A Call to Ban Reptiles- Is our Hobby Next??
- Thread starter MaryHM
- Start date
My history degree is evidence that I know history; and no the Nazi's aren't coming for you, ya big dummy.
You must realize, simply, that animals torn from their wild habitats are creating massive pockets of devastation in the natural world. If everyone takes wild fish, there will eventually be no fish left.
The key is captive breeding and species banning. Of course no one flames me for that, because you know I am right.
Bill2 I'm glad Mary takes care of animals. I hope she does. Power to her for conserving in her own way, to the degree she will or can.
I have also kept animals that I didn't trust to the 'care' of others.
I'm personally stoked to hear Mary is building greenhouses to captive-breed in. Let it be known that I will be the first in line to buy any captive raised fish from her.
Power to Mary, again. I hope she transitions into farming and breeding. I not only wholeheartedly support her with my words, but will follow up with actions and $$$, and call attention to her efforts every way I can.
Naesco - it isn't brown frags we're limited to. There are countless captive corals that get shared, along with numerous ornamental fish species. Ocean Institute is making progress with dwarf angelfish, and may soon have Flame Angels, totally TR, for sale.
If people paid more attention and $$$ to tank-raised fish, this discussion wouldn't be necessary.
On another note, Starmstr NO it is not someone's "right as a human" to have a pet condor or tiger. No, I'm not a member of Al-Qaida.
[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: MandarinFish ]</p>
You must realize, simply, that animals torn from their wild habitats are creating massive pockets of devastation in the natural world. If everyone takes wild fish, there will eventually be no fish left.
The key is captive breeding and species banning. Of course no one flames me for that, because you know I am right.
Bill2 I'm glad Mary takes care of animals. I hope she does. Power to her for conserving in her own way, to the degree she will or can.
I have also kept animals that I didn't trust to the 'care' of others.
I'm personally stoked to hear Mary is building greenhouses to captive-breed in. Let it be known that I will be the first in line to buy any captive raised fish from her.
Power to Mary, again. I hope she transitions into farming and breeding. I not only wholeheartedly support her with my words, but will follow up with actions and $$$, and call attention to her efforts every way I can.
Naesco - it isn't brown frags we're limited to. There are countless captive corals that get shared, along with numerous ornamental fish species. Ocean Institute is making progress with dwarf angelfish, and may soon have Flame Angels, totally TR, for sale.
If people paid more attention and $$$ to tank-raised fish, this discussion wouldn't be necessary.
On another note, Starmstr NO it is not someone's "right as a human" to have a pet condor or tiger. No, I'm not a member of Al-Qaida.
[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: MandarinFish ]</p>
MandarinFish,
I appreciate the "conversational" tone of your last post much more than your first
At least you're not calling Mary names, hoping she loses her livelihood, and proclaiming the moral high ground.
Now, I don't think anyone was arguing that captive breeding and species banning might not be an answer. The problem is that our legislators have a miserable history being able to get to the "fine details" in situations such as this, and the likely outcome would be some moral-highground person convincing them that banning the importing of all marine reef hobby fish and corals woould be best. The next step would be to outlaw possession of same, since enforcement would be that much easier.
Never happen, you say? The Caulerpa ban in California (although implemented for a different reason) is a prime example. A genetically mutated version (purposely developed, by the way) of Caulerpa taxiofolia has been found in California coastal waters. The answer, ban all importing, sales or possession of most of the Caulerpa Genus. Never mind that most of those species banned will not survive in the cold waters of California. Note that the import ban also covered possession - so everyone who has Caulerpa in California must decide on some way of ridding themselves of the evil weed (which the supporters of the legislation say can survive in freshwater, survive microwaving, thrive in frigid waters - as a mater of fact, it's darn near indestructible (according to them) - notice any simularities in the use of, um, hyperbole, between the caulerpa issue and the bird/reptile issues?).
