Finally the Roatan Marine Park gets a clue

[Sloeber]

You are talking about ecto-parasites, the 'outside' ones, essentially lice and leeches. I am talking about endo-parasites, the inside ones. These are numerous and very tightly tied to the ecosystem from where they come. They are also generally very species specific. There are parasites that come in the food supply, like tapeworm and nematodes, parasites that drill in through the skin like schistosomiasis, and parasites that are injected through the skin, like malaria. There is even a fish parasite that eats and replaces its host's tongue and functions as a tongue while living off the host's blood supply.

Aquarium fish rarely have these parasites. Their food is either cooked or frozen, which eliminates most of the ones in food, their water is either filtered or created from fresh and blood suckers are not usually kept in the aquariums.

All the makes good common sense, until you remember Lionfish are not captive bred. Every single Lionfish in captivity was harvested from the wild, and thus would have already been exposed to the parasites you describe. Furthermore, the average hobbyist in no way knows how to medically treat these fish for removal of these parasites, so it would give the existing parasites a chance to prosper.

Furthermore, once the original aquarium fish were released, they were once again suseptible of reacquiring more parasites. So this arguement is mostly moot unless you are claiming the scientists captured fish which were only recently released from an aquarium. The chances of a scientiest acquiring a number of different animals for research purposes and all of them being recently released from an aquarium are highly unlikely.

The study was done by a biologist who was doing genetic studies on reef fish. The lionfish ate his subjects. All he did was count how many fish were no longer on a reef head after lionfish appeared on that reef head.

Again, can you please provide the reference for my (and other's) reading enjoyment?

You didn't save any fish.

You use a funny math.

You killed thousands of invertebrates needed for the health of the reef. Due to overfishing, the population of small reef fish has exploded out of control.

But wait, you just said we didn't save any fish. How can we save none, and yet experience an out-of-control fish explotion at the same time?

These small reef fish are in reality causing conditions that is killing off the coral that actually makes the reef.

Please go into more detail on this. It wouldn't be the first time I couldn't see the forest through the trees, but I don't see how having more gobies, blennies, and seahorses, etc., kills off coral. Overharvesting Surgeonfish, Parrotfish, and other herbivores? You betchya. Gobies? I'd like a better explanation of how they contribute to coral loss...

Actually, almost nothing is KNOWN about the planktonic stage of lionfish. I believe they are living in sargassum mats, which would make them inaccessible to many of the predators you mention.

Almost knowing is known about the platonic stage of any marine fish, including lionfish. However, what we do know is the larval stage bathes the reefs with a constant, tremendous amount of food. When a female lionfish releases her eggs, she is living on a reef when she does this. Same as surgeonfish, angelfish, etc. They all release platonic eggs and sperm, all of which bathes the reef with food. Some gets carried away from the reef to colonize sargassum mats as you say, but in order to get there... it's a periless journey past billions of mouths.

Once again, you make my point. Spend the effort to conserve the Goliath. The lionfish is not really the problem. A food web with major pieces ripped out is.

Usually the best approach isn't a focused, single idea objective, but rather a multi-faceted and multi-directional assault. Yes, we should help foster the recovery of th elarge predatory fish, but that doesn't mean we should also ignore other ways of reaching the objective. After all, all those lionfish are eating juvenile jewfish and goliaths, too.

 

[RTBDiver]

Again, can you please provide the reference for my (and other's) reading enjoyment?



.

I am waiting with baited hook, At least thats my story because I am told I cannot spear lionfish

 

[Sloeber]

Published yesterday by the NY Times, figured it was relevant.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/science/23lionfish.html?_r=2&emc=tnt&tntemail1=y

Quote of note from the article:

Researchers here examined more than 1,000 lionfish stomachs and found more than 50 species of prey fish inside, including juveniles of commercially important grouper and snapper. The fish also eat juvenile parrotfish, which graze on algae and keep it from overgrowing and killing corals.

Gee, sound familar? If not, re-read my earlier posts above. Lionfish are consuming our herbivores which only adds additional stress to an already stressed reef. Furthermore, the groupers and snappers we hope begin eating the lionfish are they themselves food items of the lionfish.

 

[Sloeber]

Although I certainly will not debate the original origin of introduction, and no doubt some specimens of lionfish have likely found their way from the aquarium trade into non-native waters, it's your insistance, Fred R., that the aquarium trade is solely responsible for the introduction that I take offense at.

Further research yields this study from NOAA.

Quotes of note:

Two individual scorpaenids have been found in ballast water (Wonham et al., 2000), and lionfish are reported from several harbor areas (Schultz, 1986) making an introduction of lionfish via ballast water possible. Further, one adult scorpionfish (genus Sebastiscus), an Asian species, was collected in Sydney Harbor and ballast water is a likely mechanism of introduction.... In the end, the specific sequence of events that led to the invasion of lionfish will never be known with absolute certainty...

 

[CODMAN]

Ballast water could be partly responsible Sloeber... But ships fillling ballasts in the Pacific and dumping the water in the Atlantic are rerlatively few... That would mean them leaving the Pacific regions empty of cargo (full of ballast) to fill up cargo (empty ballast) in the Atlantic. Which is probably very rare (ship owners generally don't like their ships running for long periods empty ( loss of $$$$$$$$), not to mention that not that many ships actually do that shipping route (they will often offload cargo on the west coast) and truck it/ pipeline it to final destination, or whatever is faster in between...

