[organicreefer]

we reallY shouldnt............






srgtkoons:100% aquaculture?I APPLAUD YOU!
IM GOING TO VISIT YOURE SITE RIGHT NOW AND CHECK IT OUT!

[reptilicus]

G'day organicreefer,
this topic poses some interesting questions. We are actually having to deal with this problem right now in Australia, as there is still the controversy about shutting down the Great Barrier Reef coral fishery indefinitely...for us, this would mean no more anything (except fish), because we are not allowed to import any invertebrates at all, including live rock, etc.
I am all for conservation, I think it is a great thing. However, while captive breeding and propagation most certainly has an important role, there should be no total ban on collection of wild organisms. IMO, as long as the harvest of animals is completely sustainable, there is no such problem. As soon as there is a slight indication that the process may be detrimental to the reef, then it must be addressed. However, the coral fishery on the GBR for example, takes a maximum of 50 tonnes of coral and live rock per year from the GBR. The total amount produced by the Great Barrier Reef each year is something in the order of 50 000 000 tonnes. It has been scientifically proven that the coral harvest fishery does not cause any harm to the reef on either a local or reef-wide scale. This being the case, I do not feel that it is morally wrong to take animals from the reef. Obviously, before this is done, it is neccessary to ensure that you have a good knowledge of the animal's needs so as to maximise it's chance of survival in captivity. However, to say "we really shouldn't" is a little too narrow. There are some things we need to take from the ocean in order for the hobby to continue forward and not stagnate, for this reason coral collection should be allowed to continue when practiced in a way that is scientifically proven beyond all reasonable doubt to be completely sustainable.
Regards,
Tom

[ravenmore]

I don't think you should genralize the animals collected by measuring them in tons. Sure some of the animals grow back quicker than they are collected to be sure, but some other species might not and probably are not. I think a total ban might be overkill, but a ban on sensitive species is probably appropriate.

Also I want to point out that a lot of folks who have sw aquariums probably have no business owning them (boy, this is going to be controversial). They just have the tanks as ornamental decoration and could care less about whats in it or the responsibilities of keeping their animals. They don't care if they die but rather simply replace them when they do. Their corals last 6 to 9 months and then melt away they just buy another, and don't stop to think that their lack of care caused the animal to die. There are thousands of "hobbiest" (and I use the term in its loosest sense) that approach reef keeping in this manner, and I think it's largely their fault for giving the motivation for over collecting of animals from reefs for ornamental purposes.

Think about this, here in the states we have laws against neglect of animals such as dogs, cats, horses and other livestock. To my mind this is the same thing. Neglect of animals. Anytime you take in an animal that depends on you for its needs you are responsible for it's well being. With other animals, failure to provide this responibility is actuall UNLAWFULL!!!!

To be honest, I support the idea of reef and sw aquarium hobbiest having to get a license or a permit to keep a tank, much in the same spirit that HAM radio operators have to get a license to practice their hobby.

-Mike

[icemark]

Intresting idea there ravenmore,

I support the idea of reef and sw aquarium hobbiest having to get a license or a permit to keep a tank

Although it would make it much tougher to get livestock, it would elliminate alot of the, well frankly Bozo moves; that result in needless animal deaths.

[srgtkoons]

I agree with you ravenmore. I feel that a permit or some other type of credentials should be required to purchase live stock. I feel that some of the scientific research regarding the impact of coral and fish collection to be somewhat lacking, more specifically with corals and invertebrates. It is speculated that some anemones and other critters live hundreds of years, with few offspring. I dont think documentation and observation has gone on near long enough for us to even consider an acurate idea of how much we impact the normal reefs. I shouldnt say i have a 100% aquacultured system. I have 1 coral, a red open brain, that I saved from certain death. Other then that everything else is captive bred.

[36]

Mike:

While my heart agrees with much of what you say, my brain flashes a warning sign when I think of our governmental "out to lunch gang" permiting and regulating something they don't have a clue about.

[SPasse]

Hi All,

This is a subject that comes up rather regularly, and as one might imagine, proves often to be a lightning rod thread.

I am of the opinion that like most things related to environmental issues, this question can’t be answered with a blanket black and white answer.

One the one hand, I agree that there are some species that are an excellent candidate for protection.

Others that certainly could be farmed/harvested or otherwise managed in such a way to provide an ecologically “acceptable” solution.

