Data: Wrong; Sustainability: Don't care; Robert Wintner: Aquarium trade should stop!
 

Well despite working with energy system policies and grid greening, I hate environmentalist! Here's one of the reasons why:

http://www.reef2rainforest.com/2013/...ref_map=%5B%5D

These people don't have anything better to do other than creating their own views, spreading propaganda and love eating fish instead of keeping them. He keeps on saying that aquarium trade is not a part of "fishery" because (possibly) he loves eating salmon! That's not immoral but keeping fishes in aquarium is - according to Sea Shepherd Vice-President Robert Wintner. While the author tried to disproof Wintner's initial claim of "Hawaii reef is dying" with scientific data which even disproves Wintner's claim of "they can go anywhere", he concludes that he thinks its "immoral" and should stop. Well just because he thinks its immoral (which is a relative term!) doesn't mean he is write and even data that are available is wrong!

And one of the strongest point of the author was "If this campaign was really about defending reefs against the most significant impacts, wouldn’t we see pictures of terrestrial runoff, coastal development, carbon producing machines, and, yes, even mask and snorkel-wielding tourists trampling Hawaii’s reefs? Instead we only see images related to aquarium fishing. Isn’t it clear what’s going on here?"

M conclusion: this guy never succeeded in keeping reef tank and hence the grudge :razz:

Don't get me started on environmentalists as I have a serious hate on for them there is a place for those guys but in my world a good place for them is at the bottom of the ocean with cement shoes.

Come on don't be mean on the ocean :( It has enough contamination in there :P

My grad research revolves around climate change and stuffs but there's a difference between "making a change" and "spreading crap loaded propaganda". These people are actually holding back the progress of making this world a better place. Just think what would happen if this campaign goes forth. It won't stop the trade but the whole industry will become black market "without" any "regulation"!

I could go on for days and days about the subject mostly about green peace and the David Suzuki foundation both are the biggest bunch of liars and idiots out there I can speak volumes about what they have done to both improve and screw up the forest industry in which I work and their flawed logic on dying oceans and forests.

Snorkel Bob is ridiculous, and the fact that he's gotten as far as he has with very little evidence is outrageous.

Who's snorkel bob?

Robert Wintner.

Oh now that line makes sense :mrgreen:

the reaction that u are showing is what they want and need to keep the money coming,truth will prevail,calm knowable info is the answer .and they can have there belief even if bs as long as sticks and stone can break your bones but names will never hurt u

Thank God for the environmentalists
 

Thank God for the environmentalists in Hawaii Indonesia and the Philippines and other countries that provide fish coral and inverts for our hobby

Theses are the gals/guys who:

1. Lobby their governments against the use of cyanide and dynamite that destroys the reefs and the critters that live therein.
2. Lobby to set up marine parks to preserve breeding areas for the critters we keep. Only a dumber than dumb reefer would suggest that national parks in Canada are bad.
3. Pressure the marine industry to stop the import of impossible to keep species and very difficult to keep fish like cleaner wrasse that provide a vital cleaning job on he fish in the oceans.
4. Are the leaders in Cites and worldwide endangers precise listings.
5 pressure the government to prohibit the wholesale mining of the reef for live rock
6. Demonstrate against mining, manufacturing and oil industries to pressure them to lower water pollution so that the reefs do not die from pollution and silt infiltration

And the list goes on.

Imagine what would happen in these countries without their good work

Those are obviously good works. And they are termed as "regulation" while this guy, in his campaign, is not promoting "regulation" but instead making a path for black market by saying "legal trade is immoral". Our human nature is such that the forbidden fruit is always the tastiest and put a ban on the marine hobby and the industry will find a way that is not regulated or anything - which can be the worst nightmare for the hobbyist as well as the nature. There's a huge difference between people who create/works with regulations and policy and treehugger who write "save trees" on pieces of papers.

Fair comment but these regulations came as a result of Greenpeace and the sponge bobs of the world forcing governments and industry to reform and change their ways

But for the environmental lobby no regulations would have happened. For example we are going to get tighter regulations on pipelines in BC which is in everyone's interest.

Couldn't of said it any better myself Raied

I work in the pulp and paper industry and it drives me batty when the so called environmentalists say it takes 3 trees to make one piece of paper what those idiots don't tell you is no pulp mill in the world uses trees we use byproducts from the sawmills namely chips or get chips from a chipper plant very little if anything goes to waste. They use a play on words to make it sound worse than it really is.

