Responsibly wild caught vs. tank raised?

[maddyfish]

Just a thought, but maybe it is best for the fish if they stay rare and expensive, like wild cuaght fish, instead of cheap and plentiful like captive bred fish? For instance, how many $14.99 clowns have suffered and died Nemo-death? How many would have died if Nemo cost $59.99?
This is not my position, I can see good and bad to both sides, but maybe marine fish are better off responsibly wild caught, than captive bred. Look at Hawaii, how many yellow tangs have been caught from there, responsibly? And are still plentiful. Maybe the fish would suffer less if they were rare and expensive. But it would also be necessary to get these third world countries to stop cyanide and dynamite fishing.
I just think that the cheaper the fish, the worse the suffering.But I see the other side too.
Convince me why rare, expensive, and responsibly caught is not better for the fish, than cheap, plentiful, and captive bred.

[clownfish454]

i see your point,and agree

[clownfish454]

on the other hand they might not be so easy to come by if they were wild vs tank raised

[maddyfish]

Originally posted by clownfish454
on the other hand they might not be so easy to come by if they were wild vs tank raised

I think that is a good thing, if I have to drive four hours to get a fish, I am certainly going to value and care for that fish. Also, people who were not commited to caring for the fish, would not get it.

[FFFrog]

I dont think having money makes you more responsible. DO you also think we shouldnt frag are corals and only collect from the wild. I'm proud to raise my clownfish and sell them. I do worry about them since so many people buy them that dont no how to care for them, but that is out of my hands. I think alot of wild caught fish are stressed alot more than my fish that are never shipped.

[maddyfish]

Frags traded between responsible reefkeepers are ok. Most people who trade or buy frags from hobbyists are capable of caring for them. If corals become unreasonably cheap, so cheap that people completely unprepared to care for them buy them, then maybe limited availability would be good. For instance:
Florida condy anemones, at my LFs they sell for $5.99. I will bet you 99% of them suffer and die under normal output lights. If they sold for $49.99, then average Joe would not buy them. Even if the LFS employee tells them about their light needs they are so cheap average Joe thinks "who cares I'll buy another one next week"
I am not rich, but I do think that co$t weeds out the unprepared hobbyist.

[FFFrog]

I can tell you i pay less for frags then fish. GO to monfort aquarium on colerain and you will find frags for 10-15.

[maddyfish]

I would say that is too cheap, and if corals can suffer, then most of those corals suffer and die at the hands of the inexperienced.

[FFFrog]

You sound like a store owner that wants to raise prices maddyfish.

[maddyfish]

I wish I had my own store, but I'd go out of buisness. I would not sell someone an animal that they are not prepared for, and I'd tell people the truth. That would set me apart from 95% of LFS.

I say again: Co$t weeds out the uprepared.

[clownfish454]

again i agree with maddfish.exept for one thing i dont think higher prices will compleatly fix the problem what if you have all the money in the world and are able to buy at higher prices that is not going to stop some body from doing research the real fix is people changing and not just going in to it blindly and put up a sw system because they look cool salt water systems are a hobby not a toy

[ozadars]

First of all, wild caught fish are generally less expensive than captive bred ones (compare the prices http://www.liveaquaria.com/product/scateg.cfm?pCatId=27), they are also hardier and they slow down the number of the collected marine fish from the oceans which is very important in my opinion because many people could still buy them even if they were more expensive than the captive bred and many of them die during shipping or catching which is worse than kids killing captive bred ones.

[CodeBlue]

Should we then only consume wild caught fish. Since farmed salmon cost me $3.00 a pound, would it be better if it cost $15 to 20 a pound so people would not eat as much? What is the difference between aquarium fish and food fish? I know many people will not like this, but a fish dying does not concern me much. They do not have a higher level of awareness. I take care of my fish and have only lost them to conditions beyond my control. On the other hand I do not stay awake at night knowing that people want to put nemo in a 1/2 gallon bowl or that someone has 5 tangs in a 60 gallon tank. Tang police, are you there?

[wayne in norway]

Doubling the cost of fish would probably help people act a bit more resonsibly in my opinion , and would certainly help knock back the concept of 'learning by killing some cheap fish' (alias cycling)

[bad2]

This hobby is expensive enough i wouldnt want to be paying even More for fish then i already do. I think the best way is to have store explain things better to people. If the LFS explains whats needed and makes sure the person has it then thats better then Ripping the Responsible people off.

[clownfish454]

so what happens when the prices go up?then we who are already responsible enough have to suffer for the people who dont have a clue what the're doing.and i recomend every body to this site wether they know it all, or know nothing at all.i think if people took a little time to go on fourms like this it would help the unresponsible people just like it helped me.for those of you dont already do this,recomend this site to people you see in lfs or where ever.mabe it will help.instead of talking about it we need to do something about it!

[wayne in norway]

The people who are on this site aren't the problem - but the acts of people who reat fish as disposable will affect us very directly.
If it means pricing up to get rid of pretty glass boxes of death, so be it. Fish are the least expensive thing in this hobby

[ozadars]

Ofcourse pricing up cant be possible because no one can decide on the price of the fish all around the world. Also if prices of marine fish increases, prices of freshwater fish, reptiles, birds and other exotic animals should increase too as they suffer from the same problem.

[Loralie]

Unfortunatly foolish mean people have money. To most it wouldn't matter if nemo cost 14.99 or 79.99. If their kids were screaming wanting it they would buy it. I recently attended the Dr. Foster's frag swap and had the pleasure of speaking with and enjoying a discussion with Julian Sprung concerning the ethics of our hobby. I was amazed at what he had to say and gained a better understanding of our place in the big picture. All in all he emphasized our hobby has put a value to the reef itself. I some of the costal countries they use the "live rock" groung up to make roads. They get $60 to $80 per ton of rack. However in the reef keeping trade they can sell the same rock for $6000 to $8000 per ton. There for making it a more precious commodity. they can harvest less on gain more. Same goes for the fish. The other problem is some of the largest breeding fishes being captured and sold in Asia. He also stated the single largest cause of the "dying reef " is HEAT! The global warming is killing reefs at an alarming rate. We know what a temp spike in our tanks can do...imaginge that on a larger scale. I am in Minnesota and we haven't had good snow in years. Our winters are much warmer, the warming is planet wide, and the bleached white reef's are a prime example of the global warming.

[Broodingwolf]

I agree with Loralie. Unfortunately, driving up the cost wouldn't nesc. keep people who are careless with another animal's life out of the hobby. Just like you see expensive pure bred dogs at the animal shelter, you would have 80$ nemo's dying.

[Loralie]

What we can do is try to educate. Also you can look at it this way....in a short while the "Nemo" craze will pass, as will the kids interest. It was the same for the dog breeders when 101 dalmations came out. What we can be grateful for is that movie may have gotten some people into the hobby. I am one of those. My children love animals and fell for Nemo. I set-up a nano tank and came here doing tons of research. I went from a 30 gallon to a 125 with 110 gallon fuge, 92 corner bow and currently am setting up a 150. I am a active member of a local reef club. I trade and buy frags. My 17yo is addicted. He has attended IMAC, went to New York to Atlantis, we both attended Dr. Foster's grand opening of the aquaculture facility, and he has plans to attend MACNA. We love and care for our finned friends. I spend atleast 1 to 2 hours per day in our tanks feeding, cleaning,testing, or just documenting what is going on. Have I killed fish....yes, unfortunatly I have had things die. I have had typical emergencies, and have learned, but not to the blind expense of living things. YOu will lose fish/corals. If our methods were perfect everyone would be doing this hobby, as you stated many this are now tank raised and aquacultured.....that in itself points to success, that our efforts may one day what saves our oceans.

[macman7010]

I disagree with the initial representation of what was just said to start this post. I do not feel that "responsibly" collecting reef fish so that they are high priced will help the aquarium industry at all. I dont know about the west coat of other places in the U.S. but here on the East Coast in Maryland where I live Aqua Cultured or Tank Raised fish are far more expensive then the wild caught variety.

In the case of clownfish, for me, I can get a wild caught False Percula or Percula clown for about $14.99 USD and a tank raised or aqua cultured percula or false percula clown for roughly $39-59.99 USD per fish. I paid over $230.00 USD for a mated pair of Gold Strip Maroon Clowns - personally I feel tank raising fish only helps the hobby. It makes the fish stronger and more adapted to tank life and gives us as hobbyists a better idea of thier behavior and needs.

Wild caught marine fish, even ones responsibly caught, con carry pathogens and parasites, sometimes will not eat, can be diffucult to acclimate - etc - etc -etc. What the saltwater fish hobby needs more than high priced fish is education on the proper way to keep aquarium fish and retailers that strive to give that.

Anyone who lives on the east coast near Pittsburgh PA should visit Wet Pets and Friends. I have gotten to know this outlet's owner well and they strive to be ethically and morally sound, and really have the expertise to educate thier customers on proper husbandry methods. More places that use Wet Pet's model for aquarium retail would help our hobby.

[Buckeye ME]

Wow, I never imagined so many "bleeding hearts" here.

Our responsibility to maintain natural resources (the reef) far outweighs any responsibility we have to keeping tank-raised $15 fish from being killed by negligent owners. This whole concept is absurd.

