• Why not take a moment to introduce yourself to our members?

PeterIMA

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Thales, Thanks for finding this information on the IUCN website. It helps a lot.

With regard to the estimated exploitation rates, it looks like they extrapolated the numbers being shipped monthly (whenever they interviewed the collectors/middlemen) by 12 to obtain the annual estimated numbers being shipped.

Ferdinand Cruz tells me that there are large differences in the numbers shipped for different seasons. Hence, the extrapolation from the numbers shipped (say in October) to the entire year may not be correct (if perhaps the numbers were less in other months). Can you ascertain from the information provided by the IUCN whether they monitored the numbers being shipped out of the Banggai Islands on a monthly basis?

Peter
 

rgbmatt

Experienced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Population:
The earliest known population survey (2001) identified P. kauderni on 16 out of 37 islands searched. Average densities in suitable habitat at three sites within the Banggai Archipelago were approximately 0.03 fishes per m² (Vagelli and Erdmann 2002). Based on these census data and calculations of the total available habitat, the species was estimated to have a total population size of 1.7 million fish (Vagelli 2002). Additional surveys in 2002 and 2004 covering the entire Archipelago (50 islands, 159 sites) expanded the range to 27 (17 major and 10 minor) islands. Surveys done in 2004 found P. kauderni in most sites at densities of about 200 to 700 individuals/ha. The mean density based on census carried out in seven locations throughout its natural range in 2004 was 0.07 individuals per m², with a total population size estimated at 2.4 million individuals (Vagelli 2005)

Thank you!

Hmm... It looks like the 2002 citation is from Tropical Fish Hobbyist magazine (not a peer-reviewed journal), while the Env. Bio. of Fishes paper from the same year doesn't give a population estimate at all. I remember reading that paper and their sample size didn't look good enough for a stock estimate.

Curiously, the IUCN website says that the estimated population in 2004 was greater than in 2002 - 2.4 million vs 1.7 million. But then it says at the bottom of the paragraph that the population is decreasing...

What the studies appear to show is that there are fewer banggai cardinals in areas with fishing pressure vs areas without. Which is only common sense - there will usually be more fish in areas with no fishing. The real test of sustainability is if numbers in the fished areas remain stable; you'd think the collectors would know that it's to their benefit to leave enough fish behind to keep the population around. The data available are from only two surveys, which is better than nothing but not good enough to show any real trends. There's also no mention of how local collectors see trends in the fishery and whether or not they take any measures for conserving it.

From a biological perspective, Banggai Cardinals certainly look like a species that would be vulnerable to overexploitation. However, the economics don't seem to add up - for a fish this popular the price should have gone up if they were becoming harder to catch. This could mean that the fishing effort is able to move into previously unexploited regions, or it could mean that the fishery is sustainable as is.

Just some thoughts. Obviously I'm not a cardinalfish expert.
 

PeterIMA

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
To address the question about changes in export numbers of BCF by seasons, I am presenting information from a paper by Lunn and Moreau (2004) published in Coral Reefs Vol. 23:244-351 The title of the paper is "Unmonitored trade in marine ornamental fishes: the case study of Indonesia's Banggai cardinalfish (Pterapogon kaudneri).

The authors did not attempt to estimate population numbers in the Banggaii Islands but did mention an estimate of 1.7 million BCF for central Sulawesi (including the Banggai Islands and other areas) arrived at by Vagelli (2002).

Lunn and Moreau (2004) conducted their study in the north and central provinces of Sulawesi form 7 March to the 1st of April 2001. It consisted of 44 structured interviews in Bahasa Indonesian at 11 information gathering meetings wiht 76 people in Manado, Bitung, Tumbak, Luwuk (situated on the Island of Sulawesi) and 22 villages of the Banggai Islands, in addition to many informal conversations with locals in each of these places and another 25 villages of the Banggai regions.

The local trade in BCF began in 1992, with traders from Tumbak and Bali coming by boat to the Banggai Islands...Local fishers started independently collecting the BCF for sale to outside buyers in 1995, when regional fishing regulations changed to prohibit people living outside the Banggai district to fish in the area without purchasing government permits.. Since 1999, the trade has expanded from its original focus on Banggai Island and nearby Badang Island to include more villages in the Boken area, on Bangurung Island, Labobo Island and, to a limiited extent, Pelang Island (islands considered part of the Banggai archipelago).


In the Discussion section Lunn and Moreau (2004) noted that their trade survey suggests a minimum number of 118,000 BFC sold each month by fishers in the Banggai Islands at the time of their study (2001). Actual capture and trade volumes could be much higher. They noted that their estimate included only fish bought by Tumbak and Palu-based buyers, without considering the likely significant number of fish taken on the alternate trade routes described, or lost to pre-sale mortalities in fishers' holding cages. They stated "we expect that the Tumbak-Manado route was the most important on at the time of our study."... Our monthly estimate of numbers leaving the Banggai Islands on Tumbak boats is consistent with Vagelli and Erdmann's (2002) estimate of 50,000 -60,000 arriving in north Sulawesi for export each month in early 2001 (figure obtained by interviews with N. Sulawesi traders)."

