Bad News

[ophiura]

I don't think there is a reef that has been collected into extinction. That is really not my point. It is that it is one of several stresses on the ecosystem and we must be open to the fact that we are a direct player in that stress. It is an ecosystem that is becoming a potentially tenuous one.
Their is sustainable use, but even better, IMO, is sustainable use from one hobbyist to another.

 

[lexluethar]

I can't agree with SCSI any more than I do now!
One thing i would like to point out is this - you guys have talked about the numbers, and how much collection has taken a toll on the environment as a whole, and how it is far less than deforestation, and pollution. While I do agree with this, please also realize that this hobby hasn't been around for 100 years. Realize that the true saltwater aquarium with rare corals and clams hasn't been around but for what, 10 years or so? I know the hobby itself has been around since like the 70's, but until recently with technology (lighting) holding corals wasn't an option.
Unless i'm totally off on that, but that is what i believe to be the truth. Now take that into consideration when comparing, yes maybe collection / the hobby hasn't destroyed as many rare corals, or fish, but it hasn't been around as long either. I think in 50 years we may look back on it and thing, "jeez i didn't think coral keeping would have gotten this big, or had this much of an impact." This is the exact same thing i'm sure some of the people destroying thousands of acres of rain forest thought at one time too.
And please don't think that people in South America and Africa are BURNING and DESTROYING thousands of acres a day for food, because they aren't. Those trees are being sold to distributors, and are ending up on the chairs you are sitting on, and the desks your computers are on right now. I just don't want you to think, "well its survival" - because it isn't. They are burning and cutting for profit. If they made a farm out of every acre they burned there would be A LOT fewer hungry people in the world right now.
I think education is key, and this board is a great tool for that.

 

[stdreb27]

I guess, I just don't share the same alarm, maybe I've heard wolf too many times. But come coral reefs have survived ice ages, warming spells, heck I used to live north of ft worth over 400 miles from the gulf and would dig up 2 foot nautilus fossils in my back yard along with fish and trilo fossils. And we still have coral reefs. Quite a few of them. Besides who is to say that this climate is the best climate for our world?
It really is too bad there are a few sore heads that have to have illegal corals. But you are going to have criminals making money any way they can. At least they aren't trashing the stuff they have found. If the govt is smart maybe they could start a "black market" with stuff they have confescated. Can't let the stuff die right.

I think alot of times we as american don't realise the hardship of life for these 3rd world countries. We really don't have to worry about food, and shelter. Heck our poor people eat at McDonalds. In third world countries McDonalds is like eating at a sitdown $12-$15 a plate restarant. So I don't have much of a problem with people doing what it takes for people to survive. Who are we to say oh I'm sorry pedro you can't do what you have to to survive, because it might kill a spotted tree frog that is endangered?

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by LexLuethar
http:///forum/post/2489443
And please don't think that people in South America and Africa are BURNING and DESTROYING thousands of acres a day for food, because they aren't. Those trees are being sold to distributors, and are ending up on the chairs you are sitting on, and the desks your computers are on right now. I just don't want you to think, "well its survival" - because it isn't. They are burning and cutting for profit. If they made a farm out of every acre they burned there would be A LOT fewer hungry people in the world right now.
I think education is key, and this board is a great tool for that.
How is earning a living not survival?

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by ophiura
http:///forum/post/2489429
I don't think there is a reef that has been collected into extinction. That is really not my point. It is that it is one of several stresses on the ecosystem and we must be open to the fact that we are a direct player in that stress. It is an ecosystem that is becoming a potentially tenuous one.
Their is sustainable use, but even better, IMO, is sustainable use from one hobbyist to another.

But then those poor villagers will starve...

I understand what you are saying. Hopefully, long term, islands like Fiji will move into the aquaculture industry themselves (like with the live rock program they are doing). That and tourism will support them.
To me, our "hobby" is providing a temporary a stop-gap to the numerous more destructive practices that go on. I know having my tank at my former office lead to 12 youth getting certified to SCUBA, and the trips we took to the Caribbean dumped
$10,000's of dollars into the economy of Bonaire.
Clearly we mostly agree on this issue. I just tend to view our hobby as more of a "neccessary evil"; like public zoos and aquariums.

