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

[naesco]

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.

[mrhasan]

Originally Posted by naesco

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.

[Reef Pilot]

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.

[mrhasan]

Originally Posted by Reef Pilot

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.

[Reef Pilot]

Originally Posted by Reef Pilot

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.

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.

[saltcreep]

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...

[Psyire]

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..

[daniella3d]

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...

[mrhasan]

Originally Posted by daniella3d

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".

[TimT]

Originally Posted by naesco

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.

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