Reefs.org Forums

[Eric Borneman]

Hi Mary:

Sorry I don't have time to go back and read all the threads, so I apologize if it has already been done.

One of my primary complaints in discussions over the aquarium trade is the lack of substantiating opinion. In fact, this happened in a painfully ignorant thread on coral-list not too long ago - i kept meaning to respond toordinarily pragmatic scientists, but the cumulative idiocy of so many made the task insurmountable.

I will say this is somewhat unusual, because it is usually the hobbyists who fail to back up their position, but in this case, virtually everyone was guilty. Members of the list who could have really offered something failed to shwo up and post, and one person in particular was requested for their input and who could have actually offered a lot, Paul Holthus, who posted the typical MAC political statement that said everything and nothing all at the same time.

So, to hopefully help this forum along in its purpose and not become a slander-fest, (as you well know it can be) - and to prevent a lot of the trite overused phrases, the specualtion, and the unbased opinion, perhaps you shoudl suggest reading material - upload it to the site if need be and with permission. Use it to support or discount.

Too many people say "we just don't know", or "the information is not available," or "we don't make a difference", etc.

I would argue that, while there is a paucity of good data for many issues, that in recent years there has been a storm of data collection, many recent papers and publications on the subject, and entire wrokshops and conferences devoted to the subject.

I would urge those participating in this forum to become aware of the issues and what is known and what isn't known, because the statement "We don't know" doesn't really hold much water anymore.

Mary, feel free to contact me for suggestions.

best of luck to your forum - it is a very good idea, and I hope that it can effect posiive change through education.

[MaryHM]

Eric,

If you have any specific documents in mind, please let me know and I'll make sure they get over here. I had been meaning to give you a personal invite to join us here, so glad to see you wandered in by yourself!

To people that don't know, Eric has traveled to various countries, dove with the collectors, and visted export facilities. My direct knowledge with the export end of things ends at Fiji, so Eric will be a great asset!

[SPC]

Welcome Eric! I think your suggestions are excellent and look forward to reading all the info you can supply. [img]images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]
Steve

[jamesw]

Hi Eric,

Thanks for stopping by the new forum. We can certainly use your guiding hand from time to time here.

You're right about reference materials. I think people participating here should all get their hands on the:

Proceedings of the coral collection workshop that you attended recently in Indonesia, as well as your own papers and observations.

Proceedings from the Marine Ornamentals conferences should also be in there.

I can think of about 5 more but can't remember their exact names right now.

Let's put together a list of citations and see if Mary can help round them up and get permission to post them.

Cheers
James

[horge]

You can check out surveys by Dr. Gavino Trono and his colleagues from the UP MSI (Philippines), over the past couple of decades.

These are admittedly macrobenthic algal surveys.

However if you can cobble together algal-density trends for a locality, they can be vital in divining whether nutrient pollution is at fault, as opposed to (or in conjunction with) poisonous collection activities, when discussing 'reef destruction'.

hth,
horge

PS: I'm at work now, but I'll try to dig up the numerous specific cites at home later and edit them into this post tomorrow [img]images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: horge ]</p>

[Fishaholic]

I am interested in Erics thoughts of substantiatings facts.

I did post these in another thread but it really applies here more.

All the information is from the World Resource Institute and was published in Dive Training An extremly well respected magizine for Dive Instructors.

In the Last 20 years, the world has lost 25% of coral reefs, 80 million acres.

58% are in immenent danger from human activity. A number that rises to an astounding 80% when reefs only in Asia are considered.

Recently, in an on-line discussion of the future of coral reefs, many of the world's top reef scientists predicted that coral reeefs, as we know them, will be functionally extinct by the middle of this century.


With all the information avaiible how can anyone even start to make the statement that the coral reefs are a sustainable resource for wild collecting. Even more-so when most of the corals sold are easily fragged?

[Cappuccino Bay Aquarium]

Picking leaves of a tree, is a yearly renewable resource...Each spring millions of new leaves sprout anew.....Every spring millions of fish and corals "sprout" on the reef......most if not all will be "plucked" in some maner thier first year,from the reef..Be it Groupers, Sharks, Gulls etc. Even without predation,most baby fish wont be able to reach food and will die? I say reach ,because while there might be plenty of food on a reef, a young fish usually has to risk its life in order to swim out of its safe hiding place to "reach food"....Many starve without even tying....When we pluck fish from the sea, Yes we contibute to the decline of the number of baby fishes, But its mostly the other predators that miss the meals? Corals where prunning is the means of harvest and the mother "TREE is not harmed is much the same as picking fruit off a tree? This said, when a forrest fire tourches the orchard {ie Polution or high temp origin diseases} reefs die, but this event while these twoare the largest cause of coral die offs,it has little to do with the harvesting for he trade.........In fact this "Farming" of the reef keeps the farmers in most cases from protecting thier fields {the reef} from harm, harm like removing blocks of coral for building foundaions or Cement lime.

