My semi-random rant for the month...

[Anonymous]

I don't think anyone is out to lay a guilt trip on anyone here. Maybe a reality trip. We are all basically doing what we can to help the reefs. Some do more than others. And, right now, we are all doing something to hurt the reefs.
I think one of the objections to the word conservationist is the moral high ground it seems to imply, given that we are all in some way hurting the reefs. The semantics are important.
If I could really live by my ideals I would not have a reef and I would discourage others from having them as well. If my goal was conservation, I would leave all the critters in the ocean. But my goal, and I believe, our general goal, is not conservation, rather the sustainable enjoyment of the hobby.

RR :mrgreen:

 

[flameangel1]

Righty,,
If we are talking about "reality trips"-- lets not just talk about saving the reefs !!
What about all the rest of this planet we are using and abusing ?
Give up the tank-but also give up the cars-electricity-heating- stop over populating,etc etc. etc.and stop turning "the blue planet" into an asphalt jungle . :!:

Common sense is the name of the game-we can not all go back to the jungle (ocean or where ever ) but we CAN take care of and appreciate that which we have assumed the responsibility for and we can give back to this earth,
as much as we took from it, if people just stop being so selfish with the "I wants ".
We CAN care about each other and all the rest of the living things around us. Reality does not have to be abusive or radical.

Radical right or left wings and "who cares" attitudes, does not help anything. Education in all aspects of life does.

(UGH !! Wish I had k77's way with words. )

 

[K77]

If we were to somehow turn things around however and give real ownwership (and economic value) to the reefs, then I feel there is a good chance that the reefs would be protected by the native people. It is currently being done in Africa where hunting is being used as an environemental tool to save habitat. I feel the aquarium trade could be this economic incentive for protecting the reefs, what do you think?

I agree. Totally, but just because I am a consumer doesn't make me a conservationist.

WOAH, WOAH, WOAH!! This is not directed at your message here esmithii, but I cannot believe some of the things I am hearing.

Have we not gone to college here people? Have we decided to skip economics 101 here? Do we want to "pretend" like that the term doesn't apply to us so that we can sleep well? Do we prefer to ignore our god-given responsibilities to the world around us? This is not only the very basics of our educational system, but the very basics of our whole economic system here people!

I'm sorry, but under a capitalist system the definition of a conservationist *IS* (has to be) by the very nature of the thing a CONSUMER! For that matter, it would be under a communist economic system also. A socialistic is somewhat of a gray area...

Where do we get the idea that we can (by webster's definitions) be an "expender of a resource" (consumer) without having a built-in responsibility to "preserve and plan the management and the consumption of a natural resource (conservationist)." These are not my viewpoints. These are basic definitions, and the basis of our economic system. By definition only a consumer or distributor is given the ability to control and plan conservation of an expendable resource. Basic, basic, extremely basic ec-co-no-mics here people! Say it with me now. Lobbyists can lobby, advocates can advocate, but only a consumer can control, ebb, or stop consumption.

What I mean by saying one business is different that another is along these same lines. There is a basic economic difference between a company which flows a non-renewable natural resource directly to a consumer and one that gives a consumer an alternative to purchase a cultivated renewable resource. By webster's own definition, the distributor which provides a more renewable route for a natural resource would be engaging in a "conservation" of that resource. These are not high and mighty words to make myself feel better or arrogance or anything else. This is just the way our society was deliberately set up by our founding fathers. So that those who consume a resource will always have the responsibility of doing it in an appropriate manner, unless it is subsequently controlled by a governmental ban.

I would also note, that while I agree that calling someone who performs extra-ordinary services to assist the environment a conservationist, this is not within the scope of the actual definition or intent in how it fits into our economic or governmental system. For example, someone who replants sea fans is not actively engaged in putting a stopper in the flow of the destruction of sea fans. They are actually re-creating or emulating a natural item in what used to be its native home. There is no act of preservation, since the sea fans planted there were not created from straw. And there is no act of planning or management of their destruction, since it would have already occurred for them to need replacing. They would be more correctly termed "advocates."

So basically, when you have your eggs and sausage in the morning, you are making a conscious or unconscious decision to preserve or plan the management of the death of the pig that was used to make those sausages. By the very economic definition, only you can decide whether your consumption of pork should really go up or down. And only you can decide whether you prefer to purchase from distributors that are replentishing pigs as they are slaughtered.

