Reefs.org Forums

[esmithiii]

Yes I do. I got rid of all my Rosie O'Donnel paraphenalia long ago. [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

[Dr. Reef]

What about when Sears came out and publicly denounce First Amendment Rights of free speech and pulled their ads on ABC?

Did you remove all of the Sears stuff from your home? Washer and Dryer, refrigerator, dishwasher?

[cubera]

Greetings caring and passionate ones!
May I first apologize to Dr. Reef for not reading the entire thread or his paper before posting a reply. Second, I appreciate everyone's points of view and in no way insist that my own are any better. Third, what I meant by putting back more than we take out should be obvious to anyone who has given rational thought to captive propagation. One wild colony properly cared for can produce numerous daughters. Numerous daughters means numerous wild colonies do not have to be harvested/collected. However you choose to view it, it should be clear that it is a good thing [img]images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] When scientists and governments need high quality reef building stony corals to rebuild what has been destroyed I hope my company is the first one called [img]images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]
I've been put out of business twice by regulations allegedly aimed at preserving fisheries. Therefore, I will abstain from further posts on this thread [img]images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[cjdevito]

Just getting back to this, so I have a few replies to make.

Glenn:
Who do you think should do the regulating?

The government. I hold no hope whatsoever of the industry ever being self-regulating. What I'd like to see are policies designed intelligently, hopefully with input from the folks who would be affected.

it be done at the state level or federal level?

Federal, I should think. I assume it would go this way in any case, as the recommendations for bannings by the CRTF were made to Congress.

Where should the lines be drawn?

A really broad question, I'm afraid. I also don't neccessarily consider myself the best qualified to answer it. My off-the-cuff answer would be most LPS and most anemones, right off the bat.

Cubera:
Your practices, and mine, should be based on the notion that we will always put more back in nature than we take away

Really? Like what? Look, I'm not knocking growing frags captively....but what on earth does that give back to nature? At best, it provides less incentive for others to take away, but that's a diminishment of a loss and not a gain.

Ernie:
My point about banning importation relegating this hobby to the wealthy is one that I think is easy to see and difficult to dismiss. A ban would raise prices, which are already incredibly high and the less economically affluent would be barred by the cost. Our friend, Dr. Reef would be shut out of the hobby.

Nonsense. No matter if livestock prices -doubled-, the cost-of-entry into the hobby in terms of equipment is quite high enough on it's own. Someone who can scrape together the cost of hardware and setup can afford to stock, even at inflated post-ban prices, albeit possibly more slowly.

I'd also argue that perhaps not being able to buy a goniopora for $15 at the corner LFS would probably be a good thing, in the first place.

The question of when you will take down your tank is really one of pointing out hypocricy.

Bull****. Pure, unadultered, unadorned bull****. It was bull**** the first fifty times I've had to deal with this same argument from other people, it's bull**** this time, it'll be bull**** the next time someone tries to push it forth. It is most emphatically NOT hypocrisy to recognize a problem and attempt to see it addressed. On the other hand, it most certainly is hypocrisy to refuse to admit the problem exists and needs to be fixed, simply because that would be inconvenient for your personal desires. Someone concerned about the way the industry treats the reefs shouldn't go and quietly take down their tanks in protest; plenty of uninformed newcomers will eagerly take their place and the cumultive effect is to accomplish absolutely nothing. No, someone concerned should try to change things, to vote with their wallet when it comes to purchases, and to promote reform. That accomplishes far more.

Your argument is without merit, or substance.

Dr. Reef's article does not call for a ban, nor for licensing. He suggests that a ban could cause more harm than good.

For what it's worth, I don't call for an all-out ban either. I've read his paper and agree with large chunks of it. If you check out the editorial discussion forum on this site, you'll find me discussing at length the benefits to partial bans, tax incentives, and the importance of in situ operations to provide a commercial incentive to preserve the reefs.

I argue for key-species bans and tarriffs on all wild collected imports (and not on farmed, aquacultured or captive-reared), among other things.

