SAVE THE FRUIT AND NOT THE TREE!

[clarionreef]

Here it is;
The official "Save the labroides dimidiatus" page.
Form an NGO, Register it w/ the SEC,write a grant proposal and launch the crusade!
Bring all peripheral issues, side issues and lesser issues here. ..and if you can... convince someone not to buy cleaner wrasses.
...but please, allow the effort to reform the industry, re-train divers and save the coral reefs to go forward!
Sincerely, Steve

 

[naesco]

Just out of interest. Has anyone had success with keeping this species of wrasse?

I stand to be corrected but I believe it was Robert Fenner who wrote that this species should not be harvested for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, they are impossible to keep and therefore IMO those that particpate are involved in unethical practices. I think this came up before but most of the industry people in this forum do not deal with them any more.
Secondly, cleaner wrasse provide an extremely important function in the wild by removing parasites from other fish.
By capturing them, the fish who need the services of cleaner wrasse, are in peril.

 

[dizzy]

naesco,
They are not impossible. I had one that lived for a couple of years. It learned to eat frozen food like the rest of the fish. I doubt the natural lifespawn is very long for this species. I have also heard from a couple of customers that had similar success. Percentage wise they do very poorly to be sure, but it is defintely possible for them to survive in our aquariums. BTW I don't sell them because of their poor survival rate. Blue ribbon eels and orange spot file fish are not impossibe either.

 

[mkirda]

For those of you against outright bans...

Why not a simpler way?

Say I want a certain fish. In order to get it, I have to *ORDER* it.
I want a cleaner wrasse. I go to my fish store, which never has it in stock, and they have to order it in from wherever. In order to get it, I have to pay for it up front. If it arrives in alive or dead. Thems the breaks. Two-three weeks later, my cleaner wrasse comes in and I come get it.

Guess how many people will jump through that hoop? Very few.

Does it shut down the trade in cleaner wrasses? Nope. Does it make them harder to get? Yes.

Is this a bad way of dealing with the USL?

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[My Hairy Ass]

I have successfully kept several species of temperate wrasse for a considerable amount of time. I do agree that they will take frozen food after a while, as I have had this success also.

MHA

 

[naesco]

Mike that is an excellent way of handling it.
I don't favour a ban either.
Your idea allows reefers who have the experience and will to keep them but stops what is happening today.

 

[JennM]

I like that idea -- making it more of an effort. There are some species of fish I don't carry, cleaner wrasses are one of them, however I have a client with a 1200 gallon tank who has had one for about 5 years -- lots of fish to pick from... If his died and he wanted another one, I'd be happy to get him one since he has been successful with them.

Ditto on Mandarins -- I don't stock them. I have one myself in my 120 (it's in my 100 reef system right now but that's another story) it's fat and happy and eats well, but I don't order them except for those who have the proper environment to sustain them.

When somebody asks me for a specimen which I consider "challenging" I generally try to steer them toward something more hardy, but if they are experienced and educated enough to know what they are taking on, who am *I* to tell them no? From the discussions I read about the USL, much of it was subjective, the opinions of certain individuals.

People say that seahorses are impossible -- or at least wild-caught ones (and I am aware that soon WC horses will be scarce under CITES protection), but for a keeper who sets up a species tank, and is prepared to offer up live foods, many have them breed and are able to rear the fry.

EVERYTHING would have been "unsuitable" at one time or another, outright bans would prevent us from learning what it takes to keep certain species.

If the tricky ones (and I think we could come to to an agreement on what species are "delicate") are harder to get, then the less avid hobbyist is less likely to go through the fuss to aquire them.

Great suggestion! One I'm already practicing!

Jenn

 

[mkirda]

If the tricky ones (and I think we could come to to an agreement on what species are "delicate") are harder to get, then the less avid hobbyist is less likely to go through the fuss to aquire them.

Jenn,

I'm more worried about 'impulse buyers'. Newbies who buy a fish without knowing what it eats, how big it gets, etc. If you could eliminate that, yet still make challenging fish available to those who want to advance the hobby, the USL problem is solved, I think.

Collect to order is the best way, I think, of accomplishing that.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[JennM]

Oh I totally agree, Mike! How many times a newbie has come "back"
to my store after going somewhere else and picking up that irresistable Mandarin....days later they can't figure out why it doesn't eat flakes or frozen brine :roll: and they call and ask me what to do.... and that's when I tell them WHY I don't carry them. Of course I am really nosey before I sell livestock anyway, that's another industry issue -- but it's also another post. I'm one of the ones who won't sell livestock to a new customer until I've tested their water myself (free) and asked a bunch of questions. I like to be able to sleep at night knowing that I've done the best I can for the animals in my care.

