reef depletion
William A. Parsons
had a great segment on breeding of coral. The photography was
amazing! At the end of the segment Robert Urich stated that the
biggest threat to the great barrier reef was hobbyist that
buy live coral to set up their own reefs in their hometanks.
Apparently the live coral is harvested from reefs in the ocean
that are already in danger of being destroyed.
This is the first time that I have heard of
hobbyist being considered a danger to coral reefs. Since I
own a freshwater tank I have not seriously looked into salt-water
aquariums or the hobby of keeping them. Is this information true?
I would be interested to hear what people think of this.
Later,
Will Parsons
Anthony Tse
>I was watching NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC EXPLORER last night and they
>had a great segment on breeding of coral. The photography was
>amazing! At the end of the segment Robert Urich stated that the
>biggest threat to the great barrier reef was hobbyist that
>buy live coral to set up their own reefs in their hometanks.
>Apparently the live coral is harvested from reefs in the ocean
>that are already in danger of being destroyed.
I have not seen any corals from Australia for sale around here,
probably because Au is much further away then just about anywhere
else in the world.
-Anthony
DAVE ROSSELL
>hobbyist being considered a danger to coral reefs. Since I
>own a freshwater tank I have not seriously looked into salt-water
>aquariums or the hobby of keeping them. Is this information true?
>I would be interested to hear what people think of this.
>Later,
> Will Parsons
I'm considering taking the plunge and starting up a saltwater tank, and this
is the first I've heard about something like this. Does this mean it's bad
to buy live coral in stores 'cause it was ripped off an endangered reef
somewhere? How can you tell if the fish you're buying aren't endangered
either, or if they haven't been acquired through drugging or some unethical
manner?
dave rossell
Ville V Walveranta
: I'm considering taking the plunge and starting up a saltwater tank, and this
: is the first I've heard about something like this. Does this mean it's bad
: to buy live coral in stores 'cause it was ripped off an endangered reef
: somewhere? How can you tell if the fish you're buying aren't endangered
: either, or if they haven't been acquired through drugging or some unethical
: manner?
I'm under impression that the honorable (huh?) live rock
distributors only collect and sell pieces of live rock that
have been broken off the reef by the natural phenomena like
the storms, etc.
// Wil
--
* Ville V. Walveranta Tel./Fax.....: +1 (510) 420-0729 THIS IS ****
** 96 Linda Ave., Apt. #5 From Finland: 990-1-510-420-0729 HOW IT ***
*** Oakland, CA 94611-4838 (FAXes automatically recognized) BEGINS! **
**** USA Email....: w...@shell.portal.com *
Andrew Taylor
>had a great segment on breeding of coral. The photography was
>amazing! At the end of the segment Robert Urich stated that the
>biggest threat to the great barrier reef was hobbyist that
>buy live coral to set up their own reefs in their hometanks.
No. I don't know we export any live coral. Certainly any coral collecting is
trivial compared to the huge size of the GBR. Much of the GBR is
protected by a Marine Park. Possible threats to it are: sediments,
nutrients and pesticdes from mainland agriculture and possibly ecosystem
disturbance from over-exploitation of fisheries. The prevailing view
now seems to be the Crown-Of-Thorns Starfish plagues are at least
partly man induced. I believe another one is starting in one part of the
reef.
I remember reading that Veron(sp?) (author of Corals of the Indo-Pacific)
believes about half of the world's coral reefs are under serious threat,
particularly around Asia. Typical threats are those mentioned above +
cynadie + dynamite fishing.
Andrew Taylor
Wade Hines
>amazing! At the end of the segment Robert Urich stated that the
>biggest threat to the great barrier reef was hobbyist that
>buy live coral to set up their own reefs in their hometanks.
>Apparently the live coral is harvested from reefs in the ocean
>that are already in danger of being destroyed.
> This is the first time that I have heard of
>hobbyist being considered a danger to coral reefs. Since I
>own a freshwater tank I have not seriously looked into salt-water
>aquariums or the hobby of keeping them. Is this information true?
>I would be interested to hear what people think of this.
>Later,
Undoubtably many will express the belief that this is not true.
Why do you care what others say. The trueth doesn't work like
the mean value theorum in calculus. You can't average opinions
and discover the trueth.
No doubt, polution of the ocean has an effect. Harvesting for
hobbiests sounds like the most easily prevented danger to
the reef.
Flame away!
--Wade
Greg Smith
If Robert whgat's his name said it on TV it must be true! To the best of
my knowledge no coral is legaly exported from Australia. (i.e. Andrew is
correct) Media hype is deadly. Please do nor believe everything you hear/see
on tv. Listen to both sides, investigate, use common sense and then decide.
On a seperate note I recently listened to a talk by Bruce Carlson from the
Waikiki Aquarium. Let me first state that I like him as a person and I
appreciate his contributions to the hobby. He doesn't believe that hobbyists
should continue to have access to collected coral. He thinks that we should be
able to raise our own. He cites articles dealing with captive propogation of
soft corals and his own success with acropora. He acknowledges that coral
collecting for hobbyists may be a drop in the bucket but it is a drop that
can easily be stopped. Let me state for the record that I do not agree with
Bruce. First we are not at the point where we can produce all of our own
coral. Second, as he admits we are not the cause of the demise of the reefs.
Pollution, development and natural disasters are. I do not believe we
should be regulated unless the major problems are addressed first. They are
not being addressed. In poorer nations such as the Philippines it is illegal
to export live coral but it is ok to use it for building house and roads. -our
government at work. I believe it is still legal to export dead coral from
the PI. Whether it is legal or not it is still done. Our scientists at
work again. We still collect higher animals from the wild, that are in
far more danger from becomming extinct, for our zoos. Scientists are not
screaming about this. It is O.K. if it for them since they know better.
As in all professions there are the good and bad, but I get the feeling that
most of the scientific community would close us down if they had the chance.
Bruce is one of the few who has bothered to cross the lines to hobble with the
hobbyists and he also happens to be one of the most successful in raising
coral. We need to get him to have an open mind.
Comments appreciated
Anthony Tse
>In article <1993Jul20....@usage.csd.unsw.OZ.AU>, and...@cse.unsw.edu.au (Andrew Taylor) writes...
>>In article <930719180...@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> wpa...@unix.cc.emory.edu (William A. Parsons) writes:
>Waikiki Aquarium. Let me first state that I like him as a person and I
>appreciate his contributions to the hobby. He doesn't believe that hobbyists
>should continue to have access to collected coral. He thinks that we should be
>able to raise our own. He cites articles dealing with captive propogation of
>soft corals and his own success with acropora.
Well, acropora is probably the easyist coral to propagate, but for
some unknown reason to me, they are next to impossible to find, and
when you do find one, they are ungodly expensive. Consider how fast
acropora grow in the wild and in aquarium, and how abundant they are
in the wild, I can only chalk up the expense to the greed of the
resellers. If people would move from corals that don't grow fast and
have little chance of propagating in the aquarium to corals such
as acroporas and soft corals, that would be a step in the right direction.
-Anthony
Shaji Bhaskar
decided not to, primarily because of ecological concerns.
If I keep a marine tank, I am contributing to the depletion of the
wild population of the organisms I keep. There probably are other
(possibly more significant) threats to the wild population, but I have
no direct control over them. If I keep a wild-caught marine organism,
I am personally contributing to the depletion of the wild stock.
There is also the question of necessity: many people are degrading
marine wildlife because they need to survive. I would be doing so
just to have a pretty display.
Another reason why I don't have marine tanks is that a lot of the
marine organisms available in this country were captured and exported
illegally. I do not want to be associated with violations of
conservation laws passed by other countries, when we have far more
stringent laws here in the U.S.
I do not believe that the scientific information gathered by
hobbyists, including information on captive breeding, compensates for
the damage they cause. Scientific interest is not the primary
motivation for the hobby. The primary purpose is aesthetics - this is
why "pretty" fish sell better. I am all for people trying to propagate
marine organisms in captivity. But people attempting captive
propagation have the responsibility to minimize the damage they cause.
They should be up-to-date on the available scientific literature, not
just the hobbyist books. And they should take the trouble to do some
sort of apprenticeship where they gain hands-on experience prior to
setting up their own tanks. This is unfortunately not the case with
the marine aquarium hobby today. Every year, a new enthusiasts enter
the marine hobby, and repeat the mistakes made by the rookies of the
previous year.
-Shaji.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Signature? ... er.. It's in the shop right now.
