Responsibly wild caught vs. tank raised?

[knowse]

No, the bottom line is that if............our hobby goes strictly maricultured.....the poor fisher folks are left with nothing to make a living. They'll have to turn to banana or pineapple farming, forest havesting for teak and mahogony wood or reef blasting for road building material. Which would case massive runoff, which kills reefs and they would still be hungry. These people can't go to the supermarket to buy canned goods or frozen meats. Their main source of protein comes from the fish they catch. I guess they could always start a chicken ranch for Tyson foods.

Steve, do you remember what their annual income was? Something equivelent to $150 US a year? I'd like to see some westerners live off of that. If you've never been there, you haven't a freaking clue as to how they live. If their lucky, they might have some cardboard for the roof of their bamboo house, which is probably only one room.

I remember, buying a puppy for 5 peso's ($2.50 US) that was destined to be someone's dinner and that was in Manila over 30 years ago. I never once saw a stray dog or cat or large rat for that matter roaming the streets. I won't get into the other things that I saw, but will say that it wasn't pretty. DO NOT relate to them as you would a westerner, you can't even put them in the same class as the homeless guy that lives under the bridge. You CAN relate to them as a social group with nothing left to loose, and then you might understand why it's important to support them.

 

[dmbrown]

Well more clowns have died yes....but more have also lived because of this thriving market. So if yo try to look at the greater good, more fish have lived......not died in this economic boom,

 

[maddyfish]

Knowse- I think you have stated what I was trying to say very well. I do think that it takes a visit to Indonesia, or the Philippines, or one of those type places to understand the desparation of these people. Every captive bred clown sold is one less taken off the reef, is less money in collectors hands, and puts the reef one step closer to being chopped up for concrete.

 

[ruppel]

This is an interesting discussion.

One problem I've found in this hobby is deciding how to proceed with the least environmental impact. From my perspective, I can know with certainty that buying aquacultured fish and corals has had no direct impact on any coral reef anywhere. Now, the arguments about the economic impact are beyond my knowledge. And while I have no doubt that a diminishing trade in ornamental fish will have an impact on poor people and poor economies, it seems that the speculation on the repercussions, while quite feasible, is still speculation.

I agree that environmentally sound collection practices is probably the best of both worlds, but it is nearly impossible for me, from my computer, land-locked in Indiana, to truly assess whether wild caught species have been collected responsibly. Of course, everyone selling them will say that they only buy fish caught responsibly, and they may even believe that it's true, but truly enviornmentally-conscious collection requires a great deal of effort and education to practice effectively--at least it seems that way to me. I had to really dig to find which corals were likely to be unaffected by collection. So, I tend to think that many poor, uneducated collectors really don't have any idea whether what they do affects the reef. Not all, to be sure, but I really don't have any way of assessing that.

So, anyway...that's my long-winded way of saying I feel sort of "environmentally safer" buying aquacultured organisms than wild caught.

 

[MCary]

The only true way to avoid impact if there is any is to not go into the hobby. Even if you use only aquacultured specimens you contribute to the popularity keeping businesses thriving and more newbie's entering. Newbie's without the knowledge and/or conscience you have. I have the same discussion with my liberal pilot friends who rale about fuel and SUV's as they burn 8 gallons per hour in their planes. Kind of a "It's not me, its them" mentality. I definately commend people's responsible use of resources and hope you continue. Don't buy that Moorish Idol or that Goniopora. Good for you. But if the reef hobby has an environmental impact, the only way for you not to contribute to it, is to not get into the hobby. That's just the way it is.

 

[mkirda]

Why do we have to give them value? They will exist without human demand on their inhabitants, that's what matters. The value is they are still there to be enjoyed for viewing.

Are you claiming 3rd world countries benefit economically from us, and that is a reason to harvest wild animals?

What a bunch of prattle...

We are consumers. We are the market. We buy fish. Where do you think the fish come from? The store? They come from the REEF, which is located in mostly third world countries. OF COURSE the collectors benefit economically from us. If there was no market, they wouldn't bother collecting marine ornamentals.

This is stuff you learn in Econ 100 on the first day of class.

It is darn-right frustrating reading this garbage, all Western-biased, anti-fishermen. Is this how low Responsible Reefkeeping aspires to be? An inane debate on how expensive fish should be? The market determines the price, all socialist notions aside. Western land-based aquaculture does the opposite of 'saving the reef'. It teachs the fishermen that Westerners are liars, and that we don't really value the reef, so why should they?

Ya'all need to get the the Philippines or Indonesia and speak to a few of the collectors. It would be a real eye-opener.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[mkirda]

Steve, do you remember what their annual income was? Something equivelent to $150 US a year? I'd like to see some westerners live off of that. If you've never been there, you haven't a freaking clue as to how they live. If their lucky, they might have some cardboard for the roof of their bamboo house, which is probably only one room.

How about a thatched roof, without any walls? Sleeping on the ground? Saw plenty of those off in the provinces in the Philippines just a couple weeks back...

They would have to earn more than that now, unless they were strictly subsistance farmers. Fishermen couldn't earn that little and survive.

Mike

 

[mkirda]

But if the reef hobby has an environmental impact, the only way for you not to contribute to it, is to not get into the hobby. That's just the way it is.

