Hobby responsible for 1/100thof 1% reef collection
- Thread starter Cappuccino Bay Aquarium
- Start date
That's a typo.
According to preliminary data from 2000 and 2001,
2,000 metric tonnes, or 200,000 kg of live rock substrate and stony corals were imported to the U.S. And it is just CITES not NOAA.
There are no viable estimates as to the amount of lime removed for building or road construction.
A more accurate title for your thread would be:
Hobby responsible for 100% of reef collection.
Collection isn't really a term to be used when describing lime removal.
According to preliminary data from 2000 and 2001,
2,000 metric tonnes, or 200,000 kg of live rock substrate and stony corals were imported to the U.S. And it is just CITES not NOAA.
There are no viable estimates as to the amount of lime removed for building or road construction.
A more accurate title for your thread would be:
Hobby responsible for 100% of reef collection.
Collection isn't really a term to be used when describing lime removal.
As CITES exporters often overreport their items, NOAA compiled a report using only Fish and Wildlife Import docents. These are considered more reliable because they must be accurate to account for all incoming live shipments to the U.S. .
This report is a bit outdated but was readily available on the web. Newer stuff found in libraries and gov archives show a continually increasing trend, probably accounting for the higher numbers in 2000 and 2001.
In 1997 over 500,000 items and 15,000 kg of stony corals, and 410,000 items and 600,000 kg of reef substrate (live rock) were imported into the U.S. In 1998 the U.S. imported 550,000 items and 94,000 kg of stony corals and 570,000 items and 890,000 kg of reef substrate.
This report is a bit outdated but was readily available on the web. Newer stuff found in libraries and gov archives show a continually increasing trend, probably accounting for the higher numbers in 2000 and 2001.
In 1997 over 500,000 items and 15,000 kg of stony corals, and 410,000 items and 600,000 kg of reef substrate (live rock) were imported into the U.S. In 1998 the U.S. imported 550,000 items and 94,000 kg of stony corals and 570,000 items and 890,000 kg of reef substrate.
What math is wrong or a typo? And why does everyone still even with the facts want to believe that 1000th of one percent is some how not right? thats .001 % with inflated anti collection numbers ? Why does this board not want the majority of its members in the Main forum , to see this truth? 99.999 % of man made reef destruction is Not from HARD coral collection! Also if we factor in the el ninio killing thousands of miles of reef -----then , 99% mothernature 1 % man + 99.99999 hard coral collection for this trade? or a whopping .00001
_________________
bailout
_________________
bailout
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Kalkbreath:
<strong>What math is wrong or a typo? And why does everyone still even with the facts want to believe that 1000th of one percent is some how not right? thats .001 % with inflated anti collection numbers ? Why does this board not want the majority of its members in the Main forum , to see this truth? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Kalk- this is not an case of not wanting the whole board to see the topic. It is quite simply an attempt to keep things organized and topical. Anyone with more than a casual interest in the issues should already be posting in this forum, as it is quite visible, seeing as it is directly below the main forum in the forum index listings.
<strong>What math is wrong or a typo? And why does everyone still even with the facts want to believe that 1000th of one percent is some how not right? thats .001 % with inflated anti collection numbers ? Why does this board not want the majority of its members in the Main forum , to see this truth? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Kalk- this is not an case of not wanting the whole board to see the topic. It is quite simply an attempt to keep things organized and topical. Anyone with more than a casual interest in the issues should already be posting in this forum, as it is quite visible, seeing as it is directly below the main forum in the forum index listings.
Tons and tons of sand is being removed from the beach by people not rinsing there feet.? Lets ban walking on the beach?
_________________
Infectious Diseases Forum
_________________
Infectious Diseases Forum
Kalkbreath, aka Capp,
You are no statistician, nor are you a representative of the state.
What you are is someone who is trying to run a store that capitalizes on the trade of endangered species.
When you say that people should be informed, it is implied that you mean you wish to indoctrinate them. You are the Rush Limbaugh of coral conservation, trying to bully people's minds and opinions with magnaimous representations and interpretations of data that you cannot grasp. If people are to know the truth of the situation, then data must be made available to them from an unbiased source, and definitely free of your overtones.
I applaud Chucker's decision to properly place this thread, as I am frightened of the thought that many people would be led to foolishly believe your viewpoint, without being able to make up their own minds.
