Buy a Coral, Save a Reef...

[naesco]

Nathan you may be surprised to find out that almost all of the LFS and some people on this forum actually do NOT support a ban on the importation of impossible to keep species.
They use the old arguments that we reefers are only a minor cause of the problem and that run off pollution etc is the real problem.
Notwithstanding experienced (over thirty years in the industry) well accepted authors and scientists opinion, they choose to define their own definition of 'impossible to keep'.
They choose a dated political philosphy that they have a 'right' to carry on business without government intervention and ignore the warnings that government will in fact intervene if they do not clean up their act.
They choose dated humane philosophy which allows the slaughter of tons of impossible to keep fish and coral and justify this on the basis that one day some reefer may find the answer to keeping the fish or coral.
Sustainability is another question but first we have to stop now the importation of impossible to keep fish and coral. If the industry in not even prepared to do that, the issue of sustainability is a moot point IMO.

 

[Anemone]

Wow!

We all really do agree

Well, maybe except CBA

Now that we've found common ground, can we figure out some way of working toward/encouraging this end (sustainable harvest....and this includes non-removal of impossible to keep species)?

Kevin

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: Anemone ]</p>

 

[naesco]

Anenome yes it appears there is agreement.
The first thing we can do is adopt the impossible to keep list. Truthfully, a healthy flasher wrasse may be possible so I think it is safe to remove it based on sincere first hand statements that they may be kept.
For the most part I don't think that the industry/hobbiest types would object to anything else. However, I understand that they would hate to see the regal angel and ribbon eel on the list because they are very saleable but that is not the test.
If everybody is more or less in agreement we should as a forum ask Mary to present it to MAC.
I also would like to see pressure put on non-MAC LFS and online LFS. Some of reef.org's sponsors sell these species and that must stop.
Any comments? What do you think?

 

[MaryHM]

Honestly, I'm really getting tired of this.

Here's a quote from Fishaholic:
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote

He did not in any way mean for this to endorse wild collection over aquaculture or propagation....He also said that if anyone was using his paper to endorse anything there is very little he can do about it as it is just one of many ventures that World Wildlife Fund paticipates in to help the Reefs.

I NEVER SAID THIS PAPER STATES THAT WWF SUPPORTS WILD COLLECTION OVER AQUACULTURE. IT WAS SIMPLY A LINK TO A PAPER FROM A CONSERVATION ORGANIZATION THAT SUPPORTS MY BELIEF THAT WILD COLLECTION CAN BE DONE IN A SUSTAINABLE MANNER AND BENEFIT BOTH THE INDUSTRY/HOBBY AND THE REEFS AND IS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO BANNING IMPORTATION. THE ONLY TIME THE OPINIONS OF CONSERVATION ORGANZATIONS ON AQUACULTURED ANIMALS WAS DISCUSSED WAS WHEN I ASKED YOU IF THE AZA HAD POLICIES IN PLACE STATING THAT THEY WOULD NOT REMOVE ANIMALS THAT COULD BE CAPTIVE BRED.

Maybe if I type in all caps, someone will actually understand my point. I am getting really tired of people taking things out of context and twisting them around to mean something completely different. On here is one thing, but if you called a colleague of mine and said that I was misrepresenting his paper you were completely wrong and OUT OF LINE.

 

[Anonymous]

Get a life Mary. I had a conversation with someone who is doing the same work I have for a long time.

I do not think he knows who you are and I could really care less to talk about you with anyone.

I would hardley call Bruce your colleague, maybe if you did a lot of work with endangered animals

Why not call him yourself?

I have had enough of these physchotic episodes

Now Mary is in League with the conservation groups, I will be sure to call some freinds at Conservation International and see if they know of the famous Mary "I can write in all capitals" Middlebrook. *SIGH*

 

[Chucker]

Fishaholic, we have kindly asked you numerous times to refrain from personal attacks, yet you continue. If this behavior continues, we will have to kindly ask you to refrain from posting here any longer.

 

[Anonymous]

Chucker

Do what you want to do. I seen Steve and myself talking about the conversation that I and Bruce had, everyone is discussing it and then Mary posts some dribble in a fit of paranoia.

Even in her last qoute she uses qoutes that only give part of what was said.

All three of the aquaculture companies she listed are hurt by the imports she brings in that directly compete with the animals they produce. I asked Mary if she would stop importing Coral that is easily propagated and fish that are easily tank raised and she said no that these corals are fast growing and easy to sustain harvest on.

