most part, purely utopian.

3) most of the areas of tropical marine ornamental collection suffer nothing BUT decline from the collecting community-the areas where collectors actually make the effort to benefit the ecosystem they collect in is few and very far between.

4) the only reason why the aquarium hobby has yet to push anything to extinction, is that it's a very tiny industry, all things considered. but if this industry's present behavior and attitude was working on a far larger scale, you'd see anemones and clownfish gone in 10 yrs, i'll bet. you're confusing a practice result (too small a scale to do enough large scale damage to wipe something out), with an attitude/belief system (of sorts).

5) you should do some research on what happened to entire tracts of reef in the phillipines in the 70's/80s/90s.

6) searching 'the industry behind the hobby' forum on rdo for yrs 2002-2008 will turn up LOTS of info as to what this industry ACTUALLY does/did/is still doing to reef environs the world over. for the most part, it isn't pretty (though it's certainly not a major factor, given the present pollution issues the reefs are facing worldwide, as well as overfishing for commercial food harvest.).

7) e.g.-over fishing of sharks will then lead to an increase of disease, because the sharks aren't there any longer to eat the sick fish, instead of letting it hang around to infect others. this is but one of many real concerns facing the reefs today, and there are hundreds.

;)

I'll have to make a quick answer since I'm at work.

1, Ok, so you dont like the WWF. How about CITES?

2, In Europe cyanid caught fish havn't been a problem on the market for a long time. And if cyanid fishing was still used on a large scale (rampant as you put it)for the ornamental market, then where are these fish sold? Certanly not to Europe, and I don't hear much complaining about it here on RC so im guessing is no longer a problem in Northamerica. That leaves Asia, Africa, South America, Australilia and the pacific countries. I hope someone from those places can chim in and tell us about the situation there.
My bet is however that now days cyanid-fishing is allmost only done for the food market. But i agree it was a big problem until aquarium wholesalers stopped buying their livestock from questionable sources.

3, The main positive effect on the ecosystem, is not an effort from collectors to help the reefs. It's that they work with collecting for the ornamental market, which has to be done on a relatively small scale.

If they cant work with collecting livestock, chases are that the collectors would have to work with something that is really bad for the reef. Such as in the fishing industry, or in some polluting factory. In developing countries where most reefs are, most of the available jobs are really bad for the environment due to non existing green-legislation, catch quotas etc. So any available alternative to the really bad jobs, is welcome to from an environmental point of view.

4, Yes, it is a tiny industry. And the ornamental market will newer become large enough for it to pose any real threat. Thats what makes working as livestock-collectors so much better than most other alternative livelihoods for people in developing countries.

The result for the environment is the only thing that counts.
It would be nice if everyone had a nice attitude-/belief-system, but us environmentalist need to realise that most people don't have one, and in most places of the world can't afford one.

5, Yes, cyanid-fishing is terrible. Good thing it's not common in the ornamental industry any longer.

6, I completely agree it isn'nt a major factor.

7, How is collecting for the hobby a concern? The industry is way to small to do any other than very localised damage.

billsreef
11/05/2013, 06:48 AM
I'll have to make a quick answer since I'm at work.

1, Ok, so you dont like the WWF. How about CITES?

What's the point here? That is like comparing an apple to a potato.

2, In Europe cyanid caught fish havn't been a problem on the market for a long time. And if cyanid fishing was still used on a large scale (rampant as you put it)for the ornamental market, then where are these fish sold? Certanly not to Europe, and I don't hear much complaining about it here on RC so im guessing is no longer a problem in Northamerica. That leaves Asia, Africa, South America, Australilia and the pacific countries. I hope someone from those places can chim in and tell us about the situation there.
My bet is however that now days cyanid-fishing is allmost only done for the food market. But i agree it was a big problem until aquarium wholesalers stopped buying their livestock from questionable sources.

Got any documented sources for that idea? If Europe is getting any fish from Indonesia and the Phillipines, it's pretty much a guarantee that some have been indeed caught with cyanide.

4, Yes, it is a tiny industry. And the ornamental market will newer become large enough for it to pose any real threat. Thats what makes working as livestock-collectors so much better than most other alternative livelihoods for people in developing countries.

Let's see, cyanide collecting for the ornamental trade damages reef habitat. Bangai's in their original range have seen overfishing, while at the same time seen introduction to areas outside of their original range.

5, Yes, cyanid-fishing is terrible. Good thing it's not common in the ornamental industry any longer.

Once again, can actually document this? Yes, there have been efforts to reduce it, but it is still commmon.

7, How is collecting for the hobby a concern? The industry is way to small to do any other than very localised damage.

Localized damage isn't an issue?


BTW, collecting ornamentals is very much a fishing industry. While it might not be on the same scale as large fishing trawlers and offshore factory ships, it's still a commercial fishery.

vitz
11/05/2013, 07:07 AM
I'll have to make a quick answer since I'm at work.

1, Ok, so you dont like the WWF. How about CITES?

2, In Europe cyanid caught fish havn't been a problem on the market for a long time. And if cyanid fishing was still used on a large scale (rampant as you put it)for the ornamental market, then where are these fish sold? Certanly not to Europe, and I don't hear much complaining about it here on RC so im guessing is no longer a problem in Northamerica. That leaves Asia, Africa, South America, Australilia and the pacific countries. I hope someone from those places can chim in and tell us about the situation there.
My bet is however that now days cyanid-fishing is allmost only done for the food market. But i agree it was a big problem until aquarium wholesalers stopped buying their livestock from questionable sources.