Then, Lunn and Moreau (2004) go on to state "Neither estimate, however accounts for the potential annual variation in trade volumes through North Sulawesi, which certainly exists. All primary buyers interviewed conceded that purchasing trips could be cancelled if orders or funds were lacking, or if the weather was particularly rough, while secondary buyers noted that demand for the BCF dropped (albeit unpredictably) during the nothern hemisphere's summer. While fishers themselves noted no seasonal differences in buyer's visits, they did report waits of 3 weeks, and occasionally up to 6 months between visits from buyers. Affirming our expectation that significant inter-annual variation exists in the trade is the fact that recent assessments of total population size place the number of BCF at roughly 1.7 million (Vagelli 2002). If our estimated minimum trade volume remained constant throughout the year, this would suggest an unrealistically high annual fishing mortality in excess of 83% during 2000-2001."

Hence, Lunn and Moreau (2004) were questioning their own annual estimates of the numbers of BCF leaving the Banggai archipelago. They also cautioned that Indonesian export statistics did not help in confirming the number of BCF traded annaually. The noted that the failure of Indonesian government trade statistics to reflect real trade volumes was one reason for the establishment of the Global Marine Aquarium Database (GMAD) set up by the UNDP-World Conservation Monitoring Center (situated in the UK). However, they noted that GMAD only recorded 10,307 BCF imported from Indonesia in 2001, while "our field estimates suggest that even assuming very high morality rates of 85% from time of capture to import, at least 17,000 fish should be on record as having arrived at aquarium wholesalers (presumably this means wordwide) in a single month of that same year."

So, Lunn and Moreau (2004) gestimated that the total number of BCF reaching importers wordwide was about 204,000. Using the GMAD number seems ridiculously low (10,307 for all of 2001).


They concluded that more monitoring was needed to get better estimates etc. A multi-faceted management approach, combining well-conceived trade regulations with such community-based and industry-supported initiatives, might offer the best opportunity to conserve this species (BCF) and its marine ecosystem, while also preserving fishers' livelihood options.

Peter
 

JeremyR

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
So after pages of hyperbole, we have gone from "critically endangered" to "needs to be monitored". And since 2004, the price has actually gone down. That means that either supply is still greater than demand, or that demand has dropped. You can quote various authors and fill up as much bandwidth on the subject as you like, but you can't get around the cold hard facts that if supply had dropped to critical levels, that the price would be going up. It's not. It's gone DOWN.
 

PeterIMA

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Jeremy, You may be right. But, that does not explain whether or not the scientists are right or wrong. At least Lunn and Moreau (2004) honestly presented doubts about their own data. The data may be inadequate, but it still indicates that BCF are being overexploited and that the mortalities through the CoC are too high.

Peter
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I don't know guys. The former Galaxy Rasbora and the Hog Island boa both were collected to just about below population sustaining levels and their price continued to drop the entire time they were being collected.
 

PeterIMA

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Thales, Why did you say the former Galaxy rasbora? Are you implying it became extinct in nature? Obviously the species still exists in the aquarium trade. Perhaps this is because the species is being bred commercially. Is it extinct in nature?

Peter
 

Caterham

Experienced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Peter,

The former Galaxy Rasbora was reclassified and is now known as the Celestial Pearl Danio (Celestichthys margaritatus). It is still found in Myanmar but I would expect pressure from collection has subsided somewhat due to successful commercial breeding of the species.

I don't know if this is what Thales was referring to but just wanted to try and help.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Thats exactly what I was referring to. Both the fish and the snake rebounded when collection pressure was lessened due to captive breeding.
 

naesco

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Thales":2sccko4g said:
Thats exactly what I was referring to. Both the fish and the snake rebounded when collection pressure was lessened due to captive breeding.

Thales I am interested in learning how the change ocurred from wild to captive breeding?
 

naesco

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
JeremyR":2bnt9lqm said:
So after pages of hyperbole, we have gone from "critically endangered" to "needs to be monitored". And since 2004, the price has actually gone down. That means that either supply is still greater than demand, or that demand has dropped. You can quote various authors and fill up as much bandwidth on the subject as you like, but you can't get around the cold hard facts that if supply had dropped to critical levels, that the price would be going up. It's not. It's gone DOWN.

Jeremy, forget about supply and demand. It is dated capitalistic thinking. Look at the mess the U.S.A. is in as a result of your government's laissex-faire policies.

Thales comments to your post are logical.
 

