Responsible Reefkeeping Debate #2- Save the Reefs w/ Aquaculture?

[MaryHM]

Let me bring up a few points, and then you guys can have at it!

1. The vast, vast majority of collectors for this industry/hobby have no other source of income other than to utilize their resource- the reefs.
2. If you take away income from the collection of ornamentals, the collectors do not just move to the big city, go to college, and become lawyers. :)
3. If you take away the income from ornamentals, they must still derive income from the reefs.
4. Without ornamental collection, you are left with food fish collection. This is by far a more destructive collection, because not only is cyanide and dynamite employed, but food fishers tend to take everything out with them.

That said, if everything was available aquacultured for the hobby in the United States and nothing ever had to be imported again, would we really be helping the reefs? I guess you have to define your main goal. If the goal is the enjoyment of growing and fragging corals, then that's great. Hey, I do it myself! But if the goal of aquaculture is to stop wild collection and save the reefs, is that a real outcome of the process? Or is the outcome just the opposite- greater aquaculture leads to less wild collection leads to reduced income for collectors leads to more destructive collection methods being utilized.

[dendronepthya]

It is my contention that the reefs cannot be saved. The main causes for its damage stem from practices the civilized world is unwilling to change, and the reefs will meet their demise regardless of whether aquarists in the US and Europe have a captive breeding program for their ornamentals.

I agree that there is merit to having the local population view their reefs as a resource that should be preserved, but that to me means the reefs won't die as rapidly.

I think the main goal is to have a domestic source for fish and corals that is not dependent on the ocean.

[MaryHM]

I think the main goal is to have a domestic source for fish and corals that is not dependent on the ocean.

I want to make sure I understand your post. You think we should aquaculture because we will need something here once the reefs are gone? In other words, aquaculture isn't to protect the reefs, it's to protect the hobby?

[dendronepthya]

I think the intent behind aquaculture is to protect the reefs, I just don't think that it actually does that. My understanding is, aquaculture "should" help the reefs by lessening the collection for this hobby. By having a captive source for corals, we would not need to have collection stations on the reefs. In theory, that does help the environment, but like you mentioned, the locals are likely to use the reefs surrounding the islands in other ways if it is no longer a resource for this hobby. Some other commercial applications are far more damaging than this hobby is.

When you look further into what is actually damaging the reefs, there is little being done about that. Pollution, fertilizer runoff, etc. are not likely to go away, but the reefs are. It is for this reason that I think the only real positive aspect of aquaculture is for the development of a domestic coral trade. I do not think its successful implementation will in any way save the natural reefs.

[logical]

IMO, aquaculture is a tiny piece to the puzzle. Tiny at the moment, but getting larger each day.

By itself, cultivating corals will not save the reefs. Much like hand caught/net caught/ hobby fish will not save the reefs, but play a role in the greater solution....which I still believe is raising awareness.

From every bit of reading I can do, I can not see where we (the hobby) are going to be able to stop destructive fishing for the food industry, the obliteration of reefs from "world sprawl", or any of the "major" causes that harm the reefs.

Aquaculture to me is simply the right thing to do, period. It's something every hobbyist (for the most part) can take part in at home. It really is a simple numbers game of what we can grow vs. what the hobby demands.

The advances of the hobby through real time information sharing online has exponentially increased the numbers of corals that hobbyists not only now can keep alive, but that can produce multiple offspring a year. These offspring are now able to create fully captive bred systmes. This is good :) It helps.

I personally am not concerned with what the collectors will do if we can culture enough to sustain the hobby...not real sure enough people will ever propagate grow for that. But on that note, I think there are many methods to sustainable wild caught species that still need attention. I trust that world governments and organizations better focused on impoverished people to handle that, I handle what I can.

Crap, I'm probably rolling way off your intened question Mary, sorry, I'll get some more thoughts after the coffee kicks in :)

Peace, Bryan

[wizardgus®]

Interesting question.

I don't think that aquaculture will save the reefs. Hadn't thought of your angle, but there are just bigger and worse threats to the reefs than just collection.

I have some doubts about how bad the reefs actually are. There is a lot of money, grants and agency funding right now to save the reefs. Anytime something becomes a hot button it becomes a problem for as long as the concern is there, or a hotter button comes along. My cynical side to be sure, but I've written grants for governmental bodies before.

My biggest concern for the reefs is not even hobby related. Any of us keeping a captive reef knows the nutrient levels necessary to sustain them. Early studies had them thinking the opposite due to the lack of nutrients over natural reefs. Has always made me wonder if they are indeed the oceans filtration system. If so, what happens if they are removed from that system?

Personally, I only have 2 wild-caught colonies in my tank. An orange Montipora, and a Torch. Both beautiful, both growing well. But my real pleasure comes from watching my frags grow and develop. I have 3 that broke off some frags (fumble fingers) about the size of pencil erasers when I glues them down. They have all encrusted, grown and are now growing up-wards. That tickles me. Plus I like dealing with people like Bryan and Patrick, trading with some RC friends, I just think aqua-cultured adds extra dimension to the hobby.

[skylsdale]

I think the intent behind aquaculture is to protect the reefs, I just don't think that it actually does that. My understanding is, aquaculture "should" help the reefs by lessening the collection for this hobby. By having a captive source for corals, we would not need to have collection stations on the reefs. In theory, that does help the environment, but like you mentioned, the locals are likely to use the reefs surrounding the islands in other ways if it is no longer a resource for this hobby. Some other commercial applications are far more damaging than this hobby is.

When you look further into what is actually damaging the reefs, there is little being done about that. Pollution, fertilizer runoff, etc. are not likely to go away, but the reefs are. It is for this reason that I think the only real positive aspect of aquaculture is for the development of a domestic coral trade. I do not think its successful implementation will in any way save the natural reefs.

I agree completely. I think that the aquaculture industry is a good one and that it should continue, but if people are pursuing with the sole idea that this will somehow "save the reefs" then they are grossly misled. If you want to do that, start with industrial runoff or something like that. You don't even need to travel to a thrid world island--Florida and the Gulf are in some hobbyist's backyards. Of course it's easier it's easier to complain about what should be done somewhere else and comfortably not get involved, rather than actually get a little dirty and start helping...

[kazzoo3]

My goal is reef preservation, not providing a sustainable source of tank inhabitants. I agree that aquaculture won't protect the reefs, it is more a reaction to criticism that aquarists are at the root of declining reef ecosystems.

An alternative way to look at things is from the standpoint of how nature intended consumers to consume. They harvested from the natural ecosystems. The ecosystem would then replenish ecosystem components are they are harvested. The obvious problem is when you overharvest, the ecosystem can't replace what was taken. That is why we have huge monocultures because we would otherwise strip the ecosystems. If fact the monocultures (farms) enable us to freely destroy the ecosystems we would otherwise depend upon for survival. However, even now we are begining to realize that monoculturing doesn't prevent some problems, poor water quality, air pollution, etc. Monocultures have also led to population explosion. Give an animal population plenty of food, and the population grows. But pretty soon disease and other problems will make that road of population growth become more and more bumpy. The point is farming has solved many problems, but inadvertently led to others. Aquaculture can provide some income to the local collectors, give us inhabitants for our tanks, and decrease harvest pressure on the reefs. But at the same time, it will decrease reef value.

In the end, I think ecotourism will be more beneficial for reef preservation than aquaculture.

[RicksReefs]

we should aquaculture because we can & it's
a better way of doing it, the same way domesticating
food animals led to a better understanding of
their lifecycle & care requirements. (which enabled
the restocking of buffalo,etc back to the wild.) i easily
see people like us being drawn upon to help keep
some of our specimens from permanant extinction
eventually.

the biggest threat is IMO is modern man's ability to
trash any environment. i've lived in florida now for
almost 5 years, & i can see the degradation happening.
even in so short a timespan, some of the reefs i
first dove are now dictyota fields from the runoff
created by the manicured countryside & big citrus/sugar.

[dendronepthya]

If anything will lead to reef protection, it will be ecotourism, not aquaculture.
There are some that would argue that ecotourism is also very harmful to the natural habitat. Eric Borneman in his forum gave a very compelling argument about this hobby as a whole causing more damage as a result of increasing the public's awareness. As more people take interest in reefs, there are more recreational divers that cause further damage with their boats or breaking off suveniers. At this point, I am not sure what can be done to protect the reefs.