3, The main positive effect on the ecosystem, is not an effort from collectors to help the reefs. It's that they work with collecting for the ornamental market, which has to be done on a relatively small scale.

If they cant work with collecting livestock, chases are that the collectors would have to work with something that is really bad for the reef. Such as in the fishing industry, or in some polluting factory. In developing countries where most reefs are, most of the available jobs are really bad for the environment due to non existing green-legislation, catch quotas etc. So any available alternative to the really bad jobs, is welcome to from an environmental point of view.

4, Yes, it is a tiny industry. And the ornamental market will newer become large enough for it to pose any real threat. Thats what makes working as livestock-collectors so much better than most other alternative livelihoods for people in developing countries.

The result for the environment is the only thing that counts.
It would be nice if everyone had a nice attitude-/belief-system, but us environmentalist need to realise that most people don't have one, and in most places of the world can't afford one.

5, Yes, cyanid-fishing is terrible. Good thing it's not common in the ornamental industry any longer.

6, I completely agree it isn'nt a major factor.

7, How is collecting for the hobby a concern? The industry is way to small to do any other than very localised damage.

it seems to me that most of what your saying are totally unfounded opinions.

1st off (and the most entertaining, for me) is your comparison of the wwf w/cites. do you know what each is, or at least what 'cites' stands for ?

if you don't have a cdt (cyanide detection test), how can you make any claim about cyanide based on what you see upon arrival to your country? you can't. it's well known that the countries that supply the m.o. market in europe, the u.s., and anywhere else use cyanide still, to a large part. it's still VERY common. in some areas, it's actually INCREASED.

"The main positive effect on the ecosystem, is not an effort from collectors to help the reefs. It's that they work with collecting for the ornamental market, which has to be done on a relatively small scale."

wut? where's the effect you seem to want to mention ? are you aware that the m.o. collection has all but eliminated various species of corals from certain areas. many corals and fish are arriving in smaller and smaller sizes, because THE BIG ONES ARE ALREADY TAKEN. your 'small scale' may not be as small, or non impacting, as you think.

i won't even deal w/ your self proffessed ability to foresee the future re: #4, and your assertion that livestock collection is a sole, or best, alternative doesn't hold for everyone or everywhere. not by a long shot.

how much personal experience do you have directly w/ any of the orgs, assumptions/assertions you've listed/made here ? have you worked in the industry ? which part, and for how long ? i get the impression you haven't, and don't.

dc
11/05/2013, 08:50 AM
A quick browse through your posts made me realize you are not worth the argument. You are a troll who literally has nothing better to do than to talk crap on the Internet.
Nothing any human on earth could say would change your twisted views.
Funny you have nearly zero positive threads on your page.


Why do I feel like you took my advice from a previous thread? Most new users don't jump in and start a fight and name calling.

KafudaFish
11/05/2013, 09:10 AM
It is very possible. You are deliberately refusing to open your eyes to the truth.
You would rather live in a fantasy that you are not part of the problem.
There for, you are remaining ignorant because you do not want to acknowledge the truth.

I didn't say I respect everyone. I said I respect that they are entitled to an opinion. Does not mean I won't disagree and think the opinion is stupid.

You write very similar to how Phixer did before he moved on. It is a good thing that you were able to just join RC to fill in his spot. I miss having discussions with him so thank you.

You wouldn’t know him would you?

The reason why I ask is that the both of you use emotion and limited life experiences to generalize and to make blanket statements on an open discussion. So far the only thing that you have stated in this thread is that you worked at a LFS for a period of time and because you anthropomorphized the livestock, you could not handle the responsibilities set forth by the owner. Next you extrapolated your experiences and knowledge of that one store and with a broad stroke painted the entire industry.

I am well aware of the pressures different systems face and the impacts that I have on them. I make choices everyday, some good and some bad and I understand and accept the outcome.

How is that being ignorant?

addo
11/05/2013, 09:37 AM
What's the point here? That is like comparing an apple to a potato.


I wasn't trying to compare, I had mentioned them earlier, since they share my view that the trade with wild animals and plants is part, or at least could be part, of the solution to many environmental problems.


Got any documented sources for that idea? If Europe is getting any fish from Indonesia and the Phillipines, it's pretty much a guarantee that some have been indeed caught with cyanide.

Let's see, cyanide collecting for the ornamental trade damages reef habitat.

Once again, can actually document this? Yes, there have been efforts to reduce it, but it is still commmon.


Well when i started out in the hobby there where tons of talk about people buying fish that had later turned out to be cyanide poisoned. There were always at least one thread going in the Swedish forum where I hangout about someone being angry about having bought a fish that showed sympthoms and had later died, or how to spot a cyanide poisoned fish in the LFS etc.

But now there is max one thread a year which dies away quickly. So something must have changed for the better.

Where/when cyanide fishing is still conducted, I completely agree that it's awful. But I don't really know what i could do to help the issue other than buy my livestock from reputable LFS:s.

Bangai's in their original range have seen overfishing, while at the same time seen introduction to areas outside of their original range.

I am well aware of this. As i mentioned earlier there are a few cases where collection for the ornamental trade could make an species go extinct/ or nearly extinct. And in those cases one needs to act accordingly.