 

[lexluethar]

Well i realize they are selling it and making money, which equates to survival. But how it was worded in earlier posts, they made it seem as if it was a necessity, that they were burning down those trees so that they could build farms and feed starving children. Which i know to an extent they are making a living, which is survival, i don't think the above posts were being very realistic.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by LexLuethar
http:///forum/post/2489455
Well i realize they are selling it and making money, which equates to survival. But how it was worded in earlier posts, they made it seem as if it was a necessity, that they were burning down those trees so that they could build farms and feed starving children. Which i know to an extent they are making a living, which is survival, i don't think the above posts were being very realistic.
I've lived in central and south america, I've seen people clearing areas for housing and farming. It isn't to far off. a solid percentage of these people live below the 1 dollar a day poverty level. And if they can cut down a few trees, til up the land plant some corn they can live to see another day.
But poverty is an entirely different topic. Just remember that all is not bad in the USA. When our "poor" has a washer and dryer and a cell phone.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by LexLuethar
http:///forum/post/2489455
Well i realize they are selling it and making money, which equates to survival. But how it was worded in earlier posts, they made it seem as if it was a necessity, that they were burning down those trees so that they could build farms and feed starving children. Which i know to an extent they are making a living, which is survival, i don't think the above posts were being very realistic.
When you live in the Amazon, or on Fiji for that matter, jobs don't grow on those trees in your backyard. you do what you can to survive. As "civilization" reaches the remote areas they quickly find themselves in a new World.
200 years ago villagers lived more in a sustainable realtionship with their environment. that is changing. As it changes the forest becomes a larger resource than the wildlife found within it.
Whether you're chopping down a tree to sell to make money to buy corn, or you're burning down a tree to clear space to farm corn, it amounts to exactly the same thing.

 

[lexluethar]

You guys make it sound like these people are doing this for the better good of their nation and people. This is destroying forest on a massive level to NOT help the majority, but to help the minority. The money made from these operations don't go to the starving children, they go to the small number of head officials that make most of the money.
I haven't been there, and i know that i can't even comprehend what some of these people go through. But from what i've seen on TV (i know discovery channel and animal planet isn't much) this operation helps just a small percentage, the government isn't giving this land to the people, or the food for that matter.
I'll drop it, apparently i'm totally off on this one.

 

[1journeyman]

Lex, I know what you are saying; and you are correct in that some foreign governments are exploiting their own workers and resources.
In many other places, however, it's the people themselves trying to earn a living.

 

[aquaknight]

I understand what Lex is trying to say. Those guys that are in the Amazon for pure survival, aren't the ones he's concerned about. It's the guys/companies that import bulldozers, giantic chainsaws that clear miles of patches of land, that are the problems. To say, well that's how they make the living, shouldn't be an automatic cop-out. What about the 'human traders' that actually sell people in the Indo-Pacific? That's how they make their living, but is it right?
I am also on the side of this hobby not doing a whole to the reefs. Just look at the crown of thorns in Australia, the nutrient run off from the farms did far damage then from the COT then imaginable from the hobby. Is it the farmers way of life? Sure, could they change? Absolutely... That said, there is still room for improvement, aquaculturing and more and more frags being sold are great steps forward.

