The Reef Hobby- An Endangered Species?

[Chris!]

Well, I didn't say you had no logic or facts, but, ok. How do you know public aquariums and research facilities aren't set up for aquaculture or to be as diverse as the hobby? Every public aquarium I have been to has everything hobbyists have and more, including money. Research labs not only have plethora of corals, they also have cell cultures of the corals that can be seeded and grown. They also have grant funding to continue. How many hobbyists raise and breed bobtail squids? I know 3 microbiologists, not even marine biologists, who breed and raise bobtail squids. There are also many researchers who breed and use zebra fish in huge housing set ups.

 

Ok yeah diversity was the wrong word, obviously because there are lots of things in aquariums n stuff that we can't keep in the hobby (many things even just based on size alone nevermind the care requirements) but I would imagine the volume of corals especially, in the hobby would atleast give them a good run for their money if for no other reason there aren't a ton of large aquariums around (and some are better then others for sure)... and collectively the hobby has a pretty good share of $$$$$$ wrapped up in it too

 

Thats great that you know people breeding things, but since it sounds like its not entirely for research/ in a lab setting wouldn't that lean more towards hobby then research/ aquarium or do you mean the tanks in the research facilities are huge that they are breeding them in?

 

Maybe the answer is not to ban all endangered marine life from aquaculture? Maybe we need to push for better policies overall? Not black or white but a grey scale...

 

Unfortunately with the current wording/ labeling system if they become endangered they are banned from aquaculture atleast in the sense most of us know it as. We definitely need better policies, that is what I have been trying to get across this whole time the wording of the policies is horrible, and would be a shame to make it illegal to own because they are endangered in the wild when we already own them..... at the very least there should be a "grandfather clause" allowing those that are already in possession exception.... but we don't need more regulation we need better enforcement and better wording that doesn't prohibit growth and expansion of aquaculture.

 

What is really needed is focus on the bigger problems that are causing the issues the oceans are having. Yes we may be a small part of the cause but in the big picture stopping the hobby isn't the solution either. Steeper penalties for contamination of waterways, running ships into/ through reefs etc., pollution in general needs to be better regulated that would have a huge benefit on many levels.... and above all that it needs to be enforced not just regulated

 

Researchers, public aquariums, licensed/legit aquaculture facilities can do their thing and can sell/ship.

 

I don't think it should be limited to those types of places. If you can keep acropora lokani alive, thriving and growing why shouldn't he be able to aquaculture it in your home? IMO every piece we prevent from being in someones hands that can properly care for it is a piece no one will learn from. Just because places sell the coral they aquaculture doesn't mean they aren't legit either you seem to have an issue with being able to keep coral outside of public or research settings which baffles me as to why you are even here Maybe I am mistaken but that is the strong feeling I get from you. I know you have said you would be willing to give up your reef if the items in it were endangered but why, if they are endangered giving up your reef isn't going to solve anything. Not taking anymore of it from the wild sure that would help a little but to lose the corals you do a fine job at keeping alive because they become illegal to own because of issues in the wild is just silly, you already own them and apparently do a better job keeping them alive then mother nature

 

 

There are many decent sized places that aquaculture coral, and don't need licenses (more regulation) to legally and properly do so.

 

No large scale collecting, etc. coral hunters shift to licensed aquaculture facilities, etc.

 

 

Seriously check into CITES, check into the numbers.... yes we import seemingly large amounts of fish and coral (but they pale in comparison to what is available, and CITES numbers adjust as well, if there is a noticable decline in wild populations for any reason it is reflected in the amount of CITES permits allowed), but with CITES (which again all the major players in the import/export game are part of) they are regulated and strict numbers are adhered too internationally not just in the US, not to drive prices up or any of that bs, but to protect the animals and their natural habitats from over fishing/ collecting.