But as a whole i think the trade with wild animals and plants is part of the solution to many environmental problems.


Localized damage isn't an issue?

Of course i certainly hope i didn't come of as if i didn't think so.


BTW, collecting ornamentals is very much a fishing industry. While it might not be on the same scale as large fishing trawlers and offshore factory ships, it's still a commercial fishery.

Sorry, maybe i expressed my self in the wrong way. But you seem to have understood what i meant. :)


it seems to me that most of what your saying are totally unfounded opinions.

I base my opinions on discussions people with people in Sweden mostly, some who are in the industry, some who have been in the industry, and some who has just been in the hobby for a long time. And what i see my self ofc.


1st off (and the most entertaining, for me) is your comparison of the wwf w/cites. do you know what each is, or at least what 'cites' stands for ?

I as i said earlier, i didn't compare them.


if you don't have a cdt (cyanide detection test), how can you make any claim about cyanide based on what you see upon arrival to your country? you can't. it's well known that the countries that supply the m.o. market in europe, the u.s., and anywhere else use cyanide still, to a large part. it's still VERY common. in some areas, it's actually INCREASED.

All the importers I've talked to says its better for them now that they found suppliers they trust (but Sweden is small so there's not that many importers)

If cyanide fishing is still very common, then that is terrible! Is there any good place where i could find statistics or something? Link may bee? If I made a faulty assumption then ofc I will change my mind :uhoh2:


"The main positive effect on the ecosystem, is not an effort from collectors to help the reefs. It's that they work with collecting for the ornamental market, which has to be done on a relatively small scale."

wut? where's the effect you seem to want to mention ? are you aware that the m.o. collection has all but eliminated various species of corals from certain areas. many corals and fish are arriving in smaller and smaller sizes, because THE BIG ONES ARE ALREADY TAKEN. your 'small scale' may not be as small, or non impacting, as you think.

The effect is that it probably would have been worse if the collectors had had other occupations, of course I can't prove this, just as little as you can prove me wrong. Sometimes we just think differently nothing anyone can do, I hope we can still discuss things :)

Sure there are many examples of where the collection of a species has made that species decline in that area, that does not automatically mean the species is in danger. It might mean that in a few instances, and then we should act accordingly. But all in all i think the trade with animals and plants have the potential to help allot of environmental problems.


i won't even deal w/ your self proffessed ability to foresee the future re: #4, and your assertion that livestock collection is a sole, or best, alternative doesn't hold for everyone or everywhere. not by a long shot.

Of course not always and everywhere, but in allot of places.


how much personal experience do you have directly w/ any of the orgs, assumptions/assertions you've listed/made here ? have you worked in the industry ? which part, and for how long ? i get the impression you haven't, and don't.

You got it right, but if you have/ do I would love if you could give me a tip on some literature so i can go study, I'm always interested in learning new stuff :reading:

vitz
11/05/2013, 09:55 AM
if you were truly interested, i'd imagine you would have done the research on your own before making mostly unfounded assertions in a conversation. it's all out there on the internet. have you even tried to google 'cyanide and reef'? or 'cyanide and marine fish colection'? etc. etc.

if you had spent even one day doing the most basic of searches, you would have learned plenty.

given all of that, i can only come to the conclusion that you're not really interested in learning the subject matter you're opining on. :( and i won't waste MY time doing YOUR work for you, let alone help teach someone arrogant enough to use unfounded opinion, stated as 'known facts', as you have done-coming out into a thread and making claims about an industry you basically know NOTHING about, past or present, is NOT the way to go about educating ones self, or approaching others for that info ;)

addo
11/05/2013, 11:07 AM
if you were truly interested, i'd imagine you would have done the research on your own before making mostly unfounded assertions in a conversation. it's all out there on the internet. have you even tried to google 'cyanide and reef'? or 'cyanide and marine fish colection'? etc. etc.

if you had spent even one day doing the most basic of searches, you would have learned plenty.

given all of that, i can only come to the conclusion that you're not really interested in learning the subject matter you're opining on. :( and i won't waste MY time doing YOUR work for you, let alone help teach someone arrogant enough to use unfounded opinion, stated as 'known facts', as you have done-coming out into a thread and making claims about an industry you basically know NOTHING about, past or present, is NOT the way to go about educating ones self, or approaching others for that info ;)

Ok first of all, I'm terribly sorry if I offended you Bill or any one else. I promise it was not my intention :confused: :sad2: :love2: Nether was i trying to state anything as fact, but just general observations, principles. Again I'm sorry if it came out that way, nuances are the trickiest part of language :sad2:

All I wanted to do was express that i think the collection of wild animals and plants has the potential of helping to protect the ecosystems in witch those species are protected. And i know more examples of it helping, than not (granted the cases where it helps, that i know of are not in reefs. But the same principlel should imply).

The whole cyanide debate was only a sidetrack from that issue.
The only reason i asked for links, was that i cant find allot of new information dealing specifically with cyanide and the ornamental trade, when I google.

vitz
11/05/2013, 11:15 AM
for any mpa that shows success, there are at least 10 that are a travesty(ok, maybe 8, heh ;) ).