Not necessarily. You could set up wind generators and solar panels and run a responsible reef using strictly renewable power. This would eliminate any impacts.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[MCary]

No Mike, probably not. Leaving aside that it takes more energy to manufacture a windmill or solar panel than the equipment will ever generate, someone would come to your house and say "I gotta get me one of those" then he might set one up without the renewable power and you would be indirectly responsible. In other words, adding to the popularity of the hobby increases the resources used by the hobby.

 

[ruppel]

What a bunch of prattle...

We are consumers. We are the market. We buy fish. Where do you think the fish come from? The store? They come from the REEF, which is located in mostly third world countries. OF COURSE the collectors benefit economically from us. If there was no market, they wouldn't bother collecting marine ornamentals.

This is stuff you learn in Econ 100 on the first day of class.

It is darn-right frustrating reading this garbage, all Western-biased, anti-fishermen. Is this how low Responsible Reefkeeping aspires to be? An inane debate on how expensive fish should be? The market determines the price, all socialist notions aside. Western land-based aquaculture does the opposite of 'saving the reef'. It teachs the fishermen that Westerners are liars, and that we don't really value the reef, so why should they?

Ya'all need to get the the Philippines or Indonesia and speak to a few of the collectors. It would be a real eye-opener.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

I guess the way I "value" the reef is not economically. Do you mean to say that the only value that locals place on a reef is the aquarium trade? If it weren't for that, they'd just "plow it under," so to speak? There's absolutely nobody that would protect the reef for its own right, but only as a continued money-making opportunity?

That's sad

 

[mkirda]

I guess the way I "value" the reef is not economically. Do you mean to say that the only value that locals place on a reef is the aquarium trade? If it weren't for that, they'd just "plow it under," so to speak? There's absolutely nobody that would protect the reef for its own right, but only as a continued money-making opportunity?

That's sad

Sad from the Western Feel-good Let's Save The Reefs mentality maybe...

The fishermen aren't like that. They've barely got a pot to **** in. The reef itself is sort of like a forest to farmers. Slash and burn, baby!

The reef itself is valued only for what it can put on the table. Food. Or occasionally coral rock, you know it as LIVE ROCK, usually used as a base for fences, piers, or breakwaters.

This is what I mean - This is my point here. Westerners are so far removed from the reality that faces 90% of the population in the Philippines that they cannot even fathom the fact that people may not value the reef for the reef's sake. The reef is a resource to be exploited, period. You use it for food, or for earning money. Or both, if you are lucky. If you are really lucky, you might be able to earn enough so that your children can make it through elementary school before they have to start earning their own keep.

Protecting the reef for the reefs sake is a great and noble notion.

The fisherman might even agree with you if that's what he thought you wanted to hear. All the while he'd really be thinking though... Where is the next meal for my family coming from? Maybe I should hit that nice area over off the next island...

Sorry if the reality is too bleak for ya'll.
But that is the way it is.
If your only choice of employment is living off the sea or starvation... You go with the sea.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[eldudeereno]

ie well i c what people say but id rather tank breed than wreck the reefs people just need to learn what there doin

 

[mkirda]

ie well i c what people say but id rather tank breed than wreck the reefs people just need to learn what there doin

And if learning what they are doing includes feel-good measures that actually wreck the reef rather than save it, then what?

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[MCary]

Right Mike. Eldudeereno, your statement is correct if you accept the premise its built on. That buying tank bred will save the reef. But what if the aquarium trade saves the reef. Who stopped and reversed the decline of migratory waterfowl? Duck hunters, go figure. The people killing the ducks, saved the ducks. Same for reefs? I don't know, but maybe something to ponder.

 

[cortez marine]

duck stamps

duck stamps

Saving ducks that no one else wanted to kill was a much easier problem to solve.
Save the vital habitat and the ducks take care of themselves.

Duck stamps on hunting liscenses to set aside money for this was understood and accepted and became a part of an AMERICAN way of duck hunting. If the money were purely voluntary...it would have been very different.
A mandatory liscense to keep fish??? Sure...then such a stamp could be created.
If such a scheme could be achieved thru S.E. Asian fish supplies coming from a few hundred villages and distributed via another 50 or so competitive exporters...that would be neat trick.
Then the real challenge would be to keep the money going to the actual reef efforts and not perks, plane rides, per diems, hotels, junkets, office expenses and salaries in the 6 figure range.
We already have this type "saving the reefs".
The administration of the Duck stamp money was much, much more wisely and honestly spent and was a shining example.
I wish it could be done with our little problem.




Steve

 

[MCary]

But what about Ducks Unlimited, They're a private group saving ducks.

 

[GreshamH]

To shoot later, but never mind that

 

[MCary]

Exactly what I'm saying. Those that use the resource are best at protecting the resource, motivations aside.

 

[GreshamH]

Glad I could make your point for you I fully agree BTW

 

[cortez marine]

DUCK BUDGET

DUCK BUDGET

Ducks Unlimited raised a wonderful budget of 180,000,000.00 this past year.
Since their inception they have gone thru 2 billion.
All the cyanide fishers in the world could be trained, converted and supervised to insure that the lessons take would not reach near a single million.

If hobbyists and dealers ever linked the resource management questions to their actual buying behaviour we'd have something...but our consumers do not see it that way at all save but a few.
The only attempt to link a ' voluntary' box charge of imported fish to support "conservation" is the one that MACs associate MAMTI wants.
Then again, most of the money raised would just go to their bureaucracies...as it always has.
Now, if all hobyists had to pay to play with fish....there would be a huge budget generated to be sure.
Ducks ain't fish but I'm envious of what the duck people have done.
Steve