1999 U.S. tropical fish wholesalers survey : results and implications

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
1999 U.S. tropical fish wholesalers survey : results and implications
Physical Description:
Book
Creator:
Larkin, Sherry L.
Adams, Charles M.
Degner, Robert L.
Lee, Donna J.
Publisher:
Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:
Copyright Date:
1999

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida Institutional Repository
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
System ID:
AA00000311:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text







1999 U.S. Tropical Fish Wholesalers Survey:


Results and Implications



Sherry L. Larkin, Charles M. Adams, Robert L. Degner, and Donna J. Lee

Food and Resource Economics Department
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida
P.O. Box 110240
Gainesville, FL 32611-0240


Abstract
A survey of marine life wholesalers was initiated in 1999 as a first step towards
understanding the nature of Florida's marine life industry, the demand for Florida product
both domestically and internationally, and the need for changes in the way the industry is
regulated. Florida firms deal primarily in marine species and collect much of their own
product. Wholesalers outside of Florida handle more freshwater species and purchase
most of their inventory, the majority from overseas suppliers. Dealers predict that the
average firm size will continue to grow as the industry consolidates. Niche markets for
eco-friendly product will gain momentum. In Florida, marketing strategies should point
to the high quality of Florida species with emphasis on the growing popularity of
invertebrates. Wholesalers should look to ways to provide buyers with Florida product in
more predictable quantities throughout the year. Resource managers will be challenged
to find ways to protect over-harvested species without interfering with the collection of
abundant species while also keeping in mind the effect of new regulations on product
availability.


Key Words
Aquarium fish market, live ornamental fish, marine invertebrates


This article was developed under the auspices of Florida Sea Grant College Program with
support from the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration, Office of Sea Grant,
Department of Commerce, Grant No. NA76RG-0120.











1999 U.S. Tropical Fish Wholesalers Survey:

Results and Implications



Table of Contents
I. Intro du action ......................................................................... ..... 3
II. Survey D evelopm ent and D esign ......................................................................... ... 5
III. Survey R results ............................................................ ......... 6
III.A Response Rate ............................................. .............. .... ........ 6
III.B Firm D em ographics..................................................... ......................... 7
III.C M market C channels .................... ... ... ... ....... .......................... .. ....... 10
III.C-1. Sources of Marine Life Procured by Florida Wholesalers.................... 10
III.C-2. Sources of Marine Life Procured by Wholesalers in Other States ...... 11
III.C-3. Distribution Chain for Wholesalers Located in Florida.......................... 13
III.C-4. Distribution Chain for Wholesalers Located in Other States................ 14
III.C-5. Comparison of Marketing Channels between Florida and the Other States
...................................................................... 14
III.D. Perceptions and Opinions.............................................. 15
III.D-1. (Dis)Advantages of Florida Caught Species........................................ 16
III.D-2. Reasons for Recent Landings Trends in Florida............................ 17
III.D-3. Future of the Wholesale Marine Life Market....................................... 19
III.D-4. Limiting Factors to Sales of Florida Species....................................... 20
III.D-5. Summary of Most Commonly Cited Opinions................................... 22
III.E U unsolicited C om m ents ............................................. ............ .............. 23
IV. Comparison of Results with Other Related Surveys ............................................. 25
IV.A. Florida Collectors Survey (1991) .............. ..................................... ........ 25
IV .B U .S. D ealers Survey (1996) ........................................ ......... ........ ...... 26
IV .C Industry Sales Survey (1999)............................................... .... .. .............. 28
IV .D European Im porters Survey (1997).......................................... .... .. .............. 28
IV.E. Marine Ornamentals Trade (1999)........ ............ ..................... 28
V D discussion and Im plications ............................................... ............................ 30
R e fe re n c e s ......................................................................................................................... 3 1
Appendix A. Copy of Survey Cover Letter ....................... ........................... 33
Appendix B. Copy of Survey Instrument ......................................................... 34











1999 U.S. Tropical Fish Wholesalers Survey:


Results and Implications



I. Introduction

The tropical fish keeping hobby is currently the 2nd most popular in the United States (Pet
Industry Joint Advisory Council or PIJAC). More importantly, interest in home
aquariums continues to grow (PIJAC). Industry growth has been especially prevalent for
the establishment of "artificial reefs", which could be due to recent technological
advances and breakthroughs in the care of such species. Marine aquariums rely on live
specimens fish and invertebrates such as plants, rock, sand, and crustaceans collected
from the wild. In the United States, such collection is restricted to South Florida and
Hawaii.

The recent awareness of the plight of coral reefs, such as the designation of 1997 as the
"International Year of the Reef", has begun to highlight the marine life collection
industry. According to the World Resources Institute (WRI), almost all reefs of the
Florida Keys are at a moderate threat from human activities, including the overfishing of
target species. In addition,

At a minimum, overfishing results in shifts in fish size, abundance, and
species composition within reef communities. Evidence suggests that
removal of key herbivore and predator species may ultimately affect large-
scale ecosystem changes. For example, removal oftriggerfish has been linked
with explosions in burrowing urchin populations, their prey, who
subsequently accelerate reef erosion through feeding activities. In the
Caribbean, decades of overfishing has led, in many places, to very low levels
of grazing fish species. Because of this, herbivorous sea urchins (a
nonburrowing species) have played an increasingly important role in keeping
down algae growth.

The commercial collection of marine ornamentals in Florida (where virtually all of the
wild-collection activity in the continental U.S. occurs) was formally recognized as an
industry in 1990, at which time data collection began. Since 1990, commercial collectors
have landed approximately 180 species of marine finfish and 150 species of marine
invertebrates, nearly 65% (in total value) from the Florida Keys region (Florida Marine
Research Institute, 1999). The Florida industry has experienced a number of changes in
recent years, particularly in regards to resource management. Since 1994, the industry
has shifted from fish species to collecting primarily invertebrates. Using data collected by
the state of Florida, the total commercial harvest of all live marine life (including such
products as live rock, live sand, angelfish, starfish, clams, crabs, plants, sharks, rays, etc.)











was valued at less than $5 million annually (Florida Marine Resource Institute, 1999).
This value represents the dockside value of the landings, the first point of transaction.
Based on conversations with wholesalers described in this paper, it is likely that the
product value increases four-fold as it moves through the marketing chain. If so, the
retail value of Florida-caught products is estimated at approximately $20 million.1

In Florida, collection practices have been regulated since the early 1990s with passage of
Florida Statute 46-42. However, until 1998, participation (and hence fishing effort) has
been effectively unrestricted. Senate Bill 1506 placed a four-year moratorium (beginning
July 1, 1988) on the issue of new "marine life endorsements," without which marine life
collected in Florida cannot be sold (Florida Statute 370.06(2)(d)2). Following the
moratorium, limited-access legislation may be instituted. The current moratorium (and
potential future limited entry system) could produce a wide variety of economically
beneficial effects by eliminating myopically-driven practices that lead to a disregard for
other fishers, recreational divers, reef health, fish mortality rates, and lower revenues (as
smaller fish are collected and sold for a lower price). Given the diversity of species
collected, additional regulations may be needed to protect species in greatest demand.

The objective of this paper was to summarize results of a 1999 survey of U.S. marine
ornamental wholesalers. The survey instrument was created following the analysis of the
commercial collection industry (maintained by the Florida Marine Information System)
and the trade data (collected by U.S. Customs Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service), which are described in companion reports. The survey was designed to provide
insight concerning the following issues:

Recent market trends and channels for imported and domestic products.
Importance of imports into the United States.
Differences in marketing imported versus domestic products.
Marketing advantages and disadvantages of species collected in Florida.
Identification of major foreign competitors in the domestic market.
Factors influencing sales of live marine fish and invertebrates.
Expectations on the future of the industry

The results were expected to yield information needed by collectors, wholesalers,
retailers, and resource managers regarding the state of the industry and to provide
suggestions for successful future management policies and marketing campaigns. The
descriptions and opinions of industry members, primarily Florida collectors and dealers,
are crucial to the accurate understanding and ultimate success of future regulations.





1 To our knowledge, similar data is not available on the Hawaiian industry.











II. Survey Development, Design, and Implementation


The wholesaler survey was designed to tract the flow of product through marketing
channels and geographically. We also sought information on the dominance of Florida
products both nationally and internationally (see Appendix B). As such, this work
represents the first study to document the economics of the marine life industry in
Florida. Survey questions were written to provide information on the total quantity and
value of products purchased and sold in 1998. We asked dealers about product prices,
quantities sold, and how Florida compared to imported species. We queried wholesalers
on their annual sales volume by species type, collection points, distribution outlets, and
expectations about industry trends. We asked firms to describe their market channels
(supply and demand side) and solicited their opinions about the state of the industry. We
requested information about firm demographics to distinguish between types of market
groups.

The survey questions were pre-tested during several personal and telephone interviews of
Florida wholesalers conducted in March and April 1999. The pre-testing revealed that it
would be necessary to interview all Florida wholesalers by telephone since none kept
regular business hours and most operated out of their home. The out-of-state interviews
were also conducted by telephone since the cost of travel was prohibitively expensive. To
increase the response rate, all firms were mailed a personalized letter with a description of
the project and a request for cooperation during telephone survey (Appendix A). To
maintain consistency, two interviewers were employed, one for the Florida firms and
another for the out-of-state firms.

Our contact list included all Florida wholesalers licensed to purchase marine life and
having reported handling marine life species in either 1997 or 1998 (i.e., firms with active
marine life endorsements or MLEs), a total of 90 firms. Next, we identified dealers located
outside of Florida using the trade magazine Pet Supplies Marketing Directory, which has
been renamed the Pet Products News Buying Guide (Fancy Publications Inc.).2 In this
manner, 84 domestic firms dealing in "saltwater livestock" were added to our contact list3
for a total of 174 firms.

Letters were mailed out to all firms describing the project and asking for cooperation
when called. Each firm was then contacted by phone between August 1999 and February
2000.





2 Per the suggestion of the (then) president of the AMDA.
3 The directory actually listed a total of 91 firms; however, initial contact with these firms revealed that two
firms were listed multiple times under different names and five did not handle marine species. These seven
firms were eliminated from the list.











III. Survey Results


III.A. Response Rate

Of the 174 firms initially identified as marine life wholesalers, 54 firms (31%) were
removed from the list because they did not participate in the market in 1999 or had their
telephone disconnected and left no forwarding number. Of the remaining 120 firms, 52
firms (43%) completed the survey, 7 explicitly refused to answer, and 61 provided
incomplete responses. Every attempt was made to gather the survey information
including contacting some firms up to eleven times. Several surveys were interrupted
and never completed. Some firms promised to call back but never did. In many cases,
the interviewer was forwarded to another individual within the organization to complete
part of the survey and the other individual could not be contacted. Using multiple
individuals within a firm to complete the survey was expected given the depth and scope
of the subject matter. Firms contacted during pre-testing also used a number of
employees (e.g., the sales manager, purchaser, owner, collectors, etc.) to complete the
survey. A summary of response rate statistics appears in Table 1.

Table 1. Response Rate Summary

Firm Location Summary

Variable Florida Other States Number Percent

Target Firms 90 84a 174 100%
Active Firms:
Completed Survey 25 27 52 30%
Refused to Answer 6 1 7 4%
Incomplete survey 25 36 61 35%
120
Inactive Firms:
Did not participate in 1999 21 0 21 12%
Telephone Disconnected 13 20 33 19%
54

Response Rate: Florida Other States Overall

Target Firms 28% 32% 30%
Active Firms 45% 42% 43%

a Number of unique firms that handle live marine species (i.e., excludes firms listed under multiple names
and those incorrectly categorized as handling marine species).












Of the 52 completed surveys, 25 firms (48 percent) are licensed wholesalers in Florida
and 27 firms were from other States. Thirty-seven percent of the Florida firms active
1998 did not participate in the industry in 1999. Twenty-four percent of the wholesalers
listed in the most current Pet Supplies Marketing Directory did not participate in the
fishery in 1999, that is, they did not report any purchases or claimed they were "out of
business". Of the active firms in Florida, nearly 11 percent refused to answer any survey
questions. Of the non-Florida firms more than 98 percent (all but one) completed our
survey.

"Target firms" in Florida include all dealers licensed by the State to purchase live marine
aquarium species. Of the top 25 firms in Florida (firms collectively accounting for 75
percent of sales in 1998), 40 percent completed our survey. Similar information was not
available for firms located in other States.


III.B. Firm Demographics

The wholesalers in this study were well established, averaging 17 years of experience in
the market for Florida firms and nearly 19 years of experience in all other states. The
mean and standard deviations (in parentheses) of firms surveyed are summarized in Table
2.

Holding space for Florida firms averaged 21,036 gallons while firms in other states had
an average holding capacity of 82,371 gallons. Florida firms hired on average fewer than
2 full-time employees while firms in other states hired on average of 17.7 full time
personnel. Holding capacities ranged from zero4 to 200,000 gallon in Florida firms and
from 700 to 800,000 gallons in other firms. The largest Florida wholesaler employed
seven full-time workers. The largest non-Florida firm maintained 130 full-time positions.

In order to assess firm size in terms of sales figures, the market in question needs to be
explicitly defined. One measure of sales is the reported total dollar sales of marine fish in
1998 (question 25, Appendix B). Comparison of the average sales figures indicates that
Florida wholesalers sold $369,519 in marine fish in 1998, which is 37% higher than the
average reported by wholesalers in other states. The standard deviations indicate that
there was relatively more variability in this figure among the Florida wholesalers (sales
ranged from $3,000 to $300,000).

Since the aquarium market at the retail level often includes non-fish species (e.g.,
invertebrates, live rock, live sand), freshwater species, and dry goods (e.g. tanks and
equipment, food, etc.), a more general measure of sales value may better reflect firm size.


4 Firms reporting no holding capacity reflect individual collectors with dealer licenses who sell their
product immediately.











Using the reported annual sales shares by live product form and tank environment
(questions 3 and 2, respectively, Appendix B), it was possible to create a proxy for annual
sales of all live aquarium species. In summary, these total sales figures were over four
times the size of marine sales alone; Florida firms averaged annual sales of nearly $1.8
million compared to $1.1 for wholesale firms located in other states. The average Florida
firm size (in terms of sales value) remained larger since marine species accounted for
90% of their total inventory. This large average marine share masked the smaller share
of inventory (in terms of value) accounted for by fish species, which are relatively more
expensive in general.

Table 2. Characteristics of Marine Life Wholesalers

Values for Florida and All Other Statesa

Characteristic Florida All Other States

Experience (years) 17.1 18.8
(12.0) (11.5)
Holding Space (gallons) 21,036 82,371
(47,798) (184,751)

Employees (FTE) 1.9 17.7
(2.1) (25.9)

Value of Marine Fish Held in 1998 $369,519 $269,500
(756,305) (260,020)
Share of Marine Inventory Value 46% 65%
Comprised of Fish (0.26) (0.21)

Share of Total Inventory Value 90% 61%
Comprised of Marine Species (0.25) (0.39)
Approximate Annual Sales of Live $1,788,106 $1,089,378
Aquarium Speciesb (4,489,234) (1,393,865)
Share of Firms that Sell Dry Goods 22% 52%
Of Firms that Sell Dry Goods, Share 11% 25%
of Total Sales from Dry Goods (0.10) (0.27)


aValues in parentheses are standard deviations.
bAverage is based on the 19 Florida firms and 24
information


firms from other states that provided us with sales


Aside from sales of live aquatic specimens, wholesalers can also deal in dry goods. The
majority (52%) of firms located in other states offered dry goods compared to just 22% of











Florida firms; however, dry goods accounted for less than a quarter of total sales. Given
the relatively low significance of dry goods on total sales, further analysis by firm size is
restricted to the sales of live aquatic specimens. This statistic also was characterized by
having the largest standard deviations relative to the means. The approximate average
annual sales value of live aquarium species are summarized by firm size and location in
Table 3.

Table 3. Sales Characteristics for Small, Medium, and Large Firms

Variable Florida a Other States a

Size Distributionb
Small 47% 21%
Medium 21% 50%
Large 32% 29%

100% 100%

Annual Sales of Live Aquarium Species

Small $151,098 $145,249
(175,009) (89,062)
Medium $703,333 $1,307,507
(866,179) (1,717,686)
$4,969,966 $1,460,727
Large (7,357,877) (913,844)

Number of respondents 19 24

aValues in parentheses are standard deviations.
bAs determined by responses to the following question: "Would you consider the size of your firm to be
small, medium, or large relative to your competitors?"

The majority of wholesalers in Florida (47 percent) considered their firm to be "small"
compared to their competitors. For wholesalers in other states, the majority considered
their firm to be "medium" compared to their competitors. These self-categorizations
were used to compute average sales by firm size. Self-categorizations were used in place
of measures based on survey answers because for some dealers the survey design was
likely to capture only a subset of firm activities.

"Small" Florida firms sold an average of $151,000 worth of product annually. Reported
sales ranged from $7,500 to $500,000. "Small" firms in other states averaged $145,000 in
sales based on annual sales ranging from $37,000 to $270,000. "Medium" Florida firm











sales averaged $703,000 per year. "Large" Florida firm sales ranged from $303,000 to
$18.5 million with average sales of about $5 million. In other states, "medium" firm
sales ranged from $185,000 to $6.4 million and "large" firms ranged from $270,000 to
$2.5 million. Amongst all of the surveyed companies reporting live product sales, firms
with the smallest and the largest annual sales were in Florida.


