What do you do to help the reef?

[vitz]

50-100 yrs??!!! lol-that's WAAAAY too generous a timeline.

try closer to 20-30, given only the present rate of decline, and assuming an immediate cessation of all CO2 emissions planetwide. the coral reefs worldwide have basically been given the death sentence already, it's just a q of how much faster the demise given the accelerating and 'newly developing' (e.g. methane release from the now thawing permafrost in the arctic regions) feedback loops we've now started due to colossally high CO2 levels we've produced. the rate of the reefs' decay will only speed up over the 'near future', as the 'developing world' pollutes more as a consequence of said development.

i'd suggest subscribing to NOAA's coral-list, if anyone wants to get aware of the real time developments re: climate change's effects on coral reefs, and what the top reef scientists are saying/observing factually, without populist armchair science 'debates'

and if ANY of the posters here drive a car, or use electricity,plastics, fertilizer, etc., etc., your well intended efforts to 'help the reef' are really nothing but a useless gesture that may make you feel a bit better, but accomplish nothing to mitigate the damage you're causing by your very lifestyle/mode of living, unfortunately

all of the collective 'drop in a bucket' contributions of well meaning individuals pale in comparison to the thousands upon thousands of garbage spewing factories/refineries/smokestacks/combustion engines/etc planet wide, to say nothing of the other toxic environmental poisons we release on a massive scale into the environment (pcb's, mercury, etc) every second.

save your money and time- making your carbon footprint as small as possible, and removing toxic chemical use from your lifestyle and culture is really the only meaningful contribution one can make when it comes to taking action to attempt 'saving the reefs'. and it has to happen EVERYWHERE, not just in the u.s.

anything else is feely goody window dressing

in less than 2 generations there will most likely be no more tuna (certainly there won't be any that are considered safe to eat- some tuna species, if not all, and many other apex predator fish are already so full of mercury you shouldn't be eating them at all, e.g.)

 

[vitz]

need superman to turn time back ....

if no superman, then earth will age, and as it ages, things change. strong will adapt and survive, and the less strong might be out of luck.... unless they can change.

as mentioned above, corals and fish have shown to be able to adapt to the changes.... the millions of years that we were not around ... I think its rather selfish to think we would have such effects on such old and mature system ... 70 % of earth is water, which means we are nothing compared to it all ... so we wont be able to change anything, good or bad.

surface temp rises ? corals will adapt to lower light and grow deeper ... look at all the limestone islands and .... they were once a coral reef !imagine if we were around at those times ? we would be all worried that we are drinking too much and draining the oceans lol we would try to "solve" evolution of earth, which would not be that smart ... same thing here iMHO. we are just tooooo small and live way too short to get to know the bigger picture.


imagine life of an organism that lives for 1 second, in our reef tanks. each wave produced by MP40 would mean a life time of drought, or flood for that organism . it lives less than duration of a "wave". thats how we are too ... we are looking at a very small window of time and space and trying to guess everything.

JMHO,

how long does it take for a coral to 'adapt' to deeper water/lower light ?

what happens to the entire coral ecosystem while this is happening ?

how is the age alone of any environmental system even relevant to how easily it can be disrupted ?

the mere idea of assuming we can't grasp a bigger picture is ludicrous. you don't think we have a better understanding of the 'bigger pictures' of the natural world, the solar system, moon, universe, oceans, climate dynamics than we did 100 yrs. ago ?

nothing personal, but your post is so full of ignorance of how things really work in the natural world, how we've progressed in our understanding of it, and the issue(S) at hand that it truly saddens me

 

[billsreef]

in less than 2 generations there will most likely be no more tuna (certainly there won't be any that are considered safe to eat- some tuna species, if not all, and many other apex predator fish are already so full of mercury you shouldn't be eating them at all, e.g.)

Just yesterday a grad student (fisheries biology) was telling me about this big news of a 600lb Blue Fin Tuna being caught. He was amazed when I told him 20 some odd years ago that small of a Tuna wouldn't have made the news. The true giant tuna (1,000lbs) are a thing of the past. Truly a big decline, especially when you consider the loss of fecundity that goes with the loss of the big fish.

 

[vitz]

Just yesterday a grad student (fisheries biology) was telling me about this big news of a 600lb Blue Fin Tuna being caught. He was amazed when I told him 20 some odd years ago that small of a Tuna wouldn't have made the news. The true giant tuna (1,000lbs) are a thing of the past. Truly a big decline, especially when you consider the loss of fecundity that goes with the loss of the big fish.

http://www.collapsingintoconsciousn...r-days-of-eating-pacific-ocean-fish-are-over/

and there's also things like the above we now need to consider

 

[Phixer]

Interesting discussion and we have a responsibility not to cause further harm or damage to the environment we live in.

