Collection Article, Part 2

[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]

Originally posted 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]

Originally posted 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

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]

Originally posted 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]

Originally posted 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

[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