Walt Smith
Premium Member
something to consider
something to consider
Hi folks,
I hope you have all had a good holiday with more still to come.
My name hase been mentioned a few times in this thread and I have been PM'd to respond. Althougth I really try to stay out of this sort of thing I guess you could say I am sort of in the middle of it. I do not agree with the numbers Eric is stating but, knowing Eric, I think he is a victim of using reports that are totally misrepresented with numbers simply because of the way the system works at present. I think you will find that the SDC comment was valid and c.i.t.e.s. list more than double (in most cases) the amount actually shipped due to the way you have to apply for the permit in advance (somethimes more than weeks in advance) because no shipper wants to have short numbers when shippng day comes along. The big problem is the actual numbers shipped are available but U.S.F.W.F. does not want them because it is too much paper work. However, Fiji and most originating countries have them the day after shipping because quotas are involved and it is important to the shipper to report them or he will run out of quota before the year is over. the numbers are reported on the invoices and customs declaration rather than C.I.T.E.S. permits but U.S.F.W.S. uses the C.I.T.E.S. doc's instead.
I would like to post a copy of part of my MACNA talk from last year to put another spin on this issue. This was taken from a much larger report on the state of the coral reefs written by Richard Starki who has lived and worked on the coral reef all over the world for over 50 years and has logged over 1000's of dives on the GBR alone. I have put my two cents in where I thought it was appropriate to contribute (with his blessings and agreement) and I do believe I have the chops to speak up. As most of you know, I am on the front lines of trying to contribute something positive to this industry and environment ... reports such as Eric's do bother me and I also talk with Andy quite a bit and I would beg to differ on him agreeing with this kind of reporting but more the opposite.
Here is my talk .... sorry its so long.
Peace to everyone, Walt
For more than four decades, not a year has passed without media announcements of dire threats to the coral reef.
Some have been new threats; others, old ones, refurbished or just reiterated. Always, the source is presented by an ââ"šÂ¬Ã…"œexpertââ"šÂ¬Ã‚Â.
Over the years we have been told that coral-eating starfish, oil pollution, over fishing, fertilizer runoff, silt, agrichemicals, sewage, anchor damage, people walking on the reef, tropical fish and coral harvesting, ship groundings and global warming were each imminent threats to the reef.
None of these prophecies of doom, however, have become real and the coral reef continues to be a vast and essentially pristine natural region where measurable human effects remain rare or trivial.
Still, unlike the boy who cried ââ"šÂ¬Ã…"œwolfââ"šÂ¬Ã‚ or Chicken Little who claimed the sky was falling, the coral reef doomsayers never seem to loose credibility.
The big problem for truth and reality in this regard is that the reef is largely inaccessible. Itââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s underwater and itââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s vast. Anyone can claim anything and whoââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s to know differently?
With so many alleged experts asserting there are problems, why should anyone believe us if we disagree? The fact is that they shouldnââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢t, but nor should they believe any other so-called expert either.
Proper science is based not on authority, but solely on reason and evidence.
History is littered with examples of widely accepted ideas being overturned with new ones that better explain the evidence.
When alleged experts fail to address evidence, try to engage in ****ing matches over credentials, or impugn credibility on the basis of affiliation ââ"šÂ¬Ã‚¦Ã¢â"šÂ¬Ã‚¦ this is not science but simply, politics masquerading as science!
To begin, it is important to understand that the term ââ"šÂ¬Ã…"œexpertââ"šÂ¬Ã‚ is a relative one. The detailed study of reef biology is a recent phenomenon, and scientific understanding of reefs is still very sketchy.
Only a handful of researchers in the world have both the scientific background and the broad experience of reefs necessary to make reasonably informed judgments about conditions on the reef, and whether those conditions are due to natural variability or human causes.
Almost all the so-called experts given credence by the media are office workers with academic credentials but very limited direct experience of reefs.
Their claims often amount to hypothetical explanations for very limited observations that, more often than not, describe entirely natural conditions, or are based on computer models that predict imaginary futures.