Back to the topic of aquaculture, the argument can be made that wide spread aquaculture in the states would cause more damage to the reefs. Like Mary stated, there is a higher liklihood of the local people using the reef in more destructive practices such as construction and commercial fishing. Here in the states, we would also be contributing to the demise of the reefs by building more tanks that require high output lighting and energy consuming pumps. That energy has to come from somewhere and it is likely to add to the pollution problem.

[kazzoo3]

Originally posted by dendronepthya
There are some that would argue that ecotourism is also very harmful to the natural habitat. Eric Borneman in his forum gave a very compelling argument about this hobby as a whole causing more damage as a result of increasing the public's awareness. As more people take interest in reefs, there are more recreational divers that cause further damage with their boats or breaking off suveniers. At this point, I am not sure what can be done to protect the reefs.

I think most would agree that education and awareness is an important first step towards preservation. In addition, ecotourism can provide considerable economic input into the local area, probably more than aquaculture. From that standpoint, that would give greater value to the system and therefore provide greater emphasis for its preservation. However, there does need to be responsible ecotourism. Otherwise, the problems you describe will be detriment as well.

[dendronepthya]

Here is a link to the thread on the coral forum.

http://archive.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=161489&highlight=tourism

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by kazzoo3
I think most would agree that education and awareness is an important first step towards preservation. In addition, ecotourism can provide considerable economic input into the local area, probably more than aquaculture. From that standpoint, that would give greater value to the system and therefore provide greater emphasis for its preservation. However, there does need to be responsible ecotourism. Otherwise, the problems you describe will be detriment as well.

However, one problem here is that increased ecotourism leads to increased traffic to the area, increased hotel building, increased restaurants, increased sewage and runoff, which increases damage to the reef, especially because now you're doing these things even closer to the 'healthy' areas.

The other thing to remember is that, outside of this board, 99.9% of people don't care about the corals when they go on trips like this. They're perfectly willing to stand on a coral boulder while they take a picture of a dominoe damsel.

Dave

Dave

[Louis Z]

I see MO aquaculture as a way to keep pressure off of overharvested populations (Banggai Cardinals) . I also see it as a way to improve the image of this hobby or regulation will ensue. Aquaculture would also help in supplying rare fish or difficult to obtain(deep water)fish or increasing ones diversity in offering fish for sale. I dont see it saving reefs for as others have mentioned there are ever increasing assaults upon the reef from other sources than from this hobby. Its a shame that cyanide collection exists and its just fastforwarding the reefs demise. One way to look to aquaculture is to slowdown the demise. If food fish and ornamentals were cultured then would there be a need or a continued large scale practice for cyanide fishing? If a large farm could put fish in great numbers to consumers would the small collector still collect for export or for sustenance? In general I dont see the large exporters ever pushing for low impact collection. Yes there are exceptions yet most exporters will never require or care to implement eco friendly collection methods. Its not in their best interest. They make more money by supplying fish that die later in the hands of hobbyists or importers. For if every fish was caught by net and housed and shipped with care - how much mortality would occur? If less mortality then less demand and thus a decrease in future revenue. In my opinion the small collector should learn to aquaculture themselves. The future collection of fish will be limited so its up to them to learn to cope now with aquaculture. If the reefs do collapse by nature or human hands those that have learned to culture will be in a better position to feed their family or provide income for their future generations.

[MaryHM]

In my opinion the small collector should learn to aquaculture themselves. The future collection of fish will be limited so its up to them to learn to cope now with aquaculture.

Setting up an aquaculture facility for fish is extremely time consuming and extremely, extremely expensive. Results may not been seen by the collectors for years, if ever. How can people that can barely afford their families going to pursue aquaculture of fish?

[Sideburns]

Quote "An alternative way to look at things is from the standpoint of how nature intended consumers to consume. They harvested from the natural ecosystems. The ecosystem would then replenish ecosystem components are they are harvested. The obvious problem is when you overharvest, the ecosystem can't replace what was taken."

This is the root cause of the problem: Population Explosion.
Without something drastic being done concerning the earth's population, which won't happen, humans will swamp the entire ecosystem. I don't think it will be the end of life, just the end of the stuff we like to see such as corals, rainforests (or any open, wild land), any large non-domesticated mammels.
We will see natural selection take hold and fashion a new dominant ecosystem that is based on the animals that can deal with our presence. Unfortunately, these animals aint so pretty. Also unfortunately, coral reefs and their inhabitants don't fit into this model.

I do think we must use aquacultured as much as possible because even if it fails, we must try something. Tank raised livestock has a better survial rate, since it is already adapted to living in an aquarium.

[dendronepthya]

The collectors themselves likely will not be able to put up the initial capital for a robust mariculture station. The investment must come from international sources such as Europe, Japan, or the US.

I want to be clear on what we are talking about. When I am talking about aquaculture, I am talking about a setup or facility far from the ocean in either a basement or greenhouse. When I talk about mariculture, I mean growth racks placed out into the reefs for harvesting similar to what Walt Smith does. Is this everyone's understanding as well?

[logical]

Thanks Den, I was not positive what you were meaning and that helps me think a bit more.

Peace, Bryan

[amonhen]

Mary,

I think you are making an excellent point. The surest way to conserve the reefs is to make a healthy reef economically valuable, and aquaculture doens't do that.

I don't think that most people would argue with you when saying that sustainable harvests from reefs are possible, but they would also say that restraining collectors to ecologically sound harvests is politically difficult.

I think most people believe aquaculture is presently the most ecologically sound approach because they believe that most ornamentals are harvested unethically, or at least harvested void of ethical consideration. The aquacultured ornamental market has grown because hobbyists perceive that an aquacultured organism is the only one with assured ethical consideration.

Captively propagated organisms do not, however, directly contribute to the economic value of a conserved natural reef. This line of thinking is new to me.

I do hope that the 'aquaculture movement' (if you will) has put some pressure on collectors and dealers. Raising the economic value of healthy reefs through **sustainable** harvest is an approach that depends on creating an educated market that will demand ethically collected organisms.

I think you're gaining, but there is a long way to go.

[MaryHM]

Should we assume that purchasing a sustainably/ethically wild caught percula clown does more to protect the reefs than purchasing a captive bred one?

[amonhen]

I'm not sure if this is what you are asking, but no, I think it is dangerous to assume anything. :p

Acutally, the irony is not lost on me. I have also been told (not sure if it is true) that more wildlife conservation is funded by hunting and fishing licenses than any other source. Principle is the same: We want this wilderness to remain pristine and we're willing to pay for it to stay that way.

But to answer your question, yes. Buying an ethically caught fish puts money in the hands of a person who will have a great stake in keeping the reefs healthy. It generates revenue for a government who will see a sustained reef as a natural resource worth maintaining. Part of that money, like a hunting license fee, will go directly into conservation. Buying a captive bred fish puts money in the hands of people who probably also value the reefs, but it is doubtful that any of that money will be spent on preserving the reefs.

Now the big question: how do you know if that fish was ethically caught before you buy it?

--Jeff

[MaryHM]

Now the big question: how do you know if that fish was ethically caught before you buy it?

Now that's a whole other debate in and of itself! Maybe we'll tackle that puppy next week- let me rest up first. ;)

[Louis Z]

Originally posted by MaryHM
Setting up an aquaculture facility for fish is extremely time consuming and extremely, extremely expensive. Results may not been seen by the collectors for years, if ever. How can people that can barely afford their families going to pursue aquaculture of fish? Aquaculture doesnt necessarily mean fish. What about macroalgae, sand bed critters? Mary how well does the macroalgae sell on your site? You have had some really different algae forms and I hope you continue to sell them. Where do these come from if you dont mind me asking? As for sand bed critters IPSF is one of a few places that does this why not others? I realize that this is peanuts but if you have many different venues then they add up. Oysters, clams, sponges all can be farmed. I would pay money for collectors to collect plankton and copepods. Better yet if they could sell me a culture of some of the copepods currently talked about in first feeds. I would also pay money if someone sold a diverse qty of sponges or tunicates. I could see these being farmed and sold for profit if properly handled and shipped wisely. I understand that I peer thru rose colored glasses but something somehow can be exploited or farmed other than just fish.