I'm sorry, but the issue seems really clear and clean-cut to me. In fact, I find it an insult to the mentors of the reef hobbyists at this point and time to suggest that they are not conservationists by labeling each individual hobbyists as not having a responsibility to be responsible. I find it more of an insult to suggest that these avocacy movements would be possible without the coral husbandry techniques Eric Borneman has made popular, lighting studies Sanjay has done, or the copepod studies that Shimek has done, and other such movements... And I find it the biggest insult to suggest that these people must be labeled as "butchers" because they are the mentors of the reef movements, reguardless of whether I individually choose to be a "good" conservationist or a "bad" one. And no, I do not label all, as you would assume, to be "good" conservationists.

I also find it a huge mis-understanding of the hobby to suggest that there are a lot of people out there that are off on their own "raping the reef." I think this is probably true of most fish-only setups. But you are not reading fish-only.org. It is a huge misunderstanding of the influence that these mentors have on the hobby to say that any reef person is out buying tons of new cool stuff that came directly from the reef. In fact, its impossible anymore to even find things that are not captive bred. Trust me I looked yesterday and could not find a wild colony to purchase. The closest I could find was a web page for a business that went out of business aparently in October of 2000. It has honestly gotten to the point where I appreciate people like flameangel who do still bring in at least a little diversified stock into the hobby to improve it, even though most of her 25% of non-captive bred stock is still probably farm-grown or aquicultured! And once again, of that 25%, how much of it is just Fish?? And reef keepers do not move or replace fish very often.

In fact, if we took a survey, I would say that my experiences as an SPS person are probably not unique in that:

*I have not purchased even one fish in the past year
*I *may* have one wild grown SPS colony.
*I don't generally do LPS because they are difficult to captive grow and when I do its a frag from a fellow reef person.
*I have purchased nothing for my tank but dry goods or coral frags in the last 6 months.

Not that I feel that I am really worthy of note, but I find it hard to justify if this is the average reef perspn's experience, that we are not acting as responsible consumers by "preserving and planning the management of a natural resource."

This is BS, IMO. If you're going to insult an entire industry or hobby by calling them "butchers", at least someone should look up a freaking definition of what the heck you're talking about first. :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry, but under a capitalist system the definition of a conservationist *IS* (has to be) by the very nature of the thing a CONSUMER!

True, all conservationists are consumers

Where do we get the idea that we can (by webster's definitions) be an "expender of a resource" (consumer) without having a built-in responsibility to "preserve and plan the management and the consumption of a natural resource (conservationist)." These are not my viewpoints. These are basic definitions, and the basis of our economic system. By definition only a consumer or distributor is given the ability to control and plan conservation of an expendable resource. Basic, basic, extremely basic ec-co-no-mics here people! Say it with me now. Lobbyists can lobby, advocates can advocate, but only a consumer can control, ebb, or stop consumption.

Where does it say in the consumer definition that there is this built-in responsibility. The consumers only drive is to consume. While true that a consumer can control consumption, there is nothing that says the resource has to be replenished. If I consumed all the pigs in the world for sausage before they could be renewed, I may then move on to have steak and eggs instead. Being strictly a consumer, I have no inherit need to see that the pigs are replenished since there is an alternative to maintain my sustenance.

 

[Anonymous]

Righty,,
If we are talking about "reality trips"-- lets not just talk about saving the reefs !!
What about all the rest of this planet we are using and abusing ?
Give up the tank-but also give up the cars-electricity-heating- stop over populating,etc etc. etc.and stop turning "the blue planet" into an asphalt jungle . :!:

I thought I just wrote something tot hat effect!
The reality trip was mentioning was the reality of using words like conservationist to make ourselves feel better, instead of an accurate discroiption of our actions.

Common sense is the name of the game-we can not all go back to the jungle (ocean or where ever ) but we CAN take care of and appreciate that which we have assumed the responsibility for and we can give back to this earth,
as much as we took from it, if people just stop being so selfish with the "I wants ".

So being a somewhat selfish with the 'I wants' is OK? I agree, and it is what I have been saying all along.
Part of the issue is that the only reason to have a reef tank is based on the selfish 'I wants'. If we really stopped being selfish with the 'I wants' we wouldn't have reef tanks (or cars or so many kids), but would take only picutres and leave only wake. Like I have said before, I am not advocating that we do this, we should just be aware of the truth - our hobby damages the planet.

We CAN care about each other and all the rest of the living things around us. Reality does not have to be abusive or radical.

Many of us DO care aobut each other and the rest of the living things around us.

