I guess this is where this new forum does not become a platf

[Anonymous]

Had the thread not been immediately closed after it never recieved discussion, I would have posted this to the thread where Mary announces that SHE has determined that shrimpfishes should be imported, especialy seeing as almost all will die, great repeat business. Even though There were objections by James Wiseman and Naesco.

I heard many say she was going to moderate this forum and if she used it to grandstand anything that would be in the best intrest of wholesalers and not the best intrest in species preservation she would be called on it.

I would love to hear how or who the WE is that decided that shrimpfish should be off the list????

I must agree with James in a case that could go either way the most prudent action is to err on the side of caution or the side that gives a species the best chance for survival.

This is not moderating it is using a forum to further an agenda, perhaps I am still the only person who see's a conflict of intrest.

 

[Anonymous]

This is not moderating it is using a forum to further an agenda, perhaps I am still the only person who see's a conflict of intrest.

Apparently. You're making some incorrect assumptions, however. Firstly, the thread is not closed. The listing thread is, the discussion thread is not. Just look, you'll see four pages of it below this one.


Mary announces that SHE has determined that shrimpfishes should be imported, especialy seeing as almost all will die

As I posted in the discussion thread, so far as I know shrimpfish husbandry is very similiar to seahorse husbandry. They certainly can be kept by anyone willing to devote the time to them. Should seahorses be banned? Possibly -- but less because of their feeding habits then because of how quickly they're being overharvested. To the best of my knowledge, the harvesting pressures on seahorses do not at all apply to shrimp fish. They are neither removed in numbers for the aquarium industry or for the asian folklore medicinal market.

I don't particularly think they need to be banned, as their numbers are not threatened and their husbandry does not present any major obstacles. If I thought otherwise, I assure you I would have posted other then I did.

Sorry Dave, but I still think you're over-reacting.

 

[Anonymous]

For what it's worth I agree with shrimpfish being off the list. They did not fir into the established criteria stated in the beginning for "obligate feeders." (food impossible or too expensive to provide) One respected source says they can thrive in captivity, another disagrees but gives no reason why they should be banned. One person has stated that he has known people who have been able to keep them. I do not think that something being "difficult to keep" should cause it to be banned. Where do you draw the line as to skill level? I think the disagreement lies in where the responsibilities are. It is not (IMO) the wholesalers responsibility to ensure that the end consumer can keep something alive. It is the wholesalers responsibility to ensure that it is possible for someone to keep it alive. It would be unethical for a wholesaler to knowingly import an animal that is impossible to keep.

Glenn

[ December 13, 2001: Message edited by: Rover ]</p>

 

[Anonymous]

Glen the line for me is if a fish has a miserable success rate of survival in the hands of aquarists. I do not doubt that there are a few that could keep them alive but It would have to be more along the lines of how many Actually do survive.

Charles I do not think I am over-reacting at all. I do not care if any fish or corals are ever kept by anyone. When the overwhelming toll of a species is to die in aquariums, How does this in your words become Ethical Reefkeeping?

Back to the topic of this thread The whole species list seems to be a reason to keep importing fish that are doomed to high mortality rather than a discussion of what species should be protected by a ban?

The thread I said was closed, was closed immediately after Mary posted that these fish even though the overwhelming majority will die should be imported. How is that Moderating?

[ December 13, 2001: Message edited by: Fishaholic ]</p>

 

[Anonymous]

I'll take an even stronger stance then Glenn, in that I think even when you have an animal that can be kept, if it's care requirements are unreasonable it should probably end up on the list. Like obligate corallivores, species-specific predators like many nudibranch, etc.

But the care requirements for seahorses/shrimpfish are not unreasonable. Hatching brine shrimp daily is a royal pain, no question, but it's hardly that insurmountable an obstacle.

 

[Anonymous]

Charles I do not think I am over-reacting at all. I do not care if any fish or corals are ever kept by anyone. When the overwhelming toll of a species is to die in aquariums, How does this in your words become Ethical Reefkeeping?

Dave, the fate of every single animal imported for the hobby is to die in an aquarium. The fate of every single animal in captivity is to die in captivity. Simple fact. The questions that need to be answered are:

1. Can it have it's needs met in captivity?
2. Does it's removal from nature have significant enough impact -- either for population issues or environmental ones -- to warrant banning?

I don't particularly think the shrimpfish presents any difficulties in light of the above. Animals like most host anemones, LPS corals, clownfish, banggai cardinals, etc etc.... YES, absolutely. But shrimpfish? No.

 

[Anonymous]

Charles

Rather a play on words, all fish will die eventually, come on?

 

[Anonymous]

Your words, Dave:

When the overwhelming toll of a species is to die in aquariums

My point is, very simply, there's no more reason for shrimpfish to die for husbandry issues then seahorses. Or pipefish. They are not, in a word, unsuitable.

The thread I said was closed, was closed immediately after Mary posted that these fish even though the overwhelming majority will die should be imported. How is that Moderating?

Dave, I see only one closed thread on this board -- it's the listings thread, where no discussion has gone on. The thread where shrimpfish were actually discussed is very much open.

 

[Anonymous]

Charles,

The thread currently below this was posted to by Mary at 4:11 pm today that these fish are completely off the list period. Then Immediately closed, How is that Moderating?????

It sounds more like this is it and I do not want to hear another word?????

Maybe we should all have that feature????????