As for your comments on the idea that "other industries may cause more damage but that doesn't absolve us from our own culpability." That may be so.

That is so. We do damage, incontrovertibly. In a perfect world, that damage doesn't amount to much -- but in this imperfect world, with all the other damage from other sources the reefs suffer, our contribution to that is both distressing and unneccessary.

I don't totally disagree, but would point out that the aquarium industry gets more than its share of blame in the disapearing coral reef problem. This draws attention away from the bigger issues and is a dangerous practice.

No. Not addressing the bits of a problem that you can manage in favor of doing nothing until larger problems other people are responsible for is a dangerous practice. Why wait? Why say 'Yes, this is bad, but that other is so much worse'? This isn't kindergarten and saying someone is being naughtier then we are doesn't carry much weight in the adult world.

I believe that sustainable harvesting of corals can be attained

So do I. But it will never happen in an unregulated industry.

If there is no economic gain in harvesting the reefs, why will the people in those areas think them important enough to save?

See my comments earlier, and the mentioned threads in the editorial discussion forum. I'm sorry, I'm weary of typing it all out again and again, but my position is all there if you choose to read it.


Dr Reef:
This is why the trade is such an easy target. It has a comparitively simple solution. (Not neccessarily a good one, but it will prevent removal and destruction much quicker than the other causes). So, I think we should look at it FIRST and try to devise a satisfactory solution to the problems caused.

Amen.

Glenn again:
As long as there is money to be made off of these "inappropriate species" some one will. That is why a ban on those species will be neccessary. It is impossible and naive to think that this problem can be solved through education of the consumer. The problem is just too big. A ban on "unsuitable" species along with the guidleines and ideas presented in Brian's paper of sustainable and intelligent harvesting will go along way towards solving some of the problems. The structure for "policing" the LFS and preventing these species from being sold is already in place through the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Agriculture. We just need to get those species added to the list.

And another Amen. Well said.

Leonard:
I say ban all corals, period - or at the very least, implement an import limit (eg per weight, which is significantly easier to regulate). We already have a wealth of broodstock in the United States; why import?

To provide a commercial value to the health of the reef, something you cut down at the knees if you completely ban all imports. See the editorial discussion forum threads for the long version.


I probably missed a few points, but whew, that's enough for now.

[esmithiii]

As for removing items produced by Sears, no, I still have my Ted Williams 30-30 that was bought at Sears 30+ years ago and given to my dad, and my craftsman tools are snugly tucked in my tool box. The difference is that a reef tank requires constant return to the industry that "pillages the reef" in order to maintain the tank. Few people know about Sear's attacks on the 1st ammendment (I didn't, and am not sure of the details).

A reef tank is quite something else, IMO. Having a reef tank in your house and screaming for a ban would be like Ted and Jane Turner-Fonda; They are big gun control advocates, but they themselves own class-3 automatic weapons (which if aquired legally cost tens of thousands each) The message that comes across (intended or not) is that the average person is not capable of owning guns, but certain individuals who are wealthy enough are. It is really just hypocrisy.

[Lefty]

But people will see your tools and your 30-30 and ask you where you got them and you will say "Sears but you shouldn't buy them". Yet you get to enjoy the tools since you are are "grandfathered in".

Supporting a ban and supporting the industry are not mutually exclusive. Some people here are saying that we should ban importation of wild caught species while continuing the hobby through other means . I haven't read anything here that says the hobby itself should be ended.

Being a martyr is not the only way to make a point. You can support the industry and try to get them to stop "pillaging the reef" at the same time.

RR

[ November 06, 2001: Message edited by: Lefty ]</p>

[Super Len]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by esmithiii:
<strong>
A reef tank is quite something else, IMO. Having a reef tank in your house and screaming for a ban would be like Ted and Jane Turner-Fonda</strong><hr></blockquote>

The correlation completely escapes me. I am unable to follow how responsible reefkeeping + seeking to regulate the hobby = hypocrite. There must be a constant or variable in there that I must be missing, because that equation makes absolutely no sense.

