List of MAC Certified Fishes

[clarionreef]

Welcome to our little prison yard Hula,
So you have worked w/ the island communities off Northern Buhol?
Keep it down. What you know is dangerous and can earn you the disfavor of the warden.
Those flat islands solid with people sitting in the great depleted zone present an enigma don't they? What on earth can feed and employ so many in one of the most devastated reef areas in the country?
Obviously the tragedy of the commons you observed is in full progression. There are many who call for a ban on everything in such places. The only resource growing faster than the rate of extraction are children. The plight of communities like these drives them to invade surrounding areas and surrounding areas theirs. Soon the reef is a shell of its former self, producing only the most adaptive and hardiest of opportunistic species.
I worked there training cyaide fisherman 20 years ago and thought depleted back then. I can only imagine it today.
You know as well as I do that there was no credible management plan that revealed wonderful, sustainable resources to benefit the people. What has protected MAC on this however is how the insistance of real sustainability would deny everyone there livlihood on everything they do! What can they do besides work their depleted areas diminishing returns to the bone?
I think that we should call a spade a spade in the delpeted areas and call them DAMPZ ... Depleted Area Managment Plan Zones . This is like the critical list ie. intensive care. Then. MAC wouldn't be criticized for keeping the management plans a secret but applauded for the serious social work they are trying to do.
Coral farming, clam farming, seaweed farming,eco tourism etc. all get mentioned a lot but could barely meet the needs of thousands that scrape from the reef every day. Western remedies born out of uninvolved imagination may hit the mark at times...and often not.
The Buhol question is social work, pure and simple. The species that technically exist there are the end game list and most of them not worth the frieght rate add-on to get them to Manila.
To deal with the frieght problem, we see fishes packed very tightly in small bags and although some get thru the HALO guantlet [ Heat....Ammonia...Low Oxygen ] many do not, especially the famous 'white slime maroon clown..' [Premnas buholensis] The skin tissue disentigration from HALO has killed them predictably and in huge numbers. This will continue.
If fish are ordinary, cheap and common, they generally come to market in Manila overland from Luzon based communities, avoiding airfrieght costs. The list that dealers want from Buhol is quite small. Why tight pack and airfrieght a wardleys wrasse for example if it can be delivered cheaper from a nearby community in a bigger bag?
Poor Buhol. 40 years of cyanide and dynamite. 20 years of "enlightened ", environmental NGO activity. This is a look into the
future of so many other areas if things don't change.
Steve
PS Resettlement...maybe that could happen.

 

[Anonymous]

I just love the way MAC-detractors use phrases like "swept under the rug" when "put aside" is the accurate characterization.

Sometimes I wonder why I even post information here. You all are so quick to misunderstand and miscontrue. It's sad really. And the negativity in this forum is stifling.

Without going into complex detailed argument about unsuitable species, you should know that their unsuitability is not ecologically-based, it is hobbyist emotion based. Fewer coral-eating butterflyfish die in aquariums annually than humbug damsels. If it is sheer quantities of death that should put a species on the USL then be prepared for yellow tangs and clownfish to head the list.
MAC will address the issue of unsuitability in the future.

fair point

though not all usl wishes are hobbyist emotion based

 

[John_Brandt]

What I meant by the USL being hobbyist emotion-based is that it has been traditionally comprised of species that die quickly in aquariums or get extremely large. Those two primary criteria don't address the question of the ecological impact of the removal of those fishes from reefs. They are separate concepts. One does harm to the industry and hobbyists pocketbooks and emotions and the other does harm to the ecology of a coral reef(s).

Putting the use of cyanide aside, I would like to see the beginning of a dialogue about species whose capture endangers the ecology of coral reefs. Seahorses have recently been suggested.

 

[Anonymous]

hmmm....

a question for you, john...

let's say there's a particular species whose reproduction always matches harvest, has high demand on the hobbyist end, yet can't be kept alive in captivity for more than a few months to a year

would you consider a request for it to be placed on a usl list 'an emotion-based response from a hobbyist?

and if so-does that make the request any less moral, or valid, even?

and no- this isn't an attack

 

[John_Brandt]

hmmm....

a question for you, john...

let's say there's a particular species whose reproduction always matches harvest, has high demand on the hobbyist end, yet can't be kept alive in captivity for more than a few months to a year

would you consider a request for it to be placed on a usl list 'an emotion-based response from a hobbyist?

and if so-does that make the request any less moral, or valid, even?

and no- this isn't an attack

What is the natural lifespan of this hypothetical fish?

