Should coral fragging be banned?

[Reef and Dive]

It is so sad to me when conservationists or even scientists compleyelly ignore the huge, massive amount of information we create on this hobby.

Some day I belive points of view might change. Reefs are being massively destroyed and scientists “borrowed” from the hobby a lot of information on restoration that has been done forever, like: “wow, we discovered coral fragging is useful in reef repopulation and growth”.

Ok, many theoretical ideas might come about the effects of coral fragging, but scientists, let me give you a hint:

As we frag corals over and over in our tanks for many generations we find some pretty resilient corals as a result… not the opposite… Some day, maybe, science will explain a bit better some of these observations a lot of us already know.

Sorry I’m feeling a bit nervous today…

 

[MnFish1]

50% of the great barrier reef is dead, this is not some environmental scam. Charlie Veron has over 100 publications on corals and was the first scientist employed by the Australian Institute of Marine Science. He is the world leader on coral taxonomy and has been diving on the great barrier reef longer than just about anybody. He is abundantly clear that the great barrier reef is dying. There is really no debate on this. Ignore it if you want, but you are posing straight misinformation.

Curious - do you think that's because the water temperature is only rising in 50% of the reef? Do you think that ocean acidification is only occurring in part of the GBR? Do you think it's possible that certain corals are more resistant to these problems than others? Are there areas where pollution is more of an issue - due to currents, etc? BTW Its my understanding

Gauging carbon emissions per capita is the only fair, equitable way to do it. I just want to make sure I’m understanding you, you’re saying that if a country has more land and more people, it should have the same total carbon emissions as a much smaller country with far fewer people (since your opinion is that it’s the total emissions by country that matters)? Countries with less people can consume more? That makes sense or seems equitable to you?

The only logical and ethical way by which to set carbon emissions standards is per capita. China produces ~30% of emissions and has 18.4% of the worlds population, the US produces 14% of emissions and has 4.25% of the population, the average US citizen had a carbon footprint over twice the size of the average Chinese citizen. So how is it fair to say that the Chinese need to lower their emissions more than the US does? China absolutely does need to lower their emissions, but they’re closer to where they should be than we are to where we should be. I agree with you every country should be under agreement to lower their per capita emission.

There also needs to be carbon credits/debts where countries that consume products or resources that have a high rate of emissions to produce from other countries, they take on some of the responsibility of the carbon created in making those products/resources, otherwise rich countries will continue to have high rates of energy consumption/carbon emissions while sticking poor countries with the carbon bill.

This issue is so multifactorial. But I do respect your opinion. If the problem is mostly caused by CO2, In the end IMHO, it's the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that is causing the problem. Thus - it makes sense - to look at which countries are producing it and 'why'.

As India, China, Africa etc become 'richer' more industrialized societies (as their economic conditions improve) - which is the goal - rumor has it - how will their per-capita CO2 increase? This has been widely discussed - and is one of the reasons - in my post I tried to focus on the fact that if China and India are not required to follow the same guidelines as the rest of the world - the problem will not be solved. In other words in a decade - using your comments as an example - the per capita CO2 production in the USA will be way down - in developing countries it will be 'way up' - resulting in (hopefully not) - a net gain in Co2.

The reason the average American has a larger carbon footprint than the Chinese person - is that the average annual income in China per person is approximately $10,000/year. In the US - it's 6-7x higher. Thus - Americans can travel more, etc.

But - take a look at Europe - where on a routine basis, they are required to wash their buildings due to soot, etc. Do you see that in the US? No. Acid Rain - which is eating buildings in Europe and at least as of multiple years ago was considered a huge problem - do you see that type of problem in big US cities? No. Isn't Europe supposed to be far advanced when it comes to climate issues - as compared to the US?

 

[MnFish1]

50% of the great barrier reef is dead, this is not some environmental scam. Charlie Veron has over 100 publications on corals and was the first scientist employed by the Australian Institute of Marine Science. He is the world leader on coral taxonomy and has been diving on the great barrier reef longer than just about anybody. He is abundantly clear that the great barrier reef is dying. There is really no debate on this. Ignore it if you want, but you are posing straight misinformation.

Some quotes from the article below (From May 2022) - which since people don't read articles - my take - in 2016/17 there were major bleaching events with high mortality. There is no mention of what happened in 2018, or 2019. In 2020 there was another bleaching even - with very low mortality. There is no mention of 2021. In 2022 an event similar to 2020 occurred. What I can't get my head completely around - is the reason that these events are not steadily increasing. Though - according to this article 90 percent of surveyed coral was bleached - most of it is expected to completely recover - My question - comment - are the corals becoming more resistant to these stressors - in a natural way? BTW - the last time the temperature in the GBR was this high - was - 1900.

