Responsibly wild caught vs. tank raised?

[cortez marine]

Wait a second I just noticed your occupation reads that you are a collector, importer. So you are saying if sometime in the near future most of marine aquarium livestock is tank raised and aqua cultured this is what you plan to do...

Now thats funny.
Having worked in the Philippines and Indonesia, Tonga and Mexico for half my life, I'm telling you what actually will and does happen.
You must see the difference between an experienced observation of poor fisherfolk cultures and my own comfortable 'Western' attitude.

 

[GreshamH]

I believe that the only way we have a say in the reefs' future is to continue to purchase reef products, but require that they are responsibly caught. Without reefkeepers the reefs are awfully useful with which to pave roads. If you think 3rd world people won't grind them up for a bite of food, you're wrong. The only way we have a say is to pay, and pay well, for responsibly harvested stock.

There's one person in this world that had done far more then any others on the subject of responibly harvested stock, and that's Steve Robinson aka Cortez Marine. He's the original outer of the cyanide trade (FAMA articles from 82' - 84') and did so on his own dime. He saw a problem and has since offerred solutions. He conducted the first net trainings and those divers are some of the best/most highly sought after in the world. He's conducted his business on the highest morals and ethics I have personally ever seen.

He's the biggest fountain of knowledge on the subject and frankly, most people are thirsty, even if they don't know it yet

 

[CodeBlue]

I must be confused. If the 3rd world is selling live rock for $6000 to 8000 insted of the $60 to 80 per ton, does that mean they stopped building roads?

 

[macman7010]

Wow, didnt know that. Since I was born in '81 - 82 and 84 are kind of before my day I guess. Looks like I still have a lot to learn about the hobby though and I have never heard of Steve Robinson but can sure admire your work cortez marine.

It is too bad there are literally cultures out there that for financial needs have to destroy our natural enviroment. People are not aware how valuable coral reef systems are, and how volitile they are to human and natural interaction. Im glad you have done what you have cortez as I am someone who believes through ethical and moral guidelines and intellegent training we can both sustain a healthy marine hobby and a healthy natural reef eco-system.

Likely we will find as the hobby progresses that a mix for both tank raised stock and wild captures (responsibly) exists. As more common marine species are being bred in captivity we find that people still desire to keep the more exotic beauties and I dont think we are anywhere near a day when tangs and other exotics will be bred in captivity.

I was unaware that fisher cultures acted so desperatly but I guess desperate people will take such measures when the trade that supplies them with food diminishes.

Although my opinon as an aquarist is that tank raised and tank bred specimins will prove to be better livestock than thier wild caught brethern. This is simple science really considering tank bred and raised animals are more adapt to take prepared foods, live in a variety of captive conditions, and do not have the rigorous shipping stress thier wild caught cousins do.

 

[gilpster]

As a european reading reefcentral it is telling that the opinion that global warming is not due to carbon emissions still carries weight in america and is often extolled on this board. America really is the only country to doubt that vast amount of evidence presented by the scientific community, and even in america the body of scientific opinon is in a minority - but these scientists hold key positions of influence in american government.

The international Panel on Climate Change agreed that global warming was a real phenomenon with only america refusing to accept the evidence.

In October, 2000 at the Ninth International Coral Reef Symposium, held on the island of Bali, researchers warned that...
"Coral reefs around the Maldives and Seychelles islands in the Indian Ocean have taken the brunt of warming seas, as 90% of these corals have been killed over the past two years." (sic)

W Bush's veto of the kyoto protocol was the original catalyst that caused his unpopularity in europe.

Anyway, to return to the arguement above, I think that ecosystems and species as a whole are more important that individual animals. I think to place high value on an individual fish or coral (!) is internally inconsistant with eating fish, for example. It it difficult to say the life of a $15 tank bred clown matters while eating cod and chips.

My tank contains only tank bred fish and coral frags. It doesn't have any particularly exotic species, but then i've not had a fish death in five years either.

kenneth

i love you all

 

[CodeBlue]

W Bush's veto of the kyoto protocol was the original catalyst that caused his unpopularity in europe

President Bush did not veto the Kyoto accord. It was Prsident Clinton and a 98-0 no vote in our Senate. The only one in our government pushing for it was the inventor of the internet Al Gore.

When I was growing up I heard of the coming ice age. I am curious why we think that anything we do can change the environment. The earth goes through cycles of hot and cold. There are many scientist who say we are below the average and still coming out of an ice age.

 

[gilpster]

okay perhaps i'm getting confused with the alaskan pipeline thing.

Another reply to my post could be that the only reponsible thing to do would be to not have a tank at all. This nullifies all energy pressures from the halides, and manufacturing resources, as well as collection of subjects from the wild. So it is diificult for any marine aquarist to take the moral high ground.

to say that we can't influence the world seems a little fatalistic.

