Responsibly wild caught vs. tank raised?

[MCary]

But what about Ducks Unlimited, They're a private group saving ducks.

[GreshamH]

To shoot later, but never mind that

[MCary]

Exactly what I'm saying. Those that use the resource are best at protecting the resource, motivations aside.

[GreshamH]

Glad I could make your point for you I fully agree BTW

[cortez marine]

Ducks Unlimited raised a wonderful budget of 180,000,000.00 this past year.
Since their inception they have gone thru 2 billion.
All the cyanide fishers in the world could be trained, converted and supervised to insure that the lessons take would not reach near a single million.

If hobbyists and dealers ever linked the resource management questions to their actual buying behaviour we'd have something...but our consumers do not see it that way at all save but a few.
The only attempt to link a ' voluntary' box charge of imported fish to support "conservation" is the one that MACs associate MAMTI wants.
Then again, most of the money raised would just go to their bureaucracies...as it always has.
Now, if all hobyists had to pay to play with fish....there would be a huge budget generated to be sure.
Ducks ain't fish but I'm envious of what the duck people have done.
Steve

[Esper]

Originally posted by 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.

If we buy maricultured organisms, the reefs will be slowly destroyed/depleted from all the consequences of this activity (cyanide, reduced biodiversity, etc). But if we don't buy them, they will be decimated at an even faster rate to pave roads. So, its a catch-22 then? Not necessarily.

Remember, I said "the absolute bottom line is that the reefs are as undisturbed as possible." Turning them into roads or damaging them with runoff is not leaving them undisturbed, is it? Obviously, a third solution is needed. The problem is one of saving people vs. saving a natural resource. The cynic in me thinks that the former is renewable, yet the latter is not.

Or is it? It sounds like the only reason the "poor fisher folks" can't make a living is because of the interference of "western" people and how little of the money we fork up for moorish idols actually makes it to them. If we stop lying and cheating the "poor fisher folks," as I have read from several sources (including RK magazine I believe), they wouldn't think we put no value on the reef. If we put money into sending scientists there, researching ways for them to aquaculture (read: farm) themselves using the ocean water surrounding them, and emphasizing how we want to grow the reefs, and pay them if they help us, then everybody can be happy.

Wait a minute, aquaculture can HELP the reefs?

Maybe.

This particular solution opens up its own can of worms regarding the possible disruption of local species populations, where will the funding/interest come from, how the heck will it work, etc. But what are the consequences if something like this isn't done? The reefs will be gone forever, and then the people will just start starving again. Everybody loses.


Instead of saying "can we do anything to save the reefs?" we need to say, "what MUST be done in order to ensure the reef's survival in as close to a current state as possible?" It's a subtle difference, but it gives us a much more useful outlook. ask yourself, if the consequences of failure are that people die, then what must be done to succeed? (this is how the military views training). In this case, the animals will die before the people, but as noted above neither of them are in a very good position.

This argument is voiced often, and it always manages to irritate me: "if we protect nature, we will be starving people...we have to sacrifice nature so we can help the people, its the lesser of two evils." This argument is at best one of laziness and at worst a denial of the real problem at work here:

third world populations being exploited for their natural resources and labor. They don't have the ability to fight back, because we bring health care and education and better standards of living, and in turn pay them rates that have been illegal in the US for a century.
Yes, the goverments are so poor they must sell their natural resources for a pittance in order to provide even the minimal health care and education they have now. But where are they getting even this money from? First world countries! We are the ones keeping them at those poverty levels! Granted, many of these goverments are plagued with corruption or internal/external strife, and much of the wealth of these countries are squandered in such ways. However, it is cheaper for crate & barrel to make that lovely wooden bookshelf by harvesting lumber in the US, shipping it to malaysia, paying them pennies to make it, and shipping it back here than it does to just make it in this country.

do you really think raising chickens or pinapples instead of fishing will pay them any more money? Not bloody likely. (knowse: please don't think i'm trying to pick a fight with you! you addressed my post and gave an excellent summary of the contingencies at work so i'm using that as a base to work from, not argue against )

maybe I should rephrase my outlook: "if the consequences of success are making lots and lots of money, not even the destruction of the earth or the people upon it will stop you."

It is not the intention of this post to anger anyone or start any raging political debates. however, some of the contingencies at work in this situation are political and raise issues that aren't comfortable to many of us, myself included. i bought that bookshelf! shame on me! but that's capitalism at work, and it allows wonderful things like stylish furniture and reef tanks to be brought to our door...but we also have to be aware of the cost, if at least so we can try to fix it.

[Mike R King]

Esper, and all.

Check out www.corl.org.
It's been a battle getting funding but that's now changing and we are starting to make progress in creating community based mariculture industries that are eco-beneficial to the environment and provide environmental education and guidance for the true stakeholders. We will be starting another new CORL branch in the next two weeks. The project will have its own web site and we will be launching it around Jan 1 2006. Our goal is to create a true win win win situations for the island communities, coral reef ecosystems and our marine aquarium keeping hobby.