(not only that, but scientists still argue among themselves as to what criteria to use and how to implement and interpret the data-per emails on coral-list).

areas that have responsible collection practices, or aquaculture, are by far a TINY minority of the sources used in this trade. the phillipines cyanide 'trade' alone probably dwarfs all small ops coral farms put together by orders of magnitude, and the resulting coral destruction might make all present attempts at coral conservation in that area a moot point (to say nothing of the terrestrial based run off pollution caused by more modern lifestyles.).

addo
11/05/2013, 12:24 PM
MPA= marine protected area?

If so I know the mpa:s are no more than on paper in many parts of the world for a whole lot of different reasons. Just look at all the divemovies where the reef in the mpa is completley destroyed. Heck, even Sweden with all our recourses have a hard time keeping idiots from fishing in our protected waters.

This is mainly why i have lost faith in counting on peoples good will, to protect the environment, and trust more in economic incentives.

Regarding cyanide-fishing, I knew it is still a huge problem, but was under the impression that the situation had become much better in the ornamental industry since the 90s, because wholesalers and smaller import-businesses had found trustworthy exporters to buy from.
This impression was based on talking to hobbyists and people in the industry in my part of the world, so in combination with me having a hard time finding new sources regarding cyanid and the ornamental trade, I figured cyanide was almost only used in the live food trade.

Ok,so coral-list on NOOAs webpage? I don't think i I would have found that on my own, it seems like a good place to start looking for info.

vitz
11/05/2013, 12:55 PM
in some areas the usage dropped - most of the places where it dropped, it rose again. other places where it was rarely if ever used then also started to see its use. afaik, bali, sri lanka, and pi are all very high risk for cyanide today. brazil maybe not so much, but all exporters there ship very sick fish-COATED w/either ich or flukes at the least. same for alot of african exporters (pers obs. circa '06-09).

treating fish landed from brazil and africa is pretty much a given for importers, and it's usually a mild 'nightmare' (i've seen queen angels, and flamebacks, so coated w/flukes the body of the fish upon landing was WHITE from a near contiguous layer of flukes, and when removed from the shipping bag, left a 'snowstorm' in the bag itself. on many occasions).

VERY few large ops, if any, give fish/inverts anything close to what i'd consider, at any rate, proper and healthy holding conditions/husbandry before export, and often the damage is done during the 1-2 week journey in a dugout canoe many fish take after being held in a submerged teeny jar for 3-4 days in the collection area the fisherman 'works'.

many fish are 3 weeks into starvation before even being shipped to country of import. THAT seems to me, based on what i've seen, to be as big, if not bigger, mortality cause than cyanide. (many fish tolerate small cyanide doses quite well, it kills coral on contact-the bigger issue w/cyanide is that, NOT what it does to fish-assuming 'correct' dosage).

i think alot of mortality attributed by many via anecdotal observation to cyanide over the years since this hobby really took off ('80's), wasn't. more likely 'user error' and advanced starvation that caused organ (liver) damage advanced enough as to make the fish un recoverable. :(

billsreef
11/05/2013, 07:14 PM
Back in the 80's there were some symptoms that we all thought were from cyanide exposure. Later some researchers (the same ones that originally thought those symptoms were from the cyanide) discovered that those symptoms actually were a result of prolonged starvation in excess of 2 weeks, not the cyanide. It turned out any fish that were going die from the cyanide exposure wouldn't even make it as far as the hobbyist. The biggest issue from cyanide is the short term death of many of the fish exposed at the collection point and the damage done to the reef exposed to the cyanide. As for cyanide detection tests to check for exposure to cyanide at the point of import into the US or Europe, those tests just aren't reliable...not to mention they also require the death of the fish to be tested. Probably the biggest reason you're not finding anything new is that there is sadly nothing new on the cyanide front. It's still prevalent in some localities, just talked about less. Many of the most vocal on the front lines are long since burned out from hitting their heads on that brick wall, as well as having other life issues sideline some of them.

On the MPA idea, if well implemented with sound science, they can be effective. Problem is that politics often gets in the way. It can be hard to get all involved to agree to protecting idea fish habitat, as it also often the ideal fishing area. Spawning aggregations are a prime example. You would think it's a no brainer to leave a well known spawning aggregation alone in order to ensure maximum reproduction potential...and more fish to catch later. But no, it's quite an uphill battle despite the obvious long term benefits.

Reeferz412
11/06/2013, 11:53 AM
I disagree Justinlee. Vitz is a very well informed hobbyist and I have learned quite a bit from him. Only reason some threads get locked is because he says what no one wants to hear and hence why a lot of discussions go sour. Name-calling really isn't going to get this thread anywhere and has nothing to do with the topic. As a new member you are not starting on the right foot calling other members out and calling people ignorant.

power boat jim
11/06/2013, 02:29 PM
I disagree Justinlee. Vitz is a very well informed hobbyist and I have learned quite a bit from him. Only reason some threads get locked is because he says what no one wants to hear and hence why a lot of discussions go sour. Name-calling really isn't going to get this thread anywhere and has nothing to do with the topic. As a new member you are not starting on the right foot calling other members out and calling people ignorant.

Its very possible ole Justin has had more then one go round on this forum and he has been made aware of the rules under several different incarnations.

deadlycombo82
11/06/2013, 07:24 PM
This is a sad fact. I like to hope one day they will add coral to the endangered species list if they haven't already and try to really protect the reefs against damage….but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

ifarmer
11/06/2013, 10:26 PM
we have less than a billion years to enjoy the surface of our planet before it becomes inhospitable. Because our SUN is heating up

r-balljunkie
11/07/2013, 01:38 AM
What are things that we can do to protect reefs?