These issues have been covered in other posts, but the point is that when pinpoint government intervention may be necessary and reasonable, our legislators usually respond with a sledge hammer.
Kevin
[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: Anemone ]</p>
I appreciate the "conversational" tone of your last post much more than your first
At least you're not calling Mary names, hoping she loses her livelihood, and proclaiming the moral high ground.
Now, I don't think anyone was arguing that captive breeding and species banning might not be an answer. The problem is that our legislators have a miserable history being able to get to the "fine details" in situations such as this, and the likely outcome would be some moral-highground person convincing them that banning the importing of all marine reef hobby fish and corals woould be best. The next step would be to outlaw possession of same, since enforcement would be that much easier.
Never happen, you say? The Caulerpa ban in California (although implemented for a different reason) is a prime example. A genetically mutated version (purposely developed, by the way) of Caulerpa taxiofolia has been found in California coastal waters. The answer, ban all importing, sales or possession of most of the Caulerpa Genus. Never mind that most of those species banned will not survive in the cold waters of California. Note that the import ban also covered possession - so everyone who has Caulerpa in California must decide on some way of ridding themselves of the evil weed (which the supporters of the legislation say can survive in freshwater, survive microwaving, thrive in frigid waters - as a mater of fact, it's darn near indestructible (according to them) - notice any simularities in the use of, um, hyperbole, between the caulerpa issue and the bird/reptile issues?).
These issues have been covered in other posts, but the point is that when pinpoint government intervention may be necessary and reasonable, our legislators usually respond with a sledge hammer.
Kevin
[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: Anemone ]</p>
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote
A degree is no evidence that you know anything. Name calling, however, is evidence of ignorance.
I am a formally educated person. I have lived and/or worked in 3 countries in Latin America, 2 in N. America and 5 in europe. I have heard stories first hand from those who have been taken from their homes in the middle of the night, held without public trial for years, tortured and brutalized. I have many friends whose relatives were similarly taken from their homes to never return. Their relatives were tortured, mutilated and thrown from airplanes into the sea. Gun control (along with control of the press, control of religion, loss of the right to freely assemble and other rights) was a precursor to these atrocities. This is not fiction, but documented fact. It happened in a country that was once as rich as ours. It happened in the 1980's, when most of us on this board were alive and safe in our homes.
My wife speaks Vietnamese, and worked extensively with Southeast Asians in Washington D.C. She can also tell you of stories she heard first hand from refugees from Cambodia where Pol Pot did unspreakable things after seizing similar civil liberties, including the right to bear arms.
Did Pot Pot call himself a Nazi? Did Pinochet? Did Milsovich? Probably not. To me the methods were the same.
I am sorry for rambling, and I realize that this is not the place for this discussion. I have some energy on this topic, and get excited when people try to paint those that defend our freedoms as extreemists.
I told you that we didn't want to go there!
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr> You must realize, simply, that animals torn from their wild habitats are creating massive pockets of devastation in the natural world. If everyone takes wild fish, there will eventually be no fish left.
The key is captive breeding and species banning. Of course no one flames me for that, because you know I am right.<hr></blockquote>
I have to disagree here. If you "know History" then you will know that there are more deer and pheasant here in the US now than there were when Cristobal Colon found this place. They are called a "sustainable harvest." We have been taking fish from the ocean for thousands of years. Some species have suffered, others have not. I feel that a sustainable harvest is possible of the world's reefs. In fact, I think that a controlled, sustainable harvest would be the best thing for the reef! Remember that hunters are some of the biggest spenders when it comes to conservation!
Species specific bans may or may not work. The problem is identification and training of the inspectors. Many look too darn alike! Governments don't like species specific bans so they ban importation from whole regions!
The biggest threat to the hobby from widespread bans is the cost of equipment, supplies and livestock. A widespread ban will effectively close the door to new hobbyists. The barrier to entry is high enough already! Tell anyone outside the hobby that you have a salt water aquarium and they will say "Wow! Isn't that terribly expensive?" Imagine if costs of livestock alone were triple! Few new people would enter the hobby. This affects us all, even those of us who are already addicted! Equipment costs would also go up.
