REEF FISH GUIDE

[dizzy]

I just noticed the following by Eric Borneman in the current issue of ReefKeeping Magazine http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-12/eb/index.php

"Ironically, a short article by Doug Robbins in Advanced Aquarist regarding trade in marine ornamentals was brought to my attention. The article was pointed out to me by Drew Weiner, the head of Reef Protection International (www.reefprotect.org), a new NGO under the umbrella of the Earth Island Institute (www.earthisland.org) whose goals include strategies to reform the aquarium trade in a tangible and positive manner by producing a, perhaps, overly simplistic "beginner's" pocket guide of fish suitable or unsuitable for captivity. I had also become a scientific board member of that organization, hoping to help effect change through their goals. After much work for them, however, I felt that their guide was too limited (and not built on solid foundations) to really make a difference in the trade of marine ornamentals. Furthermore, the very stores that needed to use the guide for new hobbyists would likely throw them into the trash since their income would be jeopardized, and so I left that group earlier this year. I will be attending a special session at the Marine Ornamentals Conference in February of 2006, and will hopefully be part of a NOAA/NMFS funded workshop on coral farming next year. Yet, as I type of other parties' and my efforts, the trade in marine ornamentals and the loss of species to reefs continues unabated and largely unchanged"
8O

 

[dizzy]

Here is another quote from Eric Hugo Borneman's article in Reefkeeping:


These practices have spread from the Philippines to Indonesia, Sri Lanka and other countries, and have become more common over time, despite efforts to abate their use by training in fish catching with nets (Rubec, et al., 2001). Sadly, many corals are more damaged with nets than with chemicals. Also unfortunate is that many comparatively "reef safe" anaesthetics are available, such as clove oil, and Indonesia is the world's largest producer of cloves. The results of destructive coastal fishing have been devastating. According to the WRI's "Reefs at Risk" report, almost 90% of the coral reefs in the Philippines and Indonesia (as well as Cambodia, Singapore, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia and China) are threatened. Fish larger than a few centimeters in length have become rare on many reefs, and my own diving in some of these regions confirms that although small reef fish abound and corals are diverse and healthy, larger fish are indeed a rare sight.

 

[clarionreef]

Huh? 8O
"Sadly, many corals are more damaged with nets than with chemicals"...
The most in-error notion of the year.
Damaging coral with your net means damaging your net... and is a priority of all divers to avoid! Tearing your net means you are sitting in the boat sewing it up and losing catch time.
Tearing the net is the worse thing you can do when collecting and for that reason is avoided.
Then again...if someone sees some wing nut do it once, the image make stick in their mind and become the famous "anecdotal evidence" that draw sighs from so many scientists .
Steve

 

[dizzy]

Sadly much of Eric's data is from researchers like the plumber Frank Lallo, even if indirectly. Eric has to know much of his article is gargage in, gargage out data that would not stand up to peer review. It's like his estimates on the Fiji live rock haul all over again. :roll:

 

[corality]

Bornemans references and data are skewed. 90% are threatened....by what? definetely not the aquarium trade.Indo has 17,508 islands, with only 6,000 even being inhabited, 54716km of coastline and is the epicenter of reef diversity. Most of the divers work areas that are practical for transport and that are bountiful(least amount of work)
Personally, i have dove many a reefs in Indo and for the most part, the reefs appear to be untouched....thats right, untouched.Fish of all sizes and species are swarming and not a collector in sight. When i went to places that the collectors work such as Goris in north Bali, the reefs were damaged by bomb throwers, pollution from the fish farming(all of the pellet food has encouraged algal growth) but the corals were still thriving.I even saw tops of reefs totally blown off by bombs and nothing but uncosolidated rubble rolling around, even then, there were tons of wrasse,angels,anthias,etc frollicking amongst the healing reef.The corals were already on the rebound and were showing rapid growth(All of the axial corallites were lit up as well as the base) Coral recruits were settling on any anchored down substrate. Just to put this in perspective, the most damaged area i witnessed was what i just described to you, the remote areas will blow your mind. I am not saying that the reefs are not in trouble, they are, but it isnt as bad as the scientist are making it seem. By and large, the worst problem(outside of cyclones;mother nature) is pollution and runoff from the cities flowing on to the adjacent reefs near by.