Shaji Bhaskar * BNR, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA * (bha...@bnr.ca)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jason Rosenberg
>Comments appreciated
Not to rekindle the argument again, but I still get annoyed by this attitude of
"It's really not our problem, so we should be allowed to take what ever we want
and horde it before it's all gone." Yes pollution and sediments and over-fishing
are big problems for many of the reefs out there. Yes, in some cases, the
reefs are dying and species are near extinction due to causes completely
unrelated to the aquarium hobby. But the attitude that the aquarium industry
should not have to answer to any authority until these other problems are
addressed is naive. The fact is, these problems will not be addressed and
cleaned up any time soon, especially in developing areas of the world.
I suspect (sorry, I don't have any data here) that there are many reefs that
are still very healthy, that aren't in danger of pollution, etc. These are
the places where the reef hobby needs to be the leader in being responsible
to the longterm health of the eco-system. For as the hobby grows, the demand
for quality livestock will grow, and as the healthy reefs of the world diminish,
the aquarium trade will undoubtedly impinge on the areas that aren't subject
to pollution, etc.
In the case of the environmentally impacted reef, the easiest and quickest way
to help the situation is to stop the large scale collecting of animals from
the reef. Period. You may not be able to lower pollutants in the water for
another 10-20 years (or longer), but you can certainly start.
In collecting animals from the reef, the typical peasant collector will grab
every single specimen he finds of a given species that he knows is valuable.
That surely is going to cause an ecological imbalance if only the easy to
catch valuable (i.e. colorful and small) are removed, while there remain
many other species that depend on the presence of the full bio-diversity to
which the reef has evolved. Same goes for corals and inverts. Finally,
it is impossible to avoid 100% the purchasing of cyanide caught fish.
So, you simply cannot argue that the consumer has any way of being responsible
to the environment when buying fish.
The zoo analogy also does not work for me. While many reef hobbyists spend
thousands of dollars on their systems (a staggering minority of whom are
legitimately attempting to breed corals and difficult fish species), it is nothing
like the amount of money that goes into supporting, studying and preserving
rare species in institutions such as zoos and other research centers. The
overwhelming majority of the aquarium trade goes to people who have very
little knowledge about the animals, and who are ill-equipped to participate`
in the preservation of the species, etc. While a zoo may collect an
endangered species (such as the California Condor, which exists entirely
in zoos, except for a few that were re-introduced in the wild), it is clearly
justified when it is the only remaining option for the survival of the
species in question. In light of this, it is simply ridiculous to say that
hobbyists en masse should be allowed to obtain as many specimens of stressed
species as the market will bare.
Bruce Carlsson, I believe, is looking at the overall picture. The captive
breeding and farming of reef animals is simply the most responsible thing
the industry can do. However, the research and production will take quite
a bit of money to establish, and it will not get done based solely on unregulated
free market policies. It will be more expensive than simply collecting all
animals in the Phillipines until they are all gone. Then it will be too
late, of course. Carlsson has already demonstrated that some of the most
difficult to keep coral species can be bred abundantly in captive systems.
In fact, it appears that in many cases that with good conditions, invertebrates
may be easier to farm than fish species.
This doesn't mean I'm giving up the hobby. But I will always be extremely
enthusiastic about any shift in idealogy that will benefit the development
of captive raised animals.
--
Jason Rosenberg Computer Science Department
ja...@cs.ucla.edu University of California
{uunet,rutgers,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!jason Los Angeles, CA 90024
David Forsyth
Hear, hear; a lucid exposition of the reasons I avoid marine tanks.
Let me temper the point, though, by observing that there are captive
bred marine organisms available, and I can't work up too much of a
sweat about people who keep them. It's also fair to add that there
are people who really do understand their creatures, and that if
one were to cut down the body of hobbyists to that number, then
those people represent much of what is known about the day-to-day
needs of quite a lot of marine animals.
It's also fair to note that there are some awful abuses in the
freshwater hobby, though many to most of the fish sold are
captive bred. As far as I can tell, the best captive breeders of
freshwater species represent much of what is known about
the mechanics of reproduction of freshwater fish.
I must wrestle with my conscience every time I buy an animal that
I know to have been wild-caught; when I feel I have more than
an outside chance of getting it to spawn, (or when it's just
irresistable - I bought 3 Synodontis flavitaeniatus for this
reason) I feel better. I worry a lot about the brigade of idiots
who waltz into a pet-store, buy a starter kit, and then go for
something pretty, expensive, and rare the next day. Fortunately,
there's more captive bred stuff for people to cut their teeth on.
David Forsyth
Steve Tyree
>I was watching NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC EXPLORER last night and they
>had a great segment on breeding of coral. The photography was
>amazing! At the end of the segment Robert Urich stated that the
>biggest threat to the great barrier reef was hobbyist that
>buy live coral to set up their own reefs in their hometanks.
>Apparently the live coral is harvested from reefs in the ocean
>that are already in danger of being destroyed.
If that is exactly what they said, they errored. The GBRMP is a
protected area and covers most of the GBR. No importation is occurring
from this area. It is from Indonesia and a few Islands in the
Pacific. The importation of reef building stony corals is
restricted due to the permit process. Also, new methods are
being utilized which prevent entire small colonies from being
imported. Just branch tips. Asexual captive reproduction will soon
replace these sources. I have 9 asexual propagated fragments growing
in my reef now. They will be traded or given to other captive
reef keepers later in the year. Have numerous soft coral cuttings
and have given one away successfully.
Steve Tyree - Reef Breeder
Andrew Taylor
I wonder if the most economic way to farm corals would not be similar
to the methods we use to farm oysters i.e. pens and artificial substrate
placed in the (tropical) ocean. All the overheads (especially labour)
would be cheaper except transport. Coral pieces broken from natural reefs
by storms (which will otherwise die) could be used to seed the farms.
I doubt a nation like Fiji would undertake such a venture. It would be
cheaper still to allocate a small fraction of their natural reefs
to sustainable harvest. These reef ecosystems are after all a resource
that exploit already. Indeed traditionally Fijians have been good
at managing exploitation of their reefs (unfortunately this can't
be said for their fast disappearing forests).
Having seen storm damage to a Fijian reef I'd speculate collection of pieces
broken from Fiji's reefs by storms would be more than enough to supply the
entire global live coral trade. The irregular supply could be smoothed
somewhat by use of holding areas. Such collection would not, of course,
be zero impact and you would only want to apply it to some of Fiji's reefs
but it should be low impact.
Andrew Taylor
Anthony Tse
>In article <21JUL199...@venus.lerc.nasa.gov> fss...@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Greg Smith) writes:
>>Comments appreciated [about live coral collecting]
>
>I wonder if the most economic way to farm corals would not be similar
>to the methods we use to farm oysters i.e. pens and artificial substrate
>placed in the (tropical) ocean. All the overheads (especially labour)
>would be cheaper except transport. Coral pieces broken from natural reefs
>by storms (which will otherwise die) could be used to seed the farms.
You are talking entirely too much sense for the wacko
enviromentalist (before someone flame, I consider myself an
enviromentalist, just not a wacko one) or politicians. Some
people are trying to grow LR just like you said, and they are
having a tough time getting permission. If some stray corals
decide to settle on those rocks, they become illegal. I bet you
can farm the US supply of acroporas that way (consider how little
acroporas are imported into the US).
Actually, I understand that Trad. clams are farm that way in the
Marshall Islands for food. Large clams are kept in concret
tanks and they are induced to spawn. The baby clams are kept
in concret tanks until they are ~.5" - 1" then are place in
the reef again. When they grow big enuf, they become dinner for
someone.
If you as much as touch a broken off coral piece that is destine
to die, the scuba people are going to be all over you. I still
remeber that sh*t for brain guy from rec.scuba in the last LR
flame war.
-Anthony
Dave Sheehy
: Does this mean it's bad
: to buy live coral in stores 'cause it was ripped off an endangered reef
: somewhere?
: How can you tell if the fish you're buying aren't endangered
: either, or if they haven't been acquired through drugging or some unethical
: manner?
Don't buy any fish found in the Philippines or Indonesia. This of course means
that you'll have to do some research before you buy a fish.
: dave rossell
Dave Sheehy
Dave Sheehy
: I have toyed with the idea of keeping marine aquaria, but I
: decided not to, primarily because of ecological concerns.
Your opinions are very well stated. I would like to add some counterpoint to
the issues you raise.
: If I keep a marine tank, I am contributing to the depletion of the
: wild population of the organisms I keep. There probably are other
: (possibly more significant) threats to the wild population, but I have
: no direct control over them. If I keep a wild-caught marine organism,
: I am personally contributing to the depletion of the wild stock.
