In a previous blog entry, I questioned some numbers regarding the collection of wild-caught Banggai cardinalfish that were printed in a recent article in Tropical Fish Hobbyist Magazine. This may have led some to think that I am not a fan of the magazine. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Tropical Fish Hobbyist is an established and respected aquarium publication with a reputation for informative articles, great photography and a track-record of unrivalled support of the hobby in general. I buy it, I read it, and I write for it. You should too.

While I have been somewhat frustrated with what I perceive as the magazine’s one-sided coverage of the Banggai issue, I should point out that Tropical Fish Hobbyist is not alone. Since Eric Borneman’s public call to boycott wild-caught Banggais at MACNA last autumn, it seems the entire marine aquarium hobby press has been on some sort of myopic mission. If you have been following my blog entries here, you know I think the mission may even have merit, but as journalists, I strongly believe we have an obligation to at least attempt to report objectively when we are covering a story such as this.

I should point out that I have shared my concerns directly with the editor of Tropical Fish Hobbyist, and I always appreciate the time he takes to talk through the issues with me (difficult writers can, of course, be the bane of the editor’s existence). Those “off-the-record” conversations are, perhaps, the best testament to the magazine, as they indicate the commitment of the editor to the well-being and health of the hobby.

So no, I am not promoting a boycott of Tropical Fish Hobbyist—I am simply advocating a wider ranging discussion when it comes to these very important issues that will have a lasting impact on the future of our hobby. Happy reading!

The call for a boycott on wild-caught Banggais, for me at least, goes to the heart of something about which I care deeply—the way that the marine aquarium hobby affects the socioeconomics of developing island nations.

While I am not prepared to jump on a soapbox and call foul to the whole “Boycott the Banggai Bandwagon,” I have been disheartened to hear how readily some individuals have completely dismissed the value of a sustainable trade in wild-caught Banggais for collectors and others on the supply side of the trade. A recent article in Tropical Fish Hobbyist about the Banggai situation emphatically stated the following:

Harvest of this species is not an important part of any local economy, and its trade is only supplemental at all levels. There are only about 230 fishers throughout this species' range that collect the fish, representing approximately 0.2 percent of the total human population of the area. At the current payment rate of 1 to 2.5 cents per fish (US$0.01 to 0.025), its economic value, even in a depressed region, is barely significant. It is obvious how little this species' collection helps support needy people.

It is obvious how little this species’ collection helps support needy people? Did he really just write that? Putting aside all other factors for a moment, that comment seems plain insensitive to me.

The author of the article goes on to "do the math,” claiming that 900,000 individual Banggai cardinalfish are exported yearly with a 55% mortality rate between collection and export. As such, he suggests that 1.8 million fish are collected each year, which is 7826 fish per collector per year. This, according to the author, "represents a supplemental income for each collector of between US$78 and US$195 per year."

To a western reader of Tropical Fish Hobbyist, $195—less than many aquarists spend on a single livestock purchase for their aquarium—might seem inconsequential, but let’s turn to someone with a local perspective and see what that person has to say.

To dismiss the local collection of this species as being ‘not an important part of any local economy’ betrays a lack of understanding about conditions here. It also ignores the fact that the collectors are as important to the trade as anybody else in the trade chain, including exporters, importers, and retailers…. While the hobbyists and suppliers in the demand countries may eventually manage to successfully breed this species in a way that is economically viable for them, we are concerned that even less consideration will then be given to the collectors at the supply end, or for the wild stocks. Captive breeding does not necessarily lead to conservation of the species in the wild.

To me, this point is a critical one as well over 90% of all marine aquarium fishes are wild-caught. In other words, the industry will have a connection to collectors and wild stocks at the supply end for the foreseeable future, yet this is not something we tend to talk about. In my opinion, we as an industry should be having the conversation about how our industry affects the socioeconomics of developing nations as least as much as we are so confidently recommending the boycott of a single species about which the data is fiercely debated.

But let’s put the debate about the species aside for a moment and return to the economics of it as put forth by the author of the Tropical Fish Hobbyist article. My connection on the ground in Indonesia has this to say in response to the numbers bandied about in the article:

The assertions that this trade at best provides ‘a supplemental income for each collector of between US$78 and US$195 per year.’, and that a cessation in trade would affect ‘Only a handful of people.’ are being used to justify possible trade restrictions, but from the recent information we have, would seem to be incorrect. These assertions also betray a lack of empathy for the communities for whom this trade is important, and on whom, for the time being at least, the trade in BCF largely depends. We were recently told that, for example, there are currently 30 collectors in Bone Baru, one of the collectors' villages in the Banggai area. They currently receive Rp. 350 (US$ 0.03) for each fish, and can sell up to 700 a week. This converts to 980,000 Rupiah (US$ 86.50) per month, (at 29 Jan 2009 rates), which is about US$1000 a year - significantly higher than the figure quoted above. Of course, this is still only a little under USD 3 a day, and there are a number of variables that affect the amount earned by each collector. These include irregular demand, periods of bad weather, mortality rates and so on, so the collectors' incomes are by no means guaranteed. However, for these collectors and their families, it still represents a significantly higher income than that earned by many of their fellow villagers.

To be clear, I am not advocating that everyone run out and buy a wild-caught Banggai cardinalfish. In fact, I have gone “on the record” stating that I think it is best to NOT buy wild-caught Banggais until more data is available. As I have written previously in this blog and elsewhere though, that data is being collected as we speak. Let's give it some time and support, and, in the interim, I hope we can all move forward with mutual respect while keeping the animals AND the local people in the forefront of our deliberations.

As those of you who regularly read this blog know, I have been following the call for a wild-caught Banggai cardinalfish boycott with interest. One reason I am so interested in this issue is the fact that it seems to have captured so much air time in the hobby press, and yet there seems to be little effect on the average hobbyist.

As I have written elsewhere, hobbyists appear to still be buying wild-caught Banggais, as no local fish store I have frequented recently (and I make a vocational habit of frequenting many) is carrying captive-bred Banggais, and none of those local fish stores report that they have had a single customer request captive-bred Banggais.

Yet whenever wild-caught Banggais come in, “they sell like hotcakes” (actual quotation from one store owner who himself was unaware of why selling wild-caught Banggais might be an issue).

Weird, isn’t it?

Let’s just get this out in the open: there are no secret suppliers in the marine aquarium industry.

While some may claim there are, in reality anyone who wants to know from where their animals are coming can find out in pretty short order. Once you understand this point, you realize that most of the “secret supplier” talk is little more than marketing hype, and, when you really look at it, it is, in my opinion, marketing hype that does a disservice to the industry. A sustainable and robust marine aquarium industry needs transparency far more than it needs secrecy right now.

Follow the Paper Trail

So how is it that I can so confidently claim there is no such thing as a secret supplier? The answer is pretty simple. If you do not have a connection in the industry who is more than willing to spill the beans on a competitor, than you always have the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s Office of Law Enforcement. More than 200 special agents and 122 wildlife inspectors report through seven regional law enforcement offices to manage ecosystems, save endangered species, conserve migratory birds, preserve wildlife habitat, restore fisheries, combat invasive species, and promote international wildlife conservation every day of the year.

For example, in Los Angeles, where the majority of animals bound for the marine aquarium trade enter the country, inspectors track all imported wildlife with a paper trail that would make the finest bureaucrat proud. And guess what...this paper trail is largely, as you might suspect, a matter of public record by way of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Endangered and threatened species and species listed under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), which includes most coral, require importers to be permitted under 50 CFR 17 and 50 CFR 23 respectively. Want to know who is importing what? The answer is just a phone call (and, admittedly, some paperwork) away.

What about animals being imported through illegal channels? Well that is a very real concern, and it is a high stakes game that some choose to play. Fortunately, most of the animals that make it to market at your local retailer have come through legit channels (even when they are marketed as "secret"), but every once in a while, a big bust does occur like the one in London last year.

Does it Really Matter? It's Just Business

In the final equation, you may be wondering who really cares. So what if a retailer markets its product (and, mind you, charges a premium for it) by saying it is direct from a secret supplier. So what if wholesaler X is hyper-protective of “his man” in Australia or Jakarta or Vietnam. It’s business, after all, and in business, companies seek an edge over the competition. If this edge can be achieved by giving the impression that they have access to a secret supplier, then so be it. Right?

Actually, I don’t subscribe to this line of reasoning, as there is much more at stake than the success of business X’s or Y’s bottom line. As Bob Fenner, author of The Conscientious Marine Aquarist eloquently put it to me while discussing this issue the other day, “think further on the effects on all the players involved. Indeed, if there are practices and folks of merit, is it not the best for all to be aware of them? Shouldn’t we share and even exclude non-‘A’ players—as in, get them out of our trade? This is absolutely so. Either deal proficiently, honestly and transparently or get out of my industry.”

A Marine Aquarium Industry Based on the Priciples of Fair Trade

In my perfect world, hobbyists would, through their buying power, seek to empower the best suppliers in the developing world. Hobbyists would seek out retailers who are committed to the principles of fair trade (and who only buy from wholesalers also committed to fair trade). Hobbyists would promote a sustainable and robust hobby by endorsing retailers who deal transparently with wholesalers and suppliers who are, by all metrics, “A players.”

Why does it matter? Suppliers in developing countries upon which this industry has always depended are frequently marginalized. We, through our purchasing power, have the ability to support them on a path to socioeconomic stability that will be good for them, the industry and the animals and ecosystems. 

Hiding suppliers behind a veil of secrecy—whether perceived or real—will only further marginalize them while at the same time leading to environmental degradation, declines in wild populations of marine animals and, ultimately, the collapse of the industry as we know it.

The choice is ours.

The coolest next best thing for marine aquarists with an interest in science, ocean ecosystems and technology just landed on the scene today, and you MUST go check it. Google Earth has now mapped the seas making it possible to tour underwater topography in the same way we have become accustomed to soaring over terrestrial landscapes. According to today’s New York Times, Google Ocean was born in March of 2006 when Sylvia Earle, a former chief scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), commented to John Hanke (Hanke is the co-creator of Keyhole which was bought by Google in 2004 and became Google Earth), “You’ve done a great job with the dirt. But what about the water?”

Earle, who is also a friend to the marine aquarium industry and advisor to CORAL Magazine, is quoted in today Times as saying:

I’ve been struggling my whole life to figure out how to reach people and get them to understand they’re connected to the ocean, but I go to the supermarket and still see the United Nations of fish for sale. Marine sanctuaries are still not really protected. Google Earth gets all this information now and puts it in one place for the littlest kid and the stuffiest grownup to see in a way that hasn’t been possible in all preceding history.

What are you waiting for? Go check it out now!

Gayatri (from LINI) just sent me an e-mail with long-awaited news pertaining to the Banggai situation and the November meeting in the Banggai Islands about which I have previously written here. The full report can be found on the LINI webiste.

In short, the meeting took place on November 23 and 24th in Palu. The agenda was to review program implementation on the Banggai cardinalfish, and, according to Gayatri, the meeting was well attended, including Banggai collectors and officials from the district government of the Banggai Islands, the Banggai cardinalfish committee, staff from the department of Fisheries and Marine Affairs (Jakarta), and several NGOs.

According to Gayatri, it became apparent, based on the data presented, that a more efficient chain of custody between the collector and the exporters’ facilities needs to be established. From LINI's report:

The local traders from Bone Baru, who also own two boats, are currently the main buyers of BCF. The boats brought the BCF to Tumbak, and the fish were sold to the Tumbak traders who then shipped them to Jakarta, Bali, Surabaya, and also to Singapore. The price paid to the collectors for each BCF is currently Rp. 350 (US$0.03), and the first buyers (middlemen) will sell them in Tumbak for Rp. 1,250 (US$0.11) each fish. A boat owner claimed that mortality is high during the holding of the fish in Tumbak while waiting for the local buyers in Tumbak purchase their fish. Sometimes the sellers had to wait for one week in Tumbak until the fish are sold. In order to cover the fuel costs, each trip they needed to take to take an average of 7000 fish each time.

This report, of course, is based on the notion that the trade is wild caught Banggai cardinalfish should continue, which runs counter to much of the sentiment expressed in the current hobby literature here in the States. In his article in the January 2009 issue of Tropical Fish Hobbyist ("Cardinal Sin"), Kieron Dodds writes: "I, myself, will forego purchase [of Banggai cardinalfish] altogether, feeling the most responsible thing is to just say 'no.'"

It boils down to this: Is the possibility of being directly responsible for the extinction of a species, and the complete ban on all imports that might follow, worth having that one species in your tank right now? I would put forth that the most responsible thing to do at the moment would be to not purchase Banggai cardinalfish at all unless you dealer can verify that it is a captive-bred individual. 

Stay tuned...

With 2008 winding down, you may be thinking about those New Year’s Resolutions for 2009, and, toward that end, I want to share something that Carrie Chen, San Francisco’s Aquarium of the Bay’s Education and Conservation Director, recently shared with me. The following suggestions are several ways to “green” your New Year’s Resolutions, while taking care of the ecosystems we appreciate most as marine aquarists.

• Keep the Bay Clean! Whether it’s the San Francisco Bay or the Chesapeake Bay, these bodies of water are critical to healthy marine environments. In 2009, resolve yourself to only wash your car at a self-service or professional car wash, where the water will flow to wastewater treatment plants instead of into waterways. If you must wash your car in your driveway, be sure to use only non-toxic cleaners. Remember that no matter where you live, runoff eventually makes its way to the oceans.

• Keep the Oceans Sustainable! “If a restaurant served tiger, you’d ask some questions, right?” asks Carrie. For the sake of all marine environments, the same should hold true when purchasing seafood. Get a “seafood watch card” at your local public aquarium (or visit the Aquarium of the Bay’s site to get one online).

• Volunteer! Whether it’s California Coastal Clean-Up Day (which Aquarium of the Bay supports) or another local event, get involved in 2009. Even if not officially part of a clean-up day, Carrie suggests you adopt a “don’t pass it up, pick it up” mantra every day. If everyone picked up a little trash, think of the difference it would make. If not picked up, it all eventually flows downhill into the oceans.

• Explore! “Who says that New Year’s resolutions can’t be fun?” asks Carrie. If you live near the coast, she suggests, get out and explore the coastline. Whether on foot or in a kayak, get to know your local watershed, even if you don’t live near the coast. “Commit to connecting with nature in 2009,” says Carrie. After all, it’s both fun and good for the environment.

Also, get out and explore your local public aquarium. In fact, if you have a houseful of guests for the holidays, consider taking everyone to the aquarium for the day. If you are a member of your local aquarium (and, as a marine aquarist, you really should be!), contact the aquarium to see what holiday events are on. For example, I will be taking my out-of-town family to “members’ night” at the Aquarium of the Pacific on 26 December…but I digress.

In short, join me and hundreds of other marine aquarists in resolving to make 2009 a great year for the oceans.

For a variety of reasons, the Banggai Cardinalfish issue has grabbed the attention of people from all aspects of the marine aquarium industry. As I have stated before, it is certainly not the most serious issue which faces this industry, but it is one that has received the air time. I have attempted to report on this issue over the past few months in an unbiased fashionn, presenting any and all sides of this complicated issue.

Today I want to share with you (in full--sorry it's long) the thoughts of Alejandro Vagelli, Director of Science & Conservation at the New Jersey Academy for Aquatic Sciences and Adjunct Professor in the biology department at Rutgers University in New Jersey. Alejandro e-mailed me today with the following information, and I requested his permission to share it with you. Much of this information has been shared previously in other forums, but, at the risk of redundancy, it seems appropriate to add it in full here as well. As always, I welcome any comments.

The link (below) will take you to the Live Reef Fish Bulletin, where three articles dealing with the conservation of Banggai cardinalfish were published and can be freely accessed.

I was invited to write a paper about my experience with the proposal to include the Banggai cardinalfish in CITES and its conservation status. In my paper I summarize the biological characteristics of the BC and point out their value from a biological and ecological stand point. I describe the current conservation situation of the species based on data from my last fieldwork in the Banggai Archipelago, including collecting pressure, population situation, and habitat degradation. Then, I relate in some detail what happened with the proposal, from my original recommendation until its defeat at The Hague, exposing the truth about several issues that have been intentionally misrepresented by both government officials and economic interest groups.

With regards to the other two articles dealing with Banggai conservation, I think both are particularly revealing about the truth behind the Indonesian claims of conservation actions directed to the Banggai cardinalfish before the CITES meeting (June 2007).

Also, they show, unfortunately, the official disregard about their compromise about setting a responsible management plan, as promised during the CITES meeting (Lilley was recently contracted by the local government to help to develop a management plan on Banggai cardinalfish, but to me, his paper is clear evidence of his lack of qualification for this work ). I can tell you that there is no much behind the typical big –fancy names such as “ “Banggai Marine Conservation Area Management”! , but they need to show something at the next meeting!  So they are creating now this NGO (LINI) with staff from MAC ( Mr. Lilley ‘s wife is the MAC director –or similar- in Indonesia) and will be spending resources in finding out where the BC populations are , and how they live….. !

Link: http://www.spc.int/coastfish/news/LRF/18/index.htm

I will leave to you the judgment of these contrasted versions of the Banggai cardinalfish reality.  However, I want to correct (in bold) a few claims about biological aspects of BC that were published in one Mr. Lilley‘s paper:

Page 3 (intro)...because of concerns from some quarters that over-collection might lead to its extinction in the wild. Several BCF population studies point to this possibility (Kolm and Berglund 2003; Vagelli and Erdmann 2002; author’s observations) but accurate current wild population estimates are still unavailable”

Current wild populations are available and were judged accurate enough to be used by IUCN to included this species in the red list as endangered.

Page 5 According to the collectors, BCF populations occur around many of the 123 islands in the Banggai Archipelago, but there was general agreement  among collectors interviewed that these populations may be suffering from overexploitation. 

The Banggai Archipelago comprises less than half of their imaginary 123 islands. There are about 60 islands with a size of about 1 km or larger. In fact the Banggai cardinalfish occurs in only 32 islands within the entire Archipelago.

Page 6: BCF live in groups in and among coral heads, anemones, seagrass, jellyfish, and sea urchins (Fig. 4). If the reef is badly degraded or there are high levels of nitrates in the water (i.e. near dwellings, piers and raw sewage outlets), algal growth is encouraged, which in turn promotes the proliferation of black long-spined sea urchins, Diadema setosum. In areas where the coral cover has been destroyed and the reef flat is covered in algae, numerous groups of Diadema sea urchins become the main refuges for BCF

BC living with jellyfish?? (more below) High levels of nitrates? Where? Inside the Banggai harbor? Algae growth caused by nitrates, therefore leading to urchins? This may be part of a marine biology course, but is not the reality in Banggai. There is no connection between urchin use by BC and coral cover being destroyed. Urchins (together with anemones and branching corals) are substrates with which BC is naturally associated. In areas where coral cover is destroyed by dynamite, BC is absent.

The fish were also observed swimming very close to the walls of piers. In other words, it seems likely that, once the reef has been degraded and there are no more corals or seagrass in which BCF can hide, they will “make do” with hiding in the sea urchins, which proliferate when the area becomes covered in algae.

The few piers constructed in the Banggai region do not represent the natural oceanographic environment of the Banggai islands, where over 96% of the BC population is found. Evidently the author is not familiar with published work on the ecology of the species. BC rarely is found in any low cover- rubble -open area. The overwhelming majority of BC inhabit both coral reefs and seagrass beds, which are not being diminished. In fact, the largest group ever localized was found within seagrass beds associated with anemones. After that one, the largest groups were found in both seagrass and coral reef areas associated with urchins.

 Although not observed firsthand, the team was told that BCF could occur in significant numbers in association with a certain (unidentified) species of jellyfish. Because BCF have a very low capacity  for dispersal, as they do not have a pelagic larval stage, it might be that the jellyfish provide a means of dispersal for BCF by passive drifting on ocean currents. It is important to understand this and other dispersal mechanisms for species management  purposes. DNA studies (Hoffman et al. 2005) indicate significant genetic differences within BCF sub-populations, which need to be preserved for the continued well-being of the species.

Let’s assume that BC can disperse pelagically associated with the tentacles of large jellyfish!! able to drift about 30 cm off the bottom without becoming tangled in urchin spines, coral branches, seagrass leaves, etc., and that BC somehow can move away from the reef protected by the jellies (that coincidentally happen to drift where the BC are located and eager to move with them), and assume that they are able to drift with "ocean currents."  Now, how can this amazing statement be reconciled with the very next one: that DNA studies by Hoffman et al found such large genetic differences among populations (which is only possible if the populations remain isolated without gene exchange for very long periods of time)??, and how do we reconcile that assumption (which the author found credible enough to mention) with the fact that this species does not occur naturally outside the Banggai Archipelago? Can this occur because the aforementioned ocean currents taking the jellyfish loaded with BC only exist between a few very closely localized islands?

The facts are: a) large (easily seen by the naked eye) jellyfish are conspicuously absent in the Banggais (and it is hard to imagine jellies easily drifting in the shallow areas inhabited by BC).   b.) BC do not associate with planktonic jellyfish, nor with any pelagic organism. BC is a sedentary species that remains attached to benthic living substrates. They display highly developed homing behavior and never remain higher than about 1m in the water column above substrates,  but more commonly less than half of that height.