Collection Article, Part 2

[Steven Pro]

"If we estimate that there are one million reefkeepers in the U.S., and we consider what I think is a conservative estimate of one hundred animals purchased over the average person's time as a hobbyist, it's easy to see why some people might be concerned. It is again important to keep in mind that the aquarium trade has grown by approximately 30% each year."

Eric, where did these numbers come from?

[dizzy]

Yes I'm very interested as well. The 30% growth is way higher than the 2004-2005 poll published in The Red Book published by Pet Product News and just recently released. We received ours this week. It shows a 2-3 year growth of approx. 14% which is much less than your figure.
Mitch Gibbs

[EricHugo]

The numbers come primarily from Barbara Best of the US Coral Reef Task Force and are supported by other references, as well including the Bruckner references, and I extrapolated the data we obtained from the 900 surveys and from other sources and then did some calculations based on the number of aquarists and the number of fish being imported which is well acknowledged to be underprepresented

Incidentally, I'm not sure Pet Prodcut News is a very good source of information

[sihaya]

Is it not true that many people don't stay in the hobby for very long? I remember reading that a substantial % of people leave the hobby after less than a year.

I guess what I'm wondering is, what does 30% growth mean? Is that new people entering the hobby... or net people in the hobby from year to year? A net growth rate of 30% is absolutely extraordinary. Doesn't that imply that the number of hobbyists doubles about every 2-3 years? That's kinda hard to fathom...

[dizzy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6331204#post6331204 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by EricHugo
The numbers come primarily from Barbara Best of the US Coral Reef Task Force and are supported by other references, as well including the Bruckner references, and I extrapolated the data we obtained from the 900 surveys and from other sources and then did some calculations based on the number of aquarists and the number of fish being imported which is well acknowledged to be underprepresented

Incidentally, I'm not sure Pet Prodcut News is a very good source of information

What do you think is wrong with the PPN data? It says "The survey was taken by 741 owners or top managers of independent pet stores." What possible reason would either the owners or PPN have to misrepresent the truth?
Mitch
PS
What 900 surveys?

[dizzy]

How can I contact Barbara Best to ask her about her numbers?
Thanks Mitch

[sihaya]

I don't think it's that they'd purposely misrepresent the truth... it's just that those kinds of surveys aren't usually very rigid. They likely ask for a "rough estimate" or a mere guess from the managers and independent store owners. Conducting a survey properly is an art and a science; it's not easy.

For example, suppose I own a LFS and someone asks me how many "new customers" I get who purchase coral. How is my answer to that question worth anything? How do I know if my "new customer" is new to the hobby, new in town, or just new to my store? And besides, customers lie. Some guy could come in and tell me he's kept coral for 20years just because he wants to impress me... and I'd probably believe him. Or once, I let a guy think I knew nothing about coral because he was absolutely gorgeous and I just wanted an excuse to look at him... so I'm sure I spoiled at least one survey ;)

That's why those kinds of surveys aren't usually worth much. But I'm still wondering about the 30% too because I've often read that many hobbyists do not stay in the hobby more than a year.

[dizzy]

Well the Pet Product News estimates are matched by American Pet Products Manufacturers Association (APPMA) Many companies use this information for marketing research for business plans and such. I do believe they make a good effort to get it as accurate as possible, given their resources: " According to the American Pet Products Association’s™ 2005-2006 Pet Owner’s™ Survey, saltwater fish ownership jumped 14% to 800,000 households. The number of households owning freshwater fish is up 5% to 13.9 million households"


http://www.appma.org/pubs_survey.asp

I do believe you can learn a lot about your customers tanks and length of time in the hobby by asking questions. Most don't lie about stuff like that, and if they do it is usually obvious.
Mitch

PS
I have the Dr. Best contact information now.

[sihaya]

Wait, are we talking about coral keepers or fish-only marine tank keepers? or both?

[dizzy]

Eric says one million reefkeepers. I believe the APPMA survey includes saltwater fish only and reefkeeping together. To reach that figure of 100 animals per hobbyist he would definitely have to be talking about reefkeeping only. That means his figures are even more in conflict with the APPMA survey.

[Kalkbreath]

There is little to back up such a claim of 30% increase in Hobbyists.
Tank sales are actually down. Oceanic / All Glass
Imports from the Philippines are fifty percent less today then ten years ago . (5 million compared to 12 )
CITES has limited coral imports by one third over the past ten years.
Exports from Hawai are down fifty percent.
If we are to use Eric's Fiji live rock and coral numbers from Eight years ago........there has been a ten fold decrease in todays imports from that island.
In order to supply this supposed 30% increase in hobbyists, there would need to be a coresponding 30% increase in the supply of live stock landing into the States for these new hobbyists to fill their tanks.
Wholesalers would have noticed the doubling every three years in the demand for live stock. (Most are downsizing not expanding)
The supply of marine life coming into the USA is about the same today as it was six years ago. The make up and diversity of species has changed, but the total peices landing is about the same .
If the population of US Hobbyists had tripled since 1999, The industry would have responded in kind.

[sihaya]

I can believe that there's a 30% increase, in that there's 30% new reefers. But it seems to me that most of that 30% probably gives up and leaves the hobby in less than year.

I certainly hope I'm not right. That would truly be unfortunate... and would imply a lot of lost life due to people being unsuccessful (or just too fustrated) with the hobby.

[cortez marine]

Relax,
Its clearly not increasing like that at all...
Barbra Best, Andy Bruckner and Eric come from a research culture that hold printed and published info higher then accurate info.
[Printed does not equate to accurate by a long way.]
The result is in fact akin to a high school book report.
The things they need to understand are not in the articles they happened to find...and sometimes the worst things are written by the least players and the most needed to know things are never written because the real players are not consulted and may not write.
30% growth in marinelife consumption a year is wrong. Dead wrong....but somebody, somewhere said it, it got bantied about and grew in credibiity as it aged somehow.
Then....they diid a literature seach and found this bogus notion and gave it more credibility with more telling of it.
Steve

[sihaya]

Well, let's be fair... Mr. Borneman is a pretty smart guy. And he said "the aquarium trade" has grown by 30%. It's not perfectly clear what that means. We're reading it to mean that there are 30% more reefers each year. But that's only one very narrow (and probably inaccurate) way of reading that statement.

[dizzy]

sihaya,
that same APPMA survey showed the increase in freshwater to be much smaller than the saltwater increase. Fresh was up 5% from 2002 in the 2004-2005 survey. Also Eric specifically said 1,000,000 reefkeepers and estimated 100 animals each. And he said the 100 each was conservative. It's right there in Steven's first post.

[EricHugo]

Well, those "high school book reports" are commissioned and based on USFWS data and also put into peer-reviewed literature. So, if they are wrong, I'd like to know the more credible sources that are being used....something better, I hope, than taking the word of a hobby trader and the "pet industry newspaper."

[EricHugo]

But, Steve, nice to see you have the guts to actually show up instead of starting threads on other forums discussing things without the author there to make comments.

I have a signfiicant number of sources in my article. Are you suggesting that everyone is wrong, but you're right? Oh, I forgot...that's been your modus operandi for years, and why to this day no one listens to you despite your rants and raves.

Look at Reef Central statistics. It is, by far, the largest board on reefkeeping. It's in the top 100 internet sites (Number 73, down from 72 a week ago) If you look at the web stats for the site alone, with over 110,000 members, and you can go to bigboards to see this, you'll see a trend that closely parallels the increase inhobbyists, including number of new views per day, members, posts, etc. I'd say 110,000 is a relatively large sample size for a population and that when you deal with these numbers you are probably getting a representative sample. Also, why are there local extirpations of fishes over the past few years? Why are Potter's populations down 23% and Z flaviscens down up to 70% from collection sites despite their collection for over 50 years? Why are thee increases in aquarium fishers that parallel the increases in the hobby and the trade? Why are several new exporting nations seeking guidance to control a rapidly increasing aquarium fishery because of the threats to their resources? Why has the aquarium trade, for the first time, been a priority funding guideline for NOAA's coral reef conservation grant program? Because we've run out of real threats or because the aquarium trade really is a threat or because coral reef managers just really want to hassle the hobby for fun? I have gone out with one of the most well respected collectors and Florida and watched him systematically eliminate every single anemone and Ricordea he came across, shun the idea of propagating them in the field, and now there may be local extinctions of the anemones in US waters. Al lies? Everyone is just wrong, and you are right? Dude, you really need to realize that you don't have all the answers and you might actually help make a difference to the reefs and the trade.

So, we have scientific papers, grey literature reports from exporting nations, US agencies, aquarist surveys, import data, and other sources concurring, and then a Pet Industry source and some industry people's opinions on the other side. OK....I'll just leave it to the readers of this thread who to believe.

Show me the proof. I'll gladly stand corrected.

[dizzy]

I did manage to contact Dr. Barbara Baker. She sent me this: "Because coral and live rock are listed on CITES, we have the most accurate and available information on the volume of trade for these groups. Andy Bruckner’s analyses of the coral and live rock trade have shown that the trade has increased 30% for some years. In the information sheet, we noted that the global trade is increasing annually by 10-30% for corals and live rock, as the rate of annual increase has varied between these figures"

I sent her a link to obtain the APPMA survey. Hopefully we can determine why there is such a difference. I think some of it is a shift from people keeping fish only to people keeping reef tanks. I still can't understand where the 1,000,000 people keeping 100 animals per tank comes from? Eric are you including hermit crabs and snails as animals? Are you talking about 100 diffeent species? I guess you could call a mushroom rock with 50 mushrooms fifty animals. Please clear up exactly what you meant.
Thanks Mitch

[cortez marine]

Eric,
The data doesn't make the argument...or mean much alone.
Weaving it into something does.