Many think it but few say it. Considering each person is only on this planet for a very short time I would rather live for today the way I want too than hope for tomorrow living a restrained life because the "yellow belly sap sucker" is endangered. I personally dont care what happens after Im gone as there is too much factual probability otherwise, natural disasters, comets etc... Darwin was right.

 

[Peter Eichler]

http://www.collapsingintoconsciousn...r-days-of-eating-pacific-ocean-fish-are-over/

and there's also things like the above we now need to consider

Holy pseudoscience... I'm so tired of people with an agenda manipulating and misrepresenting information. I have not seen information from a single credible source that radiation levels in fish are approaching levels anywhere near dangerous. The test results I've seen for foods absolutely have some of the radioactive compounds mentioned in the article. What they fail to mention is the level these compounds are found at. From what I've seen you get more radiation exposure from walking down an average city street that you would by consuming many servings of these foods. Perhaps seafood is different from agricultural products, but I somehow doubt it.

 

[Allmost]

how long does it take for a coral to 'adapt' to deeper water/lower light ?

what happens to the entire coral ecosystem while this is happening ?

how is the age alone of any environmental system even relevant to how easily it can be disrupted ?

the mere idea of assuming we can't grasp a bigger picture is ludicrous. you don't think we have a better understanding of the 'bigger pictures' of the natural world, the solar system, moon, universe, oceans, climate dynamics than we did 100 yrs. ago ?

nothing personal, but your post is so full of ignorance of how things really work in the natural world, how we've progressed in our understanding of it, and the issue(S) at hand that it truly saddens me

I'll just tell a story.

imagine an yo-yo. we have all played with one. now imagine an Ant on the floor, right under where I am playing with my "yo-yo"

the Ant looks up, sees a huge sphere coming for it. it gathers its friends and family to leave ... probably screaming "its coming to kill us all" and right at that time, the yo-yo bounces back up and ....

the Ant simply was too small to understand and see the whole picture

Earth has gone through Ice ages, thats a fact right ? and there are still fish and corals in the ocean. right ? so the yo-yo will come close ... but it seems like its not hitting the floor where we are sitting.

ocean's water level is rising. maybe the corals reefs we have now will become the bed for the next generation of coral reef ? I really do not have any of the answers. but Im just saying corals and fish have lived and survived this planet millions and millions of years before us ... and if you look at what we think was going on before, they have gone through ALOT worse things and made it back...

we do have a better understanding of the world around us, compared to 100 years ago. But the point is, 100 years in the history of this universe is like a grain of sand on earth ...

Look at the most un-inhabitable places on this planet. there are animals that have adapted to live there. look at the bottom of the ocean ... by volcanos and .... there is life there too !

just my opinion, and by no means am I saying we should sit back and do nothing ... I just feel like we are trying to change something that is much much much bigger than us, and trying to change a path, which we dont know where it started from and where it is supposed to end. on my way to work, I take the highway ... go south. at one point the highway turns and goes east for a bit. since I know the start and finish, I know the east turn is normal, we are just going around a couple of heritage buildings ... but if I didnt, and just started studying that second of time ... I would assume we are going the wrong direction ....

 

[atreis]

Many think it but few say it. Considering each person is only on this planet for a very short time I would rather live for today the way I want too than hope for tomorrow living a restrained life because the "yellow belly sap sucker" is endangered. I personally dont care what happens after Im gone as there is too much factual probability otherwise, natural disasters, comets etc... Darwin was right.

While I personally completely, totally, utterly, disagree with most of what you've said here (the exception being the bit about "many think it but few say it") I do appreciate the straight-forward honesty.

It seems most who think like you try to spin things to not sound quite so bad to those who think like me, which is actually fairly pointless.

 

[Phixer]

While I personally completely, totally, utterly, disagree with most of what you've said here (the exception being the bit about "many think it but few say it") I do appreciate the straight-forward honesty.

It seems most who think like you try to spin things to not sound quite so bad to those who think like me, which is actually fairly pointless.

Honesty is the best way my friend, that said...Eventually one cannot disagree with reality. Im not the one your argueing with but rather your anger and resentment towards the world is actually frustration within yourself. Im just someone to vent it on because I said what you didnt want to hear.

It is hard to accept the fact that overpopulation is the source of nearly every problem the world has today and few have the strength or courage to change it. Thats not how they get elected in this system designed to keep people dependent.


