Sea Shepard turns its attention to our hobby

[Inklinkerman]

How did a thread about fish collection get onto the subject of World War II?:hmm4:

 

[RGBMatt]

We can discuss at length about responsible collecting but it seems to me that the collectors in Hawaii only rotate their collecting sites in response to diminished returns. There is nothing responsible about this. They are a business and collect as many fish and inverts as they possibly can during every collecting trip.

The claims of self-regulation by the collectors is all lip-service. As long as they are making a good living they care little for the fish stocks.

Er, do you actually know any of us? Those are some awfully personal statements to make about someone (I am a fish collector). It is true that we are businesses and need to earn a living from what we do. However, we also need to think in the long term - the resource needs to be sustained so that we and our children can continue to benefit from it. Being careless with the fish stocks makes no sense, and it isn't how most fishermen think. Sadly, the stereotype of greedy fishermen pillaging the ocean is something that demagogues like Bob are quick to exploit.

Let's just talk Hawaii then. It's estimated that there are less than 100 divers responsible for all of the commercial aquarium collection on the islands. Compare that to several thousand commercial and recreational fishing boats around the islands. I'm not sure how much more the Hawaiian food fish "slaughter" will be impacted if these folks become involved with it upon leaving collecting.

Not really. There are several thousand boats, but very few of them actually fish for reef fish full time - on this island only a couple dozen at most. If we were shut down, not all of us would go to other forms of fishing, but some of us would, and just adding one or two more boats would have a very large impact on the biomass of fish taken from the ocean.

The thing is, even on a very good day, the overall biomass I'm able to take from the ocean is very limited. On an average day I might catch 2 pounds of fish at most, and I can make a living off that. Fishing for the market, I'd have to catch about a hundred pounds a day to make ends meet. The difference is staggering! What's more, as a fish collector I'm taking mostly juveniles, which has far less effect on the population than the adults taken by other fisheries.

 

[blasterman789]

Sadly, the stereotype of greedy fishermen pillaging the ocean is something that demagogues like Bob are quick to exploit.

Yeah, lets ask a blue-fin tuna what they think.

Diatribe about the Sea Shephard and the Whale Wars idiots aside, open ocean fish stocks are under severe stress, and anybody who thinks it's a bunch of leftist propoganda needs to join the Darwin Award winners. This is a huge problem and it's going to get worse. When you start seeing Indonesian and Asian trawlers right off the international border of Hawaii with 50square mile nets what are you going to do? Send a destroyer out? Your Senator will already have been bought off by the lobbiests, so he won't help. What's the difference?

The guy from Norway makes a good point; we eat cows and don't treat them very good in slaughterhouses. It's all about proper management, which is the point.

Is the boutique fish trade properly managed? It's probably a mix, but the fact is a most wild captured fish don't make it to resellers alive. I know a lot of dealers and they'll admit this if you ask them. Everything in my tank is captive raised and traded. I refuse to buy reef-raped live-stock because it's just bad for the entire industry and the aquaculture industry is simply more viable and better business model all around.

 

[billsreef]

It's probably a mix, but the fact is a most wild captured fish don't make it to resellers alive. I know a lot of dealers and they'll admit this if you ask them.

They need to change their suppliers, drop the bad (cheap) ones they are currently using and switch to good suppliers that will get 95 to 100% of the livestock to the reseller alive and in good shape. And yes, good suppliers to indeed exist. The only reason bad ones exist is short sighted retailers and consumers that are more interested in the cheapest price, not the healthiest livestock.

BTW, as an official reminder, keep the politics and flames out of the discussion

 

[despot101]

The guy from Norway makes a good point; we eat cows and don't treat them very good in slaughterhouses. It's all about proper management, which is the point.

Yes we slaughter cattle....cattle that we raise. Cattle that would not have been born except to serve as a food source.

Althought I don't always agree with Sea Shepard, whaling is insane. They are illegally hunting a protected animal.

 

[tozzi]

They need to change their suppliers, drop the bad (cheap) ones they are currently using and switch to good suppliers that will get 95 to 100% of the livestock to the reseller alive and in good shape. And yes, good suppliers to indeed exist. The only reason bad ones exist is short sighted retailers and consumers that are more interested in the cheapest price, not the healthiest livestock.

BTW, as an official reminder, keep the politics and flames out of the discussion

Couldnt agree more with this. Sadly 2 of my lfs are perfect examples of this

 

[curlykid]

OMG!!!! these are the people who bleached the stores in the US and Australia! Lol, the guy who wrote it doesn't know crap. Anyone who donates should be ashamed.

