Barrier Reef
- Thread starter ezee
- Start date
ezee
Member
Aaron,
It is a bit over-sensationalized (if thats the right word). Yes there is a very real problem with crown-of-thorns sea stars but they are a naturally occuring species.
I was curious as to why you think their claims are over sensationalized. From some of the things I have read and seen, naturally occurring species in unbalanced situations (as we humans create so often) can present some of the most dangerous threats to any ecosystem. Outbreaks, that are usually hundreds of years apart, occurring within several years of one another, actually do sound kind of bad to me.
...good informational show to watch but it gets annoying when you can tell they're saying things to sound dramatic which aren't entirely true.
Also curious as to how you knew that their claiims weren't true. I didn't hear anything that struck me as particularly false.
I'm going to Australia to study Marine Biology for a good 6 months in Feb., so hopefully I'll learn a bit more about the current situation while I'm there.
That sounds so exciting!!! Best of luck and while you are there see if they will take our giant fuge recommendations! Or even the lighthouse skimmer idea! LOL
E
It is a bit over-sensationalized (if thats the right word). Yes there is a very real problem with crown-of-thorns sea stars but they are a naturally occuring species.
I was curious as to why you think their claims are over sensationalized. From some of the things I have read and seen, naturally occurring species in unbalanced situations (as we humans create so often) can present some of the most dangerous threats to any ecosystem. Outbreaks, that are usually hundreds of years apart, occurring within several years of one another, actually do sound kind of bad to me.
...good informational show to watch but it gets annoying when you can tell they're saying things to sound dramatic which aren't entirely true.
Also curious as to how you knew that their claiims weren't true. I didn't hear anything that struck me as particularly false.
I'm going to Australia to study Marine Biology for a good 6 months in Feb., so hopefully I'll learn a bit more about the current situation while I'm there.
That sounds so exciting!!! Best of luck and while you are there see if they will take our giant fuge recommendations! Or even the lighthouse skimmer idea! LOL
E
ophiura
Active Member
Originally Posted by Shoreliner11
I watched the same show. It is a bit over-sensationalized (if thats the right word). Yes there is a very real problem with crown-of-thorns sea stars but they are a naturally occuring species. Currently the last major outbreaks were in 1998(maybe 1999 can't remember) and 2002. In the past outbreaks of seastars were hundreds of years apart. It is not just a nutrient problem but over fishing/harvesting of its natural predators has had an impact on the numbers of crown-of-thorns. Very good informational show to watch but it gets annoying when you can tell they're saying things to sound dramatic which aren't entirely true. I'm going to Australia to study Marine Biology for a good 6 months in Feb., so hopefully I'll learn a bit more about the current situation while I'm there.
Aaron
Thank you.
One thing we are certain of is that many of these ecosystems change over time, swinging through a pendulum like series of alternate "stable states." We see, for example, in the Caribbean situations where the reefs are dominated by large, slow growing corals like brain and montastrea...and other periods dominated by far faster growing corals and algaes. One keystone grazer is the urchin Diadema, which had a major die off in the last few decades, and this "shifted" the dominant coral structure away from many slower growing corals as algae outcompeted them for space.
And doing paleo cores through reefs we see this sort of thing has happened in the past, before human influence. It is possible that this would lead to similar population shifts on Pacific reefs, favoring faster growing corals, those with high dispersal rates, etc.
So the question is "what is abnormal, and are we really in a position to answer it?"
There is no doubt there is a huge population of these stars which are highly predatory, HUGE, and toxic...totally unsuitable for captive systems. One of their primary predators, the Triton Trumpet snail is very large, slow growing, and prized for the shell trade.
There are definite correlations and ideas on what is going, as humans perceive it, "wrong." Definite things that do need to change (fertilization impacts, overfishing, etc). But whether this - the seastars - are catastrophic and unnatural is only something we can state relative to what we know on our time scale, which is extraordinarily confined and limited. So we should be careful meddling with things we don't necessarily understand, IMO. We've made mistakes in the past with such population controls (indeed, even in control of these stars as they used to be cut up - making more stars). Often we don't understand the impacts of this several decades down the road.
I would prefer they spend time addressing nutrient imput and deforestation, and overfishing, rather than trying to kill things off. Deal with the real human impact at that end...but whether it truly has any influence over the Acanthaster, well, that would remain to be seen.