I am all for captive breeding. I am also all about education. People need to know the benefits (not only to the environment) of captively propogated livestock. As more species are propogated and the knowledge base of how to propogate grows, captive propogation will surpass importation.
[ December 29, 2001: Message edited by: esmithiii ]</p>
A degree is no evidence that you know anything. Name calling, however, is evidence of ignorance.
I am a formally educated person. I have lived and/or worked in 3 countries in Latin America, 2 in N. America and 5 in europe. I have heard stories first hand from those who have been taken from their homes in the middle of the night, held without public trial for years, tortured and brutalized. I have many friends whose relatives were similarly taken from their homes to never return. Their relatives were tortured, mutilated and thrown from airplanes into the sea. Gun control (along with control of the press, control of religion, loss of the right to freely assemble and other rights) was a precursor to these atrocities. This is not fiction, but documented fact. It happened in a country that was once as rich as ours. It happened in the 1980's, when most of us on this board were alive and safe in our homes.
My wife speaks Vietnamese, and worked extensively with Southeast Asians in Washington D.C. She can also tell you of stories she heard first hand from refugees from Cambodia where Pol Pot did unspreakable things after seizing similar civil liberties, including the right to bear arms.
Did Pot Pot call himself a Nazi? Did Pinochet? Did Milsovich? Probably not. To me the methods were the same.
I am sorry for rambling, and I realize that this is not the place for this discussion. I have some energy on this topic, and get excited when people try to paint those that defend our freedoms as extreemists.
I told you that we didn't want to go there!
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr> You must realize, simply, that animals torn from their wild habitats are creating massive pockets of devastation in the natural world. If everyone takes wild fish, there will eventually be no fish left.
The key is captive breeding and species banning. Of course no one flames me for that, because you know I am right.<hr></blockquote>
I have to disagree here. If you "know History" then you will know that there are more deer and pheasant here in the US now than there were when Cristobal Colon found this place. They are called a "sustainable harvest." We have been taking fish from the ocean for thousands of years. Some species have suffered, others have not. I feel that a sustainable harvest is possible of the world's reefs. In fact, I think that a controlled, sustainable harvest would be the best thing for the reef! Remember that hunters are some of the biggest spenders when it comes to conservation!
Species specific bans may or may not work. The problem is identification and training of the inspectors. Many look too darn alike! Governments don't like species specific bans so they ban importation from whole regions!
The biggest threat to the hobby from widespread bans is the cost of equipment, supplies and livestock. A widespread ban will effectively close the door to new hobbyists. The barrier to entry is high enough already! Tell anyone outside the hobby that you have a salt water aquarium and they will say "Wow! Isn't that terribly expensive?" Imagine if costs of livestock alone were triple! Few new people would enter the hobby. This affects us all, even those of us who are already addicted! Equipment costs would also go up.
I am all for captive breeding. I am also all about education. People need to know the benefits (not only to the environment) of captively propogated livestock. As more species are propogated and the knowledge base of how to propogate grows, captive propogation will surpass importation.
[ December 29, 2001: Message edited by: esmithiii ]</p>
Anenome
It is for the reason that the government will come down with a heavy hand that we like PADI must commence now to police ourself starting with those species which are defined as impossible to keep.
esmithii
No one is suggesting a complete ban on importation of even difficult to keep fish. What is necessary in the ban on the importation of impossible to keep fish like regal angels, ribbon eels, a few obligate eating butterflyfish , Moorish Idol and the like.
It is for the reason that the government will come down with a heavy hand that we like PADI must commence now to police ourself starting with those species which are defined as impossible to keep.
esmithii
No one is suggesting a complete ban on importation of even difficult to keep fish. What is necessary in the ban on the importation of impossible to keep fish like regal angels, ribbon eels, a few obligate eating butterflyfish , Moorish Idol and the like.
