Borneman's Reefkeeping Magazine article

[danieldm]

Dr. Rubec-

I was not my intention to bash scientists in general, nor to directly bash the scientists that Eric cites in his article. My point was to highlight the age of Eric's data, which makes it statistically unreliable.

Also, again from a statstical perspective, one of the scientists/papers that Eric cites was written from actual research within the South Pacific region. This research paper was then later used by the author to substantiate additional grants/funding that would expand the same scientists field research in the South Pacific. Again, from a statistical perspective supporting data such as this is usually skewed in favor of the authors position. Say the scientist feels that there are 500k-600k of something, in his supporting paper (that he knows will later be used to secure additional fuding) it would get reported as say 600k+...or maybe the infamous "at least" sentence..."at least 600k". This happens in every walk of life, from budgeting in corporate boardrooms to the highest levels of academia. I have done this myself, and I would assume that you have as well. It's not an untruth, but rather showing the extreme point that is favorable to your position.

a good job with his paper, although there are a number of inaccurate statements.

As a scientist, I was surprised that you made this statement. You could have just as easily said "I thought that Eric's article was a good one and I support his perspective, even though there are numerous inaccuracies within his supporting data". Sort of what you are saying is that even thoguh the article may be factually inaccurate, that it made you feel good and you agree with it. But in hard science, there isn't room for questionable data and feel good science.

 

[dizzy]

Let's examine another Borneman quote: "Despite the claimed widespread availability of U.S. tank-raised fish, few were available to aquarists surveyed, and yet 60,000 - 100,000 wild clownfish are thought to enter the U.S. each month (Wheeler, 1996). Rarer and unusual fish are becoming more commonly encountered in the trade (Delbeek, 1998), including deepwater species for which little ecological and less husbandry information is data available "(Pyle, 2004).

What is wrong with the above quote? It is from a current article. Eric is suggesting it is hard to find cultured clowns in pet stores. When was this survey conducted and how would it matter, if cultured clownfish are now readily available. I think deep in his heart Eric knows they are. All you have to do is go to Petco fer chrissake. :roll:

And if rarer fish are becoming more common isn't it just possible they were not as rare as we believed? Deep water fish that are rare in the trade, may not be all that rare at all. The truth is very little collecting is being done below 150 feet. I think Forrest Young of Dynasty does some if I paid attention to a lecture Scott Michael did. I don't believe the market for expensive deep water fish is large enough to seriously threaten them. Collecting has to done with rebreathers and these are not readily available to most. And you know why we don't have much husbandry information on deep water species? Because they are not being collected much. Richard Pyle is going to make a collecting trip and try and get some attractive pairs of some with commercial potential. Not to over exploit them, but to give them to a few known successful breeders for propagation purposes. He showed slides of the Dr. Seuss goby for one. I seem to recall that this upset Eric for some reason.
Mitch

 

[danieldm]

Mitch-

Good point. I would be hard pressed to find a WC occelaris in my area. Same for clarkii, maroon, etc.

But look at the dates of the supporting data that Eric cites for those comments...Wheeler, 1996 and Delbeek, 1998. We all know that the industry supplying U.S. tank-raised fish, especially clowns, has exploded exponentially in the past seven PLUS years.

 

[clarionreef]

WE ALL KNOW....
"the industry supplying U.S. tank-raised fish, especially clowns, has exploded exponentially in the past seven PLUS years"...

T.R.CLOWNS are a Petco code number and mass merchandised , abused and killed...er marketed .. in amazing numbers now.
If these mass numbers required wild anemones we'd be in big trouble as this exhalted cultivated stuff would be a nightmare for the demand it would put on wild anemone populations.

The knee jerk...tank raised is better mantra is not so good a thing to believe in as a salvation of anything actually...its more of a deodorant .
Putting fisherman out of clownfish collecting shunts them to otherfish collecting. But industrial multiplication lab raised clownfishes may ruin wild populations if the wild anemones are going to follow them.
No wild anemones...
no wild clownfish.......the thing we say we want to save...remember?
Geez, is it really thought to be so easy to be responsible?
When people brag about having a all cultivated tank...make sure its still a harmless tank.
Steve

 

[danieldm]

Steve-

Fine points...I can't remember where I read this and it was a while ago. But a study was done and in the wild and they found very few anemones alive that were NOT hosting clowns. And vice-versa that they didn't didn't find clowns that were NOT living with an anemone. The study backed up the theory that both organisim benefit from protecting each other...the things that eat clowns get stung by the anemone, and the things that eat anemones are chased away by the clowns. It goes back to the saying "robbing Peter to Paul"...Peter in this case being wild anemones and Paul the TR fish.