Many marine fish have high recruitment levels. That is, the breding adult
population of a species can remain relatively constant while the juvenile
population is under heavy predation pressure. Therefore, if only subadults
collected and the breeding adults are left in the ocean the hobby will have
little effect on wild populations. Captive breeding while a very desirable
goal is not an absolute requirement for protecting marine ecosystems.
How do we as hobbiests influence this? The answer is simple economics. Refuse
to buy adult and very young animals (very young fish tend to have very low
survivablility) and tell your dealer why. Boycott fish that occur in areas
where cyanide collecting is done (primarily the Philippines and Indonesia).
Many marine fish have very wide ranges and many Philippine fish are also
found in Australia. The problem is you have know way of knowing where it came
from despite a dealer's claims as to the fish's origin. Therefore, it seems
necessary to me to boycott all fish whose ranges include the Philippines and
Indonesia. Sometimes fish from certain regions have distinct color variations
and you can verify their origins yourself if you are familiar with these
distinctions. In summary, I don't believe that it is necessary to boycott
the marine hobby completely but to target those areas which use unacceptable
practices.
: There is also the question of necessity: many people are degrading
: marine wildlife because they need to survive. I would be doing so
: just to have a pretty display.
This doesn't justify what they're doing any more than it justifies our motives.
Their is no need to collect marine life in an unsustainable manner.
: Another reason why I don't have marine tanks is that a lot of the
: marine organisms available in this country were captured and exported
: illegally. I do not want to be associated with violations of
: conservation laws passed by other countries, when we have far more
: stringent laws here in the U.S.
No argument here except to reiterate that if you are aware of the origins of
the fish you are interested in it is possible to avoid this.
: I do not believe that the scientific information gathered by
: hobbyists, including information on captive breeding, compensates for
: the damage they cause.
Here I may disagree with you. I believe that reef hobbiests may soon find
themselves in the same poition as the killifish people. Namely we will be
maintaining and propogating coral species which have become extinct in the
wild. Many Acropora species are in danger and as Anthony pointed out they
grow relatively quickly in a captive environment and are easy to propagate.
Ironically, they are hard to obtain. Stan Brown, a writer for MFM, is the
focal point for the Breeders Registry. They are a group exchanging information
information on captive breeding and propagation of marine organisms. He says
the group is finally gaining some stability and some real information
exchange is starting to take place.
: Scientific interest is not the primary
: motivation for the hobby. The primary purpose is aesthetics - this is
: why "pretty" fish sell better. I am all for people trying to propagate
: marine organisms in captivity. But people attempting captive
: propagation have the responsibility to minimize the damage they cause.
: They should be up-to-date on the available scientific literature, not
: just the hobbyist books.
I contend that only a core group of hobbiests needs to be up on the latest
and greatest info. The rest can just take advantage of their expertise. An
appropriate analogy would be that not everyone needs to be a horticulture
expert to have a successful garden. I can vouch from personal experience
that it is almost trivial to propagate many corals from cuttings (much as
a gardener starts new plants from cuttings). I do concur completely that
there does have to be a group of people blazing the trail (and there currently
is).
: And they should take the trouble to do some
: sort of apprenticeship where they gain hands-on experience prior to
: setting up their own tanks. This is unfortunately not the case with
: the marine aquarium hobby today. Every year, a new enthusiasts enter
: the marine hobby, and repeat the mistakes made by the rookies of the
: previous year.
This is unfortunately all too true.
: -Shaji.
Dave Sheehy
Steve Tyree
>No doubt, polution of the ocean has an effect. Harvesting for
>hobbiests sounds like the most easily prevented danger to
>the reef.
Harvesting for the general trade will disappear in the future and only
captivelly propagated coral will be traded. Until we get to that point
a captive stock needs to be attained. This stock can be used as a backup
in case we can not prevent the other more reef threatening environmental
problems which are occurring. A poster from Australia mentioned a few.
Research also has to be performed and this requires coral harvesting by
biologist and scientist. Advanced aquarist are also providing research.
Many important reef building corals are now being actively propagated
by public aquaria and private aquarist via asexual fragmentation. Some
corals have even spawned sexually in captivity. It would be wiser to
stress preventing the wholesale killing of reefs for construction
material or other much more devastating problems right now. One coral
TV special showed human dwellings made of dead coral skeletons. Made
me real mad to say the least.
Note - Many of the problems that aquarist have to wrestle with in
maintaining long term success has parallels to natural reef environ-
mental problems. We need research.
nic...@nicad3.nic.bc.ca
> From article <1993Jul21.1...@bmers95.bnr.ca>, by bha...@brtph181.bnr.ca (Shaji Bhaskar):
>> I have toyed with the idea of keeping marine aquaria, but I
>> decided not to, primarily because of ecological concerns.
>>
>> If I keep a marine tank, I am contributing to the depletion of the
>> wild population of the organisms I keep. There probably are other
>> (possibly more significant) threats to the wild population, but I have
>> no direct control over them. If I keep a wild-caught marine organism,
>> I am personally contributing to the depletion of the wild stock.
stuff deleted
>> the marine aquarium hobby today. Every year, a new enthusiasts enter
>> the marine hobby, and repeat the mistakes made by the rookies of the
>> previous year.
>>
>> -Shaji.
>> --
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Signature? ... er.. It's in the shop right now.
>> Shaji Bhaskar * BNR, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA * (bha...@bnr.ca)
>>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Hear, hear; a lucid exposition of the reasons I avoid marine tanks.
>
> Let me temper the point, though, by observing that there are captive
> bred marine organisms available, and I can't work up too much of a
> sweat about people who keep them. It's also fair to add that there
more stuff deleted
> something pretty, expensive, and rare the next day. Fortunately,
> there's more captive bred stuff for people to cut their teeth on.
>
> David Forsyth
>
This healthy discussion is similar to one that has just raged on in the
rec.woodworking group over the destruction of rainforests and clearcutting of
temperate forests. Many of the same arguments have been put forward from
"I'm not the problem, I only use (x board feet of lumber, y pounds of coral) a
year, so my little bit of use couldn't possibly have any impact." to "I have
quit (woodworking, marine aquarium keeping) altogether because I can't
rationalize the destruction." and a whole bunch of opinion in between. It was
good for the group to get the issues on the table, even though some thought
that it was a waste of their time. I have been following the reef discussion
and believe that we will all have a better understanding when all is said.
Just an observation on the similarities of concerns that different hobbyists
have.
john nicklin
Ramirez, Angel A.
(Dave Sheehy) writes in answer to Shaji Bhaskar (bha...@brtph181.bnr.ca):
>: If I keep a wild-caught marine organism,
>: I am personally contributing to the depletion of the wild stock.
>:
>: -Shaji.
>
>Many marine fish have high recruitment levels. That is, the breding adult
>population of a species can remain relatively constant while the juvenile
>population is under heavy predation pressure. Therefore, if only subadults
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>collected and the breeding adults are left in the ocean the hobby will have
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>little effect on wild populations.
>
>Dave Sheehy
Dave:
When you state that (allow me a little paraphrasing here) "If only
subadults are collected then the hobby will have little effect on wild
populations.", I assume you are writing about the population which is being
collected (I agree, the effect on it might be very small), but, if this is
the case, aren't you looking at only a small portion of the picture? What
about the population of the species that predate on the one that is being
collected?
The reef is a very complex dynamic system and taking life forms
from it, even if no harm is done to the species being taken, can harm the
habitat as a whole.
Angel Ramirez.
ST...@Jetson.UH.edu
Andrew Taylor
> Actually, I understand that Trad. clams are farm that way in the
>Marshall Islands for food. Large clams are kept in concret
>tanks and they are induced to spawn. The baby clams are kept
>in concret tanks until they are ~.5" - 1" then are place in
>the reef again. When they grow big enuf, they become dinner for
>someone.
Researchers in Queensland did a similar experiment breeding Clams
(Tridacna gigantus?). The results far exceeded their expectation producing
thousands of quickly growing clams across a reef flat. They had to get the
navy to ship them in a landing craft to other reefs because they were
smothering each other. They took DNA samples and are going to monitor
recruitment between coral reefs.
Andrew Taylor
Dustin Lee Laurence
Hope I have more sense in the future than to post again to such
an overkilled, emotional, irrational, flame-endemic thread. Cross
your fingers, and I'll try to shut up.]
ja...@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Jason Rosenberg) writes:
>I suspect (sorry, I don't have any data here) that there are many reefs that
>are still very healthy, that aren't in danger of pollution, etc. These are
>the places where the reef hobby needs to be the leader in being responsible
>to the longterm health of the eco-system. For as the hobby grows, the demand
>for quality livestock will grow, and as the healthy reefs of the world diminish,
>the aquarium trade will undoubtedly impinge on the areas that aren't subject
>to pollution, etc.