 

[MiddletonMark]

The earth goes through cycles of hot and cold. There are many scientist who say we are below the average and still coming out of an ice age.

Do a little search on short term variations and rapid changes in the climate. Try Europe's `mini-ice-age' a few hundred years ago.

 

[Care_52]

I think...

I think...

i have to agree with maddyfish

 

[GreshamH]

As a european reading reefcentral it is telling that the opinion that global warming is not due to carbon emissions still carries weight in america and is often extolled on this board. America really is the only country to doubt that vast amount of evidence presented by the scientific community, and even in america the body of scientific opinon is in a minority - but these scientists hold key positions of influence in american government.

The international Panel on Climate Change agreed that global warming was a real phenomenon with only america refusing to accept the evidence.

In October, 2000 at the Ninth International Coral Reef Symposium, held on the island of Bali, researchers warned that...
"Coral reefs around the Maldives and Seychelles islands in the Indian Ocean have taken the brunt of warming seas, as 90% of these corals have been killed over the past two years." (sic)

W Bush's veto of the kyoto protocol was the original catalyst that caused his unpopularity in europe.

Anyway, to return to the arguement above, I think that ecosystems and species as a whole are more important that individual animals. I think to place high value on an individual fish or coral (!) is internally inconsistant with eating fish, for example. It it difficult to say the life of a $15 tank bred clown matters while eating cod and chips.

My tank contains only tank bred fish and coral frags. It doesn't have any particularly exotic species, but then i've not had a fish death in five years either.

kenneth

i love you all

Wow, nice blanket statement about Americans. FWIW, there's PLENTY of Americans that feel just like you Heck, many of us didn't vote Bush any of the times

Other then that, love your post

Costa Rica used to have reefs, but due to one giant event (reef uplift/killed most of their pacific ocean reefs) and their intense run off problem (banana farming mainly) , they really no longer have any reefs (both side now). Maybe Steve (Cortez Marine) will chime in here and give his details from his research there a bit back.

 

[cortez marine]

Bush stole it...fair and square

Bush stole it...fair and square

GRESHAM WROTE;
"many of us didn't vote Bush any of the times ".

Actually most of us didn't vote for him the first time and may not have the second.
Like the Panama canal. It was stolen fair and square.


Yes, Costa Rica, the Switzerland of the Americas allowed the Banana companies to send the topsoil [ silt ] near the Atlantic coast into the coast effectively wiping out their reefs and their National coral park called Cauhita.
The stands of dead elkhorn , staghorn etc. were everywhere I surveyed for 6 months.
What a tragedy.
Steve

 

[macman7010]

cortez marine,

I wondered what your opinion on deep water reefs are. I recently read an article that a deep water reef was found somewhere off the coast of Australia. Supposodly from various lietature I have read deep water corals are hardier aquarium specimins since they can accept less light variants.

I would argue this though because my assumption would be that deep water corals would prefer cooler tempatures and need feedings of photo or zoo plankton on a regular basis. Do you have any ideas about that?

 

[cortez marine]

No,
I don't know anything about em except what I read.
Book knowledge is different then the other kind.
Steve

 

[Buckeye ME]

You guys get the political crap out of your system yet? Most people have grown up and come to tolerate losing.

 

[macman7010]

i would make my 2 cents on politics known but unless it directly relates to something coral reef tank related than on here my mouth remains closed.

 

[MiddletonMark]

Yup, a certain way to close the thread.

There's enough silly strife on any board without adding to it. We could probably talk about the science of global climate, but once you get politics involved then it crosses the line into forbidden discussion.

Our fish, corals don't care who we voted for. Such discussions have nothing to do with the reef hobby, and such distinctions separate us from learning the most we can from each other to keep our livestock healthy and long-lived in our care.

 

[MCary]

There seems to be alot of ignorance on this thread. I am not disparaging. I mean lack of knowledge not stupidity. I always find that people opinions based on incomplete or second hand knowledge facinating. Global warming is my favorite. The theory is incredibly complex, yet every movie star, politician, and clown has an opinion on it. Just so you can sleep tonight let me tell you one thing. Global warming theory is a computer projection telling what might happen in the future. Nearest estimates are 50 years before we should expect to see any effect. And BTW, if we signed the Kyoto Accords and followed all guidelines it would be 54 years. Although global temperatures have risen since the 1970's, remember the 1970's were a record cold decade. Taken since 1930's the temperature has actually fallen. Sea levels and sea temps have not risen. Coral reefs are being destroyed by natural means, over harvesting, boat traffic, and polluted runoff but not global warming. I am not aying global warming is not a real possibility. Like I said, its very complex and I'm no expert. But it hasn't happened yet.