No one advocates poor care for pets, but as long as it does not harm the "real" environment, I don't take nearly as big an issue with it.

[AJ31655]

Raising prices won't help any, they people who are most to blame from what I see are the people with the money to burn. Besides the resposibilty lies with the LFS and its employees, if someone went and purchased a tang for a 20 gallon and no one told them otherwise, how is that thier fault, that is the stores fault. I also would much rather see tank raised fish die than wild caught, but I honestly hate seeing any SW fish die, except damsels. But the bottom line is that the LFS and even the online fish store is who holds the responsibility.

[maddyfish]

Originally posted by Buckeye ME
Wow, I never imagined so many "bleeding hearts" here.

Our responsibility to maintain natural resources (the reef) far outweighs any responsibility we have to keeping tank-raised $15 fish from being killed by negligent owners. This whole concept is absurd.

No one advocates poor care for pets, but as long as it does not harm the "real" environment, I don't take nearly as big an issue with it.

The concept that tank raised fish are disposable is exactly what I don't like.
If we breed all our own, make our own live rock, what value will the real reefs have to the third world countries where most reefs are located?

[maddyfish]

Originally posted by Loralie
Unfortunatly foolish mean people have money. To most it wouldn't matter if nemo cost 14.99 or 79.99. If their kids were screaming wanting it they would buy it. I recently attended the Dr. Foster's frag swap and had the pleasure of speaking with and enjoying a discussion with Julian Sprung concerning the ethics of our hobby. I was amazed at what he had to say and gained a better understanding of our place in the big picture. All in all he emphasized our hobby has put a value to the reef itself. I some of the costal countries they use the "live rock" groung up to make roads. They get $60 to $80 per ton of rack. However in the reef keeping trade they can sell the same rock for $6000 to $8000 per ton. There for making it a more precious commodity. they can harvest less on gain more. Same goes for the fish. The other problem is some of the largest breeding fishes being captured and sold in Asia. He also stated the single largest cause of the "dying reef " is HEAT! The global warming is killing reefs at an alarming rate. We know what a temp spike in our tanks can do...imaginge that on a larger scale. I am in Minnesota and we haven't had good snow in years. Our winters are much warmer, the warming is planet wide, and the bleached white reef's are a prime example of the global warming. I wasn't aware that global warming has gone beyond the "theory" stage. When was it proven? Also, you don't generally get 'more money' by being foolish or mean. You get it by being prudent, careful, and patient. All hallmarks of a good reefkeeper.

[Buckeye ME]

If we breed all our own, make our own live rock, what value will the real reefs have to the third world countries where most reefs are located?


Why do we have to give them value? They will exist without human demand on their inhabitants, that's what matters. The value is they are still there to be enjoyed for viewing.

Are you claiming 3rd world countries benefit economically from us, and that is a reason to harvest wild animals?

[maddyfish]

"Why do we give them value?"

We give them value because WE BUY THEM.


When we are willing to pay $5-6 a pound for live rock,$40-100 for a fish, that gives third world countries a reason to protect reefs. Live rock and fish are renewal resources, if responsibly harvested.

[maddyfish]

If we stop or limit purchase of reef products, then to a third world country with no other useful products, the reef ceases to have value. It is easy to sit here in the U.S. and say they have value because they exist and we can view them, but to people in Fiji, or Indonesia, value means money with which they can buy food.

[Buckeye ME]

So if they have no value why would people be harming them? Do you see what I'm getting at? These reefs in Fiji aren't getting destroyed due to pollution like the ones in the US, they are being overharvested. If they have no value for harvesting, they will be left alone.

[cKarlGo]

Originally posted by maddyfish
For instance, how many $14.99 clowns have suffered and died Nemo-death? How many would have died if Nemo cost $59.99?


Personally, I have never understood the concept of fish being disposable pets. Sometimes I have to wonder what's wrong with people.

[knowse]

Originally posted by Buckeye ME
So if they have no value why would people be harming them? Do you see what I'm getting at? These reefs in Fiji aren't getting destroyed due to pollution like the ones in the US, they are being overharvested. If they have no value for harvesting, they will be left alone.

Dispite what you may think, over harvesting isn't the biggest concern on the reefs. Food fishing with cyanide, dredging, bottom trawling, blast fishing and agricultureral runoff are all bigger problems. Some MO fisherman also use cyanide to catch those preety tangs that everyone loves so much. Cyanide kills corals.

The fishermen are poor people, and our hobby sometimes gives them enough money to buy food with. I know, I lived in the PI for a few years and saw how those people lived. Those poor people even have to pay to send their kids to school.

[Loralie]

I wasn't implying you get more money by being mean or foolish. I was suggesting that those people have the income to purchase fish regardless of cost, therefore making the cost irrelevent. The global warming issue was questioned when Julian gave his speech and he stated that those in disbelief should spend an afternoon on the reef's seeing what he sees on a regular basis. The people harm them to feed their families. Our hobby has shown them that grinding it up at $60 per ton for roads isn't in their best interest, when they can sell to the hobby for $6000. We stop purchasing/stop enjoying our tanks, they go back to harvesting for roads again....they have to feed their families. If you have a family and that family is hungry you will do what you have to to feed them. Also the Cyanide is the culprit for destroyed reefs. Butterflies are another commonly Cyanided fish as well.

[macman7010]

as hobbyists we need to help strides toward aqua cultured and tank raised species of everything, that is the best option for the future.

[cortez marine]

"as hobbyists we need to help strides toward aqua cultured and tank raised species of everything, that is the best option for the future".

Thats the worst option for the future.
If you cut the fisherfolk out of the loop, they will not go quietly into the night.
They will not spare anything on the reef if we withdraw from the battlefront.
They will smash, smuggle, spear, overfish, sell the sand and wage war to earn what they can.
By our market for wildlife we can excaberate the looting or we can partner in the harvesting properly.

Sustainable collecting practices can be taught and markets can involve all the way down to the field level.
A spirit of corporate responsibility can displace the looting partnership that has so given the trade a black eye . Importers have sponsored agents of handling and packing reform and can extend it to collecting reform .
I'm now involved with a company that believes this and is putting their money where their mouth is. Others can follow.
If we do it well enough on tape....we may even teach environmental groups how to do it.
More news as it unfolds.
Steve

[macman7010]

Originally posted by cortez marine
"
If you cut the fisherfolk out of the loop, they will not go quietly into the night.
They will not spare anything on the reef if we withdraw from the battlefront.
They will smash, smuggle, spear, overfish, sell the sand and wage war to earn what they can.


I am afraid this really makes no sense to me what so ever. First of all imagine a marine hobby where nearly every species of fish, invert, coral, etc was tank raised as opposed to wild caught. A marine hobby much like the freshwater aquarium hobby is, one where a customer could make the choice to keep only tank raised stock and still have lots of stock avaliable to choose from - really enough to fullfill a lifetime of fish keeping.

I dont understand why any of the native fisherman that are catching coral reef fish for the aquarium trade would smuggle, spear or overfish anything if they had no need to. Likely there would still be some species of fish that they would need to catch for the industry (much like the freshwater industry has some fish that are still wild caught for it). So it would still be to the fisherman's benefit to be careful with the reef.

This way our hobby would not have near the enviromental impact it does today, and the stock we would acquire would be of higher quality and already suited to captive life. Look at freshwater Discus. Wild caught fish needed water quality that nearly mimicked the blackwater conditions of Brazil where they were found. Today tank bred Discus live in a variety of water conditions, many that would kill a wild caught fish in a matter of days.

[macman7010]

Wait a second I just noticed your occupation reads that you are a collector, importer. So you are saying if sometime in the near future most of marine aquarium livestock is tank raised and aqua cultured this is what you plan to do...

"they will not go quietly into the night.
They will not spare anything on the reef if we withdraw from the battlefront.
They will smash, smuggle, spear, overfish, sell the sand and wage war to earn what they can."

[MiddletonMark]

So says a guy tied into the import business.

Self-interest showing through?

[maddyfish]

I believe that the only way we have a say in the reefs' future is to continue to purchase reef products, but require that they are responsibly caught. Without reefkeepers the reefs are awfully useful with which to pave roads. If you think 3rd world people won't grind them up for a bite of food, you're wrong. The only way we have a say is to pay, and pay well, for responsibly harvested stock.

[cortez marine]

He writes;
I am afraid this really makes no sense to me what so ever. First of all IMAGINE a marine hobby where nearly every species of fish, invert, coral, etc was tank raised as opposed to wild caught...

Imagine....
Imagine theres no hunger....I wonder if you can...
Imagine all the people...living lives in peace....
etc.etc...
John Lennon

Dude,
"nearly every species...?"
The % of tank raised species in the trade is so small as to be regarded as a step in the right direction...but a step that is slowly approaching 2% of the fish species and 1 % of the inverts!
Corals are being fragged and farmed ...yes, and so are clams....but you're celebrating way before the trade gets anywhere near what you imagine.
Everyone wants it...business invests millions in it....and like the cure for cancer and muscular distrophy....its just not that real yet.
Steve
ps. Imagine ...yes....but in the meanwhile and in the next 20 years, people still have to eat!

[cortez marine]

Wait a second I just noticed your occupation reads that you are a collector, importer. So you are saying if sometime in the near future most of marine aquarium livestock is tank raised and aqua cultured this is what you plan to do...