I think that special orders for delicate specimens is a great idea, like I said, I pretty much do that at the retail level now -- I only stock relatively hardy fish, most of what I carry rates 3 out of 5 or higher in Scott Michael's Pocket Guide to Marine Fishes...anything else I either steer clear of, or I order for specific customers AFTER discussing that animal's issues - that applies to corals too, some I just don't bring in because they are not "easy" and I'll get more delicate ones for experienced people who know what is involved...

The special order idea is the most sensible one I've heard yet.

Jenn

 

[John_Brandt]

Hi,

Mike your suggestion is a good one. It's often the first one that comes to people's minds when they want to address how to go about limiting the supply of unsuitables and oddballs. The MAC has discussed it.

It isn't as easy as it might seem. The present chain-of-custody is from fisher to retail store. Generally information packets in the form of invoices and manifests flow in the same direction...from fisher to retail. Information may be added along the way but always in that direction. What you are suggesting requires sending an information signal in the reverse direction. If MAC is expected to facilitate that process then certain mechanisms would need to be developed to allow for this to happen. Faxes and phones could be used but some sort of protocol has to be arrived at so that it can be included in the Best Practices documents.

But then there is the issue of Certification. If there is a list of unsuitables, MAC may choose not to Certify these, and therefore might not want them collected or shipped.

These things are ideas for discussion. If costs are incurred or labor is expended in the process then that has to be factored in as well.

John Brandt

 

[naesco]

John that is how the industry goes now.
But, with MAC certified fish is it not different? (Cleaners and other fish treated as bulk, the exception.)

I thought if I wanted say an asfur angel, I would have a MAC certifed lfs begin the process of getting it for me.

He would place an order to a wholesaler like Mary (who needs the business so she can buy her own computer) and Seacrop.com would in turn order it from an exporter like Mavini who in turn would send the word out that she is looking for an asfur angel.

As many butterfly are on the USL Unsuitable Species List would not the same system prevail.

Mary could you please telex us your comments?

 

[JennM]

Ugh I had a reply typed then I got the Blue Screen of Death on the Dino-Puter...

John, your post confuses me. In reading about MAC here and in other media, and after a VERY long phone conversation with David Vosseler, it was my impression that two way communication WAS to be established as part of MAC certification.

I remember this distinctly because I remember asking the following question:

If the collectors can ONLY fill orders, and they have X orders for Y species, and they cannot fill those orders because the fish simply aren't around to be caught, what happens to the collectors? Do they have to go hungry that week because the specific fish ordered weren't there? I was told that there would be a "standing order" of certain amounts of certain fish, that could readily be filled, so there would be a steady supply to exporters/importer-wholesalers and retailers, and the collectors would have steady income, and "special orders" would more or less be over and above those standing orders. Did I hear this wrong? It made sense to me when it was told to me. I still have other issues with MAC, but I accepted that procedure as being logical and sensible.

Your post suggests the contrary.

Whether or not it is easy is irrellevant. Nothing worth doing properly is easy. Just because it's hard, does that mean MAC isn't going to do this?

I really wish MAC would have worked out all the logistics BEFORE the certifications began to be issued - looks like the cart is before the horse, yet again.

Confused.

Jenn

 

[John_Brandt]

Maybe not the cart before the horse quite yet. David described the chain of custody and how special requests for species can be made. I guess I was describing the problem the request faces in reaching the fisher. David described the actual procedure.

I still do not know if these special order potentially unsuitable fish will get a certification.

John

 

[dizzy]

I thought if I wanted say an asfur angel, I would have a MAC certifed lfs begin the process of getting it for me.

He would place an order to a wholesaler like Mary (who needs the business so she can buy her own computer) and Seacrop.com would in turn order it from an exporter like Mavini who in turn would send the word out that she is looking for an asfur angel.

Your logic has some flaws naesco. The first is that asfur angels come from the Red Sea and Marivi is in Philippines. Given the current road blocks I would imagine MAC certified RS fish are years away. The second is that Seacrop is a retail extention of Mary's business and no retailer is going to purchase retail for resale purposes. I don't want to nit pik but if your going to play the game boy, you need to learn to play it right.