Definitely. There are obviously environmentalists who find "ways" to "solve" the problem instead of attacking it. Every profession has two sides but its just, some big names in this profession are more eager to just whip out everything which can never be a solution. For example, cyanide poisoning definitely underwent scientific researches to justify and then the concerned activist took it to promote regulation of not using cyanide. That's a solution. But what would have happened if they just said "stop catching fish all together"; that would have caused major issues. Over here, instead of stating moral issues (which can never solve problem) he could have brought in scientific research instead of "they can go anywhere"; its just not right. I have seen "proper" environmentalists attack these type of hypocrites; that tells the conclusion how things work :P

But the threat of no you can't do it forces a dialogue and reasonable negations and a solution

So the role 'what some may call the extreme' plays forces governments and industry to rethink when they see reasonable people also questioning

And why do you NOW use chips and why do you NOW recycle white and black liquor, use less bleach and no longer see the poisonous green chlorine plume from the stacks that was released at night that polluted your neighbourhood. Maybe that happened before your time, eh?

I am always amazed by so many of the "environmentalists" that get a tonne of publicity even though they are blatantly promoting some self serving agenda and using flawed science at best to further said cause.

Honestly any environmentalist that wants to really make a difference should be talking about population control. Any and all issues that this planet have are made worse by our massive population explosion. Its simple folks too many humans on the planet for the planet to manage. Either we change how we all live or we reduce our population dramatically or the planet will do it for us!

Overpopulation is an issue but I can't help with that problem.

But I can promote the self serving agenda of ensuring a sustainable flow of healthy fish coral and inverts for you me and future reefers.

That is why I am posting my comments in this thread. Don't bite the hand that feeds ya!

"No you can't do it" has to follow scientific backings instead of "personal grudges". For example, nuclear power is clearly one of the source which can easily provide world's energy demand without emission. The cost? Its the risk associated with possible explosion. Environmentalists started going against nuclear power without thinking that it has a much lower risk factor that coal mining. Instead, if they grabbed scientific researches and tried to convince the world to increment the security measures, further lower risk factors, limit the enrichment to fission grade instead of weapon grade and find cures for radiation, nuclear might not have been a "threat" and could easily replace coal plants which are, infact, more devastating. People are getting more and more aware and instead of "we have to", they are now asking "why we have to and the alternatives". Interdisciplinary researches are playing a big role now a days in green movement and not relying on personal weapons.

Lets take Wintner's case. If he promoted "captive fishes and corals" instead of trying to shut down the whole industry, it can be beneficial in every ways. And why did he attack instead of defending the scene? Because he lacks the basis on which he can strongly stand other than personal opinions. On the other hand, a marine biologist, who is also a concerned environmentalist, would be able to tackle this situation in a much sound way with "alternatives".

Haha; don't start about population :P Population will reach 10 billion one way or the other till it stabilizes :P

Now "that" would be a solution :) Shutting down the industry is not. It is clearly mentioned in the article that he is not concerned about "sustainability" - that's a pure BS! The world is not about stopping how it moves, you can never stop nor delay a possibility of ice age; its just how the aging of the earth works. You can just ensure you are not changing the course of nature since that can be devastating. One example: mutation :)

I didn't expect that you would know much about snorkel bob.
He was and is the lightning rod against the marine ornamental industry, our hobby.
He saw the fish and Coral disappear because he was in the dive/snorkel tourist business .
Our industry ignored him and continued to rape the reefs notwithstanding his offer to share the resources.
Only when he took an extreme view and got regulators involved did industry start cleaning up their act and offering solutions.
Everyone was involved in the new regulations to the betterment of the Hawaiian reefs.

Is it only because of the marine industry? What about snorkeling/diving? What about CO2 sequestration? What about the ozone? Yes I don't know the history behind him but is taking things to the "extreme" always the answer? Yes marine industry did have some noticeable impact on the reef but to what extend? It seems like pet/hobby industries are always easy to blame and hence this sort of issues are always on the book.

I have always considered myself an environmentalist, because I love nature, whether it is hiking in the back country, or snorkeling in a tropical reef. But I don't like the extremists who want to not just regulate or protect, but stop all development, and seem to be more politically motivated, than true science based.

I once met and had the opportunity to talk to Al Gore, many years ago, when he was doing his dinner speech tours. I was quite surprised and very disappointed at his lack of knowledge of the underlying science associated with many of his popular global warning examples that he would use, especially when it came to Canada. He was great at picking up a headline and using it in a speech, without checking any facts. But when questioned (and caught), he would not engage, and like any politician, would just try to change the subject.

Don't know much about Snorkel Bob (just see his business tours everywhere), but given his business interests and like Al Gore, I suspect that it is not just the environment that he is trying to promote and protect.