The 'available' data means what you were able to find...with what you had to work with....limitations and all.

The 'interpretation' of the data available to you makes it even more not an open and shut case ...
and the age of the 'selected' data to push a point futher waters down the claim to being accurate on so much of this stuff.

Andy Bruckner said in an article I just read that 10 countries use cyanide to collect tropical fish. Thats a mistake....its not true...however, its a part of the literature now and has more credibility then a truth known by someone with less credentials.
Citing others errors doesn't accumalte credibility...and in fact diminishes it for all concerned.

Andy however, would react differently and not condescend to impugn the character, motivation and worth as a human being as you just did in your foolish tirade.
I clicked onto a link and simply assumed this was in the reef discussion section. I have just been advised that this is in fact your own section....
Courage to come in and post?
Are you kidding?
Seriously Eric.
I'm going to have to stop defending you so much all the time and just let people stay with their own conclusions.

[aaron23]

no comment, chill guys. I MIND YOU THIS IS PG!!!... take a chill pill guys.

[dizzy]

I agree with aaron let's keep this civil. There are important questions about the article that need to be answered and this is the proper place for that to happen. Eric did a lot of work gathering the information for Coralmania and surely some mistakes were made. We need to determine which parts of the article are in error and try and find some way to soften the potential damage they could do to our industry. I'm sure we all want to see the facts presented in a no spin fashion.
Mitch

[Steven Pro]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6343312#post6343312 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by dizzy
..... surely some mistakes were made. We need to determine which parts of the article are in error ..... I am bothered by this passage. I started this thread inquiring about a couple of numbers that were unreferenced and that I found hard to believe. Eric told us where he got his information and he made a very compelling arguement that if RC has 100,000+ members, 1,000,000 US reefers is not that much of a stretch. I still find the 30% growth figures hard to believe based on the performance of the US economy in general over the last few years, but at the same time, maybe that is why companies like Rayovac are buying up fish companies left and right, because of phenomenal growth. My point is, no one should assume there are errors, as it seems you have done in the quotes above. The burden should be on us to prove there are errors. The APPMA survey is a start, but if it is contradicted by CITIES records, I am inclined to believe the latter.

By the way Mitch, I know, like, and respect you just as I do Eric. I just don't want to see this thread turn into the kind of flame-fest other forums are known for.

[Steven Pro]

This is an example of what I am talking about.

From Eric's article, "Unfortunately, the massive increases in the harvest of Pacific live rock resulting from the Florida ban have dropped retail prices from around U.S. $10/pound to around U.S. $2-3/pound. Wholesale prices hover around U.S. $1.50/pound, making it very difficult for aquaculture facilities of live rock to compete in the marketplace."

When I read this passage, it strikes me as incorrect based on my experience in the hobby and industry. But, I don't just say Eric is a fraud and imply that he is starting his own non-profit NGO and wants grant money from the environmental groups. This would only make me look like a raving idiot. Instead, I investigate the claim. I ask Eric what is the source for those numbers. And I search for myself. To that end I find:

Live Aquaria has Fiji at $2.00/pound
http://www.liveaquaria.com/product/prod_Display.cfm?pCatId=2392

Marine Depot Live has Fiji on sale for $3.84/pound
http://www.marinedepotlive.com/fiji-premium-quality-un-cured-live-rock-.html

Dr. Mac's Cheapest is Kaelini at $1.98/pound
http://www.drmaccorals.com/sys-tmpl/fijirock/

And for comparison, Tampa Bay is $4.00/pound when bought in a package.

All of these online vendors should be cheaper than any retail shop. So, I would say the $2-3/pound figure Eric uses is likely low.

Furthermore, I checked with one wholesale vendor this morning and their special sale price this week is $1.99/pound for Fiji.

By the way, I don't believe any of these prices reflect added shipping charges.

[dizzy]

Steven if your read spawner's post you will see that a mistake was made in the way a quote from his paper was used in the article. This is also a quote on reefs.org by Peter Rubec: "I think that Eric has done a good job with his paper, although there are a number of inaccurate statements."

Rubec is quoted in the article so he should have some idea what he is talking about. Also the LA wholesalers don't bring 1,000-5,000 bangaii cardinals a week like Eric states: "We learned that most large wholesalers and transshippers regularly show from 1,000-5,000 of these fish on their weekly inventory lists at a price of $4-5 each, with box lots of 120 cardinalfish selling for $2 each." I have been to visit them several times and I called and asked them about and if you read the thread on rdo you should know this. I stick by my statement that mistakes were made. Some of the mistakes give the wrong impression of the industry IMO.
Mitch

[dizzy]

Eric,
Please explain where the billions figure used in the following quote came from: "The global wholesale trade in marine species for aquaria amounts to $200-330 million, with some retail estimates today in the billions, and includes primarily fish, corals, sponges, anemones, mollusks, crustaceans and live rock."

[rpi]

Mitch - not to speak for Eric, but I believe the wholesale figure comes from the UNEP report:

http://tinyurl.com/6xh3h

drew

[spawner]

Mitch,

That number of 200-300 million is a figure that I've seen cited in several articles, I would think its most likely correct as can be. I wouldn't know how you would get a 100% correct number. Ah, doesn’t matter we can just cite papers. I’ve sure done it.

Oceans to Aquarium is a poorly written report; at best; with some terrible errors in it. I wouldn't based much on that publication; but at least it gives us something to cite.

The billions I have seen come when you include the entire trade in to account; not just the fish and corals; but the hardware.


Eric’s omission of “most� in our paper is most likely just an omission, I wouldn’t read much in to it. It sure changes the meaning but I think that is more of an editorial complaint than a purposeful error. Abstracts can do that do you.

The shut down of Florida Live rock had little to do with the price of live rock. I know several collectors that made their living collecting rock in the Keys. They sure didn't give it away; nor charge a huge amount for it; plus freight is 50% from FL to East Coast Cities of that from LAX. The drop in price on live rock is from the online trade and mail order. If you take a look back in your old FAMAs you'll see that you could always buy live rock cheaper from online/mail order stores. That trend was just taking off when the FL closure happened. When I was buying live rock wholesale in NC right before the Florida closure it was 1.50--2.25/lbs out of LAX wholesalers, price has not changed that much; its more fuel related than anything. We sold it for 8-10 when we could get that much for it, less if we had too. Plenty of Haiti live rock comes in to make up for the Florida Rock. Live Rock prices, wholesale and retail are pure economics and have nothing to do with the Florida closure. It's like saying Wal-Mart sells cheaper clothes because all the textile plants in NC closed down, thus the imports greatly increased and prices fell.

Prices are supply related. Same thing can be said about blue legs and Astrea snails. Collector get 8-10cents now instead of 25-35 cents. It has nothing to due with regulations or closures of areas, number of collectors. I has to do due with the fact that some idoits will sell their product for anything as long as it is a bit lower than the other guy, without regard to what the market will pay for it. Thus they are much cheaper, people have to sell more of them to pay the light bill, push them harder, now you got to have 1-2 per gallon, good thing they are only a dime.

If you really want to know about live rock supply and pricing; the trends of what has happened over the years I would suggest speaking to someone at 104th street or Walt Smith directly.

Again I think all this hubbub causes us to miss the point of the paper.

[dizzy]

Thank Drew,
You have helped me to make my point. The following is from the link you provided and I have no reason to question the reliability of the data. A few paragraphs were snipped to shorten it, but not to change the message.

"Nairobi/London, 30 September 2003 - Over 20 million tropical fish, including 1471 species ranging from the sapphire devil to the copperhead butterflyfish, are being harvested annually to supply the booming marine aquarium trade in Europe and the United States, according to the most comprehensive global survey ever undertaken.

A further nine to 10 million animals, including molluscs, shrimps and anemones and involving some 500 species, are also being traded to supply tanks in homes, public aquaria and dentists’ surgeries.


Up to 12 million stony corals are being harvested, transported and sold annually estimates the report, released today by the United Nations Environment Programme’s World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC).


“From Ocean to Aquarium: The Global Trade in Marine Ornamentals� says that the value of aquarium creatures in trade is worth between $200 to $330 million annually. The report comes in advance of the UK launch of the Disney blockbuster, ‘Finding Nemo’, which has already taken the United States by storm.


For the first time we have an accurate estimate of the number of fish, corals and other animals being taken from coral reefs and brought to public aquariums and fish tanks in homes across Europe and the USA,� said Klaus Toepfer, UNEP’s Executive Director"


My take:
Let's use the 20million fish. Let's assume average retail sales price of $20.00 US. Keep in mind the higherst percentage by far is damsels which sell around $4-5. That's $400 million.

We have 10 million animals, including molluscs, shrimps and anemones. Let's assume an average $20.00 selling prices for these making 200 million in sales.

Up to 12 million stony corals are being harvested, transported and sold annually Let's assume an average of $35 for these. that's $420 million I believe.
You total it all up and you have a little over one billion in retail sales. It doesn't quite reach to the billions (with the s) figure but it is definitely a lot. The problem is that the article goes on to suggest high mortality throughout the chain of custody. According to one quote Eric included 90% of the fish might die before they are sold at retail. We have to assume that losses also occur with the other animals and corals. I can assure you that they do.

