Another Idea......

[Anemone]

While reading along with all of these discussions (and boy am I glad they added this area BTW Mary!

), I thought of something I'd like to toss out:

How about a marine fish/coral "license." Not in the sense that you'd have to pass a husbandry test (as others have suggested in the past), but just a license like a fishing license that you'd have to renew annually, and must present at any retailer in order to buy a saltwater critter. With the amount we spend annually on our hobbies, $20 per year for a license wouldn't be prohibitive (I just chose $20 since that seems to be the amount that's popular for donation requests of late

). Of course, wholesalers' and retailers' licenses could be substantially more expensive.

The money could be used for MASNA....no, I mean the money could be used for education programs for native collectors (sustainable collection techniques or equipment - take away those cyanide spray bottles!), enforcement (both of the license requirement and any "ban" imposed), and to fund research into husbandry of, um, "difficult-to-keep" species.

Thoughts?

Kevin

 

[SPC]

Hmmm, I like it!

I know that most of the money generated through hunting and fishing licenses is used for wildlife management etc... I think this would be an excellent way to generate money to help save the reefs and to show that hobbiest care! Good thinking Kevin, I knew you were good for something

.
Steve

 

[naesco]

First we have to confirm the list as presented.
I like your idea too.
Just like PADI where you can have a 'resort dive without a licence' a newbie gets hardy fish and corals.
In addition you can get a licence to order in through a LFS fish for research purposes fish like the impossible to keep Moorish Idol and all the others on the list. The LFS special orders through a wholesaler. May be more expensive but thats OK.
That would put all wholesalers and LFS on level ground. No comeback for the supplier,wholesaler or LFS. No stocking of high risk fish and coral. No bitchs from reefers that the fish died.
Police it by a committee of the industry composed of industry and hobbyists. To get a fish or critter of the list a committee of industry and a notable like Tullock, Scott, Borneman etc. determines this.

If you abuse a licence you risk losing your import licence.
Lets start somewhere!

 

[MaryHM]

Anemone- If I understand correctly, you are suggesting a permit that is based solely on the fact that you participate in the hobby- either via the industry or an individual hobbyist. The funds for this fee would then go to help educate the natives. From what I understand, this would not be a permit allowing you to import/keep any particular species. Strictly a participation permit fee. If I'm wrong, correct me. I'll assume I'm right and continue on with my opinion.

Who's going to collect the money? Who's going to receive the money? Who determines what country, what organizations, what collectors receive the benefits? What would be the "policing" mechanism?? Who would do the policing?

 

[naesco]

I know your question is to Anemone so in the meantime may I please venture an opinion.
How about your organization set up in a PADI like manner?
You won't be able to import without a license and a fee. And there will be conditions on your license. For example you won't be able to import any of the species we discussed here. But neither will your competitors. You break the conditions and you lose your import license and your out of business. Ditto for the collector he has a license with conditions and sanctions too.
I like what Anemone has put forward.
Let's approve the whole list and get started on moving his idea forward.
Let's hear about ways and means it could work rather than think up reasons why it won't.
After all, this is the mandate of this forum and its participants whether they be industry/hobbyist or hobbyist.

 

[Anemone]

Mary,

Yup, strictly a participation fee - although importers and retailers could/would have higher fees.

Obviously, an industry organization would need to be set up to administer it. Either that, or legislate it and make it a Bureau of Land Management or state Fish and Game handle.

Either way, the licenses could be sold at the retailers, with the money forwarded to the umbrella organization (heck, you can buy a fishing license at Rite-Aid drug store in California, so similar organization has been used in the past).

I know this sounds like more government for your money (an idea I'm generally against), but the industry could do it, if it wanted (professional sports, for one, sure seem to be able to regulate themselves). The industry just needs the prodding to do it - and with the real threat of a legislative ban, perhaps the industry will see the need.

Any sort of industry council would need to have political power to influence such things as awarding of collection permits and enforcement action against wholesalers/retailers that buck the decisions of the council. Likewise, the council would need the ability to access member wholesalers/retailers fines for importing prohibited species. If the member refuses to pay the fine, without governement intervention, the only thing that could be done is "blacklisting" the offender - but with a strong enough organization, this could be effective.

Pie-in-the-sky? Perhaps, but the alternative very well could be complete import bans, basically putting the entire industry out of business in the US.

Just my thoughts,

Kevin

 

[SPC]

Glenn, you must visit a much different LFS than I do

, a tip jar? You are talking about people voluntarily giving money to an LFS that they think is already ripping them off with prices.
Steve

 

[JeremyR]

Hey, maybe I'll put a tip jar out there.. then the people that pump me for info on a regular basis before mail ordering can at least give me something for my time and advice.. tehehe.

 

[Anonymous]

I know what you mean Jeremy. My point was if you're willing to spend an extra twenty bucks for a license to buy fish, but buy the fish from some one who supports bad hobby practises, (stocking so called impossible to keep fish, etc.) what good does the license do? Why not skip the middle man and support the "good" LFS's and companies directly?

Glenn

 

[JeremyR]

I hear ya glenn.. it never ceases to amaze me how many longtime reefers will whine and gripe about how crappy various stores are.. but as soon as the local superstore has a 19.99 flame angel sale, they all run down and buy them...