I watched the same show. It is a bit over-sensationalized (if thats the right word). Yes there is a very real problem with crown-of-thorns sea stars but they are a naturally occuring species. Currently the last major outbreaks were in 1998(maybe 1999 can't remember) and 2002. In the past outbreaks of seastars were hundreds of years apart. It is not just a nutrient problem but over fishing/harvesting of its natural predators has had an impact on the numbers of crown-of-thorns. Very good informational show to watch but it gets annoying when you can tell they're saying things to sound dramatic which aren't entirely true. I'm going to Australia to study Marine Biology for a good 6 months in Feb., so hopefully I'll learn a bit more about the current situation while I'm there.
Aaron
Thank you.
One thing we are certain of is that many of these ecosystems change over time, swinging through a pendulum like series of alternate "stable states." We see, for example, in the Caribbean situations where the reefs are dominated by large, slow growing corals like brain and montastrea...and other periods dominated by far faster growing corals and algaes. One keystone grazer is the urchin Diadema, which had a major die off in the last few decades, and this "shifted" the dominant coral structure away from many slower growing corals as algae outcompeted them for space.
And doing paleo cores through reefs we see this sort of thing has happened in the past, before human influence. It is possible that this would lead to similar population shifts on Pacific reefs, favoring faster growing corals, those with high dispersal rates, etc.
So the question is "what is abnormal, and are we really in a position to answer it?"
There is no doubt there is a huge population of these stars which are highly predatory, HUGE, and toxic...totally unsuitable for captive systems. One of their primary predators, the Triton Trumpet snail is very large, slow growing, and prized for the shell trade.
There are definite correlations and ideas on what is going, as humans perceive it, "wrong." Definite things that do need to change (fertilization impacts, overfishing, etc). But whether this - the seastars - are catastrophic and unnatural is only something we can state relative to what we know on our time scale, which is extraordinarily confined and limited. So we should be careful meddling with things we don't necessarily understand, IMO. We've made mistakes in the past with such population controls (indeed, even in control of these stars as they used to be cut up - making more stars). Often we don't understand the impacts of this several decades down the road.
I would prefer they spend time addressing nutrient imput and deforestation, and overfishing, rather than trying to kill things off. Deal with the real human impact at that end...but whether it truly has any influence over the Acanthaster, well, that would remain to be seen.
ezee
Member
Ophiura,
I was wondering when you would notice this thread.
I agree that killing stars is not the way. I also agree that the ideal solution is better agricultural practices. I think the statement that this could be a small cut of a greater cycle, is possible. I am not so sure about our inability to define this as an "abnormal situation" though.
The biologists seemed to be looking at a timespan of hundreds/thousands of years. Even if we were to disregard their input, the metrics of the situation are a little concerning. Outbreaks becoming up to 100 times more frequent in a relatively short time and coinciding with greater human farming efforts seem like they might have some precursors of abnormality.
I definitely can see your point about not crying wolf but I definitely think that there may be some cause for concern. I could be wrong, not being a biologist, of course!
So, if hypothetically abnormal did fit, while we were waiting for the politcal situation to resolve (business vs. eco, never easy or short), wouldn't stopgap measures make sense? I am not suggesting rash efforts but a nutrient export system, while having great risks and needing to be managed properly, sounds like a possible option. No?
E
I was wondering when you would notice this thread.
I agree that killing stars is not the way. I also agree that the ideal solution is better agricultural practices. I think the statement that this could be a small cut of a greater cycle, is possible. I am not so sure about our inability to define this as an "abnormal situation" though.
The biologists seemed to be looking at a timespan of hundreds/thousands of years. Even if we were to disregard their input, the metrics of the situation are a little concerning. Outbreaks becoming up to 100 times more frequent in a relatively short time and coinciding with greater human farming efforts seem like they might have some precursors of abnormality.
I definitely can see your point about not crying wolf but I definitely think that there may be some cause for concern. I could be wrong, not being a biologist, of course!
So, if hypothetically abnormal did fit, while we were waiting for the politcal situation to resolve (business vs. eco, never easy or short), wouldn't stopgap measures make sense? I am not suggesting rash efforts but a nutrient export system, while having great risks and needing to be managed properly, sounds like a possible option. No?