 

Again tho, limiting/ banning collection limits aquaculture, knowledge and discovery. "Coral hunters" already do mariculture (aquaculture within the ocean) which is waaaaay better then what they used to do which was go out and hack an entire colony out of the sea and ship it off, now they take pieces of colonies and grow those pieces out to sustain their industry and not hack the reefs all to hell.... IMO there is nothing wrong with that as long as it is done properly both legally (following CITES, and local regulations which are often stricter then CITES even) and ethically (not decimating the reefs and removing everything, not using harsh chemicals to flush out fish, etc.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am sorry if you, or anyone else feels I am attacking you or whatever that isn't my intent. I am very passionate about not only the hobby/ industry but the animals themselves and I do feel that if the oceans are as bad as you have said and will be wiped out before long that it is important to obtain as much as we can to try to preserve it one way or another and expand aquaculture not only through facilities but expanding what is available to aquaculture. The more we have to learn from the better. I'm not saying we should go remove everything from the ocean but it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a few of everything possible in captivity either before they are all lost.

[tibbsy07]

I don't think you are attacking me. I was just offering a middle option there. Maybe we compromise on some things to allow the overall hobby to last? That was all. If they label stuff as endangered but we change the legal wording to allow for hobbyists, I don't see a problem. Clearly it would be difficult, but wouldn't it be worth doing if we had to?

 

The squid and zebra fish are bred for research purposes in large breeding colonies. It's pretty crazy.

 

As for diversity and discovery, research is where most of that happens.

 

I also have nothing against anyone owning coral or fish. I never said that and it would make be very hypocritical of me if that were the case. I also didn't say I would give up my tank for endangered species. I said I would rather have the ocean alive and healthy than have a tank. If some genie came to me and said "pick one - I can restore the ocean or you can have a tank." I would pick the ocean every time. I still love my tank and our hobby.

 

I think aquaculture, whether company or hobbyist or researchers etc., is the way to go. I am all for diversifying and expanding our aqua culturing techniques. I also have no problem with general coral/fish harvesting from reefs if done with standard ethical practices. If our hobby could be 100% aquaculture based with all the diversity we currently have, I think that would be best. I even wrote an example kick starter a while back to this effect. I still want to do this at some point. Our hobby is wonderful and there are lots of great advances being made and great folks who want to use our hobby to help the oceans and I am one of them. I just think we need to make decisions based on all the evidence, not just what suits us. Otherwise we are no better than the people we are trying to combat.

 

My original point was that, if it's PETA or media nuts trying to push an agenda, then I am against the endangered label. If it's a group of experts in the field, I will trust their judgement and data. If they say A is happening and B is the reason so C is the temporary solution, I will agree with their position until other data shows that they were wrong or that other solutions are better.

[Chris!]

I pretty much agree with everything else now that I see your stance more clearly so...

 

If not taking another coral from the sea would keep the reefs alive for millions of years I would be ok with not taking anymore but it would take an army to remove my tank from my home... although I would gladly give up frags to help a rebuilding process without hesitation. Heck I would even "loan" out some of my fish to someone more capable for breeding initiatives to attempt to atleast put a little back into the oceans.

 

My original point was that, if it's PETA or media nuts trying to push an agenda, then I am against the endangered label. If it's a group of experts in the field, I will trust their judgement and data. If they say A is happening and B is the reason so C is the temporary solution, I will agree with their position until other data shows that they were wrong or that other solutions are better.

 

Alot of it is these various anti-aquarium groups making pushes and offering documents with "their scientists" and their researchers using old data (like our import numbers from 2005 for clownfish). Some of it may be legit (I haven't looked at every document or piece of "evidence") and from more reputable sources I am sure but even "independent" research isn't always so independent, they still gotta get funded somewhere. And some of it is just the politicians get tired of hearing them so they basically say ok we will tighten things up.... like they did in Hawaii

 

The NOAA/ ESA's don't list us as a big threat even, but the endangered listing really only impacts us. It won't stop shipping lanes, dredging, water comtamination...... if it helped combat those other things I wouldn't have as much of an issue with it if it would do some real good

[HVani]

I agree 110% with Cris!. This is the problem with the ESA. It does not differentiate between captive grown/bred and wild caught. If these corals are listed, aquaculture on them will stop. It will have to. I'm all for protecting coral/fish in the wild, but this is not the way.