Now thats funny.
Having worked in the Philippines and Indonesia, Tonga and Mexico for half my life, I'm telling you what actually will and does happen.
You must see the difference between an experienced observation of poor fisherfolk cultures and my own comfortable 'Western' attitude.

[GreshamH]

Originally posted by maddyfish
I believe that the only way we have a say in the reefs' future is to continue to purchase reef products, but require that they are responsibly caught. Without reefkeepers the reefs are awfully useful with which to pave roads. If you think 3rd world people won't grind them up for a bite of food, you're wrong. The only way we have a say is to pay, and pay well, for responsibly harvested stock.

There's one person in this world that had done far more then any others on the subject of responibly harvested stock, and that's Steve Robinson aka Cortez Marine. He's the original outer of the cyanide trade (FAMA articles from 82' - 84') and did so on his own dime. He saw a problem and has since offerred solutions. He conducted the first net trainings and those divers are some of the best/most highly sought after in the world. He's conducted his business on the highest morals and ethics I have personally ever seen.

He's the biggest fountain of knowledge on the subject and frankly, most people are thirsty, even if they don't know it yet :)

[CodeBlue]

I must be confused. If the 3rd world is selling live rock for $6000 to 8000 insted of the $60 to 80 per ton, does that mean they stopped building roads?

[macman7010]

Wow, didnt know that. Since I was born in '81 - 82 and 84 are kind of before my day I guess. Looks like I still have a lot to learn about the hobby though and I have never heard of Steve Robinson but can sure admire your work cortez marine.

It is too bad there are literally cultures out there that for financial needs have to destroy our natural enviroment. People are not aware how valuable coral reef systems are, and how volitile they are to human and natural interaction. Im glad you have done what you have cortez as I am someone who believes through ethical and moral guidelines and intellegent training we can both sustain a healthy marine hobby and a healthy natural reef eco-system.

Likely we will find as the hobby progresses that a mix for both tank raised stock and wild captures (responsibly) exists. As more common marine species are being bred in captivity we find that people still desire to keep the more exotic beauties and I dont think we are anywhere near a day when tangs and other exotics will be bred in captivity.

I was unaware that fisher cultures acted so desperatly but I guess desperate people will take such measures when the trade that supplies them with food diminishes.

Although my opinon as an aquarist is that tank raised and tank bred specimins will prove to be better livestock than thier wild caught brethern. This is simple science really considering tank bred and raised animals are more adapt to take prepared foods, live in a variety of captive conditions, and do not have the rigorous shipping stress thier wild caught cousins do.

[gilpster]

As a european reading reefcentral it is telling that the opinion that global warming is not due to carbon emissions still carries weight in america and is often extolled on this board. America really is the only country to doubt that vast amount of evidence presented by the scientific community, and even in america the body of scientific opinon is in a minority - but these scientists hold key positions of influence in american government.

The international Panel on Climate Change agreed that global warming was a real phenomenon with only america refusing to accept the evidence.

In October, 2000 at the Ninth International Coral Reef Symposium, held on the island of Bali, researchers warned that...
"Coral reefs around the Maldives and Seychelles islands in the Indian Ocean have taken the brunt of warming seas, as 90% of these corals have been killed over the past two years." (sic)

W Bush's veto of the kyoto protocol was the original catalyst that caused his unpopularity in europe.

Anyway, to return to the arguement above, I think that ecosystems and species as a whole are more important that individual animals. I think to place high value on an individual fish or coral (!) is internally inconsistant with eating fish, for example. It it difficult to say the life of a $15 tank bred clown matters while eating cod and chips.

My tank contains only tank bred fish and coral frags. It doesn't have any particularly exotic species, but then i've not had a fish death in five years either.

kenneth

i love you all

[CodeBlue]

W Bush's veto of the kyoto protocol was the original catalyst that caused his unpopularity in europe

President Bush did not veto the Kyoto accord. It was Prsident Clinton and a 98-0 no vote in our Senate. The only one in our government pushing for it was the inventor of the internet Al Gore.

When I was growing up I heard of the coming ice age. I am curious why we think that anything we do can change the environment. The earth goes through cycles of hot and cold. There are many scientist who say we are below the average and still coming out of an ice age.

[gilpster]

okay perhaps i'm getting confused with the alaskan pipeline thing.

Another reply to my post could be that the only reponsible thing to do would be to not have a tank at all. This nullifies all energy pressures from the halides, and manufacturing resources, as well as collection of subjects from the wild. So it is diificult for any marine aquarist to take the moral high ground.

to say that we can't influence the world seems a little fatalistic.

[MiddletonMark]

Originally posted by CodeBlue
The earth goes through cycles of hot and cold. There are many scientist who say we are below the average and still coming out of an ice age.

Do a little search on short term variations and rapid changes in the climate. Try Europe's `mini-ice-age' a few hundred years ago.

[Care_52]

i have to agree with maddyfish

[GreshamH]

Originally posted by gilpster
As a european reading reefcentral it is telling that the opinion that global warming is not due to carbon emissions still carries weight in america and is often extolled on this board. America really is the only country to doubt that vast amount of evidence presented by the scientific community, and even in america the body of scientific opinon is in a minority - but these scientists hold key positions of influence in american government.

The international Panel on Climate Change agreed that global warming was a real phenomenon with only america refusing to accept the evidence.

In October, 2000 at the Ninth International Coral Reef Symposium, held on the island of Bali, researchers warned that...
"Coral reefs around the Maldives and Seychelles islands in the Indian Ocean have taken the brunt of warming seas, as 90% of these corals have been killed over the past two years." (sic)

W Bush's veto of the kyoto protocol was the original catalyst that caused his unpopularity in europe.

Anyway, to return to the arguement above, I think that ecosystems and species as a whole are more important that individual animals. I think to place high value on an individual fish or coral (!) is internally inconsistant with eating fish, for example. It it difficult to say the life of a $15 tank bred clown matters while eating cod and chips.

My tank contains only tank bred fish and coral frags. It doesn't have any particularly exotic species, but then i've not had a fish death in five years either.

kenneth

i love you all

Wow, nice blanket statement about Americans. FWIW, there's PLENTY of Americans that feel just like you ;) Heck, many of us didn't vote Bush any of the times ;)

Other then that, love your post :D

Costa Rica used to have reefs, but due to one giant event (reef uplift/killed most of their pacific ocean reefs) and their intense run off problem (banana farming mainly) , they really no longer have any reefs (both side now). Maybe Steve (Cortez Marine) will chime in here and give his details from his research there a bit back.

[cortez marine]

GRESHAM WROTE;
"many of us didn't vote Bush any of the times ".

Actually most of us didn't vote for him the first time and may not have the second.
Like the Panama canal. It was stolen fair and square.


Yes, Costa Rica, the Switzerland of the Americas allowed the Banana companies to send the topsoil [ silt ] near the Atlantic coast into the coast effectively wiping out their reefs and their National coral park called Cauhita.
The stands of dead elkhorn , staghorn etc. were everywhere I surveyed for 6 months.
What a tragedy.
Steve

[macman7010]

cortez marine,

I wondered what your opinion on deep water reefs are. I recently read an article that a deep water reef was found somewhere off the coast of Australia. Supposodly from various lietature I have read deep water corals are hardier aquarium specimins since they can accept less light variants.

I would argue this though because my assumption would be that deep water corals would prefer cooler tempatures and need feedings of photo or zoo plankton on a regular basis. Do you have any ideas about that?

[cortez marine]

No,
I don't know anything about em except what I read.
Book knowledge is different then the other kind.
Steve

[Buckeye ME]

You guys get the political crap out of your system yet? Most people have grown up and come to tolerate losing.

[macman7010]

i would make my 2 cents on politics known but unless it directly relates to something coral reef tank related than on here my mouth remains closed.

[MiddletonMark]

Yup, a certain way to close the thread.

There's enough silly strife on any board without adding to it. We could probably talk about the science of global climate, but once you get politics involved then it crosses the line into forbidden discussion.

Our fish, corals don't care who we voted for. Such discussions have nothing to do with the reef hobby, and such distinctions separate us from learning the most we can from each other to keep our livestock healthy and long-lived in our care.

[MCary]

There seems to be alot of ignorance on this thread. I am not disparaging. I mean lack of knowledge not stupidity. I always find that people opinions based on incomplete or second hand knowledge facinating. Global warming is my favorite. The theory is incredibly complex, yet every movie star, politician, and clown has an opinion on it. Just so you can sleep tonight let me tell you one thing. Global warming theory is a computer projection telling what might happen in the future. Nearest estimates are 50 years before we should expect to see any effect. And BTW, if we signed the Kyoto Accords and followed all guidelines it would be 54 years. Although global temperatures have risen since the 1970's, remember the 1970's were a record cold decade. Taken since 1930's the temperature has actually fallen. Sea levels and sea temps have not risen. Coral reefs are being destroyed by natural means, over harvesting, boat traffic, and polluted runoff but not global warming. I am not aying global warming is not a real possibility. Like I said, its very complex and I'm no expert. But it hasn't happened yet.

Code Blue and Buckeye went mostly ignored, but they have a good point. Its only a fish. They taste good as sticks. Sustainable harvest of ornamental species are good for many third world countries. It provides income. The biggest threat to the environment is poverty. Think about Bosnia, once a beautiful country that hosted the winter olympics, once the government and thus the economy fell they stripped the mountains for firewood.

