Buy a wild fish and save a tree.

[dizzy]

This a freshwater fish, but I'm sure the same logic can be applied to to marine fish as well.

http://en.microcosmaquariumexplorer.com ... uy_A_(Wild)_Fish_-_Save_A_Tree?utm_campaign=Freshwater%20Aquarium%20Explorer%3A%20Buy%20a%20%28Wild%29%20Fish%20-%20Save%20a%

Buy A (Wild) Fish - Save A Tree From Microcosm Aquarium Explorer
Jump to: navigation , search


Schooling wild-caught Cardinal Tetras. JJPhoto.dk

Mild-mannered and merely an inch (2.5 cm) in length, this glittery little tropical fish is being credited with protecting an area of rainforest the size of the state of Pennsylvania, nearly 50,000 square miles (120,000 sq km).

If there is one Poster-Child-Species to inspire fishkeepers to help save tropical ecosystems, it is the Cardinal Tetra, Paracheirodon axelrodi, so named for its vivid scarlet belly coloration, suggestive of a cardinal’s robes.

A glimmering beauty when well-fed and kept in schools of five or more, the Cardinal Tetra has for the past 50 years defied easy breeding in captivity, and its wild harvest has been supporting a vibrant community of fisherfolk living along the tributaries to the Amazon River, notably the Rio Negro and Orinoco Rivers.

Known as caboclos, these river dwelling families who help supply the global trade in South American aquarium fishes number more than 1,000, with some 40,000 people dependent in one way or another on the collection trade based in Barcelos, Brazil, alone.

[edit] Enter the Aquacultured Cardinal
Now, after more than a half-century of wild collection, captive-bred Cardinals are making their way into the aquarium. Many observers fear this could lead to the collapse of the Rio Negro wild harvest, with severe consequences that go beyond the aquarium trade.

Scott Dowd, a researcher at the New England Aquarium, is one scientist urging home aquarists to think of the future of the Amazonian rainforests when buying their next Cardinal Tetra.

"Rural people in this region found this to be something they could base a livelihood on with very little investment," says Dowd in a recent article published in Americas by the Organization of American States. "This is an example of where people are able to live in the forest in harmony and perhaps even contribute to the long-term well-being of the forest."

Without a source of income from aquarium fishes, local people might be forced to turn to agriculture, cutting trees, and mining, according to local observers.

[edit] Project Piaba
Dowd and the New England Aquarium are supporters of Project Piaba, a community-based project started in 1989 to conserve and maintain the ornamental fishery at a commercially feasible, ecologically sustainable level.


Wild-caught, intensely colored Cardinal Tetra.It has been estimated that some 40 million Cardinal Tetras are captured and sold each year to aquarists in the U.S., Europe, Australia, and Asia. As a testament to the fecundity of the species and the ecosystem, this harvest has been studied by biologists and so far appears to be sustainable and unlikely to be a threat to local populations of the fish.

It is easily the most commercially important species collected from a region that also supplies a wide range of other freshwater aquarium fishes, including the: Marble Hatchetfish (Carnegiella stigmata), Rummynose Tetra (Hemigrammus rhodostomus), Redtail Catfish (Phractocephalus hemioliopterus), wood cats, knifefishes, numerous species of Loricariidae catfishes (e.g. Plecostomus, Royal Panaque), Trahira or Wolf Fish (Hoplias malabaricus), Flag Cichlid (Laetacara curviceps), Pike Cichlids (Crencichla ssp), Peacock Bass (Cichla spp.), Tatia cats, and many others.

Project Piaba is also involved in research on dwarf cichlids (Apistogramma sp.), genetic finger-printing of wild discus, and studies of the life history and fishery biology of freshwater stingrays and aruana (Osteoglossum spp.) to determine sustainable harvest limits. Additionally, they are working with local fisherfolk to improve the health and quality of the livestock they ship.

Other partners of Project Piaba include public aquaria, Brazilian governmental agencies, members of the ornamental fish industry, and the American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA). Early support came from the Herbert R. Axelrod Foundation and Tropical Fish Hobbyist Magazine. Today, many hobbyist organizations donate proceeds from annual fish auctions to Project Piaba; noteworthy support has come from the Vancouver Aquatic Hobbyist Club and the Northeast Council of Aquarium Societies. (Aquarium Societies interested in helping Project Piaba should contact Scott Dowd, below.)

