Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Wild Caught PNG Maroons – A Discussion of Retail Pricing

August 22, 2012 TheLightningProject 9 comments

PNG fish are certainly taking center stage right now; between Lightning Maroon Clownfish babies, and the new introduction of sustainably-collected PNG fish from EcoAquariums PNG via UniqueCorals.com, there is no shortage of news on the PNG front. The speculation about what Lightning Maroon Clown offspring will sell for hasn’t abated, and to that end, I can still say that nothing has been decided.
I did, however, contact Scott Fellman (of Unique Corals) and Dale Prichard (of Ecoreef UK) to ask how much it cost, at retail, to get one of Dan Navin’s wild-caught PNG White Stripe Maroons, as well as the unique “Horned” and other “Unique” versions that come out of PNG once in a while. What I found is that sustainability does carry a small premium, and by the same token, uniqueness carries it’s own premium pricetag as well. The part that people will find interesting is that these prices suggest a minimum or baseline starting point for what the non-Lightning offspring could go for. That said, it’s safe to assume that there will be additional value on these Lightning-Maroon siblings given the genetic dice-role involved.
Dale Prichard is quick to point out that the UK market is smaller than the US market, as if to suggest that “demand” might be lower and thus, prices would be lower. Maybe, but on the flipside, Dale has been supplying retailers with PNG fish for several months now, so the UK may represent a more valid market to look at. A small normal white stripe maroon from PNG would start retailing at £27; or roughly $45 USD based on recent exchange rates via the Google Currency Converter. That said, Dale relayed that more maroons retail around £40 / $63 USD. A “Horned” Maroon is really going to set you back; while the retail value may be placed at £80 / $126, the reality is that retailers are normally selling these special fish paired with normal white stripes. The net result is your more likely to spend £100 to £120, or $157 to $189 in order to have a PNG “Horned” Maroon Clownfish in your aquarium in the UK. Here’s some examples of the fish Dale Prichard has been seeing come through the Ecoreef UK under his watch, some of which may have been held back for breeding efforts.

courtesy EcoreefUK ltd and Digital-Reefs.com

courtesy EcoreefUK ltd and Digital-Reefs.com

courtesy EcoReefUK / Dale Prichard

courtesy EcoreefUK ltd and Digital-Reefs.com

courtesy EcoreefUK ltd and Digital-Reefs.com

courtesy EcoreefUK ltd and Digital-Reefs.com

Scott Fellman and the team officially launched UniqueCorals.com today, August 22nd, 2012. The opening price for a regularly-striped white stripe maroon from PNG? They’re going to start around $39 each for the smallest size:

Small White Stripe PNG Maroon @ UniqueCorals.com - $39

courtesy UniqueCorals.com / photo by John Ciotti

A representative shot (not WYSIWYG) – Small normal WS Maroon for – $39 – http://uniquecorals.com/index.php/default/fish-28/anemonefish/premas-biaculeatus-png-maroon-clownfish-small.html

Medium White Stripe PNG Maroon @ UniqueCorals.com - $49

courtesy UniqueCorals.com / photo by John Ciotti

A representative shot (not WYSIWYG) – Medium normal WS Maroon – $49 – http://uniquecorals.com/index.php/default/fish-28/anemonefish/premas-biaculeatus-png-maroon-clownfish-med.html

A uniquely-patterned Maroon from PNG? Expect to be paying in the neighborhood of $150-ish as a starting point, going up as the markings become more elaborate / intricate.

WYSIWYG Misbar PNG White Stripe Maroon Clownfish from UniqueCorals.com - $149

courtesy UniqueCorals.com / photo by John Ciotti

WYSIWYG a “misbar” (has a spot) maroon from PNG – $149 and already sold – http://uniquecorals.com/index.php/default/fish-28/anemonefish/premas-biaculeatus-png-horned-maroon-clownfish-misbar-007247-wysiwyg.html

WYSIWYG Horned PNG White Stripe Maroon Clownfish from UniqueCorals.com - $200

courtesy UniqueCorals.com / photo by John Ciotti

WYSIWYG, a “horned” maroon from PNG – $200 and already sold – http://uniquecorals.com/index.php/default/fish-28/anemonefish/premas-biaculeatus-png-maroon-clownfish-horned-008131-wysiwyg.html