Having said all that, I fully support science based based regulations and research that reduce pollution and make our planet a better place to live. I have seen the bad old days with commercial and native overfishing (some of that still happening unfortunately), loggers destroying fish streams, and miners polluting watersheds with their tailings waste. We have come a long ways from that though, and great to see the effort and progress now also with the oil companies to reduce their impact and protect the environment. And I do agree that public opinion has driven governments to implement and enforce the regulations necessary to make this happen.

But we can't go back to the cave man days, as that is what the extremists are really saying, by trying to stop everything. I do believe in sustainable development and we have to continue the research and development to keep moving forward. I believe the world is a better place (not just North America) and people everywhere have a right to try and improve their quality of life. Ironically, the extremists may actually be adding to pollution in the world, by advocating against development and resource extraction in places that are trying to reduce the impact. And indirectly then, they are supporting extraction in areas of the world that do not have the same standards and goals.

As for the reefs, I believe that we need to advance the science to protect them. But again, don't think out and out bans are the answer. The oceans and reefs are vast, and our hobby really should not have any impact. Regulation, though, is definitely necessary to prevent destruction and pillaging of such a sensitive resource. Maybe reef farms are the answer.

Right to the point sir :) Nothing should be presented without scientific research/proof. Keeping this planet livable is our duty and it should not be placed on the hands of extremism.

Just one further point, if I may....

I also believe we need to separate the moral and ethical issue of keeping fish from the reef sustainability argument. That's what seems to be driving the extremists like Snorkel Bob (and maybe Naesco), with their extreme positions on bans.

Having said that, I believe it is indeed a legitimate consideration when deciding to keep fish, especially certain species, and without the proper knowledge and methods to care for them. I have to admit that sometimes when I look at my tanks, I do think about the fish being better off back in their native reefs. But at the least, it does motivate me to provide the best possible environment I can for them.

However, I don't think it is right to use (and misuse) the sustainability argument just to promote your own ethical and moral beliefs. If that is what you believe, then make that clear. That should be enough to advocate and promote your position.

http://i812.photobucket.com/albums/z...eaShepherd.jpg

A shot of the Brigitte Bardot while in Tonga last year. This vessel was anchored about 400m from the collection site I was at. A little irony...

As with any profession, there are people who are good at it and people who stink. Nothing new here, just media sensationalism at it's worst... again..

Well, when I see dozen of fish die in one aquarium only, it really makes me think those fish would have been better in the ocean.

It's a good thing that at least we do have a few fish that are captive bred. Efforts should be made to go in that direction and some fish should definitely not be imported as too many die too quick.

Banning fish import for aquarium trade would be nearly impossible. Economically it is not realistic. Too many business rely on this hobby, it would be really bad. Things should be regulated, but surely not banned.

I support the Sea Sheppard organization with donations each year, not sure I will keep at it now! hmmmm...

Right you are Daniella. Everything has the ugly side and not just the aquarium trade. It seems like taking "down" aquarium trade would be a long term commitment (not to say near impossible like you wrote) and hence a "heck lot of cash flow" for the "campaign" (wink wink). I believe the donation which goes from you to sea sheppard would be better off in research facilities to fund captive breeding. Companies like ORA, walt smith, etc. are already doing great favor not only to the hobby but also to the ocean and proper funding can take it a long way and make it more accessible instead of the funds going to "personal insights".

Cleaner Wrasses
 

Since I have been in the marine industry since 1999 I will respond to this.

1. 18 years ago you could not keep acropora alive. It was shipped but never survived or did well. I remember getting some cultured acros from Waikiki Aquarium and we(VMAS group order) were all very excited when they arrived alive. Even though they were about $50 each and completely brown. If corals had been banned we would not know how to culture them and grow them in aquariums or ocean based farms for reef rehab. So I personally have gone from getting very excited about getting a brown acro frag to having acros spawn in my system. Banning something just because they are supposedly poor survivors is not the solution.


2.There is a reason why cleaner wrasses from Philippines, Indonesia and Vietnam are difficult to keep fish and it has nothing to do with the fish. It is almost entirely how they are caught(with cyanide), how they are packed(2.5" long fish in a 4" bag with 1/2" of water) and how they are handled by the airlines(we put your fish in the cooler as it was warmer than the warehouse or they get left baking under a hot tropical sun in Manila or Bali). Once the pet shops get the fish some are treated very well while other stores just slash the bag and dump the fish straight into the aquarium.

I personally have had cleaner wrasse look dead in the bag. Not breathing and when you touch the fish it had no response. I put the fish aside and 30 minutes later the fish is swimming and looking normal so I acclimated it. 3 weeks later I sold the fish.