I don't throw anchors on coral formations, always aim for open sand patches, or tie off on a buoy.

Our local dive club ( www.kwajaleinscubaclub.com ) conducts clean up dive excursions a few times a year.

We practice good diving techniques, don't drag equipment all over the reef.

We self police ourselves out here. if someone catches you collecting a coral to dry out and use as an ashtray, you will be chastised. if you collect a live cowry because its shell is pretty, you will be chastised. if you kill a shark out here for sport or fun, we'll kill you.

I make sure environmental problems are remedied immediately in my work place. if its within my power, i get potential spills and releases addressed and fixed.

I net catch my own fish. im not sure thats being responsible...i dont have a choice.

I used to be a city slicker, now three years + into it....i'm a transplanted islander. Your perspective changes when you actually live on the reef and your not just speculating about whats going on.

The ocean is life, respect it.


anywho.....thats what i do.

C

Stylaster
11/07/2013, 03:15 PM
I personally am setting up a local reef restoration project in Feb 2014 for a resort in Fiji. We are creating a coral farm (same as you would for mariculture to aquarium trade) The coral pieces that are used are broken off pieces that are picked up from the sand bed. The resorts guests and staff will be educated about the farm, be able to help maintain it and once the corals grow out will be transplanted back onto destroyed areas of reef. Then the process will start over again with more cuttings. Im hoping to get more resorts to go along with this idea and help rebuild the reefs in their local area and raise awareness of how fragile the reefs really are.

atreis
11/07/2013, 06:34 PM
for any mpa that shows success, there are at least 10 that are a travesty(ok, maybe 8, heh ;) ).


References, please.

(not only that, but scientists still argue among themselves as to what criteria to use and how to implement and interpret the data-per emails on coral-list).

This is just the nature of science. If they stop arguing it's because they're no longer actively researching, and there's no more new science happening.

It appears that you would prefer to use the above statement as an excuse for doing nothing. (Hmm... Phixer comes to mind...)

areas that have responsible collection practices, or aquaculture, are by far a TINY minority of the sources used in this trade. the phillipines cyanide 'trade' alone probably dwarfs all small ops coral farms put together by orders of magnitude, and the resulting coral destruction might make all present attempts at coral conservation in that area a moot point (to say nothing of the terrestrial based run off pollution caused by more modern lifestyles.).

See your own previous comments about wild-caught fish being better than captive-breeding. The above statement directly contradicts your previous position.

Cyanide is used to collect fish, not coral. Dynamite can be (and has been) used for both.

It's never too late to start conservations efforts.

vitz
11/07/2013, 07:10 PM
References, please.



This is just the nature of science. If they stop arguing it's because they're no longer actively researching, and there's no more new science happening.

It appears that you would prefer to use the above statement as an excuse for doing nothing. (Hmm... Phixer comes to mind...)



See your own previous comments about wild-caught fish being better than captive-breeding. The above statement directly contradicts your previous position.

Cyanide is used to collect fish, not coral. Dynamite can be (and has been) used for both.

It's never too late to start conservations efforts.

i agree-as long as those efforts actually accomplish something. :) a great many don't. :(

i don't recall ever asserting that catching wild is superior to aquacultured or captive prop. -i've been a VERY vocal proponent of tank raised/aquacultured stock since day one. i was a commercial polyaquaculture food fish farmer for 3 yrs., even, heh. in every lfs i ever werked in, i tried to bring in as much ora (and other prop ops) stock in as possible.

the point *i* thought i presented is that objectively, us pulling anything (from the reef) is, AS AN ACTION, no different than any other apex predator, with 2 caveats:

that we can, and do, overstep the natural limits (read: removal rates) imposed on the apex predators of/within that system, and...

that our pulling sidesteps the immediate return of the energy of that organism back to its local/immediate environment

those can certainly have major consequences, if the order of magnitude is sufficient-it's a no brainer, not subject for debate, afaic

as for links, i can't provide them for you-not for lack of wanting,-i'm relying on both pers observation and talk/communication i've observed or participated in w/in the industry. part of which, are discussions in rdo's 'industry behind the hobby' forum, for one, and coral-list, for another. part of which are pers.exp. and/or pers. discussions w/ retailers and whoresalers/importers.

it's very difficult to get objective data OTHER than observations simply due to the nefarious nature and environment of the cyanide loop and it's culture. i'll state w/ absolute confidence again that its use hasn't dropped a drop, worldwide, regardless. and i'm a BIG fan of presentable data, too.

the arguing among scientists that *i'm* referring to is far more the result of a competition for grant money nature. it's a huge issue that interferes w/the scientific community being able to get together to agree on the simplest of things, for one, and also causes some org to find methods that will skew results automatically in favor of 'their' system so it looks more attractive to benefactors/charities.

crap, just the issue on how to do a proper population assessment w/ transects causes an uproar, re: which transect method is 'correct', on the list server, from time to time, for those very reasons.

billsreef
11/07/2013, 07:59 PM
that our pulling sidesteps the immediate return of the energy of that organism back to its local/immediate environment

Now there is an interesting concept that doesn't get talked about much. Interestingly when you look at apex predators (i.e. sharks), healthy ecosystems have healthy apex predator populations. Got to have a healthy energy flow (food chain) to support those top predators. Start pulling out the lower parts of that food chain, and it's like pulling the legs out from under a chair. Things start collapsing.


crap, just the issue on how to do a proper population assessment w/ transects causes an uproar, re: which transect method is 'correct', on the list server, from time to time, for those very reasons.