 

[naesco]

Yes Dizzy I should have stayed with tangs right.
I am unclear from John's comment though?
Who's right? Or, do we know?

 

[clarionreef]

Hey people,
Collecting to order someone says? Hey, this ain't burgers and fries.
There is a critical mass of weekly product required for the trade to pay for itself and exist. If this flow was converted to a "collect to order " style business [ and it is not going to be ] it will die. Imagine if it were even possible to collect to order...seriously. Heres my order;
40 clown triggers 2-3 inches long
100 blue tang 2-3 inches long
15 blueface , 4 inches to 5
20 majestics, 3 inches to 4
75 jumbo only ocellaris clowns
75 XXL Spotted mandarins
200 XL cleaner shrimp
80 XL and fat red coris wrasse juveniles 3 inches long
25 blue colored carpets
50 XL red rose bubble anemones
40 XL purple Long tentacle anemones
OK thats it!
Wholesalers and importers and exporters do not enjoy the luxury of ordering like cherry pickin retailers in any trade long for this world. It doesn't work that way. 90-95 % of what divers encounter do not lend themselves to this simplicity. The most coveted species are not that common and in order to get them, one must buy a lot of commoner fish...ie the fish that feed the diver and keep him available, working and surviving. Notions such as these, although well meaning, come to us via an inner circle of myopic utopians. As far as I'm concerned...if a guy doesn't get wet for a living...he shouldn't be trying to tell the trade how it should work.
Divers already know what to collect and what their buyers will accept. Buyers know what junk and common stuff they must buy in order to get the cherries. Cherries go on top of a foundation of the pie. They are not the pie itself.
Sincerely, Steve

 

[naesco]

Cortez what a pompous sassy boy you are.
The nerve of you suggesting that I have no part in the reform of our hobby.


How dare you come on this thread and spew that BS when the rest of us are seriously trying to come up with some ideas to correct problems in our hobby.

Go out and chop some wood or relieve your anger in the manner of your choosing.

And stop this holier than thou stuff not now but RIGHT NOW! :evil:

Than, come on this board and behave like a gentleman or go elsewhere.

 

[mkirda]

Notions such as these, although well meaning, come to us via an inner circle of myopic utopians. As far as I'm concerned...if a guy doesn't get wet for a living...he shouldn't be trying to tell the trade how it should work.

Steve,

You are taking what I suggested out of context... Seriously out of context.

Work with me for a second. (Or do you think the entire idea of USL should be abandoned by us hobbyists?)

I suggested that a ban on certain species would not be the right way to go because the hobby could not advance. However, limiting the waste of fish that are currently sold to unsuspecting people should also stop. My idea of a USL would be that fish that are on the list would have to be ordered by the hobbyist.

I suggested making it purposely difficult for a reason- Few would do what is necessary to get them. I suggested collecting to order in this instance only. In other words, someone like Marivi would put the word out to her collectors to get one for an order. The hobbyist would have already paid for it up-front.

Nowhere did I suggest that the entire industry move to this model- only that special orders would, and only for species on the USL.

Honestly, I don't think I need to get wet to suggest this. I would put forth that fewer than 1% of all orders would come in this way. For all the rest, the normal state of affairs would remain- although hopefully net-caught...

Clearer? Thoughts?

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Anonymous]

I suggested that a ban on certain species would not be the right way to go because the hobby could not advance. However, limiting the waste of fish that are currently sold to unsuspecting people should also stop. My idea of a USL would be that fish that are on the list would have to be ordered by the hobbyist.

Shouldn't market forces eventually dictate this anyway? ie when the wholesaler is stuck with 300 cleaner wrasses because the LFS realize it's not good business to sell them, won't that message get back to the divers real quick? It seems we are turning the corner on a lot of husbandry issues in the last five years or so. Previously "all" saltwater fish were considered difficult, thus there was no reason to not sell the "really" difficult ones because most customers expected them to die soon in the first place. As more fish become "really" easy, the really "hard" ones are going to be really hard to sell.

 

[naesco]

Rover I agree with you except a couple of things have to happen first IMO.
First, we, whether it is industry, this boards, all boards, MAC have to agree on a list. Instead of the 30-40 you and others were involved in amybe we all could settle at 10.
The reason is that for example, for every negative cleaner wrasse thread there will always be someone who kept them successfully for three years. They always post. (I dont doubt their success but they are in the clear minority)
Secondly, we have to educate the reefers on the boards.

I am convinced that when the hobbyist is educated, the market will play the way you suggested.