What is ACTUALLY going on with Hawaii fish?

[User1]

Estimated by who? For the Fishes or some other anti-aquarium organization? That hasn't been close to the numbers I have observed through LFS and wholesalers.

It could be any combination of the two. I mean just being real take a step back and think about the end to end process from ocean to aquarium. Statistics alone would trend to a higher mortality rate. I mean a quick consultant with the oracle I saw 1,330,000 results returned with data from activists to conservationists. What numbers do you want to use?

I'm not here to argue with anyone so apologies if that is the point taken nor am I a fan of regulation(s). However, I'm also honest when I can take a step back, look at the collection from ocean to aquarium process, and see a high mortality rate. I'd be a fool to think otherwise. It is just my opinion based on my experience. By no means do I represent all.

 

[shred5]

Show me the data...

I do not have it but if you search it is out there somewhere.
May have been a report by Walt Smith.
It is number that has been floating around a long time.

 

[User1]

Show me the data...

To what point or what is the end game? You can search. Here, I just did, first one on the list:
https://www.thedodo.com/aquarium-trade-fish-2361244128.html

It doesn't matter what I show you would still disagree. Its perfectly fine. See my above post. If you believe there is a higher success rate from ocean to aquarium great. I'd just say we disagree. No harm, no foul.

 

[eatbreakfast]

If you look up the sources for the numbers it is all based off of estimations from anti aquarium organizations with absolutely no data at all, but these agencies have spreaf and plastered these numbers all over the place even though they are not legit or backed up at all.

 

[shred5]

If you look up the sources for the numbers it is all based off of estimations from anti aquarium organizations with absolutely no data at all, but these agencies have spreaf and plastered these numbers all over the place even though they are not legit or backed up at all.

What ever. All you have to do is walk through a few fish stores. Walk through a Petco once. We may not go to Petco but they are a very large retailer. Even my fish store who is real good and has a couple of medicated aquariums I can walk through daily and see dead fish. Almost no retailer quarantine, if the fish die they die and that is why fish are expensive in this hobby.

 

[Bouncingsoul39]

There is no data available because who would do that research? I will tell you, as someone who has worked in the aquarium industry in all aspects of it, retail, wholesale, service etc. I'm very observant in general. More so than the average person. I have worked in high volume destination retail stores, I have worked at two of the big three wholesalers in Los Angeles. This is my observation: about 2%-4% of fish die en route from the collection site to the wholesaler. About another 2%-3% die at the wholesaler while being housed there. Another 5-10% die at the retailer waiting to be sold. Then....this is the big one....about 25%-50% die in the hobbyists's care. So I would estimate that only a fraction of fish collected for the hobby survive long term more than 2-5 years.
You guys need to understand that if you are active on this forum, you are already doing better than most with your tank and have had more success with keeping fish alive. But the thing is, active R2R members are only a small percentage of all saltwater fish and coral reef keepers out there so frequenting this forum and going to a couple LFS is not going to give you a clear picture of the level of death that occurs in it.

 

[User1]

If you look up the sources for the numbers it is all based off of estimations from anti aquarium organizations with absolutely no data at all, but these agencies have spreaf and plastered these numbers all over the place even though they are not legit or backed up at all.

People can use numbers to support their argument - that is true. My search alone returned over 1 million hits. I'm not doing a doctorate nor thesis. You asked for data and I gave you one out of a million. If you want more and have the time, it is there for you to do with as you please. Like I said - my observation by diving with a licensed collector in Hawaii, local stores, and actual success in aquariums (fresh and salt), the mortality rate is high from ocean to home aquaria. Furthermore, while not technically apples to apples, we have legislation in place such as hunter and fishing licenses and/or tags for a reason. So we has human beings don't hunt or fish animals to extinction or at a faster rate than what they can reproduce. At a simplistic level it makes sense.

How that ties to this piece of legislation, informed or not, is another matter all together. But has a poster above said half the battle is being informed or not treating coral or fish has a commodity. That is something most of us here probably have in common outside our opinions on this subject.