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originaly posted by esmithiii<strong>
Name calling, however is evidence of ignorance</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pay attention kids, Ernie is speaking of something he knows about.
[ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: Fishaholic ]</p>
Name calling, however is evidence of ignorance</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pay attention kids, Ernie is speaking of something he knows about.
[ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: Fishaholic ]</p>
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote
I know history isn't capitalized. CITE YOUR SOURCE. Sounds like a Rush Limbaugh "fact" to me.
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote
Tell Ron Shimek that. Or Stephen Hawking. Or your physician. In fact, if you REALLY believe what you just said, start doing self-dentistry and be your own doctor. And be your own attorney. I dare you.
Want to discuss Etruscan civilization? Pan-Hellenism? The Middle Kingdom? The civitas? Federalism? Shah Jahan? The Battle of the Beams? Songhay? Hull-house? Hamilcar? The historical significance of kamikaze (nothing to do with WWII)? How about the German occupation of Belgium in the first war? Aton? Lee Harvey Oswald's firearms experiences? The role of the Gracchi? How about Ataturk? The Nee Me Poo? The Aka? The Taira? Bleeding Kansas? How about details of Isandlwana (without looking it up online)?
I do know something about history.
The Nazi's were a direct result of:
1) the complex alliance system of WWI
2) the French and British harshness at Versailles
3) the failure of the Senate (and numerous other bodies) to support the League of Nations
4) depressions as a result of what? I know the answers, do you?
5) the vicious rise of the Brownshirts under Hitler
6) weakness within the German government
7) failure to materialize support for the anti-Nazi German officers, facilitated between what parties? By who? You got the answer offhand?
I don't know how educated you are, but degrees are, at the least typically, an indication of study. I wouldn't deny your understanding of what, if anything, you are degreed in.
Hell, I wouldn't disparage anything you have experience with, much less what you've studied. But don't challenge that I understand history, because I do. I was a Phi Alpha Theta officer as a freshman, and was invited by my dep't to apply for a Rhodes scholarship.
Saying that Nazism will happen in America as a result of gun control betrays ignorance of historical understanding.
While on the subject of history, let's talk about the history of seahorses being wild-caught and what positive result there has been for their populations. How about Banggai Cardinalfish?
There may be success stories, but I haven't heard them yet. Please enlighten me, I am all ears. I would *love* to hear the good news as to why catching fish from the wild has gone without impact on their particular ecological niche.
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote
There's the problem. You are dealing with feelings, not facts. Please show me evidence and a detailed, plausible explanations of the rise of deer and pheasant populations, in spite of massive human overpopulation, deforestation, urban sprawl, livestock diseases, species isolation, etc. The only remote relation I can imagine is the decline of large predators by idiots who shoot bears and wolves. But that still doesn't make "more pheasants now than when Columbus arrived."
And, for what it's worth, when Limbaugh has said "more X now than when Columbus..." (with X = Native Americans, trees, etc.) he has been thoroughly debunked and exposed as a fraud.
And when exactly (and how) were massive deer and pheasant poplation counts done in 17th century?
I like you Ernie
, but this isn't Vietnam or Cambodia. Or the Phillipines or Indonesia.
Species banning is necessary. And I post this all with due respect for your aquarium knowledge and help you've always given me.
[ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: MandarinFish ]</p>
I know history isn't capitalized. CITE YOUR SOURCE. Sounds like a Rush Limbaugh "fact" to me.
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote
Tell Ron Shimek that. Or Stephen Hawking. Or your physician. In fact, if you REALLY believe what you just said, start doing self-dentistry and be your own doctor. And be your own attorney. I dare you.