[esmithiii]

Leonard: I will try to spell it out simply so you can understand. A Ban will stop new FO tanks and 99% of newcommers to this hobby because prices of fish will increase ten fold, and all the "cool fish" are not captively propagated. There are plenty of freshwater fish that look like bangaii cardinals. Most new hobbysts are not attracted to anemonefish. Corals will also rise in price tenfold. Imagine spending $200 for a frag that may or may not make it. Most people won't do it. Without the volume, prices on equipment (tanks, skimmers, heaters, etc) will rise quite a bit as well. Imagine the cost of liverock!! Now: 55G (entry level reef tank) needs 75-100 lbs @ $3.00/lb = $225 to $300, future $2250 to $3000! Who could afford that? Only the very rich.

An across the board ban would kill this hobby. If someone doesn't agree, help me understand why you think prices will only double. Look at anything that has had importation banned, and you will see what I mean. Look at exotic reptiles, birds, guns. Kalishnakov before ban- $200, after ban $1400-2500.

Make a list of all the captively bred marine fishes and ask yourself how many people would start in this hobby if it cost 5 times as much and they could only keep those fish on your list! Is there a single tang on the list??

If you say to me that you realize that a ban would prevent 90% of the people from entering this hobby and you still accept that but aren't willing to give up your own tank, that is hypocrisy in my book.

Hypocrisy- The simulation of virtue or goodness. Insincerity.

Simulating being a benefactor of the reef by denouncing an industry that one also supports by continuing to buy their products. It is pretty clear to me.

As for me I recognise that my liverock came out of the ocean, and was harvested and that some living things died in the course of that undertaking. I recognize that some of the fish in my tank were collected in the wild, even some that have died in my care. I know that every time I buy dry goods from my LFS it is helping them sell fish to people that they know will probably kill the fish sooner or later. I know that every time I buy from Flying Fish Express or Premium Aquatics, or any other on line merchant that I am helping them in some way keep this hobby going. I don't claim to be a benfactor to the reef, nor do I denounce the industry.

I believe that in the long run the only way we will save the reefs is through greater visibility and greater understanding of the dynamics of the reef that we so closely try to duplicate in our living rooms and basements and offices. I think that as we captivly breed more fish fewer will be taken from the ocean.

As far as animal cruelty is concerned, how do y'all feel about beating a dead horse? [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

[Rover]

I don't think any one is advocating for an across the board ban.

[naesco]

Esmithiii
I read the posts including yours and wanted to comment on many of the erroneous assumptions you made in your last post.
However you weave and bob throughout this thread just like a politician on this important environmental issure.
So let me just say that I am sorry the price to you of a Kalishnikov rifle has risen to $3,500. Maybe we should frag them just like we did corals to bring the prices down.

[Dr. Reef]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by esmithiii:
<strong>Look at exotic reptiles</strong><hr></blockquote>

But prices only take 5 years to drop, and while they remain high, they become coveted. I've always wanted a pair of ridge-tailed monitors, but it's taking a long, long time for the captive breeding to churn them out because not many made it out of Australia before export was banned. But this only makes them more desirable, and I don't know a single person who has let one die. But I know tons of green iguanas that suffer and are given up for adoption. So maybe it is good for prices to be high for a short time, they drop. They always drop.

[esmithiii]

Naesco,

I would love to hear all the erroneous assumptions that you referenced but never addressed. As far as your views on gun control- lets not go there.

As for a partial ban, no one cared to take me up on my request for a feasible solution on how to decide which species to ban and which ones to allow importation, and how to enforce the ban.

[SPC]

Ernie, I think that question is answered by looking at the piranah and the bans in place for them.
Steve

[bowser]

originally posted by esmithii:
If you say to me that you realize that a ban would prevent 90% of the people from entering this hobby and you accept that but aren't willing to give up your own tank, that is hypocrisy in my book.