So ââ"šÂ¬Ã‚¦. Letââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s look at a couple of examples that have already been given;
The Crown of Thorn Starfish Infestation
Population explosions of the coral eating crown of thorn starfish first came into scientific and public awareness in the late 1960ââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s.
The starfish threat soon was deemed by experts to be unprecedented and on a scale that might damage the entire reef.
When it was discovered that the Tritonââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s trumpet shell was a natural predator of the starfish, it was immediately concluded that shell collectors were to blame fore the starfish outbreaks..
This theory was eventually discredited, but its serious consideration for some time reveals the profound ignorance of the experts.
Trumpets are never abundant enough anywhere to control an outbreak of starfish, and most of the reefs involved have never been subjected to shell collecting.
As for being unprecedented, earlier knowledge of reefs was simply too sparse for such a claim to be credible.
Despite all the dire predictions, Crown of Thorn population fluctuations continue to come and go on the reef, and infested reefs invariably recover within a few years.
In fact, it is entirely possible that starfish outbreaks even play a beneficial role in promoting coral diversity.
How so? You ask ââ"šÂ¬Ã‚¦.
Every year, tropical cyclones cross the reef and leave wide trails of massive coral destruction in their track.
After a few years, the fastest growing corals have repopulated such areas.
These branching and plate like species form dense thickets which prevent the slower growing, more massive species from recovering.
The former, however, are the preferred food of the Crown of Thorns, and when an outbreak occurs, they thin out the fast growing species and give the slower ones a chance to re-establish.
Oil Pollution
This bug-a-boo was first conjured up to oppose oil exploitation in the Great Barrier Reef. It is periodically revived to oppose cargo shipping through tropical waters, and also to whip up media drama whenever a vessel runs aground or a temporary slick is spotted in tropical waters.
Oil floats, coral doesnââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢t and oil has never caused extensive damage to reefs anywhere.
Oil is mainly a threat to sea birds, marine animals, and intertidal life.
It is not very toxic and follow up surveys of spills have repeatedly found that damage is never as extensive or as long lasting as initially predicted.
It has also been repeatedly found that clean-up efforts are not only ineffectual but actually result in worse damage than if nothing is done at all.
Still, under pressure from environmental activist, we persist to engage in hugely expensive and damaging clean-up charades, especially when an oil company can be made to pay the cost.
The ultimate worst-case scenario for a coral reef oil spill occurred in the Persian Gulf War in 1991 when Suddam Hussein ordered the release of 6 ââ"šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ 8 million tons of oil into the Gulf.
This was not only the worst spill of all time, but it occurred in an enclosed body of shallow water containing numerous reefs.
Greenpeace proclaimed it an ââ"šÂ¬Ã…"œunprecedented disasterââ"šÂ¬Ã‚Â
With no oil company to pay for clean-up, and even a bigger problem of there being over a thousand burning oil wells to deal with, nothing was done, save some extensive surveys.
The result was that in 4 months most of the oil had naturally degraded and within 4 years the areas were largely to fully recovered.
Damage to reefs was minimal and temporary. The greatest and longest lasting damage was restricted to the top of the intertidal zone. Even here, however, by 1995, recovery was rated as being 83-100% of the conditions which prevail on similar but unpolluted shores.
So ââ"šÂ¬Ã‚¦. Taking all of this into perspective ââ"šÂ¬Ã‚¦..
In the case of our coral harvesting the examples I have just given ring true and loud. For years we have been told by the experts that the coral reef is dying and should not be harvested. For years I have invited scientist from every part of the globe to visit our sites.
The few that actually came and did the work are now our closest allies who continue to write glowing reports about the sustainability of our harvest.
However, sometimes the opposite happens.
About 7 or 8 years ago the Fiji government, in conjunction with the World Wildlife Foundation and our industry, hired a reef scientist who actually worked on the reefs and did the job.
There was considerable concern over our harvest and the Fiji government simply did not know enough about it. Although they knew that they wanted to shut us down they had no proof that we were actually doing any harm.