III.C. Market Channels

Since the characteristics of Florida marine life wholesalers differed from firms located in
other U.S. states as evidenced in Tables 1-3, figures describing the marketing channels
are distinguished by firm location. In particular, the reported sources of marine life
inventory are described in sections III.C-1 and III.C-2 (figures 1 and 2) for firms in
Florida and the other states, respectively. Then the product distribution chains for live
marine life are described in sections III.C-3 and III.C-4 (figures 3 and 4) for firms in
Florida and the other states, respectively. The findings are summarized in the last section
(i.e., III. C-5).

III. C-1. Sources ofMarine Life Procured by Florida TT7i 'le ,\ iers

Figure 1 depicts the sources of marine life procured by marine life wholesalers in Florida.
In terms of the value of inventory procured by Florida marine life wholesalers in 1998, 90
percent were marine species. Of the marine species, fish species accounted for 49
percent, invertebrate species accounted for 44 percent, and live rock and live sand
accounted for the 7 percent of average annual inventory purchases reported by Florida
wholesalers.

Of the 93 percent of the fish and invertebrate inventory held by Florida wholesalers in
1998, 84 percent was obtained from U.S. sources. Approximately 37 percent of their
inventory (weighted by value) was obtained from collectors employed by their firm full-
time as many of these firms were "owner-operated." Florida wholesalers obtained 30
percent of the value of their inventory from other local collectors; these are individuals
that were part-time collectors. The remaining 33 percent of inventory value was obtained
from other wholesalers, of which 62 percent were located in Florida. Hence,
approximately 57 percent of the inventory value held by Florida wholesalers was
obtained in Florida. Of the 38 percent obtained from other states, 68 percent was from
firms located on the East Coast and most often, Atlanta, Georgia.

Of the 19 percent of product value imported from foreign companies, 81 percent were
from firms located in the Caribbean; these firms often have close ties with firms in
Florida and many operate as "satellite" collecting stations.












Total Supply:
(Value)


Freshwater
10 % +


Marine
90 % = 100%

'kl


Caribbean (Other Atlantic):
Indonesia and All Pacific:
Other:
TOTAL:


81 % Self Collect/Culture: 37 %
19 % Other Collectors: 30 %
0 % Wholesalers: 33 %
100 % / TOTAL: 100 %


Florida:
Other States:
TOTAL:


62 %
38 %
100 % West Coast: 32 %
SMid-West: 0 %
East Coast: 68 %
TOTAL: 100 %


Figure 1. Sources and Average Shares of Live Marine Life Inventory Procured by
Wholesalers Located in Florida


III. C-2. Sources ofMarine Life Procured by Wholesalers in Other States

Figure 2 depicts the sources of marine life procured by marine life wholesalers located in
other states (i.e., excluding those located in Florida and discussed in section III. C-1). In
terms of the value of inventory procured by Florida marine life wholesalers in 1998, 61
percent were marine species. Of the marine species, fish species accounted for the largest
component (64 percent), however, invertebrate species accounted for 25 percent.












Total Supply:
(Value)


Freshwater
39 %


Marine
+ 61 % = 100%


Caribbean (Other Atlantic):
Indonesia and All Pacific:
Other:
TOTAL:


4 %
78 %
18 %
100 %


Florida:
Other States:
TOTAL:


Self Collect/Culture: 3 %
Other Collectors: 49 %
Wholesalers: 48 %
TOTAL: 100 %


24 %
76 %
100 % West Coast: 55 %
Mid-West: 12 %
East Coast: 33 %
TOTAL: 100 %


Figure 2. Sources and Average Shares of Live Marine Life Inventory Procured by
Wholesalers Located in Other States

Of the marine fish and invertebrate inventory held by wholesalers in other states in 1998,
55 percent was from foreign sources and 45 percent were from domestic suppliers.
Collectors and wholesalers supplied 97 percent of the domestic inventory. The remaining
3 percent of inventory was supplied by full-time collector employed by the firm. Florida
wholesalers provided 24 percent of the inventory held by wholesalers in other states in
the West Coast5, Mid-West and East Coast.

Of the 55 percent of product value imported from foreign companies, 78 percent were
from firms located in Indonesia and the Pacific (Singapore, Philippines). Caribbean


5 Los Angeles, California was often listed as a West Coast supply source.










nations accounted for only 4 percent on average, however, two firms obtained all their
imported product from this area. The remaining 18 percent, on average, was obtained
from South America and the Red Sea.

III. C-3. Distribution Chainfor Wholesalers Located in Florida

Other domestic markets are the primary outlet for marine life wholesalers located in
Florida (Figure 3); on average, 80 percent of the value of inventories held by Florida
wholesalers are destined for other cities in the U.S.


Total Distribution:
(Value)


For
2


/
33 %
53 %
12 %
2 %
100 %


Florida:
Other States:
TOTAL:


eign (Exports) Domestic (U.S.)
0 % + 80 % = 100%



Other Wholesalers/Exporters:
Retail Pet Shops:
Education/Public Aquariums:
Direct to Consumers:
TOTAL:


69 %
23 %
2 %
6 %
100 %


27 %
73 %
100 % West Coast: 19 %
Mid-West: 63 %
East Coast: 18 %
TOTAL: 100 %


Figure 3. Distribution Chain and Average Shares for Live Marine Life Sold by
Wholesalers Located in Florida

The exported share primarily goes to Europe and Canada (53 percent and 33 percent,
respectively). The domestic share is dominated by other wholesalers and exporters,
which account for 69 percent of volume-weighted sales. Retail pet shops account for the
next largest share (23 percent), followed by consumers (6 percent) and educational
outlets such as public aquariums (2 percent). The vast majority of these domestic outlets
are located in states other than Florida, 73 percent on average, with 63 percent going to
states in the Mid-West.


Canada:
Europe:
Far East:
Other:
TOTAL











III. C-4. Distribution Chain for TT7hi',le k, rs Located in Other States


Marine life wholesalers in other states are heavily dependent on domestic markets, which
accounted for approximately 95 percent of sales value. In terms of location, 94 percent
went to states other than Florida (i.e., only 6 percent was shipped to locations in Florida);
however, the majority was shipped to the East Coast (45 percent). The value of domestic
shipments going to the mid-west accounted for an additional 38 percent. In terms of the
type of buyer, 77 percent was sold to retail pet shops. Sales direct to consumers
accounted for an additional 4 percent. Other wholesale firms received 15 percent. In
terms of the exports, on average, 87 percent of the value of inventories held by
wholesalers in other states are destined for the Far East, with the majority of the
remainder being exported to Europe.


Total Distribution:
(Value)


Foreign (Exports)
5 %


Domestic (U.S.)
+ 95 % = 100%


Other Wholesalers/Exporters: 15 %
Retail Pet Shops: 77 %
Education/Public Aquariums: 4 %
Direct to Consumers: 4 %
TOTAL: 100 %


Florida:
Other States:
TOTAL:


6 %
94
100 % West Coast:
Mid-West:
East Coast:
TOTAL:


Figure 4. Distribution Chain and Average Shares for Live Marine Life Sold by
Wholesalers Located in Other States

III. C-5. Comparison ofMarketing Channels between Florida and the Other States

Figures 1 and 2 depict the sources of marine life procured by marine life wholesalers in
Florida and the remaining states. The inventory of Florida marine life wholesalers
comprises 90 percent marine species and 10 percent freshwater species. Of the marine
species, 49 percent are fish, 44 percent are invertebrates, and 7 percent live rock and
sand. In other states, firms' inventories comprise 61 percent marine species on average
and 39 percent freshwater species and 64 percent of the marine species are fish.


Canada:
Europe:
Far East:
Other:
TOTAL


3 %
17 %
87 %
3 %
100 %


17 %
38 %
45 %
100 %












Florida wholesalers obtained 84 percent of marine inventory from domestic sources and
16 percent of foreign sources, primarily the Caribbean/Atlantic (81 percent).
Wholesalers in other states import 55 percent of their marine inventory, primarily from
Indonesia and Pacific sources (78 percent).

Florida wholesalers sell 80 percent of their marine life product domestically and 20
percent outside of the country, primarily to Europe. Wholesalers in other states sell 95
percent of their marine life product domestically and 5 percent to foreign markets,
primarily the Far East. The bulk of Florida's domestically sold product (69 percent) is
intended for other wholesalers and exporters in the U.S. Outside of Florida, domestic
wholesalers' primary outlet is the retail pet market (77 percent). Florida firms' domestic
product distribution is divided between intrastate sales (27 percent) and interstate sales
(73 percent). Sixty-three percent of interstate sales are to firms in the Mid-West. Firms
located in other states sold 6 percent of their domestic product to Florida and 94 percent
to all other states.

Florida firms differ from firms in other states by holding a larger proportion of inventory
in marine species, invertebrates, and domestic product. Florida firms send more product
to the Midwest than to the East Coast or West Coast. In other states, firms sell more
product to the East Coast than to the Midwest or West Coast.


III.D. Perceptions and Opinions

Qualitative data provided valuable insights into industry-wide trends and developments.

Respondents were asked a series of open-ended opinion-oriented questions. The
questions were intended to assess opinions regarding industry strengths and weaknesses
that could ultimately be used to aid marketing campaigns and establish consensus
regarding the effectiveness of regulatory measures. The questions concerned: (1) the
advantages and disadvantages of Florida-caught products relative to imports, (2)
explanations for observed trends in the collection of fish and invertebrates in Florida, (3)
expected changes in the wholesale market within five years, and (4) factors limiting sales
of Florida species. The questions and responses, ranked beginning with "1" (where the
number 1 response is the mode, i.e., the most commonly cited response) for the Florida
wholesalers (i.e., the responses are ordered by share for Florida firms), are presented in
Tables 4-7. Note that the number of responses does not equal the number of firms since
response was optional and firms could provide multiple responses.











III.D-1. (Dis)Advantages of Florida Caught Species


One of the open-ended questioned queried respondents, in subsequent questions, about the
advantages and disadvantages of species collected in Florida compared to a similar import?
The responses are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4. Ranking and Incidence of Responses to the Following Question: "In comparing
Florida marine species i/th an identical import, what unique disadvantageg, if any, do
Florida species have? "

Responses (Rank 1 = mode for Florida wholesalers) Florida Other States

Advantages:a (n=24) (n=26)
1. "Products are Generally of Higher Quality" 42% 50%
2. "Products can be Obtained at a Lower Cost" 17% 8%
2. "None" 17% 0%
4. "Product is Unique, Import is not Identical" 12% 4%
5. "Better Collector Relations" 8% 38%
6. "No Import Paperwork or Other 'Red Tape' 4% 0%
Disadvantages: (n=31) (n=17)
1. "Supply Volume is Limited" 32% 12%
2. "Products Generally Sell for a Higher Price" 22% 35%
3. "Attributes are Weak" 16% 12%
4. "Supply is Seasonal, Lowest in Winter" 13% 12%
5. "Collectors are Unprofessional/Unscrupulous" 10% 12%
6. "Lack of Species Variety" 6% 12%
7. "Poor Water/Environmental Quality" 0% 6%
a Duplicate rankings reflect ties.

The primary advantage of Florida-caught species, according to Florida industry
wholesalers, is that they are higher quality. When asked, respondents defined quality in
terms of higher survival rates (e.g., by packing fewer fish per box or the shorter travel
time). This was also the most cited advantage from wholesalers in other states who
claimed that Florida fish were less stressed and received better care.

The second most frequently cited advantage of Florida-caught species, as perceived by
Florida wholesalers, was that the products can be obtained for a lower cost. This is because
most Florida wholesalers also function as collectors. Interestingly enough, the lower cost
advantage was cited as often as "none", that is, there is no advantage to Florida-caught
species. Uniqueness was fourth, better relations with local collectors fifth, and no import
paperwork was sixth. This latter advantage was most prevalent among smaller dealers in
terms of annual sales; for this group the import regulations and the additional fees are
major deterrents to greater participation in the international market.












The remaining advantages, as perceived by wholesalers located in other states, were
viewed quite differently from Florida firms. The second highest incidence of responses
concerned relationships with collectors, that is, 38 percent of the opinions concerned
positive relationships with Florida collectors. Many stated that they have established
business relationships with particular collectors and, thus, receive more information
regarding specific species and the care given to species during packing and transport.

As with the cited advantages, the most frequently cited disadvantage of Florida-caught
species depends on location of the firm. Florida wholesalers cited the lack of sufficient
quantity and relatively higher prices (32 percent and 22 percent of opinions, respectively)
as the primary disadvantages of using Florida products. Several respondents expressed
frustration at higher labor costs and being unable to deliver the total quantities requested
of them or having to procure supplies from other dealers. Wholesalers in other states
cited the higher price of Florida products as the primary disadvantage; this was
mentioned by 35 percent of respondents. The 'higher price' response was interesting
given that 'lower cost' was cited as an advantage by Florida wholesalers. These responses
are indicative of the multiple wholesale levels in the industry, the collector/wholesalers in
Florida are the "first receivers"; wholesalers in other states purchasing Florida product
are "second receivers."

Weak attributes, the third response from Florida wholesalers, conveyed the sentiment that
Atlantic species are "uglier", perhaps less colorful, than Pacific species. The fourth was
seasonality or a lack of consistent availability. Many respondents believed that the part-
time nature of the collection industry results in lower supplies in the winter as the cool
water keeps divers out of the water. The fifth most commonly cited disadvantage of
Florida caught species was unprofessional collectors. These wholesalers reported having
not received product following payment or receiving product of such poor quality that
subsequent high mortality rates made the transaction unprofitable. The wholesalers in
other states also mentioned that collectors are over harvesting without regard for the
future. The sixth disadvantage (in terms of incidence of response) was that there are too
few species from the Atlantic/Caribbean relative to demand compared to "Pacific"
species. Some respondents attributed the lack of species variety to water pollution and
cited water pollution as a disadvantage of working with Florida-caught species.

III.D-2. Reasonsfor Recent Landing Trends in Florida

When asked why landings of fish have declined since 1994, 29 percent of responses by
Florida wholesalers blamed a reduction in water quality (e.g., from Everglades run-off)
that has lowered the availability of some species (Table 5). Three reasons tied for
second, each garnering 17 percent of reasons, and included: a reduction in the demand for
fish (due to their relatively high unit price compared to invertebrates and low survival
rates in home aquariums); increasing competition from (lower priced) imports; and a
decline in the number of part-time divers (due to a strong economy which has provided











more economic alternatives). Poor weather conditions, which discourage divers, and an
increase in the number of regulations governing the industry in Florida were the
remaining reasons for the recent reductions in fish landings in Florida.

Table 5. Ranking and Incidence of Responses to the Following Question: "Annual
landings collected by the state of Florida indicate that commercial landings of the
majority of fish species peaked in 1994 and fell substantially thereafter. However,
landings of most invertebrates have increased since 1994. First, what could have caused
the decline in fish landings? Second, what could have caused the increase in
invertebrate landings?"
Other
Responses (Rank 1 = mode for Florida wholesalers)a Florida ter
States
Explanation for Declining Fish Landings (n=24) (n=21)
1. "Reduction in Water Quality" 29% 10%
2. "Decline in Demand for Fish" 17% 38%
2. "Increasing Competition from Imports" 17% 14%
2. "Decline in Number of Part-time Divers" 17% 0%
5. "Recent Adverse Weather Conditions" 12% 0%
6. "More Regulations Governing the Industry in Florida" 8% 14%
7. "Poor Economic Conditions for Small Firms" 0% 24%
Explanation for Increased Invertebrate Landings (n=20) (n=27)
1. "Ease of Collection with least Gear Requirements" 30% 7%
1. "Improvement in Knowledge of Invertebrate Care and 30% 22%
Corresponding Technological Advances"
2. "Increasing Popularity of Reef Tanks"b 10% 48%
2. "Invertebrates Provide Functions Necessary to 10% 0%
Maintain a Successful Reef Tank Environment"
2. "Invertebrate-based Reef Tanks are More Interesting" 10% 7%
2. "Heartier than Fish" 10% 0%
7. "Changing Regulations Favors Invertebrate Species" 0% 7%


a Reef tanks refer to saltwater aquariums that focus on invertebrates (e.g.,
products (e.g., live rock and live sand) while minimizing the number of fish.
b Duplicate rankings reflect ties.


anemones) and "live" base


Among the wholesale firms located in other states, the primary reasons for declining fish
were the declining demand (38 percent) and poor economic conditions (24 percent). This
latter reason represented a rather large share of responses among firms located outside
Florida but was not mentioned by Florida firms. This discrepancy could reflect regional
differences in general economic conditions including lower sales prices from import
competition, a recession in the hobby, and the increase in large super-chain pet stores.
The differences in responses between Florida and non-Florida wholesalers may be











explained by the fact that the majority of Florida firms do not compete at the retail level
(figure 3).

The relative ease of harvesting invertebrates species (such as sand dollars), including the
virtual lack of gear needed to collect them, was one of two primary explanations (each
accounted for 30 percent of responses) cited by Florida wholesalers for increased
invertebrate landings in Florida. This response was equaled by the belief that an
improvement and transfer of knowledge regarding the care of invertebrates, and the
development of affordable and effective equipment, has allowed hobbyists to
successfully maintain reef tanks. Consequently, as noted in the following reason, the
demand for reef tanks has increased. Other explanations included that invertebrates are
needed to maintain the health of the reef ecosystem; that is, invertebrates are a necessary
component a successful reef tank. Also, invertebrate reef tanks are currently perceived as
being more interesting in that there are more living organisms. Lastly, some wholesalers
perceive that keeping invertebrates is 'easier' since they can tolerate more variable tank
conditions.

