Collection Article, Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.

Steven Pro

New member
"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?
 
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
 
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
 
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...
 
<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?
 
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.
 
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 Associationââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢sâ„¢ 2005-2006 Pet Ownerââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢sâ„¢ 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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."
 
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.
 
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 Brucknerââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢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
 
repeating error

repeating error

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top