WYSIWYG Unquie PNG White Stripe Maroon Clownfish from UniqueCorals.com - $395

courtesy UniqueCorals.com / photo by John Ciotti

WYSIWYG, a “unique” maroon with lightning-like tail misbarring from PNG – $395 – http://uniquecorals.com/index.php/default/fish-28/anemonefish/premas-biaculeatus-png-maroon-clownfish-misbar-extreme-eco-labeled-png-009764-wysiwyg.html
So realistically, an unusually-marked PNG Maroon with a White-Stripe mate from the only current US-source for wild-caught PNG fish, UniqueCorals.com, is easily going to set you back $200 to $450.
Judging these maroons with other wild caught maroons probably isn’t a fair comparison; owing to the more remote PNG location and the higher level of transparency and data availability, you should fully expect the fish to cost more. For that matter, this might be a real world example of a slow shift towards more expensive wild caught fish ultimately producing the same level of income despite lowered volumes. That could be a very good thing. Scott takes this price discussion one step further when in is quick to remind me that the divers are paid significantly better in the first place. Scott relayed that, “Dan’s fishers are paid a good wage for their work, which, and of itself, helps drive the cost up. Of course, with the higher wages, the fishers place a real economic value on their home reefs, and thus are less likely to resort ot potentially damaging and non-sustainable techniques (ie; dynamite, blast fishing, etc.) to catch as many fishes as they can just to earn a living wage.”
On top of all this, PNG is always going to represent a potentially restricted supply; the government-set TACs (Total Allowable Catches), aka. a “quota” in most fisheries, will automatically place a cap on the number of any species of fish that can be exported from PNG in a given timeframe. This number could further be restricted if updated surveys were to conclude that population numbers were dropping; this is almost textbook fisheries management 101 in my opinion. But apparently I’ve come to learn that this methodology, and the setting of any specific quota, is quite rare marine ornamental fisheries around the globe.
PNG fishes are more than just nice fish with a good back story and a limited supply; they might represent the current ideal in terms of broodstock for captive breeding efforts. Indeed, as breeding moves forward, getting fish from good supply chains with known provenance should represent the bare minimum that a breeder uses in selection of wild stock for propagation. Eg. don’t just settle for any old clownfish; if you’re going to breed Pink Skunks, know if they came from the Marshall Islands, Fiji, Tonga, Vanuatu, Australia, or somewhere else! You never know when some taxonomist or geneticist is going to come along and say “hey, that Marshall Islands form of Pink Skunk is actually not the same species”…wouldn’t it be nice to know that you had that “new species” already breeding in your broodstock collection?
But getting back to PNG and “Horned” Maroons, remember that the EcoAquariums Ltd. fish aren’t just going to the UK, and now the US, but also to other Asian markets. Remember that there is an encounter rate only 1 unique maroon found every 11 days, or roughly 3 per month. If this represents ALL the fish available to the worldwide market from PNG, let’s just hypothetically give the UK, the US, and Asia equal weight. If the unique fish are divvied up equally, at best, we here in the US could expect to see roughly one “Horned” Maroon land here per month. Now, maybe there will be more collecting with the US market coming online, and that could offset some of this (eg. maybe the encounter rate for unique maroon clownfish will go up with more divers in the water looking for more fish to fill more demand), it’s hard to say. But given the track record to date, look at this this way – 12 of these might come into the country per year.