Marine fish produce larva by the millions. Many times available habitat plays a much bigger role on fish numbers than harvesting. There are more lobsters in the waters off Maine than ever. The reason has been determined to be harvesting. The more they take the more they have. There is also overharvesting. I'm just saying, don't thing that blanket statements made out of ignorance makes you some kind of uberprotector of the environment. The truth is never on the fringes, left or right.

Mike

[kirei]

As per your post above MCary, you obviously also have an opinion on global warming, and I am sure you don't know all the facts about it either. I think everyone has an opinion on global warming... so is your issue with people promoting their opinion then? Even if global warming doesn't exist, or if it is a model 50 years down the road, I still think there is no argument that can rightfully say pollution is good and we shouldn't try to reduce it. Now of course there is a balance between the positive effects of mass production and consumption and the ultility generated by such actions, vs. the ultility of having a clean space. Even if pollution is not the cause of global warmiing and it is 100% cyclical, pollution is the cause of many other urban problems, especially health related. Birth defects, cancers, respiratory illness, all of these have strong ties to pollution. The kyoto protocols was one of the best attempts at curbing pollution for the simple fact that it created an economic free market for pollution, it attached a cost to pollution but allowed that cost to flow freely so that those who could most easily reduce pollution would while selling of their quota to those who would have more difficulty, thus it would help to force industries as a whole to adhere to set quotas, while at the same time allowing the pollution quotas to be assigned at their economic maximization.

And yes it is about habitat, and balance. I remember in Vancouver when they decided to kill off all the wolves in Banf because of public danger they ended up letting the deer population go unchecked by predators and the town was overrun by deer, which are nice until they start to overtake your town for garbage. So a better understanding of the environement and the effects we have on it are important, but this costs money. Where is that money coming from? People will only pay if they care, lots of people will only care if it directly effects them, so global warming propaganda (i use this in an academic sense, not as a word with negative connotation) helps to drive funds (rightly or wrongly) into these types of research. Of course who is to say that this is where the money should go?

You are right the truth is never found in the poles, but elements of the truth are usually found there. And radical left or right wing ideas which challenge the status quo are important in terms of generating interest. There is no truth found in the centre either, truth is found by a unification of these people and an open discussion of their view points. Everyone is ignorant, and everyone lacks knowledge in some area or another, only by matching my strengths to your weakness and vice versa is truth found or progress made. The biggest problem I see nowadays is a lack of discussion between the left and the right, between art and science, between business and environment.

[MCary]

I don't have a position on global warming. Global warming is a scientific hypothesis not a political campaign. Science doesn't require an opinion or position. I read the data as it comes out and say to myself "Self, that sure is interesting" I was only responding to those that are attributing natural ocurances to a phenomenon that hasn't occured yet.

Responding to the rest of your post. The Kyoto protocols are a hatchet job on inductrialized nations especially the US. Its recomendations would cost trillions and only delay global warming based on the current madel 4 years. The devestion to the economies or the alternate good that could be done with that money would have effects that would last decades not 4 years. Research this with an open mind and see if you feel the same afterwards.

Pollution is bad, I agree. At what point are atmospheric emmissions and economic and survival needs in balance? Burning wood in a fireplace emits CO2. Faced with the delimma, do you risk raising the planets temp a degree or freeze to death. To every point there is a counter point.

Your story about Banf begs a question. Do you assume that the irradication of the wolf population is the cause of the increased deer populaiton or is there concrete imperical evidence? Coyotes main diet in the spring is fawns. Coyote populations drop by over 60% when wolves were put in Yellowstone park because wolves kill them. I know there are coyotes in Banf because I live right across the border and have been there many times. So could it be that removal of one predator was replaced by another? Could it be that deer populations are increased by mild winters for the last few years. Increased agriculture providing more food for them and the reduction of sport hunting? Or is it just the wolves. You could be right and I might be way off, but I'm going to find out before I tell someone else.

Your right about driving funds into research. It is difficult to get funding for science these days. That's why the word "crisis" is used alot and why something sexy has to be presented like "life on Mars". no-one is going to give money to see a picture of a red rock. While this might be necessary to get the money, I still don't like being led or lied to.

Science does not apply to your last paragraph. Scientific truth is not found through comprimise or consensus. It is what it is.

Mike

[Esper]

the absolute bottom line is that the reefs are as undisturbed as possible.

if people kill cheap tank-raised or aquacultured fish, so be it. i mourn the loss, but the net effect on the planet is zero.

[knowse]

No, the bottom line is that if............our hobby goes strictly maricultured.....the poor fisher folks are left with nothing to make a living. They'll have to turn to banana or pineapple farming, forest havesting for teak and mahogony wood or reef blasting for road building material. Which would case massive runoff, which kills reefs and they would still be hungry. These people can't go to the supermarket to buy canned goods or frozen meats. Their main source of protein comes from the fish they catch. I guess they could always start a chicken ranch for Tyson foods.

Steve, do you remember what their annual income was? Something equivelent to $150 US a year? I'd like to see some westerners live off of that. If you've never been there, you haven't a freaking clue as to how they live. If their lucky, they might have some cardboard for the roof of their bamboo house, which is probably only one room.

I remember, buying a puppy for 5 peso's ($2.50 US) that was destined to be someone's dinner and that was in Manila over 30 years ago. I never once saw a stray dog or cat or large rat for that matter roaming the streets. I won't get into the other things that I saw, but will say that it wasn't pretty. DO NOT relate to them as you would a westerner, you can't even put them in the same class as the homeless guy that lives under the bridge. You CAN relate to them as a social group with nothing left to loose, and then you might understand why it's important to support them.

[dmbrown]

Well more clowns have died yes....but more have also lived because of this thriving market. So if yo try to look at the greater good, more fish have lived......not died in this economic boom,

[maddyfish]

Knowse- I think you have stated what I was trying to say very well. I do think that it takes a visit to Indonesia, or the Philippines, or one of those type places to understand the desparation of these people. Every captive bred clown sold is one less taken off the reef, is less money in collectors hands, and puts the reef one step closer to being chopped up for concrete.

[ruppel]

This is an interesting discussion.

One problem I've found in this hobby is deciding how to proceed with the least environmental impact. From my perspective, I can know with certainty that buying aquacultured fish and corals has had no direct impact on any coral reef anywhere. Now, the arguments about the economic impact are beyond my knowledge. And while I have no doubt that a diminishing trade in ornamental fish will have an impact on poor people and poor economies, it seems that the speculation on the repercussions, while quite feasible, is still speculation.

I agree that environmentally sound collection practices is probably the best of both worlds, but it is nearly impossible for me, from my computer, land-locked in Indiana, to truly assess whether wild caught species have been collected responsibly. Of course, everyone selling them will say that they only buy fish caught responsibly, and they may even believe that it's true, but truly enviornmentally-conscious collection requires a great deal of effort and education to practice effectively--at least it seems that way to me. I had to really dig to find which corals were likely to be unaffected by collection. So, I tend to think that many poor, uneducated collectors really don't have any idea whether what they do affects the reef. Not all, to be sure, but I really don't have any way of assessing that.

So, anyway...that's my long-winded way of saying I feel sort of "environmentally safer" buying aquacultured organisms than wild caught.

[MCary]

The only true way to avoid impact if there is any is to not go into the hobby. Even if you use only aquacultured specimens you contribute to the popularity keeping businesses thriving and more newbie's entering. Newbie's without the knowledge and/or conscience you have. I have the same discussion with my liberal pilot friends who rale about fuel and SUV's as they burn 8 gallons per hour in their planes. Kind of a "It's not me, its them" mentality. I definately commend people's responsible use of resources and hope you continue. Don't buy that Moorish Idol or that Goniopora. Good for you. But if the reef hobby has an environmental impact, the only way for you not to contribute to it, is to not get into the hobby. That's just the way it is.

[mkirda]

Originally posted by Buckeye ME
Why do we have to give them value? They will exist without human demand on their inhabitants, that's what matters. The value is they are still there to be enjoyed for viewing.

Are you claiming 3rd world countries benefit economically from us, and that is a reason to harvest wild animals?

What a bunch of prattle...

We are consumers. We are the market. We buy fish. Where do you think the fish come from? The store? They come from the REEF, which is located in mostly third world countries. OF COURSE the collectors benefit economically from us. If there was no market, they wouldn't bother collecting marine ornamentals.

This is stuff you learn in Econ 100 on the first day of class.

It is darn-right frustrating reading this garbage, all Western-biased, anti-fishermen. Is this how low Responsible Reefkeeping aspires to be? An inane debate on how expensive fish should be? The market determines the price, all socialist notions aside. Western land-based aquaculture does the opposite of 'saving the reef'. It teachs the fishermen that Westerners are liars, and that we don't really value the reef, so why should they?

Ya'all need to get the the Philippines or Indonesia and speak to a few of the collectors. It would be a real eye-opener.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

[mkirda]

Originally posted by knowse
Steve, do you remember what their annual income was? Something equivelent to $150 US a year? I'd like to see some westerners live off of that. If you've never been there, you haven't a freaking clue as to how they live. If their lucky, they might have some cardboard for the roof of their bamboo house, which is probably only one room.