It was the opinion of the Ministry (at the time) that if a well known reef scientist wrote a report condemning our industry that they could use this report as a tool to put a stop to our industry.
The report took several months to compile all the information, and do the surveys.
The industry in Fiji remained transparent and offered the scientist complete access to our records and dive sites and accompanied all of the operations on many dives.
When the report was finally submitted it clearly showed that our trade and collection posed no threat to the environment and added to the local economy.
As a result, the Fiji government decided to discredit the report and buried it at the bottom of a pile of reports never to be referenced or used again.
The report titled ââ"šÂ¬Ã…"œStement on Fiji Harvest Reportââ"šÂ¬Ã‚ (which appears on my web siteââ"šÂ¬Ã‚ was written by Ed Lovell who did a considerable part of the work on Charlie Verons well know book ââ"šÂ¬Ã…"œCorals of Australia and the Indo-Pacificââ"šÂ¬Ã‚Â.
Both Charlie and Ed are ââ"šÂ¬Ã…"œexpertsââ"šÂ¬Ã‚ who are the exception to the rule (among others such as the speaker after me ââ"šÂ¬Ã‚¦. Andy Bruckner and Bruce Carleson to name just a couple) that I was talking about who actually get in the water and do the work.
Another clear example took place in Fiji in the year 2000.
Fiji had a major bleaching event.
Over 90% of the east side of the main island and most of the tourist locations in the west lost their reef to bleaching. The experts blamed everything from the French testing nuclear warfare in Tahiti to Global warming.
They said our reefs would be lost for many generations to come and may never recover. It was horrible doom and gloom in the papers and in reports that circled the globe.
Of course our industry didnââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢t stand a chance against this kind of publicity.
Today, 5 years later, all of those same reefs that were documented as totally dead are now back to better that 90% full recovery. The ââ"šÂ¬Ã…"œexpertsââ"šÂ¬Ã‚ were wrong.
However, they did manage to scare off about 30% - 40% of the tourist for the next couple of years, when the Fiji economy relies on tourism for 85% of its revenue and almost shut down our industry worth about 40,000,000 annually.
Good show, give those experts a pat on the back for a job well done!
Luckily, my reefs were largely not effected but my competitor is shipping corals from those very dead reefs today and the studies show a very sustainable harvest well within the ecology of the reef.
Ecology, like economics, is holistic by nature, and not all effects are immediate or obvious. A balanced, sustainable use of a resource makes possible a healthy human ecology. Unnecessary restrictions on particular resources only puts more pressure on others and it is entirely possible that habitat destruction could occur.
Beyond the misuse of a valuable resource, the false claims of threats to the coral reef also entail a broader and an even more important problem; the misuse of science itself.
Modern environmentalism has become much more than simply a concern for a healthy environment. It has developed into a peculiar quasi-religious blend of new age nature worship, science, leftwing political activism, and anti-profit economics.
No reasonable person will deny that our exploding population, technology and consumption has an environmental effect, but, equally undeniable, humans are a part of the ecology of this planet. Everything we do or do not do has its effects and these may often be remote and unforeseen.
Nature is not perfect, but always in a state of flux. Human actions can improve and enlighten one to the beauty of nature, as well as degrade the abundance, diversity and conditions of life.
When looking at the problems we are facing today we must be realistic and observant of natural causes. When some problems turn out be not real, or less bad than feared, this must be acknowledged and investigated, not denied or denigrated.
There is no shortage of real problems. We have no need to manufacture imaginary ones.
Finally, the responsibility lies with you to share what you have learned from this wonderful hobby and to foster a better appreciation of life within the sea.
The knowledge we have learned in this hobby has already bridged many links into science as we all move forward together with a better understanding of such things as growth rates, temperature fluctuations, natural settlement and compatibility to name just a few.
We are essentially on a new horizon and truth, not hysteria, has never been more important for the future of our relationship with nature.
So I say to you,
Our hobby has the unique ability to share and learn from some of the most hidden (until now) secrets of nature. As we look forward we should all be proud of our accomplishments to foster and encourage a balanced and loving stewardship of our planet for the benefit of our generations to come.
something to consider
Hi folks,
I hope you have all had a good holiday with more still to come.