courtesy EcoReefUK / Dale Prichard

courtesy EcoreefUK ltd and Digital-Reefs.com

Is $150 to $400 a fair price? Well, the market decides that, but think about all the designer and hybrid clownfish being sold in the three digit range without consumers batting an eye? Yeah, I’m talking about the insane Black Ice Clownfish fad that’s going on right now, where no one can get enough. Nevermind that the Black Ice is a hybrid, and that it’s really not that far off from a Picasso Perc (which as it turned out is a naturally occurring variation), but I suppose it goes to show how fickle people’s tastes really can be, and perhaps how uninformed consumers really are. Of course, how many hundreds of Black Ice are sold each month here in the US? Compared to a possible 12 wild caught Horned Maroons per year? I think, if anything, a potentially restricted supply might suggest that the price of a “Horned” Maroon might in fact be much higher, at least in the current setting. Of course, there’s the notion that maroons are “evil”, and having had a lot of ’em in the last few years, I think that’s overblown. Most of my Maroons have shared tanks with other fish, and not one has killed a fish it was housed with. Hardly the murderous tyrants some folks make them out to be.
All of this now brings me back to the bucket full of babies in my basement. If we take the market prices from wild caught fish and ignore everything else, it’s reasonable to assume that a small F1 baby that is 100% normally barred should fetch at least $40. A baby showing some extra markings? Well, that right there could represent a fish valued at $150 or more. Definitely, any babies showing up with “Horns” wouldn’t sell for less than $150-$200. Really funky ones? Maybe they’re going to fetch $300-$500 a shot? What I can’t tell you yet is how much a 33-38% chance of the babies carrying Lightning genetics ads to the price of a non-lightning baby.
In a subsequent installment, we’ll talk about Lightning Maroon pricing, and how a hypothetical third wild-caught Lightning Maroon Clownfish might be handled and priced, straight from Dan Navin, director of EcoAquariums PNG.

General Topics, Images and Videos, Other Maroon Clownfish buy, Dale Prichard, Daniel Navin, EcoAquariums PNG LTD, for sale, horned, horned maroon clownfish, lightning maroon clownfish, PNG, price, pricing, retail, Scott Fellman, UniqueCorals.com, white stripe maroon clownfish

Comments (9)

#1 | Written by David Vosseler about 12 years ago.

Excellent explanation of how pricing works for rare and desireable fish, however repeating unproven claims of sustainability require some sort of proof to make beyond what Ecoaquariums says on their website. “Working closely with the Papua New Guinea National Fisheries Authority (NFA), EcoAquariums abides by Total Allowable Catch (TAC) limits that the NFA establishes for each species on each reef from which we collect. The NFA establishes these catch limits based on proven scientific survey techniques, primarily belt transects, which allow the fisheries officers to form population estimates, and accurate sustainable catch levels, for each species.” The setting of TACs requires more than proven survey techniques, it requires a workable formula for estimating populations and harvesting quotas. The only other trialed and working TAC system besides EcoEZ’s that I’ve experienced involves the use of MAC’s MAQTRAC system. NFA was using our system but these are now out of date and were designed for fishing in less than 10m in depth which Ecoaquariums is exceeding regularly. There is no word in the English language right now to replace sustainability, so its use in support of any company’s claim requires some acceptable level of proof that to date has not been shown anywhere. Our trade loses credibility when we allow statements like this to be made without challenge or question. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Kudos to Ecoaquarium’s traceability system however, this IS an extrordinary achievement.
- #2 | Written by Matt Pedersen about 12 years ago.
  
  David, I want to address one key point that you raised – “NFA was using our system but these are now out of date and were designed for fishing in less than 10m in depth which Ecoaquariums is exceeding regularly.”
  I asked Dan Navin about the depth limit and the TACs they are using; I cannot address the date issue (obviously the setting of TACs is an ongoing adjustment based on ongoing surveys). What I do want to relay is the issue of the depth area. I too had the same initial apprehension about the expanded depths, as in “who is setting those additional TACs”. Dan Navin’s response basically explained it this way; the TAC being set for the 10 meter area is now including the areas beyond 10 meters. So if a given reef was allows to have 50 Coral Beauty Angelfish harvested per anum in the 0-10 meter depth range, it now has a 50 limit over the enter range, going down past 50 feet. If that’s difficult for anyone to understand, let me give an analogy to elaborate. In an acre of forest, let’s say you were permitted to cut down 5 trees. As I understand it, let’s say you’re now going to work over 2 acres of land…with the same 5 tree overall limit spread over 2 acres instead of 1.
  If this is what is truly happening, I see no problems with it, as you are in effect lowering the the TAC overall because the TAC for the reef is not raised when the depth range is expanded. I welcome Dan Navin to respond further to the questions you’ve raised.
#3 | Written by David Vosseler about 12 years ago.

