So Dizzy what difference does a few coral and fish make to the argument.
Unless something is done NOW this hobby is doomed.
Eric and others like him who have the courage to stand up for the preservation of our hobby, deserve all of our support.
The truth does matter naesco. Sometimes I think it is the only thing that really matters. The first thing that I want to mention is that I did not bring the noaa thread into the spotlight, SPC did. The content of the thread speaks for itself and should be read by all. The reefs of Fiji are apparently not being damaged by the harvest of corals and any attempts to suggest they are, by intentionally exaggerating the numbers, is just plain wrong. Any certain area can have a certain sustainable harvest if destructive fishing practices are not used. Fragging acropora colonies can certainly be done in a sustainable manner. Same thing for harvesting fish. A few divers with nets will never be able to make a dent in the natural fish populations. All they really do is create the opportunity for another to settle out into its previous space. It's called the "Balance of Nature ". Managed fishing and hunting which have 100% mortality do not negatively effect the balance of nature. Over hunting or over fishing can so reliable data is needed.
I personally do have some questions about the live rock harvest. It is obviously not going to be replaced at the same rate as the fish and corals. The evidence in the thread seems to suggest that current live rock harvest is not all that damaging. Aquaculturing live rock is great and I support the practice.
Misinterpreting the evidence, either intentional or not, has no place in scientific research or anywhere. We can't let our dislike for something effect our reporting of the data, or else we destroy our credibility.