 

On the freshwater side, there are a lot of species of fish that are extinct or critically endangered in the wild. They pretty much only exist now due to the aquarium hobby/trade. If they were listed on the ESA then they are doomed. I'm talking very commonly seen species such as red tail sharks and white cloud minnows.

 

The ESA sounds great in theory but in practice it needs some work in order to really help these animals.

[markalot]

1. Ivory was a single example out of a long list... Just because there is a long history of ivory trade and the fact it is essentially fungible with cash doesn't mean items with less demand to begin with won't have a flourishing black market. Coral may not be as desirable as ivory because the market is smaller and has less history, but to think you can eliminate a thriving market through legislation is extremely naive.

 

Most of the examples are dead things, not living things that require special care. There is some illegal bird trade, for example, but the market is small and the prices are very very high,

 

2. People have dedicated their entire lives to keeping corals in captivity and researching them - you think if the hammer was dropped overnight, they would simply throw their hands up and say "it was fun while it lasted". Sure, you may give in but I guarantee there will be a thriving coral market. Keep in mind that there are countries where mariculture literally makes up multiple percentage points of their GDP - you think they are going to throw in the towel just cause the US government said so?

 

I don't think it will happen, but if it did these places would sell to the rest of the world for a while and we'd have to see how the economics ended up. You told me I did not understand supply and demand, remember?

 

You seem to have this idea that just because something is illegal, people aren't going to trade in it or be a part of it. You do realize 1 in 100 adults in the US is in prison right now - and those are only the ones who got caught and nearly 1 in 4 under 30 have been jailed. Clearly our country doesn't have a problem with breaking the laws...

 

I don't know where to go with this. Clearly you have this idea that most of us are regular law breakers and I'm not sure I can change your mind. Generally this is how people who break the law on a regular basis justify to themselves that 'everyone is doing it'.

 

Yet I'm the closed minded one for thinking that people are willing to break the law for something they care dearly about... Just because you with your infinite wisdom don't see people illegally collecting coral doesn't mean they aren't already doing it even though they have to compete with the legitimate market. Just look to hunting and fishing if you want to see how well legislating out a market, however small, works.

 

Don't know how to respond to this part either. There is money to be made by illegally collecting something that is legal to sell. There is also a market (I contend is it small) for collecting and owning things that are both illegal to collect and own. Clearly you believe that if buying or owning corals became illegal most people would still do it and most stores would still sell them, otherwise you would recognize that with the decreased availability demand would indeed drop. Web sites might have trouble listing illegal corals for sale on a web page without attracting unwanted attention, for example.

 

If you recognized that demand would drop you would also understand that the reduced demand would certainly effect the profitability of people who collect corals. Again, if we were talking dead corals the story might be different, but we are talking live fragile corals that have to be kept alive and healthy in order to make money. It's not like some coral runner is going to stick a coral up their ass and hop on a plane to bring it to the states.

 

So if you really believe nothing changes then of course you are correct, conversation over.

 

My contention is that demand from the US would be significantly reduced, and this reduced demand would severely impact the profitability of coral collection and aquaculture. The simple laws of supply and demand dictate that as demand drops prices drop unless the supply also drops. Supply is either aquacultured or collected corals and or fish.

[jservedio]

Don't know how to respond to this part either. There is money to be made by illegally collecting something that is legal to sell. There is also a market (I contend is it small) for collecting and owning things that are both illegal to collect and own. Clearly you believe that if buying or owning corals became illegal most people would still do it and most stores would still sell them, otherwise you would recognize that with the decreased availability demand would indeed drop. Web sites might have trouble listing illegal corals for sale on a web page without attracting unwanted attention, for example.