Those can be indeed interesting. The listservs are much like internet forums, you always a get few that will blindly argue their pet method/theory/cause, etc. The good researchers admit and even talk about the limitations of the various methods. Thankfully I've had the pleasure of working mostly with the goods ones.

ska d
11/07/2013, 08:48 PM
if the number crunchers are correct then say good bye to just about everything else as well. but lately there have been more and more articles and studies that show. basically, we dont have a clue. reefs are recoverring from bleaching events in some parts faster than scientists ever predicted. as well as other discoveries of how coral reefs are dealing with our climate change. i say our because i think we will be gone long before these creatures that have been on this earth a lot longer than we have. its pretty naive of us to think that these fragile organisms that have evolved over millions of years dont have any defense mechanisms. i say this very tongue and cheek, but i dont think we should do anything to save the reefs. nature will take care of itself like it always has, flawlessly. thats not to say we shouldnt be responsible.

sonoma2nv
11/21/2013, 04:17 PM
here in va we add alot to the reefs not tropical but a start usualy cinderblocks or whole ships are sunk

puffster
11/25/2013, 06:11 PM
Sorry people, but I think the title of the thread was, "What are you doing to save the reef." I have seen only a few people answer this question. Myself, I am in my second year of writing a book about the ocean, for young readers. It only has a few more chapters to go, then I can publish. From my experience as a writer and hobbyist, there is so much to be learned from the ocean and one another, as we as hobbyist, unlock reef secrets that scientist can only imagine. So, What is everyone else actually doing to make a difference?
I would like to hear what you are doing to make a difference. We may each only have a spoon......but with each spoon the bucket gets filled up.

Ernie

igot2gats
12/11/2013, 09:31 AM
this hobby is anything BUT responsible to reefs, and the only 'responsible reefkeeping i can come up with is making sure one's tank stays healthy) are ones that they THINK accomplish something from the actions they take, only to find out when researching that action that it actually accomplishes very little to nothing, and is more a 'feely goody' panacea to alleviate some form of guilt.



How about buying captive bred and/or breeding fish? Or how about buying fragged corals?

I understand your point: we are taking from the oceans. But there are actual ways of helping the reefs out besides maintaining a healthy reef.

alton
12/11/2013, 01:06 PM
I buy corals and fish from the people who own the reef. And with that money they feed there family's. Without me and many others the reef is doomed. So many reef's have been demolished by pollution, run off, and many other man made things.

living_waters
01/02/2014, 02:16 AM
I frag my corals and sell or give away:)

raybyrne67
01/10/2014, 08:02 PM
I use only dry reefsaver type rock,and aquacultured corals.

Zooxanthus
01/11/2014, 10:15 AM
I think about this a lot. And there is an air of guilt when i buy something that has come straight out of the ocean. When i think of how much life was lost so i could learn how to keep a reef in my livingroom ... I now only buy corals and fish that were tank raised. That is one of the reasons i signed up for RC in the first place. But its fleeting, I know that people are not going to stop. humans have an innate ability to ignore reality and focus on their own desires. I am glad to see that some are concerned about it but in reality there are way more people who dont care or at least are too focused on their own lives to change that. Hopefully your book can open some eyes!

toky916
01/11/2014, 04:08 PM
"and if ANY of the posters here drive a car, or use electricity,plastics, fertilizer, etc., etc., your well intended efforts to 'help the reef' are really nothing but a useless gesture that may make you feel a bit better, but accomplish nothing to mitigate the damage you're causing by your very lifestyle/mode of living, unfortunately"

Those who buy electric car you guys should look up how making batteries are more harmful to the environment ! And you have to replace tesla battery at 100,000miles that cost 10k that's an example all other battery operated cars are the same story.
China has little to noting like EPA control factories are not regulated yet we buy stuff from china and support that main problem.

I'm truly sick and tired of all of this there is nothing you can do but make your own life decisions. It's earth it's been thru worse and save me the global warming Bull. Just to turn the favor for corporate business man. Look when electricity came out AC and DC both tried to say there's was safer and better.

Zooxanthus
01/12/2014, 11:09 AM
"and if ANY of the posters here drive a car, or use electricity,plastics, fertilizer, etc., etc., your well intended efforts to 'help the reef' are really nothing but a useless gesture that may make you feel a bit better, but accomplish nothing to mitigate the damage you're causing by your very lifestyle/mode of living, unfortunately"

Those who buy electric car you guys should look up how making batteries are more harmful to the environment ! And you have to replace tesla battery at 100,000miles that cost 10k that's an example all other battery operated cars are the same story.
China has little to noting like EPA control factories are not regulated yet we buy stuff from china and support that main problem.

I'm truly sick and tired of all of this there is nothing you can do but make your own life decisions. It's earth it's been thru worse and save me the global warming Bull. Just to turn the favor for corporate business man. Look when electricity came out AC and DC both tried to say there's was safer and better.