How about a thatched roof, without any walls? Sleeping on the ground? Saw plenty of those off in the provinces in the Philippines just a couple weeks back...

They would have to earn more than that now, unless they were strictly subsistance farmers. Fishermen couldn't earn that little and survive.

Mike

[mkirda]

Originally posted by MCary
But if the reef hobby has an environmental impact, the only way for you not to contribute to it, is to not get into the hobby. That's just the way it is.

Not necessarily. You could set up wind generators and solar panels and run a responsible reef using strictly renewable power. This would eliminate any impacts.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

[MCary]

No Mike, probably not. Leaving aside that it takes more energy to manufacture a windmill or solar panel than the equipment will ever generate, someone would come to your house and say "I gotta get me one of those" then he might set one up without the renewable power and you would be indirectly responsible. In other words, adding to the popularity of the hobby increases the resources used by the hobby.

[ruppel]

Originally posted by mkirda
What a bunch of prattle...

We are consumers. We are the market. We buy fish. Where do you think the fish come from? The store? They come from the REEF, which is located in mostly third world countries. OF COURSE the collectors benefit economically from us. If there was no market, they wouldn't bother collecting marine ornamentals.

This is stuff you learn in Econ 100 on the first day of class.

It is darn-right frustrating reading this garbage, all Western-biased, anti-fishermen. Is this how low Responsible Reefkeeping aspires to be? An inane debate on how expensive fish should be? The market determines the price, all socialist notions aside. Western land-based aquaculture does the opposite of 'saving the reef'. It teachs the fishermen that Westerners are liars, and that we don't really value the reef, so why should they?

Ya'all need to get the the Philippines or Indonesia and speak to a few of the collectors. It would be a real eye-opener.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

I guess the way I "value" the reef is not economically. Do you mean to say that the only value that locals place on a reef is the aquarium trade? If it weren't for that, they'd just "plow it under," so to speak? There's absolutely nobody that would protect the reef for its own right, but only as a continued money-making opportunity?

That's sad

[mkirda]

Originally posted by ruppel
I guess the way I "value" the reef is not economically. Do you mean to say that the only value that locals place on a reef is the aquarium trade? If it weren't for that, they'd just "plow it under," so to speak? There's absolutely nobody that would protect the reef for its own right, but only as a continued money-making opportunity?

That's sad

Sad from the Western Feel-good Let's Save The Reefs mentality maybe...

The fishermen aren't like that. They've barely got a pot to **** in. The reef itself is sort of like a forest to farmers. Slash and burn, baby!

The reef itself is valued only for what it can put on the table. Food. Or occasionally coral rock, you know it as LIVE ROCK, usually used as a base for fences, piers, or breakwaters.

This is what I mean - This is my point here. Westerners are so far removed from the reality that faces 90% of the population in the Philippines that they cannot even fathom the fact that people may not value the reef for the reef's sake. The reef is a resource to be exploited, period. You use it for food, or for earning money. Or both, if you are lucky. If you are really lucky, you might be able to earn enough so that your children can make it through elementary school before they have to start earning their own keep.

Protecting the reef for the reefs sake is a great and noble notion.

The fisherman might even agree with you if that's what he thought you wanted to hear. All the while he'd really be thinking though... Where is the next meal for my family coming from? Maybe I should hit that nice area over off the next island...

Sorry if the reality is too bleak for ya'll.
But that is the way it is.
If your only choice of employment is living off the sea or starvation... You go with the sea.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

[eldudeereno]

ie well i c what people say but id rather tank breed than wreck the reefs people just need to learn what there doin

[mkirda]

Originally posted by eldudeereno
ie well i c what people say but id rather tank breed than wreck the reefs people just need to learn what there doin

And if learning what they are doing includes feel-good measures that actually wreck the reef rather than save it, then what?

Regards.
Mike Kirda

[MCary]

Right Mike. Eldudeereno, your statement is correct if you accept the premise its built on. That buying tank bred will save the reef. But what if the aquarium trade saves the reef. Who stopped and reversed the decline of migratory waterfowl? Duck hunters, go figure. The people killing the ducks, saved the ducks. Same for reefs? I don't know, but maybe something to ponder.

[cortez marine]

Saving ducks that no one else wanted to kill was a much easier problem to solve.
Save the vital habitat and the ducks take care of themselves.

Duck stamps on hunting liscenses to set aside money for this was understood and accepted and became a part of an AMERICAN way of duck hunting. If the money were purely voluntary...it would have been very different.
A mandatory liscense to keep fish??? Sure...then such a stamp could be created.
If such a scheme could be achieved thru S.E. Asian fish supplies coming from a few hundred villages and distributed via another 50 or so competitive exporters...that would be neat trick.
Then the real challenge would be to keep the money going to the actual reef efforts and not perks, plane rides, per diems, hotels, junkets, office expenses and salaries in the 6 figure range.
We already have this type "saving the reefs".
The administration of the Duck stamp money was much, much more wisely and honestly spent and was a shining example.
I wish it could be done with our little problem.




Steve

[MCary]

But what about Ducks Unlimited, They're a private group saving ducks.

[GreshamH]

To shoot later, but never mind that :D

[MCary]

Exactly what I'm saying. Those that use the resource are best at protecting the resource, motivations aside.

[GreshamH]

Glad I could make your point for you :D I fully agree BTW ;)

[cortez marine]

Ducks Unlimited raised a wonderful budget of 180,000,000.00 this past year.
Since their inception they have gone thru 2 billion.
All the cyanide fishers in the world could be trained, converted and supervised to insure that the lessons take would not reach near a single million.

If hobbyists and dealers ever linked the resource management questions to their actual buying behaviour we'd have something...but our consumers do not see it that way at all save but a few.
The only attempt to link a ' voluntary' box charge of imported fish to support "conservation" is the one that MACs associate MAMTI wants.
Then again, most of the money raised would just go to their bureaucracies...as it always has.
Now, if all hobyists had to pay to play with fish....there would be a huge budget generated to be sure.
Ducks ain't fish but I'm envious of what the duck people have done.
Steve

[Esper]

Originally posted by knowse
No, the bottom line is that if............our hobby goes strictly maricultured.....the poor fisher folks are left with nothing to make a living. They'll have to turn to banana or pineapple farming, forest havesting for teak and mahogony wood or reef blasting for road building material. Which would case massive runoff, which kills reefs and they would still be hungry. These people can't go to the supermarket to buy canned goods or frozen meats. Their main source of protein comes from the fish they catch. I guess they could always start a chicken ranch for Tyson foods.

Steve, do you remember what their annual income was? Something equivelent to $150 US a year? I'd like to see some westerners live off of that. If you've never been there, you haven't a freaking clue as to how they live. If their lucky, they might have some cardboard for the roof of their bamboo house, which is probably only one room.

I remember, buying a puppy for 5 peso's ($2.50 US) that was destined to be someone's dinner and that was in Manila over 30 years ago. I never once saw a stray dog or cat or large rat for that matter roaming the streets. I won't get into the other things that I saw, but will say that it wasn't pretty. DO NOT relate to them as you would a westerner, you can't even put them in the same class as the homeless guy that lives under the bridge. You CAN relate to them as a social group with nothing left to loose, and then you might understand why it's important to support them.


If we buy maricultured organisms, the reefs will be slowly destroyed/depleted from all the consequences of this activity (cyanide, reduced biodiversity, etc). But if we don't buy them, they will be decimated at an even faster rate to pave roads. So, its a catch-22 then? Not necessarily.

Remember, I said "the absolute bottom line is that the reefs are as undisturbed as possible." Turning them into roads or damaging them with runoff is not leaving them undisturbed, is it? Obviously, a third solution is needed. The problem is one of saving people vs. saving a natural resource. The cynic in me thinks that the former is renewable, yet the latter is not.

Or is it? It sounds like the only reason the "poor fisher folks" can't make a living is because of the interference of "western" people and how little of the money we fork up for moorish idols actually makes it to them. If we stop lying and cheating the "poor fisher folks," as I have read from several sources (including RK magazine I believe), they wouldn't think we put no value on the reef. If we put money into sending scientists there, researching ways for them to aquaculture (read: farm) themselves using the ocean water surrounding them, and emphasizing how we want to grow the reefs, and pay them if they help us, then everybody can be happy.

Wait a minute, aquaculture can HELP the reefs?

Maybe.

This particular solution opens up its own can of worms regarding the possible disruption of local species populations, where will the funding/interest come from, how the heck will it work, etc. But what are the consequences if something like this isn't done? The reefs will be gone forever, and then the people will just start starving again. Everybody loses.


Instead of saying "can we do anything to save the reefs?" we need to say, "what MUST be done in order to ensure the reef's survival in as close to a current state as possible?" It's a subtle difference, but it gives us a much more useful outlook. ask yourself, if the consequences of failure are that people die, then what must be done to succeed? (this is how the military views training). In this case, the animals will die before the people, but as noted above neither of them are in a very good position.