Want to discuss Etruscan civilization? Pan-Hellenism? The Middle Kingdom? The civitas? Federalism? Shah Jahan? The Battle of the Beams? Songhay? Hull-house? Hamilcar? The historical significance of kamikaze (nothing to do with WWII)? How about the German occupation of Belgium in the first war? Aton? Lee Harvey Oswald's firearms experiences? The role of the Gracchi? How about Ataturk? The Nee Me Poo? The Aka? The Taira? Bleeding Kansas? How about details of Isandlwana (without looking it up online)?
I do know something about history.
The Nazi's were a direct result of:
1) the complex alliance system of WWI
2) the French and British harshness at Versailles
3) the failure of the Senate (and numerous other bodies) to support the League of Nations
4) depressions as a result of what? I know the answers, do you?
5) the vicious rise of the Brownshirts under Hitler
6) weakness within the German government
7) failure to materialize support for the anti-Nazi German officers, facilitated between what parties? By who? You got the answer offhand?
I don't know how educated you are, but degrees are, at the least typically, an indication of study. I wouldn't deny your understanding of what, if anything, you are degreed in.
Hell, I wouldn't disparage anything you have experience with, much less what you've studied. But don't challenge that I understand history, because I do. I was a Phi Alpha Theta officer as a freshman, and was invited by my dep't to apply for a Rhodes scholarship.
Saying that Nazism will happen in America as a result of gun control betrays ignorance of historical understanding.
While on the subject of history, let's talk about the history of seahorses being wild-caught and what positive result there has been for their populations. How about Banggai Cardinalfish?
There may be success stories, but I haven't heard them yet. Please enlighten me, I am all ears. I would *love* to hear the good news as to why catching fish from the wild has gone without impact on their particular ecological niche.
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote
There's the problem. You are dealing with feelings, not facts. Please show me evidence and a detailed, plausible explanations of the rise of deer and pheasant populations, in spite of massive human overpopulation, deforestation, urban sprawl, livestock diseases, species isolation, etc. The only remote relation I can imagine is the decline of large predators by idiots who shoot bears and wolves. But that still doesn't make "more pheasants now than when Columbus arrived."
And, for what it's worth, when Limbaugh has said "more X now than when Columbus..." (with X = Native Americans, trees, etc.) he has been thoroughly debunked and exposed as a fraud.
And when exactly (and how) were massive deer and pheasant poplation counts done in 17th century?
I like you Ernie
Species banning is necessary. And I post this all with due respect for your aquarium knowledge and help you've always given me.
[ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: MandarinFish ]</p>
When I lived in rapid city, south dakota a few years ago, the deer population in the city limits alone was over 2000 and rapid isn't that big of an area. I think if you look around, it's not too hard to find info supporting info that the wild herds of game animals are still in good #'s.. shees, look at pronghorns in wyoming.. nearly a pest animal.
Jeremy - do you honestly think there are more now than before the city was there?
I mean, really?
Not before there were people there to complain about them, I mean?
And can seahorses live on the edge of town?
Also, the big herbivorous mammals you refer to are in seemingly big #'s because of the decimation of natural, large predators. Because people kill them. But how many millions used to roam? And how many wolves were in SD?
That's like saying there's a buffalo ranch that's growing. Nevermind the fact the great herds used to roam by the thousands and create the deepest, richest topsoil in the world.
The food web is series of complex, integrated systems. You can't pull thousands and thousands of animals from an area and expect the area to go without negative impact on all organisms inside the biome. The effect ripples.
Ask a biologist, especially a marine biologist.
And how is 'education' supposed to make me feel smarter? - Homer Simpson
[ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: MandarinFish ]</p>
I mean, really?
Not before there were people there to complain about them, I mean?
And can seahorses live on the edge of town?
Also, the big herbivorous mammals you refer to are in seemingly big #'s because of the decimation of natural, large predators. Because people kill them. But how many millions used to roam? And how many wolves were in SD?
That's like saying there's a buffalo ranch that's growing. Nevermind the fact the great herds used to roam by the thousands and create the deepest, richest topsoil in the world.