 

[Anonymous]

Sadly much of Eric's data is from researchers like the plumber Frank Lallo, even if indirectly. Eric has to know much of his article is gargage in, gargage out data that would not stand up to peer review. It's like his estimates on the Fiji live rock haul all over again. :roll:

Eric got his statistics training from the same school Kalk did apparently. 8O

 

[clarionreef]

On the scientific method and the evaluation of empiracle evidence;

...if someone sees some wing nut do it once, the image make stick in their mind and become the famous "anecdotal evidence" that draw sighs from so many real scientists .
Steve
PS.
Pet shop science is an old practice....the standards of approval are so much less.
Historically it was practiced by PIJAC that found no evidence of cyanide use in the Philippines and little harm done if it were.
I guess it has evolved as the market now is to find or concoct more fault with the trade..

 

[dizzy]

More from Eric: "Many in the industry and hobby (and other stakeholders) support a sustainable trade. Prior to the establishment of the American Marine Dealer's Association (AMDA) and then the Marine Aquarium Council (MAC), no real system had allowed consumers to choose responsible operators and sustainably-sourced products from reefs and fisheries that were well-managed, although the results of the MAC have been disappointingly slow and limited considering the resources they have expended throughout their existence. There is a need to develop options for ecosystem management of aquarium fisheries and to develop the capacity to implement the management plans through partnerships of NGOs, collectors, fishing communities, government agencies, end users and all those involved in the marine ornamental trade. I feel it is foolish to look to one organization, such as the MAC, to create change, although catalysis is a possibility."

I believe he is telling us something. If it ain't MAC and it ain't RPI can we look for something new coming onto the scene in the near future?

 

[clarionreef]

The single biggest impediment to change and reform is the reluctance of the governments in question to value it and take it seriously.
Free cash flow from foreign NGOs made Philippine and Indonesian administrators lazy and inattentive...or camp followers for the foreign money.
Issues dealing with the poor were never their forte...and these issues run counter to most bureaucracies need to make friends with elites, take money from business people and pass their careers milking the slow-go status quo.
Welfare from us....that did not work...made a lot of fisheries people lazy. Sometimes jealous...but rarely involved.
Creating our own agenda off their peoples problems ...controlled by mostly inept foreigners was also not inspiring to them.
However...
Defending their reefs, their people and their interests is supposed to be primarily their mission. There are local governments that have stepped up to the plate so to speak....but the federals in Indo and P.I. have been terrible. The savage dictatorships of Marcos and Suharto are long gone but their legacies remain...a worthless set of cabinet ministries.
Steve

 

[mkirda]

the remote areas will blow your mind. I am not saying that the reefs are not in trouble, they are, but it isnt as bad as the scientist are making it seem. By and large, the worst problem(outside of cyclones;mother nature) is pollution and runoff from the cities flowing on to the adjacent reefs near by.

Corality,

The problem is that what you are seeing as mindblowing reefs are already in decline, and have been for decades now. There is likely now no such thing as a pristine reef anywhere left in the world.

I know that when Eric and I were diving in Tukang Besi, which is at least 12 hours out by dive boat, and where most of the atolls are uninhabited, you can still easily find bomb craters. They were mind-blowing too, but also in decline. I saw more grouper in the Philippines in heavily fished reefs than in these remote atolls. To all of us it was pretty clear that the grouper had been systematically fished rather recently.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[mkirda]

Sadly, many corals are more damaged with nets than with chemicals.

Mitch,

Without consulting Eric directly, I think he is speaking here about all nets in all areas, including deep water trawlers. I think his intended audience will infer that he is talking solely about the MO trade. I think his point is correct, when looked at in totality, but very likely incorrect when focused solely on the Marine Ornamental trade.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[corality]

Mike,

How do you gauge what is pristine and what is not? If you are basing it on transect lines and how much diversity you find in a given area, what do you say is pristine and what do you say is not. Many areas that i have dove you see corals growing off of other still living corals and are maximizing the not so available realestate. It begs the question, how much better can it really be? And if you state that it can be better, what proof do you have, how far back in history have we actually (and factually) been recording coral reef growth and development? Just because the corals are not always gargantuan, this doesnt imply health,(to me, it means that the coral was lucky) just because there is not every genus and species represented in a small area doesnt mean squat. In order for acessment of health to be accurate, the same area must be checked at least once a year for a decade, in my opinion,otherwise you are speculating on what was there and what will come and settle, or if any recruit will ever establish in that area again.Furthermore, i think that there needs to be some history homework for the researchers.Speak with the villagers, the old men who have been in the water there whole life and ask them how that rock underwater over there looked 40 years ago. Unless you can gather all of this information, and endure the time to see if the reef will fix itself, then the research you come up with doesnt tell the whole story. :roll:

PS
I disagree with your statement about there not being a pristine reef anywhere in the world. Until you have been on every reef on the planet, please refrain from making blanket statements like you did.I have dove my fair share(probably as many as you) and will come up with my own conclusions instead of letting the intellectuals do the thinking for me. :wink:

 

[mkirda]

Mike,

How do you gauge what is pristine and what is not?

Go read the following paper with an open mind and draw your own conclusions:

What was natural in the coastal oceans?
Jeremy B. C. Jackson

PNAS May 8th, 2001, vol. 98, No. 10, pg. 5411-5418

Regards.
Mike Kirda
p.s. It is called "Shifting Baseline Syndrome".

 

[clarionreef]

"Furthermore, i think that there needs to be some history homework for the researchers.Speak with the villagers,"

Wow...good point ...!...and one that will rarely be heeded.
Most researchers don't mix well with the poor and have little heart for them. They think the reefs are their playgound....for esoteric research and career points...not a turf to benefit the people who live there.
I wish this were not true but in country after country where I have worked, there was a big gulf between them.
The worst I've ever seen was in the Philippines of course where the field project budgets were looted for office and administrative use...while minimizing the field expenses and people as much as possible.
The second worst was Mexico where the researchers based in a village had to be taken to interview with old fisherman reluctantly. Its was like they were allergic to poverty and alien to their own people.
Alsa, urban marine biologists they all were. As different from their people as Americans. This helps to understand the lack of betterment of fisherfolks lives as the issues are played for others anyway.

Futhermore, it helps to understand the lack of success in the promulgation of village projects pertaining to training in collecting and handling of fishes. Teaching aliens from afar with manuals and canned theories has not been working.
The worth of it all is in the implementation of a plan to and for the locals...and one that jives with and includes them, not the selling of it to other elites.

Steve
PS. Even if you think globally...you still have to act locally....to be effective

 

[dizzy]

Sadly, many corals are more damaged with nets than with chemicals.

Mitch,

Without consulting Eric directly, I think he is speaking here about all nets in all areas, including deep water trawlers. I think his intended audience will infer that he is talking solely about the MO trade. I think his point is correct, when looked at in totality, but very likely incorrect when focused solely on the Marine Ornamental trade.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

Mike the problem is that Eric intentionally uses dated and misleading information to draw the conclusions he wants. (You would think he would have learned something from backpeddling he had to do on his live rock estimates) Go and read his article in the current issue of Reepkeeping linked in an earlier post. If you Mike Kirda can't see several questionable references he used then you have much less of an understanding of the true situation than I thought.

As far as the above I would say that if we use all nets in all areas then we need to use all chemicals in all areas dumped into the ocean. This includes all near shore pollution from industrial and commercial runoff. From factories to golf courses. So IMO his point may not be correct when looked at in totality. Besides even if trawling does cause more damage than chemical runoff what does it have to do with his article?
Mitch

PS
I believe Eric has some agenda he hopes this article will advance. Perhaps it is all good and noble. I will withhold judgement until I see exactly what it is. The problem is the faulty data he has mixed in with his factual stuff will be quoted and used to promote other schemes, some perhaps not as noble as his. When this stuff is written and requoted enough times it appears to be credible. If this stuff is not pointed out and debated now, who will do so before legislative lawmakers who believe it is reason to shut down the industry. It is a very dangerous game he is playing, at least it is for those of us who making our living in the industry.
Mitch

 

[clarionreef]

If dredge nets, trawl nets and gill nets are confused with little aquarium barrier nets then it would be a dishonest, calculated affair.
They have...as anyone would know, nothing in common.
Steve

 

[mkirda]

Mike the problem is that Eric intentionally uses dated and misleading information to draw the conclusions he wants. (You would think he would have learned something from backpeddling he had to do on his live rock estimates) Go and read his article in the current issue of Reepkeeping linked in an earlier post. If you Mike Kirda can't see several questionable references he used then you have much less of an understanding of the true situation than I thought.