FWIW (which sure isn't very much), I certainly agree that the reef
aquarium hobby should be a leader in reef preservation. This ought
to have nothing to do with whether particular reefs are damaged or
not.
>In the case of the environmentally impacted reef, the easiest and quickest way
>to help the situation is to stop the large scale collecting of animals from
>the reef. Period. You may not be able to lower pollutants in the water for
>another 10-20 years (or longer), but you can certainly start.
Let's not be completely silly, see below.
>In collecting animals from the reef, the typical peasant collector will grab
>every single specimen he finds of a given species that he knows is valuable.
The peasant collectors are generally former food fishermen. Food
fishing requires several orders of magnitude more fish to be
removed. Not only that, but food fishing concentrates on a few
species to a degree that the aquarium hobby can't even dream of
obtaining (and, thankfully, would not want to). Those people will
simply go back to more harmful practices as short-sighted policies
such as this are enacted.
To the degree that food fishermen are able to make a better living
in a lower-impact trade which brings in money from industrialized
countries, and produces an export which yields more money for fewer
animals removed from the reef, then it is a good thing. Except in
the cases where cyanide is used (or the other stuff they use in
Florida), then we would be much better off if these countries could
employ more fishermen in exporting the aquarium fish trade than
what they in fact do--which is sell food fish, dead coral, and
sewage producing resorts.
It is funny; for as long as I've been associated with environmental
groups, I have continually wondered how people who have made a
religion out of the "everything is connected to everything else"
idea can so consistently fail to consider all of the effects of
their actions. The lack of safety in the US nuclear powerplants
came as a result of the anti-nuke campaigns....
>Finally,
>it is impossible to avoid 100% the purchasing of cyanide caught fish.
>So, you simply cannot argue that the consumer has any way of being responsible
>to the environment when buying fish.
I'll thank you not to tell me what I can and can't argue. Whether
you agree or not is your own business.
And you are wrong. It is quite easy, since one of the founders of
the IMA is also a wholesaler. Steve Robinson has received a number
of death threats for his work in the netsman project. Call Sea of
Cortez, and ask them if there is a store nearby which orders fish
from them. I did.
I grant you, few reefkeepers seem to care, but that is not the same
as impossible.
I have a writeup which includes a piece on the IMA/Ocean Voice and
also Sea of Cortez. I will make it available on the ftp site I am
in the process of setting up soon.
(If you ftp there and can't find it, you can e-mail me and prod me
to get around to it. I promise I'll get my own archive files moved
there soon.)
Now with that minor interruption, you all can go back to flaming
each other senseless with rhetoric after you take your shots at me.
Dustin, who is perhaps more grouchy tonite that he has a right to
be. Sorry about that, Jason. Actually, I don't know why I always
end up posting to these !@#$%^&* threads every time they come up.
Dustin Lee Laurence
[...]
>Have numerous soft coral cuttings
>and have given one away successfully.
Which, I might add, continues to do very well. It may have grown a
quarter of an inch--or maybe it is just stretching out even further
than it was a while ago. I am convinced that I am not imagining the
extra length.
I'm also becoming convinced that we know enough about these soft
corals that we should seriously consider ramping up some import
limits. When the knowledge is there, we can stop them entirely
except for breeding stock. I'm becoming convinced that that time
is fast approaching for many soft corals.
How fast do these soft corals grow, anyway? Does a quarter of an
inch imply an unreasonable rate?
Dustin
Anthony Tse
>st...@rhythm.com (Steve Tyree) writes:
>How fast do these soft corals grow, anyway? Does a quarter of an
>inch imply an unreasonable rate?
Well, the big soft coral sitting in the middle of my 75g came
on a piece of rock about the size of a big chicken egg. I measured
it last night and it is 16.5" across, 12" tall. It split insely
into 2 pieces, and one branch is connected to the main body by
a thread, so it will be 3 pieces soon. BTW, the piece is 22 months
old.
-Anthony
Anthony Tse
> The reef is a very complex dynamic system and taking life forms
>from it, even if no harm is done to the species being taken, can harm the
>habitat as a whole.
I'll go back to what I said in the last flame war. By existing in
this world, you are damaging the enviroment, so where do we stop?
Nuke the human race?
-Anthony
Geoffrey Newman
> In article <930719180...@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> wpa...@unix.cc.emory.edu (William A. Parsons) writes:
> >I was watching NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC EXPLORER last night and they
> >had a great segment on breeding of coral. The photography was
> >amazing! At the end of the segment Robert Urich stated that the
> >biggest threat to the great barrier reef was hobbyist that
> >buy live coral to set up their own reefs in their hometanks.
> >... Is this information true?
> No. I don't know we export any live coral. Certainly any coral collecting is
> trivial compared to the huge size of the GBR. Much of the GBR is
> protected by a Marine Park. Possible threats to it are: sediments,
> nutrients and pesticdes from mainland agriculture and possibly ecosystem
> disturbance from over-exploitation of fisheries. The prevailing view
> now seems to be the Crown-Of-Thorns Starfish plagues are at least
> partly man induced. I believe another one is starting in one part of the
> reef.
Funny I should read this now. Not fifteen minutes ago I was watching
the ABC's (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) environmental series
"A Question of Survival".
"Next week, how our way of life is threatening the coral of the
Great Barrier Reef"
> I remember reading that Veron(sp?) (author of Corals of the Indo-Pacific)
> believes about half of the world's coral reefs are under serious threat,
> particularly around Asia. Typical threats are those mentioned above +
> cynadie + dynamite fishing.
> Andrew Taylor
Geoffrey Newman
g...@alcove.apana.org.au
Jason Rosenberg
>>In collecting animals from the reef, the typical peasant collector will grab
>>every single specimen he finds of a given species that he knows is valuable.
>The peasant collectors are generally former food fishermen. Food
>fishing requires several orders of magnitude more fish to be
>removed. Not only that, but food fishing concentrates on a few
>species to a degree that the aquarium hobby can't even dream of
>obtaining (and, thankfully, would not want to). Those people will
>simply go back to more harmful practices as short-sighted policies
>such as this are enacted.
What's the logic here? Ok, so food fishing is orders of magnitude more prolific
in the amount of fish taken. That still doesn't make it ok to selectively capture
small colorful species off the reef. Food fishing on the reefs is nowhere near
as prolific as open water fishing where entire schools are taken. Reef species are
much less likely to occur in the huge schooling numbers as open water species. But
this is irrelevant. My only point is, you aren't very likely going to stop food
fishing, but curbing the trade in reef exotic species is a reasonably attainable goal
for the time being (but only if captive breeding programs can be realized).
The fact is, collecting reef aquarium fish is more lucrative for these peasant collectors
than food fishing, so this is what they are going to concentrate on completely. They
may capture an evening's dinner on the side on a given day, but the majority of the
catch will be exotic fish.
>To the degree that food fishermen are able to make a better living
>in a lower-impact trade which brings in money from industrialized
>countries, and produces an export which yields more money for fewer
>animals removed from the reef, then it is a good thing.
Not if these are species that are limited to more precise and scarce habitats.
>It is funny; for as long as I've been associated with environmental
>groups, I have continually wondered how people who have made a
>religion out of the "everything is connected to everything else"
>idea can so consistently fail to consider all of the effects of
>their actions. The lack of safety in the US nuclear powerplants
>came as a result of the anti-nuke campaigns....
My point exactly. How can people say that collecting live caught reef species is not
a real issue.
>>Finally,
>>it is impossible to avoid 100% the purchasing of cyanide caught fish.
>>So, you simply cannot argue that the consumer has any way of being responsible
>>to the environment when buying fish.
>I'll thank you not to tell me what I can and can't argue. Whether
>you agree or not is your own business.
I apologize.
>And you are wrong. It is quite easy, since one of the founders of
>the IMA is also a wholesaler. Steve Robinson has received a number
>of death threats for his work in the netsman project. Call Sea of
>Cortez, and ask them if there is a store nearby which orders fish
>from them. I did.
Are there stores that deal exclusively with these suppliers? I've never seen a store
that only has species from a given region. And how are you supposed to trust completely
your dealer, when we have all had bad experiences with our local FSG's. Unless you take
the time to accompany your dealer down to the wholesaler, you don't know. One store
I used to go to would put a little asterisk by the names of fish that were supposedly
net-caught, but they stopped doing this. I guess it wasn't economically feasible for them.
>I have a writeup which includes a piece on the IMA/Ocean Voice and
>also Sea of Cortez. I will make it available on the ftp site I am
>in the process of setting up soon.
