Responsible Reefing Series #1- Unsuitable Species

[Anonymous]

no facetiousness intended here, mary-kudo's and huzza's for your fine efforts, btw.

but- why isn't anyone working on an Unsuitable Retailer/Wholesaler/Importer list?

seems to me they play at least as large a part in bringing in undesirable species as the hobbyists who buy 'em.
i was forced to sell goniopora-the folks who wanted 'em, for a large part, wouldn't have purchased 'emif they weren't around to be seen!
the people who pack these critters in the boxes, when they aren't even ordered should be punished, somehow, imho.

 

[Bill2]

That would be a great ideo IMO but for the simple fact that to post any names good or bad would jeopardize the forum.

 

[Anonymous]

I still think we could figure out a way around the legal stuff. Maybe have part of the forum open to industry only with everyone having to provide a business license for access or something.

 

[Anonymous]

That would be a great ideo IMO but for the simple fact that to post any names good or bad would jeopardize the forum.

Bill2- i was going more in the direction of having the names published in an industry related piece of literature

fwiw-Don Dewey did something similiar, in the early 80's, in fama-and actually recieved death threats, according to an editorial of his i remember on the cyanide collection issue-however, even after the names were known, no one really did anything, in spite of his pleas to 'blacklist' those 'evildoers'

 

[Kalkbreath]

Tell me again what we hope to gain by banning goniopora ? {the second most abundant coral coral in the wild? If we end collecting the twenty-thousand or so flowerpots ...........and instead collect twenty-thousand MORE red brains , .. Who has won and who has lost? The Red brain corals .are clear losers............the goniopora numbers in the wild would appear no different.{because there are so many, ban or no ban} ? Also, I have had a Goniopora in my tank for five years, Yet Elegans & Galaxia seem to Lately have a shorter captive life span then that? How many corals will end up on such a list?
_________________
Mercedes 320
_________________
Mercedes Vehicles

 

[Anonymous]

Tell me again what we hope to gain by banning goniopora ? {the second most abundant coral coral in the wild? If we end collecting the twenty-thousand or so flowerpots ...........and instead collect twenty-thousand MORE red brains , .. Who has won and who has lost? The Red brain corals .are clear losers............the goniopora numbers in the wild would appear no different.{because there are so many, ban or no ban} ? Also, I have had a Goniopora in my tank for five years, Yet Elegans & Galaxia seem to Lately have a shorter captive life span then that? How many corals will end up on such a list?

if you really don't see what is to be gained by not keeping any animal with such an abysmal survival rate in captivity- you are truly blinded by your own self imposed ignorance- please go argue with yourself-you'll find it far more entertaining :wink:

 

[Kalkbreath]

Did not think you had an answer....... 80% of all fish for this hobby die within the first year..........should all fish be placed on this list?
_________________
recession history
_________________
Honda NSR150SP/RR

 

[Anonymous]

Did not think you had an answer....... 80% of all fish for this hobby die within the first year..........should all fish be placed on this list?

if that 80% does not include certain species, those species should be allowed-if 80% of all achilles tangs die, but 90% of perculas live,the perculas should not be banned because of what happens with the achilles,but the achilles should be banned-any species that cannot help improve the statistic while it is being imported should be banned.as imports/collectables-does not include captive bred specimens of those same species

Tell me again what we hope to gain by banning goniopora ? {the second most abundant coral coral in the wild? If we end collecting the twenty-thousand or so flowerpots ...........and instead collect twenty-thousand MORE red brains , .. Who has won and who has lost? The Red brain corals .are clear losers............the goniopora numbers in the wild would appear no different.{because there are so many, ban or no ban} ? Also, I have had a Goniopora in my tank for five years, Yet Elegans & Galaxia seem to Lately have a shorter captive life span then that? How many corals will end up on such a list?

why do you feel you have to gain something? isn't it enough that you keep thousands of animals from losing?

listen kalk-i understand your argument and have dealt with it before-it is,to me, irreprehensible,and deserving only of contempt-you think that just because there are tons of something around-it's ok to take that thing; amuse ourselves with,and derive aesthetic pleasure from- it; with no sense of, or obligation to, the value of what makes it available in the first place, for us to enjoy; or the axiomatic responsibility to take CARE of an animal we place by force under our possession.keeping an animal to enjoy it while it dies a slow death, and having no moral issue with that whatsoever speaks volumes to me about the type of person you are-thank god there are people in this hobby, and the industry, that beg to differ.


believe me, my dear kalk- i have many more answers for your questions than you have questions :twisted: -but your smug arrogance in feeling comfortable with the'raping the planet because it's fun, (or can make me money,and screw the resource' mentality you have is one i usually loathe to recourse with.