For wholesalers located in other states, the primary reason for an increase in invertebrate
landings was the increasing popularity of reef tanks; this response accounted for 48
percent of the reasons provided. This reason was followed by the improvement in
knowledge regarding the care and keeping of invertebrate species and the dissemination
of that knowledge to the public through the Internet (very inexpensive). The additional
reason cited, not mentioned by the Florida wholesalers, was that some regulations had
changed in favor of collecting invertebrate species.

III.D-3. Future of the TThi,l'lek Marine Life Market

The next question discussed in this paper addressed the future of the wholesale marine
life market. Responses varied with the location of the firm as shown in Table 6. Florida
wholesalers expect the primary change in the wholesale market to involve an increase in
the number of cultured species (19 percent of responses). Firms outside of Florida expect
further consolidation as large firms continue to dominate the market (34 percent of
responses). Florida firms also foresaw a reduction in the number of firms (16 percent)
and a decline in live rock sales (16 percent). The predicted decline in live rock sales is
surprising given an increase in the number of live rock lease sites (Antozzi, 1997);
however, many cited an increase in lower-cost live rock imports from Fiji as the primary
reason for this opinion. Additional predictions for the wholesale market in the next five
years, in order of priority include: an increase in the number of regulations, an increase in
imports, and an increasing loss of tank owners to other hobbies.











Table 6. Ranking and Incidence of Responses to the Following Question: "What changes,
if any, do you foresee at the wholesale level in the next 5 years?"

Responses (Rank 1 = mode)a Share

Wholesalers Located in Florida (n=37)
1. "Increase in the Quantity of Cultured Products" 19%
2. "Decline in Sales of Live Rock" 16%
2. "Reduction in the Number of Active Firms" 16%
4. "Increase in Regulations Governing the Industry in Florida" 13%
5. "Increase in Imports" 10%
6. "Loss of Customers to Other Hobbies" 3%
Wholesalers Located in Other States (n=42)
1. "Increasing Consolidation in the Industry" 34%
2. "Increase in the Number of Small Environmentally-Conscious Firms" 14%
3. "Decline in the Number of Trans-shippers" 10%
4. "Increasingly Stringent Regulations that will Increase Costs" 8%
4. "Increase in the Number of Cultured Species" 8%

a Duplicate rankings reflect ties.

Although firms in all locations agreed that increasing concentration at the wholesale level
and an increase in the number of cultured species are likely to occur, wholesale firms in
other states posed a number of additional predictions (Table 6). In particular, these firms
believe there is a growing market for small environmentally-friendly firms that do not use
chemicals during capture or transport. For example, environmentally-friendly firms
would guarantee specimens were harvested without the use of cyanide or other
anesthetics such as quinaldine. There is a perceived decline in the number of trans-
shippers, a traditional component of the market chain, resulting from the advent and
commercial use of the Internet. Lastly, the establishment of additional and more
restrictive collecting regulations is expected to increase harvesting costs. While real
prices for many species, noted one collector, are essentially unchanged since the mid-
1970s. The additional regulatory burden and constant prices could discourage continued
participation in the fishery.

III.D-4. Limiting Factors to Sales of Florida Species

Florida wholesalers, many of whom are also collectors, offered several opinions
concerning the future for sales of Florida-sourced live marine ornamentals (more so than
for any of the other questions). Their primary concern regarded imports. Of the 23
opinions on the most important limiting factor, 22 percent specifically mentioned
competitors in the Caribbean that can supply larger quantities at lower prices (most likely
due to lower labor costs), despite the additional transport charges (Table 7). The next











three first ranked concerns each accounted for 13 percent of the total and included: the
lack of species diversity available (markets closer to the retail level demand a diverse
product selection), increased competition from other wholesalers (e.g., low priced 'super'
pet stores), and perceived problems with the local regulations governing the industry.
Specific regulatory concerns included inappropriate size and/or bag limits, regulations
that are effectively unenforceable, overzealous and uninformed Florida Marine Patrol
officers, and an overabundance of required paperwork.

Table 7. Ranking and Incidence of Responses to the Following Question: "In your
opinion, what are the most limiting factors to sales of Florida species?"

Importance and Share
Responses (Rank 1 = mode)a 1st 2nd-4th Total
Wholesalers Located in Florida (n=23) (n=23) (n=46)
1. "Cheaper & Unrestricted Caribbean Imports" 22% 9% 15%
2. "Lack of Selection, Species Diversity" 13% 0% 7%
2. "Increased Competition from Other Wholesalers" 13% 0% 7%
2. "Inappropriate/Ineffective Regulations and 'Red Tape' 13% 26% 20%
5. "Unscrupulous/Unprofessional Collectors" 9% 0% 4%
5. "Poor Weather" 9% 9% 9%
5. "Lack of Color Compared to Pacific Species" 9% 4% 7%
8. "Higher Freight Costs" 4% 0% 2%
8. "Poor Environmental (Water) Quality" 4% 13% 9%
8. "Not the Regulations" 4% 0% 2%
11. "Unlicensed Collectors and Dealers" 0% 26% 13%
12. "Low Margins and Declining Market" 0% 9% 4%
13. "Lack of Biological Data on Species" 0% 4% 2%
Wholesalers Located in Other States (n=37)
1. "Lack of Selection, Species Diversity" 38%
2. "Higher Price" 24%
3. "Poor Availability, Seasonal and Quantity" 14%
4. "Lack of Professionalism Among Local Collectors" 11%
5. "Quality Control Problems" 8%
6. "Lack of Color Compared to Pacific Species" 5%
a Duplicate rankings reflect ties.

Six additional reasons were also listed as the most limiting factor to sales of Florida
species. One of the most notable is the final "most important" response, which was that
the local regulations are not to blame. One of the most troubling to the Florida industry
would likely be the perceived presence of unscrupulous and/or unprofessional collectors.
A few respondents (both in and out of Florida) stated having a bad experience with
Florida collectors. The negative experiences cited by wholesalers included low survival











rates, incomplete or incorrect orders, and collectors who hustled them after gaining their
business with a sample first order. These wholesalers also stated that some collectors (1)
do not report all their landings, (2) produce high mortality rates, and (3) garner the name
of potential clients by examining shipments at the airport.

The 2nd through 4th most often cited factors by Florida wholesalers included three
additions. The incidence of unlicensed collectors and dealers received 26 percent of the
2nd-4th most important factors, which ties the inappropriateness/ineffectiveness of the
regulations governing collecting in Florida. Low profit margins (from relatively stable
farm-level prices) and lack of biological data on individual species were specifically
mentioned.

For wholesalers located elsewhere, the lack of species diversity is the primary factor that
will limit increased sales of Florida species (accounting for 38 percent of reasons). The
higher prices of Florida species (due in part to higher labor costs and the need to make
more money than foreign industries) was cited as the next most limiting factor and
accounted for 24 percent of total responses by firms in other states. Poor product
availability, lack of professionalism by collectors, quality control problems, and poor
product attributes (color in particular) compared to Pacific species round out the
responses to this question. Note that while some factors are determined by collectors and
dealers in Florida, many are exogenous to any one individual.

III.D-5. Summary of Most Commonly Cited Opinions

When asked to state the unique advantage, if any, that Florida marine species have over
imports, the most prevalent response (accounting for 42 percent and 50 percent of
responses for Florida and non-Florida firms, respectively) indicated that wholesalers
believe Florida products are of higher quality (Table 4). Respondents defined quality by
survival rates and overall health. Higher quality products had higher survival rates
(primarily due to lower packing densities) and were "less stressed" in general.
Wholesalers in other states also indicated that direct contact with collectors was a unique
advantage of products obtained from Florida; this response accounted for 38 percent of
the total number of responses. In terms of the disadvantages, respondents cited the lack
of sufficient volume (both seasonally and in total) and relatively high price (due to higher
collection costs, especially for labor) of Florida products. These two responses accounted
for 54 percent and 47 percent of those cited by wholesalers located in Florida and other
states, respectively. In general, opinions regarding the uniqueness of species collected in
Florida were largely independent of the location of the firm.

The stated reasons for the observed decline in fish landings in Florida varied by
wholesaler location (Table 5). Florida wholesalers primarily cited a reduction in water
quality, this response received 29 percent of the reasons cited. Wholesalers in other
states believe that a decline in the demand for fish and poor economic conditions for
small firms are to blame; these reasons collectively accounted for 62 percent of











responses. In regards to the reasons cited for the observed increase in invertebrate
landings in Florida, wholesalers (regardless of location) believe that an improvement in
the knowledge and care of keeping invertebrate species was a factor. In addition, Florida
wholesalers stated that collecting invertebrates is easier than collecting fish (and requires
less gear). Among the responses of Florida firms, these two reasons accounted for 60
percent of the total responses. Wholesalers in other states most frequently cited (in
addition to the improved invertebrate knowledge) the increasing popularity of reef tanks.
Among the responses by wholesalers located in other states, these two reasons accounted
for 70 percent of the total responses.

The question concerning the anticipated changes in the wholesale market for marine
aquarium species received the fewest number of distinct responses, which may indicate a
greater degree of consensus within the industry (Table 6). Florida wholesalers expect an
increase in the quantity of cultured products. This response could reflect an increase in
sales of live rock due to the recent addition of lease sites. Alternatively, it could reflect
knowledge of research projects conducted at the University of Florida that are concerned
with developing culture techniques for new species. Among the responses cited by
wholesalers located outside of Florida, increasing consolidation within the industry
(reflecting small firms being displaced or purchased by larger chains) was most
frequently mentioned.

The question eliciting the factors that limit the sales of Florida species received the
highest number of distinct responses, which may indicate a lesser degree of consensus
within the industry regarding this issue (Table 7). Florida wholesalers perceived import
competition, regulatory issues, and illegal market participation within Florida to be the
most pressing factors. Wholesalers located in other states cited the lack of natural species
diversity (perhaps due to the relatively short length of the coastline) as the most limiting
factor since a wide selection is desired at the retail level.


III.E. Unsolicited Comments

As a result of the open-ended nature of the questions, several interviewees offered
additional comments on topics not explicitly included in the survey. These comments are
summarized below.

The collecting business "relocates exotic species to a better habitat, one that is not
degrading."
Most collectors fax information to their regular customers weekly that lists
specimens currently available, price, and any specials.
Typical markup: four-fold increase in price (e.g., $0.25 specimens sold by
collector will sell for $1 to consumers), but this varies by species and seasonally.











* Supply and demand conditions at the species level are very important in
determining the transaction price (i.e., price premiums and discounts are
common). One implication of this is that a "rare" species (i.e., one that is not
commonly sold in the market) can fetch a very high price. Alternatively, if a
collector has a relatively large supply of any one species, the buyer will likely
offer a lower price.
* The Florida Keys is being turned into a large "marine reserve" such that all
collecting will be eliminated.
* Cultured marine species will adequately supplement wild stocks and supply
current and future hobbyists.
* Many hobbyists try, and are successful, at cultivating at least one marine species.
* Overharvesting of many fish species is unlikely due to the difficulty associated
with capture (vs. invertebrate species that are collected on foot in shallow areas).
* Many collectors that have been in the business since its inception in the early
1990s (and as far back as the 1960s) have a reputation for specializing in the
collection of certain species.
* Many collectors/dealers trade product amongst themselves (a result of the
specialization mentioned above) in order to fill diverse orders, which are the
norm.
* All of the original collectors harvest fish species, which they believe are more
difficult to collect (requiring dive equipment, a boat, and at least 3 people by law),
and consider themselves apart from many "hit & run" entrants that have focused
on the easy-to-collect invertebrate species.
* The increasing use of the Internet by collectors for sales direct to consumers
(AMDA Newsletter, First Quarter 2001).
* Those focusing on particular species of fish reported maintaining breeding
grounds for years. By selectively "cultivating" the stock, and keeping the location
private, collectors could harvest at the optimal time. This practice has only
occurred with the availability of affordable Global Positioning Satellite
technology and is only effective in the absence of tropical storms.
* One algae collector reported having his supply virtually eliminated (19 lbs re-
growth took 3-4 months) due to run-off associated with the construction of a
nearby limestone plant. The location in question is Filman's Bayou and the algae
is Caulerpa prolifera. This collector expressed frustration and not being able to
contact an agency with jurisdiction over brackish water.










IV. Comparison of Results with Other Related Surveys


IV.A. Florida Collectors Survey (1991)

In 1991 the Florida Marine Life Association (FMLA) funded a project through the
Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science to examine a limited entry
program for the marine life fishing industry in Florida. The FMLA is an organization
that represents commercial collectors. The study was commissioned by the FMLA in
response to problems related to overcrowding and low yields. Information obtained
during interviews with members of the FMLA, and described in Januzzi (1991), are
summarized below and compared to (or used to help explain) the results of the survey
described in section III of this paper.

According to Januzzi (1991), 60 percent of commercial collectors considered themselves
full-time members of the industry (i.e., it is their only profession). Of the remaining 40
percent, 71 percent work as commercial fishers in other fisheries or are employed in a
marine related profession. Consequently, approximately 88 percent of commercial
marine life collectors receive all their income from marine related activities. Of those
that participate in other commercial fisheries, marine life is often by-catch but can
account for upwards of 50 percent of the value of their landings. Thus, regulations
affecting any fishing activities are likely to affect members of this industry as well. In
1991, 75 percent of collectors traveled within 10 miles of their home and 51 percent
specialized in the harvest of fish species. When asked about any plans for expansion,
approximately 20 percent planned to expand their collection and only 1 percent expected
a decline.

As reported in 1991, the majority of ornamental fishes and invertebrates collected for the
aquarium market inhabit water ranging in depth from 20 to 90 feet. Thus, the fishery is
comprised of skilled divers. However, this generalization may not currently be accurate
given the increase in invertebrate landings, especially live rock and live sand, in the early
1990s (Adams, Larkin and Lee 2000; Antozzi 1997). The reported market channels in
terms of location and type of facility as reported in the 1991 and 1998 studies are
summarized in Table 8 to facilitate comparisons.

When questioned about the markets for their products, firms on average shipped 17
percent to foreign markets, 35 percent to other states, 3 percent within the state, and the
remaining 45 percent were sold locally. For comparison, Figure 3 indicated that the
distribution by weight was 20 percent exports, 58 percent to other states, 7 percent within
Florida, and 15 percent locally (assuming that all other wholesalers were located in
Florida). Although not a direct comparison due to the use of volume in the earlier study
and value in the most recent study, relative allocations are similar.











Table 8. Comparison of Market Channels between Studies

Januzzi (1991) This Study (1998)
Destination (Allocation by Volume) (Allocation by Value)

Location
Foreign Exports 17% 20%
Other States 35% 58%
Florida (excluding Keys) 3% 7%a
Florida Keys (local area) 45% 15%a
Type of Facility
Wholesalers 65% 69%
Retail Pet Stores 16% 23%
Educational/Aquariums 13% 2%
Consumers 6% 6%

a Percentage determined assuming all wholesalers located in Florida from Figure 3.

A follow-up question in the 1991 study disaggregated the destinations at the "local" (i.e.,
Florida keys) level; 65 percent of shipments were destined for other wholesalers, 16
percent to retail pet stores, 13 percent to educational and/or aquarium facilities, and 6
percent to consumers directly. For comparison, the value-based distribution in 1998 was
69 percent, 23 percent 2 percent, and 6 percent, respectively. In summary, regarding
trends in the marketing channels, it appears that since 1991 more Florida-caught species
are being shipped to wholesalers located in other states versus wholesalers in Florida and
relatively more product is destined directly for the retail level.

The discussion regarding the proposed limited entry program conveyed that the majority
of collectors favored stiff penalties for violators including fines, permanent revocation of
licenses following multiple violations, and seizure of gear (with profits from the sale of
the gear and harvest going to current license holders). Given the continued frustration
voiced in regards to some collectors (Tables 4 and 7), these problems continue and may
be magnified in response to the implementation of several new regulations affecting
commercial fishing activities in the Florida Keys (e.g., the spiny lobster trap certificate
program, net ban, no fishing marine protected areas, initiation of stone crap trap program
in 2001, etc.).


IV.B. U.S. Dealers Survey (1996)

The American Marinelife Dealers Association (AMDA), a non-profit organization
promoting sustainable trade in living marine organisms for aquariums, queried its
members (collectors, importers, wholesalers, retailers and propagators) regarding the











establishment of a Marine Aquarium Fish Council in 1995.6 The survey sought
information regarding different aspects of the practices associated with obtaining and
maintaining inventories of marine fish for aquariums (Tullock 1997). Only relevant
information to this study is summarized here.

The survey only solicited information pertaining to the market for marine fish (i.e.,
excluding invertebrates, live rock, live sand, and plants). At the retail level, each firm
averaged handling approximately 165 different specimens (ranging from 12 to 500) and
2,950 in total per year at an average price of $10. However, only 50 percent of firms
keep track of the number of individual specimens sold and only 64 percent of firms
reported using a computer to keep inventory records.

When asked if "eco-labeling" was used as defined, 79 percent agreed to using an
informal system based on direct communication with dealers. In addition, 64 percent
indicated they stock only fish that have been harvested using sustainable practices (as
indicated by the supplier). Only 14 percent would allow the use of quinaldine. This is
an interesting result given the previous responses and that this chemical is currently
allowed for collecting in Florida. These results may indicate that retailers are handling
products that have been collected using quinaldine but are unaware of its use since (if
used according to the regulations) it does not harm the fish or the environment. Only 20
percent of respondents had any formal training in the husbandry of marine fish. Half of
the respondents surveyed buy directly from collectors.