 

[lexluethar]

Okay, i thought I was taking crazy

[hr]
. That is what i meant. The people that are cutting down on a MASSIVE level are the ones that are doing it for the good of only a few people. If some villager in Nigeria has a hack saw and a donkey, i think he has every right to make a living and cut down the forest for survival (either by selling the wood, or making a farm/ect).
But i know i'm a hypocrit in this regard, because i'm sitting here in a nice office, with a nice desk, nice computer, in a county that used to be the great plains. I guess what i'm getting at is there needs to be balance, in everything, not just saltwater. Recycle, don't use 8 pieces of paper towels in the bathroom to dry your hands (i see this every damn day, people pull like 10 sheets of paper to dry their hands, i use one and it drys my hands off just as good), etc.
On the note of corals, if anyone wants to mail me some nice home grown corals i would LOVE to have them - i mean you don't want me to contribute to the problem by going out and buying some that were taken from the wild do you J/k

 

[socal57che]

Originally Posted by LexLuethar
http:///forum/post/2489559
don't use 8 pieces of paper towels in the bathroom to dry your hands (i see this every damn day, people pull like 10 sheets of paper to dry their hands, i use one and it drys my hands off just as good), etc.
Alright, but I refuse to use a single square of toilet paper at a time!
Why such small squares? Does anybody really use just one?

 

[stdreb27]

I just don't know how much to believe. Look at DTT once heralded as the killer of various animals ect eating contaminated bugs. The problem now is that malaria is expanding again in these areas. And it turned out the harm to the animals was vastly exaggerated while humans were dying.
Lex let me ask even if major companies are doing the chopping. Who do you think is running the bulldozers, cutting the trees, and doing the actual labor? It isn't imported labor from the USA it is the nationals of that country. That means money that means food ect. Survival...
The idea that the corportations are all evil is biting the hand that feeds you.

 

[ophiura]

Originally Posted by LexLuethar
http:///forum/post/2489455
Well i realize they are selling it and making money, which equates to survival. But how it was worded in earlier posts, they made it seem as if it was a necessity, that they were burning down those trees so that they could build farms and feed starving children. Which i know to an extent they are making a living, which is survival, i don't think the above posts were being very realistic.
Many are done for farms, many are done for grazing lands...and it helps the trees themselves are worth money too.
But it is done to earn a living, widespread throughout the world, where our ideas of what is necessary and what is not are irrelevant.
This is why, IMO, the most successful "environmentalist" groups (eg the nature conservancy) are those that physically buy the land, not just try and make people feel guilty. People are "destroying" ecosystems not because they like it, but because it is a byproduct of their situation.
My only point here is that this hobby is one of many stresses on reefs, and if all you choose to do is hide it behind other factors on a scale, then you will be surprised some day. Because THIS hobby is purely for entertainment in the part of the world where huge expenses on lights, water and animals is a luxury.
This is a luxury hobby, versus bigger deeper sustenance issues. YES, clear cutting is a huge issue. But where do you think it is easier to push the blame...on a hobby or on a means of making a living? We need to be prepared for what may come down on us. There are lots of things to address...
and the impact of the hobby is one of those considerations.
Climate change, speciation, etc are all longer scale phenomena which are "easier" to adapt to. Sudden multifaceted and rapid stresses on an ecosystem are difficult to address.
Journey - the "necessary evil" comment is interesting, but I would say that if it is a necessary evil then it is best addressed by zoos and aquaria and not hobbyists who have tanks in their homes with little exposure or opportunities to educate. That could be an argument used against that perspective.
FWIW, yes, these ideas and ethical debates are one of the reasons I ultimately could no longer work at an LFS and be actively advocating the sale of certain animals to only marginal conditions, IMO.
I ABSOLUTELY DO, FWIW, believe there is a sustainable method that ensures the future of this hobby. But education and probably legislation will ultimately be required to get buy in.

 

[pontius]

Ophiura, we'll just have to agree to disagree. not saying that the aquarium trade hasn't done some harm, but comparing that to deforestation is like comparing a pinprick to a slashed artery. and like others have pointed out, there has been at least SOME good come out of the aquarium trade like fragging and awareness of the problem. but some tribe in a jungle somewhere needs to cut down millions of acres of rain forest so they can survive and that's no bigger problem? come on now. I mean, you're talking about millions of acres being cut down. or the hole in the ozone caused by pollution causing global warming. and you want to tell me that the aquarium trade is just irresponsible? we'll just agree to disagree. 20 years from now at the current rate, the only corals left on earth will be in aquariums.

