Reeform

[Anonymous]

Thanks everybody for supporting this wonderful organization. Below is a link to the new REEFOrm website. Enjoy!!!


http://www.reeform.com


:lol:

 

[Anonymous]

I thought Naesco was Canadian, not German, or is he a German Canadian?

 

[Anonymous]

Quit baiting Naesco, it's rude.

I talked with him on the phone a few months back. He is a nice, sincere person that wants to see ecological reform in the marine ornamental trade and humane tratement of animals.

Whether you agree with his tactics or not, our conversation is weakened by chasing off people that really care.

-Lee

 

[Anonymous]

Gresham,

I notice your sig. line:

"Ask not what REEForm can do for you, but ask WHO is REEForm and why don't they support the Indonesian and Filippino divers that are NOT using destructive fishing practices"

Are those that are not using destructive fishing practices truly collecting in a sustainable way? Do we really even know?

-Lee

 

[mkirda]

Are those that are not using destructive fishing practices truly collecting in a sustainable way? Do we really even know?

-Lee

Lee,

What a question! :lol:

Blue Hula's been trying to get an answer to that for months now.

Let's put it this way:

Which is more destructive in total:
1) Overfishing a reef using nets?
2) Overfishing a reef using bombs and cyanide?

Nets can be used in a way that is non-destructive and non-sustainable, that is for sure.

But it is far, far harder to use bombs and cyanide in a way that is non-destructive and sustainable. (Not impossible, mind you, just very difficult...)

The way things are done, even overfishing with nets means that the reef itself can recover (i.e. more coral cover). This will promote recruitement of fish, assuming there is a standing stock downstream that is reproducing.

The sustainability issue is interesting as it is extremely important, yet can be lost in the discussion at hand very easily. When fishing involves habitat destruction, there is no sustainability, period. The more important issue becomes habitat destruction- Concentrate on this first, then worry about sustainability as a close second.

Trust you understand where I am coming from.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Anonymous]

Trust you understand where I am coming from.

Mike,

I certainly do understand where you are coming from. My question was largely a rhetorical one intended to point out that net collection does not cure all of the reefs' woes. There is all too often an equating, often by industry folks, that net collection = ethical collection. Not necessarily the case.

You do a good job of reminding us all that it's not just about local despeciation issues, it's about despeciation issues and habitat destruction hampering the reintroduction of species.

Here are some tougher questions.

1) Aren't the necessity of local MPA's a capitulation that locallized collection is not sustainable? [It seems to me that if collection pressures were appropriate so as to not despeciate an area MPAs would never be needed.]

2) Is local despeciation ever ethical? If so, at what geographical scale? Per reef? Per island? Per square km?

3) If collecting pressure, even via "ethical net collection technique", were shown not to be sustainable wouldn't quota's or REEForm's outright ban be a totally rational response?

4) Does only sustainable collection, with good handing practices after the time of collection = ethical collection?

Sincerely,
-Lee

 

[clarionreef]

Mike,
Amazing to me that you had to clarify that. It implies that the learning curve in this vaunted forum for higher thinking on reform reverts back to square one on a monthly cycle.

It was like equating picking all the apples from the tree with 'cutting it down' and picking all the apples from the tree.
And then wondering how the next crop would be.
Since the industrys traditional m.o. in S.E.Asia is in the cutting down of the tree...there is hardly a control group of proper apple pickers to contrast and compare with.
Blue Hula has reminded us that environmental questions still arise without the insanity of utilizing caustic, coral burning poisons to collect fish...because in the real world, thats what eco-managers study.
In Hawaii, Australia, Mexico and Fiji, researchers would never get to compare fish and coral recovery rates vis a vis cyanide fishing as opposed to net collecting...because cyanide fishing is non existant there and illegal anyway.
The luxury of contemplating sustainability, recovery and recruitment questions in a net caught only Philippines depends on enabling a net caught Philippines to begin with!
Although it is quite possible to convert cyanide fisherman when approached properly, it is much more difficult to convert aquarists and marinelife dealers to the relization that their trade depends on it.
Steve

 

[clarionreef]

Lee,
The luxury to contemplate your questions Lee comes after an absolutely known and certain methodology of destruction is delt with first, no?
Kinda like asking an inmate on death row wether he thought smoking was bad for his health. Yes...it may well be, but it is a distant worry that becomes relevant as a result of transcending the first one!
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Steve,

I'm saying that if the obvious likelyhood is that even 100% net-collection is not sustainable in a region, why pretend that net training is going to fix things?