[Rover]

While most statistics state that the reefs will be extinct soon, I've always been under the impression that it is due environmental pressures. Loss of habitat through sedimentation, global warming, bleaching events, eutrification. I have to agree with the advocation of sustainable collections as that is the only alternative that gives a valid reason for keeping the reefs alive. Concrete makers just want the rock, it'll be there dead or alive. The food fish industry would just move some where else.

This was posted in another thread but I'll link to it here as well. I found ir very interesting.

Pacific Island Countries and the Aquarium Fish Trade

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr> Recommendations and conclusions

The harvest of ornamental marine fish is of economic interest for Island countries. If the costs of transport and salaries can be controlled, the development of this activity could quickly yield, for an annual harvest of 100,000 fish, a turnover of US$ 200,000 and 10 to 20 permanent jobs. In order to conserve resources, the first thing to be done is to ensure that are no transgressions to authorised fishing methods. Arrangements must be made to ensure that inspections are carried out during fishing or later if necessary and dissuasive penalties must be applied. We propose that catches of the most vulnerable species be regulated according to the precautionary approach, by setting quotas. Monitoring of the quantities exported, together with visits to the fishing grounds, should make it possible to adjust the quotas. If the activity increases significantly (say more than 250,000 fish annually), monitoring of the densities of exploited populations would be needed at the fishing grounds in order to ensure sustainable development of this activity. Tax incentives should also be devised.

<hr></blockquote>

[ December 20, 2001: Message edited by: Rover ]</p>

[JeremyR]

Todd,

Just curious.. but do you not fish, use paper, eat meat, etc? Harvest is harvest.. what matters is that it's sustainable. It doesn't matter if you pull 200k inverts if the actual load could handle 1 million..what matters is if you pull 200k inverts and the ecology can only handle a harvest of 50k inverts.

[farmertodd]

Jeremy,

And unfortunately for our causes here, the information that I read outside of industry interests points more towards the latter rather than the former. I've also seen a lot more real action outside the industry interests. Really all I've seen inside... Is talk.

To address my comfortable and dichotomous life and perhaps get back on the topic...

Walleye, for example, are much more adaptive to different environments (which is questionable about how we've moved them about as well.. just ask anyone trying to reconcile the pacific salmon fishery that was deemed unexhaustable) than say, an achilles tang.. or some species of acropora. It's not like you can just drop one in anywhere and call it your good deed for the day. Once the limited areas appropriate for those animals is gone.. It's gone.

Nor may it be the right thing for that presently suitable and *intact* habitat. Now if my quandry were Eastern Sand Darters instead of walleye, that would be a different story and would be more of an apples to apples kind of discussion.

And intact habitat? What is that? We don't even know really what that is or looks like in North America, because so much of it has been destroyed for cows and paper. Do I still use paper? Yep, but my career is helping people use less paper and have been encouraged by what I have seen up north in lumber country as their new lower impact practices. Do I still eat cow? Yep. But I've begun to reconsider that.

It may seem as tho I'm saying that people a world away don't have the same right as I have to live a completely comfortable and consumptive life style right? Not really. In fact they can have a more fullfilling life away from what's left of the reefs. One example would be the article I posted above in the Philipines.

All I'm getting at (now that we've dug thru my dirty laundry) is... *Perhaps* it's time for a whole group of people who gallavant all over the internet calling themselves "conscientious" to take a step back and reconsider wether their involvement in a habitat they appreciate a world away, should fund its protection by removing it and rolling the dice with it (how much of the hobby needs cleaned up before it's something wholesome?), or educating the people who are the actual stewards of it, to really work for their benefit.

Todd

[Rover]

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

I take interest in the fact that you've recognized there are many factors in reef degredation, extinction even, and it seems you're claiming that "sustained harvest" (which is still removal) is actually going to help wild areas survive, as opposed to placing additional stressors on that environment... Care to explain that? OR anyone...