I think there is just as much Mary giving personal attacks towards me, even a pathetic demand for me to not speak to people in conservation groups about what is discussed.

[ January 09, 2002: Message edited by: Fishaholic ]</p>

 

[MaryHM]

He is my colleague, as we serve together on the Marine Aquarium Council Board of Directors.

http://macweb.inets.com/subpage.asp?page=30&section=12

I am tiring of having to constantly go through this with you everyday, hence my ALL CAPS- hoping that maybe something like that would actually get your attention. You continally make accusatory and very sarcastic demands of me, and I keep having to set you straight. Here's one example:

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr> From Fishaholic

A cross section of people who paid to travel to and attend a conference on ornimental fish, That is not what I would call an unbiased crowd, but seeing as you say these "conservation type groups" exist lets hear some names.
<hr></blockquote>

I then gave you a list of organizations. In fact, I inadvertantly left out the Nature Conservancy from that list.

And here's another example of a comment from you after I listed some example of industry companies that contribute to promoting aquaculture:

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

You name three intitutions that your business hurts. I am sure they think as highly of you as you do of them.

I then proceeded to name exactly how I am working with many of these companies and have good business relationships with them.

And now you make another ignorant comment about something concerning me (the "colleague" thing) using a condescending tone, and I have facts to back up my position again. I do not mind you questioning me or asking me to clarify things. I do mind you constantly treating me and others on this board with such distain. If you would like to contribute here in a positive and productive manner, you are more than welcome. In fact, when you aren't acting rude you have the ability to make some valid and interesting points. All I'm asking (as are several others on this board as well) is for you to tone down your attitude and quit trying to rile up controversy where none is warranted. It is apparent to me that you think of me as "the enemy"- try educating yourself about your enemies prior to attacking them.

I will not respond back to this, as I've made my points extremely clear.


We are here to learn about the industry, and hopefully come up with constructive ideas to contribute toward industry reform. Let's concentrate on those issues. If everyone on this board would put as much energy into helping me with the Unsuitable Species List as they do bickering back and forth, the thing would have been finished by now!!

 

[Anemone]

Well, we were getting along

How about if we put CBA and Fish in a room alone together and let them.....um, disuss it?

Sorry, couldn't resist

Kevin

 

[SPC]

Posted by Dave:
Just so I am not being a jerk. Part of our conversation was the fact that he does beleive that if properly managed wild harvesting is sustainable if the other pressures can be controlled.

So, what he is saying is that wild harvesting of corals can indeed work if managed properly and that the only problem comes from the other pressures placed on the reef. If this is the case then I would think that his stance would be exactly what he spoke of in the speech he gave. I still think he would find it detrimental to alot of the worlds reefs if the natives went out of the collection business.
Steve
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

I alluded to this presentation by Bruce Bunting (VP of WWF) in an earlier thread where Fishaholic was questioning the fact that many conservation organizations support industry reform vs. bans. Well guess what??!! A letter from Svein Fossa to the AMDA message board provided a link to this document!! I am pleased to offer it here for your viewing. Frankly, I couldn't have said it better myself (even though I've been trying like heck!!

)

http://macweb.inets.com/docs/library/2/11-27-0Buntingspeech.htm

[ January 06, 2002: Message edited by: MaryHM ]</p>

fascinating read

 

[clarionreef]

Vitz,
Embedded in the adress is a telling morsel...
Sri Lanka has 50,000 people in the marine reef trade while the Philippines has 7,000? :!:
Wow...doesn't anyone proof-read this stuff [ :idea: ] before they set it all in motion? Thats not even remotely credible gossip, much less basis for anything else.
Its another 'indicator' anamolie and shows how high above actual trade practice the 'corporate reformers on Mt. Olympus' really are and how little 'working fish people' are really consulted.
Many erroneous planks in the grand mission are based in indicator errors such as this. The USL [ "saving" reefs thru banning coral feeding butterflies], CAMPS in areas where collectors live but seldom collect, ie. missing the boat on the long range boat collecting culture that brings in most of the top fish in the entire industry, 'catch to order' nonsense [that would ruin collectors], spider web netting trainings etc.
When you start w/ faulty assumptions, is must be 10X harder to proceed with dignity as admitting to the mistakes that only amatuers would make would look bad. So...to not look bad, the errors must er... stand...'huh?'

Steve
ps. Oh well, I guess a trade that does so little to reform itself can expect others seeing an...shall we say...'opportunity' in attempting to do it for us...