[edit] “Greenest Fish in the World”
Aquarists in some places have a choice between Cardinal Tetras farmed in Florida and Southeast Asia or fresh-from-the-jungle South American wild imports.

In an article in the journal Aquaculture, Dr. Michael Tlusty at The Edgerton Research Laboratory at the New England Aquarium, has said that the culture of ornamental fish species has its place, but argues that sustainable wild harvests must be protected and encouraged:

“In general, aquaculture production of ornamental species should be pursued when species are difficult to obtain from the wild, breeding supports a conservation program, there is some environmental benefit or elimination of environmental damage via the breeding program, or to enhance the further production of domesticated species.

"Aquaculture production of ornamental species should be avoided when it would replace a harvest of wild animals that maintains habitat, a cultural benefit, or an economic benefit."

Dr. Labbish Chao of the Federal University of Amazonas in Manaus, Brazil, initatied Project Piaba and is the Principal Investigator. He and Scott Dowd have worked with other scientists to create the Buy a Fish-Save a Tree Program, singling out certain fish species as the best choice for aquarists concerned about the environment.

Says Scott Dowd: "Sustainable ornamental fisheries is a model that’s catching on as a means for economic driven environmental stewardship."

The Project Piaba team is off to India later this fall to work with researchers there with the hopes of helping to establish beneficial ornamental fisheries there as well.

"There's an argument to be made that the wild fish are even healthier and heartier coming from a product of natural selection," Dowd explains. "A lot of people say that even the colors of the wild fish are more brilliant."

"If you care about the environment, have we got a fish for you," Dowd says. "It's a red and blue fish, but it's the greenest fish in the world."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Fish_dave]

Great post Dizzy. I have had that same message ever since the first Marine Ornamentals conference in Hawaii in the late '90's. That message does not go over too well with a lot of hobbyists who see aquaculture as a means of saving the reef. Actually I think the opposite is true. The aquaculture of aquarium animals outside of their naturally occuring regions takes money out of the mouths of needy people, leaving them with very few options to supply their needs.

There are a few exceptions to this where an animal may not be commercially collected or is collected in first world countries where there are other income options. I am talking about the common aquarium animals that come generally from third world sources.

What many people do not understand is that there are certain "money" animals that are collected in numbers that enable the balance of the industry to survive in many countries. An example would be Sri Lanka where the collection of shrimp generates over half of the income for the trade. If the collection of shrimps was halted due to the aquaculture of shrimps in first world countries then most of the aquarium trade in Sri Lanka would stop. Without the income from shrimp it would be very difficult to stay in business selling only fish. This has happened somewhat with clownfish. Some collecting villages relyed mainly on clown fish collection for their income, with the aquaculture of clown fish they have lost their income and are forced into much more destructive lifestyles to support themselves. Take away yellow tangs from the Hawaiian collectors and many would drop out of the business. Collecting yellows keeps many collectors in the trade and allows them to collect other variety as they have made their needed minimum with the collection of yellows. The difference is that a yellow tang collector has other options to make a living, the family collecting clown fish in the Solomons has really no eco friendly options to move to. They actually passed a law in the Solomons banning the collection of clown fish back in 1998 due to the fact that they saw on the internet that clown fish were being bred in captivity and they figured they were no longer needed from the wild. We had an independant social impact study done that showed the impact on village people that a clown fish ban would have and the law was promptly repealed.

This is a very real problem, obvious to those out in the field living amoung collectors. The message seems counterintuitive and the average hobbyist will belive that buying an aquacultured product is helping the reef where generally the opposite is true.

If we as a hobby and industry are going to aquaculture or farm raise aquarium animals I think that it is important that it is done in the countries where the animals were origionally collected. If there are going to be aquarium shrimp aquacultured it should be done in Sri Lanka using the labor of the existing aquarium trade there. The same with corals. As for clown fish and others being bred in numbers maybe there should be some type of Bio tax that is used to support displaced collectors. I know that would be impossible to impliment but it just seems wrong to be stealing their bio diversity and selling it in a first world country with no benifit going back where it is needed most and the animals originated.