The thing is, around 3/4 of all people who enter this hobby, leave it before one year. They kill a couple of tankfuls of fish/inverts off and then leave saying it's "too hard". If you prevent some of these people from even starting, think about how many animal lives will be saved.
I'm not suggesting an across the board ban, I would rather see limits placed on the animals and even regulation for hobbyists themselves. Let me tell you, half the people wouldn't even start in this hobby if they had to provide EFFORT (like learning/reading) instead of just money.
Why would I have to give up my tanks? I'm one of the 1/4 that have stayed in the hobby.

[Super Len]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by esmithiii:
<strong>
Simulating being a benefactor of the reef by denouncing an industry that one also supports by continuing to buy their products. It is pretty clear to me.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

We need to make a clear distinction between supporting the industry, and supporting unsound practices of the industry; They are not one and the same. I am not making the wholesale assessment of the industry as being evil, and I urge you to not make these blanket and propagandistic statements as well. There are certain aspects I'd like see changed to make for a more responsible industry (ie regulation of wild imports). But responsibility and reefkeeping aren't mutually exlusive of each other. You keep wanting to make them analagous to oil and water. As hard as I try to manipulate my rationale, I still can not see how responsible reefkeeping + regulation = hypocrite.

I don't claim to be a benfactor to the reef, nor do I denounce the industry.

So this clears your conscience. It's acceptable to kill the reefs, so long as you don't believe yourself to be a hypocrite. [img]images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]

I believe that in the long run the only way we will save the reefs is through greater visibility and greater understanding of the dynamics of the reef that we so closely try to duplicate in our living rooms and basements and offices.

A couple of points and questions:
1. We don't have a "long run." If you understand the rate of habtitat destruction, you'd understand this.
2. I've made this point clear before: We as reefkeepers don't contribute much to the preservation of reefs. I acknowledge that our hobby has spurred a few advances in our understanding of reefs. However, it's done little to preserve them, and by a colossal margin, we've taken far more then we've given.
3. At what price do we sacrifice for this "greater understanding of the dyamics of the reef?" The death of an ecosystem?

I think that as we captivly breed more fish fewer will be taken from the ocean.

You have to recognize that captive breeding of marine fish is not as simplistic as freshwater species, and often times is unfeasible. Acanthurids (tangs), for example, require wide expanses of open water to mate and breed - something we aren't likely to simulate in the near future.

Besides, no one is advocating a ban on fish importation. Regulation does not mean ban. You seem to confuse the terminology repeatedly.

Imagine spending $200 for a frag that may or may not make it. Most people won't do it.

Fine. Don't do it then. What makes it a necessity, or a good thing to rape the reefs of life to satisfy the desires of the masses?

Here's my prediction (no less accurate then yours): Captive grown corals may take longer to acquire with a regulation in place, but prices will be tempered by the market. Is it such a bad thing to wait? My thinking is that it allows time for preparation, engenders value to the invesetment, and weeds out the irresponsible from the responsible.

[cjdevito]

Ernie:

I find myself puzzled by your posts. You make statements based on arguments no one is making, make what appear to be deliberate false assumptions about people's positions, and ignore statements that are too troublesome for you to bother with. It took practically twisting your arm off to get you to read the material you asked for in your first post to this thread.

Let's dissect your last few posts:
First, the point about the barrier to entry in this hobby being strengthened if a ban was imposed is not nonsence. The analogy to the exotic bird industry is not a good one. Captive breeding of most species of exotic bird is far easier than that of marine fish. I can speak of this from personal experience. We are decades ahead in the area of captive breeding of exotic birds than we are in the area of marine fish, mostly because of efforts of hobbysts. One key point is that we had a good handle on captive breeding BEFORE the ban went in place. Continued advances in the captive breeding of marine fish would be greatly hindered by a ban.

