"Most Caribbean coral reefs may disappear in the next 20 years"

[Capt Doug]

Did anyone check this out with Al Gore?

[chubby]

so...
the moral to the story is:

go out and hunt those endangered animals before they disappear!
theyre already..get those trophies NOW before its too late

[sailorboy1]

so there went 30 seconds of my life, so I figured I would past it on

[Blue Stocking]

Bermuda : Today our Minister of the Evironment read a statement to our House, relating to this issue.
This statement was extrapolated from the extremely comprehensive surveys carried out over many years.
Bermuda's reefs are apparently in better shape than most on the Caribbean.
We were singled out for praise for our 1990 ban on fish pots ( very P.O.d commercial fisherman, who were compensated based on their submitted catch statistics), and our placing of Parrotfish, and other reef grazers, on the protected species list.
The full report and statement can be read on the One Bermuda Alliance site on FB, Or the Royal Gazette online.

[MarkJ]

One of the grazers are conch. It sickens me to see the Bahamas and Caribbean denuded of them. Piles of shells. Conch salad for tourists. Just raping the environment.

And its the locals that do it.

[jwing]

My experience is that the Bahamian reefs are dying at an alarming rate. The amount and variety of fish have gone way down, the remaining fish are smaller, and the dead coral/living coral ratio is getting greater. Of course, it may be part of some natural cycle that I am unaware of. Judging from the rate that I observe, it is not an unreasonable extrapolation that the Caribbean coral will be wiped out in 20 years.

The IUCN summary says that a main driver is the overfishing of parrotfish. That is surprising to me; I am unaware of the practice of taking parrotfish. Is that a real thing?

The actual report is weak on cause-and-effect interactions of the Caribbean ecosystem. The decline of the parrotfish may be due to factors other than fishing, such as exotic pathogens imported by freight ships, and exotic predators, such as lionfish. I have seen the lionfish population explode and I'm seeing bigger individuals as time goes on. No telling what I can't see.

[Robin3]

I just watched a bit of an episode of 'Enviropals' on PBS this morning showing their 'heroic' actions in getting rid of invading Parrot fish.. Must be those pesky brats then.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Pete7

So the report was written by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. Wonder what their objectives are.

Pete

Pete, from thier website:

IUCN at a glance

• Founded in 1948 as the world’s first global environmental organisation
• Today the largest professional global conservation network
• A leading authority on the environment and sustainable development
• More than 1,200 member organizations including 200+ government and 900+ non-government organizations
• Almost 11,000 voluntary scientists and experts, grouped in six Commissions in some 160 countries
• IUCN’s work is supported by over 1,000 staff in 45 offices and hundreds of partners in public, NGO and private sectors around the world. The Union’s headquarters are located in Gland, near Geneva, in Switzerland.
  
• A neutral forum for governments, NGOs, scientists, business and local communities to find practical solutions to conservation and development challenges
  
• Thousands of field projects and activities around the world
• Governance by a Council elected by member organizations every four years at the IUCN World Conservation Congress
• Funded by governments, bilateral and multilateral agencies, foundations, member organisations and corporations
• Official Observer Status at the United Nations General Assembly

It is a unique organization without agenda other than the scientific conservation of species based on scientific biological facts. That science is agnostic as to outcomes, it just reports it, and what policy makers decide to do with it, is another issue.

I sat on our jurisdictions Endangered Species board for 14 years, and we, as virtually every other similar board on the globe does, used their criteria as a screen for which species were listed.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Coops

That is no proof that there is no bias or sensationalism at all in their reports.

Coops.

Coops, see my response to Pete. I know this organization well.

[John Drake]

It is convenient to think of the problem having one or two simple causes that could be related to a political solution. The fact of the matter is, the causes of coral decline and death are manifold.

As a diver of more than 30 years, diving FL for more than 20 and having actually studied and published on the subject in the early 1980's, I can give a few of my personal observations.

Coral decline started a very long time ago. It was recognized in the 1970's and many theories pursued since the 1980's. Infectious agents were looked at, pollution, nutrients from run off, predators, and the loss of grazers. All these do play a role.