 

[SPC]

I think thats exactly the point, when it comes right down to it, its the cost that matters to about 99% of the hobbiest.
I just got back from the LFS and watched a guy point at 4 different anemones and ask the price of each. He started out saying he really wanted the carpet, "how much is it?" That one is $30 was the reply. The next anemone was $25, the next $15 and finally the last was $5. He decided that $5 one was the one he really wanted

.
Steve

 

[MaryHM]

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

If the member refuses to pay the fine, without governement intervention, the only thing that could be done is "blacklisting" the offender - but with a strong enough organization, this could be effective.

This is the inherent problem of having a volunteer program. You can't "blacklist" without opening yourself up to a lawsuit. If it's voluntary and someone chooses not to do it, you cannot put them on a "you shouldn't buy from this company" list or you'll get sued. This has been the problem with AMDA enforcing any of its policies in the past. We're working on ways to get around that right now.

The other route would be to have a mandatory program. That is only possible with legislation. The inherent problem of getting the government involved...well, I think we can all figure out 10 reasons why that's a bad idea

 

[SPC]

I am curious about that, what does everyone think would happen if the government got involved? I know that here in GA the Dept Of Wildlife does a pretty darn good job at allocating the income generated from hunting and fishing licences.
Steve

 

[naesco]

In Canada an 'association' can ask the government to allow it to 'incorporate' a self-governing body or association. The government's role is to simply review the initial 'by-laws' to ensure that they are appropriate. A couple of examples are barbers and accountants whose association set out criteria for membership and can discipline including cancelling a license.
Does the US have similar legislation?
If so the government is NOT involved.
Alternatively what about using PADI as an example?
They issue licences, educate and do all the good stuff but if you screw up you lose your license.

[ December 31, 2001: Message edited by: naesco ]

[ December 31, 2001: Message edited by: naesco ]</p>

 

[Anonymous]

Why not have a tip jar? If you like the approach a certain LFS has towards the hobby tip 'em a twenty every now and then. This way you know where you're money's going and who's benefitting.

 

[Anonymous]

Wayne

PADI and NAUI are effective because they are where most people get their air tanks refilled, no certification, no air. If you are equiped tofill your own tanks no certification needed.

If you wanted to persue this certification the only way it be fairly administrated IMO is through a governing body like American Zoological and Aquarium Association (AZA) This way you have a neutral body that is not tied to the industry administrating regulation. Also because an orginization such as AZA is formost concerned with protection of wild species it would take most of the conflict of intrest out. Unfortunately I think the Importers and Wholesalers would not agree to such a governing body unless forced by government regulations. The first route a orginization that was not economicly tied to the "Industry" would do is stop bringing in animals that can be tank raised. Just in doing this one act you have created an industry that has a commmercial intrest in furthering tank raised species.

 

[JeremyR]

When was the last time you were in your local public aquarium? Most public aquariums are death marts as much as the wholesalers and rotten LFS's.. and they refuse to update their fish keeping methods as time goes by... I don't think the AZA would be the governing body of choice.

 

[SPC]

Posted by Dave:
The first route a orginization that was not economicly tied to the "Industry" would do is stop bringing in animals that can be tank raised.

The AZA dosen't promote tank raised only, public aquariums are filled with wild caught animals.
Steve

 

[JeremyR]

I've personally known people in the AZA, and I still don't think they would be the proper body to do this job.. and who knows if they would even want too.

I know one of the aquarists at mystic aquarium in CT. They are hosting an AZA workshop in april.. but the people who run this aquarium are entirely clueless when it comes to current methods of keeping marine fish, and aren't particularly good at keeping them alive.


The new england aquarium is also an AZA facility, and I found it rather revolting. Their 200k aquarium has everything from bent-spine sharks to chromis... they feed the fish 5 times a day all kinds of protein, but there isn't one veggie ingredient listed on the feeding plaque.. all the tanks and angels have abysmal color and are covered in old wounds from the 'cudas and queen triggers which you can watch abusing their tankmates. There isn't a fish tank in the building I'd be pround to put my name on.. their african cichlid exhibit was full of fish with cloudy eyes and stringy poops..

 

[MaryHM]

Fishaholic:

Since you seem to know the workings of the AZA maybe you can help me out, because I am not completely familiar with them. I do know that the current AMDA president has served on various boards/committees of the AZA.

You question Steve when he says that AZA is not promoting tank raised only fish in lieu of wildcaughts. If AZA has a policy in place stating that they will not import any fish/corals that are bred in captivity could you please get us a copy of it? I think that would go a long way to help us better understand their position.

Now for my personal opinion: I think the AZA is probably more concerned with trying to captive breed threatened or endangered species- things likes pandas, tigers, etc... instead of fish and corals. I'm sure they have some programs in place, but I think it's unrealistic to think that they have a policy concerning fish/corals that they will not import those which can be bred in captivity (maybe you can prove me wrong, in which case I will be a more educated person!). From what I can tell, the captive propagation of fish and corals for the marine aquarium trade has been fueled by industry, not AZA. ORA and C-quest- the major breeders of fish for this industry, both of which have made huge advances in reproduction and rearing techniques, are both industry. The overseas clam and coral farms are for the most part extensions of the industry (example: Fiji, Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands). Are there any AZA organizations that are actively working on the propagation of marine species?