I'm sure that many aspects of the tank raised phenom are no better than the inbred puppy mills.

 

[danieldm]

Steve-

In retrospect, I have one aspect of your previous statement

Putting fisherman out of clownfish collecting

that I wish for you to clarify.

Are you saying that putting these fishermen out of business is a bad thing? Just because a reform put someone out of business doesn't necessarily mean that the reform is a bad thing. That would be like saying that the war on drugs is putting too many poppy farmers out of business and they'll have no way to feed their families (I know this is an extreme example).

This is my perspective...the industry will never correct itself. There is too much money, too much greed, and too many chiefs/Indians with too many agendas. Like the African ivory trade, sooner or later the US will enact laws outlawing the importation, or severely limiting, the importation of certain marine organisms. Slowly and surly the industry will die off. Especially when you take into account the enormous amount of money in the hands of environmental lobbyists.

 

[clarionreef]

A study found thing we all already knew;
This is very common.
..." that they didn't didn't find clowns that were NOT living with an anemone. "
Thats cuz it just doesn't happen. Clowns have little protection against many predators, especially at night as they are shaped to slide down the gullet pretty well and swim funny.
Fish Dave said it best awhile ago.
Ya give the eco-types a few cultivated soft leathers to play with and they go away...thinking they help saved something.
Meanwhile, the real issues are hardly adressed.
We just got in artificial live rock that looks like the exact real thing out of Bali.
Its cast in molds and mimicks real rock so well that the Fish and Wildlife guys were fooled. Its nothing but aragonite and cement...molded artfully and left in the water for 5 months...presto....we're saving reefs!
Fine, its a nice thing to do.
Truth is, Bali is live rock. The artificial stuff is far dearer to create then what nature did and involves cement. A caustic , expensive [ in Bali ] dust mined from the earth in a most 'wonderful, benign way'.
I guess I'd just as soon not have a sugar pill and take it straight .
Steve
The dynamite and cyanide trade created a glut of live rock material in Bali as to be a windfall of paving material..ie. tons and tons....and tons.

 

[danieldm]

Steve-

Sort of like the hype over electric or hybrid cars and what it will do to save the planet. But what doesn't get mentioned is the filth created in making all of those batteries, or what to do with them once they have exhausted their lifespan. Not to mention the cost to recharge the batteries, since quite a bit of the US power grid gets the electricity from coal burning power plants.

I'm saving the planet by driving my Honda hybrid....NOT!

 

[clarionreef]

Danny wrote;
"Are you saying that putting these fishermen out of business is a bad thing?"
It is if you know them.
Fisherfolk in many villages know fish and fishing and thats pretty much it.
Much of the soil where they live doesn't grow crops well due to the salt content and other employment options that we take for granted here...are not easy to find there.
I always filter this issue thru the fisherman first ethic anyway as the resource off their villages is first theirs and represents their income.

Trying to wire the fishing methodology to sustainability is a pro-fisherman notion....long before a pro-environmental one for Westerners.
Besides...when we're friends with the fisherman first....all the things we say we believe in and want to do....become much, much easier to achieve.
Steve
PS...
This money grubbing, pseudo, snobbish environmental elitism that has crept into everything has made it a lot harder to save anything.
I know the primma donnas of the trade will not take this well but they insure failure of all objectives with the exclusionary, city based, NGO grant MONEY FOR THEM solution to everything.

 

[spawner]

T.R.CLOWNS are a Petco code number and mass merchandised , abused and killed...er marketed .. in amazing numbers now.
If these mass numbers required wild anemones we'd be in big trouble as this exhalted cultivated stuff would be a nightmare for the demand it would put on wild anemone populations.

The knee jerk...tank raised is better mantra is not so good a thing to believe in as a salvation of anything actually...its more of a deodorant .
Putting fisherman out of clownfish collecting shunts them to otherfish collecting. But industrial multiplication lab raised clownfishes may ruin wild populations if the wild anemones are going to follow them.
No wild anemones...
Steve

Steve what about our friend out there starting up a farm in co-op with fisherman, that can't be a bad thing. Wonder if it will work. Hope so.
Somebody needs to start working on Rose and other good anemones.
Captive raised fish will over take wild collected fish in most every species when the numbers and prices come in line. It's going to happen no way around it.