E
thegriffin
Member
Ophiura, glad to see some people understand the concept of geologic time. These days everyone seems to get so worked up over any little change or shift from "his or her" perceived norm. In actualality these things are constantly changing, typically from one extreme to the other. People complain when their barrier island is blown away by a hurricane because they don’t understand that these islands are geologically short lived. They are scared of species extinction when it is common throughout the fossil record. There have been past extinctions where 90% of all species on earth have been wiped out. They fear global warming even though it happens every 10,000 years. All that live rock people have in their tanks probably came from ancient reefs that have long since perished. Maybe even ones that were bigger and more beautiful than the GBR. Sure it sucks to lose something you hold dear or your life becomes more complicated due to a change. But most of the time, these perceived changes are just the continuation of a natural process. I just think it’s pretty exciting to be able to live long enough to observe these changes that can sometimes only be observable over geologic time.
shoreliner11
Active Member
Originally Posted by TheGriffin
Ophiura, glad to see some people understand the concept of geologic time. These days everyone seems to get so worked up over any little change or shift from "his or her" perceived norm. In actualality these things are constantly changing, typically from one extreme to the other. People complain when their barrier island is blown away by a hurricane because they don’t understand that these islands are geologically short lived. They are scared of species extinction when it is common throughout the fossil record. There have been past extinctions where 90% of all species on earth have been wiped out. They fear global warming even though it happens every 10,000 years. All that live rock people have in their tanks probably came from ancient reefs that have long since perished. Maybe even ones that were bigger and more beautiful than the GBR. Sure it sucks to lose something you hold dear or your life becomes more complicated due to a change. But most of the time, these perceived changes are just the continuation of a natural process. I just think it’s pretty exciting to be able to live long enough to observe these changes that can sometimes only be observable over geologic time.
You make some good points regarding geologic time, but without going into details, is it any different if the extinctions and global warming are naturally occuring or anthropogenically caused/ highly influenced. IMO there is a distinction between the two. I agree that some times the geologic timescale is lost sight of. But geologic time can also tell us that the effects humans have on the earth are unprecedented in known geologic time. For example, although the earth has gone through periodic "ice ages" (glacial/interglacial) and "hot houses" the rate of global warming currently being observed has not been seen once, in the whole fossil record.
Anyway, science, as well as the earth, are always changing. Sometimes the things we know now, turn out to be false years later. Regardless of the processes involved, whether humans are involved or not, I'll be pretty sad if there aren't any reefs left to dive in 30...even 50years, cause I plan to be doing it when I'm over 70.
Aaron
Ophiura, glad to see some people understand the concept of geologic time. These days everyone seems to get so worked up over any little change or shift from "his or her" perceived norm. In actualality these things are constantly changing, typically from one extreme to the other. People complain when their barrier island is blown away by a hurricane because they don’t understand that these islands are geologically short lived. They are scared of species extinction when it is common throughout the fossil record. There have been past extinctions where 90% of all species on earth have been wiped out. They fear global warming even though it happens every 10,000 years. All that live rock people have in their tanks probably came from ancient reefs that have long since perished. Maybe even ones that were bigger and more beautiful than the GBR. Sure it sucks to lose something you hold dear or your life becomes more complicated due to a change. But most of the time, these perceived changes are just the continuation of a natural process. I just think it’s pretty exciting to be able to live long enough to observe these changes that can sometimes only be observable over geologic time.
You make some good points regarding geologic time, but without going into details, is it any different if the extinctions and global warming are naturally occuring or anthropogenically caused/ highly influenced. IMO there is a distinction between the two. I agree that some times the geologic timescale is lost sight of. But geologic time can also tell us that the effects humans have on the earth are unprecedented in known geologic time. For example, although the earth has gone through periodic "ice ages" (glacial/interglacial) and "hot houses" the rate of global warming currently being observed has not been seen once, in the whole fossil record.
Anyway, science, as well as the earth, are always changing. Sometimes the things we know now, turn out to be false years later. Regardless of the processes involved, whether humans are involved or not, I'll be pretty sad if there aren't any reefs left to dive in 30...even 50years, cause I plan to be doing it when I'm over 70.
Aaron
ezee
Member
Griffin,
While I think your statement is scientifically enlightened and has merit, I also think that we need to be careful about being "comfortable" about rapid changes in the environment and ecosystem. It seems that for many people that can lead to a sense of complacency, a sense of "it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things." When people start thinking in those terms they can tend to be more irresponsible (pollutants, mining, etc.). 'Who cares if a few hundred species are made extinct this month because in 1 million years, they probably already would be?' I am not sure that I am comfortable with that. I think sometimes getting "worked up" a little is the right thing to do.
Aaron,
I'll be pretty sad if there aren't any reefs left to dive in 30...even 50years, cause I plan to be doing it when I'm over 70.