I know that this is an unpopular subject in the aquarium hobby. I am glad to see others including some scientific types coming up with the same conclusions.

Dave

 

[JeremyR]

Dave,

It all sounds good, but there is one serious problem... the quality of fish supplied is at an all time low. How can you expect retailers to support wild fish when there are so many problems with them... handling is horrible, and it seems like every time I buy fish from anyone on 104th I end up with flukes, brook, etc. If I buy clowns from ORA, I don't have to treat with formalin. Obviously I still have to buy some wild fish, nobody is aquaculturing yellow tangs.. but I'm getting really tired of dipping flukes off of them. It would be nice if people would quit running 1.99 fish specials and killing quality so that we could feel good about supporting these economically depressed fisherfolk... I don't know how people expect quality to do anything but nosedive when all costs are WAY up and most prices of fish are still where they were 20 years ago. So, if these regions and the people involved want to keep these income sources for these people, they need to quit pissing it away and offer a reliable product that is healthy.

You seem like one of the better players as far as honesty & integrity in this business, but I can't see the rest of the major players doing anything constructive at this point, all they do is talk about how much progress they have made and how their fish are better than ever, but nobody really believes that do they? It's been like 25 years and we are all still whining about the same problems, only worse... 15 years ago the cyanide special lived better than the "net caught" special does these days.

 

[Fish_dave]

Jeremy,

There are problems with supply in this industry and I do not claim to have simple answers for them. I do see the other side of the industry regularly and can see that what most hobbyists see as environmentally benificial is in actual practice more destructive.

The collectors (the people that we are talking about here) do not have much control over how your fish are received in the states. Taking their livelyhoods away from them because of supply chain problems does not seem right. You do not like to deal with flukes on fish, I do not like to deal with flukes on fish, but until the problem is solved maybe it is just something that we should deal with to support the collectors that need our support.

Most of the issues that you see on fish are the result of problems along the chain. In my experience if a fish is collected poorly it dies before getting sent to the states or it has obvious problems and is returned to the sea. Most all of the problems that are blamed on poor collecting techniques in my opinion are actually caused by poor transport and holding technique. Fish that are poorly collected generally have obvious problems before they get to the export stage.

There is such pressure now on tight packing procedures, short holding times at export stations, and to just move the fish along before it dies on you that we see fish health issues now. In my opinion the tight packing of fish all along the chain is the greatest single problem with fish health. Parasites can be a problem but most people know how to deal with them, you may not want to have to deal with them but you can and can be sucessful at it. You can not undo the damage done by tight packing somewhere along the chain. It is something that the buyers all along the chain can not treat, the only cure is to stop the practice. With freight rates going through the roof it is just too tempting for many to cut the pack down to just enough for the fish to live rather than enough for no damage to be done.

The price of fish has become the most important to most buyers. I don't see flukes on the fish at Quality Marine but their fish are expensive so many folks do not buy there. The other three of us on 104th street do battle on price because that is what our customers are pressing us on. I pay more for alot of my fish because I try to source as many as I can from the South Pacific and the ones that do come from the indo pacific I buy with a heavy pack of water. My damsels are packed 100 per box and I have seen other packs with as many as 250 in the box. I get 20 flame hawks in my boxes and the other guys sometimes get as many as 40 in the same box. I don't make enough money on fish to stay in business if I only sold fish, I pay too much for them to be competitive price wise. If coral is shut off then I am out of business. It is a problem that we have made and I don't have the answers for.

I have rambled alot and got off topic. None of the problems brought up can be controlled by the collectors. They go about their business of collecting fish without much complaint. When their costs go up they often just suck it up and collect more fish to make up the difference. Sometimes they get a little price increase when the buyers start to pressure them for certain species and they can hold out for a better price to supply specific species. But in general they do their jobs with very little complaint. They just want to make enough of a living to support their families and send the kids to school.

Back to my original post, your buying clown fish from ORA has not to this point hurt the collectors, there is still quite a large demand for wild caught clown fish. If you are buying them because you think that it is the environmentally correct thing to do then I think that you are wrong. If you buy them because you feel that they are a superior product and you would rather have a better fish than doing the environmentally correct thing of supporting local collectors then that is your choice. I just get the impression that people think that buying the aquacultured clown is the best environmental choice, I do not think that it is in most cases. The real problem with clowns will come when some misguided politician gets a law passed banning the import of wild clown fish. That would be an environmental backfire.