My name hase been mentioned a few times in this thread and I have been PM'd to respond. Althougth I really try to stay out of this sort of thing I guess you could say I am sort of in the middle of it. I do not agree with the numbers Eric is stating but, knowing Eric, I think he is a victim of using reports that are totally misrepresented with numbers simply because of the way the system works at present. I think you will find that the SDC comment was valid and c.i.t.e.s. list more than double (in most cases) the amount actually shipped due to the way you have to apply for the permit in advance (somethimes more than weeks in advance) because no shipper wants to have short numbers when shippng day comes along. The big problem is the actual numbers shipped are available but U.S.F.W.F. does not want them because it is too much paper work. However, Fiji and most originating countries have them the day after shipping because quotas are involved and it is important to the shipper to report them or he will run out of quota before the year is over. the numbers are reported on the invoices and customs declaration rather than C.I.T.E.S. permits but U.S.F.W.S. uses the C.I.T.E.S. doc's instead.
I would like to post a copy of part of my MACNA talk from last year to put another spin on this issue. This was taken from a much larger report on the state of the coral reefs written by Richard Starki who has lived and worked on the coral reef all over the world for over 50 years and has logged over 1000's of dives on the GBR alone. I have put my two cents in where I thought it was appropriate to contribute (with his blessings and agreement) and I do believe I have the chops to speak up. As most of you know, I am on the front lines of trying to contribute something positive to this industry and environment ... reports such as Eric's do bother me and I also talk with Andy quite a bit and I would beg to differ on him agreeing with this kind of reporting but more the opposite.
Here is my talk .... sorry its so long.
Peace to everyone, Walt
For more than four decades, not a year has passed without media announcements of dire threats to the coral reef.
Some have been new threats; others, old ones, refurbished or just reiterated. Always, the source is presented by an ââ"šÂ¬Ã…"œexpertââ"šÂ¬Ã‚Â.
Over the years we have been told that coral-eating starfish, oil pollution, over fishing, fertilizer runoff, silt, agrichemicals, sewage, anchor damage, people walking on the reef, tropical fish and coral harvesting, ship groundings and global warming were each imminent threats to the reef.
None of these prophecies of doom, however, have become real and the coral reef continues to be a vast and essentially pristine natural region where measurable human effects remain rare or trivial.
Still, unlike the boy who cried ââ"šÂ¬Ã…"œwolfââ"šÂ¬Ã‚ or Chicken Little who claimed the sky was falling, the coral reef doomsayers never seem to loose credibility.
The big problem for truth and reality in this regard is that the reef is largely inaccessible. Itââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s underwater and itââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s vast. Anyone can claim anything and whoââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s to know differently?
With so many alleged experts asserting there are problems, why should anyone believe us if we disagree? The fact is that they shouldnââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢t, but nor should they believe any other so-called expert either.
Proper science is based not on authority, but solely on reason and evidence.
History is littered with examples of widely accepted ideas being overturned with new ones that better explain the evidence.
When alleged experts fail to address evidence, try to engage in ****ing matches over credentials, or impugn credibility on the basis of affiliation ââ"šÂ¬Ã‚¦Ã¢â"šÂ¬Ã‚¦ this is not science but simply, politics masquerading as science!
To begin, it is important to understand that the term ââ"šÂ¬Ã…"œexpertââ"šÂ¬Ã‚ is a relative one. The detailed study of reef biology is a recent phenomenon, and scientific understanding of reefs is still very sketchy.
Only a handful of researchers in the world have both the scientific background and the broad experience of reefs necessary to make reasonably informed judgments about conditions on the reef, and whether those conditions are due to natural variability or human causes.
Almost all the so-called experts given credence by the media are office workers with academic credentials but very limited direct experience of reefs.
Their claims often amount to hypothetical explanations for very limited observations that, more often than not, describe entirely natural conditions, or are based on computer models that predict imaginary futures.