Here you are deliberately misinterpeting me again. How many times do I have to tell you I don't advocate a total ban before you actually pay attention to what I'm writing?

If you think that prices of captively propagated corals would double, think again; they would be ten times what they are now. If you don't believe me, find out what the price of a cockatau was before the ban, and what it was after.

Seeing as how one of my best friends is a parrot breeder, this undermines your point pretty significantly. I have actually taken a good look at exotic bird prices before the bans, and over the years since. I assure you, they are NOT 10 times as expensive.

People in this hobby don't want a tank with one or two species of corals. Its not worth it. They want a tank full of different species.

And they'll still have it, of that I haven't the least doubt.

As for the part about taking down your tank, I am sorry if it ticks you off. Deal with it. No one likes to be called a hypocrite

Ernie, you're exactly the kind of hobbyist that made me write that editorial in the first place. The kind that thinks no problem exists, or that even if it does that it shouldn't in any way impact their enjoyment. The kind that speaks out against reform and attempts to belittle those who want reform, the kind whose arguments are hyperbole, accusations and finger pointing. Do you not see a problem with the way things are run now? Do you really think they should keep going as they are?

Lefty writes:
Being a martyr is not the only way to make a point. You can support the industry and try to get them to stop "pillaging the reef" at the same time.

Several others make similiar points. Why is it that they elude you, Ernie?

A Ban will stop new FO tanks and 99% of newcommers to this hobby because prices of fish will increase ten fold

I'm not talking about a total ban, and you know it, so stop pretending otherwise for your hyperbole. It makes it very difficult to take any of your points seriously.


Hypocrisy- The simulation of virtue or goodness. Insincerity.

Hmm, and this is the definition you're applying to me, Ernie? Think carefully now, you're an answer away from being on my "complete and total jerk" list.

I don't claim to be a benfactor to the reef, nor do I denounce the industry.

I don't claim to be a benefactor of the reef, but I most emphatically do denounce the industry. How any rational person could fail to denounce an industry with a 90% mortality rate during collection and shipping is beyond me. You will undoubtedly call me a hypocrite (again) for continuing to have an aquarium at this point, but this does, of course, utterly ignore my earlier points about voting with my wallet by supporting the less-destructive dealers and companies, or the fact my denouncement takes the form of seeking to change a bad situation, rather then just ignoring it for my own personal pleasure and convenience. You earlier describe that last course of action as selfish; me, I describe it as being the worst sort of hobbyist.

As for a partial ban, no one cared to take me up on my request for a feasible solution on how to decide which species to ban and which ones to allow importation, and how to enforce the ban.

Ah. And that's why you think it's okay to deliberately change where everyone in this thread writes 'partial ban' to 'total ban' for your convenience?

[Editing to add this: I started posting to this thread before getting "promoted", and I almost chose not to continue it after becoming an administrator simply because of it's nature. In the end I decided to continue, simply because I feel it's too important a topic to ignore. So, let me be clear. The views herein are my own, and are not indicative of reefs.org policy. You are arguing with me, personally, and not in the role of reefs.org administrator. You are free to continue to argue without fear of unwarranted administrative action coming of it, as I assure you that will not be the case.]

[ November 07, 2001: Message edited by: cjdevito ]</p>

[Super Len]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by esmithiii:
<strong>
As for a partial ban, no one cared to take me up on my request for a feasible solution on how to decide which species to ban and which ones to allow importation, and how to enforce the ban.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I won't pretend to understand the full scope of the situation, but here are my suggestions:

It's clear some species can not be maintained sucessfully in closed systems. Species from genus such as Goniopora, Tubastrea, ahermatypic gorgonians, Catalphyllia, etc. are some obvious candidates for a ban.

Fish would be no different. Those species that have proven impossible to husband should be banned.