So just like most humans you say "F" it eh? I dont want a political debate so this is the last time ill comment here. Iam not even going to try to argue with all the ranting you did in your last post. It sounds to me like you get your info from fox news. If there is a chance, just a chance that pumping billions of tons of gas into the earth can harm us or our ONLY planet. If there is even a chance, why wouldent you try to make things better? Its pointless talking to humans, here is a prime example of how when a human desires something they will just listen to the opposition and take it on as their own cause. Just to have some justification for the things they do and are not prepared to give up. Dont worry bro no one is going to take your away fox news and corporate solutions. Well one day our mother will, but no one will be here to tell you I told you so. Its just a disgrace in my eyes.

KafudaFish
01/12/2014, 12:38 PM
So just like most humans you say "F" it eh? I dont want a political debate so this is the last time ill comment here. Iam not even going to try to argue with all the ranting you did in your last post. It sounds to me like you get your info from fox news. If there is a chance, just a chance that pumping billions of tons of gas into the earth can harm us or our ONLY planet. If there is even a chance, why wouldent you try to make things better? Its pointless talking to humans, here is a prime example of how when a human desires something they will just listen to the opposition and take it on as their own cause. Just to have some justification for the things they do and are not prepared to give up. Dont worry bro no one is going to take your away fox news and corporate solutions. Well one day our mother will, but no one will be here to tell you I told you so. Its just a disgrace in my eyes.

Well I am glad that you did not turn that into a political jab regarding your opinion regarding fox news and corporate America.

Just curious but just where and how did you get all of your reef equipment that you are enjoying right now?

Where did the electronic device come from that you use to surf the web?

Much to ponder.

fragbox
01/13/2014, 12:42 PM
So what i do to help the reefs is buying livestock that is wild collected....

lol ok then

I use only dry reefsaver type rock,and aquacultured corals.

this makes sense

tajaba
01/14/2014, 02:08 AM
Living in thailand (where alot of your tangs and lionfish....lol, come from) I have to say I did witness alot of what happens to a reef first hand due to over-exploitation and degradation. I firmly agree that any person from thailand would also back me up on what I'm about to post.

I am a very avid reef enthusiast. Theres just something about having a little piece of the sea in my room that really helps me sleep at night. That being said, I don't think anyone of us could lie to themselves and say what we do isn't physically destroying the natural reef. I have actually witnessed one of these collection trips and I can tell you it ain't pretty in the slightest. Thankfully no one actually uses cyanide nowadays here cus there are litterally too few reefs left to kill them for a few fish.

In the end, what we CAN do is offset our destruction, even if by a little bit. We don't have to all become conservationists or activists or anything. In the end, if you really wanna help, help by researching, being responsible, taking things seriously, supporting people who are doing the work of trying to maintain and preserve what I believe all reef keepers love, which is basically the ocean. (If you don't love the reef, why spend thousands of perfectly good money on some glass with water in it?).

On a side note, its very funny to read some comments on here. I was once like that too, but the truth is that we humans have the utmost destructive capability of numbers and intelligence that we can literally change our environment so much faster than it can adapt to us. Which is pretty much the basis of civilization. Yes, what some of you on here is definitly true, nature will definitly adapt to us, even the oceans. As a matter of fact, i have seen this too, in phuket. But the change is most likely not going to be pretty in your eyes. Alot of the shallow coastal reefs there are now literally what some of your tanks would look like without a phosphate reactor and overfeeding: over runned by algae.

The ocean will always be here, as you say: long after we're dead. But what alot of us are trying to do is preserve whats beautiful and whats ecologically and economically important, not only for us but many of us are now thinking about what we leave behind for our kids or grandkids (something very particular to human beings). So unless you really love eating tangs and sand gobies, Theres not alot to benefit us from killing off CORAL reefs.
Ps: there are now whole beaches in the tropics that have become macro algae dominated, feeding off water run-offs rich with phosphate and nitrITE)

Personally, i donate to help ecological preservations and spend alot of my time diving and collecting data for research

Edit: not alot of thais actually buy any of our own wild collected fish anymore since we can get them much cheaper from indonesia, so maybe in 50 years time, we'll be the only ones left with a reef?

faithenfire
01/24/2014, 08:51 AM
i buy captive bred and frags when possible. or i'll buy the trade ins at the lfs.
i don't live near the ocean but we in lake michigan's shadow have our own waterborn issues to deal with

addo
01/27/2014, 03:55 AM
lol ok then


At least what i do creates an economic incentive to protect the reefs where the reefs are, and generates income for the communities local to the reefs.

Where as buying tank-bred stuff does absolutely nothing to the reefs good or bad.

guidedbyechoes
02/09/2014, 01:25 PM
I'm starting the long task of working on a website that only sells aquacultured corals.

JPF
03/10/2014, 11:49 AM
I would like to see more Lionfish rodeos. It's amazing where this highly invasive species turns up. I have seen them caught in back rivers in coastal Georgia in less than three feet of water. Ihave seen them while snorkling in the Keys And Puerto Rico. What a mess our hobby has created by the release of just this one species .

Reeferhead
03/19/2014, 12:48 PM
The two biggest positive impacts we can have on the environment is to (1) not have children and (2) become vegans. Personally I relish the concept of #1 (but for more selfish reasons), #2 not so much. :lol:

Reeferhead
04/03/2014, 10:50 AM
At least what i do creates an economic incentive to protect the reefs where the reefs are, and generates income for the communities local to the reefs.