I look forward to it.
>Dustin, who is perhaps more grouchy tonite that he has a right to
>be. Sorry about that, Jason. Actually, I don't know why I always
>end up posting to these !@#$%^&* threads every time they come up.
Me neither.
William A. Parsons
marine aquarium trade on ocean reefs. I may have confused a few things
regarding what was said during the NAtional Geographic television
program. I thought it was referring to the Great Barrier Reef because
the show talked about the Great Barrier Reef. They may have actually
been referring to ocean reefs in general. Second, I don't recall if they
said that marine hobbyist were the *greatest* threat or just one of
many threats to wild reefs. I apologize for any confusion that may have
resulted from this.
I appreciate all the discussion related to this topic and found
it quite educational. I think that it would be a great thing for both
sides (conservationists and hobbyists, I do not mean to imply that
some people are not BOTH!) if a method for farming coral is developed
and implemented. This would seem to solve both the hobbyist demands for
coral and the conservationists demands for wild reef protection.
Later,
Will Parsons
Spass Stoiantschewsky
>I was watching NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC EXPLORER last night and they
>had a great segment on breeding of coral. The photography was
>amazing! At the end of the segment Robert Urich stated that the
>biggest threat to the great barrier reef was hobbyist that
>buy live coral to set up their own reefs in their hometanks.
this is an amazingly large crock of horsepucky.
the biggest threat facing reefs along the florida coast is pollution
(including my own personal nemesis, suntan lotion). the Great Barrier Reef
probably is affected by collectors, but the hobbyist is only at fault
when he purchases coral supplied through a poorly managed chain of supply,
headed by incompetent collectors. At one point in the fairly recent past,
cynanide and dynamite were common means of collection, fortunately this
practice is a dying art.
the Great Barrier Reef is undergoing a downturn due to poor fishing
practices, uncontrolled harvest, explosions in growth of certain species
(a crown of thorns starfish comes to mind), tourism, pollution,
Frank Greco throwing up overboard because he is seasick, global warming...etc.
blaming the hobbyist alone is silly. i would put good money down that
more live corals are collected in order to be bleached for tourist
trinkets in a month, than are collected for hobbyists in a year.
~spass
--
spass otto stoiantschewsky "mmm...i think it's time to flush the goldfish"
put this subject in your kill file
Dave Sheehy
: I'm also becoming convinced that we know enough about these soft
: corals that we should seriously consider ramping up some import
: limits. When the knowledge is there, we can stop them entirely
: except for breeding stock. I'm becoming convinced that that time
: is fast approaching for many soft corals.
Ironically, there is no need for import restrictions on certain soft corals.
They grow in large numbers in the effluent from hotels and other seaside
resorts (ref. Wilkens). They completely overrun the collection of species
that normally colonizes those areas. Soft corals could be collected from these
areas as infinitum without disturbing the ecosystem anymore than it already is.
Dave Sheehy
Dustin Lee Laurence
>Dustin Lee Laurence (laur...@cco.caltech.edu) wrote:
>: I'm also becoming convinced that we know enough about these soft
>: corals that we should seriously consider ramping up some import
>: limits.
>Ironically, there is no need for import restrictions on certain soft corals.
>They grow in large numbers in the effluent from hotels and other seaside
>resorts (ref. Wilkens). They completely overrun the collection of species
>that normally colonizes those areas. Soft corals could be collected from these
>areas as infinitum without disturbing the ecosystem anymore than it already is.
People who want to stop importation are not usually swayed by mere
facts, so why bring them up now? 1/2 :)
Anyway, I am not convinced that this is where they are usually
collected, and I would be surprised if all species of soft corals
can be found in eutrophic areas, but granting the point for the
moment I think that it is still a good idea for three reasons.
First is that I would like to see a precedent established for
moving in an intelligent and deliberate fashion from harvesting to
culturing a marine invertebrate. You can be sure that if we do not
do it, when it is done it will be neither intelligent nor
deliberate.
Second and more important is that it would be very good to have an
invertebrate breeding industry which has established itself by
learning to culture an easier target than stony corals, which are
the ultimate goal.
Third, form is more important than function to many people. Going
after hobbyists looks good, even though it accomplishes little at
best (I think it is substantially worse than that, but that's a
different post). We need to acknowledge the political realities
and demonstrate in form that we are interested in conservation. If
you were completely correct and this would accomplish nothing else,
that would be enough. Besides, the experience that the hobby would
gain in the process would help immensely when we need to do the same
for other organisms for more substantantive reasons.
I think that the greatest threat to this hobby is the hobby itself
and the industry which supports it. Suppose the worst-case (or
best-case, depending on your point of view) scenario happened and
the hobby were shut down entirely. As things stand now, we would
have only ourselves to blame.
Dustin
Jason Rosenberg
>At one point in the fairly recent past,
>cynanide and dynamite were common means of collection, fortunately this
>practice is a dying art.
Nope. Cyanide collecting is still extremely alive and well, every bit as
much as it always has been in the Phillipines. For a while, collectors were
trained to use nets, but many have gone back to cyanide since they can't
compete with just using nets. There was a story in FAMA about it about
6 months back.
Dustin Lee Laurence
>What's the logic here? Ok, so food fishing is orders of magnitude more prolific
>in the amount of fish taken. That still doesn't make it ok to selectively capture
>small colorful species off the reef.
The point was that food fishing not only removes fish, but that it is
_more selective_ than ornamental fishing. If you are concerned about
concentration on a few species, then food fishing is more of a problem
because it concentrates more and also removes more of the species it
concentrates on.
As for whether it is "OK" or not, as far as I am concerned that is
strictly a matter of sustainability--for both the fish and for the
reef as a whole. As a side comment, somewhat off-topic, the fact that
the aquarium hobby is not willing to insist that the industry that
supports it consider such factors is one reason why I say that as
things stand, when the initiative is taken away from us by people who
don't understand the issues involved we will have no one but ourselves
to blame.
>Food fishing on the reefs is nowhere near
>as prolific as open water fishing where entire schools are taken.
The Philippine reefs are being damaged by food fishing. The comparison
to open-water fishing is irrelevant unless you want to establish the
comparative damage done by each--which would be useful to know, but I
don't see the relevance.
I don't understand the purpose of this statement anyway--you have been
arguing that the magnitude of the damage is irrelevant, and you just
criticized my comparison of food fishing with ornamental fishing, and
now you compare reef food fishing with open-water food fishing? Whether
you intend it that way or not, as far as I can tell you simply want to
have your rhetorical cake and eat it too.
>My only point is, you aren't very likely going to stop food
>fishing,
As I thought. Eliminating the aquarium trade will not save a single
reef, but it will make you feel better while raw sewage from both the
local population and resorts and agricultural run-off destroy thousands
of square kilometers, ocean-going ships drop anchor there, shipping
lanes with their associated waste pass through, etc. If that is not
your intent, you are welcome to say so, but I believe that this will be
the result whether or not you intend it. As I said in another post,
form is more important than function and the hobby had better understand
that.
However, my point is that you are wrong in assuming that there is no
linkage between the ornamental fish trade and the food trade--which is
why I said or at least implied that you are not considering all the
effects involved. People will be employed somewhere. The question is
which industries are the lowest-impact employers, while still providing
wages which are attractive.
Most reefs are owned by third-world countries. Those countries will
continue to work to gain more exports to the industrialized countries,
for reasons which I hope I need not explain. Whether you or I
personally want them to or not, they will use their reefs as resources
in this regard. The question which is most relevant is how can those
countries use their reefs in a sustainable way while bringing in enough
capital that they are willing to continue sustainable use. If you want
to call this exploitation, fine, though I may or man not concede to
the use of terminology which I feel constitutes a naked emotional appeal.
Tourism, diving and non-, is one method which seems to be useful. A
number of carribean nations have gone this route. I don't know how
well they are going to be able to deal with the waste problem resorts
bring, but that is a question of numbers.
Another method IMHO is ornamental fishing. As the knowledge becomes
available (provided in large measure by the very hobby whose existence
you deplore), captive culture may offer even more potential and will at
least make a number of people feel warm and fuzzy even if the net
impact is the same.
Both of these related things come with a different set of problems than
tourism, but as far as I can tell they have at least as much potential
for bringing in foreign currency while providing incentive for
sustainable policies. If we (the hobby as a whole) are unwilling to
insist on responsible policy in the industry which supports and depends
on us, (I repeat myself) we will have no one but ourselves to blame.
The point is that I would rather see the fishermen spending their time
pursuing the ornamental trade than the food trade. If people cannot
export a few fish at high prices to the industrialized countries
(ornamental fishing), they will export many fish to the industrialized
countries at low prices (food fishing for export), as well as mine the
reefs to export dying coral and many other more problematic activities.