 

[naesco]

What I meant by the USL being hobbyist emotion-based is that it has been traditionally comprised of species that die quickly in aquariums or get extremely large. Those two primary criteria don't address the question of the ecological impact of the removal of those fishes from reefs. They are separate concepts. One does harm to the industry and hobbyists pocketbooks and emotions and the other does harm to the ecology of a coral reef(s).

Putting the use of cyanide aside, I would like to see the beginning of a dialogue about species whose capture endangers the ecology of coral reefs. Seahorses have recently been suggested.

John you too have having a bad hair day.
The USL is comprised of the following
1. Fish too large for aquarium use like whales
2. Fish that can kill you like the blue ring octopus
3. Fish that are obligate feeders where aquariums cannot sustain their life.
The emotional part comes from the fact that we hobbyists are outraged at the fact that industry fills their tanks with fish that have no hope for survival and sells these fish to unsuspecting reefers.

The USL has been completely discussed in this forum. I believe there was a general consensus which species would be on the list.
The intention was to hold off requesting that MAC adopt same until the CDT was determined because everyone agreed the CDT was the priority.

 

[Anonymous]

hmmm....

a question for you, john...

let's say there's a particular species whose reproduction always matches harvest, has high demand on the hobbyist end, yet can't be kept alive in captivity for more than a few months to a year

would you consider a request for it to be placed on a usl list 'an emotion-based response from a hobbyist?

and if so-does that make the request any less moral, or valid, even?

and no- this isn't an attack

What is the natural lifespan of this hypothetical fish?

10 yrs

 

[John_Brandt]

What I meant by the USL being hobbyist emotion-based is that it has been traditionally comprised of species that die quickly in aquariums or get extremely large. Those two primary criteria don't address the question of the ecological impact of the removal of those fishes from reefs. They are separate concepts. One does harm to the industry and hobbyists pocketbooks and emotions and the other does harm to the ecology of a coral reef(s).

Putting the use of cyanide aside, I would like to see the beginning of a dialogue about species whose capture endangers the ecology of coral reefs. Seahorses have recently been suggested.

John you too have having a bad hair day.
The USL is comprised of the following
1. Fish too large for aquarium use like whales
2. Fish that can kill you like the blue ring octopus
3. Fish that are obligate feeders where aquariums cannot sustain their life.
The emotional part comes from the fact that we hobbyists are outraged at the fact that industry fills their tanks with fish that have no hope for survival and sells these fish to unsuspecting reefers.

The USL has been completely discussed in this forum. I believe there was a general consensus which species would be on the list.
The intention was to hold off requesting that MAC adopt same until the CDT was determined because everyone agreed the CDT was the priority.

And you are having a bad brain day. Whales and octopus are not fish you wacky dude :wink:

I know all about the USL, i've read every word. I developed my own list in 1989. It's nearly identical to any modern list.

You (as have many others) have left out a criteria.

4. Fish who commonly die very prematurely in captivity for no known reasons, and are not generally obligatory feeders.

 

[John_Brandt]

hmmm....

a question for you, john...

let's say there's a particular species whose reproduction always matches harvest, has high demand on the hobbyist end, yet can't be kept alive in captivity for more than a few months to a year

would you consider a request for it to be placed on a usl list 'an emotion-based response from a hobbyist?

and if so-does that make the request any less moral, or valid, even?

and no- this isn't an attack

What is the natural lifespan of this hypothetical fish?

10 yrs

OK Vitz. You've got a fish that should strongly be considered unsuitable, and should be subject to open debate. That fish is unsuitable on emotional (or ethical) grounds because it does not adapt well to captivity, perishing in less than a tenth of its natural lifespan. That fact affects our emotions and our ethical sense. But as you said, it has no known detrimental ecological impact on the coral reef.

 

[Kalkbreath]

Lets say we subtract the USL from the already limited MAC certified lists= The remaining few fish would be "sustainable for how long? When we take a wide variety of fish off a reef............the pressure is spread out .......Limiting the take to only tangs and groupers is a sure way of over harvesting tangs and groupers........which by the way are the most missed fish in the complex reef ecosystem ........