The food web is series of complex, integrated systems. You can't pull thousands and thousands of animals from an area and expect the area to go without negative impact on all organisms inside the biome. The effect ripples.
Ask a biologist, especially a marine biologist.
And how is 'education' supposed to make me feel smarter? - Homer Simpson
[ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: MandarinFish ]</p>
MandarinFish:
I don't "know" about those things. My area of study was Math and Computer Science. I am not a historian. I could try to make you look stupid by asking you about a laundry list of questions in my field of study, questions about Gaussian fields or topology or the like. It still doesn't mean that you don't know enough math to utilize the quadratic formula!
My point, just because you can spout snippets out of your senior year textbooks doesn't make you an expert on gun control, nor on conservation. There are many educated historians who believe that the freedom to bear arms, along with the freedom of the press, freedom of religion and to peacibly assemble is key to keeping atrocities from happening.
As for Rush Limbaugh, I don't listen to him.
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote
Any rookie game warden with no more than a high school education can tell you why. 1st, agriculture, 2nd, wildlife management, 3rd selective logging in key areas to promote the right kind of underbrush for deer populations. Pheasants have a three to four year lifespan. Only roosters can be hunted during well defined season that is timed based on the nesting season. A single rooster can inseminate many hens. Bag limits are set based on population numbers that are calculated based on many factors. Hunting the roosters down to an optimal rooster to hen ratio ensures that in the cold winter months there is ample food for the hens and chicks.
A similar approach is used for deer management.
Starvation was the biggest predator of deer and pheasant prior to management.
My point is simple: There is more pheasant in S. Dakota today than ever before mainly because it is economically in the best interests of the people of S. Dakota. Hunting means revenue to them. Bag limits are strictly enforced.
Estimates of deer and pheasant populations in the 1700's are made based on current populations in virgin territory in N. America.
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote
If we are not vigilant- it will be. One of the countries I lived in was Argentina. The human rights abuses in the 80's were unbelievable, and many of the stories I heard first hand have been documented. In the 50's it looked a lot like the US.
Ernie
[ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: esmithiii ]</p>
I don't "know" about those things. My area of study was Math and Computer Science. I am not a historian. I could try to make you look stupid by asking you about a laundry list of questions in my field of study, questions about Gaussian fields or topology or the like. It still doesn't mean that you don't know enough math to utilize the quadratic formula!
My point, just because you can spout snippets out of your senior year textbooks doesn't make you an expert on gun control, nor on conservation. There are many educated historians who believe that the freedom to bear arms, along with the freedom of the press, freedom of religion and to peacibly assemble is key to keeping atrocities from happening.
As for Rush Limbaugh, I don't listen to him.
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote
Any rookie game warden with no more than a high school education can tell you why. 1st, agriculture, 2nd, wildlife management, 3rd selective logging in key areas to promote the right kind of underbrush for deer populations. Pheasants have a three to four year lifespan. Only roosters can be hunted during well defined season that is timed based on the nesting season. A single rooster can inseminate many hens. Bag limits are set based on population numbers that are calculated based on many factors. Hunting the roosters down to an optimal rooster to hen ratio ensures that in the cold winter months there is ample food for the hens and chicks.
A similar approach is used for deer management.
Starvation was the biggest predator of deer and pheasant prior to management.
My point is simple: There is more pheasant in S. Dakota today than ever before mainly because it is economically in the best interests of the people of S. Dakota. Hunting means revenue to them. Bag limits are strictly enforced.
Estimates of deer and pheasant populations in the 1700's are made based on current populations in virgin territory in N. America.
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote
If we are not vigilant- it will be. One of the countries I lived in was Argentina. The human rights abuses in the 80's were unbelievable, and many of the stories I heard first hand have been documented. In the 50's it looked a lot like the US.
Ernie
[ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: esmithiii ]</p>
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