I basically look at it like this. I have about 6 pecan trees in my back yard. They drop tons of pecans on the ground every year and I don't think twice about it. If for some reason they needed to be chopped down for lumber and I was going to get paid for it I'd probably take the money. If all of the sudden some one from the South Pacific were to contact me and they were willing to buy my pecan crop from me every year at the price of the one time harvest of the lumber, suddenly I'm looking at the pecan trees a bit differently. A one time revenue or a yearly revenue? Suddenly the health and well being of my pecan trees is important. I want them to be healthy and I want them to produce as many pecans per year as they can for a long time. Obviously trees have a longer life cycle than fish do so in this illustration "overharvesting" isn't really addressed because the producers are never harvested, only the "crop". But I think you can see my point. I don't think that this concept of preserving the reef to preserve your income is too difficult for these island nations to grasp. But I do think that they don't neccessarily know what the average amaerican aquarium owner wants in his reef tank either. Someone has to bridge the gap and start a better system of communication between collector and consumer.

Glenn

[farmertodd]

Rover,

Well said.

I don't think I'm portraying my point well enough, or the point is just going to get missed.

Based on this article, written prior to major climatic reef degredation and the infection of blast and cyanide fishing on into Indonesia, and an explosive increase in raw numbers of harvest for the aquarium due to a exponentially growing interest...

There were only, at best, 20 pecan farmers for 200,000 pecans taken. And that pecan crop was questioned by the authors as wether it was sustainable at that time, prior to all the extra stressors on the pecan broodstock. The pecan resources are only going to benefit 80, 100 people out of how many thousands living in the same economic region?? That doesn't seem like it would bring a tide of change for the way the pecan resources were utilized.

And I don't think wether or not they're the right "pecans" or not is the question at this point.

Does that make any more sense? [img]images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Todd

[Rover]

I'm somewhat confused as to how they determined the amount of jobs created by the industry. Take Hawaii for example, less than 10 people collected, bagged and transported 251,312 fish. are they reffering to the entire workforce, just the owners or what? I've always that the numbers were bigger.

[SPC]

Todd, the link you posted is not valid anymore according to MSNBC site.
I am also getting a bit confused as to your point. Do you think that if all marine animals were banned from import for the aquarium trade that the reefs would recover?
Steve

[farmertodd]

Rover,

I'd be interested as well. Might be worth some email around. Maybe I'll contact the public relations person for this organization and see what's going on.

SPC,

Some extras made it in on my link I posted originally. Sorry about that [img]images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/652494.asp?cp1=1

I don't think that the cesation of the Aquarium Industry is going to single handedly correct the perils of wild coral reefs. Obviously, it's much larger than that.

What I don't understand is why so many people in the Aquarium Industry feel that continually removing it and it's inhabitants is going to save it. Wether that's hardy species of fish, unhardy species of fish, whole coral animal colonies, or fragments of those colonies. You're still removing it.

I will take a step back and admit that I do feel a sustainable harvest can be obtained. And I think that would be great. There's nothing that would make me more happy than walking into a shop, and seeing a MAC (or whoever) certification on the animals and know with confidence that an entire economic and scientific process had been served to have that animal arrive right in front of my face.

However, as Eric alluded to... The data is not compiled. And in the case of nature, it's much much easier to error on the conservative side and still have high quality habitat intact, than to have to go back and replace it. I volunteer at a local place where we're reworking a habitat. It's not easy work.

And knowing that there are programs that are creating even more broad economic opportunities to replace reef usage (like the one the article describes)... I'm all for keeping our grubby hands out of the habitat until we *know* for sure what "sustainable harvest" really means.

Todd

[JeremyR]

To say that there were only those amount of jobs is horse puckey. Divers collect fish, sell them to middlemen, who sell them to exporters, who have their own employees who pack/ship the items. From talking to people who have interests in smaller collection stations where there are no middlemen.. just divers and the exporter.. there are still more than that number of people involved. I think those #'s are way off base.

[Rover]

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

What I don't understand is why so many people in the Aquarium Industry feel that continually removing it and it's inhabitants is going to save it.

I don't think that taking stuff out of the reef will eventually save it. I think those who have ideas of replenishing from our aquariums have their heads in clouds. Reefs are dissapearing due to loss of habitat. Siltation, eutrophication, bleaching, global warming. Overharvesting is not the cause it's simply making the problems worse. I think that promoting sustainable harvest places a greater monetary value on the reef. Keeping the reefs valuable will save them.