This argument is voiced often, and it always manages to irritate me: "if we protect nature, we will be starving people...we have to sacrifice nature so we can help the people, its the lesser of two evils." This argument is at best one of laziness and at worst a denial of the real problem at work here:

third world populations being exploited for their natural resources and labor. They don't have the ability to fight back, because we bring health care and education and better standards of living, and in turn pay them rates that have been illegal in the US for a century.
Yes, the goverments are so poor they must sell their natural resources for a pittance in order to provide even the minimal health care and education they have now. But where are they getting even this money from? First world countries! We are the ones keeping them at those poverty levels! Granted, many of these goverments are plagued with corruption or internal/external strife, and much of the wealth of these countries are squandered in such ways. However, it is cheaper for crate & barrel to make that lovely wooden bookshelf by harvesting lumber in the US, shipping it to malaysia, paying them pennies to make it, and shipping it back here than it does to just make it in this country.

do you really think raising chickens or pinapples instead of fishing will pay them any more money? Not bloody likely. :( (knowse: please don't think i'm trying to pick a fight with you! you addressed my post and gave an excellent summary of the contingencies at work so i'm using that as a base to work from, not argue against :D )

maybe I should rephrase my outlook: "if the consequences of success are making lots and lots of money, not even the destruction of the earth or the people upon it will stop you."

It is not the intention of this post to anger anyone or start any raging political debates. however, some of the contingencies at work in this situation are political and raise issues that aren't comfortable to many of us, myself included. i bought that bookshelf! shame on me! but that's capitalism at work, and it allows wonderful things like stylish furniture and reef tanks to be brought to our door...but we also have to be aware of the cost, if at least so we can try to fix it.

[Mike R King]

Esper, and all.

Check out www.corl.org.
It's been a battle getting funding but that's now changing and we are starting to make progress in creating community based mariculture industries that are eco-beneficial to the environment and provide environmental education and guidance for the true stakeholders. We will be starting another new CORL branch in the next two weeks. The project will have its own web site and we will be launching it around Jan 1 2006. Our goal is to create a true win win win situations for the island communities, coral reef ecosystems and our marine aquarium keeping hobby.

It's not the wheel that needs reinventing it’s the vehicle that brings the product to market! Its time to dump the old gas guzzling lead-sled for a newer vehicle that has greater mileage (returns) for those who depend upon it to get their product to the market (the collectors and village folk).


Mike King
Director of CORL
Acting director CORL-AS and CORL-TK
www.corl.org

[ruppel]

thanks Esper. That summary definitely sits better with me than the "exploitation as protection" approach.

[mkirda]

Originally posted by Esper
Wait a minute, aquaculture can HELP the reefs?

Maybe.

What you posed here should better be phrased:

"CAN aquaculture help save the reefs?"

The answer: Maybe, if practiced in such a way that does not cause the reef further harm.

But Aquaculture as commonly practiced has actually destroyed more reefs than it has saved. Think: Shrimp ponds created through mangrove deforestation.

Therein lies the rub. Aquaculture can be a solution, but only when practiced in ways it has never been practiced up to now.

The best way to put your money where your mouth is- Buy aquacultured coral colonies. At least those are sustainable fisheries.
All current aquacultured fish unfortunately steal money from the hands of a fisherman.

As far as the rest of the neo-Marxist post goes, most of it is off-base on a number of levels. The West doesn't exploit the Filipino fisherman so much as their own countrymen do. And as their other alternative livelihood is food fishing, of which approximately 0% goes to the West, I don't see that line of argument working here.
Go ask an exporter in Manila some time how much they have raised their buying prices from the fishermen in the past ten years. Then calculate inflation, plus currency devaluation of the peso. You can calculate exactly how much the exporters have made.

Prices have remained amazingly constant in US dollars.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

[Thales]

For a little information on what is going on in Tonga, check out www.reefstewards.org.

[MiddletonMark]

Originally posted by mkirda
But Aquaculture as commonly practiced has actually destroyed more reefs than it has saved. Think: Shrimp ponds created through mangrove deforestation.

Mike, no offense, but that's a facetious argument.

Those shrimp pools are for food aquaculture - not hobby aquaculture. I thought we were talking about hobby aquaculture.

You have a good point, as the issues are much the same, but if we compare fish `harvest' for food as lumped with hobby fish taking - the view is just as bleak IMO [taking from the ocean is ugly if lumped as one, too]

[mkirda]

Originally posted by MiddletonMark
Mike, no offense, but that's a facetious argument.

Those shrimp pools are for food aquaculture - not hobby aquaculture. I thought we were talking about hobby aquaculture.

You have a good point, as the issues are much the same, but if we compare fish `harvest' for food as lumped with hobby fish taking - the view is just as bleak IMO [taking from the ocean is ugly if lumped as one, too]

All the evidence you need to know the truth of the argument is contained in a little bay north of Subic. Far from being facetious, it is a real huge problem now. The bay contains the rememants of shrimp ponds built years ago. What was destroyed? The mangroves. They made a lot of money for a while, which encouraged a lot more habitat destruction. The entire business collapsed when a virus ran through most of the shrimp aquaculture fisheries in SE Asia. The ponds are now abandoned mostly, the mangroves aren't coming back and the silt from the ponds has destroyed the reefs in the bay.

As far as 'hobby' aquaculture goes, there isn't a single place currently that really practices aquaculture in a way that gets most of the proceeds to the locals. It certainly isn't an alternative livelihood for a fisherman in the Philippines when someone stateside produces clown fish. And as Philippine law currently prohibits coral export, coral farms are not an alternative either. So if you are trying to argue that 'hobby' aquaculture will help raise them up, I'd love to hear how that is going to happen.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

[wayne in norway]

I think MarkM has a point splitting food from hobby aquaculture at this point.
I would be strongly in favour of hobby aquaculture. Would the Phillipino government be prepared to modify their laws if it looked like a source of extra income - I would think/hope yes.

As you point out aquaculture in the US is of no help to the actual long term future of the reefs themselves, but I would hope 'native' aquaculture can help. Perhaps I'm naive.

[mkirda]

Originally posted by wayne in norway
I think MarkM has a point splitting food from hobby aquaculture at this point.
I would be strongly in favour of hobby aquaculture. Would the Phillipino government be prepared to modify their laws if it looked like a source of extra income - I would think/hope yes.

As you point out aquaculture in the US is of no help to the actual long term future of the reefs themselves, but I would hope 'native' aquaculture can help. Perhaps I'm naive.

People make a point splitting a food fisherman from a MO fisherman. It is actually an artificial split. If a MO fisherman happens to see a nice-sized grouper or octopus, he'll grab it too and try to sell it at the market. If it doesn't sell, it becomes dinner. Westerners see a difference that doesn't exist really.

"Hobby" aquaculture, at this point, consists of coral farms, mostly in Bali, Fiji and possibly the Solomon Islands (not sure if these started up again???). The issue the industry faces lies with consumers who look at these pieces and at one chiseled from the reef, and seem to overwhelmingly choose the chiseled one over the aquacultured one.

How do we get the buying public to change their buying habits? To prefer the cultured pieces over the chiseled ones? Solve that and you will find that collection pressure on small aquarium-sized corals will go down immensely.

None of this addresses the fish issue, however.

As far as the PI government, right now the government is so embroiled in manufactured scandals that there is no hope that they will even begin to address changing laws to allow export of cultured hard corals. Maybe in the next administration...

Regards.
Mike Kirda

[GreshamH]

Many farmed panther grouper, for food, are sold into the hobby :D Just one case in a hundred of MO/food working together ;)

[mkirda]

Originally posted by GreshamH
Many farmed panther grouper, for food, are sold into the hobby :D Just one case in a hundred of MO/food working together ;)

Hey, Gresh.

You probably caught the bit of sarcasm when I said that approximately 0% get into the hobby. So what % do you think the farmed grouper account? 0.00001% or 0.0001%?

The point being that caged food fish growout aquaculture can easily supply the hobby with 100% of all grouper needed, and yet still account for far less than 1% of all grouper raised. Most go to local markets for food.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

[balci]

Let's take what Mustafa said in the Lion King, that there's a circle of life and it will continue always, regardless of how much we take from the ocean, the ocean will always have more to give.

[mkirda]

Originally posted by balci
Let's take what Mustafa said in the Lion King, that there's a circle of life and it will continue always, regardless of how much we take from the ocean, the ocean will always have more to give.

Just ask the cod fisherman how true this is...:rolleyes:

[MiddletonMark]

Mike, should work fine for those `all water' tanks that will be the rage.

[bornfree]

I always try to buy aquacultured. For corals this isn't a problem, but for fish and liverock another story.

[Gawain1974]

Good thread.

Unfortunately, the percentage of tank-raised fish to wild-caught fish is so small, that I think we really have to look into sustainable-harvest until the industry develops the technology to breed Achilles tangs (or whatever, you get the point) in captivity. Now, if advances in marine aquaculture are shared with those countries, fishermen can become fish farmers.

It just seems as if the hobby has a long way to go before we have the choice of not removing anything from the reefs. Until then, work has to be done to ensure that those whose livelihoods depend on the reef are motivated to use sustainable harvesting techniques.

It's awfully easy to sit back over here in the West and say "you have to do this, this, and this," but I'm not a fisherman trying to feed my family.

[cortez marine]

Way too true;
"It's awfully easy to sit back over here in the West and say "you have to do this, this, and this," but I'm not a fisherman trying to feed my family."