 

[eatbreakfast]

People can use numbers to support their argument - that is true. My search alone returned over 1 million hits. I'm not doing a doctorate nor thesis. You asked for data and I gave you one out of a million. If you want more and have the time, it is there for you to do with as you please. Like I said - my observation by diving with a licensed collector in Hawaii, local stores, and actual success in aquariums (fresh and salt), the mortality rate is high from ocean to home aquaria. Furthermore, while not technically apples to apples, we have legislation in place such as hunter and fishing licenses and/or tags for a reason. So we has human beings don't hunt or fish animals to extinction or at a faster rate than what they can reproduce. At a simplistic level it makes sense.

How that ties to this piece of legislation, informed or not, is another matter all together. But has a poster above said half the battle is being informed or not treating coral or fish has a commodity. That is something most of us here probably have in common outside our opinions on this subject.

Yes, there are a lot of results that pop up on aquarium fish mortality. Ones that provide actual documented data and then 'estimates' from so called expert. If you look at the data that is documented you will see that the losses are far less than what the anti aquarium organization's are.

The reason you see more of results pop up that favor the high mortality pop up is because they are better organized and spread their agenda well. But in any magazine or blog article, even wikipedia, follow the content back to it's source and see how backed up it actually is. Not just the amount of google searches that pop up.

 

[eatbreakfast]

... if the fish die they die and that is why fish are expensive in this hobby.

The bulk of fish cost is tied into shipping.

 

[shred5]

ok you win. how is that.

 

[eatbreakfast]

ok you win. how is that.

No! Do the research to the source material. People just accepting the numbers that For the Fishes put out there is the problem. Most people when looking for information do a quick google search, and if they see a consensus go with that info. For the Fishes was so effective at getting their illegitimate numbers out there that it has become accepted that fish mortality really is that high, even though hard numbers do not back that up.

They did the same thing with cyanide caught fish, saying that 90% are caught with cyanide, but other peer reviewed data suggests otherwise. They said they were in the process of getting it peer reviewed, so you could trust it. A year later however and they are unsurprisingly silent on the matter without it being peer reviwed, but their bogus numbers are still out there and would be the top results on a google search.

The fact that those in the hobby can so quickly gulp down these falsehoods so easily makes their position so much easier. I'm not saying there aren't losses, but they are nowhere near 2/3's before the fish make it into somebody's home tank.

 

[User1]

Yes, there are a lot of results that pop up on aquarium fish mortality. Ones that provide actual documented data and then 'estimates' from so called expert. If you look at the data that is documented you will see that the losses are far less than what the anti aquarium organization's are.

The reason you see more of results pop up that favor the high mortality pop up is because they are better organized and spread their agenda well. But in any magazine or blog article, even wikipedia, follow the content back to it's source and see how backed up it actually is. Not just the amount of google searches that pop up.

Proof of burden is a two way street. Just last year I was diving in Hawaii. Dive master captured a baby speckled butterfly. Ascended, crappy safety stop, boarded boat, dumped fish inside a 5 gallon bucket of seawater. I board, look in the bucket, and what do you think I saw? Said butterfly on its side. I spoke to him more has a diver than an aquarist and suggested he put it back. He replied no. I say ok, not worth the trouble so then I ask what size tank does he have or where is it going. His reply...a 40 breeder. What do you think happened next? 20 minute or so boat ride back to port has I exit, leaving no tip, I pass the bucket. Speckled butterfly is no longer alive. It didn't recover from the collection depth to surface and or temperature difference at surface compared to the 90ft depth he caught it at. How do I know? I was part of his group so I saw when it was netted. Much to his surprise I called local authorities after leaving so they would know the situation.

No, that isn't the norm. No, it isn't in a google search. But it is based on experience. We all have it. Mine is what it is. All good and well like I said.

Note/edit: Fish was yellow, butterfly shape, with dots - I may be wrong on the exact type...

 

[eatbreakfast]

Proof of burden is a two way street. Just last year I was diving in Hawaii. Dive master captured a baby speckled butterfly. Ascended, crappy safety stop, boarded boat, dumped fish inside a 5 gallon bucket of seawater. I board, look in the bucket, and what do you think I saw? Said butterfly on its side. I spoke to him more has a diver than an aquarist and suggested he put it back. He replied no. I say ok, not worth the trouble so then I ask what size tank does he have or where is it going. His reply...a 40 breeder. What do you think happened next? 20 minute or so boat ride back to port has I exit, leaving no tip, I pass the bucket. Speckled butterfly is no longer alive. It didn't recover from the collection depth to surface and or temperature difference at surface compared to the 90ft depth he caught it at. How do I know? I was part of his group so I saw when it was netted. Much to his surprise I called local authorities after leaving so they would know the situation.

