A
Anonymous
Guest
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote
I guess it boils down to whether or not you think the reefs and reef life is a renewable resource. If you do, then a decision must be made on the harvesting level. If you don't then you leave it alone. If the ocean is not a renewable resource then nothing should be taken from it. When it gets right down to it, there is not much difference between a butterfly fish and any food fish. It is harvested with the knowledge that it will die, but also it will provide some benefit for the end user. With the food fish the harvesting is done on the assumption that there will always be more. Is it any more cruel to provide a home for a species in the "obligate feeder" category for a short while than it is to eat swordfish or tuna? If the species is a truly renewable resource (i.e population is not diminished no matter the harvesting level). Just a consideration out of curiousity, assuming (as we know) that the ocean is a delicately balanced system, and knowing that man has been plundering it for many, many years, what would happen if man over-night completely stopped? Would there be massive disease outbreaks and lots of starving fish from lack of food?
{DISCLAIMER: these aren't neccessarily my views, just providing fodder for the discussion.}
Glenn
but when it comes down to it, its the same reefs that are getting raped for decoration. the reefs that walt smith and others hack corals off of will be the same reefs that "responsible" wholesalers get thier same corals from. responisble methods or not, it doesnt change the fact that there is a source being depleted, not only by the natives paving roads, building houses, collecting for the profit of themselves and the white guy who provided jobs to ignorant
I guess it boils down to whether or not you think the reefs and reef life is a renewable resource. If you do, then a decision must be made on the harvesting level. If you don't then you leave it alone. If the ocean is not a renewable resource then nothing should be taken from it. When it gets right down to it, there is not much difference between a butterfly fish and any food fish. It is harvested with the knowledge that it will die, but also it will provide some benefit for the end user. With the food fish the harvesting is done on the assumption that there will always be more. Is it any more cruel to provide a home for a species in the "obligate feeder" category for a short while than it is to eat swordfish or tuna? If the species is a truly renewable resource (i.e population is not diminished no matter the harvesting level). Just a consideration out of curiousity, assuming (as we know) that the ocean is a delicately balanced system, and knowing that man has been plundering it for many, many years, what would happen if man over-night completely stopped? Would there be massive disease outbreaks and lots of starving fish from lack of food?
{DISCLAIMER: these aren't neccessarily my views, just providing fodder for the discussion.}
Glenn