[MaryHM]

The macroalgaes I get come from Indonesia, and they are not very good sellers. I thought they would have taken off, especially with the introduction of the Macroalgae Packs, but I think I've sold one or two of those in the past couple of months. Sponges and tunicates are also bad sellers. As far as little sand bed critters, copepods, plankton, etc... it's too much of an aggravation to ship and hold those items for the average importer to want to bother with it. If they're going to aquaculture something, it's got to be something that there is a high demand for, something that is relatively easy to culture, something that can be competively priced and compared with wild caught, and something that doesn't require a huge amount of start up capital. There are a few clam farms overseas (Marshalls/Tonga/Fiji) and I purchase from those. However, to bring in aquacultured corals is just not cost effective. I was importing them from the farm in the Solomons and NO ONE wants them. Not the retailers and not the hobbyists. So I quit importing them.

[SPC]

Darn Mary, it looks like you killed this discussion:lol: .

However, to bring in aquacultured corals is just not cost effective. I was importing them from the farm in the Solomons and NO ONE wants them. Not the retailers and not the hobbyists. So I quit importing them.

It seems to me as if the hobbyist (the only reason that the industry exists) does not want aquacultured. This being the case, then why aquaculture anything?
Steve

[dendronepthya]

However, to bring in aquacultured corals is just not cost effective. I was importing them from the farm in the Solomons and NO ONE wants them. Not the retailers and not the hobbyists. So I quit importing them.
This sounds very price dependant. If the asking price is $20-30 for a frag, it will be a tough sell regardless of the target market. If those frags were closer to $7 retail, I doubt those Solomon farms could keep up with demand.

[MaryHM]

$7 retail for a coral aquacultured in the Solomon Islands, shipped to the states, held at my facility, and reshipped to a retail store? Not in this lifetime. I think it's not so much that hobbyists want aquacultured, but that they want cheap.

[dendronepthya]

Not in this lifetime. I think it's not so much that hobbyists want aquacultured, but that they want cheap.

I agree that corals aquacultured in the pacific cannot realistically be price competitive. Like you said, there are entirely too many costs between the producers and the consumers. My contention though is that if aquacultured corals was price competitive, there are a lot of benefits to buying aquacultured corals over wild caught corals, and I think a significant portion of aquarists would support that.

Local aquarists selling to other aquarists in the states makes much more sense than a pacific mariculture station. The cost structure is much lower and there is little reason to believe that they cannot produce similar offerings at low prices. This might not mean large scale commercial vendors which I'm sure will upset a few LFS owners, but it may be the nature of the market. You can already see frag networks appearing on the internet and auction sites. The future of aquaculture may very well be a decentralized market that does not rely heavily on importing at all.

[MaryHM]

The future of aquaculture may very well be a decentralized market that does not rely heavily on importing at all.

Which takes us back to the problem that stateside aquaculture has the potential to actually do more harm than good to the reefs. Again, it's all about what the goal of aquaculture is. I hear so many hobbyists saying "I'm so environmentally minded, I only buy aquacultured." I think it's just the opposite. However, a cheaper hobby can be obtained through stateside aquaculture, and that seems to be of much more concern to most hobbyists than the reefs.

[Jimbo327]

Originally posted by MaryHM
Setting up an aquaculture facility for fish is extremely time consuming and extremely, extremely expensive. Results may not been seen by the collectors for years, if ever. How can people that can barely afford their families going to pursue aquaculture of fish?

I agree about the difficulty of setting up an aquaculture facility, and high probability of failure. Most fishes will not breed in capitivity.

These collectors are getting pennies on the fish, if that!

Perhaps the industry should pay them more! :idea:

But no one is really willing to give out their share of the profit, so the vicious cycle continues...

And these collectors are not stupid, they understand that if they plunder the reefs now, there is no future, but if they don't plunder the reefs now, there is no today.

I truely think the deteorating state of the reefs is not due to the hobbiests or the stateside aquaculture, it is the poor regulation of collection and non-existant enforcement of those regulations that are in place in those countries. Perhaps the only way to make them change their ways is the slow destruction of the reefs. Nothing will change until it hits their pocket books...It's the way it has always been.

A sad catch-22.

Jim

[logical]

It is most definitely a dizzying circle.

Just my opinion only, but stateside aquaculture (or any country) which MAY lead to a BIT more affordable hobby can have very positive impacts on the reefs.

More people becoming involved with the hobby, saving a few bucks occassionally or always buying aquacultured, which raises their awareness, they have a few extra dollars now to help the reefs if they choose to.

Seems when humans stop touching things, they get better.

One side says the hobby is such a tiny part of the damage done to our precious reefs. If that is the case, and you do really care for the reefs, then you should want out tiny damage to stop. Then when our hobby has a leg to stand on, and the motivation of knowing we've accomplished cleaning ourselves up (and in my opinion only, aquaculture is part of that), then we can take on the big money industries that are REALLY hurting the reefs.

Well, bedtime, peace, Bryan

[amonhen]

Originally posted by MaryHM
....
I hear so many hobbyists saying "I'm so environmentally minded, I only buy aquacultured." I think it's just the opposite.
.....

I think we can draw an analogy to the tropical rain forests here. When the rainforest devastation first started to become publicized, the first (and appropriate) reaction of the environmentally concious was to 'stop the bleeding' by not buying rainforest-derived products. At this stage it made sense; the powers-that-be in those countries were getting support (financial, political) from those who were deriving profit from the rainforests. Reducing the demand for rainforest products (e. g., using American Walnut instead of Brazillian mahogany) may not have had as significant an impact as other types of pressure, but it certainly was pushing in the right direction.

Next we started seeing another type of market. The biggest example of this I can think of is Ben & Jerry's Rainforest Crunch ice cream, which used sustainably harvested nuts from the rainforests. This made the maintenance of the rainforests an economic and political alternative to clearing; i. e., you can make money from harvesting nuts instead of selling all the tree wood.

Now, we can argue about how effective all of this has been and how directly it applies to coral reefs, but I think the direction of the pressures are the same. My impression is that right now most wild caught corals are collected unethically, or at least without ethical consideration. An aquacultured coral does no direct harm to the reef, and is, in the immediate term, better for the reef than most (i. e., unethically collected) wild collected corals. This is a no-brainer. As awareness has grown, the aquaculture markets have grown.

As awareness continues to grow, however, it will become clear that saving the reefs is a much bigger task than preventing unethical collection of ornamentals. I don't have the data to support this, but it seems to me that the reefs would be dying even if there were no reef aquarium hobby. If this is true, then moving the hobby toward aquaculture, while preventing some harm, won't prevent the reef's demise; it is only reducing one negative pressure in a host of negative pressures. What Mary is talking about is producing a positive pressure for the preservation of the reefs. Unfortunately, it is not a no-brainer.

--Jeff

[liverock]

Originally posted by MaryHM
Which takes us back to the problem that stateside aquaculture has the potential to actually do more harm than good to the reefs. Again, it's all about what the goal of aquaculture is. I hear so many hobbyists saying "I'm so environmentally minded, I only buy aquacultured." I think it's just the opposite. However, a cheaper hobby can be obtained through stateside aquaculture, and that seems to be of much more concern to most hobbyists than the reefs.







Being in aquaculture since the 1980's we have seen an emerging industry encounter a very bumpy and rough ride. Aquaculture in Florida was mandated, not embraced by the industry or the consumer.

We collected live rock for nearly 15 years before it became illegal, and aquaculture was the only option for the future of the live rock business in the US. Unfortunately, aquaculture was not an easy road to hoe, as there was no precedent for permitting, or application in the live rock industry. What was a supposed six month permitting application to the state, turned into five years of grief, before we had a permit for aquaculture....see this link for the whole story....

http://www.tampabaysaltwater.com/history.html

But we did prevail, and now am seeing some positive results of culture activities.

The road was not easy though.....First, an aquaculture product needs to be accepted by the industry. This is a major hurdle, as we encountered in the early years. The industry did not want a cultured product when so much of the "wild" product was available to the marketplace, at a much lower price.

We were 99% a wholesale operation form 1977 to 1994, and strictly sold to wholesalers only. When we brought our cultured rock to the marketplace in the early 1990's, we could not sell it to our wholesale base, as imported rock was coming into the country at such a low price, the wholesale community would not consider a higher priced rock. We faced a total about face on our marketplace, redirected our sales efforts and turned to almost 100% sales directly to the end user. The actually resulted in more sales, as the end user "the hobbyist"appreciated the rock more the wholesale market. What we could not sell in the early days, we cannot produce enough for the marketplace now.

Our market has come full circle now as the wholesalers now want the product, but we cannot supply that much volume as our retail sales take up all of our culture efforts. Unfortunately we cannot embrace that market anymore.