 

[blue_hula]

I do have one suggestion. Someone should muzzle the Pope. If Filipinos in remote areas had access to birth control, they could plan families and wouldn't be under such grinding pressure to feed their large families. In the village where I worked, the AVERAGE family size was 9 children. The largest family was 21 (and no, there were no second wives, mistresses etc. - that was just 2 highly fertile individuals). Preists and doctors preach the sanctity of fruitfulness... too bad it has such bad consequences for the people and their reefs.

Wow...that's amazing. I had no idea the population was so out of control there. How do you feed 21 people with only the male getting fish?

Peace,

Chip

It is that bad. And as John said later on, there are lots of hungry people there.

While dad does the fishing offshore, women (and older men and children) spend a lot of time gleaning on the inshore reefs at low tide, digging for shellfish on the beach and otherwise looking for food. In communities where "Guso" or seaweed farming is found, women are also heavily involved in all aspects of its planting, maintenance and harvest.

You feed large families by working all day at anything that generates a few pesos and sending your kids to work at a young age as well. And you may still have a protein deficit at the end of it.

Blue hula

 

[blue_hula]

Welcome to our little prison yard Hula,
So you have worked w/ the island communities off Northern Buhol?
Keep it down. What you know is dangerous and can earn you the disfavor of the warden.

Dear Steve,

Thanks for the welcome. I haven't heard the shackles clanking yet. :wink:

You know as well as I do that there was no credible management plan that revealed wonderful, sustainable resources to benefit the people. What has protected MAC on this however is how the insistance of real sustainability would deny everyone there livlihood on everything they do! What can they do besides work their depleted areas diminishing returns to the bone?
I think that we should call a spade a spade in the delpeted areas and call them DAMPZ ... Depleted Area Managment Plan Zones . This is like the critical list ie. intensive care. Then. MAC wouldn't be criticized for keeping the management plans a secret but applauded for the serious social work they are trying to do.
Coral farming, clam farming, seaweed farming,eco tourism etc. all get mentioned a lot but could barely meet the needs of thousands that scrape from the reef every day. Western remedies born out of uninvolved imagination may hit the mark at times...and often not.

I like the DAMPZ idea - that is exactly it. Conservation efforts in Bohol must focus on rehahabilitation, with serious social work involved.

I am however less cynical about alternative livelihoods. Seaweed farming, crafts ecotourism don't have to meet the needs of all ... that is still a while off. But they need to be in place so that total fishing effort begins to be reduced. This, combined with family planning and networds of community-based marine protected areas can slow exploitation levels.

What doesn't slow exploitation is certifying areas as "ok" based on cyanide criteria while ignoring the issue of sustainable levels of exploitation (Hence the need for DAMPZ). In fact, CAMPS may well increase fishing pressure if MAC is successful in getting good prices for these fishers. Others will then come to be net trained and the number fishing on the CAMP will increase. MAC will see this as a good thing because more fishers using nets will be equated to fewer fishers using cyanide. It will also be perceived as a good thing because there will be an increased supply of MAC certified fishes, at least temporarily. Meanwhile fish populations decline.

[And yes, moving around is quite feasible. Kinship groups span a number of islands and people shift around to live with cousins, get married etc. ]

Back to alternative livelihoods - I know of two islands personally where alternatives to fishing exist and these communities are definately better off than many of the others (using schools, number of children in schools, number of pigs and chickens per household etc. as criteria). On one island, everyone is heavily into seaweed farming, on the other it is woven hat manufacture for export.

It's a start.

Blue hula

 

[MaryHM]

For starters, the USL that we were working on in here was one to be used by MAC. We assumed that any fish that were not sustainable would be taken care of by the MAC standards and obviously wouldn't deem inclusion in their USL.

4. Fish who commonly die very prematurely in captivity for no known reasons, and are not generally obligatory feeders.

One of the criteria for our list was that there had to be a sound basis behind inclusion. No intangibles. They are way too subjective. Your number four is definitely intangible and highly subjective. You'd have a tough time getting MAC to adopt anything in that category.

 

[John_Brandt]

For starters, the USL that we were working on in here was one to be used by MAC. We assumed that any fish that were not sustainable would be taken care of by the MAC standards and obviously wouldn't deem inclusion in their USL.