It's not the wheel that needs reinventing it’s the vehicle that brings the product to market! Its time to dump the old gas guzzling lead-sled for a newer vehicle that has greater mileage (returns) for those who depend upon it to get their product to the market (the collectors and village folk).


Mike King
Director of CORL
Acting director CORL-AS and CORL-TK
www.corl.org

[ruppel]

thanks Esper. That summary definitely sits better with me than the "exploitation as protection" approach.

[mkirda]

Originally posted by Esper
Wait a minute, aquaculture can HELP the reefs?

Maybe.

What you posed here should better be phrased:

"CAN aquaculture help save the reefs?"

The answer: Maybe, if practiced in such a way that does not cause the reef further harm.

But Aquaculture as commonly practiced has actually destroyed more reefs than it has saved. Think: Shrimp ponds created through mangrove deforestation.

Therein lies the rub. Aquaculture can be a solution, but only when practiced in ways it has never been practiced up to now.

The best way to put your money where your mouth is- Buy aquacultured coral colonies. At least those are sustainable fisheries.
All current aquacultured fish unfortunately steal money from the hands of a fisherman.

As far as the rest of the neo-Marxist post goes, most of it is off-base on a number of levels. The West doesn't exploit the Filipino fisherman so much as their own countrymen do. And as their other alternative livelihood is food fishing, of which approximately 0% goes to the West, I don't see that line of argument working here.
Go ask an exporter in Manila some time how much they have raised their buying prices from the fishermen in the past ten years. Then calculate inflation, plus currency devaluation of the peso. You can calculate exactly how much the exporters have made.

Prices have remained amazingly constant in US dollars.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

[Thales]

For a little information on what is going on in Tonga, check out www.reefstewards.org.

[MiddletonMark]

Originally posted by mkirda
But Aquaculture as commonly practiced has actually destroyed more reefs than it has saved. Think: Shrimp ponds created through mangrove deforestation.

Mike, no offense, but that's a facetious argument.

Those shrimp pools are for food aquaculture - not hobby aquaculture. I thought we were talking about hobby aquaculture.

You have a good point, as the issues are much the same, but if we compare fish `harvest' for food as lumped with hobby fish taking - the view is just as bleak IMO [taking from the ocean is ugly if lumped as one, too]

[mkirda]

Originally posted by MiddletonMark
Mike, no offense, but that's a facetious argument.

Those shrimp pools are for food aquaculture - not hobby aquaculture. I thought we were talking about hobby aquaculture.

You have a good point, as the issues are much the same, but if we compare fish `harvest' for food as lumped with hobby fish taking - the view is just as bleak IMO [taking from the ocean is ugly if lumped as one, too]

All the evidence you need to know the truth of the argument is contained in a little bay north of Subic. Far from being facetious, it is a real huge problem now. The bay contains the rememants of shrimp ponds built years ago. What was destroyed? The mangroves. They made a lot of money for a while, which encouraged a lot more habitat destruction. The entire business collapsed when a virus ran through most of the shrimp aquaculture fisheries in SE Asia. The ponds are now abandoned mostly, the mangroves aren't coming back and the silt from the ponds has destroyed the reefs in the bay.

As far as 'hobby' aquaculture goes, there isn't a single place currently that really practices aquaculture in a way that gets most of the proceeds to the locals. It certainly isn't an alternative livelihood for a fisherman in the Philippines when someone stateside produces clown fish. And as Philippine law currently prohibits coral export, coral farms are not an alternative either. So if you are trying to argue that 'hobby' aquaculture will help raise them up, I'd love to hear how that is going to happen.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

[wayne in norway]

I think MarkM has a point splitting food from hobby aquaculture at this point.
I would be strongly in favour of hobby aquaculture. Would the Phillipino government be prepared to modify their laws if it looked like a source of extra income - I would think/hope yes.

As you point out aquaculture in the US is of no help to the actual long term future of the reefs themselves, but I would hope 'native' aquaculture can help. Perhaps I'm naive.

[mkirda]

Originally posted by wayne in norway
I think MarkM has a point splitting food from hobby aquaculture at this point.
I would be strongly in favour of hobby aquaculture. Would the Phillipino government be prepared to modify their laws if it looked like a source of extra income - I would think/hope yes.

As you point out aquaculture in the US is of no help to the actual long term future of the reefs themselves, but I would hope 'native' aquaculture can help. Perhaps I'm naive.

People make a point splitting a food fisherman from a MO fisherman. It is actually an artificial split. If a MO fisherman happens to see a nice-sized grouper or octopus, he'll grab it too and try to sell it at the market. If it doesn't sell, it becomes dinner. Westerners see a difference that doesn't exist really.

"Hobby" aquaculture, at this point, consists of coral farms, mostly in Bali, Fiji and possibly the Solomon Islands (not sure if these started up again???). The issue the industry faces lies with consumers who look at these pieces and at one chiseled from the reef, and seem to overwhelmingly choose the chiseled one over the aquacultured one.

