Responsibly wild caught vs. tank raised?

[cortez marine]

GRESHAM WROTE;
"many of us didn't vote Bush any of the times ".

Actually most of us didn't vote for him the first time and may not have the second.
Like the Panama canal. It was stolen fair and square.


Yes, Costa Rica, the Switzerland of the Americas allowed the Banana companies to send the topsoil [ silt ] near the Atlantic coast into the coast effectively wiping out their reefs and their National coral park called Cauhita.
The stands of dead elkhorn , staghorn etc. were everywhere I surveyed for 6 months.
What a tragedy.
Steve

[macman7010]

cortez marine,

I wondered what your opinion on deep water reefs are. I recently read an article that a deep water reef was found somewhere off the coast of Australia. Supposodly from various lietature I have read deep water corals are hardier aquarium specimins since they can accept less light variants.

I would argue this though because my assumption would be that deep water corals would prefer cooler tempatures and need feedings of photo or zoo plankton on a regular basis. Do you have any ideas about that?

[cortez marine]

No,
I don't know anything about em except what I read.
Book knowledge is different then the other kind.
Steve

[Buckeye ME]

You guys get the political crap out of your system yet? Most people have grown up and come to tolerate losing.

[macman7010]

i would make my 2 cents on politics known but unless it directly relates to something coral reef tank related than on here my mouth remains closed.

[MiddletonMark]

Yup, a certain way to close the thread.

There's enough silly strife on any board without adding to it. We could probably talk about the science of global climate, but once you get politics involved then it crosses the line into forbidden discussion.

Our fish, corals don't care who we voted for. Such discussions have nothing to do with the reef hobby, and such distinctions separate us from learning the most we can from each other to keep our livestock healthy and long-lived in our care.

[MCary]

There seems to be alot of ignorance on this thread. I am not disparaging. I mean lack of knowledge not stupidity. I always find that people opinions based on incomplete or second hand knowledge facinating. Global warming is my favorite. The theory is incredibly complex, yet every movie star, politician, and clown has an opinion on it. Just so you can sleep tonight let me tell you one thing. Global warming theory is a computer projection telling what might happen in the future. Nearest estimates are 50 years before we should expect to see any effect. And BTW, if we signed the Kyoto Accords and followed all guidelines it would be 54 years. Although global temperatures have risen since the 1970's, remember the 1970's were a record cold decade. Taken since 1930's the temperature has actually fallen. Sea levels and sea temps have not risen. Coral reefs are being destroyed by natural means, over harvesting, boat traffic, and polluted runoff but not global warming. I am not aying global warming is not a real possibility. Like I said, its very complex and I'm no expert. But it hasn't happened yet.

Code Blue and Buckeye went mostly ignored, but they have a good point. Its only a fish. They taste good as sticks. Sustainable harvest of ornamental species are good for many third world countries. It provides income. The biggest threat to the environment is poverty. Think about Bosnia, once a beautiful country that hosted the winter olympics, once the government and thus the economy fell they stripped the mountains for firewood.

Marine fish produce larva by the millions. Many times available habitat plays a much bigger role on fish numbers than harvesting. There are more lobsters in the waters off Maine than ever. The reason has been determined to be harvesting. The more they take the more they have. There is also overharvesting. I'm just saying, don't thing that blanket statements made out of ignorance makes you some kind of uberprotector of the environment. The truth is never on the fringes, left or right.

Mike

[kirei]

As per your post above MCary, you obviously also have an opinion on global warming, and I am sure you don't know all the facts about it either. I think everyone has an opinion on global warming... so is your issue with people promoting their opinion then? Even if global warming doesn't exist, or if it is a model 50 years down the road, I still think there is no argument that can rightfully say pollution is good and we shouldn't try to reduce it. Now of course there is a balance between the positive effects of mass production and consumption and the ultility generated by such actions, vs. the ultility of having a clean space. Even if pollution is not the cause of global warmiing and it is 100% cyclical, pollution is the cause of many other urban problems, especially health related. Birth defects, cancers, respiratory illness, all of these have strong ties to pollution. The kyoto protocols was one of the best attempts at curbing pollution for the simple fact that it created an economic free market for pollution, it attached a cost to pollution but allowed that cost to flow freely so that those who could most easily reduce pollution would while selling of their quota to those who would have more difficulty, thus it would help to force industries as a whole to adhere to set quotas, while at the same time allowing the pollution quotas to be assigned at their economic maximization.

