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

Capn

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I just ask you all, to take careful consideration of your tanks. IMHO, the hobbyist should be left alone with a few SPS, a couple leathers and some Xenia.

Rule of thumb (would put most of you out of business) for me is, do not buy a living organism that wasn't aquacultured.

But there are still a lot of amazing animals that are available. Don't think of that as a limitation .... think about it as a way of being responsible ..... as a reef tank owner .... and if everyone thought that way .... there would be zero impact on the ACTUAL reefs. That's the goal.

There are already tons of aquacultered corals and fish you can buy .... or you can spend $3 less and rape the ocean. YOU decide what YOUR impact is.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
IMO, the situation is more complicated that presented in this thread.

It seems pretty clear that the alternatives to catching fish for MO can be a lot nastier than what is taken for the industry and that the actual impact on reefs for MO collection is often minimal. Of course, there are notable exceptions where the reefs are wrecked by collectors, but I do not think that is all of them by any stretch. If the locals were not collecting for MO what would the be doing - anything they could to catch food fish and curios. Juicing and dynamiting reefs seems to be done primarily for food fish, not for display fish.

In day to day island life, the impact on the reefs can be immense. Entire harbors built on reef rock and harvested corals. Sand for cement comes from crushed up rock and coral. It appears in some cases, collecting for the hobby can actually make the locals care more for the reefs than they did before they collected MO.

Sustainable, low impact collection for the hobby is pretty easy. I think it would behoove all involved to stop/retrain/punish those that get out of hand greedy rather than push for 100 percent cultured animals.

Culturing is great and I think there should be more of it, but I don't think that means we should somehow try to stop wild collection, as, from the locals side, that would mean bad things for the reefs. Instead, I think we should 'clean up' bad collection.

Easy peasy! :D
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I agree with that, Thales, especially the last bit.

There are some other issues regarding the footprint, and they are, in my opinion, more pertinent to the idea of a "footprint". The specimens are the tip of the iceberg, aren't they?

How will you reduce power consumption, for instance? Do you order online for it to be shipped? Is that more efficacious, from a footprint point of view, than taking a drive to your local and making a purchase in that manner?
 

spawner

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Thales has given you some good advise.

http://www.neaq.org/conservation_and_re ... _piaba.php

You should look at that link and read up on some of the benefits of wild harvest. Aquaculture is not always the answer and does not always solve issues relating to habitat loss. Giving an economic value to an ecosystem can provide a strong argument for protecting it or developing its resources sustainability.
 

clarionreef

Advanced Reefer
Location
San Francisco
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Is it therapy or environmental science?
Regarding the discussion on the wild collection of live coral for the aquarium
trade, please see the recent publication:


Lovell E. R. & C. McLardy (2008). Annotated checklist of the CITES-listed corals of Fiji with reference to Vanuatu, Tonga, Samoa and American Samoa, ? Animal

Health 2008, JNCC Report 415, ISSN 0963 8901.

This report can be downloaded from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee

(JNCC) website: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-4476.

Eye opener.
I doubt that many people really know how very low the actual bio-mass of coral material we are actually talking about when we speak of removing small, select corals for the trade compared to overall coral habitat.
.001 % ?

Total Allowable Catches [ TACS] are far greater then that on everything you ever heard of.
Imagine if the percentage taken of old growth redwoods or tuna were as small as that.
If you were to cut that much off your lawn every year you would never be able to find the destruction if you didn't mark it clearly first.
.001% is a hard figure to fathom. Its extremely close to nothing.

Now, anthropomorphically speaking, if you saw a coral being taken in front of you you might form an opinion based on that "emotional experience" and purport it to be scientific.... That would not be honest.
Its OK to be emotional about many things in life. Actually theres nothing wrong with that! Just keep it in that arena and don't call it science.
Banning things for emotional and impulsive reasons concocted to re-enforce knee jerk predjudicial beliefs is very common....but don't try to justify it with scientific prestense.

If your sensitivities are this fragile, don't ever stray beyond the boundaries of your hotel on a tropical vacation. The real life and struggle to survive beyond the Hyatt or the Hilton may distress you.
Sincerely
Steve
 

clarionreef

Advanced Reefer
Location
San Francisco
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
In case the link didn't work for you.
Heres a bit of Ed Lovels discussion oon the NOAA net.
Steve
ps. Bold print input by me.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pg. 62,
Chapter 6. The dynamics of hard coral abundance presents information on
the relative quantity of coral collected by the aquarium trade in Fiji in
relation to the estimated total coral abundance in the wild for two collection
sites.