Here, here!:happyfish
E
While I think your statement is scientifically enlightened and has merit, I also think that we need to be careful about being "comfortable" about rapid changes in the environment and ecosystem. It seems that for many people that can lead to a sense of complacency, a sense of "it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things." When people start thinking in those terms they can tend to be more irresponsible (pollutants, mining, etc.). 'Who cares if a few hundred species are made extinct this month because in 1 million years, they probably already would be?' I am not sure that I am comfortable with that. I think sometimes getting "worked up" a little is the right thing to do.
Aaron,
I'll be pretty sad if there aren't any reefs left to dive in 30...even 50years, cause I plan to be doing it when I'm over 70.
Here, here!:happyfish
E
ophiura
Active Member
I want to preface this with saying that I enjoy scientific discussions. I believe that every person is entitled to their perspective, and my intent is to be very civil
Not that I am annoyed or anything, but that some of these threads can...uh....turn in tone.
So that is not my intention at all. And I am leaving RELIGION out of this discussion for argument sake. I understand and appreciate that my views are not those of others.
Its not personal.
I think several of the series on TV are excellent. BUT they do tend to throw in a little hype. Pretty pictures of fish don't sell as well as pretty pictures of adorable Nemo fish that will all be DEAD!!!! Scientists have different views on these issues. I don't make my living in that field anymore, so I am no longer required to follow the "give me money because I study cute animals that will be DEAD!!!" You have to understand that those sorts of studies often get more funding than "I think everything will come through in the end," and so their can be a certain bias. Scientists eat when they have grant money, so they are quite often making their research out to be critical and worthy of lots of cash. IME, at least.
Now, one problem, as I see it, is that there are limitations to our resolution looking over geologic time. We may not have the resolution of saying well this happened over decades now but over thousands of years in the past. Small scale blips may not be very apparent in geologic history as compared to what we are living through.
Sometimes, walking down the sidewalk, you'll see a leaf imprint or dog prints..or people prints..when the cement was wet. Stand back, look around. How much can you tell about the environment, all the trees and animals around you, just looking at that leaf? Well, maybe that it is a temperate species of tree. Or was at some point. But there are limitations in the fossil record, and in other methods used to reconstruct environments in the geologic past. Resolution tends to be poor. There is a lot of, shall we say, guess work.
We will always be biased, IMO, toward what we experience on our own timescale...but this can lead to misinterpretation, IMO. I simply believe we have an obligation to, well, not take so much credit for a lot of things. The earth is actually far greater and more complex than humanity. We can probably influence some aspects of it, we can probably kill ourselves off...but the perturbations of this planet over the course of its life are far beyond our ability to control, or fix.
I think several of the series on TV are excellent. BUT they do tend to throw in a little hype. Pretty pictures of fish don't sell as well as pretty pictures of adorable Nemo fish that will all be DEAD!!!! Scientists have different views on these issues. I don't make my living in that field anymore, so I am no longer required to follow the "give me money because I study cute animals that will be DEAD!!!" You have to understand that those sorts of studies often get more funding than "I think everything will come through in the end," and so their can be a certain bias. Scientists eat when they have grant money, so they are quite often making their research out to be critical and worthy of lots of cash. IME, at least.
Now, one problem, as I see it, is that there are limitations to our resolution looking over geologic time. We may not have the resolution of saying well this happened over decades now but over thousands of years in the past. Small scale blips may not be very apparent in geologic history as compared to what we are living through.
Sometimes, walking down the sidewalk, you'll see a leaf imprint or dog prints..or people prints..when the cement was wet. Stand back, look around. How much can you tell about the environment, all the trees and animals around you, just looking at that leaf? Well, maybe that it is a temperate species of tree. Or was at some point. But there are limitations in the fossil record, and in other methods used to reconstruct environments in the geologic past. Resolution tends to be poor. There is a lot of, shall we say, guess work.
We will always be biased, IMO, toward what we experience on our own timescale...but this can lead to misinterpretation, IMO. I simply believe we have an obligation to, well, not take so much credit for a lot of things. The earth is actually far greater and more complex than humanity. We can probably influence some aspects of it, we can probably kill ourselves off...but the perturbations of this planet over the course of its life are far beyond our ability to control, or fix.
ophiura
Active Member
(Wow...I needed two posts. Yes, I did spend a lot of time in grad school cultivating this "skill" It was useful once )
In a hobby related example, we find it very difficult to believe that certain animals, such as seastars, can take about a year to starve to death. How can that be??? We'd be dead far faster. Indeed, we also thought that many of these animals really didn't do much...but it is because they are living on a different scale from ours. Put time lapse cameras on them, and all of a sudden we see and interpret behavior very differently. IMO, we have to be very careful with thinking we humans can "fix" many of these issues which, in reality, we probably aren't even close to understanding the complexities of...in large part due again to inability to appreciate scale (whether time or space).