So ââ"šÂ¬Ã‚¦. Letââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s look at a couple of examples that have already been given;
The Crown of Thorn Starfish Infestation
Population explosions of the coral eating crown of thorn starfish first came into scientific and public awareness in the late 1960ââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s.
The starfish threat soon was deemed by experts to be unprecedented and on a scale that might damage the entire reef.
When it was discovered that the Tritonââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s trumpet shell was a natural predator of the starfish, it was immediately concluded that shell collectors were to blame fore the starfish outbreaks..
This theory was eventually discredited, but its serious consideration for some time reveals the profound ignorance of the experts.
Trumpets are never abundant enough anywhere to control an outbreak of starfish, and most of the reefs involved have never been subjected to shell collecting.
As for being unprecedented, earlier knowledge of reefs was simply too sparse for such a claim to be credible.
Despite all the dire predictions, Crown of Thorn population fluctuations continue to come and go on the reef, and infested reefs invariably recover within a few years.
In fact, it is entirely possible that starfish outbreaks even play a beneficial role in promoting coral diversity.
How so? You ask ââ"šÂ¬Ã‚¦.
Every year, tropical cyclones cross the reef and leave wide trails of massive coral destruction in their track.
After a few years, the fastest growing corals have repopulated such areas.
These branching and plate like species form dense thickets which prevent the slower growing, more massive species from recovering.
The former, however, are the preferred food of the Crown of Thorns, and when an outbreak occurs, they thin out the fast growing species and give the slower ones a chance to re-establish.
Oil Pollution
This bug-a-boo was first conjured up to oppose oil exploitation in the Great Barrier Reef. It is periodically revived to oppose cargo shipping through tropical waters, and also to whip up media drama whenever a vessel runs aground or a temporary slick is spotted in tropical waters.
Oil floats, coral doesnââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢t and oil has never caused extensive damage to reefs anywhere.
Oil is mainly a threat to sea birds, marine animals, and intertidal life.
It is not very toxic and follow up surveys of spills have repeatedly found that damage is never as extensive or as long lasting as initially predicted.
It has also been repeatedly found that clean-up efforts are not only ineffectual but actually result in worse damage than if nothing is done at all.
Still, under pressure from environmental activist, we persist to engage in hugely expensive and damaging clean-up charades, especially when an oil company can be made to pay the cost.
The ultimate worst-case scenario for a coral reef oil spill occurred in the Persian Gulf War in 1991 when Suddam Hussein ordered the release of 6 ââ"šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ 8 million tons of oil into the Gulf.
This was not only the worst spill of all time, but it occurred in an enclosed body of shallow water containing numerous reefs.
Greenpeace proclaimed it an ââ"šÂ¬Ã…"œunprecedented disasterââ"šÂ¬Ã‚Â
With no oil company to pay for clean-up, and even a bigger problem of there being over a thousand burning oil wells to deal with, nothing was done, save some extensive surveys.
The result was that in 4 months most of the oil had naturally degraded and within 4 years the areas were largely to fully recovered.
Damage to reefs was minimal and temporary. The greatest and longest lasting damage was restricted to the top of the intertidal zone. Even here, however, by 1995, recovery was rated as being 83-100% of the conditions which prevail on similar but unpolluted shores.
So ââ"šÂ¬Ã‚¦. Taking all of this into perspective ââ"šÂ¬Ã‚¦..
In the case of our coral harvesting the examples I have just given ring true and loud. For years we have been told by the experts that the coral reef is dying and should not be harvested. For years I have invited scientist from every part of the globe to visit our sites.
The few that actually came and did the work are now our closest allies who continue to write glowing reports about the sustainability of our harvest.
However, sometimes the opposite happens.
About 7 or 8 years ago the Fiji government, in conjunction with the World Wildlife Foundation and our industry, hired a reef scientist who actually worked on the reefs and did the job.
There was considerable concern over our harvest and the Fiji government simply did not know enough about it. Although they knew that they wanted to shut us down they had no proof that we were actually doing any harm.
It was the opinion of the Ministry (at the time) that if a well known reef scientist wrote a report condemning our industry that they could use this report as a tool to put a stop to our industry.