What I observed in FL, over the past 8 years was much more dramatic. Basically, the physical destruction of the reefs from the vary people that enjoy them. You can see palm prints from divers and snorkelers in some corals. Monofilament fishing lines are now so ubiquitous underwater that divers are taking 2 and 3 knives, so as not to be without a back up. It can be that dangerous. The throngs of youthful snorkelers that come to the keys kick the reefs with their fins, and hang on with their hands destroying the living surface layer, instantly.

Storms and 'canes that have whipped through in the past few years ripped up the sea grass to the point where it is huge decaying mats on the surface, that created significant algal blooms.

And certainly, over fishing and the introduction of lionfish, deplete the species that are healthy for the reef.

The only solution would be to turn back time, to a point when there was fewer people on land, and even fewer on the sea. Pretty impossible to do.

Luckily, what may be the salvation of our reefs is the fact that there are numerous DEEP reefs, unreachable, untouched. Unfortunately, the lionfish have found these and are now established on them.

What YOU can do: Go Now. I am ever thankful for the Pardey's advice: Go Small, Go Now. Glad I did, when I did (for a number of reasons).

Best

John

[jwing]

Originally Posted by John Drake

...The only solution would be to turn back time, to a point when there was fewer people on land, and even fewer on the sea. Pretty impossible to do.

Luckily, what may be the salvation of our reefs is the fact that there are numerous DEEP reefs, unreachable, untouched. Unfortunately, the lionfish have found these and are now established on them...

My experience matches. The lionfish are larger and more numerous in deeper water, where the reefs appear to be more healthy.

I'm wondering if MORE people might be the solution to the lionfish invasion. Spearfishing in The Bahamas has always been too sporty for most people; I've heard (but not confirmed) that it is now permissable to take lionfish with scuba assistance. It may be too late.

[a64pilot]

I think you can kill a Lionfish that is not in a park, most anyway you like, I don't think there is any love for them.
Many places spearfishing with Scuba is allowable, not all spearfishing is done on shallow reefs.

[John Drake]

It would be nice if there were a simple solution to the lionfish problem. Unfortunately, the most recent report from areas where they have tried to deplete the lionfish population, showed that it was a temporary benefit at best. Fish from deeper waters simply came up to take the place of fish that were taken.

Spearfishing is great fun, but, in reality, any human activity on a reef can damage it. An errant spear hitting coral, a line dragged over coral. A diver hanging onto or touching coral.

The problem is, it simply adds up faster than the reef can replenish itself.

I think what we will see is the decline of reefs that are dived by people. But, the world wide coral population will not get wiped out. And after some time, the near shore reefs will gain population from the once a year spawn of the deeper, offshore corals. ....Hopefully.

That does not mean we should not do a better job of limiting run off, nutrients from waste treatment etc. I do wish we could do a better job of people diving and fishing on the near shore reefs, being a little kinder and gentler with them. Maybe the dive operators could be more diligent about that and educate their customers better. And the Keys, instead of blackwater treatment locally, ship it out for treatment in Dade County (which will obviously not be very acceptable to Dade County).

Anyway....my 0.02

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by avb3

Pete, from thier website:


It is a unique organization without agenda other than the scientific conservation of species based on scientific biological facts. That science is agnostic as to outcomes, it just reports it, and what policy makers decide to do with it, is another issue.

I sat on our jurisdictions Endangered Species board for 14 years, and we, as virtually every other similar board on the globe does, used their criteria as a screen for which species were listed.

Thanks, that would make a nice change from some of the other global warming nonsense.

However, what are they proposing as a solution? don't fish - yet the Caribbean is surrounded by really poor countries what are they going to eat instead? I don't have an answer and I am not sure there is one.

Pete

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Pete7

Thanks, that would make a nice change from some of the other global warming nonsense.

However, what are they proposing as a solution?

It would help a little if people (especially those acting as moderators) would stop referring to AGW as 'nonsense'. Every year brings more information that the deniers are wrong and the science is sound.

Another solution - stop pretending there aren't solutions. Anyone who cruises is already experienced with practising moderation and living within reasonable constraints. We need the political will to start practicing that on a broader scale.