In summary, this 1995 survey information explains and/or supports some of the results
obtained in the 1998 survey discussed in this paper. In particular, the 1995 survey found
that retails handled, on average, 165 species supporting the claim that species diversity is
important at marketing channels closer to the consumers. In addition, the approximately
$10 per fish final sales price supports the claim that the total mark-up is approximately
four times the price paid to the collector (using the average reported prices in Adams,
Larkin, and Lee 2000). The use of information obtained from the supplier (i.e., collector)
as a marketing tool (e.g., promotion of eco-labeled products), reflects the importance of
the collector-retailer relationship mentioned in regards to the future of sales of Florida
species (Table 7).







6 As a result of this survey (in part), the Marine Aquarium Council (MAC) was established. MAC is
dedicated to "Certification for Quality and Sustainability in the Collection, Culture and Commerce of
Marine Ornamentals." More information on the AMDA and MAC organizations can be found at the
following Internet addresses, www.amdareef.com and www.www.aquariumcouncil.org, respectively.
7 A sustainable collection technique was defined as one that does not (a) physically damage the reef, (b)
impair the specimens longevity, and (c) damage non-target species.











IV.C. Industry Sales Survey (1999)


The Pet Product News Buying Guide Directory (formerly known as the Pet Supplies
Marketing Directory) included a State of the Industry Report for 1998, the 26th annual
report (Hellwig 1999). The report includes the value of sales for the following product
categories: dogs, cats, exotic products, reptiles/amphibian, fish, birds, and small
mammals (e.g., rabbits, hamsters). In 1998, fish products remained the most popular
category based on the dollars spent, generating nearly $1.2 billion (dogs were second
with $853 million in sales), which represents a 22 percent increase since 1996. The fish
category was also the largest in terms of the relative value of livestock sales; fish
comprised 37 percent of total revenues. The value of livestock sales has Marine fish, in
particular, accounted for $93 million in livestock, $97 million in fish, and $13 million in
'other' sales. Figures for medicines, filters/heaters, and tanks were not distinguished by
the type of water environment; however, sales collectively totaled $380 million.


IV.D. European Importers Survey (1997)

Ornamental Fish International (OFI) is a non-profit organization of commercial
companies that are involved in the international trade of aquatic species and equipment.
In late 1997, OFI sent out a questionnaire to approximately 200 European live fish
importers (50 percent wholesalers, 20 percent exporters, 6 percent retailers).8 Marine fish
accounted for 16 percent of imports. Shipments from North America accounted for just 8
percent of imports; North American was fourth behind Singapore (25 percent), Indonesia
(9 percent), and Sri Lanka (9 percent). A total of 18 countries/regions were included
indicating that supply sources were not concentrated and reflecting the need for diversity.
The Caribbean accounted for 0.5 percent of European imports.


IV.E. Marine Ornamentals Trade (1999)

In 1999, information was gathered from different segments of the marine ornamentals
industry for the South Pacific Forum Secretariat and the Marine Aquarium Council. This
information was summarized in the recent document by Baquero (1999). Observations
on the general industry that are relevant to, or help explain responses from, the survey
discussed in this paper are listed below.

The number of hobbyists have increased in the past decade due to new aquarium
technology and better understanding of the species and their habitats.
There is a trend toward the demand for species that were obtained from
ecologically sound practices.

8 The entire text of the survey results can be found at the following Internet address: www.omamental-
fish-int.org/data.htm.











* The U.S. dominates the market for ornamental fish, accounting for approximately
60 percent of worldwide demand.
* Advances in ecological and technological knowledge have enabled the
establishments of"mini-reef" home aquariums.
* Aquarium costs are estimated at approximately $200 per year with costs for mini-
reefs ranging from $325 to $1,950 for 30 and 150 gallon tanks, respectively.
* The Philippines and Indonesia supply approximately 85 percent of the marine
aquarium fish imported into the U.S. and Europe, with a retail value of $200
million.
* The basic "chain of custody" for marine ornamentals involves the following four
market segments: collectors, exporters, importers/wholesalers, and retailers. An
additional segment consisting of firms that re-bundle products, "trans-shippers",
is becoming increasingly common.
* One of the most critical and difficult aspects of the industry concerns the ability to
maintain a consistent supply.
* A wide range of skills and technologies are needed to collect and successfully
ship the diversity of species involved in the trade, including invertebrates, plants,
live rock and sand, and fish.
* Incentives to adopt and adhere to quality and sustainability standards exists from
informed customers; "market assessments show that there is a strong demand for
certified marine aquarium organisms and that this demand will increase rapidly
when there is a comprehensive, international, independent certification system."
* Since the aquarium hobby has more competition during the summer, consumer
demand is lowest during these months. During this same period, increasing water
temperatures cause higher mortality rates in holding facilities without climate
control. Both these factors result in relative low demand in the summer.
* "There are close to 100 marine ornamental wholesale companies operating in the
U.S." These companies typically offer a varied inventory by obtaining species
from numerous sources.
* Although developed for Canadian firms, the following seven principles for
entering new markets may be helpful for any firm trying to be successful in this
market. The principals include: (1) understand the target market, (2) commit to
offering high-quality, eco-friendly species; (3) consider air freight costs; (4)
screen foreign firms before engaging in business; (5) be reliable and willing to
communicate with industry contacts; (6) adopt a targeted marketing strategy; and
(7) have a price list prepared that includes all species currently in-stock.











V. Summary, Discussion, and Implications


The domestic market for marine ornamentals comprises approximately 120 firms ranging
in size from $7,500 to $18.5 million in sales per year; no employees to 130 employees;
and zero capacity for holding fish to 800,000 gallons of capacity. There are 56 firms in
Florida and 64 firms around the rest of the country.

Firms in Florida specialize to a greater extent in marine species, invertebrate species, and
domestic species than wholesalers in other states.9 Florida-based operations are on
average smaller, have smaller tank holding capacity, and hire fewer full time workers
than other firms.

Many wholesalers in Florida are also collectors. Thus at Florida facilities inventory
comprises large volumes of marine life harvested by the firm or by other collectors in
Florida. Product is then sold to other wholesalers, exporters, and pet shops. Most Florida
product remains in the U.S. About three-quarters of domestic sales occur outside of
Florida, and nearly two-thirds is sent to outlets in the Midwest.

Domestic wholesalers supply proportionately more freshwater product, fewer marine
invertebrates, and a greater percentage of imported species than Florida firms. Most
product is obtained internationally from Indonesia and the Pacific and domestically from
West coast dealers and independent collectors. Less than a fourth of domestic inventory
purchases are from Florida. The major outlet is pet shop retailers along the East coast
and in the Midwest.

Florida marine life species are reputed to be of higher quality than overseas products with
better than average post-transport survival. For many wholesalers, however, Florida
products are not cost competitive with imports even though imported products are subject
to inspection and fees by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service while Florida products not
subject to inspection. For maintaining an abundance of varied inventory year-around,
domestic wholesalers turn to foreign firms as a solid source of ornamental fish. In the
past, Florida firms have been less reliable.

Supplying greater volumes of wild caught Florida fish may not be the answer. Catch
rates of fish in Florida have been declining for years; a trend that is expected to continue.
Some explanations for the decline follow. (1) Recent regulations have stymied the
collection industry and reduced the number of active commercial collectors. (2) A rise in
demand for more natural reef tanks and reef tank products provided active collectors with
the incentive to shift efforts to invertebrate species. (3) Collecting invertebrate species
requires less skill than catching fish. (4) Marine pollution has hampered fish collection in
Florida perhaps by contributing to the loss of high quality habitat.


9 These results are reported in Larkin and Degner (in press).











Industry wholesalers forsee the following trends. (1) Insiders believe that cultured
marine species will grow in importance as the supply and variety of product increases.
(2) Over time, the industry will consolidate. Large firms will become bigger taking
advantage of size and scope economies. (3) Small firms may prevail in some niche areas
such as the provision and promotion of eco-friendly products, for example the promotion
of species with healthy populations; collected using environmentally sound and
sustainable methods;10 and handled in a manner that minimizes mortality rates. (4)
Domestic regulations are expected to continue to hamper the collection industry, suppress
product availability; and increase operational costs.

To remain in this industry and operate a successfully, firms will need to adapt, react, and
change with the market. Important changes are as follows. (1) Reef tank popularity will
continue to grow. (2) Information costs and transactions costs will decline with advances
in e-commerce technologies. (3) Cultured product will be more widely distributed. (4)
Tank technologies will continue to improve and attract more hobbyists. (5) Firms will
tailor marketing efforts to specific market channels for greater effectiveness. (6) Firms
will begin promoting products' eco-characteristics, for example, collection methods and
handling practices.

Survey results suggest that Florida species can effectively be marketed as a high-quality
marine life product. Improvements in meeting wholesaler needs in terms of providing
predictable and sufficient quantities of product would go a long way towards increasing
Florida's market share in this competitive industry.


References

AMDA (American Marinelife Dealers Association). 2001. AMDA Newsletter, Various
Issues.

Adams, C.M, S.L. Larkin, and D.J. Lee. (2000) "Volume and Value of Marine
Ornamentals Collected in Florida, 1990-98." Aquarium Sciences and
Conservation, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. In
Press.

Antozzi, W.O. (1997) "The Developing Live Rock Aquaculture Industry." SERO-
ECON-98-10, National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, FL, 8 pp.

Baquero, J. (1999) "Marine Ornamentals Trade: Quality and Sustainability for the Pacific
Region." Prepared by the South Pacific Forum Secretariat, Trade and Investment
Division, under a project funded by the Canadian International Development
Agency, C-SPODP, Phase II, 52 pp.

10 For example without cyanide or quinaldine.












Hellwig, G. (1999) "26t Annual Pet Product News Buying Guide Directory State of the
Industry Report." Pet Product News Buying Guide Directory 53(4), 5-11.

Januzzi, C.L. (1991) "A Guide to Developing a Limited Entry Program for the Marine
Life Fishing Industry." Internship Report, Rosenstiel School of Marine and
Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, Miami, FL, 79 pp.

Larkin, S.L. and R.L. Degner. (2000) "The U.S. Wholesale Market for Marine
Ornamentals." Aquarium Sciences and Conservation, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. In Press.

Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) (1999) "U.S. Ornamental Aquarium
Industry." Pet Information Bureau. Washington, DC. 2 pp.

Tullock, John. (1997) "1996 Dealer Survey." American Marinelife Dealers Association,
Las Vegas, NV, 6 pp.











Appendix A. Copy of Survey Cover Letter


, 1999






Dear ,

Would you be willing to spend a few minutes of your time in order to gain a better
understanding of the U.S. wholesale market for marine aquarium species? The University
of Florida's Agricultural Market Research Center is conducting a study to address the
following issues.
Recent market trends for the most popular species collected in Florida.
Importance of imports into the United States.
Differences in marketing imported versus domestic products.
Marketing advantages and disadvantages of species collected in Florida.
Major foreign competitors in the domestic market.
Countries that compete directly with Florida product for market share.
Marketing channels for imported and domestic products.
Factors influencing sales of marine fish and invertebrates.

Our research assistant will call you this summer to conduct an interview by phone. Your
answers to our survey questions will help provide the industry with valuable insights into
Florida's collection industry and the U.S. wholesale market for live marine ornamentals
that we hope will assist your future marketing plans.

Please be assured that this is a university study with practical applications for the marine
aquaria industry. We are not affiliated with any business or regulatory agency. To maintain
confidentiality, our research assistant will code only your responses to the survey (your
name and address will not be entered). Using this approach, there will be no way for
anyone to associate your firm with your responses.

Thank you for your time and potential involvement in this innovative project. Participants
in the study will receive a copy of the final report if desired. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Robert Degner
Professor and Director









Appendix B. Copy of Survey Instrument


LIVE AQUARIUM PRODUCTS WHOLESALERS SURVEY


Date/Time:
Firm Name:
Contact:
Address:





Phone:
Email:


Send Copy of Final Report? Yes or No (circle answer)




May I speak with ? Hello, my name is and I'm working at the University of
Florida's Agricultural Marketing Center. The Center is conducting a research project to better
understanding of the U.S. wholesale market for marine aquarium species. Did you receive the
letter we sent explaining the project?

[If YES] Great! Do you have any questions?

[If NO] Well, the study is attempting to address market trends, the magnitude and importance of
imports, major competitors, marketing channels, advantages and disadvantages of Florida
species, and the like.
We are calling licensed wholesale dealers in Florida, firms listed in the Pet Supplies
Marketing Directory, and firms found on the Internet.
We are not affiliated with any business or regulatory agency and everything said remains
confidential since I only enter your responses. I then check your name off my list and, if you
would like a copy of the final report, I will enter your address onto our mailing list. Participants
in the study will receive a copy of our final report in April 2000.
Do you have any questions?








Observation No.


Beginning with your livestock inventory,


1. Do you handle freshwater species? Yes or No
[If Yes] What percent of the value of your inventory is comprised of freshwater
species? %


2. Considering the value of your saltwater inventory, on average, how would
between the following three product groups: 1. % Live rock and Sand?
2. % Invertebrates?
3. % Fish?


it be divided
%
%
%


100 %


3. Considering the value of your saltwater invertebrates, on average, what percent is comprised
of "critters" such as snails, starfish, crabs, cucumbers, shrimps, etc? %

4. Considering the value of your saltwater fish and inverts, that is excluding the value of live
rock and live sand, what percent do you directly import from outside the U.S.? %
[If 0] Go to next question.
[If +] How would you divide your source of inventory by country in terms of
percentage of dollars spent? Country: C %)
Country: (__ %)
Country: (__ %)
Country: (__ %)
100 %


5. Considering the value of your saltwater fish and inverts purchased
proportion is derived from the following three sources:
1. Collected by your firm? %
2. Purchased directly from other collectors? %
3. Purchased from other wholesalers or importers? % [If 0,
100 %


domestically, what



skip to question 8]


6. Considering the value of your saltwater inventory purchased from other domestic
wholesalers or importers, again excluding live rock and sand, what proportion is purchased
from Florida? % [If 100, skip to question 8]

7. Considering the value of your saltwater fish and inverts purchased from wholesalers or
importers in other states, what proportion is received from:
1. The West Coast including Hawaii? %
2. The Mid-West? %
3. The East Coast? %
100 %

8. For which marine fish and invertebrate species, if any, have foreign supplies become more
important since 1995? Species #1:
Species #2:
Species #3:









9. In comparing Florida marine species with identical imports, that is, the same species
imported from the Caribbean or South America:
What unique advantage, if any, do Florida species have?



What unique disadvantage, if any, do Florida species have?



10. Realizing that it will vary by species, if the price of an identical species collected in Florida
equaled one dollar, what would be the F.O.B Miami price of a Caribbean or South
American import? $ [e.g., Species: ]

11. Annual landings figures collected by the Department of Environmental Protection indicate
that commercial landings of the majority of fish species peaked in 1994 and fell
substantially thereafter. However, commercial landings of most invertebrates have
increased since 1994. First, what could have caused the decline in fish landings?



Second, what could have caused the increase in invertebrate landings?



Now turning toward distribution outlets,


12. Of your dollar sales of saltwater fish and inverts, again excluding live rock and
percent do you export directly out of the U.S.? %
[If 0] Skip to next question (13).
[If 100] Skip to question 15.
[If 1-99] Considering the value of your exports just referenced, how is yo
divided by country in terms of percentage of dollar sales?
Country: ( %)
Country: ( %)
Country: ( %)
Country: ( %)
100 %


sand, what


ur business


13. Considering the value of your domestic sales of saltwater fish and inverts, what portion do
you sell directly in Florida? % [If 100, skip to question 17]

14. Considering the value of your marine fish and inverts sent to other states, what percentage
are destined for the:
1. The West Coast including Hawaii? %
2. The Mid-West? %
3. The East Coast? %
100 %









15. Considering the value of your marine fish and inverts sold domestically, what percentage are
sent to the following four destinations:
1. Other wholesalers and exporters? %
2. Retail pet shops? %
3. Direct to consumers? %
4. Educational institutions, public aquariums, or research laboratories? %
100 %


Lastly, we would like some general information and opinions. For example,


16. How many gallons of holding space do you have/use? Gallons

17. Would you consider the size of your firm to be SMALL, MEDIUM, or LARGE relative to
your competitors? (circle answer)

18. How many years has your firm been in business?

19. How many full-time collectors work for your firm?
How many other full-time positions are there?
Excluding the full-time collectors, how many other collectors do you buy from?

20. What changes, if any, do you foresee at the wholesale level in the next 5 years?




21. In your opinion, what are the most limiting factors to sales of Florida species?
Most important: 1.
2nd most: 2.
3rd most: 3.


22. What species of marine life, if any, do you carry that are aquacultured or tank-raised?
Species #1: 1.
Species #2: 2.
Species #3: 3.