In general Cleaner Wrasses from Hawaii and the South Pacific do fine while their Indo-Pacific counterparts don't have a chance. It really is all about the care and treatment of the fish from the reef to retail and not so much that they are difficult.

Cheers,
Tim

Thank you Tim.

So your point is "Continue to import species like the the cleaner wrasse even though they have little chance of sucess because they are caught with cyanide and packed and caught poorly. When they are imported they than die in our tanks.
Considering the good work they do in the sea IMO we should not be importing them if they can't survive whether it is cyanide, shipping or the nature of the fish. (BTW I do not agree with your comment that it has nothing to do with the fish).

:popcorn:

But then how are they going to buy the fuel to fund the Bridgitte Bardot diving excursions to inspect all the fish and coral collection sites? And they need to keep those coolers stocked, too...

WOW so this is all Roberts fault......just WOW

All of the organisms that we harvest from the wild just simply need to evolve to survive, or they will face extinction. Plain and simple. If they can not adapt or evolve to live in a world with man's habbits, that's partly their challenge to sort out.

For the entire history of the planet, and well before mankind, species have come and gone for the exact same reasons that species are coming and going today. Climate change, loss of habitat, failure to adapt, out competed for resources, hunted to extinction by other animals, etc.

Who was there to help save the hundreds of thousands of species of dinosaurs from extinction? The mammoth? Sabre tooth tigers? Who was there to help save early homanids from extinction? Who was there to help save Neandethals from extinction?

And in fact, in all of our efforts to save species from extinction, are we not then hindering natural selection?

Survival of the fittest. Is that not the natural order of things?

Human beings are a very destructive species. But then so were so many other animals at the top of their food chain. Humans were put here by the same natural forces that put every other organism on this planet. Concepts like morality are artificial constructs that humans invented. Mother Nature knows no such thing.

Having said all that, I totally support conservation efforts and regulatory efforts. We have the power to, so why not.

It would be interesting to see "Save the deer; stop tigers from hunting!" ;)

Rugby and ale. But in all fairness that only slowed their extinction as some still manage the chance to procreate after title wins.

Let me first say how much I am enjoying a heated discussion that has not devolved completely into name calling and ad hominum attacks. Kudos all! :)

I read the original article posted and there seemed to be 2 points that I came away with: Robert Wintner is opposed to aquarium collecting ultimately on moral grounds, and Ret Talbot "suspect[s] that the fishery needs to be better managed if it is to continue to be both robust and sustainable".

I think it seems that most people would agree with point 2, everyone would like to see healthy and robust reefs in Hawaii and around the world. In that sense, I think that makes those that think that way "environmentalists", in that they see the environment as having intrinsic value and would promote actions and policies that protect reefs.

As far as point 1 goes there is little chance for consensus, but as others have pointed out, at least we can understand the position even if we do not agree with it. A similar argument is made against the fur industry: that it is immoral because it is cruel to the creatures kept and killed and is ultimately a vanity and not needed to live. Wintner is saying that unlike fishing for food, fishing for aquaria is a luxury that is not needed. I think we could agree on the point that aquaria are luxuries, if not on the morality of luxury.

As someone who fell in love with reefs after getting over my fear of the ocean and trying snorkeling, I am torn when it comes to harvesting reefs. On the one hand, I would always buy captive, local bred livestock over reef caught. Just me, but it seems different. At least I can try to give the creature the best possible home. I cannot do that for a reef caught critter, as the real ocean is better. But I do understand that by providing a way to monetize reefs for the people who live near them it gives those people incentive to maintain healthy reefs. It is complicated.

I hope everyone who is passionate about reefs, the ocean, the environment, what have you, can always try to find points of agreement and at least understand those points where there is difference. By building on consensus, and understanding (and possibly addressing) differences, real world workable solutions can be achieved.

/ end rant.

- Ian

Well said Ian :) I also strongly believe that fisheries have a long way to go before considering sustainable yet.

On the other hand, almost all the concerned reefers always try to pick captive livestock (be it fish or coral) even if it cost more on two possible grounds:
1. They have a higher success rate of surviving in the tank
2. The moral ground
Captive breeding has yet to see the mainstream market because of the price but if people do move to getting more captive livestock like they are doing now, prices are bound to fall and hence this hobby, which is obviously a luxury, will become more sustainable.

On the other hand, from the point of view of wild collected corals, we do try to give them a better home, sometimes better than their wild home by taking away the threat of being eaten by something. So a moral ground can be established over here too.

All in all, solutions have to be built for problems; going against the problem is not the solution.