Borneman's Reefkeeping Magazine article

[Anonymous]

Which is a long standing debate behind the scenes. I know that since we rarely delete anything, that some people who may be interested in posting to the industry forum become uninterested when they look at past discussions.

That's an incredibly weak argument Righty, and I respect your opinions. You are unquestionably a very sharp guy. I think overall this is a very fair and largely self policing forum. No one is here given a free hand to abuse the weak or the intellectually challenged. If they can't take up for themselves one of the other members will jump in to assist. If you don't truly have the courage of your convictions then perhaps this is not the best place to post. I'll give you that much.

It may be weak, but its true. This forum gets little in the way of new contributors, and I have been told by several people that they won't post here because of the aggressive and confrontational attitude by some of the regulars. I think this forum would be a better place for the hobby in general if the perception was that discussions happened here rather than fights - btw, I think it has gotten better in the recent past. :mrgreen:

 

[Anonymous]

Right Mitch,
Righty mentioned that...
Some people who may be interested in posting to the industry forum become uninterested when they look at past discussions.
...and some people want heavy editing of others to insure that their positions are safe.
Some people want a uniformity of thought and opinion and hate it that it cannot be contained.
and some people use the flakiest 5% of what goes on here in this 'free' forum' and dishonestly purport it to be the norm.
This pseudo-intellectual snobbery has been used to put down that which they cannot comtrol, understand or respond to.

Just to be clear, it has nothing to do with the opinions/facts being posted, it has to do with the way those facts/opinions are expressed.

 

[Anonymous]

Well I almost feel sorry for Eric now. I mean it's hard to continue to criticize his article if he is no longer around to defend it. The thing is Coralmania is still over there painting a worse picture of the industry than it really is. He may go down as some type of martyr now. I've talked with several people in the trade since this thread began and everyone agrees that his basic premise that the trade is growing like crazy is just not true. If fact they all agree the trade is diminishing and may be headed toward self destruction. The continued demise of the independent retailers on the front lines getting people into the hobby will impact the hobby in a negative manner. Eric sure got his licks in against retailers over the years in many different ways. If his true intent was to destroy the industry he may well end up with the last laugh after all.
Mitch

bwaaahaaaaahaaa.....

here we go again with that tired old premise of the b&m's being the only driving/determining fator of the hobby's direction and growth...

poppycock! i say!

the internet is, has been, and will be, taking up all of the dinosaur's slack


the only thing that will change is the relevance of b&m's to the hobby/industry :wink:

 

[dizzy]

bwaaahaaaaahaaa.....

here we go again with that tired old premise of the b&m's being the only driving/determining fator of the hobby's direction and growth...

poppycock! i say!

the internet is, has been, and will be, taking up all of the dinosaur's slack


the only thing that will change is the relevance of b&m's to the hobby/industry :wink:

Your probably right. :roll:

 

[dizzy]

I noticed that this:" Next month I will conclude this series with practical solutions for collectors, exporters, wholesalers, retailers and hobbyists to help improve the survival of marine ornamental species based on my personal experiences in this hobby over the years. In turn, this will hopefully and concomitantly produce economic incentives for positive change." didn't appear in the curent issue of Reefkeeping January 06. I really did want to read his conclusions. I hope he publishes it somewhere.
Mitch

 

[StevenPro]

For anyone that is interested in the chronology of events that led to Eric and Dr. Ron leaving RC, check out Dr. Ron's blog,
http://drrons.blogspot.com/

Eric's Coralmania column does not appear to have had anyhting to do with it.

 

[Anonymous]

For anyone that is interested in the chronology of events that led to Eric and Dr. Ron leaving RC, check out Dr. Ron's blog,
http://drrons.blogspot.com/

I think it is important to note that that is the chronology of events according to Ron, and that what actually happened will prolly never be known.

I find it odd that he dishes on 'experts' while at the same time promoting the 'expert' forum that he will soon be part of.

 

[dizzy]

For anyone that is interested in the chronology of events that led to Eric and Dr. Ron leaving RC, check out Dr. Ron's blog,
http://drrons.blogspot.com/

Eric's Coralmania column does not appear to have had anyhting to do with it.

That's good to know. What a strange coincidence. I think this all goes to prove the point that censorship and the potential for its misuse is a frightening propostion. The power to limit others ability to express themselves is much too easy to abuse. And when it gets turned on those accustomed to using it, they go bananas. I simply asked why the XXX thread got vaporized and was told it was none of my business. I was told that those in power make the decisions and asking questions they didn't like was not allowed. Then that thread got vaporized. I'm not kidding. I think Steven must have witnessed it. Power corrupts, absolute power corrups absolutely. Those who favor censorship should be very careful what they wish for.
Mitch

 

[StevenPro]

I have had my share of threads vaporized recently as well.

 

[dizzy]

Another viewpoint. http://saltyzoo.com/rc/ It's not exactly on topic of the Borneman article, but what the heck.

 

[StevenPro]

It was an interesting read none the less.

 

[dizzy]

No links allowed. This is strange: http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthrea ... did=743943

 

[dizzy]

Mark at Mac sent me this reply
"Regarding number of collectors, that is a tough question for anyone to answer with any accurracy. My first comment is that so many of them are "part-time" aquarium fish collectors. Many fisheries are seasonal and this industry pays them so little, only a small percentage do it "full-time." Now in the Philippines, I believe there are around 4-5thousand aquarium fish collectors. Statistics state anywhere from 3-7thousand.
To complicate this further, most collectors sell to a "middleman" who buy fish from many collectors, usually with no records kept."

Perhaps Eric wasn't so far off on that one. Thanks Steve. :x

 

[Kalkbreath]

There aren't enough fish leaving PI to support that many collectors.
If an islander collects ten fish a year , is he still an MO "collector"?