Further note, NFA never actually used our TAC system just our TAC numbers. They were not trained in its use since their leadership chose to keep the program isolated from their fisheries management staff.
#4 | Written by David Vosseler about 12 years ago.

Hi Matt, On the surface the forestry anaolgy works only somewhat since you can walk a forest easily and the size area is not very representational. If a single species of tree is being removed from just 1/4 acre of the 2 acres then the impact is different. You can strip an area of a target species if you are only harvesting your full tac from that area and not spreading your efforts out over the wider surveyed area. This is a problem in forestry as it is in this trade. The main problem, however, is that the tacs that were set are 3 years out of date and have not been reset. They can’t be reset unless you have a system for resetting them. Ecoaquariums has not shown that they have a viable tac system. PNG NFA and the local university potentially have the capacity to develop a workable tac system but I am not aware that this has been done. UPNG has a good marine biology department from which we drew our own marine scientists.
If you fish outside of an FMA area, which Ecoaquariums occasionally does, then the tacs are obviously not valid either as are any claims of sustainability for those fish. TAC/quota systems for tuna with which NFA has a great deal of experience does not relate to this trade since tuna are migratory and for the most part the species in our trade are not…very different system for setting quotas/tacs. I want to be clear that I am not saying that the levels they are harvesting at are not sustainable its just that to make a claim like this without being able to back it up scientifically is not right and will in the long run hurt the trade’s and PNG’s brand credibility.
The tacs were originally set for a maximum of 5-10 meters as a safety precaution since all diving was initially only free diving. The only divers allowed to fish on FI’s or any of the other FMA’s reefs were people from that FMA. No people from outside FI were allowed to fish in their FMA. This was done to protect the rights of the local resource owners because in the past, foreigners and people from outside a reource ownership area have destroyed and overfished areas without proper compensation to the resource owners. In this Ecoaquariums is also at fault with Dan and others fishing in the FI FMA. This ironclad rule was developed to protect the future of the resource owners reefs from outside exploitation. Again, I am not saying that Ecoaquariums is exploiting the FI resource owners because I believe they are not, I am simply saying they have opened the way for others less caring of the environment and local resource owners rights as this trade expands in PNG.
It’s tough to talk about these issues without being accused of sour grapes but these are problems that need to be discussed, some of which are also valid elsewhere in the trade. I’ve worked in fisheries in PNG off and on since 1989, and I’ve experienced first hand what the impacts of the issues raised in this forum are on local people and coastal fisheries. These are issues with potentially serious long term consequences for PNG coastal peoples.
This also probably not the right forum for this discussion Matt since we are really celebrating your successful breeding of the wonderous lightning maroon clown. Hope you don’t mind too much.
- #5 | Written by Matt Pedersen about 12 years ago.
  
  David, as you know I always welcome your commentary here and appreciate the public dialog. That said, I might only caution you on drawing assumptions on how current TACs are being set in PNG; in my opinion we can only say that there isn’t a public disclosure of the methodologies by EcoAquariums at this time. That doesn’t mean that they are using 3 year old TACs. Indeed, the problem here is fundamentally a simple lack of public information.
  My understanding of the forestry analogy you put forth is fundamentally flipped. It is not that they are harvesting all of a proposed “2 acre TAC” within a “1/4 acre subsection”, but in fact, the exact opposite. Here’s a hypothetical calculation. Let’s say the estimated population of Coral Beauties in a FMA is 5000 fish in the 0 to 10 meter depth. Let’s say the TAC, as would have been defined under the SEASMART methodologies, was determined to be 200 fish per year from all reefs within the FMA at a depth of 0 to 10 meters. Presuming that this 200 fish TAC was still a valid TAC for the FMA in question, what harm or problem would be caused if the meeting of this 200 fish TAC was done by harvesting only 100 fish from the 0-10 meter range, with the next 100 fish coming from reefs in the 10 to 30 meter depth. The way I see it, the actual boundaries of the overall FMA has not changed. The overall number of fish coming out of the FMA has not changed. What HAS potentially changed is the actual size of the total available population when the depth range is increased. How? Because certainly there are Coral Beauties beyond that 10 meter depth. It could be the at the total population for this species within the FMA from 0 to 30 meters might be estimated at 6000, 10,000, or 50,000. Even if the total population of Coral Beauties was only 5,100 fish when the range was extended to 30 meters as opposed to 10, the net effect is that the number of fish harvested from the FMA has not changed. Given these realities, I fail to see how using the more restrictive TAC causes any problem when the harvest is potentially spread out over a greater overall total available population.
  Now, I agree, TACs must be reset and adjusted based on ongoing population monitoring..that is the nature of how fisheries are managed via science. And yes, I do understand that a TAC set on population data that is 3 years old might not be appropriate. I do hope that as EcoAquariums continues to establish its business, we’ll learn more about how this management is being conducted.
#6 | Written by David Vosseler about 12 years ago.