 

If you recognized that demand would drop you would also understand that the reduced demand would certainly effect the profitability of people who collect corals. Again, if we were talking dead corals the story might be different, but we are talking live fragile corals that have to be kept alive and healthy in order to make money. It's not like some coral runner is going to stick a coral up their ass and hop on a plane to bring it to the states.

 

So if you really believe nothing changes then of course you are correct, conversation over.

 

My contention is that demand from the US would be significantly reduced, and this reduced demand would severely impact the profitability of coral collection and aquaculture. The simple laws of supply and demand dictate that as demand drops prices drop unless the supply also drops. Supply is either aquacultured or collected corals and or fish.

 

I don't know where you got the idea where I think nothing changes - that is completely absurd. All I am saying is you can't eliminate a market through legislation. You are the one claiming demand will go to zero - I am not saying the opposite of that and claiming nothing changes - what I am saying is there will still be demand and there will be poaching...

 

Point to a single market in the US that was legislated away where no black market popped up? You seem to have your head in the sand that there is no black market in living things - ever go to China town in a large city? Black markets exist for Birds, fish, for dozens of reptiles, amphibians, for big-ish cats, livestock of all sorts - shall I go on?

 

You really think every single person who has invested years and tens of thousands of dollars are going to destroy the animals they have kept for decades or more one day just because the government tells them to do it? Really?

 

Oh, and nice touch trying to say that I am a criminal for pointing out that the US has a large criminal element. Yep, I'm closed minded all right.

[markalot]

You are the one claiming demand will go to zero - I am not saying the opposite of that - what I am saying is there will still be demand and there will be poaching...

 

Where did I say that? Was that the dry up comment? That was not intended to imply it would go to 0, it as intended to imply that the demand would be significantly reduced. Careless wording on my part. Of course there is always a black market, but it's going to be more difficult to pull it off with live corals than with something that is already dead. I've made this point over and over, and I even used rare birds as an example of a similar market. No absolutes though, it will not go to 0, but it has the ability to significantly reduce the collection stress on the corals.

 

It's really insulting that you would assume I think a law would solve all (absolutes) the problems, but maybe there are people out there like that? I broke the speed limit on the way to work this morning. How can this happen!

 

Look, the idea of the ESA is to try and protect a species while the population is still viable, and the assumption that there will be poaching. I claim that the ESA does work in this case because it can reduce collection and hurting commercial aquaculture facilities is inconsequential to the survival of corals.

 

 

Sure, you may give in but I guarantee there will be a thriving coral market.

 

Ok, so you say thriving here. What does thriving mean? Enough to sustain the current commercial market?

 

You really think people who have invested years and tens of thousands of dollars are going to destroy the animals they have kept for decades or more one day just because the government tells them to do it? Really?

 

What does this mean exactly? For a US firm, like ORA, what do you think they would do?

[jservedio]

I stand by my opinion that an ESA listing of endangered would effectively eliminate demand from the US if not other countries as well

Right there you said it....

 

Where did I say that? Was that the dry up comment? That was not intended to imply it would go to 0, it as intended to imply that the demand would be significantly reduced. Careless wording on my part. Of course there is always a black market, but it's going to be more difficult to pull it off with live corals than with something that is already dead. I've made this point over and over, and I even used rare birds as an example of a similar market. No absolutes though, it will not go to 0, but it has the ability to significantly reduce the collection stress on the corals.

 

It's really insulting that you would assume I think a law would solve all (absolutes) the problems, but maybe there are people out there like that? I broke the speed limit on the way to work this morning. How can this happen!

 

Look, the idea of the ESA is to try and protect a species while the population is still viable, and the assumption that there will be poaching. I claim that the ESA does work in this case because it can reduce collection and hurting commercial aquaculture facilities is inconsequential to the survival of corals.

 

 

 

Ok, so you say thriving here. What does thriving mean? Enough to sustain the current commercial market?