[farmertodd]

Rover,

So someone did read the article [img]images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] I know I sat there with my jaw on my desk as I read it.

Some things to possibly discuss...

- All these resources were written prior to the El Nino and La Nina events. It would be interesting what the author's current opinion is, or more current information is. Perhaps Eric, Mary or Horge have some info there?

- We're going to potentially compromise the habitat of 200,000 vertebrates (read: how many invertebrates does that enlist?) for 10-20 jobs. Wow. If that's not capitalism at it's finest, I don't know what else is.

- I take interest in the fact that you've recognized there are many factors in reef degredation, extinction even, and it seems you're claiming that "sustained harvest" (which is still removal) is actually going to help wild areas survive, as opposed to placing additional stressors on that environment... Care to explain that? OR anyone... Perhaps this is for it's own thread...

I'll give you a glimpse of my version of the picture...

You see, I don't understand how indigenious people are going to see that they should stop mining or *feeding* themselves, as you're proposing (the concrete folks), if the "ethical example" given to them is people who's real interest in their resources is to hack up the very same resources, ship it half way across the world and decorate their living rooms with it.

I used to blind myself with an argument.. That I can help show them how they should be ethical.. Sort of "I'll only let my wants take 20% of the reef instead of 50%". And then it occurred to me that perhaps, just maybe, it might be better for organizations like The Nature Conservancy (as an example, and one that I'm pretty familiar with now as I've had the good fortune to see how they work locally from the inside) who were just awarded some serious dough by the USCRTF for their management and education programs that actually have proven to work (the Komodo Park fishery being only one example http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/652494.asp).

Really, I'm not trying to be aggressive here or any of the sort. I'm still 5% against a complete import ban [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] And... Obviously, I live a complete dichotomy because I have a bunch of reef animals in my living room as well. It is something that's been bothering me deeply tho in the last few months and I'd like to discuss if anyone else would care to [img]images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Just thought I'd toss that out...

Todd

[MaryHM]

I don't know where those job numbers came from, but my guess is that they are a bunch of statistics taken out of proportion somehow. Since I deal on the collection side with Fiji, I'll base my argument from there.

In Fiji, village chiefs control the reefs within their domain. In order to collect for the aquarium trade, the collection company must purchase fishing rights annually from the chief. This money goes to help support the village. In turn, when the collection company goes to the village to collect, they employ the villagers. These people aren't on a formal "payroll", but the entire village is receiving benefit from the aquarium trade- both as an annual fishing rights fee and as weekly income to village level collectors. Because collection for the aquarium trade isn't a 40 hour a week job, the villagers also utilize their resources in other ways. One of our collection villages also makes money by growing seaweed for the food additive industry. Because they aren't on an "aquarium industry payroll" and they aren't working full time for the aquarium industry, does that mean they don't count as beneficiaries of the industry??

[MaryHM]

OK, I finally had a chance to go through the article Todd posted.

Here is the quote from the article about Sri Lanka:
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote

The number of jobs was estimated at less than 500, many of which were probably only occasional.

Everyone should keep in mind that Sri Lanka is an EXTREMELY MINOR EXPORTING COUNTRY. There are not 100's of boxes of Sri Lankan animals entering this country every week, as there are Philippines and Indonesian. I could pick some tiny island somewhere that had one small collection station on it and say "The aquarium industry is only providing 10 jobs". But as with everything, it must be put into context. Sri Lanka is not a major exporting country. Same argument can be made for Puerto Rico and the Maldives.

It says that Hawaii has about 70 FULL TIME jobs. What is the definition of full time? 40 hours per week 52 weeks out of a year? Very few collectors work these hours. Many of the operators in Hawaii are small (hence the article stating there are over 220 collection permits, but 70 full time jobs). Most of these collectors collect and ship maybe 2-3 days per week. Probably less than that during the slow months of summer.

Now to what the article says about the two main exporters of fish- Philippines and Indonesia.

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

It seems to have stagnated in the meantime due to the negative effects of cyanide fishing (Hingco & Rivera, 1991). More than 2,500 people were thought to participate in this activity

Now, this means there are over 2,500 divers that are participating in cyanide fishing. That doesn't include the ones that aren't, the middlemen, and the employees of the export facility. Goodness only knows how many people are employed regularly, not necessarily "full time", by the aquarium industry. Again, I'd really like to know the definition of "full time" from the author before I jump to any conclusions.