You will disagree again.... but we both know this true. Arguing against it is arguing with the weather.
I just see your opinion as different because you havent experienced the same things. No man is an island but some need an ocean of support and assurance . I dont think your weak or a p ussy but rather you have just had different life experiences and have become highly dependent upon a man made system.

Allmost is right.

 

[addo]

Ok, back on topic.

I am convinced that the only way to help an ecosystem in any significant way, whether its a reef, a forest or something else; is to do it locally, with projects that are well founded on a grassroots level within the local community.

In under developed countries (where most tropical reefs are), that almost always mean that the locals can make a living, or at least profit from the project. Otherwise their only option to make money usually means working with something that is really bad for the environment, like in a waste spewing factory, for a logging company, etc.

So what i do to help the reefs is buying livestock that is wild collected, or farmed in the ocean in the same area as the reefs.
When I'm abroad i try to by the services of as many people as possible who rely on a healthy environment for their business, ie. go diving, fishing, on safaris etc.

In other words i try to give people an economic incentive to help the environment, instead of just the altruistic one (witch sadly but obviously isn't working :deadhorse

Ofc. I recycle and try to save energy too, but that is more of a general effort than a direct attempt at helping a specific ecosystem.

 

[necessary_evil]

Not reef specific, but its pretty despicable the about of money that gets wasted with RO systems, use a booster pump and find a way to reclaim the "waste" water.

 

[vitz]

i'd like to hear not only what actions people take, but also their explanations as to how they think their actions are helping reefs

 

[atreis]

Why? What are you hoping to get from this conversation?

 

[vitz]

Why? What are you hoping to get from this conversation?

for starters (not that i owe you an explanation, heh), many of the actions people take under the guise of 'saving reefs' or 'reefing responsibly' (i still don't even know what that means-from a conservation or reef health standpoint, this hobby is anything BUT responsible to reefs, and the only 'responsible reefkeeping i can come up with is making sure one's tank stays healthy) are ones that they THINK accomplish something from the actions they take, only to find out when researching that action that it actually accomplishes very little to nothing, and is more a 'feely goody' panacea to alleviate some form of guilt.

nothing wrong w/the feeling, or the intent-but alot of people's contributions to what they THINK is a good thing, more often than not, isn't. (like contributing to a wildlife fund or 'conservation group' that does little more w/their funds other than paying themselves hefty salaries, like the infamous 'mac', e.g.)

so, i'm curious as to people's thought processes regarding not only WHAT action they take, but also why, and to see if folks are actually making *informed* decisions, or just taking 'surface action' to alleviate some 'pang of conscience' and asuming they did their 'good deed'.

or i might simply be curious-why should my 'motive' matter ? if you think i'm trolling, just ignore the question, lol.

another thing i'm curious about is what do folks here think 'responsible reefkeeping' means (to them) ?

 

[Jerzey]

No matter what the world does to try and conform to the so called "environmental marine standards" to try to save our precious reefs no one can get mother nature and natural geological shifts to help save the reef environment... We live on a hostile planet and throughout the history of mother earth death and destruction will eventually balance out and over a long drawn out period of time in human years will eventually once again bring construction and balance to our oceans and build our planets reefs to epic beautiful ecosystems that were used to seeing... The Planets been around for millions of years and humans have only been around a fraction of that time to document and study our world, it may be new to us seeing our reefs retreating but trust me this isn't the first time nor is it the last time... I would be more worried about an asteroid or meteor sterilizing the planet!

 

[atreis]

for starters (not that i owe you an explanation, heh)

Likewise - not that we owe you any explanation for our actions. My question is as fair a question as yours.

, many of the actions people take under the guise of 'saving reefs' or 'reefing responsibly' (i still don't even know what that means-from a conservation or reef health standpoint, this hobby is anything BUT responsible to reefs, and the only 'responsible reefkeeping i can come up with is making sure one's tank stays healthy) are ones that they THINK accomplish something from the actions they take, only to find out when researching that action that it actually accomplishes very little to nothing

Two points on the hobby:
1. The hobby itself, directly, is not reef friendly. It involves removing very specific animals from the reef without regard to keeping things balanced, and of course that's, at best, neutral and very likely not good.
2. The hobby raises awareness of the wonder and beauty of the reefs, possibly (hopefully) encouraging people to try to do things to help them, and this is, at worst, neutral and very likely good.

I've no idea which of those outweighs the other.

There is only one way to help the reef and truly KNOW that you've done something good to help the reef: Do it yourself and then observe the improvement. Living where I live, that's just not practical.