I dance naked once or twice a week in the shower, that doesn't make me an adult entertainer or Male dancer.
If so then there are 100 million male dancers in the USA, but so what?

If there are 4000 part time collectors in PI ........they as a group only collect as many fish as four hundred full time collectors. ( 400 collectors collecting 100 fish a day, 50 damsels + 50mixed fish = 100 fish each collector) = 200 thousand fish per week. times 50 weeks ........
is ten million fish. which is what most estimate is the current PI MO fish exports world wide.

There is a clear reason why discussion has drifted away from how many fish are being exported from PI and the impact our industry has on the region and is currently being expressed in the numbers of MO collectors in PI instead of fish collected.
Choosing to paint a picture of 4 thousand fishermen hauling in hundreds of fish a day , has a lot more weight with the average reader then pointing out that imports to the USA from The Philippines have decreased by fifty percent since the mid 1990's. ( 12 million in 1995 and only 4 to 6 million in 2003 )

 

[clarionreef]

"Perhaps Eric wasn't so far off on that one. Thanks Steve. "
Mitch,
Oh Mitch,
THERE ARE NO WHERE NEAR 4-7 THOUSAND DIVERS COLLECTING TROPICALS IN P.I.!
Kalks math holds up pretty well on this one!
Steve
there are 40 communities with around 35 divers each average in the tropical fish biz...some less, some more. 1,400 is a resonable estimate and it reduces and swells with the seasons.

To reach 4,000 divers you'd need around 100 collecting depots with 40 guys each....
or, 200 depots with 20 guys each.
Thats patently absurd....and an indication of some stretching of the numbers to justify millions of dollars spent to small result.

We all saw the same kind of exagerrations with the number of countries "ESTIMATED" to have cyanide fishing activity, remember?
Marshal Is, :lol: Solomons, 8) Tonga etc 8O
Priming the pump for funding is all it is.

 

[Anonymous]

There aren't enough fish leaving PI to support that many collectors.
If an islander collects ten fish a year , is he still an MO "collector"?

I dance naked once or twice a week in the shower, that doesn't make me an adult entertainer or Male dancer.
If so then there are 100 million male dancers in the USA, but so what?

Um, unless your wife is tossing some bills at you, your just a strange guy in a shower dancing :lol:

 

[dizzy]

So if it is truly only 40 communities then reaching these folks and offering training/assistance doesn't seem like such a monumental task. Given all the money that has been thrown at the problem I just don't understand why we haven't seen more progress. Or maybe we have and don't even realize it. I'm confused. :?

Peter how many of those 40 communites do you think have been contacted by IMA over the years?
Mitch

 

[clarionreef]

So if it is truly only 40 communities then reaching these folks and offering training/assistance doesn't seem like such a monumental task. Given all the money that has been thrown at the problem I just don't understand why we haven't seen more progress...

bingo...and thankyou!
Steve
MAC would double its past 5 year achievement if it would just do one single village properly.
If they could only do that....other villages would take note and follow if the thing was done properly.
The lack of a cascade effect in managing the issue whos time has come portends ill. People are disposed to change with the times....but not the way they want it done.

 

[clarionreef]

If the alledged 4,000 divers caught only 40 fish a day they would be producing 160,000 fish a day!
If they worked for just 200 days a year the total would reach 32,000,000 fish.
Now theres the proof right there of things... as no where near that many fish are being pumped out of P.I.

However, since 2+2 do not equal 4 in Mac-speak, lets see what the 4,000 divers would have to do to make the math work for them;
4,000 boys would have to catch 5 basic fish...and 5 damsels for a whole days work of 10 items.
That alone would make 40,000 fish a day.

If they took care of their families in this way for a 200 day work-year, they would have the total catch nationwide of 8,000,000 fish. Then the math would work.
However, their children would have all starved to death by then.
Steve
PS. I guarantee you that no funder would ever catch this....and thats why they hate this kind of DISCUSSION so much here on RDO

 

[PeterIMA]

I tend to agree with Kalk and Steve that there are not 4000 or more collectors of marine aquarium fishes (MAF) in the Philippines at the present time. Recently, I told Mitch that I thought there were about 1000 collectors presently using cyanide and less than 300 using nets. This is based on recent conversations that I had with Ferdinand Cruz (while I was in the Philippines).

The number of collectors trained by IMA is listed in my cyanide-free net-caught paper (Rubec et al. 2001). The IMA trained 620 collectors to use barrier nets in 20 villages in the southern Philippines in 1998 and 1999. The IMA trained collectors in other areas as well (Coron, Busuanga, Tawi-Tawi etc). So the total number of collectors trained by the IMA overall was about 1,200.

In a second paper (Rubec and Cruz 2002) I estimated that about 2000 collectors had been trained to use nets from 1984 to 2001 in the programs conducted by Project Compassion, Haribon, and IMA.

I believe that there has been a decline in the number of MAF collectors, which is partly related to increasing degredation of the coral reefs. I don't believe that PI coral reefs can presently sustain 4000 collectors. Training more collectors is not a good idea. This is particularly true if the people being trained have not previously been collectors. The goal of net training should be to convert cyanide collectors to become net collectors; not to create new MAF collectors from non-collectors.

Peter Rubec

Rubec, P.J., F. Cruz, V. Pratt, R. Oellers, B. McCullough, and F. Lallo. 2001. Cyanide-free net-caught fish for the marine aquarium trade. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Aquarium Sciences and Conservation 3:37-51.

Rubec, P.J. and F. Cruz. 2002. Net-training to CAMP: Community-based programmes that benefit coral reef conservation and the aquarium trade. Ornamental Fish International OFI Journal Issue 40:
12-17 (October Issue).