Dave

 

[JeremyR]

The fact that the collectors have no control over the way exporters & importers do business is irrelevant in the long run. If a farmer farms properly and raises the best crops ever, but the only people who buy his food are inept and cut corners so that the food is always spoiled when it hits the marketplace, then continuing to buy his food makes no economic sense to the consumer. I, as a store, have to make money to stay open. The business model I chose was one of holding fish for 1 to 2 weeks prior to sale to make sure they are healthy and disease free, and yes, that was my choice. Other people choose to sell fish right out of the bag (turn & burn) at a cheaper price to avoid losses, and that is their choice. Peoples spending habits how they are, those places always seem to stay open even tho people always complain about quality, because they keep buying the cheap fish. I can't do business that way. If things are ever going to get better in this industry you can't appeal to people to buy wild fish on a welfare basis, you have to provide a quality product, and right now what is preventing that from happening is greed, and the only people who really truly profit are the people who are the problem.

 

[Fish_dave]

Jeremy,

I think that we are on two different discussions. The point that I am discussing is that there are hobbyists out there buying an aquacultured product because they think that they are being enviromentally responsible by not buying a wild collected animal. I do not think that is as environmentally responsible as it is often made out to be. The point that I am trying to make does not have anything to do with the quality of the animal. I did get sidetracked in my rant above and ventured into the quality aspect. The point that I want to make is that culturing an animal in a first world country far removed from its native habitat does not always mean that this is the best for the native environment.

If you buy an aquacultured animal because it is of better quality then do that for the reason of the quality, do not make it an environmental statement that you are saving the reef because quite possibly it will have the opposite effect. I am not saying buy a fish on a welfare basis, I am saying that if you do want to do the best for the reef you may want to buy wild caught animals or animals cultured in the country of their origin.

Quality is not part of my point. You can get good and bad quality from either source. The point is which is more environmentally responsible.

Dave

 

[naesco]

Fish Dave

Your logic is beyond redemption.
By posting your dated thinking you merely confirm to others that the industry is not prepared to change it ways.

Ask yourself what is better.
Aquacultured rock or the destructive crow bar wild rock removal?
Aquacultured fish or cyanide caught fish which use of cyanide destroys the reefs and everything that lives therein.

Concentrate your efforts in cleaning up industry's dirty little secret, cyanide and than start discussing things that industry can to do to help the poor fisherman in the tropics.

What I do fully support is aquaculture in the countries where wild fish is presently harvested.

 

[Anonymous]

:lol: Wow, great conversation until that

Dave, Jeremy, please continue and never mind the wind that blows.

It really is a tough one. I am in full support of fisher(folk) and aquaculture. The melding on the two is the way to go IMO except for the travel aspect.

 

[JeremyR]

I don't feel that it's two different topics at all.. I think that to ask people to support island wild & cultured fish, they will have to keep their quality up, otherwise as more aquaculture comes online, more people will stop buying wild.

On the flip side, as emerging contries come online, demand may rise to the point that it won't matter if people here buy locally.. it may end up being beneficial to have regional aquaculture centers as well as sustainable collection. There are 1 billion Chinese and 1 billon Indians that are coming into more money.... if china ends up with the same per capita demand of aquarium stuff that we have, then the whole dynamic will have to be re-thought.

I think in the end people buying or not buying wild fish because of their personal viewpoint on environmental impact won't change much.. the reefs that are ruined now were ruined when people bought almost exclusively wild.. so it's resource management that needs to be worked on... there may come a day when aquaculture is the only game in town.

 

[naesco]

JeremyR wrote
... there may come a day when aquaculture is the only game in town.

When you really think about it, it will be unfortuneate considering that industry can take steps to avoid a virtual closure of the industry/hobby now.
A complete ban on wild caught species will certainly limit the variety of species.
US industry will suffer as importers/wholesalers will have nothing to import and many LFS that are having tough times now will lose their livlihood and investment.
Offshore those who rely on the marine reef industry for their daily bread, who do not find jobs in aquaculture, will suffer greatly.