No, that isn't the norm. No, it isn't in a google search. But it is based on experience. We all have it. Mine is what it is. All good and well like I said.

Note/edit: Fish was yellow, butterfly shape, with dots - I may be wrong on the exact type...

But that is not an aquarium collector! That's more akin to fishing than collecting. I find bouncingsoul's numbers are closer to reality.

While most store's may not quarantine they do treat for disease, as do wholesalrs. If 2/3's of fish died before they were sold stores couldn't stay in business.

 

[shred5]

No! Do the research to the source material. People just accepting the numbers that For the Fishes put out there is the problem. Most people when looking for information do a quick google search, and if they see a consensus go with that info. For the Fishes was so effective at getting their illegitimate numbers out there that it has become accepted that fish mortality really is that high, even though hard numbers do not back that up.

They did the same thing with cyanide caught fish, saying that 90% are caught with cyanide, but other peer reviewed data suggests otherwise. They said they were in the process of getting it peer reviewed, so you could trust it. A year later however and they are unsurprisingly silent on the matter without it being peer reviwed, but their bogus numbers are still out there and would be the top results on a google search.

The fact that those in the hobby can so quickly gulp down these falsehoods so easily makes their position so much easier. I'm not saying there aren't losses, but they are nowhere near 2/3's before the fish make it into somebody's home tank.

Not worth it because you are right no one has went and counted every fish that has died. It is a estimated number that has been thrown around in the hobby for a while by the people in the know. It has been posted several times and been mentioned in some publications. So it is not worth arguing over, you either believe it or not. It is not hard to see when you see the amount of fish or the conditions of allot of LFS or how the fish are shipped to the wholesaler and retailer. There still fish caught with cyanide too not but not as bad as it used to be either because of education.

It is better than it used to be so maybe the number is up some.

 

[eatbreakfast]

.
It is a estimated number that has been thrown around in the hobby for a while by the people in the know.

Who is the original source? Not who rehashed it and used it later, but who is saying it is that high that has been around the hobby and the industry?

 

[drawman]

To what point or what is the end game? You can search. Here, I just did, first one on the list:
https://www.thedodo.com/aquarium-trade-fish-2361244128.html

It doesn't matter what I show you would still disagree. Its perfectly fine. See my above post. If you believe there is a higher success rate from ocean to aquarium great. I'd just say we disagree. No harm, no foul.

While I don't disagree that we should try to opt for less losses that article is extremely skewed and offers little in the realm of statistics - it's a trumpet piece of Rene Umberger.

I think supporting people that try to offer healthy fish (ie Divers Den, Humblefish Aquatics) with our dollars is the way to go. To me the problem is more with petco and the likes compared to the Hawaii fishery.

FWIW, I also am not trying to fight I think we need to continue to make progress in the realms of treating fish disease to reduce losses.

 

[shred5]

While I don't disagree that we should try to opt for less losses that article is extremely skewed and offers little in the realm of statistics - it's a trumpet piece of Rene Umberger.

I think supporting people that try to offer healthy fish (ie Divers Den, Humblefish Aquatics) with our dollars is the way to go. To me the problem is more with petco and the likes compared to the Hawaii fishery.

FWIW, I also am not trying to fight I think we need to continue to make progress in the realms of treating fish disease to reduce losses.

While losses from Hawaii are certainly less there are still allot of places shipping fish that border third world or are and their facilities show it. Hawaii is also closer than other places that is why it is important to keep it open. Closing it puts more pressure on areas farther away and with worse shipping conditions.

This hobby certainly has a long way to go though. Throwing dozens of fish in the same bag and shipping them, there has to be a better way. one fish dies and jeopardizes all the fish. It may cost more to use coolers with air pumps but it could save the hobby in the long run.

Those estimates are for the whole industry as a whole.