 

[Anonymous]

Dave, for the third time, the discussion thread IS NOT CLOSED. Here's a direct link

http://www.reefs.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=35&t=000015&p=4

The closed thread is just the listing thread, which HAS NEVER BEEN OPEN. The thread to talk about what it's in it is the one I referenced above.

 

[Anonymous]

Charles

Apparently I did not know the Rules.

I did not know there are threads that we cannot post to?

I still find it hard to beleive that after a few days of discussion that any fish that people have concerns about are set that this fish "is off the list" I also cannot beleive how many times corals and fish have been likened to flowers in this forum, not an issue with the moderator.

 

[Anonymous]

Apparently I did not know the Rules. I did not know there are threads that we cannot post to?

You've never seen an anouncement thread locked by the administration -anyplace- so people could see it but not post to it? Or 'sticky' threads that stay at the top of a forum wether anyone posts to them or not? I assure you, there's no hidden agenda by having a thread locked so only a moderator can post to it.

I also have to add that the very first line of the locked thread tells you it's contents are being discussed in another thread, and tells you the name of that thread. It's far from hidden.

I still find it hard to beleive that after a few days of discussion that any fish that people have concerns about are set that this fish "is off the list"

Shrug. Then argue it with her. You're wasting your time arguing it with me, since I can't do anything about it, and I'm not inclined to even if I could, simply because it doesn't seem a species which needs to be banned based on it's husbandry. If you want to put forth that they should be banned because of their husbandy, then do so -- because that's exactly what the discussion thread is for.

[ December 13, 2001: Message edited by: cjdevito ]</p>

 

[Anonymous]

You little lurker you....

 

[MaryHM]

Fishaholic:

Concerning your attitude toward the closed thread: Apparently you did not read the opening line for the Unsuitable Species Thread. Since you didn't read it there and don't appear to be interested in doing so since the facts get in the way of your argument, I'll post it here.

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote

This is the list of animals we are discussing in the Responsible Reefing #1 thread. This list was posted by naesco and is from John Tullock. As we make decisions to delete or keep certain species, I will list it here. This thread's purpose is for ease of viewing the list we're working on in the other thread. To discuss it, go the the Responsible Reefing #1 Thread.

This thread was NEVER open, NEVER intended to be opened, and will NEVER be open. It's so the people who are working on the list can easily see where we're at without having to pilfer through tons of posts in the main thread.

Concerning my "conflict of interest" concerning this list, let me state that 99% of these animals come from the Philippines and Indonesia. I don't even import fish from there, so it's not even a question of me trying to keep my mighty shrimpfish profit machine rolling.

Please note who started the whole discussion in the first place. It was me. If I didn't think animals should be deemed as unsuitable, I wouldn't have opened myself up for a discussion about it. The reason shrimpfish were excluded from the list is simple- the husbandry on them is a gray area- some say they can be kept, some say they can't. Banned species need to fall into a black and white category, not gray. I think that the shrimpfish, along with the flesh eating blenny (that sounds so gross everytime I type it!) should be put on a "Warning" list, and once we sort through the unsuitable for import list we'll work on something like that. In fact, I have some pretty cool ideas in mind for that whole thing!!

This is the only time I'm going to respond to this thread because frankly Fishaholic, you've consistently proven that you are willing to argue in circles even after you have been proven wrong. If you've just come here to cause trouble, you're wasting your time because I'm not going to be dragged into the drama you enjoy creating where I am concerned. If you come up with a valid point, I'll address it. Otherwise, I have much better things to do and I'm sure you do too.

 

[Anonymous]

Mary

Proven wrong? By who and about what?

You do have a conflict of intrest, One that is very easy to show.

Do you beleive that this hobby should import animals from the wild that can be Tank raised or aquacultered?

 

[JeremyR]

So are you leaving or going? Either offer something constructive.. or don't offer anything.. and for crying out loud, READ THE POSTS YOU ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT BEFORE YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT THEM!

 

[naesco]

Mary
May I respectfully remind you of your own rules.
We must respect everyone even if we disagree; no sarcasm.

Industry Guys;
please leave Fishoholic alone and listen to what the reefers on this board will you telling you about importing impossible fish and coral.
Than let us know what you are prepared to do about it.
Thank you

 

[Anonymous]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr> Industry Guys;
please leave Fishoholic alone and listen to what the reefers on this board will you telling you about importing impossible fish and coral.
Than let us know what you are prepared to do about it.
Thank you

<hr></blockquote>

This brings up an interesting point. I don't know of many "industry guys" on this board that are not hobbyist also. We're no different from you. We just happen to have a cool job.

Glenn

 

[naesco]

Rover I envy you, I really do.
The point I was trying to make is you guys are the front line. You see the fish and coral before we do.
Many don't even make it to a buyer or are in bad shape when they do.
Put it this way. If you had to part with fifty bucks of your money would you buy anything on the list? IMO we have not reached the debateable stuff yet like some tangs, mandarin, anenome and many corals.

 

[Anonymous]

I agree and in my opinion it's better safe than sorry. I "rarely" have any butterflies at all in my store. I don't trust the lists to get the names right and I'm not familiar with the good ones versus the bad enough to make sure I'm not ordering something I don't want. That is a self enforced ban on the LFS level. While I may not agree that some fish should be available to the average aquarist I think that any "ban" on the wholesaler level needs top be thoroughly documented as to the exact reason.