4. Fish who commonly die very prematurely in captivity for no known reasons, and are not generally obligatory feeders.

One of the criteria for our list was that there had to be a sound basis behind inclusion. No intangibles. They are way too subjective. Your number four is definitely intangible and highly subjective. You'd have a tough time getting MAC to adopt anything in that category.

OK Mary, you've got these certain Anthias species that will eat just about any plankter that cruises past in the wild. Put them in aquariums and they die in a few months or sooner. They are not obligatory feeders, you can sometimes even get them to nibble in the tank.

If there isn't a Category 4 where do they get put?

 

[MaryHM]

I'm not saying they should be imported, but I'm saying good luck trying to get such subjective criteria published by MAC. For a personal list, or a privately published list, go for it. But the industry is already going to freak over ANY list- add in something that subjective and the whole thing could get shot down.

 

[John_Brandt]

I can also add that there are numerous Centropyge angelfish that seem to eat just about anything in the wild and croak right away in aquariums.

I also toy with a category that sounds like "Unable to adapt to captivity; reasons yet unknown."

 

[John_Brandt]

I'm not saying they should be imported, but I'm saying good luck trying to get such subjective criteria published by MAC. For a personal list, or a privately published list, go for it. But the industry is already going to freak over ANY list- add in something that subjective and the whole thing could get shot down.

Just what is subjective about the captive longevity of Pseudanthias pascalus? It feeds on a whole range of plankton and fish eggs in the wild, just like Green chromis do. Yet nobody can keep the thing alive. It has to go into Category 4.

 

[MaryHM]

Let me use my famous example of Acropora:

Let's say we were having this discussion 15 years ago. No one could keep Acropora very well. Practically everyone that bought it killed it. And nobody really knew why. Then wa-la! Technology came along that allowed hobbyists not only to keep Acropora alive, but to have it thrive and grow like a weed! It's probably the most widely grown and aquacultured coral by hobbyists (softies don't count! ). So say we had stuck Acropora on your list 15 years ago. There wouldn't have been hardly any in the US and people wouldn't have discovered the techniques to keep it. It was the hobbyists that figured it out- not research scientists or public aquariums- so the argument of "you could permit it for researchers" doesn't really fly. Sorry, but although I don't import many, many, many species because I deem them inappropriate for one reason or another, I don't support the inclusion of subjective criteria in a formally published list.

 

[John_Brandt]

Let me use my famous example of Acropora:

Let's say we were having this discussion 15 years ago. No one could keep Acropora very well. Practically everyone that bought it killed it. And nobody really knew why. Then wa-la! Technology came along that allowed hobbyists not only to keep Acropora alive, but to have it thrive and grow like a weed! It's probably the most widely grown and aquacultured coral by hobbyists (softies don't count! ). So say we had stuck Acropora on your list 15 years ago. There wouldn't have been hardly any in the US and people wouldn't have discovered the techniques to keep it. It was the hobbyists that figured it out- not research scientists or public aquariums- so the argument of "you could permit it for researchers" doesn't really fly. Sorry, but although I don't import many, many, many species because I deem them inappropriate for one reason or another, I don't support the inclusion of subjective criteria in a formally published list.

There were some successes with Acroporids back then. I've heard Paletta make the same argument as you. The problem is that there were virtually no Acroporids being imported back then. Mary, you can grow them under fluorescent lights with an undergravel filter. We never knew that because we could hardly ever get our hands on Acropora.

But nobody has figured out how to maintain these Category 4 fish. After 25 years of trying, nobody has cracked the code. Maybe they require their schools of hundreds, living on the edges of dropoffs, with plankton flying past non-stop. That's a Category 4 fish.

An USL should never be shut like a bank vault. It should be a dynamic list that can be added to, subtracted from, or shuffled at any time. Please don't think that I haven't thought long and hard about this stuff. There is much more to discuss.

 

[MaryHM]

I worked for and managed pet shops back then and we could get Acroporas...

You won't get it by the industry, John. I'm telling you right now they won't stand for it. Elwyn Segrest I think is the one who said if ANY list was created he would quit supporting MAC period (he may have changed, but I doubt it). And many of the other importers feel the same. Heck, at the LA wholesaler meeting there were arguments about obligate feeders. Animals with KNOWN requirements and KNOWN poor track records. MAC is not going to risk losing its LA support base over your category four.