>but curbing the trade in reef exotic species is a reasonably attainable goal
>for the time being (but only if captive breeding programs can be realized).
I do not argue with you here, though I can't resist pointing out that
the cutting edge toward captive breeding is in the amateur hobby whose
existence which as far as I can tell you deplore (yes, I'm off the
topic again).
It seems to be widely believed that stony coral propagation is currently
impossible, while I have personally witnessed a tank with a Gonipora sp.
which has just produced its second bud (the first is over a year old and
looking marvelous), and another Gonipora sp. which appears to be on its
way to greater production than the first. There are several Acropora sp.
cuttings from an Acropora which has tripled the volume it occupies
(though not, I believe, its mass). The repeatability is what most
impresses me personally.
I only point out the stony cuttings--there were many more soft cuttings.
As I mentioned elsewhere, I think we are getting close on the common
soft corals.
Sorry about YAD (Yet Another Digression).
>The fact is, collecting reef aquarium fish is more lucrative for these peasant collectors
>than food fishing, so this is what they are going to concentrate on completely.
I agree with this, but as I tried to explain above I consider this
fortunate--or potentially fortunate, if we are willing to use it.
>>To the degree that food fishermen are able to make a better living
>>in a lower-impact trade which brings in money from industrialized
>>countries, and produces an export which yields more money for fewer
>>animals removed from the reef, then it is a good thing.
>Not if these are species that are limited to more precise and scarce habitats.
Please. You may not agree, but I have tried to make it clear that
I believe food fishing to have the greater impact in this way. I
don't see that either of us can profit by further re-iteration of
our positions. The question is where you want people employed;
I want to attract them from higher impact jobs to lower impact jobs.
I don't know precisely where you think they will work once they are
put out of the ornamental trade, but I don't think that their new
jobs are going to be lower impact. If they are, it is (REPETITION
WARNING) our fault for not caring whether our hobby is needlessly
destructive or not.
>My point exactly. How can people say that collecting live caught reef species is not
>a real issue.
How can you prefer to concentrate your efforts on destroying a lower
(some places) or potentially lower impact employer and so force
people back into jobs which do much more damage?
>I apologize.
I should not be so testy anyway, and I apologize for making the point
inappropriately.
>Are there stores that deal exclusively with these suppliers?
This is how I found the store I patronize. I don't know about mail
order, but Sea of Cortez seems willing to give out such information
over the phone. If I can remember it, I will call them this next
week and find out how easy it is to do this mail order. This is
what I'd have done if I hadn't been able to find a store an hour's
drive away. I would really like to do a write-up on this for the
archive, as I can take the time.
>Unless you take
>the time to accompany your dealer down to the wholesaler, you don't know.
Funny you should say this; Brett has promised to take me with him, but
I haven't yet been willing to get up at 3:30 on a Monday morning. I
know someone here (hi Arun) who would like to go, so I ought to see if
I can do it soon and take someone with me. If I do, and I can find
the time, I may write something up for the net and archive.
In any case, I went not on Brett's word but on the business he does
with Sea of Cortez. They directed me to him when I didn't know his
store existed.
>...would put a little asterisk by the names of fish that were supposedly
>net-caught, but they stopped doing this. I guess it wasn't economically feasible for them.
As you might have heard me say once, as it now stands we will have
only ourselves to blame. :)
>>I have a writeup which includes a piece on the IMA/Ocean Voice and
>>also Sea of Cortez. I will make it available on the ftp site I am
>>in the process of setting up soon.
>I look forward to it.
It is there now, see the "addresses" file in the conservation directory.
If you don't agree with what I can get to put there, then send me an
article of your own for the archive. That is what it is for. I made
a directory on the topic in hopes that I could get material in
reasonable quantities and qualities.
On that note, I am going to archive the messages on this thread which
have not expired on this site. If there is a saved past discussion
on the topic to direct people to, then perhaps future threads on this
topic will be both less repetitious and more useful (which sure wouldn't
be hard).
>>....Actually, I don't know why I always
>>end up posting to these !@#$%^&* threads every time they come up.
>Me neither.
Moths to a flame? Lemmings to the sea?
Dustin
Andrew Taylor
>What's the logic here? Ok, so food fishing is orders of magnitude more
>prolific in the amount of fish taken. That still doesn't make it ok to
>selectively capture small colorful species off the reef.
For reference about 0.5 million tonnes of fish are harvested from the world's
coral reefs annually. Any one have an estimate of the live aquarium trade?
Andrew Taylor
Anthony Tse
Another reference. T_ clams are sold both for food and for the
aquarium trade. When they sell the clams as food, they sell only
the meat, for something like $100 a kilo (I don't remeber
the exact number, but it's definitely less then $100 a kilo).
I don't know how many giant clams one need to make up a kilo of
meat, my guess would be 20 1' clams. A single 1' clam sell for
anywhere between $200 to $350 in the aquarium trade depends on color.
You tell me which one is more damaging. BTW, T_ clams were at
one point very close to extinct at some parts of the world, due
to over harvesting for food, not the aquarium trade.
-Anthony
Jason Rosenberg
a reply to a previous posting from me).
First of all, I agree with most of what Dustin says. But I do not deplore the
aquarium industry. And I do think we will have ourselves to blame if reef
species become extinct (there will be other culprits, as well though).
One apparent disagreement was on the issue of food fishing versus ornamental
fishing. But, I apologize for not making myself more clear. I was really
only addressing the open water, gill net walls of death type of fishing,
while Dustin was concerned all along with food fishing on the reefs
themselves. So, I do agree with his points there.
Dustin also talks of how the most cutting edge research in breeding of
reef corals and inverts is among the hobbyists. He outlines that several
species are showing reproduction in captivity. My point all along has
been that captive bred species like these will not be able to become
commonplace, however, if the breeders must compete with the importers, which
are currently entrenched economically and comercially.
Finally, Dustin claims that if reef collectors turn to an alternate form
of employment, they will still have negative impact on the reef. I agree
here, but it certainly seems to me that the impact will be reduced
substantially. They are not going to generate more sewage by changing
jobs, or generate more pollutants in the water. Even if all the reef
collectors remained on the job, any new development such as a hotel will
never have trouble finding workers to fill the jobs. And finally, it is
not true that people will be employed doing something, if not reef fishing.
Joblessnes is not a rarity in places like the Phillipines. (Now it sounds
like I am advocating putting everyone out of work so we can have an
ecological utopia, and clear our consciences).
Really, the only reason I've entered this discussion was because I was upset
at the notion that there are many different threats to the reefs, so we
might as well continue to impose our threat.
Robert Ivan
Apperantly once taught the locals caught much more fish and quicker
with the nets. The [problem is corruption. The same distributers who get
fish from the fishermen sell the cyanide. They werent happy with nets.
Also I heard a story wher the nets came from JAPAN ( they were donated I think )
but some loacal official banned the ( probably bought out) importation of nets.
So much for education.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
my opinions alone not my employers
Patrick White
>They didnt stop using nets in the philapines due to a lower cath with nets.
>Apperantly once taught the locals caught much more fish and quicker
>with the nets. The [problem is corruption. The same distributers who get
>fish from the fishermen sell the cyanide. They werent happy with nets.
>Also I heard a story wher the nets came from JAPAN ( they were donated I think )
>but some loacal official banned the ( probably bought out) importation of nets.
I suppose one could have simply gave the locals fishing line and
taught them how to repair/make-new the nets. I'm guessing it would be more
difficult to ban fishing line :-)
Of course, that does go against the consumer upbringings of the
researchers (or was it environmentalists).
--
Pat White (work: pat...@sequent.com, (503) 578-3463)
(home: eaglet.rain.com!puterbob!patbob)
Lynsey Gedye
>to the methods we use to farm oysters i.e. pens and artificial substrate
>placed in the (tropical) ocean. All the overheads (especially labour)
>would be cheaper except transport. Coral pieces broken from natural
>reefs by storms (which will otherwise die) could be used to seed the
>farms.
>I doubt a nation like Fiji would undertake such a venture. It would be
>cheaper still to allocate a small fraction of their natural reefs
>to sustainable harvest. These reef ecosystems are after all a resource
>that exploit already. Indeed traditionally Fijians have been good
>at managing exploitation of their reefs (unfortunately this can't
>be said for their fast disappearing forests).
I've been dreaming about farming coral etc for the aquarium trade
for some time now, and this recent thread motivated me enough to ring
my old boss who was a honcho in aid programmes in the south pacific.