As for all other species, I'd love to dedicate agencies (such as US's CRTF) to investigate the sustainability of species, and invoke temporary or permanent bans on species found threatened. However, this is probably unfeasible abroad. We would have to finance these operations to ensure they exist, and even this does not guarentee that inspectors would be beyond reproach of self-serving interests. Which is why the following is important:

Bans should be complemented by import limitations. The US may not be able to regulate what gets collected, but we can most certainly determine what comes into our country. I'll be the first to admit that this measure is far from a panacea to overfishing/harvesting. But you'd have to admit it's one step in the right direction.

Enforcing banned species is not simple, but it's also not anymore difficult then any other ban of exotic animals already in law. The sole idea of illegaility punishable by severe fines, confiscation, and/or imprisonment make for an effective deterrant for most people.

Enforcing limits is a simpler task. Seeing as how there are only a few main "gateways" for coral imports (predominantly Los Angeles), we can regulate how many tons importers may legally claim in one month. Sure: there are loopholes, but it's not pragmatic to circumvent them on a large scale.

There's my ideas.

[ November 07, 2001: Message edited by: Leonard v2.01b ]</p>

[jamesw]

Len:

Excellent post!

I'm sure you will receive a response like this:

"Who are you to decide what is difficult/not difficult to husband. Where would we be today w/ your attitude? Just 10 years ago, it was thought that SPS corals were impossible to keep alive"

This is rather easy to rebut.

How many reefkeepers actually follow simple "research protocols" with their aquaria and observations? Of the people that CAN keep some of the "hard to keep" species alive, how many can actually explain and document WHY they can keep them alive? The answer is that most don't follow protocols and most can't explain their successes.

With that in mind, why keep KILLING animals to so-called "advance" the hobby? How many Moorish Idols "is it worth" killing to get one that lives? 10? 100?

After it lives, how many "is it worth" killing to discover that "secret to success?" 10? 100?

The answer is Zero, IMO.

Cheers,
James Wiseman

[ November 07, 2001: Message edited by: jamesw ]</p>

[Rover]

Any one have any suggestions as to how this problem could be addressed without getting the government involved? Also does any one know exactly how the collection process works? Do they just go down and snag anything that moves or do they look for specific things? I was also under the impression that everything had to be identified before it was imported.

I tend to think of the solution lying somewhere in the live rock "farms". I imagine a stretch of the reef that is owned by an individual or company that is tended and farmed. Anything on that stretch of the reef is fair game for being sold. It is up to the owner to keep it healthy and reproducing. There could also be areas marked as wilderness where nothing is to be taken or touched nearby to "seed" the producing area. There could be limits placed on the numbers of fish allowed to be "harvested" per day similar to our bag limits. These limits are determined by reasearchers who determine the carrying capcity and optimum yeild for the area for the "season". Basically a reef farm. Not sure if it could work in reality or how it would be relegated but it sounds nice in theory.

[Super Len]

I confess that the road taken to achieve our current success was a rather morbid one. Along our quest for "reef in a box," we have undoubtly killed millions of fishes and corals. From a detached prospective, we haven't gained much in this trivial pursuit - most certainly not enough to justify our past actions. Our's is indeed a lamentable history.

History is irreversable. But who's to say we must be doomed to practice the same mistakes for the next decade?

To those who would argue that we should continue to import "difficult" corals because historical advances has allowed us to now successfully husband previously "difficult" species, let me remind you the price paid for these advances. Do we really need to kill millions more specimens only to learn how to keep a dozen more species in confined quarters? Personally, I think we've got enough genetic selection in captive grown species alone to satisfy all but the most arrogant desires.

I'm not proud of our past. Being in LA and having been in the hobby for 15 years, I've seen terrible things perpetrated by this industry. But let's not squander what we've learned, and let's most certainly not continue to turn a blind eye on the situation. We will probably never be able to make amends; We can, however, stop contributing to the problem.

This hobby can exist without the hobbyist being a hypocrite, so long as he/she is responsible for himself and those he's able to help. This hobby can exist without our contribution to the rape of the natural world.

[ November 07, 2001: Message edited by: Leonard v2.01b ]</p>