" More than 90% of Great Barrier Reef coral surveyed this year was bleached in the fourth such mass event in seven years in the world’s largest coral reef ecosystem, Australian government scientists said."

"Bleaching in 2016, 2017 and 2020 damaged two-thirds of the coral in the famed reef off Australia’s eastern coast."

"Coral bleaches as a heat stress response and scientists hope most of the coral will recover from the current event, said David Wachenfeld, chief scientist at the authority, which manages the reef ecosystem.

“The early indications are that the mortality won’t be very high,” Wachenfeld said on Wednesday.

“We are hoping that we will see most of the coral that is bleached recover and we will end up with an event rather more like 2020 when, yes, there was mass bleaching, but there was low mortality,” Wachenfeld added.

The bleaching events in 2016 and 2017 led to “quite high levels of coral mortality,” Wachenfeld said."

Here is a nice synopsis of the situation from PBS: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/scienc...n-2022-was-bleached-australian-scientists-say

 

[reefsaver]

If it wasn't for the aquarium hobby, many already extinct animals in the wild would remain lost to humanity forever. Part of the reason I started the hobby is because of the mass media coverage of dying coral reefs and I thought maybe if I tried hard enough I could have a positive impact on the worlds reefs and corals. Which many people already do due to their knowledge and skill in farming, fragging and propagating corals from what I've seen. I think making fragging illegal would make us angry when we look back thinking we could have saved a species. I guess there is a legitimate concern for accelerated evolution, and the possibility of a beast of a coral getting into the ocean and killing off the competition. But I guess it's the same reason you invasive terminology and laws to prevent things like that already.

 

[mdb_talon]

Also where are you getting all of a specific reef would be just 1 species in your species x scenario? That is not how reef restoration works.

Thats not how reef restoration should work which ironically is exactly one of the authors points lol

This was an article on a diving site and much that he was speaking out against was thigs like restoration projects that get scuba divers who go down and break off pieces from live colonies and plant all over the reef. They have no real training and it often means the reefs they are not only normally just using the single predominant species but also that they are often using single mother colonies for this.

This not only ruins the genetic diversity of a reef but also crowds out the reef for slow growing or more difficult to frag species.

 

[MnFish1]

Uh oh - global warming debates are an exercise in futility. Seriously has anyone convinced anyone of an opposing viewpoint? It’s right up there with me trying to convince my ex bro in law that Pike was the best captain of the Enterprise - not Picard. No matter how much I pounded the table he still came back w/ “and the Kelvin timeline doesn’t count.”

Who is debating global warming? The question here (in this thread) - is directly tied to 'what is killing corals' and whether 'fragging and replacing them helps'. IMHO - it's multifactorial - warming, pollution, acidification. But - it all comes down to - if the problems causing the coral deaths isn't fixed - what is the point of discussing fragging as a solution. Another article from NPR - below:

"The report — the first of its kind since 2008 — found that warming caused by climate change, overfishing, coastal development and declining water quality has placed coral reefs around the world under "relentless stress."

"But it also found signs of hope, noting that many of these reefs are resilient and may be able to recover if immediate action is taken to stabilize emissions and fight future warming"

 

[MnFish1]

If it wasn't for the aquarium hobby, many already extinct animals in the wild would remain lost to humanity forever. Part of the reason I started the hobby is because of the mass media coverage of dying coral reefs and I thought maybe if I tried hard enough I could have a positive impact on the worlds reefs and corals. Which many people already do due to their knowledge and skill in farming, fragging and propagating corals from what I've seen. I think making fragging illegal would make us angry when we look back thinking we could have saved a species. I guess there is a legitimate concern for accelerated evolution, and the possibility of a beast of a coral getting into the ocean and killing off the competition. But I guess it's the same reason you invasive terminology and laws to prevent things like that already.

This is interesting. Florida banned Elkhorn coral harvesting - far before 'climate change' - And - between 1970 and 1980 97 percent of that type of coral was wiped out in the carribean - and this was caused by white band disease.