 

 

What does this mean exactly? For a US firm, like ORA, what do you think they would do?

Why do you keep going back to me thinking nothing is going to change and the black market will be exactly the same as the current commercial market? they will be NOTHING alike... My entire premise is that the consumer demand is not going to be eliminated as you claim, unless you and I have different definitions of eliminate [read: to eradicate, to destroy, to completely remove, to stamp out]... Eliminate does not mean diminish or significantly reduce...

 

For a US firm like ORA, it means they are gone. No more legit business fronts will exist.

[Chris!]

For a US firm like ORA, it means they are gone. No more legit business fronts will exist.

 

Which would be a huge shame and unnecessary outcome on many levels.

[markalot]

Right there you said it....

 

Why do you keep going back to me thinking nothing is going to change and the black market will be exactly the same as the current commercial market? they will be NOTHING alike... My entire premise is that the consumer demand is not going to be eliminated as you claim, unless you and I have different definitions of eliminate [read: to eradicate, to destroy, to completely remove, to stamp out]... Eliminate does not mean diminish or significantly reduce...

 

Apparently I keep harping on nothing changing for the same reason you keep harping on KILL DEMAND.

 

 

Regulation doesn't doesn't effect demand, it simply shifts the cost-benefit-risk analysis that goes on for any purchase. Lack of advertising may keep those without knowledge uninformed, but adding "endangered" in front of an easily accessible species is going to attract an entirely new subset of people who want to keep it just because of it's status.

 

See how that works? You are of course correct in the sense that it does not mean less people want corals (demand) but we are talking supply and demand, demand in the sense of number of units that will be purchased. You can't be loose with your terms and then get all in a bunch when I'm loose with mine. We're both wrong.

 

For a US firm like ORA, it means they are gone. No more legit business fronts will exist.

 

Unfortunately I think they have to accept this might be how it ends up. If climate change ends up pushing corals toward extinction then eventually these corals will be banned for sale. Hopefully firms like ORA could transition to restoration and selective breeding so they can still make money.

 

If the industry moved tomorrow to 100% aquacultured corals it still would not change the outcome to natural coral reefs and the alternative to an all out sales ban would be some regulations that required everyone in the supply chain to prove they are using aquacultured corals. That's a LOT of work and I believe would maintain stress on wild populations because poaching would still be economical, as it is today.

 

It's much easier to just ban all commercial trade and be done with it. Banning all trade significantly reduces demand down to just the market that is willing to pay the price and take the risk. You still have poaching, but at a much lower level than it is today. IMO.

 

I don't like it one bit, but I don't see a better alternative that can actually work.

[jservedio]

See how that works? You are of course correct in the sense that it does not mean less people want corals (demand) but we are talking supply and demand, demand in the sense of number of units that will be purchased. You can't be loose with your terms and then get all in a bunch when I'm loose with mine. We're both wrong.

 

If the industry moved tomorrow to 100% aquacultured corals it still would not change the outcome to natural coral reefs and the alternative to an all out sales ban would be some regulations that required everyone in the supply chain to prove they are using aquacultured corals. That's a LOT of work and I believe would maintain stress on wild populations because poaching would still be economical, as it is today.

 

It's much easier to just ban all commercial trade and be done with it. Banning all trade significantly reduces demand down to just the market that is willing to pay the price and take the risk. You still have poaching, but at a much lower level than it is today. IMO.

 

I don't like it one bit, but I don't see a better alternative that can actually work.

 

I apologize for using demand where I should have substituted another word since demand is very ambiguous in that sense. The only reason I originally responded was because of the word eliminate, but I see your point and agree with some parts of what you said now that you clarified you didn't mean eliminate, however I disagree on relative levels.