And yes it is about habitat, and balance. I remember in Vancouver when they decided to kill off all the wolves in Banf because of public danger they ended up letting the deer population go unchecked by predators and the town was overrun by deer, which are nice until they start to overtake your town for garbage. So a better understanding of the environement and the effects we have on it are important, but this costs money. Where is that money coming from? People will only pay if they care, lots of people will only care if it directly effects them, so global warming propaganda (i use this in an academic sense, not as a word with negative connotation) helps to drive funds (rightly or wrongly) into these types of research. Of course who is to say that this is where the money should go?

You are right the truth is never found in the poles, but elements of the truth are usually found there. And radical left or right wing ideas which challenge the status quo are important in terms of generating interest. There is no truth found in the centre either, truth is found by a unification of these people and an open discussion of their view points. Everyone is ignorant, and everyone lacks knowledge in some area or another, only by matching my strengths to your weakness and vice versa is truth found or progress made. The biggest problem I see nowadays is a lack of discussion between the left and the right, between art and science, between business and environment.

[MCary]

I don't have a position on global warming. Global warming is a scientific hypothesis not a political campaign. Science doesn't require an opinion or position. I read the data as it comes out and say to myself "Self, that sure is interesting" I was only responding to those that are attributing natural ocurances to a phenomenon that hasn't occured yet.

Responding to the rest of your post. The Kyoto protocols are a hatchet job on inductrialized nations especially the US. Its recomendations would cost trillions and only delay global warming based on the current madel 4 years. The devestion to the economies or the alternate good that could be done with that money would have effects that would last decades not 4 years. Research this with an open mind and see if you feel the same afterwards.

Pollution is bad, I agree. At what point are atmospheric emmissions and economic and survival needs in balance? Burning wood in a fireplace emits CO2. Faced with the delimma, do you risk raising the planets temp a degree or freeze to death. To every point there is a counter point.

Your story about Banf begs a question. Do you assume that the irradication of the wolf population is the cause of the increased deer populaiton or is there concrete imperical evidence? Coyotes main diet in the spring is fawns. Coyote populations drop by over 60% when wolves were put in Yellowstone park because wolves kill them. I know there are coyotes in Banf because I live right across the border and have been there many times. So could it be that removal of one predator was replaced by another? Could it be that deer populations are increased by mild winters for the last few years. Increased agriculture providing more food for them and the reduction of sport hunting? Or is it just the wolves. You could be right and I might be way off, but I'm going to find out before I tell someone else.

Your right about driving funds into research. It is difficult to get funding for science these days. That's why the word "crisis" is used alot and why something sexy has to be presented like "life on Mars". no-one is going to give money to see a picture of a red rock. While this might be necessary to get the money, I still don't like being led or lied to.

Science does not apply to your last paragraph. Scientific truth is not found through comprimise or consensus. It is what it is.

Mike

[Esper]

the absolute bottom line is that the reefs are as undisturbed as possible.

if people kill cheap tank-raised or aquacultured fish, so be it. i mourn the loss, but the net effect on the planet is zero.

[knowse]

No, the bottom line is that if............our hobby goes strictly maricultured.....the poor fisher folks are left with nothing to make a living. They'll have to turn to banana or pineapple farming, forest havesting for teak and mahogony wood or reef blasting for road building material. Which would case massive runoff, which kills reefs and they would still be hungry. These people can't go to the supermarket to buy canned goods or frozen meats. Their main source of protein comes from the fish they catch. I guess they could always start a chicken ranch for Tyson foods.

Steve, do you remember what their annual income was? Something equivelent to $150 US a year? I'd like to see some westerners live off of that. If you've never been there, you haven't a freaking clue as to how they live. If their lucky, they might have some cardboard for the roof of their bamboo house, which is probably only one room.

I remember, buying a puppy for 5 peso's ($2.50 US) that was destined to be someone's dinner and that was in Manila over 30 years ago. I never once saw a stray dog or cat or large rat for that matter roaming the streets. I won't get into the other things that I saw, but will say that it wasn't pretty. DO NOT relate to them as you would a westerner, you can't even put them in the same class as the homeless guy that lives under the bridge. You CAN relate to them as a social group with nothing left to loose, and then you might understand why it's important to support them.