 

[49.35 North]

All formal studies done in Hawaii show large decreases in ornamental fish biomass in collection areas and all come to the same conclusion: we have no idea what the impact is to the ecosystem due to these decreases.

I don't know about Hawaii but the article "Crawling to Collapse: Ecologically Unsound Ornamental Invertebrate Fisheries" http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0008413 says that the aquarium trade in invertebrates is threatening Florida reefs with collapse:

"A growing body of evidence supports the idea that removing grazers decreases the resilience of a reef ecosystem, thereby reducing its ability to withstand a phase-shift from a coral to an algal-dominated state as well as decreasing the potential for subsequent phase-shift reversals"

The authors use a little more temperate language than Sea Shepherd and their assertions are a lot better documented, but their conclusions aren't that much different.

But I agree with your point that there doesn't seem to be much research on the ecological impact of the aquarium trade, or on reef ecology in general for that matter - especially in developing countries. Anyone wanting to support reef research might want to think about the non-profit Coral Reef Research Foundation http://www.coralreefresearchfoundation.org/TheLab/aboutus.html (with which I have no association). They maintain a research facility in Palau.

 

[cortez marine]

selective focus

selective focus

I work with a village in Mexico that offers a perfect illustration of the difference between food fishing and tropical fishing.

The food fishers [ about 40 of them] average 40 kilos a day each or about 200 kilos a week of slow growing, adult snappers, basses, tunas and parrotfish.

The tropical fishers [ about 4 of them] average a kilo a day each or about 5 kilos a week of fast recruiting young omnivores and herbivores.

Any independant biologist can already read and forecast this to its scientific conclusion and see what the difference in impacts is.
The tropical fish guys are monitored, studied, regulated, restricted, checked and under the microscope with every transaction .
The food fish guys suffer a tenth of the attention.
I asked a gov't. biologist why this is and was told;
"Everyones been doing the food fish stuff for years. People want new subjects and variety for...especially where there are not to many researching the same thing."

To justify spending time on little jawfish instead of groupers one must amplify its importance. Justifying careers and salaries is a huge force behind the over-concentration on smaller subjects and smaller impacts.

Choosing to selectively focus on lesser, sustainable impacts whilst ignoring the obvious and undeniable heavy ones is token, dishonest, cowardly and academically corrupt. This "routinely reading it wrong" also doesn't do much to help the ocean very much at all.
Steve

 

[49.35 North]

Choosing to selectively focus on lesser, sustainable impacts whilst ignoring the obvious and undeniable heavy ones is token, dishonest, cowardly and academically corrupt. This "routinely reading it wrong" also doesn't do much to help the ocean very much at all.
Steve

I don't agree with the tactics Sea Shepherd uses, but to be accurate I don't think they're focusing on "lesser, sustainable impacts." Their website says they have seven campaigns, focused on blue fin tuna, dolphins, the Galapagos Islands, seals, sharks, whales and the Gulf oil spill. Personally I think seals are the marine equivalent of rats and responsible for the deaths of millions of baby cod, but from what I've been able to learn (mostly from the internet), the rest seem to me to be suffering from pretty heavy impacts from humans.

 

[cortez marine]

I ment the tropical fish thing they featured by Snorkle Bob.....and the skewed interest in tropical fish vs. food fish.
Steve

 

[shaithis13]

did not read the article, but i am familiar with sea shepherd and have some comments to throw in. its not one of their big focuses. an article here or a post there on other subjects does not mean everyone of them is a focus. 49.35 listed off for you what their real focuses are.
as far as the 99% number and the subject of banning...working in the retail aspect, i would agree that the number of losses is higher than most think (wordwide not hawaii specifically). the average keeper expects to buy their fish and see very little if any loss, the average retailer expects to have to absorb losses on each shipment, the average wholesaler expects to absorb an even higher number of losses on each shipment. each step up the ladder there are more losses. of course some do better for various reasons but some do worse as well and that does count. do they really expect a ban? maybe, maybe not. just like in management, sometimes you set targets or goals very high, knowing you'll get somewhere below. but if you set the goal at what you really expect, you'll often get even less than that. sometimes to get a foot you have to ask for a meter. perhaps they just hope to get more attention to it and maybe closer regulation.

its great that there are collectors like the one that posted here who understands his long term impact but theyre not all like that. i have a customer that likes big angels. he asks me to special order one for him several months ago. my vendor tells me it will take awhile because there collectors will not take angels that size if there is only a pair of them where they collect because those are the source of all the smaller ones in the area. to me thats fantastic. but then my customer goes to another shop that uses a different vendor and in a month hes got 5 very large angels from them cuz if they see them, theyll take them regardless of circumstances.

i dont think there should be a ban but there should be more regulation. anyone claiming theres no impact from the aquarium trade is blind. the food trade is a seperate conversation. you cant say ignore the problem we're talking about because theres a bigger problem over there. theyre all problems and should all be worked on.

