BBC News - Aquaria are 'risk to tropical fish' in the wild

[blue hula3]

The first part of the Executive Summary is clear, objective and right to the issues:

"In the main, this debate has taken place without access to impartial and quantitative data on the trade and, with so many different viewpoints, achieving consensus on its impacts, and hence the identification of suitable responses, has been difficult."

But what do these data tell us? How is it possible to achieve consensus on impacts based on landings data? These data tell us about the scale of the trade. However, they tell us nothing about what is happening with the fish as they haven't provided information on effort. For instance, let's say the total landings remains constant over time, if each year more companies are now submitting landings data, the number of fish per company (effort) has actually gone down [and the document doesn't make it clear whether this has happened either]. And at a more fundamental level, landings may stay the same but companies are having to go further and further to find the fish because they've vacuumed up all the closer areas ... nothing in the trade stats as presented will tell us what is happening on the reef to the populations themselves! [And frankly, even catch per unit effort is at best a rough estimate of sustainability].

Now that's ok (sort of) if you're limiting yourself to saying "this is how many fish are being traded but we still don't have a clue about the sustainability of the trade". But when you combine it with suggestions, innuendos, inferences that overexploitation is simply a "possibility" rather than a likelihood ... and that we are now equipped to understand the conservation issues ... well, I feel uncomfortable.

Blue hula

 

[Anonymous]

Hi All, I'm new here, so how about a warm welcome?

Now for my post: :evil: I am so tired of greenies getting on planes and tromping all over the world like they're going to save it! News flash: the world will still be here long after we are gone! A few fish and corals mean nothing, especially considering the way fish are treated everyday when they are fished out of waters all over the world. Just because it has pretty stripes doesn't mean it should get special treatment.

Cyanide fishing will stop itself when big business (the friend of all americans :lol: ) comes to the rescue and gets its big greasy hands into harvesting fish for our tanks. We won't buy fish that look sick and don't eat, so neither will LFSs, wholesalers, importers, all the way down the line to charlie sitting on a dock in indochina wondering whether or not to buy those jars of dazed looking fish.

The certification process will help keep us from buying sick fish...that's good. But all this about banning this fish or that coral because it is an "unsuitable" species for an aquarium...BS :roll:

If I want to keep an obligate coralivour in a tank full of SPS and let it eat brain coral all day, then that's my problem. If I want to put a mandarin in a bare bottom tank and see if it might eat flake food, that's my problem! I don't need MAC (or the stupid UN :x ) telling me what I should keep. Responsibility lies with the consumer and the LFS that sells to them.

The trend in this country and the world is to control from the top down.

It seems to me that MAC is a business just like any other...no offense to the member of the board of directors...The more regulations put in place, the more that MAC gets to put its hands into it, and the more people at MAC keep their jobs.

Manny

p.s. Tell me more about why potter's angels don't do well. I've been trying to find more information on them for weeks and all I get is that they don't do well. Any chance of me keeping one alive???
Thanks

 

[John_Brandt]

Manny,

Welcome to the Industry forum.

This is the place to post your opinions and suggestions. There is a good variety of perspectives here and you will no doubt see the spectrum of ideals.

The issue of 'unsuitable species' is one that everyone has something to say about. Your position that no animals should be 'regulated' or 'restricted' based on any 'unsuitability factor' is held by others as well.

MAC is not really a business. It does have sets of standards (Best Practices) and policies that suggest ways of carrying out business for MAC Certified facilities. The collecting of 'unsuitables' generally doesn't harm the reefs any more than collecting suitables. But MAC does regard the collecting and marketing of animals which have little chance of survival in aquariums as not being a best practice for the trade. With the scrutiny that the industry is given, and the importance of 'ethical' behavior it is worth giving notice to the fairly small number of "unsuitable species" in the trade.

FWIW, coral-eating butterflyfish do very poorly in captivity, even when provided with live corals.

The problem with Potter's angelfish seems similar to some other dwarf angels. They dwindle over time. It seems to be a dietary thing. They often starve or die within a year. The percentage of Potter's angels alive after one year in captivity is probably not more than 20%. GMAD records show that between 1996-2001, 7200 Potter's angelfish were traded worldwide.

 

[clarionreef]

Potters angels...
Have always suffered from denial of proper decompression. This often pops the air bladder or causes tissue fissuring or tearing. If air escapes into the stomach cavity it can no longer be osmotically transfered into the bloodstream for purging. Foreign air and tissue tear cause secondary infections and complications infinitum. As with a million or so yellow angels, bicolor angels, imperators etc. from the Philippines, the fish waste away and die of apparent nutritional deficiencies...
If there was a guaranteed properly caught and processed control group of potters, yellows or what not, then you could feed them well and see if they didn't do better than the normal poor quality ones that go thru the trade.
Well caught and decompressed species may prove to be hardier than previously thought. If you have never had the chance to get them done right, how can you evaluate based on only seeing them done wrong?
Potters at least are never caught with poison. There is a perfect illustration of what bad decompression alone can do.
Rather than give the fish the time and space in ample decompression buckets they need, divers pull them up prematurely and finish the job in the boat...with needles, naso tang spines or what evers handy. Then you have raw tissue outside to compliment the raw tssue inside...not to mention the damage caused by the sudden blow-up of the air bladder and the extreme hydraulic pressure it creates in the fishes circulatory system. Until vented, this pressure can pop the eyes, semi pop the eyes, exert pressure on the internal organs and impact on the heart and digestive sytem. A tell tale sign is the splitting of the tail fins from the sudden pressure spike.
Potters need to be decompressed properly...but thats in the hands of the Hawaiian collectors...and they generally are in a rush to pull up the anchor and go home. Better collectors start deep and work toward the shallows as the day progresses. Many collectors do not.
Potters could be better. Its up to the disposition of divers to learn and improve.
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Thank you both for the info on the potter's. I think I'll wait to try that wonderful fish until MAC can regulate the decompression procedures of Hawaiian collectors. :roll:

As for MAC being a business, it may not be in the pure sense of the word, but it is still run by people who have personal interest in what goes on in the trade. That interest is probably more than just making sure the hobby remains stable and protecting the reefs.

This may be personal, but do you recieve a check from MAC for being on the board? Even if you don't, and even if you really just care about the reefs like the greenies :mrgreen: , some of your fellow board members surely have some interest in regulating the trade. In general, one can assume that on any board of directors there will be members serving their personal interests...particularly if the board is volunteer or unpaid because what other insentive do these people have for giving up their time?

Manny

 

[blue hula3]

GMAD records show that between 1996-2001, 7200 Potter's angelfish were traded worldwide.

So, if GMAD records represent approximatly 20% of the trade (GMAD report, page 6), does this mean that 36,000 C potteri were traded over the period according to import records?

That would be based on reports from 3 US companies (4964 potteri over 4 years) and 7 EU companies (2236 fish over 6 years). Do we know what proportion of US and EU imports these 3 and 7 companies represent respectively. If it's higher than 20%, than the above estimates of 36,000 fish would be an overestimate .. if they represent less than 20%, than the 36,000 fish would still be an underestimate.

Do we know whether all 3 and 7 companies reported in every year as the numbers go up and down hugely (e.g. 19 fish in 1997 imported to the US vs >2500 fish in 1999 imported to the US).

These kinds of questions are another reason why I have trouble using these data to estimate trade volumes, or worse, trends as the authors of the report suggest they can be used.

Cheers, Jessica