The problem with this logic is that unless there is effective regulation and enforcement some collectors will cheat the system for short-term economic gains. One could make a good argument that the shift in collection of reef fish for food to ornamentals has the potential to take pressure of of wild stocks in some locations and for some species. However, rare species or those which were never collected as food see increased pressure. Also, this logic doesn't apply at all to coral which is rarely collected as food. Though it is used for other purposes as previously mentioned.

You also have to consider that with increase income in the local community comes increased development, the number one impact on near-shore reefs. There is a reason the best reefs on the planet are far far away from human populations. ;)

addo
04/07/2014, 05:30 AM
The problem with this logic is that unless there is effective regulation and enforcement some collectors will cheat the system for short-term economic gains. One could make a good argument that the shift in collection of reef fish for food to ornamentals has the potential to take pressure of of wild stocks in some locations and for some species. However, rare species or those which were never collected as food see increased pressure. Also, this logic doesn't apply at all to coral which is rarely collected as food. Though it is used for other purposes as previously mentioned.

You also have to consider that with increase income in the local community comes increased development, the number one impact on near-shore reefs. There is a reason the best reefs on the planet are far far away from human populations. ;)

Well, I sure have considered what you say, but in areas with out regulation and enforcement people are always going to cheat the system, no matter if they collect ornamentals, or fish for food. So i don't see how this applys on the logic at all. Dynamite fishing for food or cyanide fishing for ornamentals are both equally bad.

What I'm hoping for is just to shift the balance slightly towards the sustainable side.

Sure there are bad sides to increased incomes but also good ones, mainly for human quality of life (which is great) but also for the environment such as lower birth rates, better waste management and that people aren't so desperate for money that they can afford to consider what consequences their actions have on the environment.

But as always reality is much to complex for it to be only one answer or solution to a problem and I'm not naive enough to think that buying wild collected livestock will save the reefs on its own. It will even create new problems in some cases. :)

Yuri Barros
04/07/2014, 05:42 PM
When I die............I wish that my ashes are used in a Reef Ball..........kkkkkk

http://www.reefball.org/


I like this stuff..............

Graffiti Reef
04/08/2014, 05:47 PM
One thing Ill never really get is how people are convinced that what we do has no affect on the reef. Oil spills, toxic dumping, non-biodegradable trash, toxic emissions from factories, nuclear fallout. I mean all of this stuff has only been around since the industrial revolution which wasnt that long ago when you consider our entire existence and yet in that small amount of time we have dramatically changed our environment. These arent skewed statistics coming from hippie scientists pushing the "liberal agenda". Its scientific fact and common sense that all these things we have been doing are directly affecting our oceans. Poison + fish = bad. If youre that confident that the oceans arent affected by the things we do then start dropping a little sulfuric acid, crude oil, or just whatever you have under the sink into your aquarium every so often and see what happens. Now that Im done ranting, heres some of the things I do:

-dont waste water
-try to buy captive bred specimens
-dont litter and dispose of waste properly
-try to avoid supporting companies with bad environmental records

Secondsbest
04/13/2014, 09:27 AM
This thread got me to thinking... I do have some practices to minimize my eco impact, but how impactful is my hobby from a baseline energy consumption perspective. I did a quick bit of research and found that sheet glass production consumes ~5.5 to 8 Giga joules per Mega gram. After doing conversions and some simple math, I calculated that my 75 gallon DT required ~350 cubic ft of natural gas just to produce the glass sheets. That consumption number does not include raw materials mining and refinement, transportation costs, plastics manufacture, etc... My tank is 13 years old, so its not constantly consuming that energy, but my fish keeping do-dad collection seems to be forever growing. When I imagine the worldwide manufacturing infrastructure required to support the hobby, I think I should quit in the best interests of the ecosystem. Now to my point, can we assume there is any best practice in our hobby that justifies the raw energy requirements of itself? Sure, science finds some support from the industry, but that is a byproduct of small incidence.

Reeferhead
04/13/2014, 08:46 PM
Sure there are bad sides to increased incomes but also good ones, mainly for human quality of life (which is great) but also for the environment such as lower birth rates, better waste management and that people aren't so desperate for money that they can afford to consider what consequences their actions have on the environment.



On average individuals of developed nations consume 26 times more resources than individuals of undeveloped nations. Sure there are things we can do to help minimize our environmental impact but in the grand scheme of progress they're just drops in a bucket. Biggie said it best, "Mo money mo problems."

addo
04/15/2014, 06:06 AM
We sure do; but i still hope income in undeveloped countries increase, not to help the reefs but for the people who live there.

thenewguy997
04/28/2014, 10:10 PM
Ive done nothing, in fact ive harmed them bc i took rock and salt and other things from it and put it in my tank and thats the cold hard truth.

But id like to get into some volunteer work and im going to try too this summer.


But lets look at the real issue here. Its money vs the environment. Ive read someone on here say in the marshall islands they dredge reefs for airport expansion. Well people vote for that stuff so they save money. People want expansion because it saves them money. We say why doesnt the USA produce our own goods and gasses so itd be cheaper then we complain about destroying the environment and when a gas well shows up where a beautiful park used to be. Its one or the other people, you cant have both. If you want beautiful reefs and a beautiful earth then your wallet is going to suffer thats the way it is.

Its a losing battle because everyone wants to make money but only some people care about nature.