NOAA has a recovery plan - which they are re-evaluating - Therefore, this recovery plan not only addresses threats documented to have caused the
decline of elkhorn and staghorn coral populations, but identifies and addresses factors that are likely to
negatively impact the survivial and recovery of these species. Furthermore, no single or collective group
of threats may impact all regions of these species’ ranges equally. Multiple threats acting synergistically
or cumulatively likely compound impediments to recovery among elkhorn and staghorn coral
populations. The threats to these species that are impeding recovery are: disease, increasing
temperature, depensatory population effects, loss of recruitment habitat, sedimentation, anthropogenic
abrasion and breakage, predation, inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, natural abrasion and
breakage, ocean acidification, and nutrients and contaminants.
Recovery Strategy: The purpose of this recovery plan is to identify a strategy for rebuilding and
assuring the long-term viability of elkhorn coral and staghorn coral populations in the wild, allowing
ultimately for the species’ removal from the federal list of endangered and threatened species. Elkhorn
and staghorn coral populations should be large enough so that successfully reproducing individuals
comprise numerous populations (including thickets) across the historical ranges of these species and
should be large enough to protect their genetic diversity and maintain their ecosystem functions.
Threats to these species and their habitat must be sufficiently abated to ensure a high probability of
survival into the future. The proposed recovery approach serves to address the most pressing gaps in
knowledge, addresses critical demographic factors required for recovery, and targets the reduction or
elimination of threats so that the recovery objectives outlined in this plan have the greatest likelihood of
being achieved. Because many of the important threats to the recovery of elkhorn and staghorn corals
are not directly manageable, the recovery strategy pursues simultaneous actions to address critical
demographic factors, the range of threats, and knowledge gaps. The gaps in knowledge must be
addressed through basic experimental and genetic research along with monitoring to determine the
current condition of elkhorn and staghorn corals. Climate models and experimental research indicate
that recovery of elkhorn and staghorn corals will be impeded by increasing ocean temperatures and
acidification resulting from global atmospheric CO2 levels. Therefore, actions must be taken to address
ocean warming and acidification impacts on these species. Simultaneously, local threat reductions,
mitigation strategies, and in and ex situ conservation and restoration actions must be pursued. These
include reducing chronic or localized mortality sources (predation, anthropogenic physical damage,
acute sedimentation, nutrients, and contaminants) and acute stresses (LBSP, physical disturbance
threats). Population enhancement is also an integral part of elkhorn and staghorn recovery through"

https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/8950

 

[kingoftheHiLLpeople]

Who is debating global warming? The question here (in this thread) - is directly tied to 'what is killing corals' and whether 'fragging and replacing them helps'. IMHO - it's multifactorial - warming, pollution, acidification. But - it all comes down to - if the problems causing the coral deaths isn't fixed - what is the point of discussing fragging as a solution. Another article from NPR - below:

"The report — the first of its kind since 2008 — found that warming caused by climate change, overfishing, coastal development and declining water quality has placed coral reefs around the world under "relentless stress."

"But it also found signs of hope, noting that many of these reefs are resilient and may be able to recover if immediate action is taken to stabilize emissions and fight future warming"

Just a very generic term. I understand that it is generic. And reread the post I replied to.

 

[Enderg60]

I get that this has nothing to due with hobbyist fragging, but he makes a good point about genetic diversity.

On the one side its really the only way to rebuild reefs killed off by human activity. On the other the new reefs will not have much diversity in case of diseases.

Its like the issue we have with banannas. They have been selectively bread so much there is only one commercial strain. The entire population of which was nearly wiped out by disease. Kinda the same thing with cheetahs as well.

I get his point, but its like worrying about a lack of diversity after an apocalypse and there are only 4 people left alive.

 

[MnFish1]

Just a very generic term. I understand that it is generic. And reread the post I replied to.

I responded to the same post (I think).

 

[polyppal]

Uh oh - global warming debates are an exercise in futility. Seriously has anyone convinced anyone of an opposing viewpoint? It’s right up there with me trying to convince my ex bro in law that Pike was the best captain of the Enterprise - not Picard. No matter how much I pounded the table he still came back w/ “and the Kelvin timeline doesn’t count.”

What a horrible argument… Pike over Picard?!?

 

[Eagle_Steve]

What a horrible argument… Pike over Picard?!?

 

[kingoftheHiLLpeople]

What a horrible argument… Pike over Picard?!?

Thank you for responding! Hahaha! See it gets opinions going. Wait until I drop that Kirk was the worst captain! You are local correct? (Colorado?)

 

[Crotalus]

So I'm rather new to the hobby, but agree with ChiCity. If you look at the copious amount of pollution in some reefs, all the nitrate and phosphate is slowing the growth of corals, if not suffocating them. I think without the reefing community and fragging in particular several species are not going to be too far off from being extinct.