Code Blue and Buckeye went mostly ignored, but they have a good point. Its only a fish. They taste good as sticks. Sustainable harvest of ornamental species are good for many third world countries. It provides income. The biggest threat to the environment is poverty. Think about Bosnia, once a beautiful country that hosted the winter olympics, once the government and thus the economy fell they stripped the mountains for firewood.

Marine fish produce larva by the millions. Many times available habitat plays a much bigger role on fish numbers than harvesting. There are more lobsters in the waters off Maine than ever. The reason has been determined to be harvesting. The more they take the more they have. There is also overharvesting. I'm just saying, don't thing that blanket statements made out of ignorance makes you some kind of uberprotector of the environment. The truth is never on the fringes, left or right.

Mike

 

[kirei]

As per your post above MCary, you obviously also have an opinion on global warming, and I am sure you don't know all the facts about it either. I think everyone has an opinion on global warming... so is your issue with people promoting their opinion then? Even if global warming doesn't exist, or if it is a model 50 years down the road, I still think there is no argument that can rightfully say pollution is good and we shouldn't try to reduce it. Now of course there is a balance between the positive effects of mass production and consumption and the ultility generated by such actions, vs. the ultility of having a clean space. Even if pollution is not the cause of global warmiing and it is 100% cyclical, pollution is the cause of many other urban problems, especially health related. Birth defects, cancers, respiratory illness, all of these have strong ties to pollution. The kyoto protocols was one of the best attempts at curbing pollution for the simple fact that it created an economic free market for pollution, it attached a cost to pollution but allowed that cost to flow freely so that those who could most easily reduce pollution would while selling of their quota to those who would have more difficulty, thus it would help to force industries as a whole to adhere to set quotas, while at the same time allowing the pollution quotas to be assigned at their economic maximization.

And yes it is about habitat, and balance. I remember in Vancouver when they decided to kill off all the wolves in Banf because of public danger they ended up letting the deer population go unchecked by predators and the town was overrun by deer, which are nice until they start to overtake your town for garbage. So a better understanding of the environement and the effects we have on it are important, but this costs money. Where is that money coming from? People will only pay if they care, lots of people will only care if it directly effects them, so global warming propaganda (i use this in an academic sense, not as a word with negative connotation) helps to drive funds (rightly or wrongly) into these types of research. Of course who is to say that this is where the money should go?

You are right the truth is never found in the poles, but elements of the truth are usually found there. And radical left or right wing ideas which challenge the status quo are important in terms of generating interest. There is no truth found in the centre either, truth is found by a unification of these people and an open discussion of their view points. Everyone is ignorant, and everyone lacks knowledge in some area or another, only by matching my strengths to your weakness and vice versa is truth found or progress made. The biggest problem I see nowadays is a lack of discussion between the left and the right, between art and science, between business and environment.

 

[MCary]

I don't have a position on global warming. Global warming is a scientific hypothesis not a political campaign. Science doesn't require an opinion or position. I read the data as it comes out and say to myself "Self, that sure is interesting" I was only responding to those that are attributing natural ocurances to a phenomenon that hasn't occured yet.

Responding to the rest of your post. The Kyoto protocols are a hatchet job on inductrialized nations especially the US. Its recomendations would cost trillions and only delay global warming based on the current madel 4 years. The devestion to the economies or the alternate good that could be done with that money would have effects that would last decades not 4 years. Research this with an open mind and see if you feel the same afterwards.

Pollution is bad, I agree. At what point are atmospheric emmissions and economic and survival needs in balance? Burning wood in a fireplace emits CO2. Faced with the delimma, do you risk raising the planets temp a degree or freeze to death. To every point there is a counter point.

Your story about Banf begs a question. Do you assume that the irradication of the wolf population is the cause of the increased deer populaiton or is there concrete imperical evidence? Coyotes main diet in the spring is fawns. Coyote populations drop by over 60% when wolves were put in Yellowstone park because wolves kill them. I know there are coyotes in Banf because I live right across the border and have been there many times. So could it be that removal of one predator was replaced by another? Could it be that deer populations are increased by mild winters for the last few years. Increased agriculture providing more food for them and the reduction of sport hunting? Or is it just the wolves. You could be right and I might be way off, but I'm going to find out before I tell someone else.

Your right about driving funds into research. It is difficult to get funding for science these days. That's why the word "crisis" is used alot and why something sexy has to be presented like "life on Mars". no-one is going to give money to see a picture of a red rock. While this might be necessary to get the money, I still don't like being led or lied to.

Science does not apply to your last paragraph. Scientific truth is not found through comprimise or consensus. It is what it is.

Mike

 

[Esper]

the absolute bottom line is that the reefs are as undisturbed as possible.

if people kill cheap tank-raised or aquacultured fish, so be it. i mourn the loss, but the net effect on the planet is zero.