[dmbrown]

Well more clowns have died yes....but more have also lived because of this thriving market. So if yo try to look at the greater good, more fish have lived......not died in this economic boom,

[maddyfish]

Knowse- I think you have stated what I was trying to say very well. I do think that it takes a visit to Indonesia, or the Philippines, or one of those type places to understand the desparation of these people. Every captive bred clown sold is one less taken off the reef, is less money in collectors hands, and puts the reef one step closer to being chopped up for concrete.

[ruppel]

This is an interesting discussion.

One problem I've found in this hobby is deciding how to proceed with the least environmental impact. From my perspective, I can know with certainty that buying aquacultured fish and corals has had no direct impact on any coral reef anywhere. Now, the arguments about the economic impact are beyond my knowledge. And while I have no doubt that a diminishing trade in ornamental fish will have an impact on poor people and poor economies, it seems that the speculation on the repercussions, while quite feasible, is still speculation.

I agree that environmentally sound collection practices is probably the best of both worlds, but it is nearly impossible for me, from my computer, land-locked in Indiana, to truly assess whether wild caught species have been collected responsibly. Of course, everyone selling them will say that they only buy fish caught responsibly, and they may even believe that it's true, but truly enviornmentally-conscious collection requires a great deal of effort and education to practice effectively--at least it seems that way to me. I had to really dig to find which corals were likely to be unaffected by collection. So, I tend to think that many poor, uneducated collectors really don't have any idea whether what they do affects the reef. Not all, to be sure, but I really don't have any way of assessing that.

So, anyway...that's my long-winded way of saying I feel sort of "environmentally safer" buying aquacultured organisms than wild caught.

[MCary]

The only true way to avoid impact if there is any is to not go into the hobby. Even if you use only aquacultured specimens you contribute to the popularity keeping businesses thriving and more newbie's entering. Newbie's without the knowledge and/or conscience you have. I have the same discussion with my liberal pilot friends who rale about fuel and SUV's as they burn 8 gallons per hour in their planes. Kind of a "It's not me, its them" mentality. I definately commend people's responsible use of resources and hope you continue. Don't buy that Moorish Idol or that Goniopora. Good for you. But if the reef hobby has an environmental impact, the only way for you not to contribute to it, is to not get into the hobby. That's just the way it is.

[mkirda]

Originally posted by Buckeye ME
Why do we have to give them value? They will exist without human demand on their inhabitants, that's what matters. The value is they are still there to be enjoyed for viewing.

Are you claiming 3rd world countries benefit economically from us, and that is a reason to harvest wild animals?

What a bunch of prattle...

We are consumers. We are the market. We buy fish. Where do you think the fish come from? The store? They come from the REEF, which is located in mostly third world countries. OF COURSE the collectors benefit economically from us. If there was no market, they wouldn't bother collecting marine ornamentals.

This is stuff you learn in Econ 100 on the first day of class.

It is darn-right frustrating reading this garbage, all Western-biased, anti-fishermen. Is this how low Responsible Reefkeeping aspires to be? An inane debate on how expensive fish should be? The market determines the price, all socialist notions aside. Western land-based aquaculture does the opposite of 'saving the reef'. It teachs the fishermen that Westerners are liars, and that we don't really value the reef, so why should they?

Ya'all need to get the the Philippines or Indonesia and speak to a few of the collectors. It would be a real eye-opener.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

[mkirda]

Originally posted by knowse
Steve, do you remember what their annual income was? Something equivelent to $150 US a year? I'd like to see some westerners live off of that. If you've never been there, you haven't a freaking clue as to how they live. If their lucky, they might have some cardboard for the roof of their bamboo house, which is probably only one room.

How about a thatched roof, without any walls? Sleeping on the ground? Saw plenty of those off in the provinces in the Philippines just a couple weeks back...

They would have to earn more than that now, unless they were strictly subsistance farmers. Fishermen couldn't earn that little and survive.

Mike

[mkirda]

Originally posted by MCary
But if the reef hobby has an environmental impact, the only way for you not to contribute to it, is to not get into the hobby. That's just the way it is.

Not necessarily. You could set up wind generators and solar panels and run a responsible reef using strictly renewable power. This would eliminate any impacts.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

[MCary]

No Mike, probably not. Leaving aside that it takes more energy to manufacture a windmill or solar panel than the equipment will ever generate, someone would come to your house and say "I gotta get me one of those" then he might set one up without the renewable power and you would be indirectly responsible. In other words, adding to the popularity of the hobby increases the resources used by the hobby.