If we end collecting the twenty-thousand or so flowerpots ...........and instead collect twenty-thousand MORE red brains , .. Who has won and who has lost?

you really don't get that the idea is, in that scenario-to ban both? :roll:
you're inventing comparisons that have no analogy to what is being proposed.


respectfully yours

 

[Kalkbreath]

What is it that you think is going to replace the flowerpots? I used redbrains as an example, what do you think the customers are going to purchase INSTEAD? What ever it is ,this will mean twenty thousand MORE of something a year! Think it through! Increasing pressure on "Hardy" species will make it more likely that "hardy" items will not be able to stand the increase in collection rates. And more importantly Tangs while "hardy" in captivity, play an important role on the reefs, so should we not take the most important fish from the reef?If the reef could talk it would most likley ask us to take the least helpfull and most abundant animals in supply........The reef would say take the blasted Bump head parrot fish or some of those Flowerpot corals there are millions of those................It is better to spread out the impact of collection ......the reef cares not if whats been taken is "hardy or not!
_________________
great depression
_________________
Honda Z50R

 

[Anonymous]

What is it that you think is going to replace the flowerpots? I used redbrains as an example, what do you think the customers are going to purchase INSTEAD? What ever it is ,this will mean twenty thousand MORE of something a year! Think it through! Increasing pressure on "Hardy" species will make it more likely that "hardy" items will not be able to stand the increase in collection rates. And more importantly Tangs while "hardy" in captivity, play an important role on the reefs, so should we not take the most important fish from the reef?If the reef could talk it would most likley ask us to take the least helpfull and most abundant animals in supply........The reef would say take the blasted Bump head parrot fish or some of those Flowerpot corals there are millions of those................It is better to spread out the impact of collection ......the reef cares not if whats been taken is "hardy or not!

do you understand what BAN means? :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

seems like you refuse to accept the real issue-less stuff for you to sell.

tough

 

[Anonymous]

But this gets to the crux of "unsuitable species". Is something unsuitable because of poor survival rates (based on it being inhumane to keep), or on the ability to collect sustainably. I don't know what the actual numbers are but let's suppose that goniopora are in abundant supply and no amount of collection could reduce the numbers, and red brains are not in abundant supply and are in danger of over collecting. Do we base the unsuitability on the failure of the hobbyist (let's face the it the average hobbyist probably isn't that successful at keeping a whole lot), or on the health of the reef? I think it's very dangerous to start basing bans on "humaneness" as those making the decisions could very easily decide most of the hobby is inhumane. There aren't very many species that we keep that even come close to living out their normal lifespans in captivity. But population numbers are a very viable way to determine what may be collected and what may not.

 

[Anonymous]

other than the 'moral imperative' implied in my personal view:

i think that a large part of the drive for captive propagation is scarcity and economics-if a critter becomes less available, and more expensive, what seems to follow is a drive to get it to reproduce in captivity, which then also brings the price down. :mrgreen: 8)


rover wrote:

There aren't very many species that we keep that even come close to living out their normal lifespans in captivity

.

even if they don't come close to living the entire span, the length of time may be long enough to allow the wild pop.to sustain that rate of collection.

we put the cart before the horse-first we collect, then we think about the impact. :wink: populations should be monitored either before, or while collection is initiated, and at the sign of deteriorating numbers,regardless of the cause should be stopped.

one of the problems is that we don't know how few of a species is the minimal required to avoid endangering its existence,or impacting on another species.

i think that the variety of species presently being captive raised -if available in large enough amounts,are certainly adequate to satisfy most reef hobbyists-how many different kinds of coral are in the avg.tank? seems to be less than the amount available by frags, etc. :wink: the list of species of fish that are captive bred grows on, too.

seems like alot of the problem fish species are not really suited for the majority of the tanks their 'owners' buy them for.(tangs in smallish tanks, for example).if they then become prohibitively expensive for the average hobbyist-good-the average hobbyist shouldn't be keeping them, anyway.

those who have the money and dedication to house an achilles properly, will be able to afford 'em :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

I would agree but it needs to be based on collection quotas based on reefs impacts and not survivability rates after cpature. Once it's been collected it doesn't matter if it lives or not it's never going back regardless.

we put the cart before the horse-first we collect, then we think about the impact. populations should be monitored either before, or while collection is initiated, and at the sign of deteriorating numbers,regardless of the cause should be stopped.