Industry, like Nero, sits and fiddles while their livlihood and investments face almost certain ruin.

Is it not the time to band together and do something?

 

[JeremyR]

Well, there are certainly those possiblilities, but that's not exactly what I was alluding too, more the health of the reefs & the future of pollution, bad habitat management, and the dropping ocean ph (if that continues as far and bad as people like veron believe, but that's a whole different arguement).

Not sure why I'm even responding to that, I think I will get back to fiddling now.

 

[Fish_dave]

This thread has gone way off topic. Please read the first post again. It is about the fact that aquaculture done out of the country of origin is often more harmful environmentally than the properly done practice of wild collecting.

All of a sudden Naesco has it twisted around to cleaning up industry and cyanide. I do not want to give him even the respect of a reply to his post. He obviously does not know me or anything that I have worked for over the years yet he is fine with bashing me if it furthers his drivel on cleaning up industry.

For the record I am a supporter of properly managed wild collection of aquarium animals and for aquaculture and mariculture of those animals by the native peoples who have access to them for their livelyhoods.

I have been involved in aquaculture both in countries of origin and in first world countries. I ran one of the largest marine ornamental fish farms in north America for two years. While there we did post larval rearing of tens of thousands of juv. fish collected post larvally in the Solomons by village collectors, it worked great for both the farm and the local collectors. I do know both sides of the business and fully support the wild collection of animals when properly managed.

I am not looking for more discussion about the future fate of the reefs due to climate change etc. or for a discussion about cleaning up industry. If there is more discussion about the advantage / disadvantage of aquaculture versus wild collection I will gladly discuss that topic.

As Jeremy said, back to my fiddling.

Dave

 

[JeremyR]

I don't have a problem with sustainable collection either. I think I have bought fish from every eco-fish place that has ever tried to make a go of it, and so far all have been a serious disappointment for lots of reasons. But I don't see how you can have a discussion on aquaculture vs. wild collection if you eliminate all the other factors that affect fish quality, because that is really what is going to drive people to go one way or the other... some people will buy based on their personal feelings about the environment, but most are concerned with their bank account only, and that includes everyone from consumer to exporter.

It's really too bad the larval rearing thing didn't stick.. it could be a compromise and help with the handling/packing/bad flights issues we are seeing.

 

[Anonymous]

This thread has gone way off topic. Please read the first post again. It is about the fact that aquaculture done out of the country of origin is often more harmful environmentally than the properly done practice of wild collecting.

All of a sudden Naesco has it twisted around to cleaning up industry and cyanide. I do not want to give him even the respect of a reply to his post. He obviously does not know me or anything that I have worked for over the years yet he is fine with bashing me if it furthers his drivel on cleaning up industry.

For the record I am a supporter of properly managed wild collection of aquarium animals and for aquaculture and mariculture of those animals by the native peoples who have access to them for their livelyhoods.

I have been involved in aquaculture both in countries of origin and in first world countries. I ran one of the largest marine ornamental fish farms in north America for two years. While there we did post larval rearing of tens of thousands of juv. fish collected post larvally in the Solomons by village collectors, it worked great for both the farm and the local collectors. I do know both sides of the business and fully support the wild collection of animals when properly managed.

I am not looking for more discussion about the future fate of the reefs due to climate change etc. or for a discussion about cleaning up industry. If there is more discussion about the advantage / disadvantage of aquaculture versus wild collection I will gladly discuss that topic.

As Jeremy said, back to my fiddling.

Dave

+1

Dave Rocks!!!!

 

[clarionreef]

or....
Save a thousand parrot fish and snappers this month on a single island...buy some villagers wild tropicals.
Steve

PS. Because I guarantee you, if the tropicals are not caught....much, much more biomass will be.
translation...far greater tonnage of marinelife and habitat damage will occur.
Tropicals are the alternative to over exploited, over hammered food fishes here and in most tropical villages.

The aquarium trade has an opening because of the need for alternatives that no one has an answer for.
Unlike Canada and the USA....the villagers have no unemployment benefits, disability, gov't assistance or compensatory programs and schemes..
All they have is fish and if they do not fish they will become destitute.
Handicrafts and tourism?
Good for at least 1% of the villagers....and then the rest?