That doesn't mean it can't be a/the way of introduction in this case... It's always hard to be certain 100% about the origins of introductions... But the aquarium trade is in my oppinion a more likely culprit....

Thanks for sharring that report; when I get the time I'm definetly going to read it fully... Funny how they didn't mention spearing as an efficient means of controling the population....
I tell ya those scientists are always forgetting something of importance...

Cheers!

Although I certainly will not debate the original origin of introduction, and no doubt some specimens of lionfish have likely found their way from the aquarium trade into non-native waters, it's your insistance, Fred R., that the aquarium trade is solely responsible for the introduction that I take offense at.

Further research yields this study from NOAA.

Quotes of note:

 

[Mike]

Ships have been running back and forth all over the world for a lot longer than the 1980s or 1990s or whatever time line you want to use for their introduction to the Caribbean. Had bilges or ballast been the cause of them getting to the Caribbean logic dictates they would have arrived long, long ago.

 

[Sloeber]

Ballast water could be partly responsible Sloeber... But ships fillling ballasts in the Pacific and dumping the water in the Atlantic are rerlatively few... That would mean them leaving the Pacific regions empty of cargo (full of ballast) to fill up cargo (empty ballast) in the Atlantic. Which is probably very rare (ship owners generally don't like their ships running for long periods empty ( loss of $$$$$$$$), not to mention that not that many ships actually do that shipping route (they will often offload cargo on the west coast) and truck it/ pipeline it to final destination, or whatever is faster in between...

That doesn't mean it can't be a/the way of introduction in this case... It's always hard to be certain 100% about the origins of introductions... But the aquarium trade is in my oppinion a more likely culprit....

Thanks for sharring that report; when I get the time I'm definetly going to read it fully... Funny how they didn't mention spearing as an efficient means of controling the population....
I tell ya those scientists are always forgetting something of importance...

Cheers!

CODMAN,

I do agee with you. The point of that post was to show the lack of factual information that Fred R. seems to be citing and claiming as factual. Example:

First, the lionfish invasion started with an aquarium damaged during hurricane Andrew in Miami. According to NOAA studies, six or seven lionfish were responsible for the entire Gulf Stream invasion.

and...

This is or was the official story of NOAA, published by the best scientists they could hire.

So we pressed him for the citations of such claims, and none were offered. Starting at NOAA, the organization he claims is publishing those "facts," I then found the above linked study with the results I'll post again so save the scrolling.

Two individual scorpaenids have been found in ballast water (Wonham et al., 2000), and lionfish are reported from several harbor areas (Schultz, 1986) making an introduction of lionfish via ballast water possible. Further, one adult scorpionfish (genus Sebastiscus), an Asian species, was collected in Sydney Harbor and ballast water is a likely mechanism of introduction.... In the end, the specific sequence of events that led to the invasion of lionfish will never be known with absolute certainty...

At least for me, this only makes me desire to see Fred R.'s citatons even moreso. I checked a single NOAA study and it certainly doesn't say what Fred R. claims it says.

Fred, still waiting on those other references. Thanks.

 

[Sloeber]

Ships have been running back and forth all over the world for a lot longer than the 1980s or 1990s or whatever time line you want to use for their introduction to the Caribbean. Had bilges or ballast been the cause of them getting to the Caribbean logic dictates they would have arrived long, long ago.

Faulty logic really. Scientists have only been mapping marine fish for the last 100 years, and only recently finished their very first census of marine life. An average of 3 new fish species are discovered EVERY WEEK (many marine biologists expect us to document over 5000 new species of fish in the coming years). Our level of ignorance on marine fish is so profound it cannot be described in words. To say it "would have arrived long, long ago," well, maybe they did. What we do know is there are documented reports of that happening, so to say "not possible" is blinding yourself from factual information. Clearly, at the very least, it is information the scientists involved with NOAA took into consideration when they published their report with the generally finding of "we don't know."

 

[Fred R.]

Lionfish Invasion: Super Predator Threatens Caribbean Coral Reefs

NOAA Coral Reef Information System (CoRIS) - Professional Exchanges -The IndoPacific lionfish invasion of the U.S. south Atlantic sea coast and Caribbean Sea

Google, it is your friend...

NOAA has ameliorated its story a bit since I last read their reports, but here is their latest.

I don't know who will be able, or wish to, attend, but I will be doing a presentation on the five year effects of lionfish on the Bahama reefs where I do my observations.

The presentation is to the New England Aquarium Dive Club and will be on February 16th in Boston.

I will not be carrying this conversation further here on Scuba Board as I am preparing my findings for publication and Scuba Board's TOS is a conflict as SB claims copyright on my words here.

 

[CODMAN]

Well I certainly have nothing against references!

CODMAN,

I do agee with you. The point of that post was to show the lack of factual information that Fred R. seems to be citing and claiming as factual. Example:



and...



So we pressed him for the citations of such claims, and none were offered. Starting at NOAA, the organization he claims is publishing those "facts," I then found the above linked study with the results I'll post again so save the scrolling.



At least for me, this only makes me desire to see Fred R.'s citatons even moreso. I checked a single NOAA study and it certainly doesn't say what Fred R. claims it says.

Fred, still waiting on those other references. Thanks.