Americas 'born again' take on the environment has come after a couple of centuries hell bent on exterminating everything that stood, flew or crawled...not to mention swim.
This was in our so called "developmental" stage.
"Developing" countries today might wonder how come it was OK for them, but not for us. On what high ground...with what moral authority do Americans now tell us to stop fishing in favor of elite, capitalized, industrial aquaculture.
Aquaculture rarely employs and includes village fisherman.
Using that as a qualifier isn't right. Aquaculture is farming....for business reasons, not alturism or holier then thou.
If all tropicals were aquacultured...which they will never be in any readers lifetime...then the fish collectors would simply be shunted into the ranks of even more destructive endeavors....mainly food fishing. Hence...no net positive for the marine eco-system.

Everyone loves the fish...yet no one wants the fisherman.

Aquaculture is no panacea...So far its a sugar pill and a sop to the conscience of an industry clearly defined by wildcaught livestock that employs fisherman....not just a few laboratory people and fish pond workers.
Steve

[Gawain1974]

Very well-put Cortez Marine! I really appreciate reading your insight!

[mkirda]

Originally posted by cortez marine
Aquaculture rarely employs and includes village fisherman.
Using that as a qualifier isn't right. Aquaculture is farming....for business reasons, not alturism or holier then thou.
If all tropicals were aquacultured...which they will never be in any readers lifetime...then the fish collectors would simply be shunted into the ranks of even more destructive endeavors....mainly food fishing. Hence...no net positive for the marine eco-system.

This describes how it is practiced now, Steve.
Villaged-based setups might alleviate some, if not all, of the concerns you voice.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

[cortez marine]

This describes how it is practice NOW, Steve.
Villaged-based setups MIGHT alleviate some, if not all, of the concerns you voice.

Understood....in fact, the 'POTENTIAL' has always been good... even exciting!...
but the investor or the business people will always think, what do poor folks need with this money? Better I should have it.
Yes....afterall, I deserve return on risk and investment and after all, the world does revolve around me. [ and yes...of course they think that way ]

I work with a netcaught co-op village in Northern Bali and they are having a big problem with their soft coral farm.
Seems they lack capital, investment and inability to keep up with the 'flavor of the month' latest new screaming orange zoanthid or purple pom pom.
They thought being both netcaught and into aquaculture would be market pluses. Its been a rude awakening to actually relize the dream and find out how little the market is driven by ethical/environmental concerns.
They accept now that all they do must compete with the lowest and the cheapest...or the most incredibility exclusive stuff out there. Simply doing the right thing has hurt them badly.
The reality sells less then the paper concept...and the paper concept works more...a lot more on grant money...not sales revenue.
Steve

[Thales]

It seems to me there is a disconnect between a village in Bali and the hobbyists - the village doesn't sell to hobbyists, it sells to wholesalers. The system is not set up to deliver the ethical exporters product to the people who would actually care to buy it. Instead, those products have to compete for bottom line costs instead of value added costs.

I don't see a good way to deal with this issue. Steve? :D

[cortez marine]

Lefty,
Your right.
That disconnect has long prevented a more eco-friendly evolution in the trade. Business folks seem to think that the eco-driven theme is too weak to improve sales among retailers who in turn think its too weak to improve sales to hobbyists...so they settle for the image enhancement of semi conservation and P.R. statements like the MAC-donalds position on the environment.

Everyone wants netcaught imperator angels....few want them if they cost more.

Hobbyists who care may assume that they represent more buying power then they have ever delivered.
I really wish there would be an uprising of demand and demand for action to go with the puff and shallow eco-speak.
This is perhaps a false hope and thats why I really think the field reform approach is best.
Reform must be for tropical countries interests as we have a hard time reconciling our true long term interests vis a vis marinelife with our short term lusts.
Steve
PS. Business people can accelerate great changes if they will just do it...but....its rare to find any who would change a little behavior if it risked any uncertainty.

[SeaSpza]

Im not sure where you buy your fish but it has been my exparience that the tank raised are more expensive.

[cortez marine]

So far,
Tank raised fish are to the industry what backyard tomato growing is to feeding the nation.
Growing what is easiest...ie fish w/ large eggs and larvae is a far cry from growing what the trade would actually need to make any difference...ie culturing commercial quantities of tangs, butterflies, angels, wrasses, damsels, groupers, bats, anglers,triggers etc.
Then again is the elite pro-laboratory sector vs. the poor fisherman quandry.
Fisherman will do something with the sea. At least w/ tropicals we have a say and an input into it to moderate catch methods.

All cultured livestock [ a myth and impossibility in any readers lifetime ] will simply divert the fisherman into food fishing and probably greater impact on the reefs we say we wish to "save."
Funny way to pretend to save anything.
Cultured stuff is a placebo at best and a cheap deodorant in lieu of a shower.
It is something...but a foundation of the industry it is not.
Unlocking the secrets of micro-larval care and rearing have kept progress at a glacial pace and will not come in time to save anything.
The industry is clearly sustained by wildcaught livestock while cultured fishes progress far slower then reef destruction.
Steve

[knowse]

Originally posted by SeaSpza
Im not sure where you buy your fish but it has been my exparience that the tank raised are more expensive.

If you knew how hard it was to raise "tank raised", "tank bred" or "mariculturered" fish, then you'd know you were getting a bargin regardless of the cost.

As an informed hobbiest, I believe that the only real way to save the reefs from more distruction is make sure and demand that our lfs buys responsibly. Meaning that they only get net caught fish in. In this small way, we can support the collectors that are doing things the right way and don't/won't revert to cyanide to catch dinner or blasting the reefs for road construction materials.

WE AS A COLLECTIVE GROUP need to make our voices heard! But unfortunately, there are many among us who only care about how much that pretty little fishey is going to cost. They only care that the price is cheap. You see it everyday on this bb and on others, "where can I get ... cheap?" That's the problem.

[SeaSpza]

I actually do know a thing or two about it and I dont mind the extra cost.I was just pointing out that the starter of this tread said that tank raised were cheaper and that is not the case.

[justincognito]

Great thread. Lots of issues raised. I myself am leaving my job after christmas to work on an NPO. The puprose is to develop ecologically friendly and ecoonomical viable technologies and practices that can be applied in marine ornamenta aquaculture. The lessoned learned there can also be applied to conventional ffod aquaculture and other businesses. The bottom line is the bottom line. If it is not cheaper and more efficient to use an environmentally friendly alternative it will not be used on a wide scale. If captive cultured or responsibly aquacultured speciemens were available and cheaper people would buy them. Some may buy exclusively because something is captive bred. Most will buy because it is cheaper.

[justincognito]

And we can't kid ourselves about inland coral growing. All the electricity, products, and water we use ( and waste) have an ecological impact. Hands down the hobby currently has an overall negative impact on the environment. How many resources did it take to grow that tank raised coral? Sure it wasn't collected from the ocean but the mercury in the bulb you used will make into the tuna you eat eventually.
However I feel what the hobby is doing now overall is beneficial in that we are bringning more awareness to the reefs. More people have a vested interest in them now than ever before. By using this awareness and switching to evironmentally friendly practices the impact can be switched to a positive one. The hobbyist is perhaps the most powerful player in all this as they can demand change and do things themselves at home. With enough time and energy put into this we can find ways to do these environmentally friendly alternatives easier and cheaper.
PLease check out
www.asaquaculture.org

[cortez marine]

Progress?
As the rate of progress is far , far slower then reef destruction...I surely don't get it.
This trade sidestepped the whole cyanide fish question for 25 years and went straight into pretentions of being reef friendly cause they frag a few fingers....for self benefit and interest.
None of the coral growing ...[ and crowing ] stems from an environmental ethic. It stems from a production ethic for better numbers and more controlled output.
To stand by mute...nay, to consume heartily cyanide fish that sprung from mature stands of aged coral for decades and only become born again as token acros get chopped to multiply profit...?
Puh..ease people!
Who are we fooling by trying to substitute pennies for dollars here?
The cyanide trade is still going strong and the only outcry and demand I heard as a wholesaler for 25 years was for cheaper fish...not sustainable ones.
Parroting deed-free Eco speak and touting chop-shop tokenism as evidence of change is mere wordsmithing for P.R. purposes.
Whos fooled by it other then newbies and MAC followers and outsiders?

I'd take an ounce of action over a pound of puff and platitudes anyday.

Steve

[Chad Vossen]

i think anyone interested in keeping a saltwater tank should start out with a 20 gallon full of neon tetras or some other sensitive fish. then they can add plants and try to keep them alive. the plants are much like corals because they need light, not as much but without lots of light the plants look ugly. keeping freshwater tanks will get the person into the "cycle" of checking the water conditions, feeding, and prepare them for that big saltwater tank.


i think that all collecting should be greatly regulated. more money should be put into captive breeding than collecting. how much money does 10,000 lb of cyanide (spelling?) cost? put that money into captive breeding. duh lol. it isnt impossible to breed the "impossible breeders" just takes lots of trial and error. someday i think all fish will be captive bred. price will probly remain super high as compared to freshwater fish. which will also keep the amatures out of the salt.

btw, i love freshwater fish as well. i have a 14 inch clown knife fish :D

[Sheol]

IME, capitive bred or raised anything ( snakes, fish, lizards, birds, salamanders) are far superior to anything wild caught. The extra buck are well worth it, folks..