That's what I was implying. So what do we do if based on population analysis we end up with the resulting species being something that doesn't have a good track record (i.e. goniopora) and something that does well in tanks (i.e. brains, hammers,etc.) being unsustainable? Do we not collect anything?

 

[Anonymous]

rover wrote:

I would agree but it needs to be based on collection quotas based on reefs impacts and not survivability rates after cpature. Once it's been collected it doesn't matter if it lives or not it's never going back regardless

the longer it survives, the less frequently it needs to be collected, thereby positively impacting the wild population. :wink:

So what do we do if based on population analysis we end up with the resulting species being something that doesn't have a good track record (i.e. goniopora) and something that does well in tanks (i.e. brains, hammers,etc.) being unsustainable? Do we not collect anything?

anything that is declining in the wild, endangered, or not enough studied to determine what can be taken 'safely' should not, imho, be collected, other than for the purpose of research into propagation.anything that does well in tanks should be able to be propagated in tanks.

(i think people equate non collection with non trade in the hobby-a ban on collection does not mean we won't be able to keep reef tanks, fish, or corals-just that, for a time, not all the ones we want-when looking at the bigger picture, what's the big friggin deal?-seems like a really small price to pay...)

the trick is to make sure that a collection ban remains just that-a COLLECTION ban.(with the abovementioned exceptions,i.e.-research)

food for thought:

if all the coral fraggers would join as a 'co-op'(as in each fragger as a branch of a retail propagation business)-the viability of captive propagation as an economically viable venture would greatly increase.and 'homegrown' corals would be more accessible by the public.

same would work for clowns, too.

each propagator sells locally at competetive prices-money goes back to parent company-pays the propagators-as long as a minimal quota is met per propagator, that individual gets a cut of the profits-equal to the other propagators-more difficult species would have a diff. quota, but the naturally higher price would offset that, anyway.(yeah, it's abit socialist by design- but the system has been proven to work-by the kibbutz movement :wink: )
you end up with, let's say, a few tens, or hundred(maybe thousand) breeders supplying local demand with a far lower investment needed per breeder than a place like cquest, and the comp. helps out any breeder having difficulty from external factors-like power failures from storms.an area wide power outtage only sets back one breeder, not the entire operation.
there are probly enough people breeding clowns on this board now to supply the needs for new jersey, if they would be able to raise 1/3 of their clutch sizes to 3/4" size, regularly.

( like cquest-but not under one roof :wink: )

 

[SPC]

Posted by Glenn:

I would agree but it needs to be based on collection quotas based on reefs impacts and not survivability rates after cpature.

-I wonder about this though. How much impact on a reef tank does the death of an animal have? In other words, if I have a reef tank (55) that is full of different corals and decide to add a 7" PBT to it, is there a possibility that the death of this tang (if not caught within 8 to 10 hours) could kill some (all) of my corals?
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

I suppose so. But so could power outages, equipment failures, and general mistakes.

 

[Kalkbreath]

Plankton is very abundant in the ocean...we as a hobby could not effect the supply ..........Yet ,it does not survive in captivity? should sea watercontaining plankton be banned? If we did ban ocean seawater ,what would be gained?Would this show the world that we as a hobby"care"?
_________________
Mercedes 600
_________________
blue moonshine photos

 

[naesco]

Kalk. Now you understand.

Please excuse the capitals but I do not know how to use the computer to underline or highlight.

'IF WE DO NOT START SHOWING THE WORLD WE CARE, WE WILL HAVE NO HOBBY'

 

[Kalkbreath]

I understand your position.............yet to worry about the sand I take home on my beach sandals contributing to beach erosion and yes , it can be shown to contribute................ .but it is a poor use of concern, I dont agree that because a fish is hardy in captivity ,that this means we {the hobby} can take all of them from the sea......the issue of weather a fish is hardy in captivity or not plays no role in the health of the reef........
_________________
Honda CB450SC
_________________
Mercedes 500