How do we get the buying public to change their buying habits? To prefer the cultured pieces over the chiseled ones? Solve that and you will find that collection pressure on small aquarium-sized corals will go down immensely.

None of this addresses the fish issue, however.

As far as the PI government, right now the government is so embroiled in manufactured scandals that there is no hope that they will even begin to address changing laws to allow export of cultured hard corals. Maybe in the next administration...

Regards.
Mike Kirda

[GreshamH]

Many farmed panther grouper, for food, are sold into the hobby Just one case in a hundred of MO/food working together

[mkirda]

Originally posted by GreshamH
Many farmed panther grouper, for food, are sold into the hobby Just one case in a hundred of MO/food working together

Hey, Gresh.

You probably caught the bit of sarcasm when I said that approximately 0% get into the hobby. So what % do you think the farmed grouper account? 0.00001% or 0.0001%?

The point being that caged food fish growout aquaculture can easily supply the hobby with 100% of all grouper needed, and yet still account for far less than 1% of all grouper raised. Most go to local markets for food.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

[balci]

Let's take what Mustafa said in the Lion King, that there's a circle of life and it will continue always, regardless of how much we take from the ocean, the ocean will always have more to give.

[mkirda]

Originally posted by balci
Let's take what Mustafa said in the Lion King, that there's a circle of life and it will continue always, regardless of how much we take from the ocean, the ocean will always have more to give.

Just ask the cod fisherman how true this is...

[MiddletonMark]

Mike, should work fine for those `all water' tanks that will be the rage.

[bornfree]

I always try to buy aquacultured. For corals this isn't a problem, but for fish and liverock another story.

[Gawain1974]

Good thread.

Unfortunately, the percentage of tank-raised fish to wild-caught fish is so small, that I think we really have to look into sustainable-harvest until the industry develops the technology to breed Achilles tangs (or whatever, you get the point) in captivity. Now, if advances in marine aquaculture are shared with those countries, fishermen can become fish farmers.

It just seems as if the hobby has a long way to go before we have the choice of not removing anything from the reefs. Until then, work has to be done to ensure that those whose livelihoods depend on the reef are motivated to use sustainable harvesting techniques.

It's awfully easy to sit back over here in the West and say "you have to do this, this, and this," but I'm not a fisherman trying to feed my family.

[cortez marine]

Way too true;
"It's awfully easy to sit back over here in the West and say "you have to do this, this, and this," but I'm not a fisherman trying to feed my family."

Americas 'born again' take on the environment has come after a couple of centuries hell bent on exterminating everything that stood, flew or crawled...not to mention swim.
This was in our so called "developmental" stage.
"Developing" countries today might wonder how come it was OK for them, but not for us. On what high ground...with what moral authority do Americans now tell us to stop fishing in favor of elite, capitalized, industrial aquaculture.
Aquaculture rarely employs and includes village fisherman.
Using that as a qualifier isn't right. Aquaculture is farming....for business reasons, not alturism or holier then thou.
If all tropicals were aquacultured...which they will never be in any readers lifetime...then the fish collectors would simply be shunted into the ranks of even more destructive endeavors....mainly food fishing. Hence...no net positive for the marine eco-system.

Everyone loves the fish...yet no one wants the fisherman.

Aquaculture is no panacea...So far its a sugar pill and a sop to the conscience of an industry clearly defined by wildcaught livestock that employs fisherman....not just a few laboratory people and fish pond workers.
Steve

[Gawain1974]

Very well-put Cortez Marine! I really appreciate reading your insight!

[mkirda]

Originally posted by cortez marine
Aquaculture rarely employs and includes village fisherman.
Using that as a qualifier isn't right. Aquaculture is farming....for business reasons, not alturism or holier then thou.
If all tropicals were aquacultured...which they will never be in any readers lifetime...then the fish collectors would simply be shunted into the ranks of even more destructive endeavors....mainly food fishing. Hence...no net positive for the marine eco-system.

This describes how it is practiced now, Steve.
Villaged-based setups might alleviate some, if not all, of the concerns you voice.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

[cortez marine]

This describes how it is practice NOW, Steve.
Villaged-based setups MIGHT alleviate some, if not all, of the concerns you voice.

Understood....in fact, the 'POTENTIAL' has always been good... even exciting!...
but the investor or the business people will always think, what do poor folks need with this money? Better I should have it.
Yes....afterall, I deserve return on risk and investment and after all, the world does revolve around me. [ and yes...of course they think that way ]

I work with a netcaught co-op village in Northern Bali and they are having a big problem with their soft coral farm.
Seems they lack capital, investment and inability to keep up with the 'flavor of the month' latest new screaming orange zoanthid or purple pom pom.
They thought being both netcaught and into aquaculture would be market pluses. Its been a rude awakening to actually relize the dream and find out how little the market is driven by ethical/environmental concerns.
They accept now that all they do must compete with the lowest and the cheapest...or the most incredibility exclusive stuff out there. Simply doing the right thing has hurt them badly.
The reality sells less then the paper concept...and the paper concept works more...a lot more on grant money...not sales revenue.
Steve