 

I agree that our hobby is largely indeterminate to the health of reefs in a big picture sense one way or the other, but when more narrowly focusing on specific species, such as the Mangarahara cichlids I mentioned before, the hobby is literally the last hope for it surviving. An all out ban is still going to result in poaching no matter what, but I think the recent success people in Africa have had in eliminating poaching of Black Rhinos for their horn through sustainable farming of them (not killing and allowing the horn to regrow in a few years) for use in eastern medicine is at least a positive sign that quality aquaculture can undercut poachers profits and significantly remove them from the picture. Acknowledging a problem, ie. illicit demand, is the first step in solving it.

 

We disagree on how much demand would remain after a total ban and the relative levels of poaching currently vs. a possible post-ban and that's fine. Agree to disagree.

 

I do agree proving corals are aquacultured (if banning wild collection) would be quite a lot of work, but I also think it is well worth it. Most people in this hobby are super dedicated and so are places like ORA. Unlike you, I do see the possibility for a better solution where wild reefs are protected like they need to be while research continues unabated and aquacultured corals are treated differently. If only we had a government who could actually get things done and allow existing legislation to evolve for certain species. There are already exemptions and waivers for the ESA, adding one for coral isn't that crazy.

 

While it is exteremely unfortunate, I do see captive reefs as being the last place where certain species can be seen on earth - forcing people to destroy endangered animals in captivity is in no way helpful at all. Agree or disagree, I feel an all or nothing, black and white approach to protecting wildlife and natural resources is a terrible approach in a very gray world. Such a simplistic view is certainly the easiest one, but it is definitely not the best.

[markalot]

Agree to disagree.

 

 

I don't think we actually disagree on much, honestly.

 

 

Agree or disagree, I feel an all or nothing, black and white approach to protecting wildlife and natural resources is a terrible approach in a very gray world. Such a simplistic view is certainly the easiest one, but it is definitely not the best.

 

Totally agree, just pessimistic about the possibilities.

[Rehype]

Hey guys if you havent checked this out please watch and if possible support PIJAC through donations as MASNA is currently matching donations 100% up to $5000

 

 

Support PIJAC

[Apexlaxfrog]

^ WIsh I had known that yesterday! I put most of my coral-saving eggs in the PIJAC.org/ADF fund basket... but i'll have to take them up on that matching lol, it's like a coral 401k!

[khuzdul]

Has there been any serious movement in the aquarium keeping hobbyists to organize to "give back" to to the wild reefs in a way that is not simply monetary? Something like the "pay it forward" free frag donation / swaps that some hobbyist communities use, but instead working with some protected but degraded reef, to continually frag and grow out colonies of native threatened corals to help re-populate it and maintain bio-diversity of the area. It wouldn't be as efficient as creating a local mariculture facility, but it is close to what people say is one of the benefits of the aquarium trade.

[tibbsy07]

Here is a great read on the subject http://rettalbot.wordpress.com/2014/09/12/is-the-aquarium-trade-under-attack/

 

Very well written and thought out. The point is that the only way we can combat the emotional fake data folks is to partner with the REAL scientists and policy-makers and do our best day in and day out to show how much benefit we CAN make for this hobby - as in major aquaculture undertakings. Again, if I could find it (I think the thread was deleted) there was a mock kickstarter I wrote a few weeks back and it got a lot of positive responses. I think that something like what I wrote could actually work. If I had the space or time, I would post it on kickstarter today right now.

[hey]

Here is a great read on the subject http://rettalbot.wordpress.com/2014/09/12/is-the-aquarium-trade-under-attack/

 

Very well written and thought out. The point is that the only way we can combat the emotional fake data folks is to partner with the REAL scientists and policy-makers and do our best day in and day out to show how much benefit we CAN make for this hobby - as in major aquaculture undertakings. Again, if I could find it (I think the thread was deleted) there was a mock kickstarter I wrote a few weeks back and it got a lot of positive responses. I think that something like what I wrote could actually work. If I had the space or time, I would post it on kickstarter today right now.