23. For purposes of evaluating differences in product flows and opinions, we'd like to ask one
final confidential question: Excluding live rock, live sand, and all invertebrates, what were
your approximate dollar sales of marine fish in 1998: $

Thanks for your help and time.
Would you be interested in receiving a copy of our final report? Yes or No
[If yes, verify mail address or ask for email address, enter on top page, return to Bob]




Full Text

PAGE 1

1999 U.S. Tropical Fish Wholesalers Survey: Results and Implications Sherry L. Larkin, Charles M. Adams, Robert L. Degner, and Donna J. Lee Food and Resource Economics Department Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences University of Florida P.O. Box 110240 Gainesville, FL 32611-0240 Abstract A survey of marine life wholesalers was initiated in 1999 as a first step towards understanding the nature of Fl orida’s marine life industry, the demand for Florida product both domestically and internati onally, and the need for changes in the way the industry is regulated. Florida firms deal primarily in ma rine species and collect much of their own product. Wholesalers outside of Florida ha ndle more freshwater species and purchase most of their inventory, the majority from overseas suppliers. Dealers predict that the average firm size will continue to grow as the industry consolidates. Niche markets for eco-friendly product will gain momentum. In Florida, marketing strategies should point to the high quality of Florida species with emphasis on the growing popularity of invertebrates. Wholesalers should look to ways to provide buyers w ith Florida product in more predictable quantities throughout the y ear. Resource managers will be challenged to find ways to protect over-harvested specie s without interfering wi th the collection of abundant species while also ke eping in mind the effect of new regulations on product availability. Key Words Aquarium fish market, live orname ntal fish, marine invertebrates This article was developed under the auspices of Florida Sea Grant College Program with support from the National Oceanic and Atmosphe re Administration, Office of Sea Grant, Department of Commerce, Grant No. NA76RG-0120.

PAGE 2

1999 U.S. Tropical Fish Wholesalers Survey: Results and Implications Table of Contents I. Introduction............................................................................................................... .....3 II. Survey Development and Design..................................................................................5 III. Survey Results........................................................................................................... ..6 III.A. Response Rate..................................................................................................6 III.B. Firm Demographics..........................................................................................7 III.C. Market Channels............................................................................................10 III.C-1. Sources of Marine Life Pr ocured by Florida Wholesalers......................10 III.C-2. Sources of Marine Life Procur ed by Wholesalers in Other States.........11 III.C-3. Distribution Chain for Wholesalers Located in Florida..........................13 III.C-4. Distribution Chain for Wholes alers Located in Other States..................14 III.C-5. Comparison of Marketing Channe ls between Florida and the Other States ............................................................................................................................... 14 III.D. Perceptions and Opinions...............................................................................15 III.D-1. (Dis)Advantages of Florida Caught Species...........................................16 III.D-2. Reasons for Recent Landings Trends in Florida.....................................17 III.D-3. Future of the Wholesale Marine Life Market.........................................19 III.D-4. Limiting Factors to Sales of Florida Species..........................................20 III.D-5. Summary of Most Commonly Cited Opinions.......................................22 III.E. Unsolicited Comments...................................................................................23 IV. Comparison of Results with Other Related Surveys.................................................25 IV.A. Florida Collectors Survey (1991)..................................................................25 IV.B. U.S. Dealers Survey (1996)...........................................................................26 IV.C. Industry Sales Survey (1999).........................................................................28 IV.D. European Importers Survey (1997)................................................................28 IV.E. Marine Ornamentals Trade (1999).................................................................28 V. Discussion and Implications.......................................................................................30 References..................................................................................................................... ....31 Appendix A. Copy of Survey Cover Letter.....................................................................33 Appendix B. Copy of Survey Instrument........................................................................34

PAGE 3

3 1999 U.S. Tropical Fish Wholesalers Survey: Results and Implications I. Introduction The tropical fish keeping hobby is currently the 2nd most popular in the United States (Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council or PIJAC) More importantl y, interest in home aquariums continues to grow (PIJAC). Industr y growth has been especially prevalent for the establishment of “artificial reefs”, wh ich could be due to recent technological advances and breakthroughs in the care of such sp ecies. Marine aqua riums rely on live specimens – fish and invertebrates such as plants, rock, sand, and crustaceans – collected from the wild. In the United States, such co llection is restricted to South Florida and Hawaii. The recent awareness of the plight of coral reefs, such as the designation of 1997 as the “International Year of the Reef”, has be gun to highlight the marine life collection industry. According to the World Resources Institute (WRI), almo st all reefs of the Florida Keys are at a moderate threat from human activities, includ ing the overfishing of target species. In addition, At a minimum, overfishing results in shifts in fish size, abundance, and species composition within reef communities. Evidence suggests that removal of key herbivore and predator species may ultimately affect largescale ecosystem changes. For example, removal of triggerfish has been linked with explosions in burrowing urch in populations, their prey, who subsequently accelerate reef erosion through feeding activities. In the Caribbean, decades of overfishing has led, in many places, to very low levels of grazing fish species. Because of this, herbivorous sea urchins (a nonburrowing species) have play ed an increasingly impor tant role in keeping down algae growth. The commercial collection of ma rine ornamentals in Florida (where virtually all of the wild-collection activity in the continental U.S. occurs) was formally recognized as an industry in 1990, at which time data collec tion began. Since 1990, commercial collectors have landed approximately 180 species of marine finfish and 150 species of marine invertebrates, nearly 65% (in total value) fr om the Florida Keys region (Florida Marine Research Institute, 1999). The Florida indus try has experienced a number of changes in recent years, particularly in regards to resource management. Since 1994, the industry has shifted from fish species to collecting prim arily invertebrates. Us ing data collected by the state of Florida, the total commercial ha rvest of all live marine life (including such products as live rock, live sand, angelfish, starfish, clams, crab s, plants, sharks, rays, etc.)

PAGE 4

4 was valued at less than $5 million annually (Florida Marine Resource Institute, 1999). This value represents the docks ide value of the landings, the first point of transaction. Based on conversations with wholesalers descri bed in this paper, it is likely that the product value increases four-fold as it move s through the marketing chain. If so, the retail value of Florida-caught products is estimated at approximately $20 million.1 In Florida, collection practices have been regulated since th e early 1990s with passage of Florida Statute 46-42. However, until 1998, part icipation (and hence fishing effort) has been effectively unrestricted. Senate Bill 1506 placed a four-year moratorium (beginning July 1, 1988) on the issu e of new “marine life endorseme nts,” without which marine life collected in Florida cannot be sold (Flo rida Statute 370.06(2)(d)2). Following the moratorium, limited-access legislation may be instituted. The current moratorium (and potential future limited entry system) coul d produce a wide variety of economically beneficial effects by eliminati ng myopically-driven practices th at lead to a disregard for other fishers, recreational divers, reef health, fish mortality rates, and lower revenues (as smaller fish are collected and sold for a lo wer price). Given the diversity of species collected, additional regulations may be need ed to protect species in greatest demand. The objective of this paper was to summarize results of a 1999 survey of U.S. marine ornamental wholesalers. The survey instrume nt was created following the analysis of the commercial collection industry (maintained by the Florida Marine Information System) and the trade data (collected by U.S. Customs Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), which are described in companion re ports. The survey was designed to provide insight concerning th e following issues: Recent market trends and channels for imported and domestic products. Importance of imports into the United States. Differences in marketing imported versus domestic products. Marketing advantages and disadvantages of species collected in Florida. Identification of major foreign comp etitors in the domestic market. Factors influencing sales of live marine fish and invertebrates. Expectations on the future of the industry The results were expected to yield inform ation needed by collectors, wholesalers, retailers, and resource managers regarding the state of the industry and to provide suggestions for successful future manageme nt policies and marketing campaigns. The descriptions and opinions of industry members, primarily Florida co llectors and dealers, are crucial to the accurate understanding and ultimate success of future regulations. 1 To our knowledge, similar data is not available on the Hawaiian industry.

PAGE 5

5 II. Survey Development, Design, and Implementation The wholesaler survey was designed to tract the flow of product through marketing channels and geographically. We also s ought information on the dominance of Florida products both nationally and internationally (see Appendix B). As such, this work represents the first study to document the economics of the marine life industry in Florida. Survey questions were written to provide information on the total quantity and value of products purchased and sold in 1998. We asked dealers about product prices, quantities sold, and how Florida compared to imported species. We queried wholesalers on their annual sales volume by species type collection points, di stribution outlets, and expectations about industry trends. We aske d firms to describe their market channels (supply and demand side) and soli cited their opinions about the state of the industry. We requested information about firm demographics to distinguish betw een types of market groups. The survey questions were pre-tested during se veral personal and tele phone interviews of Florida wholesalers conducted in March and Ap ril 1999. The pre-testing revealed that it would be necessary to interview all Florid a wholesalers by telephone since none kept regular business hours and most operated out of their home. The out -of-state interviews were also conducted by telephone since the cost of travel was prohibitiv ely expensive. To increase the response rate, all firms were maile d a personalized letter with a description of the project and a request for cooperation dur ing telephone survey (Appendix A). To maintain consistency, two interviewers we re employed, one for the Florida firms and another for the out-of-state firms. Our contact list included all Florida wholes alers licensed to purchase marine life and having reported handling marine life species in either 1997 or 1998 (i.e., firms with active marine life endorsements or MLEs), a total of 90 firms. Next, we identified dealers located outside of Florida using the trade magazine Pet Supplies Marketing Directory which has been renamed the Pet Products News Buying Guide (Fancy Publications Inc.).2 In this manner, 84 domestic firms dealing in “saltwat er livestock” were added to our contact list3 for a total of 174 firms. Letters were mailed out to all firms descri bing the project and asking for cooperation when called. Each firm was then cont acted by phone between August 1999 and February 2000. 2 Per the suggestion of the (then) president of the AMDA. 3 The directory actually listed a total of 91 firms; howe ver, initial contact with these firms revealed that two firms were listed multiple times under different names and five did not handle marine species. These seven firms were eliminated from the list.

PAGE 6

6 III. Survey Results III.A. Response Rate Of the 174 firms initially identified as marine life wholesalers, 54 firms (31%) were removed from the list because they did not pa rticipate in the market in 1999 or had their telephone disconnected and left no forwarding number. Of the remaining 120 firms, 52 firms (43%) completed the survey, 7 explic itly refused to answer, and 61 provided incomplete responses. Every attempt was made to gather the survey information including contacting some firms up to eleven times. Several surveys were interrupted and never completed. Some firms promised to call back but never did. In many cases, the interviewer was forwarded to another individual within the organization to complete part of the survey and the other individua l could not be contacted. Using multiple individuals within a firm to complete the su rvey was expected given the depth and scope of the subject matter. Firms contacted during pre-testing also used a number of employees (e.g., the sales manager, purchaser, owner, collectors, etc.) to complete the survey. A summary of response rate statistics appears in Table 1. Table 1. Response Rate Summary Firm Location Summary Variable Florida Other States Number Percent Target Firms 90 84a 174 100% Active Firms: Completed Survey 25 27 52 30% Refused to Answer 6 1 7 4% Incomplete survey 25 36 61 35% 120 Inactive Firms: Did not participate in 1999 21 0 21 12% Telephone Disconnected 13 20 33 19% 54 Response Rate: Florida Other States Overall Target Firms 28% 32% 30% Active Firms 45% 42% 43% a Number of unique firms that handle live marine sp ecies (i.e., excludes firms listed under multiple names and those incorrectly categorized as handling marine species).

PAGE 7

7 Of the 52 completed surveys, 25 firms (48 pe rcent) are licensed wholesalers in Florida and 27 firms were from other States. Thirty -seven percent of the Florida firms active 1998 did not participate in the industry in 1999. Twenty-four percent of the wholesalers listed in the most current Pet Supplies Mark eting Directory did not participate in the fishery in 1999, that is, they did not report any purchases or claime d they were “out of business”. Of the active firms in Florida, ne arly 11 percent refused to answer any survey questions. Of the non-Florida firms more th an 98 percent (all but one) completed our survey. “Target firms” in Florida include all dealers licensed by the State to purchase live marine aquarium species. Of the top 25 firms in Fl orida (firms collectively accounting for 75 percent of sales in 1998), 40 percent comple ted our survey. Similar information was not available for firms located in other States. III.B. Firm Demographics The wholesalers in this study were well establ ished, averaging 17 years of experience in the market for Florida firms and nearly 19 ye ars of experience in all other states. The mean and standard deviations (in parentheses) of firms surveyed are summarized in Table 2. Holding space for Florida firms averaged 21,03 6 gallons while firms in other states had an average holding capacity of 82,371 gallons. Florida firms hired on average fewer than 2 full-time employees while firms in othe r states hired on average of 17.7 full time personnel. Holding capacities ranged from zero4 to 200,000 gallon in Florida firms and from 700 to 800,000 gallons in other firms. The largest Florida wholesaler employed seven full-time workers. The largest non-Fl orida firm maintained 130 full-time positions. In order to assess firm size in terms of sales figures, the ma rket in question needs to be explicitly defined. One measure of sales is th e reported total dollar sale s of marine fish in 1998 (question 25, Appendix B). Comparison of the average sales figures indicates that Florida wholesalers sold $369,519 in marine fish in 1998, whic h is 37% high er than the average reported by wholesalers in other states The standard devia tions indicate that there was relatively more variability in this figure among the Florida wholesalers (sales ranged from $3,000 to $300,000). Since the aquarium market at the retail le vel often includes nonfish species (e.g., invertebrates, live rock, liv e sand), freshwater species and dry goods (e.g. tanks and equipment, food, etc.), a more general measure of sales value may better reflect firm size. 4 Firms reporting no holding capacity reflect individu al collectors with dealer licenses who sell their product immediately.

PAGE 8

8 Using the reported annual sales shares by live product form and tank environment (questions 3 and 2, respectively, Appendix B), it was possible to create a proxy for annual sales of all live aquarium species. In summ ary, these total sales fi gures were over four times the size of marine sale s alone; Florida firms averag ed annual sales of nearly $1.8 million compared to $1.1 for wholesale firms lo cated in other states. The average Florida firm size (in terms of sales value) remained larger since marine species accounted for 90% of their total inventory. This large av erage marine share masked the smaller share of inventory (in terms of valu e) accounted for by fish species, which are relatively more expensive in general. Table 2. Characteristics of Marine Life Wholesalers Values for Florida and All Other Statesa Characteristic Florida All Other States Experience (years) 17.1 (12.0) 18.8 (11.5) Holding Space (gallons) 21,036 (47,798) 82,371 (184,751) Employees (FTE) 1.9 (2.1) 17.7 (25.9) Value of Marine Fish Held in 1998 $369,519 (756,305) $269,500 (260,020) Share of Marine Inventory Value Comprised of Fish 46% (0.26) 65% (0.21) Share of Total Inventory Value Comprised of Marine Species 90% (0.25) 61% (0.39) Approximate Annual Sales of Live Aquarium Speciesb $1,788,106 (4,489,234) $1,089,378 (1,393,865) Share of Firms that Sell Dry Goods 22% 52% Of Firms that Sell Dry Goods, Share of Total Sales from Dry Goods 11% (0.10) 25% (0.27) aValues in parentheses are standard deviations. bAverage is based on the 19 Florida firms and 24 firms from other states that provided us with sales information Aside from sales of live aquatic specimens, wholesalers can also deal in dry goods. The majority (52%) of firm s located in other states offered dry goods compared to just 22% of

PAGE 9

9 Florida firms; however, dry goods accounted for less than a quarter of total sales. Given the relatively low significance of dry goods on to tal sales, further analysis by firm size is restricted to the sales of live aquatic specimens This statistic also was characterized by having the largest standard deviations relati ve to the means. The approximate average annual sales value of live aquarium species are summarized by firm size and location in Table 3. Table 3. Sales Characteristics fo r Small, Medium, and Large Firms Variable Florida a Other States a Size Distributionb Small 47% 21% Medium 21% 50% Large 32% 29% 100% 100% Annual Sales of Live Aquarium Species Small $151,098 (175,009) $145,249 (89,062) Medium $703,333 (866,179) $1,307,507 (1,717,686) Large $4,969,966 (7,357,877) $1,460,727 (913,844) Number of respondents 19 24 aValues in parentheses are standard deviations. bAs determined by responses to the following question: “Would you consider the size of your firm to be small, medium, or large relative to your competitors?” The majority of wholesalers in Florida (47 percent) considered their firm to be “small” compared to their competitors. For wholesal ers in other states, the majority considered their firm to be “medium” compared to their competitors. These self-categorizations were used to compute average sales by firm si ze. Self-categorizations were used in place of measures based on survey answers because for some dealers th e survey design was likely to capture only a s ubset of firm activities. “Small” Florida firms sold an average of $151,000 worth of product annually. Reported sales ranged from $7,500 to $500,000. “Small” fi rms in other states averaged $145,000 in sales based on annual sales ranging from $37,000 to $270,000. “Medium” Florida firm

PAGE 10

10 sales averaged $703,000 per year. “Large” Fl orida firm sales ranged from $303,000 to $18.5 million with average sales of about $5 m illion. In other states, “medium” firm sales ranged from $185,000 to $6.4 million a nd “large” firms ranged from $270,000 to $2.5 million. Amongst all of the surveyed comp anies reporting live product sales, firms with the smallest and the largest annual sales were in Florida. III.C. Market Channels Since the characteristics of Fl orida marine life wholesalers differed from firms located in other U.S. states as evidenced in Tables 1-3, figures describing the marketing channels are distinguished by firm location. In partic ular, the reported sources of marine life inventory are described in sections III.C-1 and III.C-2 (figures 1 and 2) for firms in Florida and the other states, respectively. Then the produc t distribution chains for live marine life are described in sections III.C-3 and III.C-4 (figures 3 and 4) for firms in Florida and the other states, re spectively. The findings are su mmarized in the last section (i.e., III.C-5 ). III.C-1. Sources of Marine Life Procured by Florida Wholesalers Figure 1 depicts the sources of marine life procured by marine life wholesalers in Florida. In terms of the value of inventory procured by Florida marine life wholesalers in 1998, 90 percent were marine species. Of the mari ne species, fish species accounted for 49 percent, invertebrate species accounted for 44 percent, and live rock and live sand accounted for the 7 percent of average annua l inventory purchases reported by Florida wholesalers. Of the 93 percent of the fish and invertebra te inventory held by Florida wholesalers in 1998, 84 percent was obtained from U.S. sour ces. Approximately 37 percent of their inventory (weighted by value) was obtained from collectors employed by their firm fulltime as many of these firms were “owneroperated.” Florida wholesalers obtained 30 percent of the value of their inventory from other local collectors; these are individuals that were part-time collectors. The remain ing 33 percent of inventory value was obtained from other wholesalers, of which 62 perc ent were located in Florida. Hence, approximately 57 percent of the inventory value held by Florida wholesalers was obtained in Florida. Of the 38 percent obtained from othe r states, 68 percent was from firms located on the East Coast a nd most often, Atlanta, Georgia. Of the 19 percent of product value imported from foreign companies, 81 percent were from firms located in the Caribbean; these fi rms often have close ties with firms in Florida and many operate as “s atellite” collecting stations.