[ruppel]

Originally posted by mkirda
What a bunch of prattle...

We are consumers. We are the market. We buy fish. Where do you think the fish come from? The store? They come from the REEF, which is located in mostly third world countries. OF COURSE the collectors benefit economically from us. If there was no market, they wouldn't bother collecting marine ornamentals.

This is stuff you learn in Econ 100 on the first day of class.

It is darn-right frustrating reading this garbage, all Western-biased, anti-fishermen. Is this how low Responsible Reefkeeping aspires to be? An inane debate on how expensive fish should be? The market determines the price, all socialist notions aside. Western land-based aquaculture does the opposite of 'saving the reef'. It teachs the fishermen that Westerners are liars, and that we don't really value the reef, so why should they?

Ya'all need to get the the Philippines or Indonesia and speak to a few of the collectors. It would be a real eye-opener.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

I guess the way I "value" the reef is not economically. Do you mean to say that the only value that locals place on a reef is the aquarium trade? If it weren't for that, they'd just "plow it under," so to speak? There's absolutely nobody that would protect the reef for its own right, but only as a continued money-making opportunity?

That's sad

[mkirda]

Originally posted by ruppel
I guess the way I "value" the reef is not economically. Do you mean to say that the only value that locals place on a reef is the aquarium trade? If it weren't for that, they'd just "plow it under," so to speak? There's absolutely nobody that would protect the reef for its own right, but only as a continued money-making opportunity?

That's sad

Sad from the Western Feel-good Let's Save The Reefs mentality maybe...

The fishermen aren't like that. They've barely got a pot to **** in. The reef itself is sort of like a forest to farmers. Slash and burn, baby!

The reef itself is valued only for what it can put on the table. Food. Or occasionally coral rock, you know it as LIVE ROCK, usually used as a base for fences, piers, or breakwaters.

This is what I mean - This is my point here. Westerners are so far removed from the reality that faces 90% of the population in the Philippines that they cannot even fathom the fact that people may not value the reef for the reef's sake. The reef is a resource to be exploited, period. You use it for food, or for earning money. Or both, if you are lucky. If you are really lucky, you might be able to earn enough so that your children can make it through elementary school before they have to start earning their own keep.

Protecting the reef for the reefs sake is a great and noble notion.

The fisherman might even agree with you if that's what he thought you wanted to hear. All the while he'd really be thinking though... Where is the next meal for my family coming from? Maybe I should hit that nice area over off the next island...

Sorry if the reality is too bleak for ya'll.
But that is the way it is.
If your only choice of employment is living off the sea or starvation... You go with the sea.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

[eldudeereno]

ie well i c what people say but id rather tank breed than wreck the reefs people just need to learn what there doin

[mkirda]

Originally posted by eldudeereno
ie well i c what people say but id rather tank breed than wreck the reefs people just need to learn what there doin

And if learning what they are doing includes feel-good measures that actually wreck the reef rather than save it, then what?

Regards.
Mike Kirda

[MCary]

Right Mike. Eldudeereno, your statement is correct if you accept the premise its built on. That buying tank bred will save the reef. But what if the aquarium trade saves the reef. Who stopped and reversed the decline of migratory waterfowl? Duck hunters, go figure. The people killing the ducks, saved the ducks. Same for reefs? I don't know, but maybe something to ponder.

[cortez marine]

Saving ducks that no one else wanted to kill was a much easier problem to solve.
Save the vital habitat and the ducks take care of themselves.

Duck stamps on hunting liscenses to set aside money for this was understood and accepted and became a part of an AMERICAN way of duck hunting. If the money were purely voluntary...it would have been very different.
A mandatory liscense to keep fish??? Sure...then such a stamp could be created.
If such a scheme could be achieved thru S.E. Asian fish supplies coming from a few hundred villages and distributed via another 50 or so competitive exporters...that would be neat trick.
Then the real challenge would be to keep the money going to the actual reef efforts and not perks, plane rides, per diems, hotels, junkets, office expenses and salaries in the 6 figure range.
We already have this type "saving the reefs".
The administration of the Duck stamp money was much, much more wisely and honestly spent and was a shining example.
I wish it could be done with our little problem.




Steve