 

Technically it could be set up in a way that you used other hobbyists existing tanks, take 1 colony create 5 frags place 5 frags in 5 peoples tanks. In one year cut a small frag off the colony that the donor tank gets to keep and return the 5 grown out frags to facility for replacement in a reef.

[Apexlaxfrog]

there was a mock kickstarter I wrote a few weeks back and it got a lot of positive responses.

 

Hehe I followed that thread and thought that your write-up was awesome Tibbs... Kinda felt bad for the kid/guy/gal (OP), but then again I don't. We all put so much resources into our tanks!

 

Anyway, I think it's worth linking:

http://www.nano-reef.com/topic/349995-kickstarter-frag-tank-project/page-4#entry4806447

[Chris!]

Technically it could be set up in a way that you used other hobbyists existing tanks, take 1 colony create 5 frags place 5 frags in 5 peoples tanks. In one year cut a small frag off the colony that the donor tank gets to keep and return the 5 grown out frags to facility for replacement in a reef.

 

People don't realize it but as I have mentioned before there are programs out there that "give back" to the reefs in an effort to help repopulate corals

 

http://www.coralrestoration.org/our-mission/

 

 

Is it perfect, no.... is it a start, certainly!

[hey]

People don't realize it but as I have mentioned before there are programs out there that "give back" to the reefs in an effort to help repopulate corals

 

http://www.coralrestoration.org/our-mission/

 

 

Is it perfect, no.... is it a start, certainly!

i like the project, but in my mind a more direct hands own project may get more people interested. growing a coral yourself to be placed back in the ocean may give many people more of a sense of pride than simply donating money. lets be real not many people can swing 50k$ to get a popular dive reef named after them, or even reef club.

 

also, i know its not about what you get out of it but lets be real, the majority of people act in their own self interest.

[tibbsy07]

Technically it could be set up in a way that you used other hobbyists existing tanks, take 1 colony create 5 frags place 5 frags in 5 peoples tanks. In one year cut a small frag off the colony that the donor tank gets to keep and return the 5 grown out frags to facility for replacement in a reef.

Yeah, it needs some modifications. It was literally something I threw together to show that OP how one should be made and WHY they should be made, not just "because I want a tank and don't want to save money..."

 

Hehe I followed that thread and thought that your write-up was awesome Tibbs... Kinda felt bad for the kid/guy/gal (OP), but then again I don't. We all put so much resources into our tanks!

 

Anyway, I think it's worth linking:

http://www.nano-reef.com/topic/349995-kickstarter-frag-tank-project/page-4#entry4806447

I didn't feel bad for him, shoot. lol.

[khuzdul]

I like the coral restoration project that was linked to. The thing is that the way to help them is with money, or physically going there to volunteer as an unskilled / semi-skilled laborer. There is nothing unique that an aquarist can uniquely do to help that no other group can really provide. The idea of taking frags and growing them out, then repeating is something that an aquarist can do that no one else can do!

 

This would have to be in conjunction with an entity who is local to the reef being restored, who hopefully would be a credentialed scientist / non-profit. Someone would have to receive the colonies and place them onto the reef in an ecologically sound manner. As well, the only way it would be allowed would be of that local entity also quarantined all of the donated colonies for a few months to insure that no diseases / hitchhiking invasive species from the growers are introduced to the reef being restored.

 

It would only be desirable if there is a much smaller monetary and labor footprint required local to the reef being restored than would be needed for a full on mariculture facility to trade off the inefficiencies of group-sourcing the fragging and growing out of threatened corals.

 

I'd be down to devoting a tank to this!

[Chris!]

i like the project, but in my mind a more direct hands own project may get more people interested. growing a coral yourself to be placed back in the ocean may give many people more of a sense of pride than simply donating money. lets be real not many people can swing 50k$ to get a popular dive reef named after them, or even reef club.

 

also, i know its not about what you get out of it but lets be real, the majority of people act in their own self interest.