So by all means we must provide alternatives, economically sound alternatives, to minimize the practices of overfishing and deforestation. But we actually may be nothing more than a bug crawling around an ever changing planet. Hard for our egos and work ethics and minds to take to heart and acccept, for sure.
We don't know what will happen in the future; we can only approximate what the weather may be tomorrow. Though a joke, it is worth taking to heart.
The models being used have flaws. When hurricane Rita was originally forcast to hit Matagorda, TX, it was stated with some certainty because MOST of the models had the storm going in there. I remember one track from one model several days out that took it were it actually went.
Large scale events, such as El Nino, are even more difficult to predict, in large part again because I reckon we are not looking at a large enough scale. I believe, though I admit I am not up to date on this, they can not yet HINDCAST (meaning try to predict KNOWN events) with any accuracy yet. So to take large scale patterns, and try and predict what will happen in 50 years (again, such a human time frame...), well, I'm not losing sleep. The audit in a few weeks - that I am losing sleep over. Should we aim for cleaner living? Sure, it improves OUR life and many creatures around it, but we must draw a line between that and "Saving the earth."
I could go into more detail on my views, but it would involve mentioning a word that gets things ugly because of failure on the part of some to appreciate the beliefs of others. But lets say this, there have been CATASTROPHIC extinctions in the past...periods when the earth and seas were uninhabitable to most creatures...but something always made it through. These have been relatively regular events in the past, caused by potentially different issues.
A asteroid hitting the planet probably made things really bad in an instant. On that time frame, a few years seems like a pretty good deal
Again it is not to say we shouldn't study issues and clean up our acts or even kill off seastars, LOL. Though in Australia I would focus on killing off an introduced species of seastar Asterias amurensis which will threaten the balance of temperate ecosystems.
In a hobby related example, we find it very difficult to believe that certain animals, such as seastars, can take about a year to starve to death. How can that be??? We'd be dead far faster. Indeed, we also thought that many of these animals really didn't do much...but it is because they are living on a different scale from ours. Put time lapse cameras on them, and all of a sudden we see and interpret behavior very differently. IMO, we have to be very careful with thinking we humans can "fix" many of these issues which, in reality, we probably aren't even close to understanding the complexities of...in large part due again to inability to appreciate scale (whether time or space).
So by all means we must provide alternatives, economically sound alternatives, to minimize the practices of overfishing and deforestation. But we actually may be nothing more than a bug crawling around an ever changing planet. Hard for our egos and work ethics and minds to take to heart and acccept, for sure.
The models being used have flaws. When hurricane Rita was originally forcast to hit Matagorda, TX, it was stated with some certainty because MOST of the models had the storm going in there. I remember one track from one model several days out that took it were it actually went.
Large scale events, such as El Nino, are even more difficult to predict, in large part again because I reckon we are not looking at a large enough scale. I believe, though I admit I am not up to date on this, they can not yet HINDCAST (meaning try to predict KNOWN events) with any accuracy yet. So to take large scale patterns, and try and predict what will happen in 50 years (again, such a human time frame...), well, I'm not losing sleep. The audit in a few weeks - that I am losing sleep over. Should we aim for cleaner living? Sure, it improves OUR life and many creatures around it, but we must draw a line between that and "Saving the earth."
I could go into more detail on my views, but it would involve mentioning a word that gets things ugly because of failure on the part of some to appreciate the beliefs of others. But lets say this, there have been CATASTROPHIC extinctions in the past...periods when the earth and seas were uninhabitable to most creatures...but something always made it through. These have been relatively regular events in the past, caused by potentially different issues.
A asteroid hitting the planet probably made things really bad in an instant. On that time frame, a few years seems like a pretty good deal
Again it is not to say we shouldn't study issues and clean up our acts or even kill off seastars, LOL. Though in Australia I would focus on killing off an introduced species of seastar Asterias amurensis which will threaten the balance of temperate ecosystems.
ezee
Member
Ophiura,
LOL! Great posts!!! I love a great discussion, scientific and sometimes philosophical too. Definitely not personal.
Regarding the research grant insight, it is good to have insight on what that process is like! Sheds a lot of light, thanks!
