Collection Article, Part 2

[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]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6347363#post6347363 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> 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]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6348270#post6348270 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> 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: 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

 

[sdcfish]

I have been following this thread and can say this:

Here's an example of how data is wrong and inaccurate:

Cites

If you understood the process, you would know that you can't take cites data and publish it as accurate without also explaining the process and accuracy.

The short and simple explanation for the process when shipping cites livestock...liverock, corals, clams etc......is the following:

Cites are issued to the exporter. You might have one cites for example that is for 1000 pcs of corals, listing them each by species. The exporter might only export 500 pcs of coral from that cites.

It is shipped, received into the U.S, inspected and cleared by US fish and wildlife.

The problem is, that cites reports 1000 pcs of corals being traded, when in fact, only 500 were shipped. The data of 1000 pcs is logged into the tracking system but completely inaccurate and should never be used in the way Borneman suggests.

Another perfect example:

Live rock and corals are imported into Fiji from neighboring countries...Tonga, Solomons etc. Imported into Fiji, and then Exported out of Fiji. Cites are provided from Fiji where all listed items are now FIJI. Can you imagine how tainted that data is now? Maybe 30-50% of live rock exported from Fiji was not from Fiji but reported that way? And then, to make matters worse, an article like Borneman's is printed and reported and it's now Fiji that has increased exports exponentially....but in reality not true.

I believe this cites issue in Fiji was corrected, but not before the damage was done but the articles, lectures, statements and repeated accusations.

It just creates a huge misunderstanding of the reality of the Industry and gives public opinion and others, a wrong perception of the actuality.

These two examples are only part of the puzzle that makes everyone in the industry go up in arms when reading articles such as Bornemans that uses statements from what he declares are accurate, but truly not understood and not meant to be used in the manner in which they are presented.

I am only giving one or two examples, but it goes throughout the report and article.

As far as SDC's current involvement, I can say that we have always had a broad vision of environment and industry. We will continue to work with groups such as Reefcheck, Mamti, Mac, Pijac, University's and whoever else needs cooperation and data from us to better understand the workings of the industry and what we see on a day-to-day basis.

I am always happy to answer questions in hopes that people better understand our Industry and the reality of it today.

Best regards and happy holidays to everyone...including you Mr. Borneman!

Eric

 

[ReefDiver]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6345528#post6345528 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by EricHugo
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.

I think that pretty much sums it up. So, should I believe someone who owns a LFS and has not researched the subject? OR, take what Eric has researched & written as at least being more likely the state of affairs regarding global collection & *****-shipping of corals/fish? I choose the later personally.

One can always argue the "facts & figures" of any paper presented for review. However, the bottom line here is that the aquarium trade industry has had a tremendous affect on coral reefs around the globe. Just dawn a set a SCUBA gear and go take a look for yourself. I have been diving since the early 80's and what I have seen is nothing short of totally unbelievable when it comes to destruction of coral reefs. Now to be fair it's not only this industry that has had an effect but many other factors as well which are too numerous to list here and I am sure that we all know what they are.

So, rather than continue to argue about moot points, we should all try to do our part to make things perhaps a little better, if thats even possible. I personally have decided to only purchase aquacultured corals hence forth. If we all did that would it make any difference to the demise of the reefs? Probably not but at least we would all feel like we were "doing our part" and finally being "part of the solution".

Eric, thanks for "telling it like it is" and for caring about the animals that we all love so very much.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO ALL!!!

Steve

 

[Marc Daniels]

Probably not but at least we would all feel like we were "doing our part" and finally being "part of the solution".

Ummmmmm, gotta love "feel good" activism. There is a HUGE difference between feeling like you are doing something, and actually doing something. Just as there is a difference between feeling like part of the solutuion, and actually being part of the solution.

 

[ReefDiver]

So Marc tell us what HUGE difference YOU are making?? Geesh, give me a break already. Is anyone ever really part of the solution?

 

[Marc Daniels]

Steve-

It's Christmas, what are we doing wasting our time on-line?

I'm a single hobbyist, there is no huge difference I can make. Unfortunately, far too many hobbyists don't give a darn about the environment. Take for example the guy a year or so ago that was selling Nassarius snails out of San Diego. "Friends" of his were collecting them across the border, and he was then selling them through RC. As the thread progressed, what became apparent was that he had no idea how to ship, and was killing horde after horde of snails. Even with his very dismal survival rate, people kept lining up by the droves to buy snails from him. WHY? Because they were $20 for 100 snails, and that included shipping. This guy was literally killing hundreds of snails to get 2 or 3 there alive. But still people kept lining up to get them, regardless of the mortality rate. People were actually making posts like, so what if they get here dead, it's ONLY $20.

What I can do is pass along my experince to new hobbyists and hope that I can make them an educated consumer. I can make a little difference locally, but that's such a small drop in the bucket that it's laughable. Honestly, as long as the majority of the hobby continues to buy juiced fish, or the cheapest coral, regardless of what it's done/doing to the environment there's nothing any of us can do. In all likelyhood, the hobby will probably burn itself out one day. Is that a dismal, drastic statement, yes, but it's honest. Until the big names in the industry come together and preach a consistant message, nothing will get through to the hobbyists. But the LFS has to follow the message as well. But even the industry insiders won't come together because there are too many agendas, and too many egos.

 

[sihaya]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6354374#post6354374 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ReefDiver

Eric, thanks for "telling it like it is" and for caring about the animals that we all love so very much.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO ALL!!!

Amen to that!

 

[ReefDiver]

Marc: AGREED!!

Have a great New Year's!

 

[GreshamH]

ReefDiver, Mitch(Dizzy) has a LOAD of experience when it comes to this trade. He's a very smart fellow that has tried for years to help this industry in many different ways. Man, with out Mitch, so much would be glazed over. One simply only needs to look at the MAC Attack files to know that

It's always hard for outsiders to know the people behind the scenes, like Eric B, Steve (CortezMarine), Eric (SDC), Mitch (Dizzy) Steven (Pro), Marc (D) and such. All these fellows have done something good for the hobby and really shouldn't be put down, even by each other. Having had contact with all these guys over the years, I have a deep respect for all. They may squabble with each other (me included, except Steven Pro, he doesn't seem to squabble much ) ), but they're usually doing it while still moving forward and on point

The core message of the articles is what the averege reader will walk away with, not the numbers. The numbers only get disputed by those that know

 

[ReefDiver]

Gresham: Point well taken! I don't think that I intentionally tried to "put down" anyone. I would never do that as everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

Given the subject matter & knowing the sad state that the reefs are in, I only wish that I had the time & finances to really try and make a difference.

 

[GreshamH]

The "put down" part wasn't directed at you, no worries

I too wish I had the money and time to do more. Until we collectively aknowledge the poor state we've put the earth in and cease and desist our worst environmental problems, we'll never begin to save the coral reefs. Even if we stopped the trade dead in it's spot, killed th curio trade and stopped all human destruction of the reefs, the reefs would still be in decline IMHO