Reality is often abusive and radical. We just wish this were not the case. We want to have our cake and eat it too. We want to be able to take what we want from the reef, yet somehow believe that the way we are doing it is somehow OK, justified and morally acceptable while the way others are doing it is 'evil' and should be stopped. Just because the damage we do is a 'drop in the bucket', or that we intend to 'do good' with the items we take does not lessen the damage we do. That is the reality I would like us all to fess up to, and not gloss over.
Again, I think we should have reef tanks, I just think we shouldn't put ourselves on some sort of moral pedistal cause we do it the 'right' way.

RR :mrgreen:

 

[SPC]

Posted by Righty:

Part of the issue is that the only reason to have a reef tank is based on the selfish 'I wants'. If we really stopped being selfish with the 'I wants' we wouldn't have reef tanks (or cars or so many kids), but would take only picutres and leave only wake. Like I have said before, I am not advocating that we do this, we should just be aware of the truth - our hobby damages the planet.

-Or we would find a more eco friendly way to do things. :wink: I also think that we need to keep it in perspective, if this hobby was banned would the reefs be in better shape 10 years from now if no other steps were taken to save them?
Steve

 

[flameangel1]

While true that a consumer can control consumption, there is nothing that says the resource has to be replenished. If I consumed all the pigs in the world for sausage before they could be renewed, I may then move on to have steak and eggs instead. Being strictly a consumer, I have no inherit need to see that the pigs are replenished since there is an alternative to maintain my sustenance.

He/she should have the commonsense to KNOW the resource needs to be replenished !!!!!!!!
Isn't that knowledge built into everyone??
It used to be, back when we lived with the land anyway.

 

[flameangel1]

I also think that we need to keep it in perspective, if this hobby was banned would the reefs be in better shape 10 years from now if no other steps were taken to save them? [/unquote]

They would NOT be in better shape as we are only one small part of their destruction now. Narrow minded stopping one part, does not help the over all picture of anything.
Its about like letting those minks out of the cages.

 

[Anonymous]

He/she should have the commonsense to KNOW the resource needs to be replenished !!!!!!!!
Isn't that knowledge built into everyone??
It used to be, back when we lived with the land anyway.

I agree that we should know this and we do know this now. My argument was that saying all consumers by definition are conservationist is simply not true. And I do not think it is knowledge built into everyone. I think it is a concept that mankind has adopted over time as we saw its benefits for our survival and expansion. When we lived off the land, the human race was far smaller in numbers and nature could replenish itsself beyond what we could consume. The same is simply not true today.

 

[Anonymous]

Posted by Righty:

-Or we would find a more eco friendly way to do things. :wink:

LOL!

I also think that we need to keep it in perspective, if this hobby was banned would the reefs be in better shape 10 years from now if no other steps were taken to save them?
Steve

For the sake of discussion, lets define 'banned' as a successful stoppage to all collecting and poaching of reef organisms.

If the reefs are not destroyed by the other things that currently threaten their surrival, then I would say, yes, they would be in better shape in 10 years if the hobby were banned. How could it not be? If we stop destroying it, it gets destroyed less.

If, on the other hand, it is going to be wrecked no matter what reefers do, then it would not be in better shape. However, this train of though worries me. Just because something is being wrecked, should we help wreck it? Should we do medical experiements on terminally ill people - They are gonna die anyway?

RR

How is this discussion not going on in the sump...weird... :mrgreen:

 

[flameangel1]

ok,
as I see it-

When we lived off the land, the human race was far smaller in numbers and nature could replenish itsself beyond what we could consume. The same is simply not true today.
[/unquote]

being older ( or just plain old ) and having always lived off/with the land, this knowledge for giving back what we take and "not eating all the pigs", is normal.
Not left wing radical tree hugger or high and mighty,- just a natural part of everyday life.
So if the older generation knows this-how do we "reinstall" that knowledge in "todays" generation??

 

[Anonymous]

being older ( or just plain old ) and having always lived off/with the land, this knowledge for giving back what we take and "not eating all the pigs", is normal.
Not left wing radical tree hugger or high and mighty,- just a natural part of everyday life.
So if the older generation knows this-how do we "reinstall" that knowledge in "todays" generation??

I don't know. Some native americans drove entire herds of buffalo off cliffs so they would have dinner. People thought the ocean could accept any amount of trash we put into it. People thought we should kill as many whales as possible. Fisherman still think gill nets are a better idea than what they are foced to use by law. Our government supports using up all the oil. Strip mine the gold. Cut down all the trees. The list goes on...

It is not a generation thing. I don't think the older generation "knows" what you are talking about. Some of them do. Just like some of the younger generation do. I think what you are getting at is a rift in thinking between people that has been going on forever.