 

[EmdeReef]

Reliable stats are hard to come by but here's a study that actually has some good resources and is aimed at lowering fish mortality in the trade thus the data can be probably taken with a smaller grain of salt (i.e. honest mistakes, not a lobbying hit job)
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.588.5182&rep=rep1&type=pdf

We can't hide from the fact that mortality rate is high even before fish get to our tanks. However, our hobby's impact on the reefs by most reliable analysis, excluding cyanide use, is pretty trivial when compared to commercial over-fishing, trawling etc and not to mention climate change. Environmental organizations forget or ignore that as of 2016 there was only a handful long-term "sustainable" fisheries left in the world (I can't find the study but believe the number was as low as 10 - don't quote me until I can confirm though). Instead they focus their firepower and resources on us as it's easier to incite an emotional response over a dead brightly colored fish than billions of dead "grayish looking fish." The amount of energy expended in commercial fishing has been growing almost exponentially since the 70s vs. the yield. Almost none of the highly valued fish are sustainably caught anymore. But one doesn't hear calls to ban say tuna fishing In contrast, there is only a handful of ornamental fish that are on the IUCN's red list primarily due to this hobby.

The only silver lining from the Hawaiian "phaseout"/ban is that it may encourage investments in aquaculture. However, given the high cost of captive breeding, the endeavor is unlikely to succeed unless we're willing to pay more. Take flame angels as an example, a captive bred specimen retails anywhere between $150 and 200 vs. $20-50 for a wild caught fish. The profit margin on the captive bred is also significantly lower, even when adjusted for a shorter supply chain.

 

[shred5]

Reliable stats are hard to come by but here's a study that actually has some good resources and is aimed at lowering fish mortality in the trade thus the data can be probably taken with a smaller grain of salt (i.e. honest mistakes, not a lobbying hit job)
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.588.5182&rep=rep1&type=pdf

We can't hide from the fact that mortality rate is high even before fish get to our tanks. However, our hobby's impact on the reefs by most reliable analysis, excluding cyanide use, is pretty trivial when compared to commercial over-fishing, trawling etc and not to mention climate change. Environmental organizations forget or ignore that as of 2016 there was only a handful long-term "sustainable" fisheries left in the world (I can't find the study but believe the number was as low as 10 - don't quote me until I can confirm though). Instead they focus their firepower and resources on us as it's easier to incite an emotional response over a dead brightly colored fish than billions of dead "grayish looking fish." The amount of energy expended in commercial fishing has been growing almost exponentially since the 70s vs. the yield. Almost none of the highly valued fish are sustainably caught anymore. But one doesn't hear calls to ban say tuna fishing In contrast, there is only a handful of ornamental fish that are on the IUCN's red list primarily due to this hobby.

The only silver lining from the Hawaiian "phaseout"/ban is that it may encourage investments in aquaculture. However, given the high cost of captive breeding, the endeavor is unlikely to succeed unless we're willing to pay more. Take flame angels as an example, a captive bred specimen retails anywhere between $150 and 200 vs. $20-50 for a wild caught fish. The profit margin on the captive bred is also significantly lower, even when adjusted for a shorter supply chain.

I am almost sure Walt did one but can not find it.. He sent it to me many years ago and I thought I kept it on my work computer but can not find it. It was also published on the internet but may have been removed by now this is the only one I can find. Maybe I am thinking of someone else.
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/coris/library/NOAA/CRCP/project/1168/Fiji_LiveRockAssessment_2005.pdf

 

[mort]

The crux of the matter though is that the fisheries is based on the sustainability of the fish in it, what happens to them after they are removed doesn't come into it. Whilst the thought of dead ornamental fish is distasteful it shouldn't come into the equation.
If the success was so poor then from an ethical side it would be a good thing to close the fishery but its one of the best fisheries there is for health of the catch, what happens to them after that is not the responsibility of Hawaii and its the industry as a whole that would need to look at improving things.

What is more worrying is that food catches tend to target the fish you want to keep as breeding stock, whereas the ornamental trade doesn't and the fact ornamentals are a drop in the ocean compared to what is taken for food.

We have lots of stupid regulations around our coastal waters where fish stocks have been really deplenished by overfishing. Some of these regulations include quotas for certain species which means you need to return bycatch to the water or be heavily fined. Unfortunately by the time the fish has been sorted the majority of this bycatch is dead, but still the fishermen need to follow the rules. Its a problem when bureaucracy gets in the way of common sense.