Wild collected corals: To buy or not to buy?
- Thread starter cgill311
- Start date
- Messages
- 42
- Reaction score
- 0
Your average fist size acropora is less then a year old. (from frag to finished product)
The cultured colonies represent one season or less of farming.
Small colonies in the wild usually never make it to adult size anyhow.
Small trade sized SPS corals (fist size) are hard to find in places like Fiji and Tonga because the reefs are dominated by large table colonies. [the average head spanning a few feet]In the few areas where new corals have sprouted like where a big coral head has broken off during a storm ....many small corals will take hold in the newly opened up area. Ten to twenty individual colonies will begin growing in a smal area a few feet across. As these corals grow only one of the corals will eventualy out grow the others and smother the area below it. Thinning out the forrest on a reef is much the same as thinning out an overgrown back yard. Hundreds of tiny pine trees might be growing in a vacant lot.......but a few years down the road only a few mature will remain as they compete for the limited canopy.
LPS corals are slow growers and it remains to be seen if the collection of these is greater then their ability to re-establish themselves. But thats what CITES is supposed to be monitoring. and right now one of the hardest corals to import is Welsophylia. Not because this coral is rare , but because the CITES scientists have recently decided that its actually just a morph of Trachyphilia. SO you must import it as Trachy not Welso, lest you will have them seized and fed to Casper( not really)But I keep hearing about medical uses for corals ....might help the poor whale?
There actually is more reasons to be concerned about which wild fish we as hobbyists purchase then wild coral collection effecting the reefs...
but thats another can of worms ........
- Messages
- 3,379
- Reaction score
- 4
OK, Here is the point I am trying to stress- wild collection is sensationalized. CGill311- I am not trying to pick on you, but instead use your comment as an example. Nearly every single thing we use nowaday follows that exact pattern you describe. Paper comes from trees which takes decades to grow, and minutes to cut. Textiles comes from plants that takes seasons to grow yet days to manufacture. This is why we have management authorities for these resources. So that they can say, "you are going too fast". or "you have taken too much", or whatever. We arent going to stop using paper or cotton clothes, or whatever because it follows this pattern, but we will manage our resources. Kalk has it right.
Regarding fish collection, what evidence do you have that this is problematic? What marine fish species has gone extinct (or is even threatened) due to collection for trade (of any kind- food, pet, curio)? The only one I can think of are seahorses (genus, not species), which are now protected. I also feel this can be sensationalized also. I AM NOT saying that there is not atrocities occurring in collection of fish. Lord knows there is enough documentation of reef carnage regarding this. I am just saying that overcollection to cause extinction is not necessarily one of those atrocities. As mentioned in the previous posts regarding local collectors- if we stop buying the fish they can ethically catch, back to the farm they go to cause more harm to the reefs (ipso facto). Furthermore, you better believe that the IUCN and other international watch groups are closely closely monitoring fish collection. Try to get a Resplendant Island pygmy angel from the wild today. Can't get one? You know why? IUCN has them redlisted which transaltes to NO WILD COLLECTION.
Regarding collection of coral species and indetermination of species. The definition of the species is a monster of a hornets nest, as scientists all define species differently. They use so many criterion to determine what is related to what, that I dont think we can fairly criticize or challenge their classification- as we dont know the whole facts, and it is over our heads.
The moral is- have faith in the systems that are out there (CITES, IUCN, etc). They have the resources, ability, wherewithal, and elbow grease to effectively watch the reefs.
Regarding fish collection, what evidence do you have that this is problematic? What marine fish species has gone extinct (or is even threatened) due to collection for trade (of any kind- food, pet, curio)? The only one I can think of are seahorses (genus, not species), which are now protected. I also feel this can be sensationalized also. I AM NOT saying that there is not atrocities occurring in collection of fish. Lord knows there is enough documentation of reef carnage regarding this. I am just saying that overcollection to cause extinction is not necessarily one of those atrocities. As mentioned in the previous posts regarding local collectors- if we stop buying the fish they can ethically catch, back to the farm they go to cause more harm to the reefs (ipso facto). Furthermore, you better believe that the IUCN and other international watch groups are closely closely monitoring fish collection. Try to get a Resplendant Island pygmy angel from the wild today. Can't get one? You know why? IUCN has them redlisted which transaltes to NO WILD COLLECTION.
Regarding collection of coral species and indetermination of species. The definition of the species is a monster of a hornets nest, as scientists all define species differently. They use so many criterion to determine what is related to what, that I dont think we can fairly criticize or challenge their classification- as we dont know the whole facts, and it is over our heads.
The moral is- have faith in the systems that are out there (CITES, IUCN, etc). They have the resources, ability, wherewithal, and elbow grease to effectively watch the reefs.
A difference between corals, trees, and plants is that Loblolly pine trees (among others) are specifically grown and replanted for paper production. Cotton is specifically grown and replanted for clothing. Coral reefs are not specifically grown and replanted for collection (with the exception of maricultured corals, although I would argue they cannot be termed "reefs" much like acres of pine trees can't be called a forest).
That would be neat if coral frags were replanted on reefs, although I imagine it would be unnecessary with wave action and natural fragmentation.
I'm not saying I distrust these agencies. I'm glad they're in place. However, people I trust, seem to trust them, so that's good enough for me. :up:
- Messages
- 3,379
- Reaction score
- 4
CGill311- You are correct, these plants are farmed specifcally for purposes, and managed as such. But does that make them grow any quicker? We still consume them faster than they grow. Although reefs are not "re-planted", as you described, they are also not cleared as these plants are. We dont "frag" pines or cottons- we kill the organism. And we do so over a wide spread area. The coral reef collection areas are not cleared of Acropora as a pine grove would be. There is always some there to regrow. These animals a capable of progataed growth, so we cant really compare the two. I know, I brought it up, but I brought it up as a comparison to the argument that these organisms grow slowly, and we utilize them quickly. You said it would be neat if coral frags are replanted on the reef- they are, constantly. If not by man, then by natural processes. Those reefs that were obliterated by the tsunami-they are growing back by this exact process. Now, in areas where collected has impaired the natural densities- this is where the organizations step in declare them "no collection zones"- ie- The carribean and stony corals.
I am not meaning to argue semantics, but Eco conservation is very dear to me.
I am not meaning to argue semantics, but Eco conservation is very dear to me.
- Messages
- 42
- Reaction score
- 0
One needs to consider where pine trees or cotton are grown .
Would it be justified to plow up some reefs to replant an acan crop, just so we can say we grew them just like corn?
Thats the beauty of farming the wild. There is no need to turn the wild into a farm like they do with timber or crop farming.
Too bad we cant feed ourselves by farming the woods instead of clear cutting and plowing them up.
Would it be justified to plow up some reefs to replant an acan crop, just so we can say we grew them just like corn?
Thats the beauty of farming the wild. There is no need to turn the wild into a farm like they do with timber or crop farming.
Too bad we cant feed ourselves by farming the woods instead of clear cutting and plowing them up.
- Messages
- 3,379
- Reaction score
- 4
I think people may be misinterpreting the analogy to wood and plant farming. I, in no way, intended to imply that coral farming and terrestrial farming are the same. The only reason I brought it up was to cooment on the topic of grow out time as compare to harvest time. There are certainly better comparison to how corals are farmed and collected.