PAGE 11

11 Total Supply: Freshwater Marine (Value) ___10 ___% + ___90 ___% = 100% Live Rock and Sand Invertebrates Fish ___7 ___% + ___44 ____% + __49 __% = 100% 93% Foreign Domestic __16 __% + ___84 ___% = 100% Caribbean (Other Atlantic): __81 __% Self Collect/Culture: __37 __% Indonesia and All Pacific: __19 __% Other Collectors: __30 __% Other: ___0 __% Wholesalers : __33 __% TOTAL: 100 % TOTAL: 100 % Florida: __62 __% Other States : __38 __% TOTAL: 100 % West Coast: _32 __% Mid-West: __0 __% East Coast: _68 __% TOTAL: 100 % Figure 1. Sources and Average Shares of Li ve Marine Life Inve ntory Procured by Wholesalers Located in Florida III.C-2. Sources of Marine Life Procured by Wholesalers in Other States Figure 2 depicts the sources of marine life pr ocured by marine life wholesalers located in other states (i.e., excludi ng those located in Florida and discussed in section III.C-1 ). In terms of the value of inventory procured by Florida marine life wholesalers in 1998, 61 percent were marine species. Of the marine species, fish species accounted for the largest component (64 percent), however, inverteb rate species accounted for 25 percent.

PAGE 12

12 Total Supply: Freshwater Marine (Value) ____39 ___% + ___61 ___% = 100% Live Rock and Sand Invertebrates Fish ____11 _____% + ___25 ____% + __64 __% = 100% 89% Foreign Domestic ___55 __% + ___45 ____% = 100% Caribbean (Other Atlantic): ___4 __% Self Collect/Culture: ___3 __% Indonesia and All Pacific: __78 __% Other Collectors: __49 __% Other: __18 __% Wholesalers : __48 __% TOTAL: 100 % TOTAL: 100 % Florida: __24 __% Other States : __76 __% TOTAL: 100 % West Coast: _55 __% Mid-West: _12 __% East Coast: _33 __% TOTAL: 100 % Figure 2. Sources and Average Shares of Li ve Marine Life Inve ntory Procured by Wholesalers Located in Other States Of the marine fish and invertebrate inventory held by wholesalers in other states in 1998, 55 percent was from foreign sources and 45 percent were from domestic suppliers. Collectors and wholesalers supp lied 97 percent of the domestic inventory. The remaining 3 percent of inventory was s upplied by full-time collector em ployed by the firm. Florida wholesalers provided 24 percent of the inventory held by whol esalers in other states in the West Coast5, Mid-West and East Coast. Of the 55 percent of product value imported from foreign companies, 78 percent were from firms located in Indonesia and the P acific (Singapore, Philippines). Caribbean 5 Los Angeles, California was often lis ted as a West Coast supply source.

PAGE 13

13 nations accounted for only 4 percent on aver age, however, two firms obtained all their imported product from this area. The rema ining 18 percent, on average, was obtained from South America and the Red Sea. III.C-3. Distribution Chain for Wholesalers Located in Florida Other domestic markets are the primary outle t for marine life wholesalers located in Florida (Figure 3); on average, 80 percent of the value of inventories held by Florida wholesalers are destined for ot her cities in the U.S. Total Distribution: Foreign (Exports) Domestic (U.S.) (Value) ___20 ____% + ____80 ____% = 100% Canada: __33 __% Other Wholesalers/Exporters: __69 __% Europe: __53 __% Retail Pet Shops: __23 __% Far East: __12 __% Education/Public Aquariums: ___2 __% Other: ___2 __% Direct to Consumers: ___6 __% TOTAL 100 % TOTAL: 100 % Florida: __27 __% Other States : __73 __% TOTAL: 100 % West Coast: __19 ___% Mid-West: __63 ___% East Coast: __18 ___% TOTAL: 100 % Figure 3. Distribution Chain and Average Shares for Live Marine Life Sold by Wholesalers Located in Florida The exported share primarily goes to Europe and Canada (53 percent and 33 percent, respectively). The domestic share is domin ated by other wholesalers and exporters, which account for 69 percent of volume-weighted sales. Retail pet shops account for the next largest share (23 per cent), followed by consumers (6 percent) and educational outlets such as public aquariums (2 percent). The vast majority of these domestic outlets are located in states other than Florida, 73 percent on average, with 63 percent going to states in the Mid-West.

PAGE 14

14 III.C-4. Distribution Chain for Whol esalers Located in Other States Marine life wholesalers in othe r states are heavily dependent on domestic markets, which accounted for approximately 95 percent of sales value. In terms of location, 94 percent went to states other than Flor ida (i.e., only 6 perc ent was shipped to locations in Florida); however, the majority was shipped to the East Coast (45 percent). The value of domestic shipments going to the mid-west accounted for an additional 38 percent. In terms of the type of buyer, 77 percent was sold to reta il pet shops. Sales direct to consumers accounted for an additional 4 percent. Other wholesale firms received 15 percent. In terms of the exports, on average, 87 percen t of the value of inventories held by wholesalers in other states are destined fo r the Far East, with the majority of the remainder being exported to Europe. Total Distribution: Foreign (Exports) Domestic (U.S.) (Value) ___5 ____% + ____95 ____% = 100% Canada: ___3 __% Other Wholesalers/Exporters: __15 __% Europe: __17 __% Retail Pet Shops: __77 __% Far East: __87 __% Education/Public Aquariums: ___4 __% Other: ___3 __% Direct to Consumers: ___4 __% TOTAL 100 % TOTAL: 100 % Florida: ___6 __% Other States : __94 __% TOTAL: 100 % West Coast: __17 ___% Mid-West: __38 ___% East Coast: __45 ___% TOTAL: 100 % Figure 4. Distribution Chain and Average Shares for Live Marine Life Sold by Wholesalers Located in Other States III.C-5. Comparison of Marketing Channels between Florida and the Other States Figures 1 and 2 depict the sour ces of marine life procured by marine life wholesalers in Florida and the remaining states. The invent ory of Florida marine life wholesalers comprises 90 percent marine species and 10 pe rcent freshwater species. Of the marine species, 49 percent are fish, 44 percent are in vertebrates, and 7 percent live rock and sand. In other states, firms' inventories co mprise 61 percent marine species on average and 39 percent freshwater species and 64 pe rcent of the marine species are fish.

PAGE 15

15 Florida wholesalers obtained 84 percent of ma rine inventory from domestic sources and 16 percent of foreign source s, primarily the Caribbean/Atlantic (81 percent). Wholesalers in other states import 55 percent of their marine inventory, primarily from Indonesia and Pacific so urces (78 percent). Florida wholesalers sell 80 percent of th eir marine life product domestically and 20 percent outside of the country, primarily to Eu rope. Wholesalers in other states sell 95 percent of their marine life product domestically and 5 percent to foreign markets, primarily the Far East. The bulk of Florida's domestically sold produ ct (69 percent) is intended for other wholesalers and exporters in the U.S. Outside of Florida, domestic wholesalers' primary outlet is the retail pet ma rket (77 percent). Fl orida firms' domestic product distribution is divided between intrasta te sales (27 percent) and interstate sales (73 percent). Sixty-three percent of interstate sales are to firms in the Mid-West. Firms located in other states sold 6 percent of their domestic pr oduct to Florida and 94 percent to all other states. Florida firms differ from firms in other states by holding a larger pr oportion of inventory in marine species, invertebrates, and domes tic product. Florida firms send more product to the Midwest than to the East Coast or We st Coast. In other states, firms sell more product to the East Coast than to the Midwest or West Coast. III.D. Perceptions and Opinions Qualitative data provided valuable insights in to industry-wide trends and developments. Respondents were asked a series of openended opinion-oriented questions. The questions were intended to assess opinions regarding industry st rengths and weaknesses that could ultimately be used to aid marketing campaigns and establish consensus regarding the effectiveness of regulatory measures. The questions concerned: (1) the advantages and disadvantages of Floridacaught products relative to imports, (2) explanations for observed trends in the collection of fish and invertebrates in Florida, (3) expected changes in the wholesale market with in five years, and (4) factors limiting sales of Florida species. The questions and res ponses, ranked beginning with “1” (where the number 1 response is the mode, i.e., the mo st commonly cited response) for the Florida wholesalers (i.e., the responses are ordered by share for Flor ida firms), are presented in Tables 4-7. Note that the number of res ponses does not equal the number of firms since response was optional and firms could provide multiple responses.

PAGE 16

16 III.D-1. (Dis)Advantages of Florida Caught Species One of the open-ended questioned queried resp ondents, in subsequent questions, about the advantages and disadvantages of species collected in Florida compared to a similar import? The responses are summ arized in Table 4. Table 4. Ranking and Incidence of Re sponses to the Following Question: “In comparing Florida marine species with an identical impo rt, what unique (dis)advantage, if any, do Florida species have?” Responses (Rank 1 = mode for Florida wholesalers) Florida Other States Advantages:a ( n =24) ( n =26) 1. “Products are Generally of Higher Quality” 42% 50% 2. “Products can be Obta ined at a Lower Cost” 17% 8% 2. “None” 17% 0% 4. “Product is Unique, Import is not Identical” 12% 4% 5. “Better Collector Relations” 8% 38% 6. “No Import Paperwork or Other ‘Red Tape’ “ 4% 0% Disadvantages: ( n =31) ( n =17) 1. “Supply Volume is Limited” 32% 12% 2. “Products Generally Sell for a Higher Price” 22% 35% 3. “Attributes are Weak” 16% 12% 4. “Supply is Seasonal, Lowest in Winter” 13% 12% 5. “Collectors are Unpr ofessional/Unscrupulous” 10% 12% 6. “Lack of Species Variety” 6% 12% 7. “Poor Water/Environmental Quality” 0% 6% a Duplicate rankings reflect ties. The primary advantage of Florida-caught species, according to Florida industry wholesalers, is that they ar e higher quality. When asked, respondents defined quality in terms of higher survival rates (e.g., by packi ng fewer fish per box or the shorter travel time). This was also the most cited advant age from wholesalers in other states who claimed that Florida fish were le ss stressed and received better care. The second most freque ntly cited advantage of Florida-caught species, as perceived by Florida wholesalers, was that the products can be obtained for a lower co st. This is because most Florida wholesalers also function as coll ectors. Interestingly enough, the lower cost advantage was cited as often as "none", that is, there is no advantage to Florida-caught species. Uniqueness was fourth, better relati ons with local collectors fifth, and no import paperwork was sixth. This latter advantage was most prevalent among smaller dealers in terms of annual sales; for this group the import regulations and the additional fees are major deterrents to greater particip ation in the international market.

PAGE 17

17 The remaining advantages, as perceived by w holesalers located in other states, were viewed quite differently from Florida firms. The second highest incidence of responses concerned relationships with collectors, th at is, 38 percent of the opinions concerned positive relationships with Florida collectors. Many stated that they have established business relationships with particular colle ctors and, thus, receive more information regarding specific species and the care give n to species during packing and transport. As with the cited advantages, the most fre quently cited disadvantage of Florida-caught species depends on location of the firm. Flor ida wholesalers cited the lack of sufficient quantity and relatively higher prices (32 per cent and 22 percent of opinions, respectively) as the primary disadvantages of using Florida products. Several respondents expressed frustration at higher labor cost s and being unable to deliver the total quantities requested of them or having to procure supplies from ot her dealers. Wholesal ers in other states cited the higher price of Florida products as the primary disadvantage; this was mentioned by 35 percent of respondents. The 'higher price' response was interesting given that 'lower cost' was cited as an adva ntage by Florida wholesalers. These responses are indicative of the multiple wholesale levels in the industr y, the collector/wholesalers in Florida are the “first receive rs”; wholesalers in other st ates purchasing Florida product are “second receivers.” Weak attributes, the third res ponse from Florida wholesalers, conveyed the sentiment that Atlantic species are “uglier”, perhaps less colo rful, than Pacific species. The fourth was seasonality or a lack of consistent availabil ity. Many respondents believed that the parttime nature of the collection i ndustry results in lower supplies in the winter as the cool water keeps divers out of the water. Th e fifth most commonly cited disadvantage of Florida caught species was unprofessional coll ectors. These wholesalers reported having not received product following payment or r eceiving product of such poor quality that subsequent high mortality rates made the tr ansaction unprofitable. The wholesalers in other states also mentioned that collector s are over harvesting without regard for the future. The sixth disadvantage (in terms of incidence of response) was that there are too few species from the Atlantic/Caribbean re lative to demand compared to “Pacific” species. Some respondents attributed the lack of species variety to water pollution and cited water pollution as a disadvantage of working with Florida-caught species. III.D-2. Reasons for Recent Landing Trends in Florida When asked why landings of fish have d eclined since 1994, 29 percent of responses by Florida wholesalers blamed a reduction in wate r quality (e.g., from Everglades run-off) that has lowered the availability of some species (Table 5). Three reasons tied for second, each garnering 17 percent of reasons, and included: a reduction in the demand for fish (due to their relatively high unit price compared to invertebrates and low survival rates in home aquariums); increasing competition from (lower priced) imports; and a decline in the number of part-time divers (due to a strong econo my which has provided

PAGE 18

18 more economic alternatives). Poor weather conditions, which discourage divers, and an increase in the number of regulations gove rning the industry in Florida were the remaining reasons for the recent reduc tions in fish landings in Florida. Table 5. Ranking and Incidence of Res ponses to the Following Question: “ Annual landings collected by the state of Florida indicate that commerc ial landings of the majority of fish species peaked in 1994 and fell substantially thereafter. However, landings of most invertebrates have increase d since 1994. First, what could have caused the decline in fish landings ? Second, what could have caused the increase in invertebrate landings ?” Responses (Rank 1 = mode for Florida wholesalers)a Florida Other States Explanation for Declining Fish Landings ( n =24) ( n =21) 1. “Reduction in Water Quality” 29% 10% 2. “Decline in Demand for Fish” 17% 38% 2. “Increasing Competition from Imports” 17% 14% 2. “Decline in Number of Part-time Divers” 17% 0% 5. “Recent Adverse Weather Conditions” 12% 0% 6. “More Regulations Governi ng the Industry in Florida” 8% 14% 7. “Poor Economic Conditions for Small Firms” 0% 24% Explanation for Increased Invertebrate Landings ( n =20) ( n =27) 1. “Ease of Collection with least Gear Requirements” 30% 7% 1. “Improvement in Know ledge of Invertebrate Care and Corresponding Technological Advances” 30% 22% 2. “Increasing Popularity of Reef Tanks”b 10% 48% 2. “Invertebrates Prov ide Functions Necessary to Maintain a Successful Reef Tank Environment” 10% 0% 2. “Invertebrate-based Reef Tanks are More Interesting” 10% 7% 2. “Heartier than Fish” 10% 0% 7. “Changing Regulations Favors Invertebrate Species” 0% 7% a Reef tanks refer to saltwater aquariums that focu s on invertebrates (e.g., anemones) and “live” base products (e.g., live rock and live sand) while minimizing the number of fish. b Duplicate rankings reflect ties. Among the wholesale firms located in other stat es, the primary reasons for declining fish were the declining demand (38 percent) and poor economic conditions (24 percent). This latter reason represented a rather large sh are of responses among firms located outside Florida but was not mentioned by Florida firms. This discrepancy could reflect regional differences in general economic conditions including lower sales prices from import competition, a recession in the hobby, and the in crease in large super-chain pet stores. The differences in responses between Fl orida and non-Florida wholesalers may be

PAGE 19

19 explained by the fact that the majority of Fl orida firms do not compete at the retail level (figure 3). The relative ease of harvesting invertebrates species (such as sand dollars), including the virtual lack of gear needed to collect them was one of two primar y explanations (each accounted for 30 percent of responses) cited by Florida wholesalers for increased invertebrate landings in Florida. This response was equaled by the belief that an improvement and transfer of knowledge regard ing the care of invertebrates, and the development of affordable and effec tive equipment, has allowed hobbyists to successfully maintain reef tanks. Consequently, as noted in the following reason, the demand for reef tanks has increased. Other explanations included that invertebrates are needed to maintain the health of the reef ecosystem; that is invertebrates are a necessary component a successful reef tank. Also, invertebrate reef ta nks are currently perceived as being more interesting in that there are more living organisms. La stly, some wholesalers perceive that keeping invertebrates is 'easier' since they can tolerate more variable tank conditions. For wholesalers located in othe r states, the primary reason for an increase in invertebrate landings was the increasing popularity of reef tanks; this respons e accounted for 48 percent of the reasons provided. This r eason was followed by the improvement in knowledge regarding the care and keeping of invertebrate species and the dissemination of that knowledge to the public through the Internet (very inexpensive). The additional reason cited, not mentioned by the Florida wh olesalers, was that some regulations had changed in favor of collec ting invertebrate species. III.D-3. Future of the Wholesale Marine Life Market The next question discussed in this paper ad dressed the future of the wholesale marine life market. Responses varied with the location of the firm as shown in Table 6. Florida wholesalers expect the primary change in the wholesale market to involve an increase in the number of cultured species (19 percent of responses). Firms outside of Florida expect further consolidation as large firms continue to dominate the market (34 percent of responses). Florida firms also foresaw a re duction in the number of firms (16 percent) and a decline in live rock sales (16 percent). The predicted decline in live rock sales is surprising given an increase in the number of live rock lease sites (Antozzi, 1997); however, many cited an increase in lower-cost li ve rock imports from Fiji as the primary reason for this opinion. Additional predictions for the wholesale market in the next five years, in order of priority include: an increase in the number of regulat ions, an increase in imports, and an increasing loss of tank owners to other hobbies.