 

[ophiura]

I think you are missing my point.
At NO TIME have I said logging or other factors are not serious SERIOUS issues.
I will disagree with you on the ozone layer and global warming, as I do not believe either of these are conclusive...and even if they were, there is a long string of evidence to demonstrate periods of major changes in climate over geologic time. So it is a "background" issue, IMO. One that has existed, and continues to exist, and reefs have adapted time and time again to that sort of long time scale change.
But for a sensitive ecosystem, EVERYTHING is magnified in terms of the stress it introduces on the reef. Short term radical stress - logging, sedimentation, shipping,
This is a LUXURY hobby. For people who earn their daily bread logging or farming, I would say it is a big deal to them, a bigger one. I don't rely on my tank to survive and feed my family. I would say that it would be more difficult to change that aspect, if for no other reason than it is the life blood of poorer countries. It is certainly a bigger or deeper issue, IMO. One that is acknowledged, but much more difficult to deal with effectively.
We as hobbyists need to understand that the PERCEPTION is that this is a destructive hobby, and it is to a certain degree...and it is LUXURY for us. That is what sustains it. This will not win many supporters in the environmental movement, or in the scientific community. For some, they would see this idea - that we will in effect resurrect reefs in the future as laughable and to some extent elitist. I mean, in their minds we are contributing to the destruction and yet our saving grace is that we can fix it in the future? That is a dangerous argument.
Please don't misunderstand what I am saying. I am saying that ALL of these are stresses on reefs and we can not ignore the fact that the hobby is one of those stresses, one that is very clear, and very clearly unnecessary in the eyes of the public. It will come back to haunt us if we sit here now saying "it is not as important as these other things." We need to be proactive in outreach, education and in policing ourselves. This is the power of things like Project DIBS which strives to promote tank raised animals. The PR of even such a simple news story as this will not bode well considering the current environmental trends and it will continue.
If you feel the only corals that will be alive in the wild in 20 years are in aquaria, which I strongly disagree with, BTW, why are you dismissing the impact of this hobby as PART of that destruction? It is part of it. Maybe a small one, but part of it, and so long as we hide behind "but it does some good" and "really isn't as bad as this other stuff" we'll be in trouble. Let's be accountable. Let's be proactive. Let's start acknowledging we are part of a problem and focus on a real solution.
Seriously folks, please don't think I am saying these other things have no influence. That is not what I am saying at all because it is outright ridiculous to think otherwise and I am not an idiot, regardless of what you think

. Nature can destroy more of a reef in a storm or earthquake.
But in the public perception, it is pure outright luxury...and that doesn't win a lot of sympathy when it is destructive by its nature.
We need, effectively, to be prepared to police ourselves. I totally agree with the issue of "oh well if it dies it was only $20." These are things we have to educate people about. We need to be aware and accept our responsibility and try to change our attitudes, beginning with our own if need be.
They are ALL big factors.
It seems very much like I am outnumbered and at least misinterpreted, so I will leave this here. I think there is little point in continuing because I don't know how to state this any more clearly.