I understand where you are comming from. Not killing all the pigs makes perfect sense to me, and it is hard to understand why others don't see this obvious idea. I am not sure what to do about it other than to instill it in my hopfully soon forthcoming children, and in all the people I have contact with in my life.

RR :mrgreen:

 

[K77]

I'm sorry, but under a capitalist system the definition of a conservationist *IS* (has to be) by the very nature of the thing a CONSUMER!

True, all conservationists are consumers

Where do we get the idea that we can (by webster's definitions) be an "expender of a resource" (consumer) without having a built-in responsibility to "preserve and plan the management and the consumption of a natural resource (conservationist)." These are not my viewpoints. These are basic definitions, and the basis of our economic system. By definition only a consumer or distributor is given the ability to control and plan conservation of an expendable resource. Basic, basic, extremely basic ec-co-no-mics here people! Say it with me now. Lobbyists can lobby, advocates can advocate, but only a consumer can control, ebb, or stop consumption.

Where does it say in the consumer definition that there is this built-in responsibility. The consumers only drive is to consume. While true that a consumer can control consumption, there is nothing that says the resource has to be replenished. If I consumed all the pigs in the world for sausage before they could be renewed, I may then move on to have steak and eggs instead. Being strictly a consumer, I have no inherit need to see that the pigs are replenished since there is an alternative to maintain my sustenance.

You're right. But your ability to preserve is really an inverse relationship to your ability to consume isn't it? If "conservationist" is used as a noun, then I think you would be referring to someone who advocates preservation of a resource. The question is, do you conserve 10% of the time, 5% of the time, or not at all. Do you "advocate" preservation more than you practice it? Probably not. So, your consumption of a natural resource has to relate to your advocacy of its preservation doesn't it?

This is one of those (DUH!) in-escapable relationships.

A car driver will consume gas, controlling in effect its consumption, and inversely its preservation.

A car driver will consume oil, controlling in effect its consumption, and inversely its preservation.

A reef keeper will consume SPS corals, controlling in effect its consumption, and inversely its preservation.

 

[SPC]

Posted by Righty:

If the reefs are not destroyed by the other things that currently threaten their surrival, then I would say, yes, they would be in better shape in 10 years if the hobby were banned. How could it not be? If we stop destroying it, it gets destroyed less.

-Ahhh, that is why I added this in my original post:

if no other steps were taken to save them?

- Lets try the question this way, if there were no other factors involved (pollution, dynamite fishing etc...) could this hobby ever destroy the reefs by itself or would they be able to sustain themselves through regeneration?
Steve

 

[Contender]

For the sake of discussion, lets define 'banned' as a successful stoppage to all collecting and poaching of reef organisms.

If the reefs are not destroyed by the other things that currently threaten their surrival, then I would say, yes, they would be in better shape in 10 years if the hobby were banned. How could it not be? If we stop destroying it, it gets destroyed less.

I don't agree with you here...If you read my other topic called "Is Aquaculture Really the Answer", you will see the point SPC is trying to make. If this hobby is able to reform so that all collection and shipping is done in a responsible manner, then this hobby could actually benefit the reefs by providing economic incentives to the countries that collect. Now, if all forms of destructive activities towards the reef were able to stop, then naturally, collecting fish and corals would be of no benefit to the reefs.


SPC - It is obvious that the issue between us two is one of semantics. We both agree that conservationist is someone who helps a cause. However, I think that to deserve this title there is a moral conotation. For me,being a conservationist isn't only helping a cause, but doing it for the right reasons.

Have we not gone to college here people? Have we decided to skip economics 101 here?

Obviously you haven't. Either that, or I decided to skip the class where the professor said "All of the consumers are conservationist, we are in this class to save the world, not to make money!" Maybe you just decided to skip ecology 101?

...the definition of a conservationist *IS* (has to be) by the very nature of the thing a CONSUMER!

Perhaps a conservationist is by its very nature a consumer, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a consumer is a conservationist. Just because it goes one way, doesn't mean it has to go the other way.

Where do we get the idea that we can (by webster's definitions) be an "expender of a resource" (consumer) without having a built-in responsibility to "preserve and plan the management and the consumption of a natural resource (conservationist)." These are not my viewpoints. These are basic definitions, and the basis of our economic system. By definition only a consumer or distributor is given the ability to control and plan conservation of an expendable resource. Basic, basic, extremely basic ec-co-no-mics here people!

I think the most disturbing thing I have heard on this post is a self proclaimed conservationist regarding the reefs as an "expendable resource." Since you obviously have your Websters handy, why don't you look up the word "expendable". It means: a : normally used up or consumed in service <expendable supplies like pencils and paper>: more easily or economically replaced than rescued, salvaged, or protected.