-Lee

 

[Anonymous]

nevermind

 

[MaryHM]

It's about baby steps, Lee. Baby steps. You can't fix the whole problem in one fell swoop. Impossible. Let's work on things that are easily controllable first- training collectors and getting nets into their hands. That's something the industry/hobbyists can actually do and it goes a long way to solve many of the current problems. Sustainability studies need to be done. No doubt about it. However we (industry/hobbyists) are not equipped to do field studies on sustainability issues. What happens when you try to solve every problem is that people get frustrated and discouraged, and then NO problem ends up getting solved. It's best to focus on what you are capable of doing and allow other entities who are trained in management issues to deal with that end of it. Also, I don't think anyone here has ever said that net caught fish solve all of the reefs problems. But we have said over and over that a net caught fish is preferable to a cyanide caught fish any day. That falls under the "duh" category! I guess the question is, which of the following scenarios do you prefer:
1. Collectors are immediately trained to switch from cyanide to nets, virtually ending cyanide collection for the aquarium trade. In conjuction with or later, management issues can be researched.
2. We wait for all sustainability studies to be completed before we decide if fish from that particular region can be collected sustainably. That could take years. In the meantime, collectors keep on squirting the reefs day in and day out.
3. We sit around and demand the entire problem be fixed NOW (ie Naesco).

 

[clarionreef]

Why pretend that net training will fix things?
NET COLLECTING allows things to fix and seek equilibrium in the eco system. Net training is just the obvious enabler of that.
Hawaii is a small place. Hawaii has many collectors that use nets. Although there are significant issues there regarding sustainability, intrusion into tourist areas, crow bar collecting by some knuckle heads etc. You have to admit that an incredible tonnage of fish come outta there year after year.
IMAGINE what it would be like if Hawaiian collectors used cyanide to collect fish for the past 35 years as has been the methodology in the Philippines. Imagine what the coral cover would be like, the collecting totals now, the tourist industry etc. etc.
I don't know if this was an original thought, but it scared me to think it.
Thank God we will never see Hawaii cashed in for pennies on the dollar like that as they did in S.E.Asia.
Steve

PS If Hawaiians had the terrible misfortune to have been ruled by Indonesian dictator Suharto or the Philippine monster, Marcos...the scenario could've happened. Fishery management [and arm chair fishery management] so now en vogue was not in evidence back then.
Back then fisheries supported their dictators and his policies as their directors were corrupt cronys.

 

[clarionreef]

DELETE

 

[Jaime Baquero]

But, what about the missing link? Net training taking place in area X while tons of cyanide are traded in adjacent areas.

 

[PeterIMA]

Steve, I think we may soon learn that Hawaiian coral reefs are being destroyed, or are already suffering from habitat destruction from Clorox fishing. At present we don't know the extent of the reef destruction. But, it has been practiced for over 30 years by American food fishermen. Let us stop believing that the use of harmful chemicals for fishing only happens in other countries.