JeremyR

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Wayne,

Supply & Demand is not dated capitalistic thinking, it is just how things work. Take your communist friends in Russia. Back when they were 100% communist and didn't allow their people to have food, clothing, or anything else imported a thriving black market developed for things like levi's jeans. There was no supply, but people wanted them (demand) and so even ratty used levi's would sell for a few months wages.

A closer to home example. Canadian women were giving birth in the US because there was demand for expert birthing services, but unfortunately the supply of local worthy hospitals was lacking forcing those poor women to go south.

The difference here is that this isn't a galaxy rasbora or a snake, it's a marine fish with a wider distribution than the small area people keep talking about (where it was originally found). The fish doesn't need to be on cites I, it just needs to be handled better like all the other fish that come from indonesia & the phillipines. For the last 15 years I"ve been hearing about Net training this, MAC that, Ferdinand cruz blah blah and pretty much all the fish are worse than in the peak of cyanide use. People need to wake up and smell the coffee and realize that handling is 90% of the equation.
 

PeterIMA

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Jeremy, I do not agree that 90% of the mortality problem is due to poor handling. All my comments pertained to the need to improve handling and shipping practices on net-caught fish. I do not believe that good handling can stop cyanide-caught fish from dying through the CoC. Christiane Schmidt's study in Bali still found high mortality, despite good handling and holding going from a field station in Goris to an export facility in Denpasar.

First, one needs to stop cyanide fishing. This is necessary because it is causing damage to coral reefs and it contributes to delayed mortality through the CoC.

Secondly, there is a need to improve holding and shipping practices right back to the collectors throughout the CoC.

I would agree that having net-trainings and not implementing improved shipping and handling, does not result in significantly lowering the delayed mortality through the CoC. I also agree that these problems are not confined to BCF.

It is easy to sit in the U.S.A. making comments. It is more difficult to actually do the net-trainings and other measures in the field; while also making the improvements through the CoC, that are needed.

Peter
 

Jaime Baquero

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Peter,

It is sad to read that the same comments are being made since the early 80's when the PIJAC mission when to the Philippines.

Almost 30 years saying that "something" has to be done to reduce fish mortality due to poor handling and holding to each one of the links of the COC.

Thousands of net caught fish are killed due to those factors.

Peter and all, all the best for the New Year.

Jaime
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
naesco":2esbzfjm said:
Thales":2esbzfjm said:
Thats exactly what I was referring to. Both the fish and the snake rebounded when collection pressure was lessened due to captive breeding.

Thales I am interested in learning how the change ocurred from wild to captive breeding?

Its easy to breed snakes, so that was a given.

Freshwater enthusiasts breed their fish, thats what they do.
 

PeterIMA

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Jaime, You are right that 23 years later, there still is a need to do "something" about these problems (cyanide fishing and delayed mortality through the CoC, and lots of other things).

The good news is that we are making progress. I am optimistic that solutions will be implemented in 2009.

Happy New Year

Peter
 

JeremyR

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Obviously cyanide fishing is bad, but when the fish caught with cyanide 15-20 years ago did better than the fish in the supply do now, you really have to ask yourself why you are still trying to solve the problem in the same fashion, it's not really panned out so good. We've been hearing various names of people who are going to fix things, but their fish historically have sucked worse than the standard fare. People can talk all they want to about supporting fisherfolk and how aquaculture takes jobs away from them, but until the people living in these areas educate themselves well enough to handle their own resource (vs us telling them how to do it) I'm going to keep buying aquaculture as much as I can. A guy down the street from me raises more cardinals than I can sell, and people in indonesia after 15 years can't supply healthy ones with any regularity.. it's really pretty sad.
 

PeterIMA

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Jeremy, I disagree with you assertion that fish caught with cyanide 15-20 years ago did better than fish in the supply (chain) do now. But, perhaps Dave's comments about tight packing to save on air freight may help to explain this for certain transshippers. Even 20 years ago, the most notorious of the cyanide suppliers (Cebu Aquatics) conducted tight packing and it was reported to me that the importer had huge mortalities (fish dying like flies) in the import facility (International Seabord in Chicago).

I have been importing net-caught fish and have monitored reduced mortality on most species including BCF. I would agree with you that this is not the norm for the trade as a whole, which still buys cyanide-caught fish from Indonesia and the Philippines.

Peter
 

JeremyR

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I worked at a shop that bought from International Seaboard in the early 90's. They may have had high incoming mortality, I don't know.. but the fish they sent us stayed alive, and the guy didn't even know what he was doing (all undergravel filters). I keep seeing you posting here that you have fixed the mortality issue, but in the several orders we recieved from you it wasn't good enough to beat typical 104th. I"ve never dealt with anyone so disorganized.
 

Sponsor Reefs

We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.

Click here to sponsor $10:


Top