This took ten years to happen, though, and is the same in most culture markets also. Take the cultured salmon market in the northwest. Wild salmon was on every dinner-plate for years, a fledgling cultured salmon market began, and they had trouble getting into the marketplace, as the wild stocks were plentiful and low priced.

The Alaska fisherman now find themselves in the same boat we were in, at first they were the only game in town, and had great sales, now they cannot sell their product and the price per pound for cultured salmon is so low, they cannot afford to fish. Now all the salmon you see in the grocery store is cultured.

Although cultured rock is not that far along, we do see a definite swing in the marketplace. If we could produce 10,000 pounds a day, we could sell it in the wholesale market. Unfortunately we produce only 5-800 pounds a day, weather permitting, limiting the market to the end user.

Same thing in the cultured oyster market, at first they could not sell them as the were much more expensive, like $80 per box, compared to $15 a box for wild caught oysters.....but after a few years, they also delved into a niche market, supplying top scale restaurants with the product.

So aquacultured products are slow in coming, must be accepted in the marketplace, at a marketable price. As you have seen importing the cultured corals does not work, as the end user can buy a much larger and nicer wild product, than cultured one.

Walt Smith has run into the same thing, his cultured rock is passed up for his wild product.

Aquaculture will only work in a large scale if the wild products are prohibited, but this will not work either as the marine industry will not survive an "all cultured" environment, simply because the technology is not here for the culture of these animals, neither is it cost effective, as in Harbor Branch institute that does an incredible job culturing many different species of fish, commonly used in the industry, but faced the same problems. A cultured clown fish wholesales for $6-8 dollars, I can buy the same fish from the wild for .89 cents.....price drives the market place, always has, always will.

Aquaculture of live rock is an incredible benefit to the environment. On the 4 million pounds placed on our lease site, has turned into one huge nursery area. Under almost every rock is a baby grouper, snapper, sea bass or other specie of fish indigenous to our area. Thus, the benefit to the environment is huge. Our 5 acre site produces millions of marine critters which would not have had the area to spawn and grow out in, as our lease site was all sand before we developed it.

Aquaculture is not an easy road, but one we all may be facing one day.

Richard TBS
www.tbsaltwater.com




Post Reply

[dendronepthya]

Which takes us back to the problem that stateside aquaculture has the potential to actually do more harm than good to the reefs
I agree with this statement, but I have to wonder if the difference is significant. Aquaculture will devalue the natural reefs, but at the same time it diminishes this hobby's direct impact on the reefs by eliminating the need for harvesting rock and corals. Assuming that Aquaculture is worse for the natural habitat than ethical importing, how much worse is it? The difference between the two may be negligable, so it doesn't matter which path this industry persues. It's like asking which is worse, to be cut with a razor blade or a pocket knife.

For me, I am a big proponent of aquaculture in the decentralized sense because of price. I have spent less than $100 on coral in the last several years. Much of the trade now a days is trading and people giving stuff away for free. There is little incentive for me to support a collection based industry when it cannot be price competitive and also knowing it too is harmful to the reefs.

[amonhen]

Originally posted by liverock
...

We collected live rock for nearly 15 years before it became illegal, and aquaculture was the only option for the future of the live rock business in the US....



Richard,

Have you been to any of your old 'wild rock' collection sites lately? How are these reefs doing, compared to what they were when you were actively collecting?

--Jeff

[liverock]

Same as they have looked for thousands of years......minus the bare spots of chipped rock.

But we have noticed that xmas tree worms are appearing on our cultured rock, 10 years to produce one 3 inch worm.....tells me that those clumps of xmas worm rock we used to collect are hundreds of years old. So.....impact of live rock collecting was heavy, visable and obviously not a sustainable activity, thus aquaculture was the only suitable alternative....

Richard TBS
www.tbsaltwater.com :rollface:

[Louis Z]

Originally posted by MaryHM
Which takes us back to the problem that stateside aquaculture has the potential to actually do more harm than good to the reefs. So how does one sell this argument to the public and politicians? I could see the opposition(regulators and peta) laughing when we tell them we are saving reefs by wild collection and diminished aquaculture. The islands which collect in an ethical way are far outnumbered by the places that dont. I believe the argument could have a leg to stand on if all places collected ethically. Its the negative reports and publicity of cyanide/dynamite/poor handling that throw the argument out the window. I cringe when I see it happening so I accept everyone else's protest. Funny I never see the cyanide reports on harvesting of food fish and see little reporting on the waste of life when the bycatch is thrown overboard. The only reports I see is the shark finning atrocities, the porpoise bycatch when trawling for tuna, and the turtle deaths when shrimping. Yet tuna remains on every shelf of grocery stores across the nation and shark fin soup is still a delicacy in high demand and shrimp a staple in every restaurant. So is it a matter of swaying the public's opinion towards one vice or the other? The only way I see is for aquaculture to produce the positive opinions.

[SPC]

Originally posted by Louis Z
Funny I never see the cyanide reports on harvesting of food fish and see little reporting on the waste of life when the bycatch is thrown overboard.

I think thats your answer right there Louis, food vs hobby.
Steve

[drtherc]

Now that I've read this thread from front to back, I'll put in my two cents...

First off, the argument that overpopulation of the earth hurts earth's ecology is false. As George Carlin said once, (to paraphrase), Who do we think we are as a species, that some of us imagine that we could permanently harm Mother Nature? Just as our tanks adapt to increases in population, so shall our earth. Man is part of nature, folks! If you look carefully at populations, if the earth around them can't sustain the population, no matter what aide those populations receive, the population deteriorates and gets smaller. This is true with animals as well as humans.

Someone also mentioned something about fishing a species to extinction. I don't believe the oceans are that small that we could do this. Some will always escape, and go on to procreate. Look at the "blackened redfish" craze of a few years ago. The redfish population thinned, redfish became rarer, then too expensive to meet supply, and lo and behold, people went on to other things. Now, the redfish supply is returning.

This is not to say that we should not be conservationists! I agree that overharvesting is bad. Wanton killing of "incidental" catches, such as dolphins in the tuna harvest, is wrong. Someone mentioned that hunters help preserve animal populations. This principal is the one that needs to apply more universally. The biggest problem is that many people, mostly in other countries, are less aware of the big picture. Chopping down a few trees close to where you live is not going to harm the ecology. Clear-cutting a forest is. Killing a deer for food vs. Killing the existing population of a given area, same thing. Same goes for tropical fish harvesters collecting a few fish vs cyaniding and taking up the entire population of an area, which kills the biological cycle of an area. Eventually that area will return, though.

Another idea I agree with is the trying to end the never-ending quest for cheaper goods, whether it's fish and corals or clothing. I know that I hold all my fish and corals (soon) dear to my heart. I don't mind paying more for them, as I do my research and buy carefully, then take care of my pets as if they were my children. And, I believe that, as long as we, as a hobby, do this (as in finding out how the fish were caught, then shunning those horrible methods of collecting with impunity), we aren't the ones devastating the tropical fish and coral industry. I'm willing, and have bought, pet fish at a greater price because it was harvested properly, rather than one that was caught more economically, but less ecologically.

I will eventually learn how to aquaculture, and share my frags, etc. But I think it's wrong to place blame solely on mankind. We do need to understand our ecology more, no doubt, because we're the only species capable of understanding it, and we should be the stewards of the earth. But we don't need to get crazy about it.

I know I'll get flamed for some of what I've said, but so be it.

[amonhen]

David T.,

Do you believe we could fish whales to extinction?
I do, and I think it is appropriate to "get crazy" about protecting them.

--Jeff

[drtherc]

Originally posted by amonhen
David T.,

Do you believe we could fish whales to extinction?
I do, and I think it is appropriate to "get crazy" about protecting them.

--Jeff

Well, we could, since these giants aren't that numerous, but do we even need to fish them? My main point in all of this is conservation is the answer. Take what you need, and leave the rest alone. I don't think there's much need for killing a whale. Whale oil? Taken care of with fossil fuel. Whale bones? Other than those that live in more barren environments (and who hunt whales for food and shelter), not necessary. What I see is mostly no need for anything a whale provides. So it's senseless to kill them, except in the aforementioned cases.

[SPC]

Wow David T, where does one start with your post, at the begining me thinks :) .


Originally posted by drtherc
Now that I've read this thread from front to back, I'll put in my two cents...