The report took several months to compile all the information, and do the surveys.
The industry in Fiji remained transparent and offered the scientist complete access to our records and dive sites and accompanied all of the operations on many dives.
When the report was finally submitted it clearly showed that our trade and collection posed no threat to the environment and added to the local economy.
As a result, the Fiji government decided to discredit the report and buried it at the bottom of a pile of reports never to be referenced or used again.
The report titled ââ"šÂ¬Ã…"œStement on Fiji Harvest Reportââ"šÂ¬Ã‚ (which appears on my web siteââ"šÂ¬Ã‚ was written by Ed Lovell who did a considerable part of the work on Charlie Verons well know book ââ"šÂ¬Ã…"œCorals of Australia and the Indo-Pacificââ"šÂ¬Ã‚Â.
Both Charlie and Ed are ââ"šÂ¬Ã…"œexpertsââ"šÂ¬Ã‚ who are the exception to the rule (among others such as the speaker after me ââ"šÂ¬Ã‚¦. Andy Bruckner and Bruce Carleson to name just a couple) that I was talking about who actually get in the water and do the work.
Another clear example took place in Fiji in the year 2000.
Fiji had a major bleaching event.
Over 90% of the east side of the main island and most of the tourist locations in the west lost their reef to bleaching. The experts blamed everything from the French testing nuclear warfare in Tahiti to Global warming.
They said our reefs would be lost for many generations to come and may never recover. It was horrible doom and gloom in the papers and in reports that circled the globe.
Of course our industry didnââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢t stand a chance against this kind of publicity.
Today, 5 years later, all of those same reefs that were documented as totally dead are now back to better that 90% full recovery. The ââ"šÂ¬Ã…"œexpertsââ"šÂ¬Ã‚ were wrong.
However, they did manage to scare off about 30% - 40% of the tourist for the next couple of years, when the Fiji economy relies on tourism for 85% of its revenue and almost shut down our industry worth about 40,000,000 annually.
Good show, give those experts a pat on the back for a job well done!
Luckily, my reefs were largely not effected but my competitor is shipping corals from those very dead reefs today and the studies show a very sustainable harvest well within the ecology of the reef.
Ecology, like economics, is holistic by nature, and not all effects are immediate or obvious. A balanced, sustainable use of a resource makes possible a healthy human ecology. Unnecessary restrictions on particular resources only puts more pressure on others and it is entirely possible that habitat destruction could occur.
Beyond the misuse of a valuable resource, the false claims of threats to the coral reef also entail a broader and an even more important problem; the misuse of science itself.
Modern environmentalism has become much more than simply a concern for a healthy environment. It has developed into a peculiar quasi-religious blend of new age nature worship, science, leftwing political activism, and anti-profit economics.
No reasonable person will deny that our exploding population, technology and consumption has an environmental effect, but, equally undeniable, humans are a part of the ecology of this planet. Everything we do or do not do has its effects and these may often be remote and unforeseen.
Nature is not perfect, but always in a state of flux. Human actions can improve and enlighten one to the beauty of nature, as well as degrade the abundance, diversity and conditions of life.
When looking at the problems we are facing today we must be realistic and observant of natural causes. When some problems turn out be not real, or less bad than feared, this must be acknowledged and investigated, not denied or denigrated.
There is no shortage of real problems. We have no need to manufacture imaginary ones.
Finally, the responsibility lies with you to share what you have learned from this wonderful hobby and to foster a better appreciation of life within the sea.
The knowledge we have learned in this hobby has already bridged many links into science as we all move forward together with a better understanding of such things as growth rates, temperature fluctuations, natural settlement and compatibility to name just a few.
We are essentially on a new horizon and truth, not hysteria, has never been more important for the future of our relationship with nature.
So I say to you,
Our hobby has the unique ability to share and learn from some of the most hidden (until now) secrets of nature. As we look forward we should all be proud of our accomplishments to foster and encourage a balanced and loving stewardship of our planet for the benefit of our generations to come.
