Wholesaler Labels Aquaculture as Immoral!

Has there actually been any research on this? Based on the books I've read, such as Corals by Bornman, the impact of wild collection on most corals is unknown. Most descriptions of collection impact in Bornman's book are just speculation and not backed up by actual data.

I'm not questioning your knowledge. Presumably if only small fragments of fast growing corals are taken, the fishery is probably low impact. However, without data I don't think anyone should use the term "sustainable".

 

That book is 10 years old and a lot has changed in the collection methods in that time. I do commend you for reading those books. All to often hobbyists skip this step nowadays.

 

Dated books produce dated information. Eric first published that book over a decade ago (2001), so it was written even longer ago than that It sucks there has been so few books produced on the subject, I own pretty much everyone

Australia has the most work in this area, but work has been done in other areas recently such as Bali and PNG. IRIC Fiji has a lot of data on this as well. You are very correct many areas this data does not exist. Its also extremely hard to factor in everything when thinking about sustainability. Was the loss entirely due to collection, or are they having a harder time due to higher temps, elevated nutrient levels, etc. You need to know that in order to attribute the loss.

Switching the direction a bit, a group I worked with a few years back has transects going back 30 years. Their data of all collections for their area has shown a marked improvement in the area. Now coral is not a collection item in this area per say, well, not stony coral. The reason behind the increased population count is mainly due to the local not needing to poach the large fish (think MPA for larger fish) of which land them the most money. They do feed themselves via the ocean, but they don't bring back massive groupers for themselves, just to sell when they need money for the boat, grain, etc. The MO industry has allowed them to give up the poaching and destructive fishing practices, as well as drug running. There have been a few shut down years in that 30 year span. Those show up as blank spots in the data, and the local population of fish they count showed a decrease, unlike every other year they were doing continual MO collections.

It's not just them men fishing, the entire village shares in the efforts. From making and mending nets, to packing and boxing fish, to collections, they all join in.

Mariculture is another way for them to be sustainable, although I feel the growing of corals in habitats they are not normally found in does produce problems.. like parasites we normally do not see infecting mass corals.

 

I remember reading this from their website for the first time a couple of years ago and thinking that it was the stupidest thing I had ever heard. My jaw literally dropped. I even read it out loud to my wife who had a similar reaction. Just because we can aquaculture, should we? YES! Why wouldn't we? We DO NOT have a moral and ethical OBLIGATION to financially support other countries. Isn't it funny that an american company that profits (probably greatly) from the natural resources of other countries is telling you this? Plain and simple, when push comes to shove, they are only concerned with protecting the IMPORT trade because THEIR livelihood depends on it. Should wholesalers/retailers break apart large coral colonies and immediately turn around and sell them as aquacultured? NO. But at some point, a frag of a wild collected specimen can grow to a point where frags of entirely new growth can be harvested from it. This is different and should be encouraged. PAF is clearly (in a vague, unprofessional, slightly less educated way ) discouraging any form of local aquaculture because they view it as a direct threat to THEIR import industry, NOT the people of the countries they import from.

 

10 years is not much time in scientific literature I understand your point, but I'm skeptical that many significant time series have sprung up since the Bornman's book was published. Giving a fishery "sustainable" status is not simply a matter of a single one or even three year study. Data going back a decade is needed, which is why I said 10 years is not much time. Once that large base of data has been established for the region/important species, then you can start making conclusions based on shorter time periods (for example, if you have a long 10 year time series established, than you may be able to interpret subsequent data in 2-3 year intervals).

Even with modern collection methods, with little to no research done in many regions, I think we should be careful before labeling the aquarium fishery as sustainable.

I'll do more research in some actual journals when I get time and then I'll post again in this thread. Might be awhile though.

 

Aquaculture, also known as aquafarming, is the farming of aquatic organisms such as fish, crustaceans, molluscs and aquatic plants.[1][2] Aquaculture involves cultivating freshwater and saltwater populations under controlled conditions...

Wikipedia

Nowhere before this did they redefine the term "aquaculture," so they are therefore saying that they do not support any aquaculture other than what is done in native habitats. The bottom line is that they may have been referring to improperly done aquaculture, but they never once said that. defining your terms is one of the most important parts of having a side in anything, and if you don't readers can only assume you are using their global definition.

Their side of the story is right here:

Pacific Aqua Farms LA Aquaculture Page

 

Just to let you guys know, I've seen tank bred fish and sea horse from PAF too.

 

Mike,

So you need wikipedia to define aquaculture now. It's a shame that you write about this industry and don't even know what's truly going on in the hobby or industry. Not only that but you have shown that you are not even willing to do any research to make your stories.

"We at Pacific Aqua Farms stand behind the existing workers and suppliers of our trade and do not buy from companies in the aquaculture cottage industry that has sprung up outside of native habitats."

What does this mean? Sounds like they are singling out a particular form od aquaculture here that they do not support.

"We at Pacific Aqua Farms stand behind the existing workers and suppliers of our trade and do not buy from companies in the aquaculture cottage industry that has sprung up outside of native habitats."

What does this mean?

"We at Pacific Aqua Farms stand behind the existing workers and suppliers of our trade and do not buy from companies in the aquaculture cottage industry that has sprung up outside of native habitats."


What does this mean?

 

I'm pretty sure this is them saying that they believe ONLY the people who live in Fiji, Bali, Jakarta, etc... have the right to aquaculture the species native to their islands. They are saying that we here in the US (large or small - don't be confused by the term cottage industry) do not have the right to aquaculture any species not native to the US. Based on their published stance on aquaculture, I feel like PAF would try to use the argument that Fiji, Bali, Jakarta, etc... are essentially selling us CD's and we are making illegal bootlegs of them by aquaculturing the products they sell to us. However, we are not dealing with intellectual property rights, patents, copyrights, or any other conditional sale agreements here. Once those places harvest and sell their native saltwater species, they no longer have any right to say how they will be used by the purchaser. Nor does the wholesaler or retailer have any right after sale either.

 

I have to disagree. It says what it says. It does not talk about rights. Only who they choose to support. Some seem to making way more out of this than it is. This has really become some sort of a "Witch Hunt!" The statements and positions that some are stating are simply not there.