Peter Rubec

 

[clarionreef]

Peter,
Then all the information you have has already been shared with the Hawaiian Dept. of Fish and Game I assume.
If clorox fishing is prevalent in Hawaii, the real story is one of the fish and game depts. ineptness, impotence and incompetence. I guarantee you if such a thing happened here in Caifornia...Calif. fish and game would eat em alive. Especially if anyone with information didn't keep it secret.
Abalone poachers on the North coast already know what I mean.
Actually, more disturbing is Florida with its long tradition of drug collecting which has been exposed at least by me many times in the last 20 years.
This criticism suggests that no one here believes that harmful chemicals only are used only in other countries.
The Florida expose would carry better if the scientific community wasn't so hooked on drug collecting themselves. Inept and dysfunctional in the water...hundreds of biologists have squirted quinaldine, MS-222 and rotenone to collect fishes 'for science' bestowing a green light on the practice. As a result, commercial collectors were quick to follow.
This affinity for working with with drugs and chemicals has I believe kept many scientists quiet about the irresponsible commercial collecting with poisons.
The Florida laws regarding quinaldine are based in this predudice as well and derived from researchers who could not catch anything without it. Shame on them.
Quinaldine should be banned from all commercial collecting as it kills larvae and small marinelife by the millions when applied to coral head after coral head. Larger fish like yellow head jawfish, royal gramma, basslets, rock beauties etc. suffer from its effects at every stage of post harvest to varying degrees.
IT IS HYPOCRISY to only point the finger at Asia I agree, but few Americans agree with us.
Why...cause if you call into question the irresponsibility of Floridas shameful drug collecting tradition, the Florida community of biologists will be upset and defend it based on THEIR use of it, while covering the commercial use with the same defense.
Don't show this to Naesco because he'll have to call for a ban on Florida and Hawaii collecting as well as Indo and the Philippines!
Steve
PS. Florida collectors [ with some notable exceptions ] are the worst in the world by and large. Their laziness and overreliance on drugs retarded their learning curve and kept them dependant on the juice.
A good Australian or Filipino net collector is worth three Florida boys any day of the week!
.

 

[JeremyR]

I've been complaining about quinaldine for awhile.. and everytime I've brought it up people are like "but how do you KNOW they are using it".

All you have to do is call them up and ask them, they openly admit to it.

 

[PeterIMA]

Steve and Jeremy,
It is no secret that collectors in Florida and the Caribbean are using Quinaldine. Recently, I was called by a collector in Puerto Rico who uses it (Q) and he admitted to using it for over 20 years. He felt it was essential. I sent him a bibliography created by the coral biologist at FWC/FMRI (Walter Jaap). The problem appears to be that Jaap and Weaton did a study (about 20 years ago) that indicated Q was not harmful to corals (just fish and molluscs). I keep hearing anecdotes about the high mortality of fishes caught by collectors using Q. So far, this information in not in the scientific literature (e.g. aricle by Johnathan Noyes writted in Marine Aquarist in 1977 is not in the scientific literature). Hence the evidence needed is not available to coral reef managers. I suggest that Steve should write a letter to Mr. Bill Causey the manager of the FKNMS-Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (where collecting is still allowed).

Peter Rubec

 

[PeterIMA]

Steve, PS-Most of the information I recently amassed about clorox fishing was shared with the Hawaiian Dept of Lands and Natural Resources (DLNR)

Peter Rubec

 

[Anonymous]

Steve and Jeremy,
It is no secret that collectors in Florida and the Caribbean are using Quinaldine. Recently, I was called by a collector in Puerto Rico who uses it (Q) and he admitted to using it for over 20 years. He felt it was essential. I sent him a bibliography created by the coral biologist at FWC/FMRI (Walter Jaap). The problem appears to be that Jaap and Weaton did a study (about 20 years ago) that indicated Q was not harmful to corals (just fish and molluscs). I keep hearing anecdotes about the high mortality of fishes caught by collectors using Q. So far, this information in not in the scientific literature (e.g. aricle by Johnathan Noyes writted in Marine Aquarist in 1977 is not in the scientific literature). Hence the evidence needed is not available to coral reef managers. I suggest that Steve should write a letter to Mr. Bill Causey the manager of the FKNMS-Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (where collecting is still allowed).

Peter Rubec

I know alot of people that still use Q in florida and in other areas of the caribbean. It is still legal to use in Fl with a permit. Its pretty ridiculous when you can get in transhipped fish from the other side of the world that are healthier than fish from 700miles away.