First off, the argument that overpopulation of the earth hurts earth's ecology is false. As George Carlin said once, (to paraphrase), Who do we think we are as a species, that some of us imagine that we could permanently harm Mother Nature?

You lost me here David, are you trying to say Mother Nature as we know it, or Mother Nature as it will be?

Just as our tanks adapt to increases in population, so shall our earth.

How do our tanks adapt to an increase in population? Are you saying that if I place 2 six inch tangs in my thriving 10 gallon tank that somehow it will adapt?

Man is part of nature, folks!

No, some men are part of nature and some are not if you are referring to the natural animal world.

If you look carefully at populations, if the earth around them can't sustain the population, no matter what aide those populations receive, the population deteriorates and gets smaller. This is true with animals as well as humans.

Yes, and it is man that is the unatural cause of this habitat destruction. Do you know of another animal (heck, all animals except man combined) that destroys habitat at a faster rate?
Steve

[amonhen]

Originally posted by drtherc
...My main point in all of this is conservation is the answer. Take what you need, and leave the rest alone. ...

Originally posted by drtherc
...Someone also mentioned something about fishing a species to extinction. I don't believe the oceans are that small that we could do this. Some will always escape, and go on to procreate. Look at the "blackened redfish" craze of a few years ago. The redfish population thinned, redfish became rarer, then too expensive to meet supply, and lo and behold, people went on to other things. Now, the redfish supply is returning....

You say your main point is conservation is the answer, but you cite an example of conservation being unneeded.

Originally posted by drtherc
...Well, we could [hunt whales], since these giants aren't that numerous, but do we even need to fish them? ...

So now you think we can fish a species to extinction, and change the subject.

Anyway, back to reef conservation....

[amonhen]

Originally posted by liverock
Same as they have looked for thousands of years......minus the bare spots of chipped rock.

But we have noticed that xmas tree worms are appearing on our cultured rock, 10 years to produce one 3 inch worm.....tells me that those clumps of xmas worm rock we used to collect are hundreds of years old. So.....impact of live rock collecting was heavy, visable and obviously not a sustainable activity, thus aquaculture was the only suitable alternative....

Richard TBS
www.tbsaltwater.com :rollface:

Richard,

Do I understand you correctly that reef space exposed years ago is still barren? Given the rate that reef life has populated your artificial reef (I have your rock and love it!), I would have thought bare real estate on a natural reef would get grown over relatively quickly.


--Jeff

[drtherc]

You lost me here David, are you trying to say Mother Nature as we know it, or Mother Nature as it will be?

Mother Nature is Mother Nature. She changes from day to day, from the beginning of time. Each step of the evolutionary cycle changed Nature. Up to and including MAN!

No, some men are part of nature and some are not if you are referring to the natural animal world.

Men are natural animals, evolving, just as everything else evolved from something else. Are you deliberately misinterpreting my words?

Yes, and it is man that is the unatural cause of this habitat destruction. Do you know of another animal (heck, all animals except man combined) that destroys habitat at a faster rate?


Every plant and every animal on the face of the earth, and under the surface of water consumes resources for food and shelter. The waste from this consumption gets consumed by something else, and so on, and so on, and so on. Man is part of this. Do you have a problem with being a human?

[drtherc]

Originally posted by amonhen
You say your main point is conservation is the answer, but you cite an example of conservation being unneeded.



So now you think we can fish a species to extinction, and change the subject.

Anyway, back to reef conservation....

Flame on, and totally miss the point. You're showing the density of your brain.

[SPC]

Originally posted by drtherc
Mother Nature is Mother Nature. She changes from day to day, from the beginning of time. Each step of the evolutionary cycle changed Nature. Up to and including MAN!

Would you please show where mother nature changes from day to day.

Men are natural animals, evolving, just as everything else evolved from something else. Are you deliberately misinterpreting my words?

Misinterpreting your words? Please explain.

My point was that man is no longer a natural animal in the sense that he must live with all of nature. As soon as man learned to plant that first seed in the ground he freed himself of having to live in harmony with nature.

Every plant and every animal on the face of the earth, and under the surface of water consumes resources for food and shelter. The waste from this consumption gets consumed by something else, and so on, and so on, and so on. Man is part of this.

He certainly is, the problem is that man consumes resources at such a rate that he leaves other animals on the planet without their fair share.

And David, you don't actually think that all of man's waste is consumed by "something else" do you?

Do you have a problem with being a human?

I certainly do, it is my species that is destroying the reefs (trying to get this back to reef related;) ). Do you disagree with this statement?
Steve

[drtherc]

Originally posted by SPC
Would you please show where mother nature changes from day to day.

Answer, cuz I don't want to change all the quotes and unquotes: Would you say that everything on earth is part of nature? Trees grow new leaves somewhere in the world daily. Is this not a change? As you so wisely asked that we get this back to reefs, fish spawn daily, new corals grow, etc. etc. ad nauseum. New species are spawned. I look around me every day and see nature-changed. Even a new high-rise building is a change in nature because, yes, man is part of nature.

Men are natural animals, evolving, just as everything else evolved from something else. Are you deliberately misinterpreting my words?

Misinterpreting your words? Please explain.

My point was that man is no longer a natural animal in the sense that he must live with all of nature. As soon as man learned to plant that first seed in the ground he freed himself of having to live in harmony with nature.

Answer: As soon as man learned to plant that first seed in the ground, he learned a bit about how to live in harmony with nature. Just as some corals and anenomes learned to plant their own algae within themselves to provide food.

Every plant and every animal on the face of the earth, and under the surface of water consumes resources for food and shelter. The waste from this consumption gets consumed by something else, and so on, and so on, and so on. Man is part of this.

He certainly is, the problem is that man consumes resources at such a rate that he leaves other animals on the planet without their fair share.

And David, you don't actually think that all of man's waste is consumed by "something else" do you?

Answer: Man consumes what he consumes. Some of man consumes much more than others of man. I don't believe we leave other animals without. Can you prove that? I'm begging you to. And yes, something does consume all of man's waste. Can you tell me an example of something that doesn't get consumed? I'll tell you that, while it may be piling up, we don't know (yet). But everything turns back to dirt or something eventually. Have you ever heard of the laws of thermodynamics? Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. It all, eventually, gets recycled. Even asphalt, as seen on the road, on my commute, eventually breaks down. I'm not saying that we haven't done some bad things, but we are constantly learning from our mistakes, and trying to make things better for our environment. Don't be so cynical, Steve, we've made great environmental advances in the last 50 years. The whole point is to be conscious of the environment, isn't it? And even some idiots are getting it into their heads. Many people recycle plastic and aluminum without even knowing why. But they do!

Do you have a problem with being a human?

I certainly do, it is my species that is destroying the reefs (trying to get this back to reef related;) ). Do you disagree with this statement?

We're not the only ones destroying reefs. Parrot fish eat coral, get nutrients from them, then poop sand. Sharks swim by and break of pretty good chunks. Hell, even I know that some corals will try to poison other corals to protect their territories. Isn't this destroying another form of life?
I will agree that we should do more to preserve them (I started out saying that I believe in conservation and stewardship), as I believe we, as individuals, not as governments, should do whatever possible to live in harmony with nature. This is not a regulatory thing, it's an education thing, and we are all becoming educated, more and more. A shame they don't teach this stuff in school.
My view of living in harmony and yours may differ, and I don't hate myself or my species for being consumers of resources, but I believe we do live in harmony with nature.
Steve

[SPC]

Answer, cuz I don't want to change all the quotes and unquotes: Would you say that everything on earth is part of nature? Trees grow new leaves somewhere in the world daily. Is this not a change? As you so wisely asked that we get this back to reefs, fish spawn daily, new corals grow, etc. etc. ad nauseum. New species are spawned. I look around me every day and see nature-changed. Even a new high-rise building is a change in nature because, yes, man is part of nature.

David, you don't see the difference between a fish spawning and man building a high-rise building? Let me ask you this so that I can try and understand your point better, if man were to have a nuclear war destroying 99% of all life on earth, would you consider this to be part of the natural world?

Answer: As soon as man learned to plant that first seed in the ground, he learned a bit about how to live in harmony with nature. Just as some corals and anenomes learned to plant their own algae within themselves to provide food.

I don't understand how you see this as living in harmony with nature. When man planted the first seed, he learned he was no longer bound by nature. His population could now grow unchecked without any concern for the natural world. He now had no concern if animals that were not useful to him lived or died. He could spread to all corners of the earth using up the natural resources as he went, and leaving only his waste behind.