Plus I'm tired

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Pontius
http:///forum/post/2489709
Ophiura, we'll just have to agree to disagree. not saying that the aquarium trade hasn't done some harm, but comparing that to deforestation is like comparing a pinprick to a slashed artery. and like others have pointed out, there has been at least SOME good come out of the aquarium trade like fragging and awareness of the problem. but some tribe in a jungle somewhere needs to cut down millions of acres of rain forest so they can survive and that's no bigger problem? come on now. I mean, you're talking about millions of acres being cut down. or the hole in the ozone caused by pollution causing global warming. and you want to tell me that the aquarium trade is just irresponsible? we'll just agree to disagree. 20 years from now at the current rate, the only corals left on earth will be in aquariums.
Actually pollution is full of ozone. Naturally ozone is formed by energy (mainly sunlight) colliding with O2 molecules. So when it is dark for 6 months out of the year no ozone is being generated thus the lower levels of ozone in the atmosphere.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by ophiura
http:///forum/post/2489785
I think you are missing my point.
At NO TIME have I said logging or other factors are not serious SERIOUS issues.
I will disagree with you on the ozone layer and global warming, as I do not believe either of these are conclusive...and even if they were, there is a long string of evidence to demonstrate periods of major changes in climate over geologic time. So it is a "background" issue, IMO. One that has existed, and continues to exist, and reefs have adapted time and time again to that sort of long time scale change.
But for a sensitive ecosystem, EVERYTHING is magnified in terms of the stress it introduces on the reef. Short term radical stress - logging, sedimentation, shipping,
This is a LUXURY hobby. For people who earn their daily bread logging or farming, I would say it is a big deal to them, a bigger one. I don't rely on my tank to survive and feed my family. I would say that it would be more difficult to change that aspect, if for no other reason than it is the life blood of poorer countries. It is certainly a bigger or deeper issue, IMO. One that is acknowledged, but much more difficult to deal with effectively.
We as hobbyists need to understand that the PERCEPTION is that this is a destructive hobby, and it is to a certain degree...and it is LUXURY for us. That is what sustains it. This will not win many supporters in the environmental movement, or in the scientific community. For some, they would see this idea - that we will in effect resurrect reefs in the future as laughable and to some extent elitist. I mean, in their minds we are contributing to the destruction and yet our saving grace is that we can fix it in the future? That is a dangerous argument.
Please don't misunderstand what I am saying. I am saying that ALL of these are stresses on reefs and we can not ignore the fact that the hobby is one of those stresses, one that is very clear, and very clearly unnecessary in the eyes of the public. It will come back to haunt us if we sit here now saying "it is not as important as these other things." We need to be proactive in outreach, education and in policing ourselves. This is the power of things like Project DIBS which strives to promote tank raised animals. The PR of even such a simple news story as this will not bode well considering the current environmental trends and it will continue.
If you feel the only corals that will be alive in the wild in 20 years are in aquaria, which I strongly disagree with, BTW, why are you dismissing the impact of this hobby as PART of that destruction? It is part of it. Maybe a small one, but part of it, and so long as we hide behind "but it does some good" and "really isn't as bad as this other stuff" we'll be in trouble. Let's be accountable. Let's be proactive. Let's start acknowledging we are part of a problem and focus on a real solution.
Seriously folks, please don't think I am saying these other things have no influence. That is not what I am saying at all because it is outright ridiculous to think otherwise and I am not an idiot, regardless of what you think

. Nature can destroy more of a reef in a storm or earthquake.
But in the public perception, it is pure outright luxury...and that doesn't win a lot of sympathy when it is destructive by its nature.
We need, effectively, to be prepared to police ourselves. I totally agree with the issue of "oh well if it dies it was only $20." These are things we have to educate people about. We need to be aware and accept our responsibility and try to change our attitudes, beginning with our own if need be.
They are ALL big factors.
It seems very much like I am outnumbered and at least misinterpreted, so I will leave this here. I think there is little point in continuing because I don't know how to state this any more clearly.

Plus I'm tired

The real question is how much are aquarists effecting the reefs. And there really isn't a good way to tell.

 

[pontius]

Originally Posted by ophiura
http:///forum/post/2489785
I think you are missing my point.
At NO TIME have I said logging or other factors are not serious SERIOUS issues.
no, what you said, or what you implied, was that the aquarium trade is just as bad toward reefs as deforestation and even WORSE, because the deforestation is necessary for these people to survive. I'd like an explanation of that. because the combined amount of rain forest that's been torn down is more than two thirds the size of the US. and to give some perspective, the US is the thired largest nation on earth (land wise). so I'd like to know, who ARRRREE these people (Jerry Seinfeld voice) that need to clear that much land in order to "survive"???
as for global warming, we can disagree on that one too. though I would agree that reefs can recover or adapt more readily to this change because it's not nearly as immediate as all the silt being washed into the ocean. but it's still an effect, and moreso (imo) than the aquarium trade.