Regarding timescale, I understand your analogies in comparing time and a vignette event without having supportive facts or understanding of the bigger picture. Totally. What I meant to get at was human beings still have to behave relative to what affects us. So if the asteroid (great example btw), was coming straight for us, we would still try to do something about us. If you look at that same event in relation to galaxy-time we could easily write it off, "happens all the time." But relative to us, it is a very important event! Just like the Great Barrier Reef. Maybe if it were to be 90% removed and take thousands of years to return, that would be normal in the greater timescale framework but it would still influence our lives, perhaps for many generations.
Now of course most people are not going to die from the loss of the Great Barrier Reef but there are other grand timeline events that will affect us greatly, so by understanding and getting involved, we are interacting on a level that is relative to us.
Again it is not to say we shouldn't study issues and clean up our acts or even kill off seastars, LOL. Though in Australia I would focus on killing off an introduced species of seastar Asterias amurensis which will threaten the balance of temperate ecosystems.
I guess we are saying the same thing, sort of!! LOL
Wow. That's a lotta typing!
E
LOL! Great posts!!! I love a great discussion, scientific and sometimes philosophical too. Definitely not personal.
Regarding the research grant insight, it is good to have insight on what that process is like! Sheds a lot of light, thanks!
Regarding timescale, I understand your analogies in comparing time and a vignette event without having supportive facts or understanding of the bigger picture. Totally. What I meant to get at was human beings still have to behave relative to what affects us. So if the asteroid (great example btw), was coming straight for us, we would still try to do something about us. If you look at that same event in relation to galaxy-time we could easily write it off, "happens all the time." But relative to us, it is a very important event! Just like the Great Barrier Reef. Maybe if it were to be 90% removed and take thousands of years to return, that would be normal in the greater timescale framework but it would still influence our lives, perhaps for many generations.
Now of course most people are not going to die from the loss of the Great Barrier Reef but there are other grand timeline events that will affect us greatly, so by understanding and getting involved, we are interacting on a level that is relative to us.
Again it is not to say we shouldn't study issues and clean up our acts or even kill off seastars, LOL. Though in Australia I would focus on killing off an introduced species of seastar Asterias amurensis which will threaten the balance of temperate ecosystems.
I guess we are saying the same thing, sort of!! LOL
Wow. That's a lotta typing!
E
ophiura
Active Member
I don't think any of us are in much disagreement overall. There are clearly some destructive practices there, and in various ecosystems around the world. The key is we must provide economically sustainable means for them...in many ways this means making something like the reef valuable in its pristine state so that they are motivated for it to stay that way...hence the origin of ecotourism in rainforests and such.
As for killing seastars though
ctgretzky9
Member
I think the Australians are overfeeding the reefs.
They need to export the nutrients quicker and add more flow.
A protein skimmer may help too.
They need to export the nutrients quicker and add more flow.
A protein skimmer may help too.
ezee
Member
Ophiura,
As for killing seastars though Asterias amurensis was introduced to temperate areas of Australia and Tasmania from shipping discharge. Its actual range is Japan and the North Pacific. It, like introduced species in general, is causing huge damage. But Acanthaster is a natural member of the reef fauna in that area, so overall it is slightly different. One is knowing an animal does not belong, and the other is saying that something does not appear to be right, but not really knowing exactly why it is wrong.
Today 12:51 PM
Agreed. I am against the killing of the indigenous creatures in this situation and indeed in virtually all situations. Culling is risky business, not to mention that it just doesn't feel right. Unless we address the sources of these problems they just won't go away.
I like that idea about cultivating a financial incentive to bring protecting the reef to a higher governmental priority. I wonder if the hobby industry revenues (harvesting) for that area are tracked and presented anywhere?
E
As for killing seastars though Asterias amurensis was introduced to temperate areas of Australia and Tasmania from shipping discharge. Its actual range is Japan and the North Pacific. It, like introduced species in general, is causing huge damage. But Acanthaster is a natural member of the reef fauna in that area, so overall it is slightly different. One is knowing an animal does not belong, and the other is saying that something does not appear to be right, but not really knowing exactly why it is wrong.
Today 12:51 PM
Agreed. I am against the killing of the indigenous creatures in this situation and indeed in virtually all situations. Culling is risky business, not to mention that it just doesn't feel right. Unless we address the sources of these problems they just won't go away.
I like that idea about cultivating a financial incentive to bring protecting the reef to a higher governmental priority. I wonder if the hobby industry revenues (harvesting) for that area are tracked and presented anywhere?
E