The truth is that some reefs are miserably affected by trade, and some aren't. Numbers alone cannot tell this, only scientific inquiries on a reef by reef basis. Regardless, there are species whose numbers are dwindling in the wild and which must be banned (banghai cardinal comes to mind). There probably is a sustainable level of coral or fish removal from every reef, but it may differ from 5-10 pieces of coral/year on one reef to much greater amounts.
I believe you have not devoted your career or life to understanding the complex issues surrounding reef ecology and I correctly assert that you are one person who is completely unqualified to say which reefs are and aren't affected. I have devoted my time and career to understanding the issues, yet even I am unable to say that there is no harm in coral removal, as again, it varies from locale to locale.
Please spend more time thinking and reading than running out of the mouth as your antics are hardly endearing. I would like to think that I have proposed countless good resources worth your time to read, and your fervid and clouded responses continually indicate to me that you have not read them.
Lastly, if you are so concerned with keeping the coral trade completely unrestricted, why are you not more involved in preventing losses to the reef from pollution and lime removal? If you could stop those two areas, then there would likely be higher sustainable yields from affected reefs. Yet I have heard no contributions from you regarding your desire to really help.
You are no statistician, nor are you a representative of the state.
What you are is someone who is trying to run a store that capitalizes on the trade of endangered species.
When you say that people should be informed, it is implied that you mean you wish to indoctrinate them. You are the Rush Limbaugh of coral conservation, trying to bully people's minds and opinions with magnaimous representations and interpretations of data that you cannot grasp. If people are to know the truth of the situation, then data must be made available to them from an unbiased source, and definitely free of your overtones.
I applaud Chucker's decision to properly place this thread, as I am frightened of the thought that many people would be led to foolishly believe your viewpoint, without being able to make up their own minds.
The truth is that some reefs are miserably affected by trade, and some aren't. Numbers alone cannot tell this, only scientific inquiries on a reef by reef basis. Regardless, there are species whose numbers are dwindling in the wild and which must be banned (banghai cardinal comes to mind). There probably is a sustainable level of coral or fish removal from every reef, but it may differ from 5-10 pieces of coral/year on one reef to much greater amounts.
I believe you have not devoted your career or life to understanding the complex issues surrounding reef ecology and I correctly assert that you are one person who is completely unqualified to say which reefs are and aren't affected. I have devoted my time and career to understanding the issues, yet even I am unable to say that there is no harm in coral removal, as again, it varies from locale to locale.
Please spend more time thinking and reading than running out of the mouth as your antics are hardly endearing. I would like to think that I have proposed countless good resources worth your time to read, and your fervid and clouded responses continually indicate to me that you have not read them.
Lastly, if you are so concerned with keeping the coral trade completely unrestricted, why are you not more involved in preventing losses to the reef from pollution and lime removal? If you could stop those two areas, then there would likely be higher sustainable yields from affected reefs. Yet I have heard no contributions from you regarding your desire to really help.
Why do you have the habit of questioning everything you say?
I wrote 200,000 metric tonnes when it should have been 2,000. I tried to point that out earlier.
You may have used my numbers, but you misintrepreted them. At no point do the data say anything about removal of live rock or coral other than for trade. All those numbers are regarding ornamental coral trade. Thus, how did you come up with inferences about the percentages responsible as only 1%? All 100% of those numbers represent trade figures.
I wrote 200,000 metric tonnes when it should have been 2,000. I tried to point that out earlier.
You may have used my numbers, but you misintrepreted them. At no point do the data say anything about removal of live rock or coral other than for trade. All those numbers are regarding ornamental coral trade. Thus, how did you come up with inferences about the percentages responsible as only 1%? All 100% of those numbers represent trade figures.
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Kalkbreath:
<strong>The first post{200,000 m/tons} now you say was overstated by one hundred times? I have noticed a lot of typos when people, whom are aginst collction give numbers? wonder why?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Feel free to point them out? I'm not afraid to admit when I mistyped something? I'd rather people have the correct information?
Notice my new way of talking? I like it?
<strong>The first post{200,000 m/tons} now you say was overstated by one hundred times? I have noticed a lot of typos when people, whom are aginst collction give numbers? wonder why?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Feel free to point them out? I'm not afraid to admit when I mistyped something? I'd rather people have the correct information?
Notice my new way of talking? I like it?
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