I don't know about you, but I don't consider the reefs to be expandable. It is exactly this type of thinking that many hobbiests fall into. You proclaim everything as being OK because of aquaculture....get your facts straight, genius....98% of fish in commercial and private aquariums are wild caught.

It is real convenient that when you post the definition of conservationist, you only post the part that coincides with what you want to prove. My Websters defines conservation as: a careful preservation and protection of something; especially : planned management of a natural resource to prevent exploitation, destruction, or neglect. Explain to me how your consumption of fish prevents destruction and exploitation? Any wild caught fish CAUSES destruction and the very act of putting it in a fish tank, aquaculture or other, is exploitation. Furthermore, how could you use this definition to criticize someone who replaces coral or any other specimen, when they are clearly preserving and protecting something that is being destroyed. Is there any other lessons you wish to teach us from Flunky University, or is this all? My recommendation is that you take a course in remedial economics, and another in dictionary reading.

I'm sorry, but the issue seems really clear and clean-cut to me. In fact, I find it an insult to the mentors of the reef hobbyists at this point and time to suggest that they are not conservationists by labeling each individual hobbyists as not having a responsibility to be responsible.

Everyone has a responsibility to be responsible. But by giving everyone the title of conservationist regardless of their actions is taking away that responsibility. You have managed to make the word Conservationist into something meaningless, where everyone could be lumped into (everyone, after all, is a consumer). All you have proved to us is that you can so manipulate a title to make anyone fit in the category. I hope you feel all high and mighty, Mr. Conservationist. Your lack of actions go unmatched, and your lack of impact on coral reefs are comendable. I hope you can convince others to adopt your beliefs, so that the preservation of our oceans could be the last thing on the average conservationist's mind. For me, this is a bigger insult to the mentors of this hobby. I, personally, will keep the title of conservationist for someone worthy of it...you may do whatever you want with it.

BTW, I never called you a butcher...It was a metaphor. There is a difference between comparing and calling. Perhaps you should go back to remedial english, as well.

 

[Anonymous]

Steve,

The second question is different from the first. I believe this could easily be a sustainable, farmable hobby - I am talking about how it is now.

I guess again, my only real point is that, at the current time, the hobby is destroying reefs. Not all, but some, and participitating in the hobby supports this destruction. Dat's all I's sayin'.

Contender,

I see the point SPC was making and I agree with it and with what you have had to say on the other thread. Here though, it was not the point being made.
There is a difference between what the hobby could be and what it is. If we stopped collection right now it would only benifit the reef, because many current collection practices are henious. If the collection practices change it will be better. Thats a big if...considering changing the status quo is often a excercise in futility. But right now...see above.

RR

 

[Anonymous]

Everyone has a responsibility to be responsible. But by giving everyone the title of conservationist regardless of their actions is taking away that responsibility. You have managed to make the word Conservationist into something meaningless, where everyone could be lumped into (everyone, after all, is a consumer). All you have proved to us is that you can so manipulate a title to make anyone fit in the category. I hope you feel all high and mighty, Mr. Conservationist. Your lack of actions go unmatched, and your lack of impact on coral reefs are comendable. I hope you can convince others to adopt your beliefs, so that the preservation of our oceans could be the last thing on the average conservationist's mind. For me, this is a bigger insult to the mentors of this hobby. I, personally, will keep the title of conservationist for someone worthy of it...you may do whatever you want with it.

I so agree with you. For some reason society is pushing to make words so general they mean nothing. Nice work in pointing it out.

RR

 

[Contender]

There is a difference between what the hobby could be and what it is. If we stopped collection right now it would only benifit the reef, because many current collection practices are henious. If the collection practices change it will be better. Thats a big if...considering changing the status quo is often a excercise in futility.

I completely agree with you here. However, I think its worth mentioning that the likelyhood of everyone all of a sudden dropping the hobby is less than that of everyone endorsing responsible fish collecting.

 

[Anonymous]

However, I think its worth mentioning that the likelyhood of everyone all of a sudden dropping the hobby is less than that of everyone endorsing responsible fish collecting.

I know I know...it was a thought experiment proposed by SPC!

RR :mrgreen:

 

[SPC]

Posted by Righty:

The second question is different from the first. I believe this could easily be a sustainable, farmable hobby - I am talking about how it is now.

I guess again, my only real point is that, at the current time, the hobby is destroying reefs. Not all, but some, and participitating in the hobby supports this destruction. Dat's all I's sayin'.

-I agree Righty.
Steve