Let me conclude this post by saying that if we truly believe that the one billion(s) figure is accurate for sales based on the number of animals quoted in the report, then we will have a hard time believing in the high mortality figures. You can't lose them and sell them both. Which begs the questions of why such dated mortality figures were even used in the Coralmania article in the first place. The article confuses me and I've operated a retail fish store for over 20-years, I can imagine what it would do to someone outside the trade.
Mitch

[EricHugo]

Hi Steven:

Those are retail prices. I said wholesale prices. I also said that some of the data are old but that more recent data may not be available, hence the use of the older and probably out-of-date information, but its all that is available or all I am aware of.

[EricHugo]

I have provided an article trying to encompass all publications relevent to the article. If anyone has issues with the numbers, or have data to support more recent numbers, I would love to see them. I just spoke with Andy Bruckner this morning and there is a new tracking system for fish that suggests that the number of fish reported is significantly underreported, and that original estimates by Elizabeth Wood, commonly cited as being overstated, may in fact be closer to the truth or even undrerepresented. Also, there is an issue with corals being exported through other nations to get around quotas, so those numbers are underreported, and all invertebrates, soft corals, etc. are likely highly underreported. I also agree that the From Oceans to Aquariums report has a lot of errors which is why I didn't cite it too often. Finally, I also learned that trade originating in Hawaii is almost totally unreported as well as other US protectorates and someof these may be areas for local and non-local collections. Perhaps the UNEP source or others quoting the billions figures are based on some of these suppositions. If anyone has issues with the papers I cited, they should be issues taken up with the authors of those papers. On the Banggai issue, I still have the inventory lists. Yes, the numbers are probably lower today because if you visit the site with all the Bangaii articles you will see their numbers in the wild are down, CPUs are down, as is their survival for unknown reasons, suspected to be disease or shipping related but no proof. So, today, there probably are fewer entering the trade. On the other hand, there are more species entering the trade, too.

The main point of the article is to show that we have, are, and will continue to have an impact through collection of marine ornamentals, that there are many ongoing investigations and efforts to monitor and manage the trade, that local extirpations have occurred, and to make us aware that there are many data - often conflicting - and probably all containing some errors, but that we do have a signficant impact and correspondingly should be aware and ethical in our purchases.

[dizzy]

Perhaps I can supply a few numbers for a quick common sense check on data. I believe it was MAMTI reports that approx. 3000 stores sell marine fish, that's 60 per state. Some of the larger states obviously have more and some of the smaller have less so that figure makes sense. I have a pretty large store in a smaller metro area. I brought in 50 fish this week. I don't order at least 2 weeks out of the year. Some weeks I might bring in more and some it is definitely less. So I'm bringing in about 2500 fish per year on average. Let's consider the 3000 stores. Some will obviously do much more and many will do much less. I believe if we use the average figure of 2500 fish per store per year will be on the high side. Anyway 2500 fish x 3000 stores = 7,500,000 fish to retailers. The APPMA poll has it at 9.6 million salt pets (doesn't say fish) per household. Assuming some die before they are sold, and that some live more than a year these figures pass the common sense test. I don't know how many are sold via internet companies like Fosters and Smith. If you really want to learn the truth about the industry you should try and develop a better relationship with one of the MAC certified wholesalers like Quality or Sea Dwelling. They could provide an educated guess that would be far superior than any surveys in the past or future. FYI when I inquiring about the bangaii cardinals I learned the numbers are based on how many they sell each week and not on how many they would like to bring in. In other words the supply exceeds the demand which might help to explain the low selling price you quoted.
Mitch

[EricHugo]

Mitch:

Both of those companies were part of our 1999 survey and one of them is the inventory I used at the time for species available. Also, if you recall, the US is receiving what?... 50-60% of fish exports, which puts the global total even by your estimate at what? 15 million fish which is close to the global estimates provided by others. Furthermore, we have to be concerned with mortality prior to retail sales to consumers which is significant and by numerous estimates at up to 90% post collection. Plus stores that go out of business, unreported imports (box stuffers, etc.). unreported numbers from other sources reexported through places like Fiji,, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc. Also, like you allude, transhipping and internet sales that do not go to brick and mortar stores. Plus, there are major issues with reporting, in general. This makes the total number of fish collected, frankly, enormous...and that's using a very shaky method based on estimating global trade based on what you sell at one store in Kentucky, which in my mind is not a very good way to "check the numbers."

Also, the suggestion to work with MAC certified wholesalers is an issue I won't even get into in terms of reliability of data. Finally, the prices on Bangaii's were listed prices for inventory held. There is no question about that, and if their practices have changed, its likely for the reasons I suggested above.

[dizzy]

Eric quite a few of us are wondering what you meant in the following quote:
"Sadly, many corals are more damaged with nets than with chemicals. Also unfortunate is that many comparatively "reef safe" anaesthetics are available, such as clove oil, and Indonesia is the world's largest producer of cloves."

thanks,
Mitch

[dizzy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6345528#post6345528 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by EricHugo
I have provided an article trying to encompass all publications relevent to the article. If anyone has issues with the numbers, or have data to support more recent numbers, I would love to see them.


The numbers below may be the source of some of the growthmania confusion. These are CCIF numbers used in the Reef Product Alliance business plan. They most likely got borrowed and used by others in other publications. I use XXX to cloak the identity of the wholesaler. This was taken from the public domain. They are not new but they are interesting.

XXX is one of the largest tropical
fish importers in the US. This privately held company has recently moved into a new,
state-of -the art facility next to Los Angeles Airport, which allows for seamless tracking
of each fish by supplier, state of health, etc. – an essential prerequisite for MAC chainof-
custody certification.
XXX has grown dramatically in the past two years; 1999 had gross revenues of
$4.2 million and gross profits of $1.1 million, the company grew by 53% in 2000 to
yield gross revenues of $6.7 million. revenues have continued to grow in 2001 at
a rate of 37%.

What we have is one company growing quite fast and one of the future MAMTI players salivating at the prospect of large return on investment for green investors. In personal communication with some of the other 104th wholesalers this was not the case. In fact they were complaining about a drop in sales. Sometime shortly thereafter one of the LA wholesalers went under. This is difficult to understand if the industry was booming at the rate your article suggests. And like you mentioned many retail stores were going under too, and so were several online companies. It is also fairly common knowledge that this wholesaler had run a large internet web site, that was later sold to the Mother of all Online Stores. The nagging question for me is this. If this phenomenal growth rate was going on for all these years, how did I and so many others miss out?
Mitch

[clkohly]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6346758#post6346758 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by dizzy
The numbers below may be the source of some of the growthmania confusion. These are CCIF numbers used in the Reef Product Alliance business plan. They most likely got borrowed and used by others in other publications. I use XXX to cloak the identity of the wholesaler. This was taken from the public domain. They are not new but they are interesting.

XXX is one of the largest tropical
fish importers in the US. This privately held company has recently moved into a new,
state-of -the art facility next to Los Angeles Airport, which allows for seamless tracking
of each fish by supplier, state of health, etc. – an essential prerequisite for MAC chainof-
custody certification.
XXX has grown dramatically in the past two years; 1999 had gross revenues of
$4.2 million and gross profits of $1.1 million, the company grew by 53% in 2000 to
yield gross revenues of $6.7 million. revenues have continued to grow in 2001 at
a rate of 37%.

What we have is one company growing quite fast and one of the future MAMTI players salivating at the prospect of large return on investment for green investors. In personal communication with some of the other 104th wholesalers this was not the case. In fact they were complaining about a drop in sales. Sometime shortly thereafter one of the LA wholesalers went under. This is difficult to understand if the industry was booming at the rate your article suggests. And like you mentioned many retail stores were going under too, and so were several online companies. It is also fairly common knowledge that this wholesaler had run a large internet web site, that was later sold to the Mother of all Online Stores. The nagging question for me is this. If this phenomenal growth rate was going on for all these years, how did I and so many others miss out?
Mitch

I live in a sizeable town - 400k including the rural parts of the county. We had 3 stores that were doing fairly good and sold saltwater fish (two of which were exclusively SW). 2/3 have gone under over the past 2 years and many others like it in surrounding areas with no new stores opening up. I just find it hard to believe growth numbers like that are correct. The store closures are fairly common in many cities around the nation too. I am sure some business has moved to online but dont think its that much.

[Marc Daniels]

So, what happend to the program setup between SDC and the RPA? The RPA plan is from 2001, but I couldn't find anything regarding the RPA after 2002. So I would expect to see some results/returns within the last 5 years...unless it went the route of so many NPO's and just paid someone's salary for a while.

[dizzy]

Marc,
CCIF is still alive and kicking. They are part of MAMTI and quoted in Coralmania. MAMTI did get funded and hopefully a lot of reform has resulted from the money they are spending. I'm not sure the current relation between the two parties you ask about is in the public domain.
Mitch

[Marc Daniels]

Mitch-

I did a search at google on "Sea Dwelling Creatures" AND RPA. I found several public locations that contained information regarding their connection and just followed the bread crumbs from there. The last thing I could find from google when searching on "Reef Product Alliance" was in 2002. Nothing online beyond that...

I know CCIF is still alive, but what about the Reef Product Alliance and their work with SDC?

[Marc Daniels]

I'm not sure the current relation between the two parties you ask about is in the public domain.

Sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you were questoning that I had "outed" somethign regarding the connection between SDC and RPA. BUT, what you were saying is that you didn't think their CURRENT relationship was in the public domain.

Well, as a true "nonprofit", it should be in the public domain if the connection still exists. It just may not be available on-line.

[Marc Daniels]

2002 RPA Link (http://www.icriforum.org/router.cfm?show=secretariat/mini_symp.html&Item=1)

This is the very last reference I can find online for the Reef Product Alliance at either Google or Yahoo.