Matt, Not willing to go into the forestry analogy further since there is much more to this that needs to be discussed and it is off the main point anyway.
Every time you and others repeat EcoAquariums or other company’s claims of sustainability you are drawing on assumptions, assumptions that are much more problematic than my alleged assumption since I am making no claims except that they have not backed up their claims. This is not an assumption, it is a fact. There is no lack of public claims for the sustainability of their system, it is right on their website and in every article on them on this and other forums and in the websites of their buyers. Where is the questioning of such a serious claim? Where is the demand to see the science, any science behind such an extraordinary claim. I don’t think anyone would expect to see actual proof of sustainability since this is a much a process and a moving goal as an end goal but we would expect to see something that shows they are working toward it and are willing to show something susbstantial that would lead us to believe that they are. It doesn’t do the trade’s credibility much good to accept such serious claims without question. Transparency shouldn’t be a problem if there is no problem. We don’t need to ask for their exact formula since this is a competitive advantage but enough info should be given to be able to decide that they are working to a viable system.
This is basic good science, something the trade has always had a problem with (hard to do, costs money to do and maintain, answers aren’t always what we want to see, and who cares anyway since the trade is almost completely price driven). Only a very few companies in this trade have any kind of science behind the management of their resource base and most of them are in Fiji. The rest just fish until there is no more fish and then they move on or force their divers to go deeper or farther and use more cyanide (safety first is rarely a concern). Companies that do have science based management systems either have to have a “brand” that can carry a premium or be a pricing disadvantage in the market.
I think you are missing the main point about the TACs Matt. The tacs being used are way out of date. Much time has passed since they were set – without follow up tac setting, we do not know how valid the original tac setting are. Accurate tac setting is a long term process. Most if not all of the species that they have caught so far in deep water have a tac. If they have a tac, then they are found in shallower water, which is easier and safer to harvest from unless they are no longer finding these species at all or not in sufficient numbers to worth pursuing, and are forced to go deeper to find what they need. If a species is only found in deeper water and not covered by the old SEASMART surveys, then it does not have a tac and should not be harvested.
I am not sure why the request to have good backing science to support sustainability claims is such a big issue. It should be a no-brainer for this trade especially since it is on few peoples (& enviro organizations & Government regulator’s) list as a positive force for reef conservation. Lack of public discosure of systems supporting a claim is basically saying trust me…not something anyone should be willing to do within the trade and something almost no one is willing to do outside of the trade. The onus is not on the consumer to prove a company’s claim wrong, it is on the company to prove it’s claim is right. This does not seem like that much to ask.
Waiting for a company to get “established” before asking these questions seems backward. How long can a company go before it is considered “established” and required to prove its claims…how many fish have to be caught first. Every company needs time to put it’s sytstems into place but this assumes that they have systems to put in place. If they do, then describe them…this shouldn’t require too much time or effort. Defending a lack of information and data to support a serious claim because the company has poor public disclosure policies does not seem like a very defensible defense.
Thanks Matt for the opportunity to talk about these issues.
- #7 | Written by Matt Pedersen about 12 years ago.
  