Unfortunately, government has shown a repeated proclivity to blanket, shotgun approaches to legislation.

As for licensing of hobbyists... Well being a Ham Radio Operator myself (N0BIG) I can appreciate the benefits/drawbacks of that kind of model... But one effect might be that this would drive the number of enthusiasts down to the point where the “economies of scale” would disappear and make the hobby economically nonviable.
Which I guess depending on your perspective, is either a good or a bad thing.

Regards,

Scott

[organicreefer]

imo,

the reefs did not "evolve" a survival stategy that prepared them for the billion -dollar sw hobby market.tak A SINGLE COPEPOD from the reef for youre VIEWING PLEASURE, and you have upset a balance established through millennia....my .02.

Hi everyone:

Spasse asked for my input and I will give it briefly. I presented a list of species with low to no survivability at the 9th International Coral Reef Symposium in Bali last year, and this list has been utilized in both US Coral Reef Task Force issues and in the International Worskhop in Stony Coral Trade in Jakarta in April of this year. Dr. Andrew Bruckner summarized some of the transect work we did in a major coral collecting area in the Spermonde Archipelago in SW Sulawesi following the workshop at MACNA last weekend. Suffice to say I am no stranger to this issue and have beed deeply inolved in it for years.

Without going into great details, the long and short of it is this. The aquarium trade for the major importing nations has been going largely unregulated for decades. Concern over sustainable trade has prompted concern, bans, moratoriums, etc in various importing and exporting nations over this time. I think the concern is valid in many cases. Reptilicus says that scientific evidence exists to show that collection doesn't harm the reefs. Certainly, the information I gave to Andrew Trevor-Jones for use in the Senator Hill debate and for posting on the Oz website does indeed show scientific evidence that coral collection is well managed in Australia and is a highly sustainable industry. The idea to ban collection on the GBR is preposterous, and the industry now has the only good and functioning management plan to use as a basis for other nations. It would be a shame to see it all be for naught.

This aside, there is little to no scientific evidence that collection doesn't impact reefs in other nations, and especially those with the largest volume of collections. In fact, there is evidence to suggest the contrary. Currently, live rock appears highly sustainable. Coral collection in some regions and countries appears sustainable (e.g Fiji and Tonga) but more work needs to be done to assure this is the case. In other nations, it may be sustainable, but there is evidence to suggest it is not necessarily so. In the Spermonde, we found that the collection of several popular aquarium corals are quite likely to be unsutainable - for example, Blastomussa, Catalaphyllia, and Cynarina may be heavily overharvested. We need more data, and hope to get more over the coming years, but CITES requires a non-detriment finding to proceed in trade in Appendix II organisms, and it has not been done for many heavily collected nations...or at least not properly. There are so many issues to address, but the fact is we just don't know, and a conservative approach to esure ecologically sustainable development and trade in coral reef organisms is prudent - to say the least as already heavily degraded reefs come under assualt from so many stressors.

I am very opposed to bans - so long as there is not a scientific basis for them...and if there is (as may turn out to be the case for some areas and over time, depending on circumstances), then to preserve the reef it should be done. I am not at all opposed to the idea of trade restrictions, special orders, and quotas until such time as data is available to ensure the holistic conservation of a reef and the careful and sustainable trade from such areas. Where non-detriment and monitoring has been conducted, trade should be allowed to proceed reposibly and with proper management and continued monitoring. This, however, does not exist in the majority of cases and simply saying, "Gee, look at all the corals. We can't make much of a difference and there are bigger threats to reefs than us" just doesn't wash. The problem may be, in some places, the highly selective and targeted trade in aquarium corals that can be ameliorated by rotational harvest, substitution for other species, etc. Lots of ways to do this.

Finally, I think it reprehensible, irresponsible, and tragic that anyone, irrespective of the abundance of the resource, keep animals that are either impossible to keep alive, beyond the care abilities of the individual, or treated as disposable. For this, there is simply no excuse.

[reptilicus]

Ravenmore,
couple of points. Firstly, the ban on sensitive species is a bit of a hot issue. AT first thought, I think it's a good idea, but then think about it for a second. 10 years ago, that would mean a ban on importation of Acropora and all other SPS. Nowadays, that would seem silly! Perhaps in 10 years time, people will be able to keep Dendronepthya with the ease that people today keep Acropora. While I agree that some sort of control may be in order, I do not think a blanket ban on these species is a good idea, as we will never learn about them. Perhaps there should be a special license that you must hold before being able to try anything like that.
With regards to many people being unfit to keep reefs, I agree 100% Licensing is one solution, the second is that you make it illegal to treat the animals properly. So if someone saw a tank that was inappropriate, it could be reported and the offender prosecuted. The same way it happens with dogs, cats, and any other animal. Like many people on this board though, I really do have a deep mistrust of government-imposed blanket bans. They tend to be uneducated and destructive rather than constructive.
Just a thought.