[cortez marine]

Guys,
The search for the link between SDC and RPA makes a point I apparently failed to make clearer....earlier.
The lack of available and convenient data in the search forums does not mean that something does not happen or exist.
It may take a great deal of education and persistance for an outsider to find out what some others discuss [ and know ] in routine and recent conversations.
Steve

[EricHugo]

In that quote, I meant that improperly trained net collectors swim after fish and snag corals with nets and break them and over time cause more damage to habitat (specifically coral habitat) than is caused by the use of chemicals. In the second part, I meant what it says...there are numerous fish anaesthetics available that are not deadly poisons to divers, fish and corals.

On the numbers game, you guys are using anecdote to prove a point. If you have data, then by all means use it. In fact, publish it so the rest of us can see the results. Insofar as the stores in differrent towns, when I moved to Houston seven years ago, we had 4-5 stores. Since then, at least a dozen have come and gone. Today, we have I would guess about 20 stores selling marine livestock. Maybe more if you count all the PetCo's and PetLand's that have a saltwater section. So, there's a what? 250% increase over seven years? Divide that by seven. 36% increase in retail stores in the fourth largest city. So, in my town, by your same arguments, sounds about right.

You know, I'm not going to debate this anymore unless they relate to statements I made or numbers I used from personal data or my own cited work. Anyone else's work is cited, and if you have issues with those citations, I'd suggest contacting the authors. I am not sitting at home with the master list that doesn't exist. I did what I think is a pretty complete survey of the available literature, did my own survey work, have conducted field surveys, and am pretty tight with some people who probably know more facts about the trade than anyone else around. If you don't like the portryal of the trade, I'm sorry. If you think my facts are wrong and you are right, by all means, write up an article and submit it for publication.

[Vili_Shark]

Hello everyone...
Interesting thread that I was following the last couple of days, I just read Mitch's post about 50 fish a week being average.
Sorry I cant accept that, and it is not true.
Most of the stores I know around the world are ordering fish in triple digits, wholsellers and importers of course in 4 digits.
But 50 fish a week, is small qtty ,my friend, and I cant say I agree with that being put as average.

About the hobby growing, I cant remember where, but I will find it, I read an article by Mr. Walt Smith who was saying that the hobby is growing rapidly, Mr. Smith is a key figure in the industry.

I dont understand the point in arguing how many pcs of Bangai cardinals are there in 104 st., all the people who claims that the numbers are less than stated--> Do you really Believe that the hobby is not seriously affecting coral reefs?

You guys are taking 104th street as if it is 3/4 of the world's s/w fish turn over.
In fact I'm talking with many Indonesian exporters and some are telling me they are exclusive in the states to some companies I never heard of , not in 104 and some are not in LA, what about the Bangais these guys are buying?

The hobby is growing thats for sure, the wholsellers in 104 are growing , almost all of them have bigger capacity for more inventory over the last couple of years.

Some of you keep forgeting that it is a GLOBAL report, and as such it cover all the world including places that dont report much.
There are countries(in the tropics) who banned the collection and export of their corals and fish, but in their local markets, those corals and fish are selling, who keeps records of those?

Cites is nice, but not accurate, there are countries that do trade hard Corals WITHOUT CitesII . now who keep the records of those?

[dizzy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6347363#post6347363 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Vili_Shark
Hello everyone...
Interesting thread that I was following the last couple of days, I just read Mitch's post about 50 fish a week being average.
Sorry I cant accept that, and it is not true.
Most of the stores I know around the world are ordering fish in triple digits, wholsellers and importers of course in 4 digits.
But 50 fish a week, is small qtty ,my friend, and I cant say I agree with that being put as average.


Vili when you use the 3000 store figure you are facturing in a lot of small stores. Can anyone think of 1000 large stores in the country. Check the AMDA membership. Check MAC. Nashville is around 1,000,000 population and has one large one. We did a fish store tour around Boston at MACNA. We were taken to around three. The large stores just don't appear to be out there much anymore. Another point was mentioned by kalkbreath on reefs.org. A lot of people now days are getting into reefs and not putting the heavy fish loads in their tanks. I have customers with large tanks(150 plus) and only three or four fish. Corals show the dramatic increase not fish. We can't hardly give away triggers or puffers anymore. Same with groupers, butterflies, puffers, snappers, and many angels. People want stuff that gets along with their corals.
Mitch

PS
And another thing. The data figures we see are something like 50% damsels. People aren't using damsels to cycle tanks as much these days and hardly anyone wants them after that. TR clownfish are also much easier to find at US fish stores these days than you would think after reading Coralmania.

[EricHugo]

>>We did a fish store tour around Boston at MACNA. We were taken to around three. The large stores just don't appear to be out there much anymore. Another point was mentioned by kalkbreath on reefs.org. A lot of people now days are getting into reefs and not putting the heavy fish loads in their tanks. I have customers with large tanks(150 plus) and only three or four fish. <<

This is data?

>>Corals show the dramatic increase not fish<<

I'm sorry - where did I state there was a dramatic increase in fish? I said the aquarium trade - not fish. I also indicated increased amounts of live rock and corals, and fishermen in some cases and cited the years for those. I also have the increased numbers of Hawaiian fishermen, decreases in Hawaiian fish populations, and data from Puerto Rico. Mitch, I know you have a call in to speak to Andy, and I think he's going to tell you what I am telling you here - that the numbers are probably underrepresented, if anything.

>>And another thing. The data figures we see are something like 50% damsels.<<

Does this conflict with something in the article? I said damselfish are the most traded species in the hobby.

>>TR clownfish are also much easier to find at US fish stores these days than you would think after reading Coralmania.<<

Yes, thankfully for whatever "these days" means. But, do you have numbers to back that up? Do you think that there are anything close to a million clownfish a year being captive reared? Especially after that little movie? The demand for clownfish skyrocketed. I don't have numbers showing data on wild versus captive reared clownfish because there is no reporting of captive breeding stock within the hobby. Hobbyists breed and sell clownfish to their local stores - what proportion is it? Small. ORA has helped a lot - but there is no data, so I used what is available. You don't have it, either...no one does because there is no requirement to keep such records. So why even argue about it? If this is such a big issue, go out and do the work and come up with something different. Something better, I hope, than the speculations being discussed here and maybe even better than the reports of all these dozens of researchers who have done some work.

One of the reasons there is so much pressure on the aquarium trade now is because it really is an issue, whether anyone wants to believe it or not. If you can't stand the thought that we might not be the great hobby who is always misunderstood, I think you are deceiving yourself. There are a lot of good aspects to this hobby and a lot of bad ones.

Look in the mirror - you...one store in one state in one country....caused the loss of conservatively 5000 coral reef fish from reefs around the world assuming a 50% mortality post collection and 0% at your facility and 0% by any of the hobbyists you sold to - and you know your customers are killing fish and you know some died in your store. How's that feel? Been diving recently? Know about the conditions of reefs? Know what happened in the Caribbean this year? Know about the 90%+ mortality of all corals at many locations around the world following recent El Nino bleaching events and the concurent loss of fish from those reefs? Galapagos, a world heritage site, lost almost all its corals. The GBR is under serious threats despite amazing management. If reefs were flourishing, and we forget about the overexploitation of target species and endemics, no one would really care about clownfish and tangs and angels and puffers. But, they aren't, and so every organism begins to count as reef management moves into a more holistic ecology and as exporting nations come under pressure as they are seeing losses of their resources and the US as the major market and, ironically, the US often trying to tell them how to manage those resources. We are not an innocent and upstanding trade no matter what you might personally do.

[dizzy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6348270#post6348270 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by EricHugo
Look in the mirror - you...one store in one state in one country....caused the loss of conservatively 5000 coral reef fish from reefs around the world assuming a 50% mortality post collection and 0% at your facility and 0% by any of the hobbyists you sold to - and you know your customers are killing fish and you know some died in your store. How's that feel? Been diving recently? Know about the conditions of reefs? Know what happened in the Caribbean this year? Know about the 90%+ mortality of all corals at many locations around the world following recent El Nino bleaching events and the concurent loss of fish from those reefs? Galapagos, a world heritage site, lost almost all its corals. The GBR is under serious threats despite amazing management. If reefs were flourishing, and we forget about the overexploitation of target species and endemics, no one would really care about clownfish and tangs and angels and puffers. But, they aren't, and so every organism begins to count as reef management moves into a more holistic ecology and as exporting nations come under pressure as they are seeing losses of their resources and the US as the major market and, ironically, the US often trying to tell them how to manage those resources. We are not an innocent and upstanding trade no matter what you might personally do. [/B]

Eric I do look in the mirror. I don't run an etail site in addition to my brick and mortar because I am not interested in seeing how many fish I can push out the door. We also raise a few species of clownfish in the store. We have also managed to raise a few bangaii cardinals and seahorses. I hope that for every one of the 5000 fish I am responsible for being taken off the reef, that one comes back to replace it. Like deer around here do when the hunters shoot them. I also hope that some poor villager was able to help feed their family with the money they received from collecting that fish that made it to my store.

You must feel conflicted yourself. You benefit from the trade as well. Your book has probably caused the destruction of 10,000 times more wild corals than I sell in my store. You also have a column on an internet site that probably does more to create a desire for rare and unusual corals and fish than all the brick and mortars combined. Most brick and mortars live off the common, abundant species that filter out to red state America. I can assure you Eric that the internet fish/coral in the mail companies who provide MUCH of the vevenue for this site go after the rare and unusual and possibly endangered much harder than the average b&m do. They have guys hanging out on 104th cherry picking the wholesalers everyday. You in no small way help enable all this, even if unwittingly.