Answer: Man consumes what he consumes. Some of man consumes much more than others of man. I don't believe we leave other animals without. Can you prove that? I'm begging you to.

No need to beg David, I would be more than happy to. Lets look at your high rise example for a minute, and keep in mind that man dosen't build just one high rise and leave the natural world untouched around it.
The land that the high rise was built on can no longer support the animals that it had. The land that the high rise workers take for their homes, is no longer a home to many of the animals that lived there. The automobiles that the workers use, are now responsible for added greenhouse gases and toxic runoff to surrounding wet areas. The tons of garbage produced by these workers (at home as well as the high rise) is buried in a land fill which displaced many of the animals that lived there. The materials used to construct the high rise and the homes, comes from a business somewhere that is now no longer hospitable to many of the animals that lived there. These businesses produce waste, and the people who work there etc....
Then theres all of the support businesses for day to day maintenace of the workers. A new fast food joint, bank, grocery, 7-11, gas station, golf course, bowling alley, airport and on and on....

And yes, something does consume all of man's waste. Can you tell me an example of something that doesn't get consumed?

In the short term, thousands of years? You bet I could.

[b] I'll tell you that, while it may be piling up, we don't know (yet). But everything turns back to dirt or something eventually.

I'm not talking about eventually here David, heck eventually our sun will burn out.

Have you ever heard of the laws of thermodynamics? Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. It all, eventually, gets recycled. Even asphalt, as seen on the road, on my commute, eventually breaks down.

Again, eventually the odds are that an asteroid or comet will hit the planet and wipe out most of life as we know it. I am not interested in discussing eventuallys David, eventually is a wild guess. I am trying to discuss the damage that man has already done to the natural world.

I'm not saying that we haven't done some bad things[b]

Like what?

[b] but we are constantly learning from our mistakes, and trying to make things better for our environment.

I disagree, we may learn, but we sure as heck aren't changing much.

Don't be so cynical, Steve, we've made great environmental advances in the last 50 years. The whole point is to be conscious of the environment, isn't it? And even some idiots are getting it into their heads. Many people recycle plastic and aluminum without even knowing why. But they do!

My point here David is not what man has learned, my point is that he is destroying the natural world each and every day.
Tell me David, do you personally take any responsibility for the destruction of the reefs?
Steve

[liverock]

Originally posted by amonhen
Richard,

Do I understand you correctly that reef space exposed years ago is still barren? Given the rate that reef life has populated your artificial reef (I have your rock and love it!), I would have thought bare real estate on a natural reef would get grown over relatively quickly.


--Jeff

Most of what we harvested was loose rubble rock when we started collecting live rock in the 80's.

Then when every boat in the marina got into the business, a practice of chipping the rock off the ledge became the norm.

When you chop off a six inch chunk of the ledge, there is nothing left to repopulate. Which is why live rock harvesting was prohibited.

Where we used to find xmas tree rock, was dead clumps of fire coral, which had the worms growing on it, had to be hundreds of years old, with the growth rates of worms we see on our rock now.

Now if you replace the substrate that was removed, it is a different story, you get coral growth in one year, and some corals are 6-10 inches big now on our cultured rock.

Richard TBS
www.tbsaltwater.com

[amonhen]

Originally posted by liverock
....When you chop off a six inch chunk of the ledge, there is nothing left to repopulate. Which is why live rock harvesting was prohibited....

Richard TBS
www.tbsaltwater.com

Richard,

Thanks for the clarification.


Most fish have a large reproductive potential. I don't know how quickly wild corals reproduce; I know that some spread very quickly. From what I have read, reef building takes centuries. This is a coarse first approach, but taken together, this says to me that, while ornamental organisms can, in general, be sustainably harvested from natural reefs, 'wild' live rock cannot. The main issue is rate of production.

I know you can only take a guess, but would you be willing to venture a guess as to how much rock can be sustainably harvested (i. e., collecting naturally broken rubble)? Does collecting this even make ecological sense, given the success of rock harvested from an artificial reef such as yours?

--Jeff

[liverock]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by amonhen
[B]Richard,

Thanks for the clarification.


"Most fish have a large reproductive potential. I don't know how quickly wild corals reproduce; I know that some spread very quickly. "

You are talking apples and oranges here.....

We have no coral reefs here in the Gulf. Unlike the Keys, our formations are rock, not coral. We get good coral growth on the rock ledges, but is not a coral reef, built by coral as are the keys reefs and in the Pacific.

Richard TBS
www.tbsaltwater.com :rollface:

[drtherc]

Steve,
As to a difference between a fish spawning and man building a high-rise, of course there's a difference! I didn't even make that analogy. But just as animals build habitats for themselves-shelters, so must man. Regarding your point about if man were to have a nuclear war, you don't want to talk about eventualities, and I don't want to talk about ifs. We may have been close to that at one time, and nuclear weapons are still in evidence, but that's a very big if.

Regarding your point on living in harmony with nature, every animal makes changes to his environment. Whether they do it because it's their nature, it is, ultimately, about making the environment better for yourself. Since my premise is that man is a natural being, when he plants a seed, he's doing something natural. Since you don't agree that man is part of nature, I guess you won't ever get the point.

On your point about man displacing other animals and ecosystems, isn't it true that animals displace other animals to further their existence? They also destroy part of their environment. Elephants knock down trees, don't they? And once animals take on a habitat, others can't live there. But other lower forms do! When an elephant kills a tree by uprooting it in his path, grubs and snakes take over to break down the tree, thus fertilizing the area for the next tree that takes root. On a larger scale, it's the same for man. A man builds a house, and ants and termites (eventually) take over the inside walls and break down the environment. Other animals that eat those ants and temites take up residence nearby. I know, a highrise is virtually devoid of any of these, but even mice and rats, ****roaches and other insects take over the areas of a highrise that we don't use. The greenhouse gasses that we all produce through respiration (man and animal alike) and consumption of the earth's resources are converted by plants to produce more gasses that we all need. There are even detrius eaters and rodents living in the landfills, converting our waste into something that will be useful. Yes, everything does break down. In ecological terms, even granite erodes...eventually, and not necessarily by man's hand.

Bad things like what? On that point, I'll have to agree with you about man not learning fast enough how to live as conservatively as possible. We waste resources. But even in our waste, other animal benefit. The pre-historic first Americans learned how to trap whole herds of buffalo, ate what they could, then left the rest to rot and die, used the skins to make clothes, but didn't use all of what they killed. But even in this waste, other animals did come along and clean up. Using nuclear materials to potentially destroy our fellow man was bad. This was really done by government, not man, per se. Yeah, men built them, but government demanded them (This is sort of like the natives that fish for the tropical fish we want, but don't understand that many of these fish shouldn't be held in captivity-it's driven by the powers-that-be.)
But yes, we do learn from our mistakes, and we do learn to take care of our environment. And mother nature is tough, Steve. Even with the greatest man-made disasters, mother nature eventually comes through, and usually faster than we think she will. With each passing year, we get better at it. I'm sorry it's not fast enough for you. From your tone, I guess you'd never be satisfied.

And no, I don't think I've done anything personally to destroy reefs. I believe that my live rock and sand come from natural causes, like typhoons and earthquakes breaking the bigger rocks, and then being harvested. I don't own any corals yet, or inverts for that matter. I do what I can to ensure that my fish are humanely caught and treated on their way to my LFS. Yes, he could be lying, but if I ever find out differently, I'll find a LFS that does ensure this type of treatment. When I visit reefs, and it's at least once or twice a year, I don't break coral, and train those in my party to treat the sea with respect. I don't pour raw oil or other chemicals down the street drain, it runs directly to the bay. I recycle these things properly. I do what I can to teach people, my grandchildren especially, and their friends, about sea life, and all the things I do to do my part for the environment.

Steve, no form of waste breaks down very quickly. And every animal creates waste. Do I think we need to learn more, and do a better job? Certainly.

Originally posted by SPC
Answer, cuz I don't want to change all the quotes and unquotes: Would you say that everything on earth is part of nature? Trees grow new leaves somewhere in the world daily. Is this not a change? As you so wisely asked that we get this back to reefs, fish spawn daily, new corals grow, etc. etc. ad nauseum. New species are spawned. I look around me every day and see nature-changed. Even a new high-rise building is a change in nature because, yes, man is part of nature.

