Thanks Nicole, for a really good article that lobbies for creatures that can't lobby for themselves. Unfortunately, most of us are hardened to the plight of the species we are driving to extinction; interesting that I'm the first poster, even though you've tried to appeal to baser economic instincts.
We are living in the dark ages after all, or so they will be remembered in the unlucky (and probable) event that humanity survives.
The "sanctity of life", what a joke, only applies to humans, I'm afraid.

Squeers

Catching up on my OLO reading, appalled to find this article so neglected.

Continuing my pessimism I predict that the silence will be as deafening from our pollies in the lead up to the federal election on all things environmental.

Biologically diverse ecosystems, AKA 'wilderness', are not a blip on the radar and their importance to continued 'life-as-we-know-it' lost on much of our population as it is on our politicians.

<<< If anything, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and its big fish deserve more safeguards, given their tremendous value and the many threats they endure. Climate change is an especial concern, as adverse effects from coral bleaching and ocean acidification have already been documented. The failure of the Copenhagen climate change talks to provide a global solution to greenhouse gas emissions and resulting climate effects underscores the need for nations, such as Australia and the US, to double up national efforts to reduce emissions. In the face of climate change and burgeoning human populations, no-take areas on the Great Barrier Reef and other locations within the bumphead’s range are imperative to ensure this key ecosystem actor and other big fish can persist. >>>

Severin says:

"Catching up on my OLO reading, appalled to find this article so neglected."

How can you be sure this article is being neglected? Have you checked the 'Today's most popular' listing, here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/ ?

Bear in mind one of those articles in the display, as frozen in this screenshot here: http://twitpic.com/1ain7s , has come back into popularity after publication one month ago. You will be able to note from the screenshot that as of 10:21 AM AEDST on Wednesday 24 March I, too, had read the 'Bumphead Parrotfish' article.

I have seen a few OLO articles that made their point so comprehensively that comment was seemingly superfluous. Perhaps this is one such.

I would be interested in your views as to the OLO 'Today's most popular' display, if the subject tweaks your curiosity, here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3534

Nicole, imagine you have entered the boardroom, flashed up your “PowerPoint multi-media extravaganza”, and promptly been asked to re-cut it and come back later. Why you might ask, might that be?

Each adult “bumphead parrotfish” consumes 5 tons of dead coral per year.

So there is and always has been dead coral upon which this fish has evolved to feed? So how many of these fish are there? What is the extent of their surveyed habitat range? What is the total tonnage of coral consumed within the measured range? Do they consume only dead coral? What percentage of total dead coral do they consume? Is the total mass of dead coral growing? Is the growth/decline in coral volume and range due to too many or too few bumpheads? What other factors govern the dead coral volumes on a percentage basis? Is the bumphead an endangered or protected species? Are bumpheads themselves a threat to our reef? How many bumpheads are taken per year, by whom and how? What percentage of the breeding population does this represent? What impact does this have on the total population? Is the bumphead suffering the same fate as the “polar bear”, if so, how? If the bumphead is facilitating coral growth, where is this growth happening and to what extent?

Since as you say << The bumphead’s vulnerability to fishing has been well-documented by scientists >> and you have a PhD in this subject, I’m sure you will be able to supply the answers to these questions?

Whilst I support conservation, I cannot support conservationists. I never seem to get any information from them, just emotional rhetoric and alarmism, seemingly focused upon locking away from the public, huge tracts of our great natural wonders. Only “authorized” personnel get unrestricted access, Rangers and Conservationists.

Its articles like this that give conservationists a very bad name, eco-warriors will love it but you need to address a wider audience with some “facts” rather than gooey eyed emotion. This is not the work of a PhD; your missing data is why you have been asked to leave the boardroom.

Amen spindoc. All this propaganda does get tiresome.

Looked at another way, the bumphead parrotfish is a positive danger to the reef.

"The Bumphead Parrotfish needs healthy coral reefs for habitat and to meet its weighty dietary requirement: each individual Bumphead consumes more than five tons of coral per year, including living coral"

http://www.wildearthguardians.org/Portals/0/support_docs/parrotfish-factsheet-FINAL.pdf

Living coral, eh? How come the article forgot to point that out?

That sentence could equally easily have been used as the foundation of a "destroy all bumphead parrotfish, before they eat our reef totally away" campaign.

Especially if you couple it with this sentence from the same document.

"...by being a major coral predator and the primary erosion agent where it occurs, this parrotfish fundamentally shapes coral reefs."

This fish is the "primary erosion agent" of the reef. Good grief.

And they say that as if it is a good thing.

I'm sure the author means well. The reef would be nothing without all the pretty fishes. And yes, the reef is probably the most attractive single natural feature that Australia has to offer.

But why is it always necessary to spin the facts? We are mature enough to understand the bigger story, surely, without having to check every breathlessly-sensational factoid ourselves.