Andy says if you use other people's data you make it your own. That you do have a responsibility to give it the smell test. I'll tell you a quick story in closing. Some of the mortality data you use reportedly (Rubec on rdo) came from a plumber named Frank Lallo. He claims to have called a 100 or so retail stores, spoke with them each several times for over an hour each time, and got them to record their mortality numbers and feed the data to him. It is all revealed in the Industry Forum on reefs.org back there a couple of years ago. He began posting his data and we quickly realized it didn't reflect reality and we challenged him on it and he quit posting. He was supposed to appear at MO 04 and defend his data but he went into hiding instead. Because of this Peter was forced to go back and revise his mortality findings. You quote the old findings in your article. You are not even using Peter's most recent estimates which you really should. You should have his contact info if he invited you to be on his panel.

My intention in criticizing your article was to get people to read it with an open mind. It has a lot of good information. I hope you take a good look at it as well and hopefully become a better researcher because of my efforts. I probably did you more good than a thousand brown nosers. Hopefully better data will become available as a result of both of our efforts. I want to see the real truth come out. It can't be worse than a lot of the published data.
Mitch Gibbs

[cortez marine]

Mitch is right,
Those of us that know the Lallo report [ a plumber ] and how it was concocted were apalled to see it quoted by credible people.
Its was given credibility by Dr Rubec [ since regretted ] and yet still got verified as credible.
Lallos report was very poorly done and the most unscientific thing ever cited by scientists since the.....well, I gotta go back to the arbitrary '4,500 fish collectors in the Philippines' figure given [ and quoted ] by Jaime Baquero, an aquarium service guy.
It is important that these myths get pointed out before they myths pass into legend and gain futher credibility with each citation in a 'credible' report.
Steve

[Marc Daniels]

So, from someone outside the industry looking in, I already had problems with the numbers. Even though they may be "all that is available", what came out of this thread is that it was known that the numbers could be off somewhat. When you multiply "off somewhat", by the fact that a lot of the data cited is 5+ years old, the numbers suddenly become very unreliable. That doesn't mean that they are wrong, what it means is that you can't rely upon them being wrong...or right.

Then come to find that some of the numbers, appear to be from an already debunked report, that was known in the industry to have been debunked, put together by "Tidybowl Data Services".

Eric, I agree with the flavor of your article, the industry sucks and needs to be cleaned up. The problem is that with your status, someone with questionable intentions towards the hobby can now cite your articles questionable numbers as fact for use against the hobby. The fact that you were the author, whether or not the hard data is relevant, will make the data relevant.

[cwegescheide]

Is it not true that many people don't stay in the hobby for very long? I remember reading that a substantial % of people leave the hobby after less than a year.

I totally agree with you.

Pretended to know absolutely nothing about coral to stare at the guy

Oh your funny :lol: LOL

[cortez marine]

.........."all that is available", ....
Right you are Mark,
All that is available...is simply an admission of lack of information, especially CONCLUSIVE information.
Offering facts while qualifying them with the "all that is available" is a time honored tradition yet something of a brain teaser and a assumption at best.
The argument must stand more on its merit and not so much on its proponents credentials, especially credentials in other disciplines..
The very definition of corruption is the force fitting of doctrine or policy thru sheer power of authority....

Carl Sagan warned of this repeatedly.

However, after 25 years of criticizing and offering constructive remedy for the ills of the trade and being villified for it....I don't mind sharing the burden.
I just want to case against the irresponsible core of the trade to be one that will hold up in court.
Steve

[sdcfish]

I have been following this thread and can say this:

Here's an example of how data is wrong and inaccurate:

Cites

If you understood the process, you would know that you can't take cites data and publish it as accurate without also explaining the process and accuracy.

The short and simple explanation for the process when shipping cites livestock...liverock, corals, clams etc......is the following:

Cites are issued to the exporter. You might have one cites for example that is for 1000 pcs of corals, listing them each by species. The exporter might only export 500 pcs of coral from that cites.

It is shipped, received into the U.S, inspected and cleared by US fish and wildlife.

The problem is, that cites reports 1000 pcs of corals being traded, when in fact, only 500 were shipped. The data of 1000 pcs is logged into the tracking system but completely inaccurate and should never be used in the way Borneman suggests.

Another perfect example:

Live rock and corals are imported into Fiji from neighboring countries...Tonga, Solomons etc. Imported into Fiji, and then Exported out of Fiji. Cites are provided from Fiji where all listed items are now FIJI. Can you imagine how tainted that data is now? Maybe 30-50% of live rock exported from Fiji was not from Fiji but reported that way? And then, to make matters worse, an article like Borneman's is printed and reported and it's now Fiji that has increased exports exponentially....but in reality not true.

I believe this cites issue in Fiji was corrected, but not before the damage was done but the articles, lectures, statements and repeated accusations.

It just creates a huge misunderstanding of the reality of the Industry and gives public opinion and others, a wrong perception of the actuality.

These two examples are only part of the puzzle that makes everyone in the industry go up in arms when reading articles such as Bornemans that uses statements from what he declares are accurate, but truly not understood and not meant to be used in the manner in which they are presented.

I am only giving one or two examples, but it goes throughout the report and article.

As far as SDC's current involvement, I can say that we have always had a broad vision of environment and industry. We will continue to work with groups such as Reefcheck, Mamti, Mac, Pijac, University's and whoever else needs cooperation and data from us to better understand the workings of the industry and what we see on a day-to-day basis.

I am always happy to answer questions in hopes that people better understand our Industry and the reality of it today.

Best regards and happy holidays to everyone...including you Mr. Borneman!:)

Eric

[ReefDiver]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6345528#post6345528 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by EricHugo
The main point of the article is to show that we have, are, and will continue to have an impact through collection of marine ornamentals, that there are many ongoing investigations and efforts to monitor and manage the trade, that local extirpations have occurred, and to make us aware that there are many data - often conflicting - and probably all containing some errors, but that we do have a signficant impact and correspondingly should be aware and ethical in our purchases.

I think that pretty much sums it up. So, should I believe someone who owns a LFS and has not researched the subject? OR, take what Eric has researched & written as at least being more likely the state of affairs regarding global collection & *****-shipping of corals/fish? I choose the later personally.

One can always argue the "facts & figures" of any paper presented for review. However, the bottom line here is that the aquarium trade industry has had a tremendous affect on coral reefs around the globe. Just dawn a set a SCUBA gear and go take a look for yourself. I have been diving since the early 80's and what I have seen is nothing short of totally unbelievable when it comes to destruction of coral reefs. Now to be fair it's not only this industry that has had an effect but many other factors as well which are too numerous to list here and I am sure that we all know what they are.

So, rather than continue to argue about moot points, we should all try to do our part to make things perhaps a little better, if thats even possible. I personally have decided to only purchase aquacultured corals hence forth. If we all did that would it make any difference to the demise of the reefs? Probably not but at least we would all feel like we were "doing our part" and finally being "part of the solution".

Eric, thanks for "telling it like it is" and for caring about the animals that we all love so very much.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO ALL!!!

Steve

[Marc Daniels]

Probably not but at least we would all feel like we were "doing our part" and finally being "part of the solution".

Ummmmmm, gotta love "feel good" activism. There is a HUGE difference between feeling like you are doing something, and actually doing something. Just as there is a difference between feeling like part of the solutuion, and actually being part of the solution.

[ReefDiver]

So Marc tell us what HUGE difference YOU are making?? Geesh, give me a break already. Is anyone ever really part of the solution?

[Marc Daniels]

Steve-

It's Christmas, what are we doing wasting our time on-line?

I'm a single hobbyist, there is no huge difference I can make. Unfortunately, far too many hobbyists don't give a darn about the environment. Take for example the guy a year or so ago that was selling Nassarius snails out of San Diego. "Friends" of his were collecting them across the border, and he was then selling them through RC. As the thread progressed, what became apparent was that he had no idea how to ship, and was killing horde after horde of snails. Even with his very dismal survival rate, people kept lining up by the droves to buy snails from him. WHY? Because they were $20 for 100 snails, and that included shipping. This guy was literally killing hundreds of snails to get 2 or 3 there alive. But still people kept lining up to get them, regardless of the mortality rate. People were actually making posts like, so what if they get here dead, it's ONLY $20.

What I can do is pass along my experince to new hobbyists and hope that I can make them an educated consumer. I can make a little difference locally, but that's such a small drop in the bucket that it's laughable. Honestly, as long as the majority of the hobby continues to buy juiced fish, or the cheapest coral, regardless of what it's done/doing to the environment there's nothing any of us can do. In all likelyhood, the hobby will probably burn itself out one day. Is that a dismal, drastic statement, yes, but it's honest. Until the big names in the industry come together and preach a consistant message, nothing will get through to the hobbyists. But the LFS has to follow the message as well. But even the industry insiders won't come together because there are too many agendas, and too many egos.

[sihaya]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6354374#post6354374 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ReefDiver

Eric, thanks for "telling it like it is" and for caring about the animals that we all love so very much.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO ALL!!!


Amen to that!

[ReefDiver]

Marc: AGREED!!

Have a great New Year's!

[GreshamH]

ReefDiver, Mitch(Dizzy) has a LOAD of experience when it comes to this trade. He's a very smart fellow that has tried for years to help this industry in many different ways. Man, with out Mitch, so much would be glazed over. One simply only needs to look at the MAC Attack files to know that :D

It's always hard for outsiders to know the people behind the scenes, like Eric B, Steve (CortezMarine), Eric (SDC), Mitch (Dizzy) Steven (Pro), Marc (D) and such. All these fellows have done something good for the hobby and really shouldn't be put down, even by each other. Having had contact with all these guys over the years, I have a deep respect for all. They may squabble with each other (me included, except Steven Pro, he doesn't seem to squabble much :D) ), but they're usually doing it while still moving forward and on point ;)

The core message of the articles is what the averege reader will walk away with, not the numbers. The numbers only get disputed by those that know :D

[ReefDiver]

Gresham: Point well taken! I don't think that I intentionally tried to "put down" anyone. I would never do that as everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

Given the subject matter & knowing the sad state that the reefs are in, I only wish that I had the time & finances to really try and make a difference.