, and is more a 'feely goody' panacea to alleviate some form of guilt.

Yep. Many people go to church for much the same reason. People feel guilt and like to have it assuaged.

nothing wrong w/the feeling, or the intent-but alot of people's contributions to what they THINK is a good thing, more often than not, isn't. (like contributing to a wildlife fund or 'conservation group' that does little more w/their funds other than paying themselves hefty salaries, like the infamous 'mac', e.g.)

I'm firmly of the belief that most conservation organizations use the majority of funds to do good, or at least to try to do good. (I do research who I donate to.) Obviously, people should get paid for their work, whether they work for a non-profit or for-profit enterprise. I don't begrudge them their pay and fully expect that some portion of any money that I donate will go to that end.

See previous comment - it's not practical for me to help reefs directly, living where I live. If I donate $100 to a conservation organization and they apply only $1 of that to helping a reef, that's $1 more than otherwise.

I've found that most of the time when people make arguments like yours, it's really just an excuse to keep their time/money and do nothing - a form of greed.

...
or i might simply be curious-why should my 'motive' matter ?

Why should mine, or anyone else's, matter? You asked about motives, and so did I.

if you think i'm trolling, just ignore the question, lol.

The jury's still out on that one.

another thing i'm curious about is what do folks here think 'responsible reefkeeping' means (to them) ?

This is a different question from helping the reefs, btw.

Responsible reefkeeping:
1. Keeping your animals healthy and alive.
2. Selecting animals that have been captive-bred, fragged, etc. where possible.
3. Where #2 does not apply, selecting animals that are not being over-harvested. (This requires some research.)
4. Where #2 does not apply, selecting animals harvested in a responsible fashion. (Not the same as #3.)
5. When the inevitable happens (tank shutdown), taking care to insure the animals are passed along to another person who will also care for them responsibly.
6. Not waiting to shutdown the tank until after many animals have died due to neglect. (Roughly the same as #1, but I've seen this variant happen far too often. People lose interest, but leave things run because shutting a tank down is a lot of work...)

 

[vitz]

well, i was directly involved (working for) w/a conservation oriented ngo for awhile, so certainly no using of that argument about my points being used as rationaliztions for 'non-participation' towards me, heh. (you'll find some posts by me re: my involvement w/ one of their past efforts) if you do a search on my nick here from '03-04-ish).

 

[vitz]

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=324624&highlight=save

there ya go

rest assured i never troll, my questions are always genuine, and my advice and arguments are always offered in earnest

 

[addo]

Two points on the hobby:
1. The hobby itself, directly, is not reef friendly. It involves removing very specific animals from the reef without regard to keeping things balanced, and of course that's, at best, neutral and very likely not good.

2. Selecting animals that have been captive-bred, fragged, etc. where possible.

I'm very interested in hearing your thoughts on my view on buying wild collected livestock, since you seem pretty convinced that buying captive bred livestock is better for the environment than wild caught.

My view is that the collecting of livestock in the wild, always provides an economic incentive for the collector to protect the whole ecosystem where the collecting is done. Whereas captive breding of that species does not make any difference for that ecosystem what so ever (good or bad), the exception would be locally bred animals.

I share this view both CITES and the WWF, plus every informed person I have ever discussed this with.

I might also ad that no species has ever gone extinct because of collecting for the aquarium hobby, there are allot off rumors of over collecting threatening certain species. But so far all of these rumors have turned out to bee false alarms. There are however certain cases where the collection might in theory have a slim chance of making a species go extinct, but in all in all i think the benefits of wild collecting far outweighs the dangers from an environmental point of view.

There are however a couple of examples where the collection of certain spices has protected that ecosystem, for example the collection of Malavi ciklids vs the introduction of nile perch in lake malavi.

PS, I hope this made sense and didn't come of as rude/blunt or anything. It was harder than I thought to write in English. I just think its interesting to discuss different takes on what is good for the environment with someone who seems as environmentally conscious as I am, but has a very different approach to it

 

[JustinLee]

It's shocking how deliberately ignorant some people are.
Honestly, what is the point of fighting and saying that we do not effect the ocean at all? Who or what does that benefit? No one and nothing.
Why not just treat the ocean like we do effect it regardless?
What does it hurt to reduce, reuse, recycle? Nothing.
It's also a stupid argument to say the aquarium trade is used as a sort of population control.
I believe anyone in this hobby should treat their fish like a family member.
Treating them like children's toys is a violation of nature.
Though I do respect everyone is entitled to an opinion, it's sad to me to see some of you who call yourself hobbyists to act the way you do.