 

[clarionreef]

Captive raised fish will over take wild collected fish in most every species when the numbers and prices come in line...??
Uh uh...
The easiest fish are captive bred now; fish with large eggs...clowns and gobies...and that list has grown very slowly.
There will be a very slow evolution into butterflies, angels, triggers, wrasses, tangs, anglers, lions , damsels and the mass bulk of the trade.
The God given reefs produce fish for us and income for fisherfolk.
Theres a system to make sustainable and cleaner.
Lab fish are but a trickle and will remain so for a long time.
Steve
Carpets will be the hardest to raise, slowest growing and most expensive of all.
Bubbles and roses are easy. They have nothing in common.

 

[sdcfish]

Peter,

My point about your comment that 50% of the fish collected die on the reef was:

Your comment is being used as a general term for the whole industry....that's how it is presented in the article from Borneman and I have seen it used other places as well.

I know that you didn't mean 50% of the fish die on the reef as a general term, and that you didn't mean that it happens in the majority of the countries where fish are collected and traded.

Again, I would seriously doubt that 50% of fish die on the reef except for a rare occasion and it is very irresponsible for anyone to quote you out of context leaving a terrible impression of the industry in whole.

I would hope you would make clear, as well as anyone using your quotes, that your comment would be made perfectly clear what you meant, and where you consider this to happen.

From my own collection experiences, and from conversations I have had with dozens of divers, exporters, trainers, wholesalers etc....your 50% is a random percentage and not commonly occuring in Indonesia, Philipines, or any other country where fish are commonly collected.

That is why I fear people would take your 50% comment totally out of context. It simply does not happen in the majority of countries and if it does happen....something went terribly wrong.

As far as our relationship with CCIF....they are no more. The efforts are now focused with Mamti and I have personal involvement through Reefcheck. I believe this is a better solution for sources to be spent on. Management, research and training. No-take zones for replenishment areas are already in the works, and more to come.

Naesco, was wrong on all three of his statments as Cortez stated. Why he didn't know that is beyond me. I am sure he didn't make those comments knowing he was incorrect. It's perception that is so important. That is why reports, articles and comments in public arena's need to be more accurate and responsible to our industry.

The point of Borneman's article was to point out the impact of the industry to the reef. He misrepresents the impact and does little to mention the benefits of the industry....such as giving value to the reef which I believe is one of the industry's biggest assests.

Local collectors who earn livings for their families via collection of aquarium fish and inverts do a much better job protecting their reefs from negative forces than any other means of policing. I have personally seen boats turned upside down by local fisherman warning non-aquarium collection fisherman to stay away from their reefs. It's the self - policing from aquarium collectors that can be such a great asset to the reefs, with continued education and training, more sustainable and friendly techniques are more and more the commonplace.

I just feel it is very important to give a fair perception of the industry as a whole, and to address the problems where they occur in an accurate description. I think that is why MAC and others involved have focused thier efforts in the Philipines and Bali where most efforts are needed.

This is a monumental task that others have tried and failed. It is unfair to expect immediate results and I have always understood the scope of this task. This kind of effort can take decades to achieve it's complete goals. If we can turn the tides in this region, and convert the next generation of collectors into better handlers, then it was a major accomplishment.

At this point, we are not pushing for MAC fish nor are we upset with the progress made to this point, but more focused on working with our suppliers to adapt better husbandy practices, better packing methods, and our own handling techniques on this end. Becoming MAC certified is not just about trading certified fish, but more about the infastructure of companies like ours alike and becoming a more responsible and better managed company/industry.

I promote certification to all exporters, importers, retailers and believe this is the best way to organize our industry and become better business's in the process.

Best regards,

Eric

 

[dizzy]

"Maybe I did misread it, but in science we have a little truism that if someone doesn't understand what the author was trying to say, its usually the author's fault, and not the reader's."

And that my friends was written by the same guy who wrote Coralmania. :roll:
Mitch

 

[Anonymous]

"Maybe I did misread it, but in science we have a little truism that if someone doesn't understand what the author was trying to say, its usually the author's fault, and not the reader's."

And that my friends was written by the same guy who wrote Coralmania. :roll:
Mitch

So a person writing a scientific piece has to dumb it down so any idiot can understand it such as the hack who said that qoute? 8O

 

[Anonymous]

Walt smith replied to the reefcentral thread.