[MaryHM]

I don't have time to get embroiled in controversy right now, but thought I'd submit the simple picture.

The collectors collect for the marine ornamental industry to feed their families. If you say "no more collection for the aquarium industry", then as divers they will turn to the food fish industry which is MUCH more destructive. It is much better to get good coral reef management programs in place, and train the collectors on sustainable collection techniques. The divers that do things right should get paid more for their work, which would create a reason to protect the resource.

Again, that is the simple version as I don't have a lot of time to get into details. I would direct you to more of my rantings at http://www.reefsource.com/uscrtf.htm That url will direct you to letters I have written to the United States Coral Reef Task Force concerning our industry.

Hi Reptilicus:

...mostly, I agree with you and with your proposed solution is a good one.

But, to address one point for those who may read your words and forget the rest of your post.....

I hear the well repeated reefkeeper-ism about "If we didn't have imports of Acropora, we wouldn't be able to keep them today" over and over....and its a bad argument. Yes, it's true, and aquarists have been responsible for tremendous gains in husbandry. But, is it prudent to limitlessly allow the uncontrolled experimentation of animals, losing thousands in the hands of new aquarists or the uneducated and unskilled in order to have that gain? Can you tangibly say what exactly it was that allowed us to keep these corals alive? Would the husbandry have advanced even without the trials and errors of this genus, or any other for that matter? Certainly product improvement and design, and technology, increases as a result of endeavor. Ultimately, these technologies and our knowledge got to a point where they were able to sustain difficult animals, not that anyone actually studied the needs of these animals and designed things around them. It was largely trial and error with no control, and thats an irresponsible and wasteful way to proceed with living creatures. Fortunately, we seem to be getting somewhat smarter and are learning from this - case in point, the herbivorous tendencies of difficult Neptheids. But, without knowing why we fail or what it takes to succeed, simply using mass import and mass mortality as our method is kind of lame. Hence my thoughts (and yours) as to some form of limited acess to those species with currently low survivability.

Hi Mary:

Nice to see you at MACNA and thanks for all the chat recently...stay in touch ;-)

It is likely that these collectors would turn to other means of support. But, many collectors are already employed in other fishing practices, some of them destructive, some of them not. As I mentioned to you, many corals (like the deepwater Trachyphyllia and Cynarina) are collected as a "bycatch" of the trepang cucumber collection activities...on the way up from 45 m, they get a basket and grab a couple dozen Trachyphyllia for extra income. The view of poor starving native people's scraping by with their only skill of coral collection or bomb fishing is not entirely accurate. Lida Pet-Soede and Mark Erdmann have put out a number of papers trying to dispel this myth and portray what the actual destructive fishing lifestyle is like. For example, bomb fishing is a bit of a status symbol since bombs cost money and to pay for a bomb, you have to more than make up for it in fish harvest. Some destructive fishermen have incomes as high as government officials. So, eliminating one thing doesn't necessarily entail the other.
Also, many aren't divers...they are kids, old men, and other people with no dive training whatsoever, often diving with broken down hookahs pumping oil fumes to them at depth, or kids with snorkels, etc.

But, I wholeheartedly agree that increasing money, supllies, education, and training, along with promoting local or village based ownership would encourage stewardship and thats a really nice thought.

[ravenmore]

Whoa guys - I wasn't in favor of supporting a total ban. I shot that comment about getting a license or permit off the cuff. It comes from the frustration of seeing individuals walk into a pet store, buy everything they need to start a saltwater aquarium, and along with it purchasing livestock so they'll have something to put in it after they add water. Hey, if nothing else a license or permit would stop these folks. And I wasn't so much singling out delicate species as I was species that might be harvested quicker than they can rejuvinate their numbers in the wild. This was somewhat hypothetical as, though I'm sure such species probably do exist, I don't know what, per say, they are. That's part of why I invited Eric to this thread, his experience vastly supercedes my hypothetical "guessing".