David, you don't see the difference between a fish spawning and man building a high-rise building? Let me ask you this so that I can try and understand your point better, if man were to have a nuclear war destroying 99% of all life on earth, would you consider this to be part of the natural world?

Answer: As soon as man learned to plant that first seed in the ground, he learned a bit about how to live in harmony with nature. Just as some corals and anenomes learned to plant their own algae within themselves to provide food.

I don't understand how you see this as living in harmony with nature. When man planted the first seed, he learned he was no longer bound by nature. His population could now grow unchecked without any concern for the natural world. He now had no concern if animals that were not useful to him lived or died. He could spread to all corners of the earth using up the natural resources as he went, and leaving only his waste behind.

Answer: Man consumes what he consumes. Some of man consumes much more than others of man. I don't believe we leave other animals without. Can you prove that? I'm begging you to.

No need to beg David, I would be more than happy to. Lets look at your high rise example for a minute, and keep in mind that man dosen't build just one high rise and leave the natural world untouched around it.
The land that the high rise was built on can no longer support the animals that it had. The land that the high rise workers take for their homes, is no longer a home to many of the animals that lived there. The automobiles that the workers use, are now responsible for added greenhouse gases and toxic runoff to surrounding wet areas. The tons of garbage produced by these workers (at home as well as the high rise) is buried in a land fill which displaced many of the animals that lived there. The materials used to construct the high rise and the homes, comes from a business somewhere that is now no longer hospitable to many of the animals that lived there. These businesses produce waste, and the people who work there etc....
Then theres all of the support businesses for day to day maintenace of the workers. A new fast food joint, bank, grocery, 7-11, gas station, golf course, bowling alley, airport and on and on....

And yes, something does consume all of man's waste. Can you tell me an example of something that doesn't get consumed?

In the short term, thousands of years? You bet I could.

[b] I'll tell you that, while it may be piling up, we don't know (yet). But everything turns back to dirt or something eventually.

I'm not talking about eventually here David, heck eventually our sun will burn out.

Have you ever heard of the laws of thermodynamics? Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. It all, eventually, gets recycled. Even asphalt, as seen on the road, on my commute, eventually breaks down.

Again, eventually the odds are that an asteroid or comet will hit the planet and wipe out most of life as we know it. I am not interested in discussing eventuallys David, eventually is a wild guess. I am trying to discuss the damage that man has already done to the natural world.

I'm not saying that we haven't done some bad things[b]

Like what?

[b] but we are constantly learning from our mistakes, and trying to make things better for our environment.

I disagree, we may learn, but we sure as heck aren't changing much.

Don't be so cynical, Steve, we've made great environmental advances in the last 50 years. The whole point is to be conscious of the environment, isn't it? And even some idiots are getting it into their heads. Many people recycle plastic and aluminum without even knowing why. But they do!

My point here David is not what man has learned, my point is that he is destroying the natural world each and every day.
Tell me David, do you personally take any responsibility for the destruction of the reefs?
Steve

[SPC]

Originally posted by drtherc
Steve,
As to a difference between a fish spawning and man building a high-rise, of course there's a difference! I didn't even make that analogy. But just as animals build habitats for themselves-shelters, so must man. Regarding your point about if man were to have a nuclear war, you don't want to talk about eventualities, and I don't want to talk about ifs. We may have been close to that at one time, and nuclear weapons are still in evidence, but that's a very big if.

Regarding your point on living in harmony with nature, every animal makes changes to his environment. Whether they do it because it's their nature, it is, ultimately, about making the environment better for yourself. Since my premise is that man is a natural being, when he plants a seed, he's doing something natural. Since you don't agree that man is part of nature, I guess you won't ever get the point.

Oh I "get" the point David, I just don't agree with it.

On your point about man displacing other animals and ecosystems, isn't it true that animals displace other animals to further their existence? They also destroy part of their environment. Elephants knock down trees, don't they? And once animals take on a habitat, others can't live there. But other lower forms do! When an elephant kills a tree by uprooting it in his path, grubs and snakes take over to break down the tree, thus fertilizing the area for the next tree that takes root. On a larger scale, it's the same for man. A man builds a house, and ants and termites (eventually) take over the inside walls and break down the environment. Other animals that eat those ants and temites take up residence nearby. I know, a highrise is virtually devoid of any of these, but even mice and rats, ****roaches and other insects take over the areas of a highrise that we don't use.

The amount of harm an elephant does to the planet cannot even be compared to what the human animal does. The amount of harm he does to his own environment is not to the magnitude that other animals cannot live there. The elephant is surrounded by thousands of different animals which he has learned to live with. When an elephant knocks down a tree, the environment is not changed for eons, it is a short change that will repair itself, its, well.... nature.
When we are discussing mans destruction of an environement, we are talking about a complete and permanent destruction in relative terms to the elephant.
Ask yourself this David, why has the Amazon Rain Forest thrived for millions of years, virtually unchanged, until the human population grew to such numbers. The human animal that lived in harmony in this area did not destroy the forrest to the point it could not heal. These native peoples (hunter/gatherers) knew that it was the forest that gave them life. The forest is being destroyed by the farmer.

The greenhouse gasses that we all produce through respiration (man and animal alike) and consumption of the earth's resources are converted by plants to produce more gasses that we all need. There are even detrius eaters and rodents living in the landfills, converting our waste into something that will be useful. Yes, everything does break down. In ecological terms, even granite erodes...eventually, and not necessarily by man's hand.

Do you actually believe that all the greenhouse gasses are consumed in a natural way David? Lets say this was so, what do you think is happening to the greenhouse gases now that man continues to cut down the forests? You know that the Rain Forests are the largest consumer of CO2 on the planet don't you?

The last time I was at the landfill (2 weeks ago), I noticed many items that wont be eaten by detritus eaters in the next thousand years. There was washers and dryers, stoves, dishwashers, mattresses, metal doors and windows and.... All of these items, including the edible objects, were being buried under a mountain of dirt. Now unless your talking about increasing the population of bacteria on the planet, I don't know a whole lot of animals that would find this to their liking.

This landfill is in a small South Ga town. Now compare this to all of the landfills in the US, and remember that the US has 1/5 the worlds population and yet uses 50% of all the worlds natural resources at this time. Now ask yourself what will happen when Asia, South America and Africa begin to use up more of the goodies as they become more modern.

Bad things like what? On that point, I'll have to agree with you about man not learning fast enough how to live as conservatively as possible. We waste resources. But even in our waste, other animal benefit. The pre-historic first Americans learned how to trap whole herds of buffalo, ate what they could, then left the rest to rot and die, used the skins to make clothes, but didn't use all of what they killed. But even in this waste, other animals did come along and clean up.

I don't know where you got this information from David, but when the Native Americans were through with a buffalo, there wasn't squat left for other animals (except those bacteria again). Now, when some of the white men were finished with the buffalo there was plenty for other animals, seeing as they were just left to rot where they were shot. This wasen't all of the white men however, some had to live in harmony with nature and therefore understood the value of the buffalo.

Using nuclear materials to potentially destroy our fellow man was bad. This was really done by government, not man, per se. Yeah, men built them, but government demanded them (This is sort of like the natives that fish for the tropical fish we want, but don't understand that many of these fish shouldn't be held in captivity-it's driven by the powers-that-be.)

No actually I totally disagree with your premise here David. Government cannot be blamed for this in a Democracy, it is you and I who accepted it, and therefore condone it. We the people love cheap nuclear energy to run our reef tanks with.

But yes, we do learn from our mistakes, and we do learn to take care of our environment. And mother nature is tough, Steve. Even with the greatest man-made disasters, mother nature eventually comes through, and usually faster than we think she will. With each passing year, we get better at it. I'm sorry it's not fast enough for you. From your tone, I guess you'd never be satisfied.

LOL, not fast enough for me, never satisfied. Don't worry if its fast enough for me friend, our concern should be if it is fast enough for the natural world as we know it. So far its not, millions of acres of 100+ year old trees are lost each year as well as countless miles of reef and productive ocean waters, due to the human animals shortsightedness.

And no, I don't think I've done anything personally to destroy reefs. I believe that my live rock and sand come from natural causes, like typhoons and earthquakes breaking the bigger rocks, and then being harvested. I don't own any corals yet, or inverts for that matter. I do what I can to ensure that my fish are humanely caught and treated on their way to my LFS. Yes, he could be lying, but if I ever find out differently, I'll find a LFS that does ensure this type of treatment. When I visit reefs, and it's at least once or twice a year, I don't break coral, and train those in my party to treat the sea with respect. I don't pour raw oil or other chemicals down the street drain, it runs directly to the bay. I recycle these things properly. I do what I can to teach people, my grandchildren especially, and their friends, about sea life, and all the things I do to do my part for the environment.