 

[PeterIMA]

sdcfish (From Eric Cohen of Sea Dwelling Creatures)

ERIC-
Peter, My point about your comment that 50% of the fish collected die on the reef was:

Your comment is being used as a general term for the whole industry....that's how it is presented in the article from Borneman and I have seen it used other places as well.

PETER-I would agree that it may be unfair if a number I used in several papers pertaining to information I gathered in the Philippines (published in Marine Fish Monthly in 1987, and later in a Scientific Symposium in 1991) has been repeated in a more general sense by other authors. However, I cannot be responsible for statements made by others (just myself).

ERIC-I know that you didn't mean 50% of the fish die on the reef as a general term, and that you didn't mean that it happens in the majority of the countries where fish are collected and traded.

PETER-I interviewed collectors in Bolinao in 1986 who had formerly used cyanide and stated that it killed about 50% of the marine aquaiurm fish (MAF) on the reef. I never claimed that this applied to other countries. However, I believe that the situation (regarding the widespread use of cyanide) is similar in Indonesia, Vietnam, and Malaysia. I know that the mortality of fishes on the reefs is high. A scientific study is needed to determine how serious the fish mortality problem from cyanide exposure on the reefs is at the present time.

If we accept that 75-80% of the marine aquarium fishes exported to the aquarium trade come from the Philippines and Indonesia then the situation in other countries is largely irrelevant (does not prove that the overall percent mortality is significantly lower because fishes caught elsewhere are not caught with cyanide).


ERIC-Again, I would seriously doubt that 50% of fish die on the reef except for a rare occasion and it is very irresponsible for anyone to quote you out of context leaving a terrible impression of the industry in whole.
PETER-I disagree with your assertions (which don't seem to be substantiated with any first-hand information).

ERIC-I would hope you would make clear, as well as anyone using your quotes, that your comment would be made perfectly clear what you meant, and where you consider this to happen.

PETER-My impression is the same as those who have criticized the trade. The marine aquarium fish trade is responsible for the introduction of cyanide into these countries. Cyanide use has spread to other fisheries (like the live food fish trade). Exporters and middlemen associated with the marine aquarium fish trade, continue to distribute cyanide to collectors (in countries like the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Papua New Guinea). Cyanide is a major factor contributing to the destruction of coral reefs (as documented by Cervino et al. 2003). It also is contributing to the depletion of marine aquarium fish species in demand by the trade.


ERIC-From my own collection experiences, and from conversations I have had with dozens of divers, exporters, trainers, wholesalers etc....your 50% is a random percentage and not commonly occuring in Indonesia, Philipines, or any other country where fish are commonly collected.

That is why I fear people would take your 50% comment totally out of context. It simply does not happen in the majority of countries and if it does happen....something went terribly wrong.

PETER-I also have contacts with collectors, divers, trainers, exporters, and importers. I have been actively involved with the issues discussed herein for over 20 years. I helped found the IMA in 1985 and collaborated with other NGOs such as the East Asian Seas and Terrestrial Initiative (EASI). I am presentlyworking closely with several exporters to help reduce their mortalities during shipping and handling. I am collaborating with EASI on a mortality study involving the addition of chemical additives to shipping bags.

Having just returned from the Philippines (from my sixth trip there), I disagree with your assertions. Would you like to contact the Vice-Mayor of Legaspi City? He is a scuba diver and has witnessed the destruction of the reefs. Many Philippines municipalities are presently banning collection of marine aquarium fishes. Why? Answer-Because they believe that cyanide use is destroying the coral reefs and their associated fisheries.

ERIC-As far as our relationship with CCIF....they are no more. The efforts are now focused with Mamti and I have personal involvement through Reefcheck. I believe this is a better solution for sources to be spent on. Management, research and training. No-take zones for replenishment areas are already in the works, and more to come.

PETER-The Conservation and Community Investment Forum (CCIF) (a non-profit NGO) still exists and is associated with the MAC and ReefCheck in implementing the Marine Aquarium Marketing Transformation Initiative (MAMTI). Prior to the inception of MAMTI (from 2000 to 2003, CCIF attempted to get funding from the World Bank GEF for the creation of the for-profit Reef Product Alliance (RPA). RPA was an attempt to create a vertically integrated for-profit marketing chain for MAF using funds from the World Bank GEF and venture capitalists (through the parent company of both RPA and CCIF-Core Resources International). Sea Dwelling Creatures (your company) was listed as the U.S.A. hub for a distribution network of net-caught fish. I think you meant to state that SDC was no longer associated with the RPA initiative, but is presently MAC certified and associated with the MAMTI initiative. Is this more correct?

