Report claims live fish collecting destroying certain reefs

[Guest Larry-T]

Here is an article from the current issue of Practical Fishkeeping Magazine, from the UK. I'm not taking a stand on the accuracy of the conclusions until I see more data, but in the context of an article printed in one of the most respected hobby journals in the world, it's troubling to our field.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The live reef fish trade in northern Borneo has a severe impact on coral reef fish populations, according to the results of a new study.

 

Scientists from Cambridge University provided evidence to suggest that the live reef fish trade (LRFT) causes exponential declines in both the total catch and relative abundance of several coral reef fish species.

 

Helen Scales, Andrew Bamford and Andrea Manica quantified the local impacts of the LRFT after collecting data from three LRFT traders in northern Borneo over a period of several years.

 

Their findings, which are reported in the latest issue of Proceedings of the Royal Society B, show that total monthly catch and relative abundance (catch per unit effort) declined significantly in several species.

 

 

Live reef fish trade

The live reef fish trade exploits brightly coloured coral reef fishes, such as groupers, snappers and wrasses, to supply luxury seafood restaurants, mainly in Hong Kong and mainland China.

 

Customers can observe colourful fish in aquaria and choose the one they wish to dine upon.

 

The authors say that the species targeted are inherently vulnerable to overexploitation because they grow slowly and mature late in life.

 

Exploitation by the LRFT saw most valuable species, the Napolean wrasse, Cheilinus undulatus, decline in catch size by 98%, with a 78% drop in relative abundance over eight years.

 

The catch of Blue-lined groupers, Plectropomus oligocanthus, dropped by 99% while relative abundance fell by 81% over eight years.

 

Epinephalus groupers, which are similarly long-lived, saw catches decline by 89% and relative abundance drop by 32% over the same period.

 

 

Rapid change

The authors said that the declines in catch and relative abundance were severe, rapid, species-specific and took place in the first two to four years following the species' exploitation for the LRFT.

 

They claim that the results represent the first quantitative evidence indicating the severe impacts that the LRFT has upon reef fishes.

 

The authors concluded: "These declines took place in under a decade and are especially worrying given the mobile nature of the Kudat fishing fleet, since it is probable that vessels shifted range when nearby populations became depleted, thus maintaining catch rates for longer.

 

"Our data, together with global boom-and-bust trends in the trade, are a stark warning that similar collapses may be expected throughout the LRFT and in other high-value wildlife trades, but without longterm datasets these trends may go undetected."

 

For more information see the paper: Scales H, Bamford A and A Manica (2007) - Impacts of the live reef fish trade on populations of coral reef fish off northern Borneo. Proc. R. Soc. B. (2007) 274, 989-994.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[BeltwayBandit]

It appears this article is dealing with food related overfishing, not the collection of ornamentals for the aquarium trade. Granted, regulators often times won't make such distinctions either. It is worth trying to highlight the differences between impact of the ornamental trade versus the impact of the seafood industry.

[dhoch]

BB - that's exactly what I was going to say...

 

Dave

[Guest Larry-T]

It appears this article is dealing with food related overfishing, not the collection of ornamentals for the aquarium trade. Granted, regulators often times won't make such distinctions either. It is worth trying to highlight the differences between impact of the ornamental trade versus the impact of the seafood industry.

 

Yes, that was something that made me uncomfortable. Here it was in a magazine specializing in the aquarium hobby, but the story was about live fish being sent to restaurants. I would have liked to see a little more about how this extreme harvesting for high-end restaurants contrasts with the ethical practices of many collectors for the pet trade.

[OUsnakebyte]

I have seen this in other publicationas as well - National Geographic, I believe - though I would need to double check.

 

Yes, this seems largely for the food industry, however, overharvesting for marine ornamentals does happen. Bangaii Cardinalfish are a perfect example - local depletion of clownfish-hosting sea anemones is another. Though an anecdotal observation, endemics seem to be the most susceptible.

 

Plus, what have we all learned about removal of top predators, the target of this study, from ecosystems - not just marine, but anywhere? It has cascading effects all the way down. So, those reefs we all love - and harvest from - will feel the effects of these declines. The point I'm trying to make is that just b/c it's not a species harvested for our tanks - sharks, groupers, whatever - does not mean we should not care about what is going on...

 

Do you all follow the RPI Guide? http://www.reefprotect.org/pdf/RPI_180LoRes.pdf

 

Do you all follow any of the Seafood Watch (Monterey Bay Aquarium) guides?

http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/SeafoodWatch/web/...spx?region_id=0

 

Cheers

Mike

Edited April 18, 2007 by OUsnakebyte

[BeltwayBandit]

Yes, this seems largely for the food industry, however, overharvesting for marine ornamentals does happen. Bangaii Cardinalfish are a perfect example - local depletion of clownfish-hosting sea anemones is another. Though an anecdotal observation, endemics seem to be the most susceptible.

 

I wasn't trying to imply that everything was hunkey dory with the marine ornamental trade. However, I think that the marine ornamental trade has made great strides in becoming more environmentally friendly and developing sustainable harvests from the reefs in many areas. I do think that more work needs to be done. What I was concerned with, and Larry and Dave both seemed to agree, was the effect that the appearance of this article about the seafood industry in an aquarium magazine could have in creating a negative (or more negative) perception of the marine hobby with the public. I'm by no means saying that we as a hobby are perfect. There are still species that are over harvested, but as a whole I think we are moving in a positive direction, and I don't want to see it get sidelined by articles like this which are not necessarily related to the hobby.