We are being lied to about the health of reefs. There was a recent video about the Great Barrier Reef. The woman actually got in the water and looked at the reef instead of just driving over it and looking over the side of the boat occasionally. She reported the reef to be in much better shape than we are being told. There are always patches of the reef that have problems, so with selective photography it's easy to show any reef as in trouble and that is what people are doing. People have political agendas and are making videos on both sides of the debate.

 

[MnFish1]

We are being lied to about the health of reefs. There was a recent video about the Great Barrier Reef. The woman actually got in the water and looked at the reef instead of just driving over it and looking over the side of the boat occasionally. She reported the reef to be in much better shape than we are being told. There are always patches of the reef that have problems, so with selective photography it's easy to show any reef as in trouble and that is what people are doing. People have political agendas and are making videos on both sides of the debate.

The key words in most of the articles I read were 'x percent OF THE AREAS SURVEYED' showed bleaching. They did not 'survey' the whole Great Barrier Reef

 

[Sumo Reef]

that article is more focussed on fragging on natural reefs rather than in our tanks tho...

This.

 

[fish farmer]

4. Resources is the key line here. Almost anything can be done with (lots of) money, but recreating or rebuilding natural habitats that took thousands of years to create, is difficult and takes time. Things only grow so fast. And creating genetic diversity is also time consuming. Maybe instead of heading to Mars or sending a few people in a ***** shaped rocket ship to near earth orbit, that money could help rebuild our crumbling reefs and oceans. So I agree. Resources and attention are key.

...and scientists and technicians have to beg, borrow or steal to make a difference.

 

[MnFish1]

...and scientists and technicians have to beg, borrow or steal to make a difference.

Gonna respectfully disagree. Yes - they have to ask for a grant. But - that's the way it should be. Some of these grants can cost tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars. NOAA's research - for example on the elk horn and stag horn coral restoration - I'm sure has plenty of funding. I'm actually curious - Do any people with designer corals - actually think they are going to be put back into the wild? (Honest question, not a trolling question) - the only corals that are even going to meet that requirement - are IMHO going to be native corals - not multiple in-breeded corals.

 

[MiniGbr]

Gonna respectfully disagree. Yes - they have to ask for a grant. But - that's the way it should be. Some of these grants can cost tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars. NOAA's research - for example on the elk horn and stag horn coral restoration - I'm sure has plenty of funding. I'm actually curious - Do any people with designer corals - actually think they are going to be put back into the wild? (Honest question, not a trolling question) - the only corals that are even going to meet that requirement - are IMHO going to be native corals - not multiple in-breeded corals.

Grants are hard to come by sadly. And there’s never enough of them for the amount of work that is theorized. More funding would bring more gene banking efforts, more research into genetic testing, more recovery efforts, etc. And fragging (on the reef) is simply a bandaid. Not a solution.

There also many things I haven’t discussed, as far as the ideas of fragging from our hobby tanks back to the ocean.

The biggest of these is the introduction of coral from different areas. We shouldn’t be considering added an Indo coral into an Atlantic reef. Or a GBR coral into the Atlantic. There are too many horror stories of invasive species (or probably more importantly, the diseases, pests, algae, and other pathogens that could easily go undetected) being introduced, so to go that route, we add misery to already difficult situations. So if we start dragging from our tanks, and adding those into the ocean, who knows what tragedy ensues. When we gene bank and induce spawning in the research system, we have completely different water systems and even rooms that the different oceans corals live in. This way we don’t contaminate. We have foot baths, and washing stations, and other bio security to reduce any type of transfer. And these coral won’t even be re-introduced. They’re for research, so that we can build infrastructure out on the reef to aid in restoration.

Also, I hate to come back to this, but some one earlier says we’re being lied to about our reefs dying. That’s not true. I dive those reefs. And many of the reefs I dove 20 years ago on the GBR have not come back. They’re dead zones. So let’s stop ignoring that the reefs and oceans are in trouble. I get that it’s not fun to hear, but if we can’t agree there’s trouble, than we can’t help.

I agree that we have to get into the water to verify the reef is bleaching, but there are also pretty sophisticated methods of measuring aerially what is happening on the reefs. There’s no way to dive every inch of the GBR, but between diving verification and NASA/noaa, things can be pretty certain. These agencies aren’t lying. Trust someone who has actually seen these reefs in person.

 

[polyppal]