ERIC-Naesco, was wrong on all three of his statments as Cortez stated. Why he didn't know that is beyond me. I am sure he didn't make those comments knowing he was incorrect. It's perception that is so important. That is why reports, articles and comments in public arena's need to be more accurate and responsible to our industry.

PETER-I posted the RPA document on this web site about a month ago (on thread concerning Destructive Fishing-Claussen.doc). It is also still available for download from the CCIF website. It leave it to the interested reader to reach their own conclusions based on the written material that is publicly available. In the end, it is the truth that counts.

The point of Borneman's article was to point out the impact of the industry to the reef. He misrepresents the impact and does little to mention the benefits of the industry....such as giving value to the reef which I believe is one of the industry's biggest assests.

REPLY-Actually, I agree with you. But, lets have net-training programs that work, some real commitment by the aquarium trade to stop cyanide fishing and to improve the trade, lets have net-caught MAF that live, and coral reefs that are recovering and not being destroyed.

ERIC-Local collectors who earn livings for their families via collection of aquarium fish and inverts do a much better job protecting their reefs from negative forces than any other means of policing. I have personally seen boats turned upside down by local fisherman warning non-aquarium collection fisherman to stay away from their reefs. It's the self - policing from aquarium collectors that can be such a great asset to the reefs, with continued education and training, more sustainable and friendly techniques are more and more the commonplace.

I just feel it is very important to give a fair perception of the industry as a whole, and to address the problems where they occur in an accurate description. I think that is why MAC and others involved have focused thier efforts in the Philipines and Bali where most efforts are needed.

This is a monumental task that others have tried and failed. It is unfair to expect immediate results and I have always understood the scope of this task. This kind of effort can take decades to achieve it's complete goals. If we can turn the tides in this region, and convert the next generation of collectors into better handlers, then it was a major accomplishment.

PETER-Sounds good to me. I have invited collectors /community organizers/NGOs/researchers, and the trade from both Indonesia (Bali) and the Philippines to be on the Sustainability Symposium panel session at the MO06 Conference. So, concrete examples of what is being done will be presented.

Is MAC or ReefCheck going to report on their programs at the Marine Ornamentals Conference? Dr. Gregor Hodgeson of ReefCheck declined to participate in the Sustainability Symposium. Hopefully, he will present his programs in another session at MO06.

ERIC-At this point, we are not pushing for MAC fish nor are we upset with the progress made to this point, but more focused on working with our suppliers to adapt better husbandy practices, better packing methods, and our own handling techniques on this end. Becoming MAC certified is not just about trading certified fish, but more about the infastructure of companies like ours alike and becoming a more responsible and better managed company/industry.

I promote certification to all exporters, importers, retailers and believe this is the best way to organize our industry and become better business's in the process.

Best regards,

Eric
_________________
Eric

PETER-Eric thanks for your feedback. I feel that we share the same goals. We just have different perceptions about how these goals should be achieved.
Sincerely,
Peter Rubec, Ph.D,
Marine Research Scientist
and concerned marine hobbyist.

 

[Kalkbreath]

Peter, have you purposely forgotten that you only found 21% of the fish to have cyanide present on average over the past five years of testing.
2001 - 1997
Are you as a scientist suggesting that the remaining 79% of the fish in the tests (which showed no sign of poison)....... were collected at a fifty percent mortality rate as well? From what? "Toxic net syndrome"
Your claim that fifty percent die during collection with poison doesn't apply to the 79% clean fish ............only the 21% fish found to contain poison.
There fore only 21 percent of yearly imported fish from PI, which is 1.3 million of the total yearly exports. (21% of 6,000,000 ) should be included in your blanket statement that half the MO industries fish die during collection.
With 14 million fish landing in America, the scant 1.3 million fish which fit your conditions of 50% mortality is barely 9%.
Hardly worthy of your white wash.
2.6 million fish collected with poison, spread out over the entire collection area of the 26,000 square kilometers of the Philippines reefs is a few fish every twelve months per kilometer.
Again the math doesn't support your position, being that the math is compiled juxtaposing now and then, using your own data should place into question either your current posturing or your past compiling? :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

Well I think I might have lost what little respect I had left for Eric and the RC Mods. The thread has mysteriously disappeared.

 

[Anonymous]

Eric mods his own forum, and deletes as he wishes, or so the RC staff/mods have told me. I guess he wished

 

[dizzy]

It's a little like book burning. I guess that activist cash information was too much to handle.
Mitch