PAGE 20

20 Table 6. Ranking and Incidence of Res ponses to the Following Question: “ What changes, if any, do you foresee at the wholesale level in the next 5 years? ” Responses (Rank 1 = mode)a Share Wholesalers Located in Florida ( n =37) 1. “Increase in the Quan tity of Cultured Products” 19% 2. “Decline in Sales of Live Rock” 16% 2. “Reduction in the Number of Active Firms” 16% 4. “Increase in Regulations G overning the Industry in Florida” 13% 5. “Increase in Imports” 10% 6. “Loss of Customers to Other Hobbies” 3% Wholesalers Located in Other States ( n =42) 1. “Increasing Conso lidation in the Industry” 34% 2. “Increase in the Number of Small Environmentally-Conscious Firms” 14% 3. “Decline in the Number of Trans-shippers” 10% 4. “Increasingly Stringent Regul ations that will Increase Costs” 8% 4. “Increase in the Nu mber of Cultured Species” 8% a Duplicate rankings reflect ties. Although firms in all locations agreed that in creasing concentration at the wholesale level and an increase in the number of cultured species are likely to occur, wholesale firms in other states posed a number of additional predictions (Table 6) In particular, these firms believe there is a growing market for small environmentally-friendly firms that do not use chemicals during capture or transport. Fo r example, environmentally-friendly firms would guarantee specimens were harveste d without the use of cyanide or other anesthetics such as quinaldine. There is a perceived decl ine in the number of transshippers, a traditional component of the ma rket chain, resulting from the advent and commercial use of the Internet. Lastly, the establishment of additional and more restrictive collecting regulations is expected to increase harvesting costs. While real prices for many species, noted one collector are essentially unchanged since the mid1970s. The additional regulatory burden and cons tant prices could discourage continued participation in the fishery. III.D-4. Limiting Factors to Sales of Florida Species Florida wholesalers, many of whom are al so collectors, offered several opinions concerning the future for sales of Florida-s ourced live marine ornamentals (more so than for any of the other questions ). Their primary concern re garded imports. Of the 23 opinions on the most important limiting f actor, 22 percent specifically mentioned competitors in the Caribbean that can supply la rger quantities at lower prices (most likely due to lower labor costs), desp ite the additional transport ch arges (Table 7). The next

PAGE 21

21 three first ranked concerns each accounted for 13 percent of the total and included: the lack of species diversity available (markets closer to the retail level demand a diverse product selection), increased competition from other wholesalers (e.g., low priced ‘super’ pet stores), and perceived problems with th e local regulations governing the industry. Specific regulatory concerns included inappr opriate size and/or bag limits, regulations that are effectively unenfor ceable, overzealous and uninformed Florida Marine Patrol officers, and an overabundance of required paperwork. Table 7. Ranking and Incidence of Responses to the Following Question: “ In your opinion, what are the most limiting fa ctors to sales of Florida species? ” Importance and Share Responses (Rank 1 = mode)a 1st 2nd-4th Total Wholesalers Located in Florida ( n =23) ( n =23) ( n =46) 1. “Cheaper & Unrestricted Caribbean Imports” 22% 9% 15% 2. “Lack of Selection, Species Diversity” 13% 0% 7% 2. “Increased Competition fr om Other Wholesalers” 13% 0% 7% 2. “Inappropriate/Ineffective Re gulations and ‘Red Tape’ “13% 26% 20% 5. “Unscrupulous/Unprofe ssional Collectors” 9% 0% 4% 5. “Poor Weather” 9% 9% 9% 5. “Lack of Color Compared to Pacific Species” 9% 4% 7% 8. “Higher Freight Costs” 4% 0% 2% 8. “Poor Environmental (Water) Quality” 4% 13% 9% 8. “Not the Regulations” 4% 0% 2% 11. “Unlicensed Collectors and Dealers” 0% 26% 13% 12. “Low Margins and Declining Market” 0% 9% 4% 13. “Lack of Biological Data on Species” 0% 4% 2% Wholesalers Located in Other States ( n =37) 1. “Lack of Selection, Species Diversity” 38% 2. “Higher Price” 24% 3. “Poor Availability, Seasonal and Quantity” 14% 4. “Lack of Professionalis m Among Local Collectors” 11% 5. “Quality Control Problems” 8% 6. “Lack of Color Compared to Pacific Species” 5% a Duplicate rankings reflect ties. Six additional reasons were also listed as th e most limiting factor to sales of Florida species. One of the most notable is the fi nal “most important” response, which was that the local regulations are not to blame. One of the most troubling to the Florida industry would likely be the perceived presence of unscrupulous and/or unprofessional collectors. A few respondents (both in and out of Florid a) stated having a ba d experience with Florida collectors. The negative experiences cited by wholesalers included low survival

PAGE 22

22 rates, incomplete or incorrect orders, and collectors who hustled them after gaining their business with a sample first order. These whol esalers also stated that some collectors (1) do not report all their landings, (2) produce high mortality rates, and (3) garner the name of potential clients by examining shipments at the airport. The 2nd through 4th most often cited factors by Fl orida wholesalers included three additions. The incidence of unlicensed collect ors and dealers received 26 percent of the 2nd-4th most important factors, which ties the inappropriateness/ineffectiveness of the regulations governing collecting in Florida. Low profit margins (f rom relatively stable farm-level prices) and lack of biological data on individu al species were specifically mentioned. For wholesalers located elsewhere, the lack of species diversity is the primary factor that will limit increased sales of Florida species (accounting for 38 percent of reasons). The higher prices of Florida species (due in part to higher labor costs and the need to make more money than foreign industries) was c ited as the next most limiting factor and accounted for 24 percent of total responses by firms in other stat es. Poor product availability, lack of professionalism by co llectors, quality control problems, and poor product attributes (color in particular) compared to Pacific species round out the responses to this question. No te that while some factors ar e determined by collectors and dealers in Florida, many are exogenous to any one individual. III.D-5. Summary of Most Commonly Cited Opinions When asked to state the unique advantage, if any, that Flor ida marine species have over imports, the most prevalent response ( accounting for 42 percent and 50 percent of responses for Florida and non-Florida firms, respectively) indicated that wholesalers believe Florida products are of higher quality (Table 4). Respondents defined quality by survival rates and overall health. Higher qu ality products had high er survival rates (primarily due to lower packing densities) and were “less stressed” in general. Wholesalers in other states also indicated that direct contac t with collectors was a unique advantage of products obtained from Florida; this response accounted for 38 percent of the total number of responses. In terms of the disadvantages respondents cited the lack of sufficient volume (both seasona lly and in total) and relative ly high price (due to higher collection costs, especially for labor) of Fl orida products. These two responses accounted for 54 percent and 47 percent of those cited by wholesalers located in Florida and other states, respectively. In general, opinions rega rding the uniqueness of species collected in Florida were largely independent of the location of the firm. The stated reasons for the observed decline in fish landings in Florida varied by wholesaler location (Table 5). Florida whol esalers primarily cited a reduction in water quality, this response received 29 percent of the reasons cited. Wholesalers in other states believe that a declin e in the demand for fish and poor economic conditions for small firms are to blame; these reasons collectively accounted for 62 percent of

PAGE 23

23 responses. In regards to the reasons cited for the observed increase in invertebrate landings in Florida, wholesaler s (regardless of location) belie ve that an improvement in the knowledge and care of keeping invertebrate species was a factor. In addition, Florida wholesalers stated that collecting invertebrate s is easier than collecting fish (and requires less gear). Among the responses of Florida firms, these two reasons accounted for 60 percent of the total re sponses. Wholesalers in other st ates most frequently cited (in addition to the improved invertebrate knowledge ) the increasing popularity of reef tanks. Among the responses by wholesalers located in other states, these two reasons accounted for 70 percent of the total responses. The question concerning the anticipated changes in the wholesale market for marine aquarium species received the fewest number of distinct responses which may indicate a greater degree of consensus with in the industry (Table 6). Fl orida wholesalers expect an increase in the quantity of cultured products. This response could refl ect an increase in sales of live rock due to the recent addition of lease sites. Alternatively, it could reflect knowledge of research projects conducted at the Univ ersity of Florida that are concerned with developing culture techniques for new species. Among the responses cited by wholesalers located outside of Florida, in creasing consolidation within the industry (reflecting small firms being displaced or purchased by larger chains) was most frequently mentioned. The question eliciting the factors that limit the sales of Florida species received the highest number of distinct re sponses, which may indicate a lesser degree of consensus within the industry regarding th is issue (Table 7). Florid a wholesalers perceived import competition, regulatory issues, and illegal mark et participation within Florida to be the most pressing factors. Wholes alers located in other states ci ted the lack of natural species diversity (perhaps due to the relatively short length of the coastline) as the most limiting factor since a wide selection is desired at the retail level. III.E. Unsolicited Comments As a result of the open-ended nature of the questions, several interviewees offered additional comments on topics not explicitly in cluded in the survey. These comments are summarized below. The collecting business “relocates exotic speci es to a better habitat, one that is not degrading.” Most collectors fax information to their regular customers weekly that lists specimens currently available, price, and any specials. Typical markup: four-fold increase in price (e.g., $0.25 specimens sold by collector will sell for $1 to consumers), but this varies by species and seasonally.

PAGE 24

24 Supply and demand conditions at the species level are very important in determining the transaction price (i .e., price premiums and discounts are common). One implication of this is that a “rare” species (i.e., one that is not commonly sold in the market) can fetch a very high price. Alternatively, if a collector has a relatively large supply of any one species, the buyer will likely offer a lower price. The Florida Keys is being turned into a large “marine reserve” such that all collecting will be eliminated. Cultured marine species will adequately supplement wild stocks and supply current and future hobbyists. Many hobbyists try, and are successful, at cu ltivating at least one marine species. Overharvesting of many fish species is unl ikely due to the difficulty associated with capture (vs. invertebrate species that are collected on foot in shallow areas). Many collectors that have been in the business since its inception in the early 1990s (and as far back as the 1960s) have a reputation for sp ecializing in the collection of certain species. Many collectors/dealers trade product amongst themselves (a result of the specialization mentioned above) in order to fill diverse orders, which are the norm. All of the original collectors harvest fish species, which they believe are more difficult to collect (requiring dive equipment, a boat, an d at least 3 people by law), and consider themselves apart from many “hit & run” entrants that have focused on the easy-to-collect invertebrate species. The increasing use of the Internet by co llectors for sales direct to consumers ( AMDA Newsletter First Quarter 2001). Those focusing on particular species of fish reported maintaining breeding grounds for years. By selectively “cultiva ting” the stock, and keeping the location private, collectors could harvest at the optimal time. This practice has only occurred with the availability of affordable Global Positioning Satellite technology and is only effective in the absence of tropical storms. One algae collector reported having his supply virtually eliminated (19 lbs regrowth took 3-4 months) due to run-off associated with the construction of a nearby limestone plant. The location in question is Filman’s Bayou and the algae is Caulerpa prolifera. This collector e xpressed frustration a nd not being able to contact an agency with jurisdiction over brackish water.

PAGE 25

25 IV. Comparison of Results with Other Related Surveys IV.A. Florida Collectors Survey (1991) In 1991 the Florida Marine Life Associat ion (FMLA) funded a project through the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmosphe ric Science to examine a limited entry program for the marine life fishing industry in Florida. The FMLA is an organization that represents commercial collectors. The study was commissioned by the FMLA in response to problems related to overcrowdi ng and low yields. Information obtained during interviews with members of the FM LA, and described in Januzzi (1991), are summarized below and compared to (or used to help explain) the results of the survey described in section III of this paper. According to Januzzi (1991), 60 percent of commercial collect ors considered themselves full-time members of the industry (i.e., it is their only profession). Of the remaining 40 percent, 71 percent work as commercial fish ers in other fisheries or are employed in a marine related profession. Consequently, approximately 88 percent of commercial marine life collectors receive all their income from marine related activities. Of those that participate in other commercial fisher ies, marine life is of ten by-catch but can account for upwards of 50 percent of the va lue of their landings. Thus, regulations affecting any fishing activities are likely to a ffect members of this industry as well. In 1991, 75 percent of collectors traveled within 10 miles of their home and 51 percent specialized in the harvest of fish species. When asked about any plans for expansion, approximately 20 percent planned to expand th eir collection and only 1 percent expected a decline. As reported in 1991, the majority of ornamental fishes and invertebrates collected for the aquarium market inhabit water ranging in depth from 20 to 90 feet. Thus, the fishery is comprised of skilled divers. However, this generalization may not currently be accurate given the increase in invertebrate landings, es pecially live rock and live sand, in the early 1990s (Adams, Larkin and Lee 2000; Antozzi 1997). The reported market channels in terms of location and type of facility as reported in the 1991 and 1998 studies are summarized in Table 8 to facilitate comparisons. When questioned about the markets for th eir products, firms on average shipped 17 percent to foreign markets, 35 percent to othe r states, 3 percent with in the state, and the remaining 45 percent were sold locally. For comparison, Figure 3 indicated that the distribution by weight was 20 percent exports, 58 percent to other states, 7 percent within Florida, and 15 percent locally (assuming th at all other wholesalers were located in Florida). Although not a direct comparison due to the use of volume in the earlier study and value in the most recent study, re lative allocations are similar.

PAGE 26

26 Table 8. Comparison of Market Channels between Studies Destination Januzzi (1991) (Allocation by Volume) This Study (1998) (Allocation by Value) Location Foreign Exports 17% 20% Other States 35% 58% Florida (excluding Keys) 3% 7%a Florida Keys (local area) 45% 15%a Type of Facility Wholesalers 65% 69% Retail Pet Stores 16% 23% Educational/Aquariums 13% 2% Consumers 6% 6% a Percentage determined assuming all wholes alers located in Florida from Figure 3. A follow-up question in the 1991 study disaggregat ed the destinations at the “local” (i.e., Florida keys) level; 65 percent of shipments were destined for other wholesalers, 16 percent to retail pet stores, 13 percent to e ducational and/or aquari um facilities, and 6 percent to consumers directl y. For comparison, the value-ba sed distribution in 1998 was 69 percent, 23 percent 2 percen t, and 6 percent, respectiv ely. In summary, regarding trends in the marketing channels, it appear s that since 1991 more Florida-caught species are being shipped to wholesaler s located in other states versus wholesalers in Florida and relatively more product is destined directly for the retail level. The discussion regarding the proposed limited entry program conveyed that the majority of collectors favored stiff penalties for violat ors including fines, permanent revocation of licenses following multiple violations, and seizur e of gear (with profits from the sale of the gear and harvest going to current license holders). Given the continued frustration voiced in regards to some collectors (Table s 4 and 7), these problems continue and may be magnified in response to the implement ation of several new regulations affecting commercial fishing activities in the Florida Keys (e.g., the sp iny lobster trap certificate program, net ban, no fishing marine protected ar eas, initiation of stone crap trap program in 2001, etc.). IV.B. U.S. Dealers Survey (1996) The American Marinelife Dealers Associ ation (AMDA), a non-profit organization promoting sustainable trade in living mari ne organisms for aquariums, queried its members (collectors, importers, wholesalers, retailers and propagators) regarding the

PAGE 27

27 establishment of a Marine Aquarium Fish Council in 1995.6 The survey sought information regarding different aspects of th e practices associated with obtaining and maintaining inventories of marine fish for aquariums (Tullock 1997 ). Only relevant information to this study is summarized here. The survey only solicited information pertaini ng to the market for marine fish (i.e., excluding invertebrates, live rock, live sand, an d plants). At the re tail level, each firm averaged handling approximately 165 differe nt specimens (ranging from 12 to 500) and 2,950 in total per year at an average price of $10. Howeve r, only 50 percent of firms keep track of the number of individual sp ecimens sold and only 64 percent of firms reported using a computer to keep inventory records. When asked if “eco-labeling” was used as defined, 79 percent agreed to using an informal system based on dire ct communication with dealers. In addition, 64 percent indicated they stock only fish that have been harvested us ing sustainable practices (as indicated by the supplier).7 Only 14 percent would allow the use of quinaldine. This is an interesting result given the previous responses and that this chemical is currently allowed for collecting in Florida. These re sults may indicate that retailers are handling products that have been collected using quina ldine but are unaware of its use since (if used according to the regulations) it does not ha rm the fish or the environment. Only 20 percent of respondents had any formal training in the husbandry of marine fish. Half of the respondents surveyed buy di rectly from collectors. In summary, this 1995 survey information e xplains and/or supports some of the results obtained in the 1998 survey discussed in this paper. In particular, the 1995 survey found that retails handled, on average, 165 species supporting the claim that species diversity is important at marketing channels closer to th e consumers. In addition, the approximately $10 per fish final sales price supports the clai m that the total mark-up is approximately four times the price paid to the collector (u sing the average reported prices in Adams, Larkin, and Lee 2000). The use of information obtained from the supplier (i.e., collector) as a marketing tool (e.g., promotion of eco-l abeled products), reflects the importance of the collector-retailer relationship mentioned in regards to the future of sales of Florida species (Table 7). 6 As a result of this survey (in part), the Marine Aquarium Council (MAC) was established. MAC is dedicated to “Certification for Quality and Sustainability in the Collection, Culture and Commerce of Marine Ornamentals.” More information on the AMDA and MAC organizations can be found at the following Internet addresses, www.amdareef.com and www.www.aquariumcouncil.org, respectively. 7 A sustainable collection technique was defined as one that does not (a) physically damage the reef, (b) impair the specimens longevity, an d (c) damage non-target species.

