Ret Talbot Live

The Haunted Aquarium

I couldn’t sleep last night, so I decided to get up and finish an article on which I was working for Tropical Fish Hobbyist. It was about 2 a.m., I think, and I didn’t want to wake my wife, who was sleeping soundly. So I kept the lights off and quietly padded across the hall from our bedroom to the library. The weather had recently shifted, and I could feel the cooler moisture in the air after so many days of Red Flag Santa Ana winds heaving down the canyon in which we live. It’s almost November, and I welcomed the cooler, more seasonable weather.

The library was dimly illuminated from the moonlights on the 135-gallon marine aquarium that was opposite my desk. As I sat down, the chair at the desk groaned gently above the comforting whir of the aquarium’s various pumps and powerheads. With my back to the aquarium, I opened my laptop and powered it up.

I stared blankly at the screen with that subtly disorienting feeling one has when lost somewhere between the states of wakefulness and sleep. It was as if my wits were being held from me with a stringy substance—like walking through thick cobwebs. I rubbed my eyes and then leaned forward to type.

Tap. Tap. Tap.

What was that? The sound had come from behind me…gentle as a leaky faucet, but it wasn’t a drip. I turned. Blinded by the glare of my keyboard, the room had a thickness to it that transcended dark. I stared into it listening hard against the night.

Tap. Tap. Tap.

There it was again. I could feel my pupils dilate as I grew accustom to the darkness. The moonlights on the aquarium reached out through the murk and gloom, and I could make out the rippling patterns across the aquarium’s sandy bottom. I stared and listened.

Tap. Tap. Tap.

Two Banggai cardinalfishes ghosted along in front of the rockwork, their high fins arched out behind them. Silently they moved in little flitting gestures—certainly they were not the cause of the noise, and no other animals were visible save a crab or two. I stood up, and as I did I heard it again, although this time it was noticeably louder.

TAP. TAP. TAP.

And it was definitely coming from the aquarium—not under it, but from it. It’s hard to describe the sound. I already likened to a dripping faucet, but it was definitely not mechanical, and yet I could come up with no other logical explanation. Suddenly the cobwebs fell away from my mind’s eye, and I realized how stupid this all was—the fact that I was getting freaked out by a noise in my aquarium. So what if it was Halloween? I almost laughed aloud, but then…

TAP. TAP. TAP.

I took a step and reached for the light switch on the wall beside the door, but my foot caught on Maddie, our back cat, who had materialized at my feet. I put my hand out to steady my fall, and in the process inadvertently slammed the library door shut. Regaining my balance, I flipped the wall switch.

Nothing.

I flipped it off and on again.

Still nothing.

Tap. Tap. Tap.

“Damn it,” I said aloud, as I turned the knob on the door—I’d had enough of this—but the knob stuck. The door would not open. A thin sheen of moisture formed along my brow, and the chill in the air made it feel icy. I swallowed hard. I was scared, but of what?

Then there it was again: Tap. Tap. Tap.

And then again: TAP. TAP. TAP.

Both volume and cadence increased until it become a steady, droning sound, like a metronome or the beating of a heart. I brought my hand to my chest to feel my heart racing, but the sound of the tapping eclipsed my ability to even feel my own pulse. I was soaking with sweat now, as the tapping continued. My hands over my ears, I could feel the tapping in my bones. Hear it in every angle of my body.

“Karen!” I called, as I turned against the door, pounding on it with my fists, but the sound of my voice and the pummeling of my hands on the door were powerless to rise above the crescendo of the tapping. I turned, completely succumbing to the fear that washed over me in the chill of the night air. My back slid down the door until I was seated on the floor as the walls of books seemed to fall in on me. The room became a long, precipitously narrow tunnel between me and the eerie glow of the aquarium. I closed my eyes and tried to scream.

Silence.

I waited, but there was still nothing. Silence.

I opened my eyes. Everything looked as it should have. Maddie, the cat, gave a long low meow as she climbed into my lap and started to purr. I smiled at her, running my hand along the length of her jet black coat. I opened my mouth to speak into the silence, hesitated…and then looked down at Maddie to tell her everything was alright. And yet the only sound that came out of my mouth was an unearthly:

Tap. Tap. Tap.

Tampa Bay Rays Rays Aquarium

Have you been watching the World Series? If so, is the marine aquarist in you intrigued by the aquarium just behind the right center field wall? Well here’s skinny on the marine aquarium at Tropicana Field.

The aquarium is officially called the Rays Tank, and it is presented by VisitStPeteClearwater.com. Built in 2006, it is the result of a partnership between Tropicana Field and Tampa’s Florida Aquarium. The 35-foot long, three-foot deep, 10,000 gallon aquarium houses over 30 cownose rays (Rhinoptera bonasus) in what is essentially a huge touch tank. Except for the aquarium’s 20-foor wide acrylic front, which is viewable from the stands, the rest of the tank is fiberglass with a sand substrate. According to Tropicana Field officials, it is one of the ten largest tanks in the country.

The rays are wild-caught and were collected from the waters of Tampa Bay by the staff of the Florida Aquarium, which is in charge of all husbandry. Thom Stork, CEO of the Florida Aquarium, believes that the Rays Tank at Tropicana Field is an opportunity to broaden the educational outreach of the Aquarium. “Sure, people will enjoy seeing and feeding the rays while attending the game,” says Stork, “but they will also learn about these interesting animals and possibly want to see more exotic and interesting fish available to them here [at the Aquarium].”

The cownose ray inhabits the eastern and western Atlantic Ocean. In the western Atlantic, they range from southern New England to northern Florida and throughout the Gulf of Mexico. They are known to migrate to Trinidad, Venezuela, and Brazil. A mature cownose ray can reach 84 inches but is usually much smaller, especially in captivity. Because the cownose ray rarely rests on the bottom, it is less common for a wader to step on ray’s the spine. The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), the cownose ray is listed as "Near Threatened".

The Rays Tank is available to for free to all fans at home games. Because only 50 people are allowed in the tank area at one time, people wishing to view the rays up close are given a time-stamped card indicating what time they can come back and interact with the animals. In addition to being encouraged to touch the rays, visitors may also feed purchase “ray food” to feed to them.

In addition to all the proceeds from “ray food” sales going to the Florida Aquarium and the team's charitable foundation, every ball hit into the tank during a game by a Rays player results in the Rays donating $5,000 to charity ($2,500 to the Florida Aquarium and $2,500 to the player's charity of choice).

The cownose ray is listed as “Near Threatened” on the 2008 IUCN Red List.

Low Tide for Fundraising

Those of us who have marine aquaria know that a marine aquarium, much like a boat, is (at least financially-speaking) a sizable hole in one’s pocket. That’s certainly what the Georgia Aquarium was hoping for (sort of) as a result of their annual gala which was projected to raise as much as $100,000 for the Aquarium’s veterinary services.

Unfortunately for the Aquarium, the sale of tickets and sponsorships has gone…well, anything but swimmingly. An aquarium spokesperson shared with the media today that Thursday’s “Aqua Vino” gala will probably net only around $50,000.

The headline in the The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reads, “Economic tide works against aquarium gala” positing that the lackluster fund-raiser was a sign of the times. “The economy is definitely having an impact,” said aquarium spokesman Dave Santucci.

Then again, maybe people are just saving up for Clarion Angels.

Restaurants Doing Harm to the Marine Aquarium Industry?

Emaciated Yellow Tang with ''Lymphocystis.'' Image BluePhish/3Reef Forums.

On Friday night, my wife and I thought we would go to this little Thai restaurant we love. As we walked into town, we talked over the menu—a great fiery bamboo, fantastic coconut shrimp soup and duck to die for. Because tourists have become an endangered species now that summer in Laguna Beach is over, not to mention the economic downturn, we did not expect to have to wait for a table in the small L-shaped restaurant. Nonetheless, only one table was available in front of the 150-gallonish marine aquarium, which usually houses a small shoal of yellow tangs swimming in and out of copious live rock. As we took our seats, I glanced into the tank, which was illuminated by actinics, and came to face-to-face with a deformed, ulcerated and diseased small yellow tang.

I took my wife’s hand and said we were leaving, indicating to the hostess on the way out that it was the tank and that they really must do something. It was more than unappetizing—it was simply cruel.

I was in a funk after leaving. We headed over to Ocean Avenue Brewery, one of our favorite spots in town with good handcrafted beer on tap and an interesting and always reliable menu. We sat on the patio and talked about the marine aquarium at the Thai restaurant. In our opinion, a restaurant or store with a poorly kept marine aquarium is potentially one of the most damaging things in the hobby. Sick fish and dismal conditions confirm, for the uninitiated, all the negative perceptions of the hobby.

And you wonder why some people are so quick to jump on the bandwagon to ban.

But it also goes well beyond perceptions and the hobby, doesn’t it? It goes to the idea that as aquarists—home aquarists or owners of restaurants with aquaria—we have a responsibility to the animals we keep, and no injury cuts deeper than employing the wonders of the sea for aesthetic points without committing the resources to appropriately and compassionately caring for those animals.

Are MPAs the Solution?

Marine protected areas (MPAs) afford a unique kind of protection to marine ecosystems. While the notion of MPAs is a well established and accepted spatial management strategy in the United States and, to a lesser degree, Europe, it is not a familiar concept in areas that boast the most tropical reef biodiversity. I’m thinking especially of Indonesia, where MPAs have, at best, a spotty track record. When it comes to the recovery of and conservation for an endangered species like the Banggai cardinalfish, some people believe MPAs (and, specifically, no-take zones), are the best approach.

In the case of the Banggai cardinalfish, and as I’ve already reported here, the local government plans to implement certification of wild-caught Banggai cardinalfish for the marine aquarium trade in conjunction with establishing MPAs. Some critics of certification, however, favor MPAs as the primary management strategy, not as a adjunct to certification.

“I am in favor of the implementation of MPAs as part of a larger spatial strategy,” says Peter Rubic, a Fisheries Research Scientist with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). “New laws passed by the Indonesian government through Marine Affairs and Fisheries can allow for zoning and spatial management.” Rubic is an expert on fish habitat and conducts spatial habitat suitability modeling (HSM) for FWC. He also has a longstanding relationship with the marine aquarium industry.

Gayatri Reksodihardjo of LINI (Yayasan Alam Indonesia Lestari) agrees in principle with the MPA concept, but, in her experience, MPAs have been relatively unsuccessful in the Banggai Islands. “While there have been some small local efforts to develop MPAs in the Banggai area,” says Reksodihardjo, “these have been very small-scale, implemented mainly by villagers, but, according to the collectors, these efforts were not given any support by government or enforcement agencies, and therefore failed.”

I asked Reksodihardjo why, in her opinion, MPAs in Indonesia have not met with success.

“While in developed countries,” she responded, “the concept of MPAs is well understood, and has a basis in law, here the situation is different.”

In her experience, large scale, “official” MPAs, while they look good on paper, are frequently drawn up hastily without consulting all the stakeholders or doing adequate research. “They may have had no community support or involvement in their development,” remarks Reksodihardjo, “and there may be no part played in their management or maintenance. Then without adequate funds, expertise, human resources, or political will on behalf of those government agencies nominally responsible for enforcing the management of these MPAs, the areas will be plundered and degraded.”

For Reksodihardjo, the problem with MPAs is not the MPA in theory, rather it is the way the MPAs are often implemented. “Taking away any sense of ownership of resources from local communities is a recipe for disaster,” she believes.

So what is the answer? Reksodihardjo believes that no-take zones will need to be developed as part of an overall, data-based Banggai cardinalfish management plan. Nonetheless, she believes, it will be the communities themselves that need to be given the responsibility of simple management and enforcement of these no-take zones, with backup from government and enforcement agencies.” Reksodihardjo cautions that this is only possible if, and only if, all of the stakeholders are on the same page from the outset.

“From our experience in other areas,” Reksodihardjo says, “the coordinated stakeholder approach to resource management, with the communities themselves being directly responsible for the management of their marine resources, with government and local NGO support, is a much more viable and realistic option.”

PG&E Partners with Public Aquarium to Address the Impact of Climate Change on Native Habitats

It was announced yesterday that the Aquarium of the Bay, about which I have written previously, is teaming up with the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) to build the 1,200 square foot PG&E Bay Lab. The exhibit, set to open in April 2009, will feature local animals that live in and near the San Francisco Bay as 'ambassadors' promoting energy conservation to help protect their habitats from the potential impact of climate change."

Nancy McFadden, senior vice president of public affairs for PG&E, California’s largest utility, said, "PG&E is proud to partner with Aquarium of the Bay on this first of its kind climate change exhibit. The Bay Lab," she continued, "will provide a unique opportunity for Californians to learn about conservation, renewable energy and the impact of climate change on our native habitats."

The creation of the PG&E Bay Lab, which will utilize solar energy as a power source, will mean that the Aquarium of the Bay can add climate change-related content to its California State Science Standards-based education program.

Did You Call Me Fat?

Male Clown Fairy Wrasse (Cirrhilabrus solorensis) Feeding on a Clam

Nineteen dolphins at Japan's Kinosaki Marine World have been put on a diet after their lackluster performances got visitor talking. "We were puzzled by their poor performance," Haruo Imazu told the Telegraph. "Then we noticed they looked rounder."

According to Kinosaki Marne World staff, the dolphins had failed to hit their targets during jumps and were having a hard time keeping upright while treading water.

Not Enough Exercise or Too any Snacks?

Was too much summer couch-sitting and No-friend-o playing to blame? Or was it the pyrotechnics used during the show? Nope. Neither was to blame. It was, in fact, the 31 pounds of mackerel and white fish (heavy on the mackerel) per day that caused the dolphins to put on as much as 22 lbs over the course of the summer.

While the New York Times suggested the South Beach diet, the husbandry staff at Kinosaki Marine World have decided to implement a less fashionable weight-management plan (far less fatty mackerel). Like any good weight-loss plan, increased exercise is part of the game plan.

A Serious Problem

While The Sun was on hand with several witty comments such as "Dolphins to lose a tun-a weight" and "hopefully they will be DOL-THIN-S", the problems associated with diet are serious ones with any captive animal.

Marine animals in captivity, even in the largest aquaria, cannot feed as they would in the wild, and it is, therefore, essential for the aquarist to understand the specific dietary needs of each of their animals and to feed accordingly.

Know Your Animal's Dietary Needs

In the most general terms, each of your marine aquarium animals can be placed into one of three categories:

• Carnivores
• Herbivores
• Omnivores

Carnivores require more protein and amino acids in their diet (e.g., meaty marine flesh, live foods, prepared frozen and dry foods for carnivores), while omnivores and herbivores (most herbivores are actually correctly considered omnivores) need a more balanced diet with plenty of plant material (e.g., nori, spirulina). Do not ignore vitamin supplements (e.g. Selcon), and, on a final note, do not overfeed, as this leads to a host of problems including, but not limited to, poor water quality and lackadaisical animals.

Required Reading

For more information on feeding, I like The Marine Fish Health & Feeding Handbook by Rick Goemans and Lance Ichinotsubo (TFH 2008).

Politics and Vagelli's Story Behind the CITES-Banggai Cardinafish Issue

In "Banggai Cardinalfish Threatened with Extinction?", I quoted Matt Pedersen who said the fish was, "on some level...recognized as endangered species." As I pointed-out in "Banggai Cardinalfish Boycott or Bluster", the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) does not see it that way. In fact, CITES said,

The information provided in the proposal to support inclusion [of the Banggai cardinalfish in CITES Appendix II] did not demonstrate a decline to criterion levels for population size. Although one subpopulation has been extirpated there was no evidence of decline in area of occurrence or number of subpopulations to criterion levels. Recent harvest levels are compatible with productivity although there are risk factors.

So why do Pedersen and others maintain that the species is endangered? A big part of it has to do with the IUCN Red List, which did, in 2007, list the Banggai cardinalfish as "Endangered." And a big part of the Banggai cardinalfish's listing on the IUCN Red List has to do with a man by the name of Alejandro A. Vagelli.

Vagelli, manager of science and conservation at the New Jersey Academy of Aquatic Sciences, is a IUCN “Coral Reef Fishes Red List Authority” and one of the leading scientific voices on the Banggai cardinalfish. His institution, The New Jersey Academy of Aquatic Sciences, plays an active role in conservation efforts, especially species survival. As the Academy's website states:

Research focuses on the study of the reproductive processes of aquatic animals to provide alternative means for breeding, or aquaculture.  Among the species the Academy studies are the jellyfish, sea ravens, gobies, and the Banggai cardinalfish.

In the 1990s, Vagelli started laboratory research on mating, embryological development, and juvenile development of the Banggai cardinalfish. In 1999, he published some of that research in Environmental Biology of Fishes.

With grants by the AZA Conservation Endowment Fund and the National Geographic Society, Vagelli was able to travel from Camden, New Jersey to the Banggai Islands, where he conducted field studies designed to estimate the size of the Banggai cardinalfish population indigenous to the area. "Should the census show a relatively small population," said an Academy spokesperson before Vagelli's field work began, "we will make a plea to the Indonesian CITES authority to put this species on CITES."

They did, and, as you already know, CITES said "no," but more on that in a bit.

According to the Academy, before Vagelli's work on the Banggai cardinalfish, only three scientific studies had been published on the species. They are:

• Kouman’s original description of the species in 1933
• an osteological study by Fraser in 1972
• Allen and Steen’s description of some of the ecological and reproductive behaviors in 1995 

During the last decade Vagelli has traveled to Indonesia to study the Banggai cardinalfish many times. His work, as has already been mentioned, was critical to the species' listing on the IUCN Red List (September 2007), and, when he failed to get CITES on board (June 2007), Vagelli went straight to the marine aquarium hobby.

Why did Vagelli go to the hobby? Because most of the negative impact on the Banggai cardinalfish is directly related to the fish's popularity in the marine aquarium hobby and habitat destruction secondary to destructive fishing techniques. Given the marine aquarium trade's impact on the species, Vagelli has chosen to actively collaborate with aquarium industry experts. This collaboration, in large part, resulted in Eric Borneman's influential and often-cited presentation at MACNA 2008, where he called for an immediate boycott on wild-caught Banggai cardinalfish (you can view the slideshow from the presentation here).

But let's back up a year and and one half to June of 2007 when the United States withdrew its proposal to list the Banggai cardinalfish on CITES' Appendix II. I have already given CITES' side of the story, but, according to Vagelli and others, there is a story behind the story. To learn about that story, I'll turn directly to Vagelli.

In July of 2007, Vagelli posted his side of the story at Marine Ornamental Fish & Invert Breeders Association (MOFIB). While the full post is required reading for anyone truly interested in the Banggai issue, I will highlight only a few salient points here.

In his post, Vagelli set out to, in his own words, "lay out the facts about the real situation of the Banggai cardinalfish, the impact of its trade in the local economy and the failure of CITES to protect this species." The gist of the Vagelli's post is that CITES' decision was based on myriad factors, least of which was the science.

...it is very disappointing to see when an organization such as CITES, that it is supposed to focus on technical/scientific data to determine the conservation status and protection needs of species, lets politics and interest groups dictate the fate of species under enormous pressure by the international trade. It is even more frustrating when, like in the case of the Banggai cardinalfish, countries and interest groups purposely use misleading information and fabricated data to easily convince other parties (who made no efforts to critically judge, either the proposal or the opposing reasons) about the inappropriateness of the proposal.

In his post, he addresses the major cited reasons for opposition to including the Banggai Cardinalfish on CITES Appendix II (including insufficient and misrepresented data, illegal research and economic impact). Vagelli concludes,

By accepting the propaganda, and by ignoring the information provided in the proposal and additional documents, as well as the supporting position of the IUCN and many conservation organizations, CITES choose to give more value to the above economic figure than to the survival of an entire species endangered by the international trade, which is more appropriately what CITES should be focusing on. This species is truly representative of the Banggai islands. It is found no place else in the world and is unique to a small number of suitable habitat patches within its range. The cultural impact of loosing this species would go way beyond the loss of economic activity associated with it. In some ways, this fish defines the identity of the region and as such has a very high intrinsic value.

In the end, a great opportunity to put in place a long-term conservation project has been lost, and consequently the Banggai coral reefs ecosystems, which are relentlessly degraded by dynamite and other destructive fishing methods, the Banggai cardinalfish, and the local people are the big losers. The CITES II listing would have encouraged the development of local aquaculture activities and would have provided needed funding to develop and enforce a sustainable management plan which would have assured not only the future of the species but long term economic benefit for the local residents from this species. As it is now, the species is at extreme risk as is its economic impact. You cannot continue to make money from something that is no longer there.

Unfortunately, nationalistic sensitivities, political pressure and various economic interests played a more influential roll in deciding the protection of the Banggai cardinalfish than the available information about the conservation status and trade of the species, and the actual position of the local people and NGO that supported the proposal.

Is the reason that CITES member nations like Australia, Japan, Thailand, Iran, and Indonesia opposed the United States proposal really because they believed the science was flawed, the research had been conducted illegally or the economic impact to local economies would be too great? Or were there other forces, as Vagelli and others maintain, at play?

Likely the truth is not quite as black and white as the Banggai cardinalfish's stunning markings (okay, admittedly it's back and silver), but the bottom line is that the future of the species hangs in the balance, and having said that, can we afford to not proceed with caution?

But how should we proceed?

Vagelli's recommendation to hobbyists as of September 2008 is clear: "I urge the hobbyist community to avoid acquiring wild capture Banggais until proper protective measures/trade regulations are in place." By "proper protective measures/trade regulations," Vagelli says he means "CITES or equivalent."

But is CITES, especially given the allegations regarding its political wranglings, the only way? While Vagelli is probably correct when he says that a CITES Appendix II listing "would have provided needed funding to develop and enforce a sustainable management plan which would have assured not only the future of the species but long term economic benefit for the local residents from this species," isn't it not true that the same ends can be achieved even without CITES? Is it not true, after all, that (as I have previously reported here) a draft management plan for the Banggai cardinalfish fishery is set to be reviewed next month (November 2008)? Is it not true that this draft management plan is the result of a series of meetings facilitated by the national government for the specific development of a comprehensive, data-based management plan? Even without the CITES listing, the Banggai fisheries district has started monitoring the harvest of Banggai cardinalfish, and the Banggai district government has established a number of marine conservation areas, which are ready to be implemented.

I don't mean to suggest that the Banggai cardinalfish should not be listed as a CITES Appendix II species, but I do believe that, in the interest of the species, we need to also look forward at the positive steps that are occurring as we all work toward a sustainable Banggai cardinalfish fishery, not to mention a sustainable and robust marine aquarium hobby.

Lots more to come, so please stay tuned.

Dubai Aquarium is Not WAZA Affiliated

After writing about the Dubai Aquarium's shark problem, I decided to follow-up with the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) regarding the Aquarium's stocking plan and husbandry practices.

I approached WAZA because I had been told by the public relations staff of the Dubai Mall (where the Aquarium is located) that the Dubai Aquarium was "developed in line with an accepted Code of Ethics and Animal Welfare Policy prescribed by the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums." I was somewhat surprised by what I learned.

WAZA is an international organization developed to "guide, encourage and support the zoos and aquariums of the world in animal care and welfare, environmental education and global conservation." Institutions such as the Dubai Aquarium may seek institutional membership in WAZA (roughly 200 zoos and aquaria are currently institutional members of WAZA) or they may choose to seek membership in a regional or national Association Member of WAZA (about 1100 zoos and aquaria are connected to the WAZA network in this manner). Given the Dubai Aquarium's proactive statement about being in line with WAZA's accepted Code of Ethics and Animal Welfare, I was surprised when WAZA told me the Dubai Aquarium "is neither a member of WAZA nor a member of a relevant regional association."

In response to my inquiry to WAZA regarding the Association's insight into the Dubai Aquarium's shark issues, Sabine Gyger of the WAZA Executive Office in Switzerland told me, "we don't have a legal basis or direct influence to do something to improve the husbandry conditions [at the Dubai Aquarium]." It is interesting to me that the Aquarium chooses to cite that their husbandry practices are in keeping with an Association to which it does not belong in any way, shape or fform.