[GreshamH]

The "put down" part wasn't directed at you, no worries :D

I too wish I had the money and time to do more. Until we collectively aknowledge the poor state we've put the earth in and cease and desist our worst environmental problems, we'll never begin to save the coral reefs. Even if we stopped the trade dead in it's spot, killed th curio trade and stopped all human destruction of the reefs, the reefs would still be in decline IMHO :(

[Walt Smith]

Hi folks,
I hope you have all had a good holiday with more still to come.
My name hase been mentioned a few times in this thread and I have been PM'd to respond. Althougth I really try to stay out of this sort of thing I guess you could say I am sort of in the middle of it. I do not agree with the numbers Eric is stating but, knowing Eric, I think he is a victim of using reports that are totally misrepresented with numbers simply because of the way the system works at present. I think you will find that the SDC comment was valid and c.i.t.e.s. list more than double (in most cases) the amount actually shipped due to the way you have to apply for the permit in advance (somethimes more than weeks in advance) because no shipper wants to have short numbers when shippng day comes along. The big problem is the actual numbers shipped are available but U.S.F.W.F. does not want them because it is too much paper work. However, Fiji and most originating countries have them the day after shipping because quotas are involved and it is important to the shipper to report them or he will run out of quota before the year is over. the numbers are reported on the invoices and customs declaration rather than C.I.T.E.S. permits but U.S.F.W.S. uses the C.I.T.E.S. doc's instead.
I would like to post a copy of part of my MACNA talk from last year to put another spin on this issue. This was taken from a much larger report on the state of the coral reefs written by Richard Starki who has lived and worked on the coral reef all over the world for over 50 years and has logged over 1000's of dives on the GBR alone. I have put my two cents in where I thought it was appropriate to contribute (with his blessings and agreement) and I do believe I have the chops to speak up. As most of you know, I am on the front lines of trying to contribute something positive to this industry and environment ... reports such as Eric's do bother me and I also talk with Andy quite a bit and I would beg to differ on him agreeing with this kind of reporting but more the opposite.
Here is my talk .... sorry its so long.
Peace to everyone, Walt

For more than four decades, not a year has passed without media announcements of dire threats to the coral reef.
Some have been new threats; others, old ones, refurbished or just reiterated. Always, the source is presented by an “expert�.

Over the years we have been told that coral-eating starfish, oil pollution, over fishing, fertilizer runoff, silt, agrichemicals, sewage, anchor damage, people walking on the reef, tropical fish and coral harvesting, ship groundings and global warming were each imminent threats to the reef.

None of these prophecies of doom, however, have become real and the coral reef continues to be a vast and essentially pristine natural region where measurable human effects remain rare or trivial.

Still, unlike the boy who cried “wolf� or Chicken Little who claimed the sky was falling, the coral reef doomsayers never seem to loose credibility.

The big problem for truth and reality in this regard is that the reef is largely inaccessible. It’s underwater and it’s vast. Anyone can claim anything and who’s to know differently?
With so many alleged experts asserting there are problems, why should anyone believe us if we disagree? The fact is that they shouldn’t, but nor should they believe any other so-called expert either.

Proper science is based not on authority, but solely on reason and evidence.
History is littered with examples of widely accepted ideas being overturned with new ones that better explain the evidence.

When alleged experts fail to address evidence, try to engage in ****ing matches over credentials, or impugn credibility on the basis of affiliation …… this is not science but simply, politics masquerading as science!


To begin, it is important to understand that the term “expert� is a relative one. The detailed study of reef biology is a recent phenomenon, and scientific understanding of reefs is still very sketchy.



Only a handful of researchers in the world have both the scientific background and the broad experience of reefs necessary to make reasonably informed judgments about conditions on the reef, and whether those conditions are due to natural variability or human causes.

Almost all the so-called experts given credence by the media are office workers with academic credentials but very limited direct experience of reefs.

Their claims often amount to hypothetical explanations for very limited observations that, more often than not, describe entirely natural conditions, or are based on computer models that predict imaginary futures.

So …. Let’s look at a couple of examples that have already been given;

The Crown of Thorn Starfish Infestation
Population explosions of the coral eating crown of thorn starfish first came into scientific and public awareness in the late 1960’s.

The starfish threat soon was deemed by experts to be unprecedented and on a scale that might damage the entire reef.
When it was discovered that the Triton’s trumpet shell was a natural predator of the starfish, it was immediately concluded that shell collectors were to blame fore the starfish outbreaks..

This theory was eventually discredited, but its serious consideration for some time reveals the profound ignorance of the experts.

Trumpets are never abundant enough anywhere to control an outbreak of starfish, and most of the reefs involved have never been subjected to shell collecting.
As for being unprecedented, earlier knowledge of reefs was simply too sparse for such a claim to be credible.
Despite all the dire predictions, Crown of Thorn population fluctuations continue to come and go on the reef, and infested reefs invariably recover within a few years.

In fact, it is entirely possible that starfish outbreaks even play a beneficial role in promoting coral diversity.


How so? You ask ….
Every year, tropical cyclones cross the reef and leave wide trails of massive coral destruction in their track.
After a few years, the fastest growing corals have repopulated such areas.
These branching and plate like species form dense thickets which prevent the slower growing, more massive species from recovering.

The former, however, are the preferred food of the Crown of Thorns, and when an outbreak occurs, they thin out the fast growing species and give the slower ones a chance to re-establish.

Oil Pollution
This bug-a-boo was first conjured up to oppose oil exploitation in the Great Barrier Reef. It is periodically revived to oppose cargo shipping through tropical waters, and also to whip up media drama whenever a vessel runs aground or a temporary slick is spotted in tropical waters.

Oil floats, coral doesn’t and oil has never caused extensive damage to reefs anywhere.

Oil is mainly a threat to sea birds, marine animals, and intertidal life.
It is not very toxic and follow up surveys of spills have repeatedly found that damage is never as extensive or as long lasting as initially predicted.

It has also been repeatedly found that clean-up efforts are not only ineffectual but actually result in worse damage than if nothing is done at all.

Still, under pressure from environmental activist, we persist to engage in hugely expensive and damaging clean-up charades, especially when an oil company can be made to pay the cost.

The ultimate worst-case scenario for a coral reef oil spill occurred in the Persian Gulf War in 1991 when Suddam Hussein ordered the release of 6 – 8 million tons of oil into the Gulf.

This was not only the worst spill of all time, but it occurred in an enclosed body of shallow water containing numerous reefs.
Greenpeace proclaimed it an “unprecedented disaster�

With no oil company to pay for clean-up, and even a bigger problem of there being over a thousand burning oil wells to deal with, nothing was done, save some extensive surveys.

The result was that in 4 months most of the oil had naturally degraded and within 4 years the areas were largely to fully recovered.
Damage to reefs was minimal and temporary. The greatest and longest lasting damage was restricted to the top of the intertidal zone. Even here, however, by 1995, recovery was rated as being 83-100% of the conditions which prevail on similar but unpolluted shores.

So …. Taking all of this into perspective …..
In the case of our coral harvesting the examples I have just given ring true and loud. For years we have been told by the experts that the coral reef is dying and should not be harvested. For years I have invited scientist from every part of the globe to visit our sites.

The few that actually came and did the work are now our closest allies who continue to write glowing reports about the sustainability of our harvest.


However, sometimes the opposite happens.
About 7 or 8 years ago the Fiji government, in conjunction with the World Wildlife Foundation and our industry, hired a reef scientist who actually worked on the reefs and did the job.
There was considerable concern over our harvest and the Fiji government simply did not know enough about it. Although they knew that they wanted to shut us down they had no proof that we were actually doing any harm.
It was the opinion of the Ministry (at the time) that if a well known reef scientist wrote a report condemning our industry that they could use this report as a tool to put a stop to our industry.
The report took several months to compile all the information, and do the surveys.
The industry in Fiji remained transparent and offered the scientist complete access to our records and dive sites and accompanied all of the operations on many dives.
When the report was finally submitted it clearly showed that our trade and collection posed no threat to the environment and added to the local economy.
As a result, the Fiji government decided to discredit the report and buried it at the bottom of a pile of reports never to be referenced or used again.
The report titled “Stement on Fiji Harvest Report� (which appears on my web site� was written by Ed Lovell who did a considerable part of the work on Charlie Verons well know book “Corals of Australia and the Indo-Pacific�.
Both Charlie and Ed are “experts� who are the exception to the rule (among others such as the speaker after me …. Andy Bruckner and Bruce Carleson to name just a couple) that I was talking about who actually get in the water and do the work.

Another clear example took place in Fiji in the year 2000.
Fiji had a major bleaching event.
Over 90% of the east side of the main island and most of the tourist locations in the west lost their reef to bleaching. The experts blamed everything from the French testing nuclear warfare in Tahiti to Global warming.
They said our reefs would be lost for many generations to come and may never recover. It was horrible doom and gloom in the papers and in reports that circled the globe.
Of course our industry didn’t stand a chance against this kind of publicity.
Today, 5 years later, all of those same reefs that were documented as totally dead are now back to better that 90% full recovery. The “experts� were wrong.