Matthew

[gkarshens]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=5907022#post5907022 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by balci
Let's take what Mustafa said in the Lion King, that there's a circle of life and it will continue always, regardless of how much we take from the ocean, the ocean will always have more to give.

That is the most "head in the sand" statement I have ever heard.

Steve, is there a way for the hobbyist to find out wether the fish our LFS gets is cyanide caught or not?

[knowse]

Sure find out who their wholesalers are.

[cortez marine]

Sallys right,
But then again, all wholesalers will say... "buy from me and I'll set you free!"
Including me.
We're all Spartacus!
Steve

[gkarshens]

What is the name of your company? I will recommend it to my LFS. They won't tell you who they use for fear you will side step them.

[zedx6]

My thoughts are that regulations for collection should be set, net collection and limits so that fish are healthier and rare species will not be impacted due to over collection, and if species can be tank raised numbers taken through collection should be limited greatly as the need for wild caught is not needed. Just my opinion.

[cortez marine]

Zedx6,
All cultured livestock [ a myth and impossibility in any readers lifetime ] will simply divert the fisherman into food fishing and probably greater impact on the reefs we say we wish to "save."
Funny way to pretend to save anything.
Cultured stuff is a placebo at best and a cheap deodorant in lieu of a shower.
It is something...but a foundation of the industry it is not.
Unlocking the secrets of micro-larval care and rearing have kept progress at a glacial pace and will not come in time to save anything.
The industry is clearly sustained by wildcaught livestock while cultured fishes progress far slower then reef destruction.
Steve

[zedx6]

I agree that the pace of development for aqua cultured fish is slow, but I do not think we should not continue to try and develope it, break throughs can occur in short periods of time with the way technology is advancing. The fact that there are reefs around the world makes it difficult to regulate especially in third world countries, I am sure they will continue to use cyanide and wholesalers will continue to buy those fish. I read that you were the one to call this out in the early 80's and have tried to train some of the collectors which is great but this is still going on 20+ years later, so what would you suggest we do as hobbyist?

[cortez marine]

Progress continues on the breeding front on its on momentum and incentive.
It inches forward at a glacial pace....too slow to save much reef at all.
Thats why the 500 or so that have been net-trained need to be enhanced.
The only thing that has held this back has been people. The funding was and is there....Its just that the people in charge don't know how to do it and never will.
They are simply not fisherman oriented field people and thats where all the action is.
They will write stories, grant proposals, survey data and the like, but they will not inspire divers to convert the way they are now.
This is not difficult for us commercial people to solve but its impossible for outsiders who covet the grant money and spend it unwisely
Steve.
Steve

[knowse]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6380249#post6380249 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by gkarshens
What is the name of your company? I will recommend it to my LFS. They won't tell you who they use for fear you will side step them.

I know the suppliers of all my lfs and I ask which one/s they are ordering from that week. I've seen stuff dead in the bag coming out of FL and I don't buy it. I also know that stuff coming out of a particular wholesaler in Atlanta isn't that great either.

Being informed is being forwarned.

[Aescleah]

ok i have to put in my two cents here. i hate the idea of paying more for a fish or a coral i busted my ar$e for what i did have,but making the hobby only for the rich isnt fair either. why if your your urges to buy something out wieghs your respect and consideration for other living things whats a little money.

btw i have always been a big fan of captive bred fish not all my stock has been captive but a great many were.

ps i have only went over 1 page of this monster thread, but i could not keep my mouth shut


Ashley

[cortez marine]

Ashley,
Thanks for the 2 cents of comment.
Especially this one;

....."why if your your urges to buy something out wieghs your respect and consideration for other living things whats a little money..."

Where can we send the change?
s

[knowse]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6465217#post6465217 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Aescleah
ok i have to put in my two cents here. i hate the idea of paying more for a fish or a coral i busted my ar$e for what i did have,but making the hobby only for the rich isnt fair either. why if your your urges to buy something out wieghs your respect and consideration for other living things whats a little money.

btw i have always been a big fan of captive bred fish not all my stock has been captive but a great many were.

ps i have only went over 1 page of this monster thread, but i could not keep my mouth shut


Ashley

What the heck did you say? Do you mean you don't want to spend more money for ethicly caught fish and coral? Do you mean you, like 90% of Americans have to work for a living and buying sw is expensive? Well, why didn't you just say that?

I work hard for my money too but it is worth it to me to spend a little more to know that some some poor fisher in PI is getting his fair share of the pie for catching me a fish with out the use of cyanide.

No one is trying to make this a hobby just for the rich. What's trying to be done (in a nutshell version) helping the reefs in third world countrys WHILE making a sustainable living for those that use the reef resources for their livihood AND ethical for the rest of us nimrods to enjoy the bounties of those reefs.

Steve, just give her a full refund.

[Aescleah]

lol ok it was late when i wrote that. yes i would and have paid extra to have a fish i knew was net caught. and will continue to always do it that way cause i hate having a fish i just bought die its heart breaking. what i meant was making fish and corals more expensive to make people think about what they are doing and make them apprecate what they are getting will not work its about respect, patience and consideration for others all the money in the world can not give you that .
the stupid people who have more money will still be doing the same thing. personally i think people like that come and go from the hobby watching fish and inverts die constantly would become to much. to much money to much of a headache and no reward or instant gratifaction which we all know is so important to our society. /rolls her eyes

there are also times when some places i have dealt with are down right dishonest or the fishes way of getting caught can not be traced. i have found captive bred fish are a wonderful alternative and will always look for that option first despite of the lack of variety. lol i had a dottyback that lived in a tank for 5 days in 30 degree water cause of a icestorm knocking out the power that was captive bred. you cant beat that with a stick lol well maybe you could.

as for those third world countries everyone has to do their part yes the fishermen need to make a living to support there families without destroying the reefs. the people they sell the fish to need to pay a good wage for net caught fish and the people who export those fish need to only take fish that are not caught with cyanide or animals that do not do well in captiity. the goverment needs to enforce the rules that are and will be set. we the aquarists need stop looking at things just as a consumer from a capitalistic country. (i could go on and on about that this is the simple short version) those are just the simple and idealistic parts of it. human nature is not always that simple. bah the person who said there should be a temporary ban was possibly right maybe we all need a time out.

Ashley

[bngowe]

IF there is anyone to blame. .. blame the creators of the movie "Nemo" for causing everyone to want a clownfish (even though the point of the movie was to free nemo rather than collect them for our own collection). I find that raising the prices of the fish would just make reefing more for those who are in the class that can afford it, rather than keeping it out of irresponsible hands. truthfully, after the movie, clownfish in general seemed to raise in price. Before, I saw tomato clowns for around10 bucks, but after the movie, they were going for 19.99-29.99 each. Price cant be used as a factor for irrespoinsiblity. if anything, the fish store should be the one educating the customers, tellling them the difficulty level and care for saltwater, rather than just sellling anyone a clownfish, that would end up living in a goldfish bowl.

[bngowe]

IF there is anyone to blame. .. blame the creators of the movie "Nemo" for causing everyone to want a clownfish (even though the point of the movie was to free nemo rather than collect them for our own collection). I find that raising the prices of the fish would just make reefing more for those who are in the class that can afford it, rather than keeping it out of irresponsible hands. truthfully, after the movie, clownfish in general seemed to raise in price. Before, I saw tomato clowns for around10 bucks, but after the movie, they were going for 19.99-29.99 each. Price cant be used as a factor for irrespoinsiblity. if anything, the fish store should be the one educating the customers, tellling them the difficulty level and care for saltwater, rather than just sellling anyone a clownfish, that would end up living in a goldfish bowl.

[Aescleah]

i think the sad thing is the price went up cause people thought there might be more of a demand for marine fish. its all about greed. for instance during the holidays what do merchants do they raise the price on things sorta like july 4th and gas prices.

Ashley

[ethanriley]

As a Pet store owner for three years I can tell you high prices on fish are often indicative of high mortality rates in the countries from which they come. Often the species is dificult to catch because of depth of water or habitat it lives in as a result many are injured and die during capture these are often beautiful species where the demand is high so price goes up. Any fish store owner can tell you one of the greatest stresses in keeping a fish store is the mortality rate in shipping. I am more in favor of captive bred fish species despite the higher price because mortality is greatly reduced and yes profits are better because fewer fish die. As far as education. I have refused customers that want to place livestock in adverse conditions and truth is most of the fish stores that survive do advse their customers well. the reality is there are schmucks who just don't get that they can't always do what they want to do they lie to the LFS and liestck dies. Ask any store owner when they began their maintenance business as an offshoot to the retail ow many customers they found "lying" about what they do with their tanks and stock. It will amaze you. As global warming continues and the reefs die we have a resonsibility to perserve species and become the "zoo's" of the oceans. Just as all fisheries are threatened with extinction soon the trade in Hawaii Fiji and other third world cotres will become extinct. It is a sad law of economics

[onereefnotenuf]

how do you equate lack of funds to being an amateur? I have seen plenty of people with money to burn getting into this hobby without any knowledge of what they are doing. I bet that there are more fish/coral killed by rich"amateurs" than poor ones if only because they can afford more to kill. I have also seen less privileged people who spend a lot less who care much more for the animals they have because they can't afford to replace them and take good care of what they have.