 

Plus, what have we all learned about removal of top predators, the target of this study, from ecosystems - not just marine, but anywhere? It has cascading effects all the way down. So, those reefs we all love - and harvest from - will feel the effects of these declines. The point I'm trying to make is that just b/c it's not a species harvested for our tanks - sharks, groupers, whatever - does not mean we should not care about what is going on...

 

Again I agree completely. We should be concerned about this. However, we should also be cognizant of the fact that we could easily get lumped in with these blokes by the general public if we aren't careful.

 

 

Do you all follow the RPI Guide? http://www.reefprotect.org/pdf/RPI_180LoRes.pdf

 

I hadn't seen that before. Quite nice.

 

Do you all follow any of the Seafood Watch (Monterey Bay Aquarium) guides?

http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/SeafoodWatch/web/...spx?region_id=0

 

I do try to follow many of their guidelines. For example I stopped eating patagonian toothfish (chilean sea bass) and orange roughy (two of my absolute favorite fish) because of their recommendation. I disagree with their listing of farmed salmon on the avoid list. I think it is hypocritical of them to go on at length about overfishing of wild stocks and to then turn around and list farmed fish as bad too. That to me is stupid. If you have a problem with the way the fish are raised, work to fix the problems. Honestly, I think that fish farms are going to become more and more common as we work to protect wild stocks. I think it is an activity that should be encouraged. So, yes I do try to follow their guidelines but I also disagree with some.

[Guest Larry-T]

I am concerned with farmed Salmon because of two factors:

 

1. The increased level of pollutants (especially Mercury) found in farmed salmon, and;

 

2. The overall concept of "farming" apex predators, which require high levels of other fish to provide the base content of their diet. It is much more efficient to culture herbivores and omnivores, which will provide more meat at lower cost.

 

Tilapia is a case in point. It is much easier to culture Tilapia in an environmentally sustainable fashion than Salmon.

 

That being said, if they can come up with a diet for salmon higher in vegetable protein and that doesn't require so much fishmeal to produce the final product.

[BeltwayBandit]

I understand the concerns with farm raised salmon. I too think they need to be addressed, however from what I have seen the effort appears directed at eliminating not fixing the salmon farms.

[OUsnakebyte]

What I was concerned with, and Larry and Dave both seemed to agree, was the effect that the appearance of this article about the seafood industry in an aquarium magazine could have in creating a negative (or more negative) perception of the marine hobby with the public. I'm by no means saying that we as a hobby are perfect. There are still species that are over harvested, but as a whole I think we are moving in a positive direction, and I don't want to see it get sidelined by articles like this which are not necessarily related to the hobby....

 

However, we should also be cognizant of the fact that we could easily get lumped in with these blokes by the general public if we aren't careful.

 

I didn't take the article I read to be hitting the aquarium hobby - and I would believe (hope?) that any person with half a brain would realize that aquarium keepers are not eventually eating the 2oz. dwarf anglefish or clowns. So, IMO, there was a clear distinction there.

 

What I read into it was that it was fantastic to be published in a marine ornamental magazine. I think what the editors were going for was to make their target audience - those who indirectly (or even directly) harvest from the reefs - aware of an emerging issue. Here is a very real problem - one that can and will have effects on already stressed ecosystems. And, we should be refusing foods like those described in this article - and others such as chilean seabass, orange roughy, shark fin soup, farmed shrimp, shrimp caught w/ tons of bycatch, etc., etc., etc.

 

There are still species that are over harvested, but as a whole I think we are moving in a positive direction, and I don't want to see it get sidelined by articles like this which are not necessarily related to the hobby....

 

That is my point exactly - it IS related to the hobby. No, we are not harvesting our animals for food. But, again with the ecosystem management approach and removal of top predators, this CAN have an effect on our hobby - as can farmed shrimp where mangrove forests are being removed, dynamite fishing, bottom trawling, bycatch, etc. Where will this hobby be if we are left only with what is currently captively propagated? Clowns, dottybacks, a few gobies, (and John's dwarf angels... )

 

What I want people to connect is that it is not only your marine aquarium dollars that have an affect on the reefs but also your food dollars - which is what I believe the editors of that magazine were trying to drive home. Again, that is just my perspective. I would hope that any normal person would not read that and think aquarium hobbiest.

 

Cheers

Mike

[Guest Larry-T]

I understand the concerns with farm raised salmon. I too think they need to be addressed, however from what I have seen the effort appears directed at eliminating not fixing the salmon farms.

 

That is an agenda that exists, but it's not one that I currently support. I still feel that they can come up with a veggie-based diet which will allow salmon culture without the current waste and inefficiencies. In the long run, we can't sustainably culture apex predators unless we can find a feed that protects us from bioamplification of pollutants and preserves the quality of the product.

 

I really feel that open-ocean aquaculture may not be sustainable. In the long run, I think recirculating systems with better environmental controls are going to be the answer. I missed the 2006 Recirculating Aquaculture Conference last year, but plan on attending the one in 2008.