However, they did manage to scare off about 30% - 40% of the tourist for the next couple of years, when the Fiji economy relies on tourism for 85% of its revenue and almost shut down our industry worth about 40,000,000 annually.

Good show, give those experts a pat on the back for a job well done!

Luckily, my reefs were largely not effected but my competitor is shipping corals from those very dead reefs today and the studies show a very sustainable harvest well within the ecology of the reef.

Ecology, like economics, is holistic by nature, and not all effects are immediate or obvious. A balanced, sustainable use of a resource makes possible a healthy human ecology. Unnecessary restrictions on particular resources only puts more pressure on others and it is entirely possible that habitat destruction could occur.

Beyond the misuse of a valuable resource, the false claims of threats to the coral reef also entail a broader and an even more important problem; the misuse of science itself.

Modern environmentalism has become much more than simply a concern for a healthy environment. It has developed into a peculiar quasi-religious blend of new age nature worship, science, leftwing political activism, and anti-profit economics.

No reasonable person will deny that our exploding population, technology and consumption has an environmental effect, but, equally undeniable, humans are a part of the ecology of this planet. Everything we do or do not do has its effects and these may often be remote and unforeseen.

Nature is not perfect, but always in a state of flux. Human actions can improve and enlighten one to the beauty of nature, as well as degrade the abundance, diversity and conditions of life.

When looking at the problems we are facing today we must be realistic and observant of natural causes. When some problems turn out be not real, or less bad than feared, this must be acknowledged and investigated, not denied or denigrated.
There is no shortage of real problems. We have no need to manufacture imaginary ones.

Finally, the responsibility lies with you to share what you have learned from this wonderful hobby and to foster a better appreciation of life within the sea.

The knowledge we have learned in this hobby has already bridged many links into science as we all move forward together with a better understanding of such things as growth rates, temperature fluctuations, natural settlement and compatibility to name just a few.

We are essentially on a new horizon and truth, not hysteria, has never been more important for the future of our relationship with nature.

So I say to you,
Our hobby has the unique ability to share and learn from some of the most hidden (until now) secrets of nature. As we look forward we should all be proud of our accomplishments to foster and encourage a balanced and loving stewardship of our planet for the benefit of our generations to come.

[dizzy]

Good post Walt. I don't want to appear to be overly critical of the report, but. I guess we are all victims if we look at it from the right perspective. I feel like a victim as a retailer because I think Corlmania makes us look worse than we really are. I think it makes the wholesalers look much shader than they are, so I guess they are victims. Andy (spawner) was a victim of having his data misquoted. Dr. Peter Rubec is a victim of having outdated information used. I think the readers in general are victims too, because they may come away somewhat misinformed and with the wrong impression of the trade. Contrary to Eric B, I think a lot of positive progress has been made. In recent private conversation with Mark Scheffler he told of the hope MAC is bringing in the fishers in PI where he is working. I, like Eric Cohen, believe the money MAMTI is pouring into the field will yield good results if given time. I think there will be far less victims if more care is used in checking facts, and getting the most current assessment possible, before going to press with a story such as this.
Mitch Gibbs

[Walt Smith]

Hi All,
I thought you might like to see the response that Walter Stark gave me regarding this subject. If you would like to know more about him you can visit his site at www.goldendolphin.com
He is quite an amazing man as you will see in the "about the author" section of his site.
Eric, do you know of him? He fits right in with Sylvia Earl with his developments in the field.

Dear Walt,

You are quite willing to use my Threats paper as you wish. Sensibly undertaken, the aquarium trade offers one of the highest returns for the least impact of any type of fishery. Any time we can make a resource valuable to local people is important in that what is of value to us we are interested in protecting. The end use too is of considerable environmental benefit in that it fosters personal interest, knowledge and appreciation of the natural world among urban dwellers who otherwise tend to have little interest in such things.

Unfortunately the degree mills are now cranking out large numbers of "marine scientists" who might better be called "Marine Scientologists" in that they are true believers in the new eco-religion. They have little understanding or interest in the real nature of the world but simply seek to interpret everything in terms of preconceived beliefs regarding the purity of nature and its defilement by humans.

I received your order for the Golden Dolphin DVD and it is being sent. Thanks.

Regards,

Walter Starck

[parshmar]

Thanks for sharing Walt. I hoped you would find your way to this thread.

[sdcfish]

Thanks also Walt.

I believe that Walter Stark's view really sums it up.

I also would like to publicly thank you for all your tireless efforts over the years to keep the industry moving forward to a more sustainable industry and your non-sellfish work with both scientists and gov't officials to better understand us.

Happy holidays,

Eric

[Marc Daniels]

Mr. Smith-

Thank you so much for your words of wisdon, as well as providing the links to the info from Mr. Stark's and Mr. Lovell.

[Experimenter]

I hesitated to reply to this, but after much thought I feel I must. I am not an expert on coral reefs, but I am a scientist (social) and I understand some of the arguments presented in this thread.

Let me start by stating that I do not know who is right and who is wrong. My experience tells me that each side (if there are two sides) has a few good points and some that will be or have already been falsified.

What I find interesting, however, is the method of attack against this article and Eric personally. The attack against him is a classic one and one that makes me question the attackers more than question the article Eric wrote. You may ask, "What is classic about this attack?" Let me tell you.

1.) Rather than putting up a good argument about how the hobby does not impact the reefs, the attackers attack the details of the article - not the overall message. It is easy to attack details, particulalry when admittedly there are no "accepted" numbers. Why are there no accepted numbers? Because there are vested interests on both sides. We could have accurate numbers if someone was willing to collect information from the interested parties and pay for substantial impartial audits of those reports. So far, this hasn't happened. Personally, I don't trust the numbers reported so far - by either side - and I wouldn't trust numbers presented by the trade without significant auditing. There is too much at stake for the industry not to try to minimize the numbers.

2.) Rather than providing sound arguments against the article, some have chosen to name call. Classic attempt to paint the other side as biased and radical - so don't believe anything they say. Walt Smith did this quite effectively - even using someone else's email to do it. Let me quote :

"When alleged experts fail to address evidence, try to engage in ****ing matches over credentials, or impugn credibility on the basis of affiliation …… this is not science but simply, politics masquerading as science!" - Isn't this what he is doing? And would he classify himself as an expert?

"Modern environmentalism has become much more than simply a concern for a healthy environment. It has developed into a peculiar quasi-religious blend of new age nature worship, science, leftwing political activism, and anti-profit economics." - Again, trying to make it look like the other side is just plain crazy. The us agains them argument.

And finally,
"Marine Scientologists" in that they are true believers in the new eco-religion." - Why is this necessary if you have irrefutable evidence of the correctness of your position?

3.) The attackers attack with partial stories or half-truths, never explaining the details. For instance, the crown-of-thorns starfish example - my understanding of this (and I could be wrong) is that the starfish young have a much higher survival rate in high nutrient water and that nutrient runoff from land (man made runoff) is likely a contributing factor. Yes, it was not the shell collectors, but it still could be man.

Surely the trade is not responsible for all of the destuction of reefs - and yes, I think the majority of evidence shows that reefs are on a decline. It may be only a minor contributor. But to say there is no impact is hard to believe.

I do believe that many of the SPS corals can show amazing recovery and that harvesting those may not be unsustainable. Also, the hobby can do more good for the reefs than bad - if we find a way to use the power of the hobby.

I would hope that people would work together on this, but my fear is that there is too much money at stake to have a truly independent report. My guess is that the US Govt. and those of Western Europe will require increasing accountability from the industry over the next decade - and much of that will be fought against by the importers and others making money from the sale of these creatures.

Just my opinion,
John

[ReefDiver]

John: That is perhaps the best analysis on this discussion that I have seen. You are right in that there may be no "right" or "wrongs" but the evidence would weigh in favor of significant reef decline no matter what the cause(s). I also agree with your assessments of Walt's comments and I am glad that someone else pointed this out.

It will be interesting to now read Eric's comments. My gut feeling is that anyone making a living off of selling corals/fish/LR, etc... cannot be expected to have an unbiased & rational opinion.

Just my opinion as well,

Steve

[Thales]

My gut feeling is that anyone making a living off of selling corals/fish/LR, etc... cannot be expected to have an unbiased & rational opinion.

Just my opinion as well,

Steve [/B]

Does that include people like Eric making money from selling books and speaking engagements and writing articles about corals for the hobby? If not, why? What about Walt? I fear that these questions will be taken as inflammatory, but I ask it because I am truly interested in the answers. :D

[spawner]

The debate here is not that there is/isn't problem with many reefs of the world or that humans have impacted them, that the aquarium trade has some impact.

The issue here, the debate in this thread, the reason that this topic has received so much attention from people deep in the business who normally don't post, is that citations and data presented from those citations in the paper are old, out of date, inaccurate, or misrepresented. Furthermore when someone of Eric Borneman's stature and name recondition within the industry writes an article, people (hobbyist, regulators, others) generally take it as fact, unquestioned and repeat it. When data from a paper that is not entirely factual is repeated as fact it damages the industry unfairly. Not because the industry is without blame, but because the text of the paper has taken certain liberties. This was Dizzy's concern and the reason he posted the thread. Not that the industry doesn’t need to clean up its act. The point of the article and the facts and message portrayed by the article are two very different things. Mitch (Dizzy) is basically saying that Boremen is “sexing up� the available literature.

It's more of an editoral, improper review compliant, not a message or point of the paper. Dizzy fears that certain people will use the paper to further push their message to shut down the trade or regulate it out of business.

It is a shame that these debates seem to take to mud slinging and name calling, but this is just part of the business, you just have to have thick skin. Dizzy's questions are vaild and should be addressed.