I'd been thinking maybe Samoa would make for good sites, close
to flights to the U.S. and so on. His comment was the Cooks would
be easier to work from, based on his experiences of dealing with
the local governments.
Presently I work with a group of long term unemployed people, helping
them develop and establish their own business. Being a fan of trade,
not aid, I'd imagined it might be possible to work with village
based groups to produce sustainable yields of marine aquaria-type
animals, in a sane, responsible manner.
I'd imagined seeding for coral using ceramic or similar to reduce
the freight weights, developing techniques of taking cuttings
etc. Maybe setting up an e-mail ordering service, offering vacations
to work with the staff etc. All very hot air so far, I'm the first to
admit.
It's easy to dream of these things, it is, however an idea I'd like
to explore further. I'd be very interested to see net.comment, please
stay calm with e-mail, I pay for it coming and going - thanks team.
Anthony Tse
>In article <1993Jul22....@usage.csd.unsw.OZ.AU> and...@cse.unsw.edu.au (Andrew Taylor) writes:
> Presently I work with a group of long term unemployed people, helping
> them develop and establish their own business. Being a fan of trade,
> not aid, I'd imagined it might be possible to work with village
> based groups to produce sustainable yields of marine aquaria-type
> animals, in a sane, responsible manner.
You will have to find out what corals grow fast. They must grow
fast enough s.t. you can harvest and sell cutting within 1 - 2 yrs.
Acroporas and clams come to mine. Although I have a branching hammer
coral that grow relatively fast. Soft corals will grow extremely fast,
but I am not sure you want to mix soft corals with small polyp stony,
both in the "farm" and in a fish tank. May be if you have 2 field,
you plant one, and harvest the other. Go back and forth between them.
Does anyone have any idea how fast typical fish tank stony such as
elegance, bubble, etc grow in the wild??
> I'd imagined seeding for coral using ceramic or similar to reduce
> the freight weights, developing techniques of taking cuttings
> etc. Maybe setting up an e-mail ordering service, offering vacations
> to work with the staff etc. All very hot air so far, I'm the first to
> admit.
If you can get coralline algae to grow on the ceramic, then you
can probably get coral to grow onto the coralline that grow on the
ceramic. Maybe I can find a small piece of ceramic and put it
in my 75g and see. One problem with ceramic is they are hard to drill.
I usually cut a hole about the same size as the porite branch
in a piece of LR and stick the branch into the hole. This seems to
be the best way to propagate small polyps stony (for porite anyway).
BTW, I don't think ceramic is much lighter then the high quality
pacific LR, but it is more enviromentally correct.
> It's easy to dream of these things, it is, however an idea I'd like
> to explore further. I'd be very interested to see net.comment, please
> stay calm with e-mail, I pay for it coming and going - thanks team.
My dream is to stop the current collecting, shipping, selling
practice. Instead, individual should have to apply for a collecting
license from the exporting country, go to that country and collect
his/her own. This way, more money go directly to the country that needed
it the most, instead of the shippers/resalers, thus they can export
less corals for the same income. In addition, I think anyone who
is willing to go to this length to collect corals will know enough
about corals that they can collect them in a more responsible way.
By knowing where the corals came from, what condition they live
under in the wild, we will have a better chance of keeping them
alive in the aquarium. As to cost, if you stock a tank like I
stock a tank, and if you can collect everything you need in one
trip, the cost shouldn't be that much higher. It sure will be a lot
more fun then going to the fish store.
> ly...@surrey.amigans.gen.nz ly...@amigans.gen.nz
-Anthony
Dustin Lee Laurence
[Mariculture]
> His comment was the Cooks would
> be easier to work from, based on his experiences of dealing with
> the local governments.
I suggest that you not choose a site until you identify target species.
You really must only attempt to culture organisms native to the site.
The last thing a reef needs is the introduction of non-native species,
and the last thing the hobby needs is the blame for such a fiasco.
> I'd imagined it might be possible to work with village
> based groups to produce sustainable yields of marine aquaria-type
> animals, in a sane, responsible manner.
I think it is a fine idea.
> I'd imagined seeding for coral using ceramic or similar to reduce
> the freight weights, developing techniques of taking cuttings
> etc. Maybe setting up an e-mail ordering service, offering vacations
> to work with the staff etc. All very hot air so far, I'm the first to
> admit.
You may have to invent better shipping methods. The limited information
I have seen suggests that the current shippers don't have a clue as to
how to ship some organisms without massive losses.
> It's easy to dream of these things, it is, however an idea I'd like
> to explore further. I'd be very interested to see net.comment, please
> stay calm with e-mail, I pay for it coming and going - thanks team.
One thing you should most definitely do is join the Breeder's Registry.
Actually, many of the people who have posted to this thread ought to
put their money where their mouth is and do the same. (Yes, my check is
in the mail. No, really, I lost the address and only recently found it.)
The BR is interested in captive reproduction of marine organisms and
probably a bunch of things I don't know about, but that's good enough
for me.
The address is:
The Breeder's Registry
P O box 255373
Sacramento, CA 95865-5373
I believe that checks should be payable to Stanley Brown. Memberships
are $10 (noting the .nz address of the original poster, I should remark
that Stan probably isn't set up to accept non-US currency).
I think I will contact Stan and see if he would like to have me
post some real information if he doesn't have net.access.
ObDisclaimer: I have no connection with the Breeder's Registry
beyond wholehearted support of its goals.
Dustin
Gordon Niessen
reefs, you can always buy a francise. EcoActivity is a company that has
licensed the Algae Turf Scrubber technology from Dr. Adey. They will setup
a 12,000 gallon microcosm for you and stock it with a starter culture of
live rock and algae. Then they will help you find customers and provide
technical support.
What do they charge for this, you ask hesitantly?
Only about $250,000 for the setup and an annual $25,000 for the support.
I have their information package, if anyone is interested. They claim that
on live rock production alone you can make a profit. And that raising fish
can be much more profitable. And there are discounts for the first 6 to
sign up and you can buy larger setups if you want to increase your profit.
Any takers?
Anthony Tse
>
>Only about $250,000 for the setup and an annual $25,000 for the support.
>I have their information package, if anyone is interested. They claim that
>on live rock production alone you can make a profit. And that raising fish
>can be much more profitable. And there are discounts for the first 6 to
>sign up and you can buy larger setups if you want to increase your profit.
So, just exactly what kind of fish has Mr. Cunningham at
EgoActivity Inc bread and raised?
-Anthony
Dustin Lee Laurence
>If anyone is interested in growing coral or at least live rock to save the
>reefs, you can always buy a francise. EcoActivity is a company that has
>licensed the Algae Turf Scrubber technology from Dr. Adey.
* SET PHASERS ON "EXTRA-CRISPY, WITH SECRET SAUCE" *
(Not aimed at Gordon, of course, but at EcoActivity)
I have written to these people and gotten their promotional material.
I can't think offhand of advertising material that I despise more than
EcoActivity's, even in the aquarium industry (and a few of you who may
know what I think of most of the aquarium products companies know that
that isn't easy). I wouldn't buy particle accelerators from Ronald
McDonald, and I wouldn't buy any aquarium equipment from these jokers.
Actually, I might buy aquarium equipment from Ronald McDonald first,
on the theory that he at least he hasn't established his complete
ignorance on the subject beyond any doubt.
The guy who runs EcoActivity was the guy who wrote that rebuttal to
Julian Sprung which hemmoraged for many pages after Adey's short, polite
letter. That was way, way out of line, IMHO, and I would not deal with
anybody who has to resort to that kind of verbal diahrea (however it is
spelled).
With friends like this, Adey doesn't need any enemies. I haven't made
any secrets of my reservations about Adey's methods, but he sure
deserves better supporters than that guy.
>They will setup
>a 12,000 gallon microcosm for you and stock it with a starter culture of
>live rock and algae. Then they will help you find customers and provide
>technical support.
I wouldn't pay a dime for technical support from that bunch of bozos.
>Only about $250,000 for the setup and an annual $25,000 for the support.
Only, he says. Save your self some money by talking to a few people
who know something and building your algae scrubbers yourself, or
contracting them to someone under your direction. A few days of
reading may not be enough to establish yourself in the business, but
it will teach you more than these guys seem to know.
>I have their information package, if anyone is interested. They claim that
>on live rock production alone you can make a profit.
They also make an incredible number of other unfounded claims in their
literature. As you might have guessed, I don't believe a single word
they say.
>And that raising fish
>can be much more profitable.
Uh huh. As P.T. Barnum is supposed to have said, there is a sucker
born every minute. This is the old snake-oil technique.
