Collection Article, Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
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
 
<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 .....
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
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."
 
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, doesnââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢t matter we can just cite papers. Iââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢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.


Ericââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s omission of ââ"šÂ¬Ã…"œmostââ"šÂ¬Ã‚ in our paper is most likely just an omission, I wouldnââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢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.
 
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 dentistsââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢ surgeries.


Up to 12 million stony corals are being harvested, transported and sold annually estimates the report, released today by the United Nations Environment Programmeââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC).


ââ"šÂ¬Ã…"œFrom Ocean to Aquarium: The Global Trade in Marine Ornamentalsââ"šÂ¬Ã‚ 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, ââ"šÂ¬Ã‹Å“Finding Nemoââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢, 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,ââ"šÂ¬Ã‚ said Klaus Toepfer, UNEPââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
<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.
Click to expand...


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. ââ"šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ 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
 
<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. ââ"šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ 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
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
FS: PART 2 Tons of Zoas colonies/mini colonies combo rocks Frag Tank Shutdown
Replies
14
Views
884
samuelkl
S
ThRoewer
Stichodactyla gigantea - research articles
Replies
4
Views
1K
ThRoewer
ThRoewer
P
Free Seahorse Training Course offered by Ocean Rider!
Replies
1
Views
10K
glh7767
G
HumbleFish
An open letter to the aquarium industry
2
Replies
24
Views
3K
Joe0813
Joe0813
HumbleFish
Disease eradication vs. Disease management (new)
Replies
3
Views
1K
ThRoewer
ThRoewer
Back
Top