 

I like the coral restoration project that was linked to. The thing is that the way to help them is with money, or physically going there to volunteer as an unskilled / semi-skilled laborer. There is nothing unique that an aquarist can uniquely do to help that no other group can really provide. The idea of taking frags and growing them out, then repeating is something that an aquarist can do that no one else can do!

 

This would have to be in conjunction with an entity who is local to the reef being restored, who hopefully would be a credentialed scientist / non-profit. Someone would have to receive the colonies and place them onto the reef in an ecologically sound manner. As well, the only way it would be allowed would be of that local entity also quarantined all of the donated colonies for a few months to insure that no diseases / hitchhiking invasive species from the growers are introduced to the reef being restored.

 

It would only be desirable if there is a much smaller monetary and labor footprint required local to the reef being restored than would be needed for a full on mariculture facility to trade off the inefficiencies of group-sourcing the fragging and growing out of threatened corals.

 

I'd be down to devoting a tank to this!

 

I'm going to answer/ quote yas both together because I feel both can be answered the same/ together for the most part.....

 

There are cheaper options then the 50k plan, I know there is one for 1k which I understand the average hobbyist isn't likely to do, but I could see that as a more possible option for some of the decent sized groups.

 

Is it a perfect system, definitely not but it is a good start IMO and better then nothing which seems to be whats going on else where unfortunately. I think their system could be expanded on (hopefully) or a spin off created that does accept corals from hobbyists to prep for return to the ocean to help further their work/project. I'm really not 100% sure the Coral Restoration Foundation doesn't/ wouldn't/ couldn't... but believe it or not I think it would also depend on CITES to be able to get the permits to ship our corals out of the country even for a project like this... see another piece of regulation that hinders as well as protects...

 

 

A new project would take alot of funding as well (could probably get some type of government funding/ non-profit status to help), to get through all the red tape that I am sure surrounds something like this as well. There would also need to be massive multi-staged quarantine systems outside of the oceans (even if we think our stuff is clean it needs to be ultra checked before going back it'd be horrible if we did something like this and introduced an invasive pest and ended up doing even more damage, and their would need to be multiple systems or they only accept donations during a small window of time kinda thing...), gear, people, boats... basically a pretty elaborate system from top to bottom to ensure it went smooth and without doing more harm then good.... I don't think it would be impossible, but I wouldn't be surprised if something new would need just as much if not more donations/ funding But I certainly think the more involved in any capacity the better!

[hey]

I'm going to answer/ quote yas both together because I feel both can be answered the same/ together for the most part.....

 

There are cheaper options then the 50k plan, I know there is one for 1k which I understand the average hobbyist isn't likely to do, but I could see that as a more possible option for some of the decent sized groups.

 

Is it a perfect system, definitely not but it is a good start IMO and better then nothing which seems to be whats going on else where unfortunately. I think their system could be expanded on (hopefully) or a spin off created that does accept corals from hobbyists to prep for return to the ocean to help further their work/project. I'm really not 100% sure the Coral Restoration Foundation doesn't/ wouldn't/ couldn't... but believe it or not I think it would also depend on CITES to be able to get the permits to ship our corals out of the country even for a project like this... see another piece of regulation that hinders as well as protects...

 

 

A new project would take alot of funding as well (could probably get some type of government funding/ non-profit status to help), to get through all the red tape that I am sure surrounds something like this as well. There would also need to be massive multi-staged quarantine systems outside of the oceans (even if we think our stuff is clean it needs to be ultra checked before going back it'd be horrible if we did something like this and introduced an invasive pest and ended up doing even more damage, and their would need to be multiple systems or they only accept donations during a small window of time kinda thing...), gear, people, boats... basically a pretty elaborate system from top to bottom to ensure it went smooth and without doing more harm then good.... I don't think it would be impossible, but I wouldn't be surprised if something new would need just as much if not more donations/ funding But I certainly think the more involved in any capacity the better!

 

So, we need a NR group donation set up, so we can have a diveable section of the reef named nano-reef.com