>And there are discounts for the first 6 to
>sign up
Hmm, you mean that they haven't even signed up six people after all
this time?
>and you can buy larger setups if you want to increase your profit.
...and there are special discounts for anybody who will buy a whole
case of snake-oil...
>Any takers?
I think I could be said to have taken the bait, though not in the way
you probably intended.
If I were setting up a mariculture business, and if I decided to use
scrubber tanks, I can't think of anybody I'd be less likely to call
than EcoActivity.
Of course, the original poster was thinking of ways for reef-possessing
nations to use them in a responsible manner, so this wouldn't work
for him anyway. Kind of silly to set up a huge culture tank next to
a natural reef....
* FLAME OFF *
Sorry, Gordon, if any of that spilled over. I've been waiting to say
that for two years, ever since I got that ridiculous material from
EcoActivity.
Dustin, who ought to go back to his nice, soft, padded room now....
Bill Dewey
>gor...@NeoSoft.com (Gordon Niessen) writes:
>
>>If anyone is interested in growing coral or at least live rock to save the
>>reefs, you can always buy a francise. EcoActivity is a company that has
>>licensed the Algae Turf Scrubber technology from Dr. Adey.
>
>* SET PHASERS ON "EXTRA-CRISPY, WITH SECRET SAUCE" *
>
>(Not aimed at Gordon, of course, but at EcoActivity)
>
>* FLAME OFF *
>
>Sorry, Gordon, if any of that spilled over. I've been waiting to say
>that for two years, ever since I got that ridiculous material from
>EcoActivity.
>
>Dustin, who ought to go back to his nice, soft, padded room now....
>
>
>
For those of us who don't know all the details, why are these people so bad?
What do they say that is so obviously ridiculous?
--
Bill Dewey
de...@celtech.com
Steve Tyree
interesting thread.
On Compuserve Charles Delbeek has mentioned that some countries
have started mariculture programs that might be tarketed for the
ornamental reef export market. These efforts need to be applauded
and supported. The eventual potential benifit from these endeavers
will be in restocking local species, building new local reef zones
and providing backup for environmental disasters. These cultures
could also provide breeders around the world with natural specimens.
Using these particular organisms for export will always be hampered
by the shipping costs and stress that multi-hour air flights cause.
Therefore, the eventual price of locally cultured specimens will
be equivalent to imported prices once adequate culturing procedures
are learned. The health of captive cultured specimens can be fac-
tors better than those which have undergone the stress of harvest-
ing from a natural environment and transportation of long distances.
What I am concentrating my efforts on now is the culture of numer-
ous _Acropora sp._ corals along with some soft and various other
stony corals. I have 8 different speciations of acropora and all
are doing well. Over 21 new fragmented colonies have been created
using techniques similar to those which cause fragmentation repro-
duction in nature. A new fragment growout reef is also being con-
structed. In a month or two an event currently titled "Acropora
Challenge I" will take place in California. Ten to eleven new frag-
mented acropora colonies will be given to different reef owners.
Research will be conducted concerning how the various systems
affected coral growth, vitality and ecomorphology. In addition
to the acropora fragments, over 30 other soft and stony corals
have been succesfully asexually propagated.
My primary interest has been in sexual coral reproduction, but
after noting the asexual progress to date, I have also been using
that method of propagation. If you read a lot of scientific research
on coral you will discover that asexual reproduction is very impor-
tant and used frequently in nature. Many other amatuers and poten-
tial commercial reef keepers are now actively propagating corals
via asexual methodologies.
ie - It is no longer a question of if, but when....
Steve Tyree - Reef Breeder
Peter Holstein
hobby. There's no way to justify legitimate husbandry and hobbyist collection
if some of us are not willing to undertake, at out own expense, the work needed
to make "Mariculture" a future viable source of livestock.
Taking alone can't be sustained; we've got to give back as well...
--
{ Peter Holstein | Sometimes you win, sometimes you }
{ pet...@genesis.mcs.com | lose, sometimes you get rained out. }
{ (312) 248-0900 | -- Satchel Paige }
Dustin Lee Laurence
[I foam at the mouth at the mention of EgoActivity, er, I mean, EcoActivity]
>For those of us who don't know all the details, why are these people so bad?
>What do they say that is so obviously ridiculous?
OK, I actually filed their stuff away. I'll type in a couple of
things; if you want more than this, get someone else to do it or
write them (P.O.Box 32, Schley, VA 23154, (804) 693-4877).
There are so many different types of emphasized text used that I'll
have to define some typography conversions to give you the flavor:
_text_ means text was underlined in the original
{\bold text} means text was boldface in original
{\bold _text_} means text was boldface and underlined in original
{\italics text} means text was in italics in original
{\slanted text} means text was in slanted type in original
{\slanted _text_} means text was underlined in slanted type
[[text]] text is my comment, not in the original
What I got was the following:
ecoActivity business card, self addressed return envelope, 4-page
tan flyer on how to bring a living ecosystem into your classroom,
a 4-page letter, a bright yellow sheet with definitions of mariculture
terms (slanted toward their business, of course), six-page flyer on
six commonly asked questions about ecoculture, 1.5 page white textured
sheet on a quick history of the _heart_ [[their emphasis]] of eco5:
the algal turf scrubber, 2-page deeper yellow sheet on 5 problems with
modern aquarium systems and five solutions, component list of their
starter kit, fluorescent green sheet listing the extra incentives for
the first three purchasers, photocopies of the first four pages of
the (as far as I can tell mostly invented by the author from thin air)
Raiders of the Reef article by Mark Derr which appeared in the March/
April 1992 issue of Audobon, an aqua sheet advertising _Dynamic Aquaria_,
and an order form.
From the letter:
Top of the page, looking like a newspaper excerpt but with no
credits whatsoever:
{\italics Gloucester, Virginia} - The "philosopher's stone" has been
discovered: A new, patented technology invented at the
{\bold Smithsonian Institution} multiplies a rock's value _100 times_,
turning 15 cents worth of rock into $15 of "liverock"....
Dear Mr. Lawrence:
Congratulations! You're one of the _first_ people to inquire about
the new, facination and {\bold highly profitable} opportunity in
wildlife mariculture. _You could soon be earning $50,000 - $250,000
annually_ as an independent {\slanted ecoCulturist}.
How? By obtaining our now, state-of-the-art, 2000-gallon
{\slanted ecoCulture Starter Facility 2000}. It enables you to do
something that --until now-- has been _impossible_. In fact, it's
_creating a new industry_ to serve an {\slanted _existing_} _billion-
dollar market_.
_Now_ -- for only {\bold _$89_} -- you can order a {\bold 30-minute}
{\slanted ecoCulture} {\bold video}, _and_ a {\bold 57-minute video}
hosted by {\bold Robert Redford} that shows....
[[I'm getting a bit queasy now, so that's enough of the letter. I
don't think I'm going to comment much on that; I think that the
bewildering array of emphasis styles and the Robert Redford video
pretty much speak for themselves.]]
From the six commonly-asked questions flyer:
....{\bold _But you can easily estimate profit potential yourself:_}
Let's say "deadrock" (quarried calcium carbonate) costs you a
_maximum_ of 25 cents a pound (delivered). Put it in an {\italics
ecoCulture} system with mature liverock for 6-12 months and it turns
into $15/pound liverock.
************************ <- this is in the flyer
{\bold _Note:_} You could probably get $20/lb. for your liverock, due
to it's _much_ higher quality, but let's be conservative and say
$15/lb....$30-$40 per pound will probably be the normal range within
5-10 years....Without shipping costs, your margins should be
phenomenally high.
[[I don't know what LR sells for on the east coast, but here the
best rock is about $8-$10 per pound; the $15 figure is nuts for
the west coast at least. As for the rock being able to sell at
33% more than (say) Marshall Island rock because of its quality,
well, if you believe that then I am not going to argue with you.]]
Well, enough of that. I really don't care to type in any more of
that garbage.
Dustin
Dustin Lee Laurence
saved from it to the reefkeepers archive. It is the file jul93thread
in the pub/reefkeepers/conservation directory at ftp.cco.caltech.edu .
I hope people find this useful; my own hope is that it is not only
interesting to archive users, but also might enable us to move the
discussion forward next time, rather than re-hashing the same stuff
again.
Dustin, ever the wishful thinker
Andrew Taylor
farmed Tridacna clams. They were about 6cm long, looked healthy and
cost ~$US22. They are farmed near Townsville in Queensland apparrently.
Sorry did get the farming details or the species. One of the staff said
his cousin had grown one to 30cm in a year in his (well-lit) tank.
Andrew Taylor
Anthony Tse
Tell me more. Tell me more......
-Anthony