PAGE 28

28 IV.C. Industry Sales Survey (1999) The Pet Product News Buying Guide Directory (forme rly known as the Pet Supplies Marketing Directory) incl uded a State of the Industry Report for 1998, the 26th annual report (Hellwig 1999). The report includes th e value of sales for the following product categories: dogs, cats, exotic products, re ptiles/amphibian, fish, birds, and small mammals (e.g., rabbits, hamsters). In 1998, fish products remained the most popular category based on the dollars sp ent, generating nearly $1. 2 billion (dogs were second with $853 million in sales), which represents a 22 percent increase since 1996. The fish category was also the largest in terms of the relative value of livestock sales; fish comprised 37 percent of total revenues. The va lue of livestock sales has Marine fish, in particular, accounted for $93 million in lives tock, $97 million in fish, and $13 million in ‘other’ sales. Figures for medicines, filters/heaters, and tanks were not distinguished by the type of water environment; however sales collectively totaled $380 million. IV.D. European Importers Survey (1997) Ornamental Fish International (OFI) is a non-profit organization of commercial companies that are involved in the international trade of aquatic species and equipment. In late 1997, OFI sent out a questionnaire to approximately 200 European live fish importers (50 percent wholesalers, 20 percent exporters, 6 percent retailers).8 Marine fish accounted for 16 percent of imports. Shipment s from North America accounted for just 8 percent of imports; North Amer ican was fourth behind Singa pore (25 percent), Indonesia (9 percent), and Sri Lanka (9 percent). A total of 18 countries/r egions were included indicating that supply sources were not concentr ated and reflecting the need for diversity. The Caribbean accounted for 0.5 percent of European imports. IV.E. Marine Ornamentals Trade (1999) In 1999, information was gathered from different segments of the marine ornamentals industry for the South Pacific Forum Secretariat and the Mari ne Aquarium Council. This information was summarized in the recent doc ument by Baquero (1999). Observations on the general industry that ar e relevant to, or help explai n responses from, the survey discussed in this paper are listed below. The number of hobbyists have increased in the past decade due to new aquarium technology and better unde rstanding of the specie s and their habitats. There is a trend toward the demand for species that were obtained from ecologically sound practices. 8 The entire text of the survey results can be found at the following Internet address: www.ornamentalfish-int.org/data.htm.

PAGE 29

29 The U.S. dominates the market for ornamental fish, accounting for approximately 60 percent of worldwide demand. Advances in ecological and technological knowledge have enabled the establishments of “mini-reef” home aquariums. Aquarium costs are estimated at approxima tely $200 per year with costs for minireefs ranging from $325 to $1,950 for 30 and 150 gallon tanks, respectively. The Philippines and Indonesia supply approximately 85 percent of the marine aquarium fish imported into the U.S. and Europe, with a retail value of $200 million. The basic “chain of custody” for marine ornamentals involves the following four market segments: collectors, exporters, im porters/wholesalers, and retailers. An additional segment consisting of firms th at re-bundle products, “trans-shippers”, is becoming increasingly common. One of the most critical and difficult aspe cts of the industry concerns the ability to maintain a consistent supply. A wide range of skills and technologies are needed to collect and successfully ship the diversity of species involved in the trade, including invertebrates, plants, live rock and sand, and fish. Incentives to adopt and adhere to quality and sustainabil ity standards exists from informed customers; “market assessments show that there is a strong demand for certified marine aquarium organisms and that this demand will increase rapidly when there is a comprehensive, internati onal, independent certification system.” Since the aquarium hobby has more co mpetition during the summer, consumer demand is lowest during these months. Du ring this same period, increasing water temperatures cause higher mortality rate s in holding facilities without climate control. Both these factors result in relative low demand in the summer. “There are close to 100 marine ornament al wholesale companies operating in the U.S.” These companies typically offer a varied inventory by obtaining species from numerous sources. Although developed for Canadian firms, the following seven principles for entering new markets may be helpful for any firm trying to be successful in this market. The principals in clude: (1) understand the target market, (2) commit to offering high-quality, eco-friendly species ; (3) consider air freight costs; (4) screen foreign firms before engaging in business; (5) be reliable and willing to communicate with industry contacts; (6) a dopt a targeted marketing strategy; and (7) have a price list prepared that includes all species currently in-stock.

PAGE 30

30 V. Summary, Discussion, and Implications The domestic market for marine ornamentals comprises approximately 120 firms ranging in size from $7,500 to $18.5 million in sales per year; no employees to 130 employees; and zero capacity for holding fish to 800,000 gall ons of capacity. There are 56 firms in Florida and 64 firms around the rest of the country. Firms in Florida specialize to a greater extent in marine species, invertebrate species, and domestic species than wholesalers in other states.9 Florida-based operations are on average smaller, have smaller tank holding capacity, and hire fewer full time workers than other firms. Many wholesalers in Florida are also collector s. Thus at Florida facilities inventory comprises large volumes of marine life harv ested by the firm or by other collectors in Florida. Product is then sold to other wholes alers, exporters, and pet shops. Most Florida product remains in the U.S. About three-qua rters of domestic sales occur outside of Florida, and nearly two-thirds is sent to outlets in the Midwest. Domestic wholesalers supply proportionately more freshwater product, fewer marine invertebrates, and a greater pe rcentage of imported species than Florida firms. Most product is obtained internationally from Indone sia and the Pacific and domestically from West coast dealers and independent collectors. Less than a fourth of domestic inventory purchases are from Florida. The major outle t is pet shop retailers along the East coast and in the Midwest. Florida marine life species are reputed to be of higher quality than overseas products with better than average post-transport survival. For many wholesalers, however, Florida products are not cost competitive with imports even though imported products are subject to inspection and fees by the U.S. Fish an d Wildlife Service while Florida products not subject to inspection. For maintaining an abundance of varied inventory year-around, domestic wholesalers turn to foreign firms as a solid source of ornamental fish. In the past, Florida firms have been less reliable. Supplying greater volumes of wild caught Flor ida fish may not be the answer. Catch rates of fish in Florida have b een declining for years; a trend th at is expected to continue. Some explanations for the decline follow. (1) Recent regulations have stymied the collection industry and reduced th e number of active commercial collectors. (2) A rise in demand for more natural reef tanks and reef tank products provided active collectors with the incentive to shift efforts to invertebrate species. (3) Collecting invertebrate species requires less skill than catching fish. (4) Marine pollution ha s hampered fish collection in Florida perhaps by contributing to th e loss of high quality habitat. 9 These results are reported in Larkin and Degner (in press).

PAGE 31

31 Industry wholesalers forsee the following trends. (1) Insi ders believe that cultured marine species will grow in importance as the supply and variety of product increases. (2) Over time, the industry will consolidat e. Large firms will become bigger taking advantage of size and scope economies. (3) Sm all firms may prevail in some niche areas such as the provision and promotion of eco-f riendly products, for example the promotion of species with healthy populations; coll ected using environmentally sound and sustainable methods;10 and handled in a manner that minimizes mortality rates. (4) Domestic regulations are expect ed to continue to hamper the collection industry, suppress product availability; and increase operational costs. To remain in this industry and operate a succes sfully, firms will need to adapt, react, and change with the market. Important changes are as follows. (1) Reef tank popularity will continue to grow. (2) Information costs and tr ansactions costs will decline with advances in e-commerce technologies. (3) Cultured prod uct will be more wide ly distributed. (4) Tank technologies will continue to improve and attract more hobbyists. (5) Firms will tailor marketing efforts to specific market ch annels for greater effectiveness. (6) Firms will begin promoting products' eco-characteris tics, for example, collection methods and handling practices. Survey results suggest that Florida species can effectively be marketed as a high-quality marine life product. Improvements in meetin g wholesaler needs in terms of providing predictable and sufficient qua ntities of product would go a long way towards increasing Florida's market share in this competitive industry. References AMDA (American Marinelife D ealers Association). 2001. AMDA Newsletter Various Issues. Adams, C.M, S.L. Larkin, and D.J. L ee. (2000) “Volume a nd Value of Marine Ornamentals Collected in Florida, 1990-98.” Aquarium Sciences and Conservation Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. In Press. Antozzi, W.O. (1997) “The Developing Li ve Rock Aquaculture Industry.” SEROECON-98-10, National Marine Fisherie s Service, St. Petersburg, FL, 8 pp. Baquero, J. (1999) “Marine Orna mentals Trade: Quality and Su stainability for the Pacific Region.” Prepared by the South Pacific Forum Secretariat, Trade and Investment Division, under a project funded by the Canadian International Development Agency, C-SPODP, Phase II, 52 pp. 10 For example without cyanide or quinaldine.

PAGE 32

32 Hellwig, G. (1999) “26th Annual Pet Product News Buying Guide Directory State of the Industry Report.” Pet Product News Buying Guide Directory 53 (4), 5-11. Januzzi, C.L. (1991) “A Guide to Developi ng a Limited Entry Program for the Marine Life Fishing Industry.” Internship Repor t, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, Miami, FL, 79 pp. Larkin, S.L. and R.L. Degner. (2000) “T he U.S. Wholesale Market for Marine Ornamentals.” Aquarium Sciences and Conservation Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. In Press. Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJ AC) (1999) “U.S. Ornamental Aquarium Industry.” Pet Information Bureau. Washington, DC. 2 pp. Tullock, John. (1997) “1996 Dealer Survey.” American Marinelife Dealers Association, Las Vegas, NV, 6 pp.

PAGE 33

33 Appendix A. Copy of Survey Cover Letter , 1999 Dear , Would you be willing to spend a few minutes of your time in or der to gain a better understanding of the U.S. wholes ale market for marine aquarium species? The University of Florida’s Agricultural Market Research Ce nter is conducting a study to address the following issues. Recent market trends for the most pop ular species collected in Florida. Importance of imports into the United States. Differences in marketing imported versus domestic products. Marketing advantages and disadvantages of species collected in Florida. Major foreign competitors in the domestic market. Countries that compete directly with Florida product for market share. Marketing channels for imported and domestic products. Factors influencing sales of marine fish and invertebrates. Our research assistant will call you this su mmer to conduct an interview by phone. Your answers to our survey questions will help provi de the industry with valuable insights into Florida’s collection industry and the U.S. w holesale market for liv e marine ornamentals that we hope will assist y our future marketing plans. Please be assured that this is a university study with practical applications for the marine aquaria industry. We are not affiliated with any business or regulatory agency. To maintain confidentiality, our research assistant will c ode only your responses to the survey (your name and address will not be entered). Using this approac h, there will be no way for anyone to associate your firm with your responses. Thank you for your time and potential involveme nt in this innovative project. Participants in the study will receive a copy of the final report if desire d. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Robert Degner Professor and Director

PAGE 34

34 Appendix B. Copy of Survey Instrument LIVE AQUARIUM PRODUCT S WHOLESALERS SURVEY Date/Time: _______________________________ Firm Name: ______________________________ Contact: _________________________________ Address: _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ Phone: _________________________________ Email: _________________________________ Send Copy of Final Report? Yes or No (circle answer) May I speak with _________? Hello, my name is ________ and I’m working at the University of Florida’s Agricultural Marketing Center. The Center is conducting a research project to better understanding of the U.S. wholesale market for marine aquarium specie s. Did you receive the letter we sent expl aining the project? [If YES] Great! Do you have any questions? [If NO] Well, the study is attemp ting to address market trends, the magnitude and importance of imports, major competitors, marketing channels, advantages and disadvantages of Florida species, and the like. We are calling licensed wholesale dealers in Florida, firms listed in the Pet Supplies Marketing Directory, and firm s found on the Internet. We are not affiliated with any business or re gulatory agency and everything said remains confidential since I only enter your responses. I then check your name off my list and, if you would like a copy of the final report, I will ente r your address onto our mailing list. Participants in the study will receive a copy of our final report in April 2000. Do you have any questions?

PAGE 35

35 Beginning with your livestock inventory, 1. Do you handle freshwater species? Yes or No [If Yes] What percent of th e value of your inventory is comprised of freshwater species? _______% 2. Considering the value of your saltwater in ventory, on average, how would it be divided between the following three product gr oups: 1. % Live rock and Sand? ______% 2. % Invertebrates? ______% 3. % Fish? ______% 100 % 3. Considering the value of your sa ltwater invertebrates, on average, what percent is comprised of “critters” such as snails, starfish, crabs, cucumbers, shrimps, etc? ________% 4. Considering the value of your saltwater fish an d inverts, that is excluding the value of live rock and live sand, what percent do you dire ctly import from outside the U.S.? _______% [If 0] Go to next question. [If +] How would you divide your source of inventory by country in terms of percentage of dollars spent? Country:___________________ (_____%) Country:___________________ (_____%) Country:___________________ (_____%) Country:___________________ (_____%) 100 % 5. Considering the value of your saltwater fi sh and inverts purchas ed domestically, what proportion is derived from the following three sources: 1. Collected by your firm? ______% 2. Purchased directly fro m other collectors? ______% 3. Purchased from other wholesalers or importers? ______% [If 0, skip to question 8] 100 % 6. Considering the value of your saltwater inventory purchased from other domestic wholesalers or importers, again excluding live rock and sand, what proportion is purchased from Florida? _____% [If 100, skip to question 8] 7. Considering the value of your saltwater fish and inverts pur chased from wholesalers or importers in other states, what proportion is received from: 1. The West Coast including Hawaii? ______% 2. The Mid-West? ______% 3. The East Coast? ______% 100 % 8. For which marine fish and invertebrate sp ecies, if any, have foreign supplies become more important since 1995? Species #1:______________________________ Species #2:______________________________ Species #3:______________________________ Observation No. ___________

PAGE 36

36 9. In comparing Florida marine species with identical imports, that is, the same species imported from the Caribbean or South America: What unique advantage, if any, do Florida species have? What unique dis advantage, if any, do Florida species have? 10. Realizing that it will vary by species, if the price of an iden tical species collected in Florida equaled one dollar, what would be the F. O.B Miami price of a Caribbean or South American import? $________ [e.g., Species: ________________________] 11. Annual landings figures collected by the Depa rtment of Environmenta l Protection indicate that commercial landings of the majority of fish species peaked in 1994 and fell substantially thereafter. However, comme rcial landings of most invertebrates have increased since 1994. First, what could ha ve caused the decline in fish landings? Second, what could have caused the increase in invert ebrate landings? Now turning toward distribution outlets, 12. Of your dollar sales of saltwater fish and inverts, again excluding live rock and sand, what percent do you export directly out of the U.S.? ______% [If 0] Skip to next question (13). [If 100] Skip to question 15. [If 1-99] Considering the value of your e xports just reference d, how is your business divided by country in terms of percentage of dollar sales? Country: _____________________(_____%) Country: _____________________(_____%) Country: _____________________(_____%) Country: _____________________(_____%) 100 % 13. Considering the value of your domestic sales of saltwater fish and in verts, what portion do you sell directly in Florida? ______% [If 100, skip to question 17] 14. Considering the value of your marine fish and inverts sent to other states, what percentage are destined for the: 1. The West Coast including Hawaii? ______% 2. The Mid-West? ______% 3. The East Coast? ______% 100 %

PAGE 37

37 15. Considering the value of your marine fish and inverts sold domestically, what percentage are sent to the following four destinations: 1. Other wholesalers and exporters? ______% 2. Retail pet shops? ______% 3. Direct to consumers? ______% 4. Educational institutions, public aquari ums, or research laboratories? ______% 100 % Lastly, we would like some general in formation and opinions. For example, 16. How many gallons of holding sp ace do you have/use? ________Gallons 17. Would you consider the size of your firm to be SMALL, MEDIUM, or LARGE relative to your competitors? (circle answer) 18. How many years has your firm been in business? _______ 19. How many full-time collectors work for your firm? _______ How many other full-time positions are there? _______ Excluding the full-time collectors, how many other collectors do you buy from? _______ 20. What changes, if any, do you foresee at th e wholesale level in the next 5 years? 21. In your opinion, what are the most limiting factors to sales of Florida species? Most important: 1. ____________________________________________ 2nd most: 2. ____________________________________________ 3rd most: 3. ____________________________________________ 22. What species of marine life, if any, do you carry that are aquacu ltured or tank-raised? Species #1: 1. ____________________________________________ Species #2: 2. ____________________________________________ Species #3: 3. ____________________________________________ 23. For purposes of evaluating differences in pr oduct flows and opinions, we’d like to ask one final confidential question: Excl uding live rock, live sa nd, and all invertebrates, what were your approximate dollar sales of marine fish in 1998: $___________________ Thanks for your help and time. Would you be interested in receiving a copy of our fi nal report? Yes or No [If yes, verify mail address or ask for email address, enter on top pa ge, return to Bob]