As far as the above I would say that if we use all nets in all areas then we need to use all chemicals in all areas dumped into the ocean. This includes all near shore pollution from industrial and commercial runoff. From factories to golf courses. So IMO his point may not be correct when looked at in totality. Besides even if trawling does cause more damage than chemical runoff what does it have to do with his article?
Mitch

PS
I believe Eric has some agenda he hopes this article will advance. Perhaps it is all good and noble. I will withhold judgement until I see exactly what it is. The problem is the faulty data he has mixed in with his factual stuff will be quoted and used to promote other schemes, some perhaps not as noble as his. When this stuff is written and requoted enough times it appears to be credible. If this stuff is not pointed out and debated now, who will do so before legislative lawmakers who believe it is reason to shut down the industry. It is a very dangerous game he is playing, at least it is for those of us who making our living in the industry.
Mitch

Mitch,

Rather than debate here what we think Eric meant, I have a proposition for you.

You think Eric has an agenda and you think he is using outdated data.
Let's go right straight over here:

http://reefcentral.com/forums/forumdisp ... orumid=120

and post the references that you think are outdated or false.
I have most of them, and can get most of the rest. I'd like you to point them out, then to say why.

I know that we can have a thoughtful discussion, and I think Eric would also participate. (Again, haven't consulted him, but have a feeling he would.)

This way we can stop hijacking this thread as this is all rather off-topic for RPI's fish list.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[dizzy]

Mike,
I'm not really sure what the point of this thread was to begin with or the need to keep it pure. I will tell you why I think bringing the Borneman article in was relevant. I suspect Eric had a huge influence on the species that were included. I remember speaking with Drew on the phone a year and a half or so, ago. It was well before John Brandt came on board as an advisor, but around the time Eric was co-authoring articles with Drew, just prior to Boston MACNA. Anyway Drew was tossing out those same wild mortality numbers Eric uses in his article, like 90% of the fish die before they are sold stuff. Anyway I told Drew those numbers were plain silly, but I don't think that is what he wanted to hear. Drew seemed to be under the impression that wild collection was not necessary to sustain the industry. Now in his Reepkeeping article Eric is taking shots at RPI, and at lfs. Since he did that I felt it was ok to drag his comments over here as evidenced by my first post to this thread.

I don't generally like posting on reef central because I don't like the way it is moderated. We could just start a new thread and ask Eric to join us here. If you really want me to comment over there do me a favor. Find a copy of that 96 Marine Fish Monthly article Eric referenced so I can read it first. I do remember reading some of his posting on Breeder's Registry about that time. It seems to me he was in favor of shutting down the wild harvest and switching completely to cultured way back then. He starts this current article by saying he feels the same way now as he did back then. He then says he has learned a lot, but goes on to back quite a bit of it up with bogus mortality numbers that in no way reflect the current situation in the hobby today. It left me wondering what he has really learned. Anyway see if you can get me the copy of the MFM article.

Mitch

PS
I read how you rebuffed kalk's use of IMA's cyanide data on food fish. Why are you not doing the same when Eric uses IMA data to make the industry look like it has 90% mortality? I don't really understand the difference. Actually Eric's is much more damaging since it is used in a seemingly factual article. I don't think very many really take kalk all that serious. BTW you are familar with the live rock harvest over estimates I've referred too, aren't you.
Mitch

 

[dizzy]

Mike,
Here is another quote that seems sensational to me:

"If we estimate that there are one million reefkeepers in the U.S., and we consider what I think is a conservative estimate of one hundred animals purchased over the average person's time as a hobbyist, it's easy to see why some people might be concerned. It is again important to keep in mind that the aquarium trade has grown by approximately 30% each year."

Where oh where are those figures coming from? If the industry is growing by 30% every year then why are so may stores going under? How many out there think 1,000,000 people buy 100 animals each?

 

[dizzy]

Here is another quote I don't fully understand, but it seems fishy:

Cyanide fishing often results in a type of sudden death syndrome, often becoming apparent only after the fish has been shipped to other countries and entered the retail channel. It has been estimated to result in nine fish killed for every one collected (Brower, 1991) and results in large amounts of collateral damage to other reef species, including corals (Bryant, 1998, et al.; Rubec, et al., 2001).