 

[coralnut99]

I work with a village in Mexico that offers a perfect illustration of the difference between food fishing and tropical fishing.

The food fishers [ about 40 of them] average 40 kilos a day each or about 200 kilos a week of slow growing, adult snappers, basses, tunas and parrotfish.

The tropical fishers [ about 4 of them] average a kilo a day each or about 5 kilos a week of fast recruiting young omnivores and herbivores.

Any independant biologist can already read and forecast this to its scientific conclusion and see what the difference in impacts is.
The tropical fish guys are monitored, studied, regulated, restricted, checked and under the microscope with every transaction .
The food fish guys suffer a tenth of the attention.
I asked a gov't. biologist why this is and was told;
"Everyones been doing the food fish stuff for years. People want new subjects and variety for...especially where there are not to many researching the same thing."

To justify spending time on little jawfish instead of groupers one must amplify its importance. Justifying careers and salaries is a huge force behind the over-concentration on smaller subjects and smaller impacts.

Choosing to selectively focus on lesser, sustainable impacts whilst ignoring the obvious and undeniable heavy ones is token, dishonest, cowardly and academically corrupt. This "routinely reading it wrong" also doesn't do much to help the ocean very much at all.
Steve

Fwiw, I thought this was very well written.

 

[poolkeeper1]

Anything the Gov't gets involved in will just be regulated for TAX purposes, The best thing is leave them out of any regulation. If you think this guy is clueless then wait until some gung hoe Congressmen gets his nose in our hobby. JMO
Bill

 

[Luiz Rocha]

I find it interesting that they pick Hawaii. If there is one place in the planet where I think collection of aquarium fish is sustainable in a long term is in Hawaii. Numerous studies have been done trying to detect declines in the most commercial of all Hawaiian species (the yellow tang) and those studies found that while there is a decline, that decline is not significant (and not nearly as high as declines we see in food species).

Reef fish collection in Hawaii is one of the best regulated/monitored in the industry. In addition, approximately 70% of the populations of ALL Hawaiian reef fishes is 100% protected because they fall within the Northwest Hawaiian Islands marine protected area (and there is absolutely no pouching there). So, even if you think of a worst case scenario situation where all yellow tang are completely extirpated from the main Hawaiian islands, the majority of its population would still be safe.

 

[cortez marine]

Well said Luis.

Was it Einstien who said;

"When the facts change...I change my opinion.
What do you do sir?"

I think its really sad to see the environmental movement become so pop, trendy and shallow.
So much so that anyone feeling guilty of not ever doing anything for the environment in real life will over-correct and compensate with extreme positions.
Steve
Do these folks of the more theatrical bent ever change opinion based on reason?
I think they might if the career and the ego are not too heaviliy invested.

 

[HippieSmell]

Anything the Gov't gets involved in will just be regulated for TAX purposes, The best thing is leave them out of any regulation. If you think this guy is clueless then wait until some gung hoe Congressmen gets his nose in our hobby. JMO
Bill

I think the only way to make money off of taxes is to tax. Regulation does not equal taxes.

I think its really sad to see the environmental movement become so pop, trendy and shallow.

That's a pretty bold blanket statement. Pop and trendy is fine with me, that means it's at the forefront where it should be. Shallow though? Maybe the individual person is shallow if they think CF bulbs are going to save the world, but environmentalism isn't shallow.

 

[coralnut99]

When you write stuff like old "Bob" did, that simply throw out numbers as "fact".........well I can't find a better example of shallow. I would've thrown in a dash of sensationalism as well.

Anybody remember Bob? He wrote that thing that started this thread?

 

[thebanker]

Don't worry, the scientific community doesn't consider "Snorkel Bob" to be a leading expert in, well, anything.

Maybe snorkels. :lmao:

 

[cortez marine]

Hey,
I ment only the Snorkle Bob thing and the ones who take such hype under the guise of "environmental concern" seriously.
Steve