That all sounds real nice David, but thats not what I was referring to. You destroy the reef through the lifestyle you have chosen. You destroy the reef a little each trip you take to the reef through your man made pollutants. You destroy the reef a little each time you crank up an engine, fertilize your yard, use pesticide, run metal halides, eat at a restraunt, purchase a new car, eat non organic fruits and vegatables etc....

Steve, no form of waste breaks down very quickly. And every animal creates waste.

The waste that is produced by "every animal" breaks down pretty quickly, the natural world has evolved to insure this. I know of no animal, besides the human animal, that produces waste that is not biodegradable.

Do I think we need to learn more, and do a better job? Certainly.

Then it appears that you are not satisfied either then David;) .
Steve

[drtherc]

Since I disagree with you, and you disagree with me, this could go on forever. So this will be my last post on this subject.

I don't know how many elephants there are left in the world, and you, apparently don't know how many humans are in the US. Certainly not 1/5 of the world's population! When the US grows to 1/2 billion, it would be 1/10th, but we haven't gotten there yet. But comparing one elephant to the human population is wrong. And you ignored the fact that other animals can and do live in the same environment as man. Certainly not to the density of other places, but cities are a very small portion of the earth. And the only way to completely and totally destroy the environment would be for a catyclismic (sp?) event, such as a large meteor hitting the earth, to happen. Total distruction means nothing would ever grow back. Even when a meteor hits the earth, things eventually grow back. You speak of metal objects such as washers, etc in the land fills, well, I have great news for you, Steve---these are made of metals which were pulled from the earth! Natural metals made into useful shapes! But still natural! We just figured out how to do something with the resources available to us! Metals don't break down as quickly as other things! That's their nature !

Another thing I'll educate you on-the rain forest, or jungle, as it used to be called, is not the largest consumer of CO2. It's algae. Everything from single cell on up to the kelp forest. That's the largest consumer of CO2. I will agree that man is cutting down the jungle at too fast of a rate, but even that is a case where we learn from making mistakes. The jungle is not being cut back as much as it used to be, and it will eventually come back. Mother Nature will always win, in the end.

Lastly, Steve, I assume, from your post, that your definition of non-biodegradeable is that it hasn't decomposed yet . We may not know how long it will take to degrade, but it will degrade. We're learning in that respect, too. Satisfied? No, I'm not satisfied that I know enough, not satisfied that I do enough. We'll never know enough. But what I do know, and have faith in, is that Nature always takes back what it owns. Everything happens for a reason-both "good" things and "bad" things. Don't you know that, if we didn't make mistakes, we would never learn anything? We are learning, and the more we know the better off we'll be, and the better of the world, and the earth, will be.

Bye, Steve.

[SPC]

Originally posted by drtherc
Since I disagree with you, and you disagree with me, this could go on forever. So this will be my last post on this subject.

I don't know how many elephants there are left in the world, and you, apparently don't know how many humans are in the US. Certainly not 1/5 of the world's population! When the US grows to 1/2 billion, it would be 1/10th, but we haven't gotten there yet.

Thats correct David, we don't have 1/2 billion, we have around 1/4 billion (300 million), this would not be 1/10 but 1/5 as I said.;)

But comparing one elephant to the human population is wrong.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here.?Comparing the damage done by every elephant (one species) on earth, to the human (one species) destruction done to the planet, is not even close David. In fact, you can throw in any other 50 species into the mix and your still not close. Do you actually think that man would allow any large animal to exist if they were doing the same damage as he is?

And you ignored the fact that other animals can and do live in the same environment as man.

No, I did not ignore this David, the point you were making about rats, and some insects, I didn't feel needed a response because it misses the point.

Certainly not to the density of other places, but cities are a very small portion of the earth. And the only way to completely and totally destroy the environment would be for a catyclismic (sp?) event, such as a large meteor hitting the earth, to happen. Total distruction means nothing would ever grow back. Even when a meteor hits the earth, things eventually grow back.

The fact remains David that a meteor hasn't hit recently, and yet there are many animals being driven into extinction by the actions of man. BTW, you don't really know if any life will survive after that next impact from a meteor, comet or asteroid. All it would take (and science says this is very possible) is for the earth to be jollted out of its orbit.

You speak of metal objects such as washers, etc in the land fills, well, I have great news for you, Steve---these are made of metals which were pulled from the earth! Natural metals made into useful shapes! But still natural! We just figured out how to do something with the resources available to us! Metals don't break down as quickly as other things! That's their nature !

Uh no David, you missed the point again, I am pretty sure that everyone realizes that metals come from the earth. The point was that this landfill is now a "dead" zone to most of the animals that once lived there, including man. If this landfil is not sealed properly (like the thousands that weren't), then they will leach out all kinds of nasties (including the metals and paint that washers are made of) into the soil and groundwater. There are many other objects placed in landfils that are even worse than this, but I won't bore you with anymore.
BTW, these washers also contain alot of plastic parts that aren't "natural" and won't be breaking down in the next millions of years.

Another thing I'll educate you on-the rain forest, or jungle, as it used to be called, is not the largest consumer of CO2. It's algae. Everything from single cell on up to the kelp forest. That's the largest consumer of CO2.

Exuse me David, I used CO2 in place of Green House gases.
Tell me though David, if all the rain forest were gone, would the algae keep up with CO2 consumption at a rate to satisfy the planets demands?

I will agree that man is cutting down the jungle at too fast of a rate, but even that is a case where we learn from making mistakes. The jungle is not being cut back as much as it used to be,

It most certainly is David.

and it will eventually come back. Mother Nature will always win, in the end.

I see, so if it takes a million years for it to come back then you are satisfied with the part you played in destroying it.
And Mother Nature winning is not what I am talking about here. I am talking about the human species being the first animal that has changed nature on a global scale to suit his needs.

Lastly, Steve, I assume, from your post, that your definition of non-biodegradeable is that it hasn't decomposed yet . We may not know how long it will take to degrade, but it will degrade. We're learning in that respect, too.

Well David we may be learning, but I sure haven't seen alot of action taken. They just asked for more money in the small town I live in for the purpose of buiding another landfill.
And please David, your logic that everything eventually degrades is just a bit philosophical for me when discussing the human species and the damage he is doing to this planet.

Satisfied? No, I'm not satisfied that I know enough, not satisfied that I do enough. We'll never know enough. But what I do know, and have faith in, is that Nature always takes back what it owns. Everything happens for a reason-both "good" things and "bad" things. Don't you know that, if we didn't make mistakes, we would never learn anything? We are learning, and the more we know the better off we'll be, and the better of the world, and the earth, will be.

This would be true if you believed that man was actually going to take action with the knowledge he has. Look around you David, don't you see things (have knowledge of) that man does that you know are detrimental to the "natural" world as we know it?
My experience in life (and from reading ancient texts) is that most men have one driving force that dictates their decisions, having more than the other guy and the power it brings.

2 men walk into the forest. One man says to the other "have you ever seen such beautiful trees?" The other man responds "yea, I wonder how many board feet they contain".

Bye, Steve.

Bye, David
Steve

[drtherc]

I'm so sorry that this has gotten off topic, but Steve really has no clue! Steve, you can be as pessimistic as you want, but I for one am proud to be in the colony of man. I won't waste another breath, because you don't see what I see. You refuse. That's fine, cuz I don't see it your way either. Take care. I will, and I know my fellow man does, too. There's no such thing as perfection in this world, Steve. I'm not, you're most certainly not, and neither is the universe we live in.

[SPC]

Originally posted by drtherc
Since I disagree with you, and you disagree with me, this could go on forever. So this will be my last post on this subject

I have a clue about one thing David, if I said that this was my last post, I would stick with that decision;) . This is called "keeping ones word", something that the "colony of man" could use a bit more of.
Steve

[TonyBrighton]

It's great that everyone is concerned about the environmental impact of the hobby but aren't we missing the point here? As I understand it (I stand to be corrected) 70 per cent of the world's reefs are at risk from GLOBAL WARMING!! If you are really concerned about coral reefs the question really is: WHAT ARE YOU DRIVING AND WHAT IS ITS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT?