Ret Talbot Live

Banggai Cardinalfish Boycott or Bluster?

In my blog entry of 12 September 2008 titled “A Retailer that Cares,” I expressed interest in Matt Wittenrich’s recent blog entry highlighting Eric Borneman's call to boycott wild-caught Banggai cardinalfish (Pterapogon kauderni). I went on in my blog entry to share a story about a retailer that has elected to use a self-imposed system of restricting certain species for sale based on that species’ status and the overall health of the wild population. The program, called CARE (Conscientious Aquarist Restricted Species), uses the Banggai cardinalfish as the visual component of the program’s logo, and wild-caught Banggai cardinalfish were one of the first species listed as a CARE species.

So do I think that hobbyists should boycott wild-caught Banggai cardinalfish?

I said in that blog entry that “I tend to agree with Matt and Eric,” although I did allude to some other thinking on the subject when I wrote, “some industry people I really respect have challenged me as of late about whether or not this is an issue over which we should be drawing a line in the sand.” The industry person whom “I really respect” happened to recently write a letter to Microcosm Aquarium Explorer titled “Boycott? Bah.” Bob Fenner, author of The Conscientious Marine Aquarist, opens that letter with a statement that may surprise some people:

“This species is not threatened in the wild.”

Bob roots this statement in his own first-hand experience, and I can tell you he is not the only one to think this way. In fact, most individuals with whom I have spoken who have first-hand experience in the waters around the Banggai Islands (the indigenous habitat for this species) agree with Bob’s assessment. Further, the March 2007 “Report of the Second FAO Ad Hoc Expert Advisory Panel for the Assessment of Proposals to Amend Appendices I and II of CITES Concerning Commercially-Exploited Aquatic Species” (now that’s a mouthful!), the panel concluded that the proposed inclusion of the Banggai cardinalfish on CITES Appendix II was unwarranted because the species did not “meet the biological criteria for Appendix II listing.” Here is what the Panel concluded:

The information provided in the proposal to support inclusion 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. International trade is the major factor driving exploitation of this species.

In short, the science does not at present support the claim that the Banggai Cardinalfish “must be controlled in order to avoid utilization incompatible with their survival” (which is the standard for inclusion on Appendix II).

So why would Eric Borneman, certainly a respected name from both a science and a hobby perspective, give a presentation on boycotting wild-caught Banggai cardinalfish at MACNA, why would that presentation be so well received, and why would Matt (again a trusted name) write enthusiastically about Eric’s presentation? I do not (and will not) presume to know Eric’s or Matt’s motivations, but I can share my own thoughts on the subject. I’m sure Matt and Eric will do the same.

I believe that the marine aquarium industry has had a significant impact on this species, but I also believe that we currently lack the data necessary to define the scope of that impact. As Ron Lilley wrote after his trip to the Banggai Islands on behalf of the of the Marine Aquarium Council (MAC) in the fall of 2007, “Although attempts have been made over the past few years to study this fish, the research has been narrow, short-term and piecemeal. This has led to conflicting accounts of its true status. There is an urgent need to conduct longer-term monitoring and data collection so that fish population trends may be identified and strategic action taken.”

To me, given our lack of good data, we, as an industry and has individual hobbyists, are not misguided in going slow regarding how we approach the retail sale of wild-caught Banggai cardinalfish. Does that mean a boycott is the answer? To be honest, I don’t know, but, as I said in my previous blog post, I do support a company like Blue Zoo Aquatics (the company with the CARE program) that chooses to self-regulate based on their perception of the situation. Likewise, I support individual aquarists who choose to not purchase wild-caught Banggai cardinalfish—again based on their perception of the situation in and around the Banggai Islands.

Speaking of perception, this is really the take-home point for me in regard to the Banggai cardinalfish. This is, as Lilley points out, the first popular marine ornamental fish to become an international CITES issue. Whether warranted or not, this species has gotten the airtime, and, as such, I think we as an industry need to be very careful in terms of how we are perceived in relationship to this animal. At the very least, given this species’ relatively limited range and huge popularity in the hobby, it seems reasonable to assume that an appropriate management plan must be in place and sustainable collection techniques must be employed if we are going to actively market wild-caught Banggai cardinalfish.

At present, it is my understanding that a comprehensive management plan is not in place, nor are sustainable collection practices being consistently employed. Until such time as we have the data, a management plan in place and sustainable collection techniques in use, self-regulating either at the retail level of the hobbyist level seems appropriate to me.

As always, this is a complex issue with many, many facets and myriad shades of gray. I certainly don’t want to ignore the economic value to Banggai collectors, especially as I believe that supporting (and growing) sustainable economies throughout developing regions such as Indonesia is one legitimate justification for a sustainable and robust marine aquarium industry. As the aforementioned Panel pointed out, “Short-term socioeconomic impacts of listing could…be significant for local communities.” Likewise, the short-term socioeconomic impacts of self-regulation will probably prove significant for local communities. Nonetheless, in the interest of sustainability (both environmental and economic) the ecosystems and the animals they support must always come first, which brings me to my final point for today.

The real risk in my mind of focusing too much industry energy and resources on the Banggai cardinalfish issue is that it diverts our attention away from other issues which arguably need more attention and are having a greater impact on ecosystems. While the Banggai cardinalfish may get the air time and be more “sexy” than discussing the down and dirty of destructive fishing practices, we absolutely must take it upon ourselves as an industry to keep our eyes on the big picture.

I’m certain there will be more to come on this issue, and I welcome your comments...

Herbivores & Our Aquariums: Knowing What We Think We Know

Pencilstreaked Rabbitfish, Siganus doliatus. Image © Scott Michael.

I’ve been writing a lot about herbivorous aquarium fishes recently. To me, they are emblematic of that which I care about most in this hobby—the intersection of science, conservation and marine aquarium-keeping.

In terms of the aquarist in me, I love herbivorous fishes for their ability to control algae growth and their interesting behaviors, but I am also keenly aware of concerns expressed by conservationists about dwindling wild populations of species like the once ubiquitous yellow tang. I believe a robust marine aquarium industry can and should play a critical role in tropical reef conservation, but like any industry, I believe we must ensure we do so in a sustainable manner, and sustainability brings me to science.

Charting a course for our industry into the future must be based on sustainability insofar as marine researchers define it based on their field work within the reef ecosystems we strive to replicate in our aquaria. Yes, there are other legitimate concerns, such as local economies dependent on the marine trade in developing island nations, but, as aquarists, we must also make an effort to guide our industry based on the available data. The natural byproduct, of course, is that we become better aquarists by better understanding the animals we keep.

Nature's Biocontrols

As it turns out, scientists are interested in herbivorous fishes for much the same reason that aquarists are—as a biological control for marine algae. Neither aquarists nor scientists like to see algae-dominated reefs where corals are choked to death. Increasingly, however, this is what scientists are seeing on the world’s tropical reefs. Finding which fishes are the best grazers on which types of algae may prove critical to helping degraded reefs recover.

It may also prove important to developing better husbandry practices when keeping herbivorous fishes in marine aquaria where most of us commonly assume that an herbivore is an herbivore is an herbivore.

Dr. David Bellwood, a researcher from the Australian Research Council (ARC) Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies,has demonstrated in his research that we don’t really know as much as we think we do about herbivores.

In a recent experiment, Bellwood caged off plots on the Great Barrier Reef in order to prevent any large herbivores from grazing. As expected, dense macroalgae  (e.g. Sargassum spp.) grew.

When Bellwood removed the cages three years later, he watched, expecting the 43 known herbivorous fishes in the area to work their magic. What he saw, however, was a couple of large batfish eating almost all the macroalgae, while the known herbivores essentially ignored it. This shocked Bellwood for a couple of reasons. First, batfishes are relatively rare on the Great Barrier Reef and second, they are considered omnivores with a strong preference for meaty marine flesh.

Batfish Surprises

“Much to my amazement, the batfish appeared to be attracted to the algal stands,” says Bellwood. “It was not at all what I expected, as algal feeding is unusual for this species of batfish. Sessile invertebrates, not Sargassum, normally dominate this fish’s diet.”

Pinnate Batfish, Platax pinnatus, juvenile. © Scott Michael.

Within five days of removing the cages, the batfish had cut the volume of macroalgae in half, and, after eight weeks, they had virtually removed it all. Two months of daily video tape showed eleven species of rabbitfishes (Siganidae), 15 species of parrotfishes (Scaridae), seven species of surgeonfishes (Acanthuridae), and two species of rudderfishes (Kyphosidae) move through the study site, and yet, except for two of the rabbitfish species, none of them fed to any extent on the macroalgae.

What does this mean for my aquarium? Well it doesn’t mean I’m headed out to buy a batfish (although based on some of my discussions with Dr. Bellwood, rabbitfishes are my top aquarium herbivorous fishes), but it does mean that I am thinking about herbivory in a different light. It’s interesting to note that, as aquarists, we already knew much of what Bellwood demonstrated.

For example, how many of us have at some point introduced an animal to take care of an out-of-control algae problem, knowing that once the algae was gone, other animals would have to be employed for future maintenance? While Bellwood’s study may have upset the conventional wisdom within the scientific community, his results were fairly consistent with what we, as aquarists, already knew.

This makes me excited about opening up more avenues for dialog between scientists and aquarists in pursuit of a sustainable hobby, sustainable ecosystems and better husbandry.