The following table summarizes the findings of a survey that considered coral
categorically as a fishery item in which those with certain attributes could be subject to collection (collectible coral). These attributes are a relatively
small size (<15cm diameter), attractive form (symmetrical with no damage) and distinctive coloration (bright, fluorescent).
Collection was from a large area 108.2 km2 . This figure represents the area of the reef flat to a depth of ~3m as calculated from aerial photos. Collection in Walt Smith International area, relative to 2006 exports, represented the removal of 1 coral colony per 10,000
colonies.
For the other collection area discussed in the above report and
referred to by Bruce Carlson, exports amounted to one coral colony being removed
per 1000 colonies. In this case, the collection area was much smaller (64 km2).
In both cases, the estimates are likely to be very low as the reef slope areas
from which some of the exports were obtained were not included in the survey.
Contributing to the sustainability of the live coral resource in these areas are the vast uncollected coral reef areas adjacent to the collection sites, which extend to the national boundaries of the archipelago.



Table 5. Estimates of coral colony numbers and percentages of corals collected
from the Walt Smith International (WSI) collecting area.



Coral Reef Area and Exports
Collectible corals
Non-collectible coral
Total coral

Estimated coral numbers
31,465,004
554,599,066
586,064,070

Percentage of corals in each category
5.3
94.6


Number of corals exported in 2006
68,940



Coral exports as a percentage of collectible and total coral


0.22%



0.01%





Currently, Fiji's Dept. of Fisheries and the Institute of Marine Resources,
University of the South Pacific are conducting re-surveys in both collection
areas. This time assessment is with regard to the CITES taxonomic categories
for the purpose of re-setting the national quotas in compliance with CITES
requirements.



It should be emphasized that the assessment is to determine the resource
potential for live coral collection and that curio or decorative coral
collection (export of dead coral) is not allowed.



Considering the conservation of the resource, Fiji, as part of the CITES
Convention, has implemented voluntary export quotas limiting coral exports.
Only 30 of the 72 genera occurring in Fiji are allowed for export. 13 genera
and species have a 0 quota also prohibiting trade.



As pointed out in an earlier post, there has been recovery in hard coral cover
to the level preceding the 2000 and 2002 mass bleaching events, as determined
from transect data from across Fiji. The following paper has been submitted for
inclusion in the 11th International Coral Reef Symposium proceedings.



E. R. Lovell and H. Sykes (in prep). Rapid recovery from bleaching events -
Fiji Coral Reef Monitoring Network assessment of hard coral cover from
1999-2007.



I hope this clarifies some of the issues discussed.



Best regards,



Ed Lovell



Edward R. Lovell
Lecturer
School of Marine Studies
University of the South Pacific
PMB, Laucala Campus, Suva, Fiji
Ph. 3232943; Fax 3231526
[email protected]
 

clarionreef

Advanced Reefer
Location
San Francisco
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Now folks,
Heres another inconvenient report from the land of the worlds greatest coral reef. First....Download the link and see the except below.
Again...bold print mine.

Steve
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRC REEF RESEARCH CENTRE TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 40
THE SUSTAINABILITY OF QUEENSLAND’S CORAL
HARVEST FISHERY


Vicki J. Harriott
CRC Reef Research Centre
and
Tropical Environmental Studies and Geography,
James Cook University

......"The total harvest in the fishery is very small relative to the coral cover on the Great
Barrier Reef (GBR), and the capacity of the reef to accumulate calcium carbonate
material. It does not represent a risk to the integrity of the reef system on either a
reef-wide or regional scale
. The potential impacts of the coral harvest fishery in
Queensland are localised and are many orders of magnitude smaller than those
resulting from other impacts such as cyclones, coral bleaching and predation by the
crown-of-thorns starfish.
On reefs which have been subjected to degradation as a
result of coral bleaching or crown-of-thorns starfish predation, coral harvesting
should be avoided to assist recovery of the coral communities.

An extensive study in 1985 evaluated the ecological sustainability of the ornamental
coral fishery. The study that the fishery was sustainable because the target corals
grew rapidly and recruited well, and the fishery was small and restricted to limited
areas. The current take of these species is currently lower than it was at the time of
the study in 1985....."
 

Attachments

  • 40 -Australia coral report.pdf
    249.7 KB · Views: 425

PeterIMA

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I tried the URL to get to page 4476. This did not work. I am not sure that such a page exists. If it does, it is not accessible.

I was able to get the Lovell report by going to the web site and entering the report number (415) into the box that allows access to their database.

Peter
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
So, the only "footprint" that will be addressed here is specific to the specimens themselves, eh? Keep on truckin'! :)
 

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