[cortez marine]

I have made my living off the marine aquarium trade for 25 years and have easily been its most sustained and consistant critic....
My problem is however that I have found many eco-allies as so money oriented themselves that they have compromised themselves in a feeding frenzy for funding at all costs.
I have come to see them as offering little that can create change and often agents of the reverse.
The most severe criticisms have come from inside the trade quite often...and been unwelcome by all sides as it doesn't fit the format of black vs white...good guy, bad guy.
The trade doesn't like its own behaving like an environmentalist and the environmentalists sure don't like to be trumped by trade people in terms of experience, knowledge and constructive proposals.

The trades wonderful potential is not excused by its crimes... and yet.... with a fraction of the money squandered by money grubbing, city-boy "eco-scientologists", we could have trained thousands of divers by now and converted them to sustainable or at least non destructive methodologies.

Name calling? In some venues this is called embezzling and the guilty would be called worse. They would be called felons.
The trade figures have never wasted and effectively embezzled a million dollars in the mission to clean up things, develop a CDT or train a few thousand divers. That was done strictly by one NGO after another cashing in for over 15 years now!.
Misrepresenting themselves, their credentials and their wherewithall to funders, they have commited grant procurement fraud and at least a dozen times now...with the actual total into the millions.
But in the end, it is the trade that is considered the bad guys as the failed and flakey eco pretenders skip on down to the next en vogue cause that pays.
Steve

[Marc Daniels]

It will be interesting to now read Eric's comments. My gut feeling is that anyone making a living off of selling corals/fish/LR, etc... cannot be expected to have an unbiased & rational opinion.

That has to be one of the most absurd statements that I have had the misfortune to read here on Reef Central. What you are basically saying is that EVERYONE that makes a living from the aquarium industry is a liar. How else could that statement be interpreted? How about a little nicer slant, no one in the industry has the ability to tell the truth. SAME STATEMENT!

I am not in the industry. But I will gladly step up to defend people like Mary Middlebrook, who has never hesitated to tell the truth about the state of the industry. I had the opportunity to hear Mary speak in the Bay Area a while back, and she laid it all out in its gruesome details.

Steve Robinson, who has fought for industry reform for years, including getting rid of cyanide.

To say that people like Mary and Steve "cannot be expected to have an unbiased & rational opinion" is insulting...and I hope that you just misspoke.

For John (Experimenter) to make the statement that the details are not that important, it's the overall message, and for you to support that feeeeeeeeling sounds much more like "cannot be expected to have an unbiased & rational opinion" than what I have heard from any of the industry folks. The devil is in the details.

[cortez marine]

And without respect to the details....science becomes scientology.
Steve

[Experimenter]

You guys are right - the details matter. Especially when policy will be based on them. My point was more that some people were attacking the figures and stating that they knew better, but they were not presenting verifiable (audited) figures themselves. It appeared that some of these individuals - clearly not all - were trying to say that the hobby does no harm whatsoever to the reefs. They should be asking why we don't have better figures and how can we go about getting them?

In my reading of the thread, it also appears that most people are arguing rationally, but they are arguing over minor differences. For instance, we all know that a lot of organisms are taken from the reefs. Many wholesalers, LFSs, and others on the selling end are arguing that Eric's numbers are wrong and misleading. Well, to them I ask - How many creatures can we sustainably take from the reefs? In other words, you think Eric's numbers are too high (and could be used to argue for more regulation). Well, how high do you think they have to be to make a good argument for regulation?

I am suspecting that many who question the numbers would argue that government should stay out regardless of how high they get. If the governments in the reef owning countries (e.g., Fiji, etc.) allow export then that is their business.

Steve, you are doing it again. Please stick to points. Not all environmentalists are as you say they are. You could be taken more seriously if you stuck to arguments about the real issue. Yes, some people who call themselves environmentalists are just as money driven and selfish as everyone else. In fact, we probably agree on many things about the hobby/industry (maybe not on environmental policy though).

I would expect that since you have made rather bold statements about these "city-boy "eco-scientologists"" that you need to start backing them up with specifics.

For instance, you stated "The trade figures have never wasted and effectively embezzled a million dollars in the mission to clean up things, develop a CDT or train a few thousand divers. That was done strictly by one NGO after another cashing in for over 15 years now!.
Misrepresenting themselves, their credentials and their wherewithall to funders, they have commited grant procurement fraud and at least a dozen times now...with the actual total into the millions."

Who are these people and what exactly did they do? Actually, my guess is that a lot of money has been wasted, I would just like to know where you think it has been wasted.

As for Eric being biased and others in the industry being biased, yes, we are all biased. Economists would argue that we are all trying to maximize our individual utility functions! We are never certain about whom to believe, but I think we can say that rarely is an industry capable of regulating itself. There are always good people in the industry trying to keep it on track, but there are always others who are in it for the quick buck.

Sorry for the long post, but I really like this thread!

Take care,
John

[spawner]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6382752#post6382752 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Experimenter

Steve, you are doing it again. Please stick to points. Not all environmentalists are as you say they are. You could be taken more seriously if you stuck to arguments about the real issue. Yes, some people who call themselves environmentalists are just as money driven and selfish as everyone else. In fact, we probably agree on many things about the hobby/industry (maybe not on environmental policy though).

I would expect that since you have made rather bold statements about these "city-boy "eco-scientologists"" that you need to start backing them up with specifics.

For instance, you stated "The trade figures have never wasted and effectively embezzled a million dollars in the mission to clean up things, develop a CDT or train a few thousand divers. That was done strictly by one NGO after another cashing in for over 15 years now!.
Misrepresenting themselves, their credentials and their wherewithall to funders, they have commited grant procurement fraud and at least a dozen times now...with the actual total into the millions."

Who are these people and what exactly did they do? Actually, my guess is that a lot of money has been wasted, I would just like to know where you think it has been wasted.




Pop over to Reefs.org Industry forum, this thread started over there and was brought over here. RC is a bit more censored than reefs.org Lots of lively discussions and fights are over there for you to read, many on MAC the chief money launder that Steve referes to. You have to forgive Steve, he has been working in the field too long and needs to sit in an office for sometime to clarify his thoughts.

[Experimenter]

Andy,

Thanks for pointing me there. It has been awhile since I went to that board. Wow!

From what I read, I think Steve and I actually agree on a lot of things. It is very enlightening to see industry insiders speak to each other.

I hope this whole thing gets/keeps things moving in the right direction. I think everyone is really on the same side (or at least most everyone). The only thing I don't agree on is that the reef farmers themselves are the best police and will not overharvest. Almost never in history has such a thing occured. Humans typically harvest until the resource is gone.

Thanks,
John

[cortez marine]

"That was done strictly by one NGO after another cashing in for over 15 years now!.
Misrepresenting themselves, their credentials and their wherewithall to funders, they have commited grant procurement fraud and at least a dozen times now...with the actual total into the millions."
Andy,
Where have you been?
In 1981 the first project to convert cyainide fishers was for 25k from US AID and UNICEF . It was embezzled by the Environmental Center of the Philippines run by Ramon Binamira.
He used it to set up his own private business called V-Mead.
I served as trainer and resigned after much protest 9 months over the theft and the fraud.
Is that the kind of specificity you ment?
Do you want to hear more?
Since then, there has not been a year that grants were not given and squandered based on this issue by one group or another.... Not one.
Research, training, technology transfer, surveys, handling training, community organizing etc. etc. were all the keywords to lull funders into giving to one fraud after another.
Each year has its own list of characters, intrigues, stealing, false reports and false accounting etc.
The story of eco-fraud leading til the present time would make a book.
It could be called;
Funding Failure, the sabatoge of environmental idealism and effectiveness in our time.....[ or something like that ].

The sheer weight of cash spent on the issue has produced hardly any conversions underwater and in the villages where all the action is. Nearly all the monies have been spent in the cities.
20,000 divers could have been trained, equipped and given college educations for all the money lost.
No one in the trade however had a hand in it. Its all been run by assorted non govt organizations from 1981 til today.
Their complicity in ruining the chance of converting this industry to sustainability is great.

Surely the is no audience for this history. But there are eyewitnesses to it.
Steve

[dizzy]

If anyone wants to learn more about how quite a few grant administering foundations are abusing and circumventing the true intentions of some of the people who donate to them, I suggest going to www.activistcash.com and reading some of the articles. You can find articles about PETA and other there. I posted articles about Sea Web and Humane Sociity of North American over on reefs.org in the Industry forum. It is fascinating reading and possibly helps unpeel some of the layers of secrecy surronding the origins of certification schemes. (Possibly linking to our very own favorite NGO) Read the RDO threads to form your own opinion. Here is a lit bit from the www.activistcash.com About us section. It is eye opening information to say the least.
Mitch

"ActivistCash.com, a project of the Center for Consumer Freedom, provides the public and media with in-depth profiles of anti-consumer activist groups, along with information about the sources of their exorbitant funding.

Despite their innocent-sounding names, many of these organizations are financial Goliaths that use junk science, intimidation tactics, and even threats of violence to push their radical agendas. We've analyzed over 500,000 pages of IRS records to bring you a comprehensive snapshot of where their money comes from, tracking more than $800 million to date.

We also offer valuable information about hundreds of deep-pocketed foundations, activist celebrities, and other key players in the movement to control what you eat and drink. To stay in the loop, bookmark ActivistCash.com today and join our e-mail list."

[Anemone]

Folks, this thread has crossed over into areas of discussion that are highly inflammatory.

Since Eric is taking time off (http://archive.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=736920), it is perhaps best that this thread be closed until he returns to actively monitor the interactions.

Kevin