  David, privately, the questions have been asked already, many times over. That said, I’m not about to start relaying things told to me privately – in that respect, I do encourage EcoAquariums to come forth with the information I’ve been privy to behinds the scenes.
  Is the formula for setting a “TAC” really a “competitive advantage”? Afterall, the practices of fisheries management are not new or proprietary in any fashion…there’s tons of sciences and modeling already publicly available for folks who’d want it since most of this is done by governments anyways. I think, if anything, that the formula for the setting the TAC should be a matter of public record, and since PNG’s government, NOT EcoAquariums, is responsible for setting the TAC, I’m not sure if such information should even come from EcoAquariums, at least anything shared in this regard should have a governmental source. If PNG’s government is failing to set appropriate TAC’s, that would fall upon PNG, not EcoAquariums for following what PNG’s management has laid out. That said, one would think that EcoAquariums would notice the effects if improper TAC figures were provided to them…if they catch too much, catch rates and abundance would drop – irregardless of the TAC figure. Unlike the roving collectors, EcoAquariums is site-attached and not able to simply move on to the next area. It is in their best interest top to bottom to make sure they are harvesting at sustainable levels even IF PNG’s management was somehow dropping the ball.
  This is where I start to have disagreement and refer to making assumptions – “The tacs being used are way out of date.” Do you know this to be fact? It seems to me that this is an assumption at this point. Everything else you stated about the TAC’s is valid in practice..the real question simply goes back to your assumption that these things, that needed to happen, are not happening. Of course, me being halfway around the globe, I must accept that since neither you or I are in a position to verify firsthand ANYTHING, we are very much forced into positions of trusting what we are told. This is something I don’t have an answer for, and as you allude to, I’m not sure how EcoAquariums is able to justify the trust and claims made. To some extent, I believe folks look to the past and present and see PNG as a fishery that was interested in sustainability, and EcoAquariums basically being government sanctioned by virtue of being the only authorized commercial marine ornamental fishery. We’re stuck having to take some face-value trust from both parties involved, but in turn each party must also be at some level of trust with each other to be operating in an above board fashion, unless someone is making allegations of these two entities conspiring to “tell a good story” while doing something differently.
  Regarding timeframes, I can only look at my own life and the things I have responsibility over to realize that the disclosures and information you crave may simply take time to come forth from a new venture. I don’t know what the acceptable “wait time” would be, but I do get that day-to-day necessities on the ground may take priority over, for example, getting a new page up on a company website.
#8 | Written by David Vosseler about 12 years ago.

Enough Matt, I will drop out of this conversation now. The willingness to go along with unproven claims of sustainability is not something I can change. The further we get into this and the more you defend them and NFA’s lack of transparency, the less useful this conversation becomes and the more strident I seem to be. It takes no time to put up a web page if the info is there.
The fact is that I do know a lot about NFA and their capacities, more than anyone else in this trade (and I am not as isolated as you think) so unless they have magically come up with something new, then I stand by what I’ve said and I don’t think I have said anything that should be considered radical. NFA has zero history of managing any coastal fisheries sustainably (or equitably) having just a few short years ago to shut down the beche de mer trade because the resource had been almost completely stripped due to overharvesting. EcoAquariums is very aware of NFA’s inability to do this and by continuing to promote what they know is false in support of their claims is wrong, very wrong and for anyone to defend this is also wrong (if not false where is the proof). Why haven’t you asked them the same question publically of EcoAquriums or NFA as I have? Why do you and others keep repeating their claim if you are unsure that what they say is true? Why the willingness to let something this serious slide without question? This I do not understand Matt.
Never think that developing an accurate tac system is easy, it is not. It cost MAC hundreds of thousands of dollars, the work of a number of universities, much water time, ReefCheck, and years of work to produce MACTRAQ. The fact that EcoAquriums is now fishing in deeper water for fish that are/were readily available in shallow waters should be questioned too. Has the cpue gone down?
Thus said, this has become a circular discussion with less and less value. All that I have said so far should be the way people should be responding to any extraordinary claim whether it be net caught only or sustainable. The trade is not in a position to be lax about this. Since I seem to be the only one bringing this up and considering my history with this and assumed bias, and unless you really want to pursue this further, I will drop out of this conversation but I stand by what I say Matt.
This forum is about the good work you are doing with breeding the LMC and this is what we should be celebrating. Respectfully yours, David
#9 | Written by Ted about 12 years ago.

So Matt, any update on these little guys? Any plans to begin selling them or are they all going to go to other breeders?

Previous Post Next Post