Do you still get excited?

[Fish World1]

It is a BILL that no one can oppose. It is like motherhood and apple pie.

If you are not worried, you should be.

One more time so that YOU will understand. REEFORM before it is too late.

Wayne,

I usually ignore you, but I'll play along this time. You have zero knowledge about my store or its policies. Reform is fine, REEFORM if it has anything to do with you I'll pass.

Why should I be worried?

If your eyes aren't brown they should be.

 

[Jaime Baquero]

What this bill will do is to "force" this industry to be responsible. The status quo is not an option. The industry has to learn the hard way. It is time for this industry to put something back.

Jaime, I don't get you. First you say this bill is going to force the industry to give something back. I ask what. You respond. I ask what kind of timeline do you think it will take and you basically blow me off with more pissing and moaning. Please answer the question. If the industry is going to be forced to do what you lined out because of the bill, how long do you think it will take?

Here we go once again. The industry has done nothing during the last TWENTY years to tackle the cyanide issue in specific places such as the Ph. and In. suppliers of over 60% of the MO. There is not willingness neither commitment to do so. Things won't change in those countries. This bill will force major players to learn the hard way.

Your question is hypothetical and I do not want to waste my valuable time stating something that won't happen.

IF you ask "what to do, knowing that the industry as a whole is not willing neither committed to tackle the problems in the Ph. and In. ?" My answer is close down, until the major players show the willingness and commitment to resume operations in a sustainable way. They have to learn the hard way. By doing it there is going to be a positive message send to major players dealing with MO in other developing countries where the situation could be similar but with less % of the trade..

The Status quo is not an option. You can not sit down in front of your computer "trying to fix the problem" by denigrating, insulting, and lacking of respect to other people who have worked hard contributing to find solutions to the many problems you contributed to create.

 

[Anonymous]

What this bill will do is to "force" this industry to be responsible. The status quo is not an option. The industry has to learn the hard way. It is time for this industry to put something back.

Jaime, I don't get you. First you say this bill is going to force the industry to give something back. I ask what. You respond. I ask what kind of timeline do you think it will take and you basically blow me off with more pissing and moaning. Please answer the question. If the industry is going to be forced to do what you lined out because of the bill, how long do you think it will take?

Here we go once again. The industry has done nothing during the last TWENTY years to tackle the cyanide issue in specific places such as the Ph. and In. suppliers of over 60% of the MO. There is not willingness neither commitment to do so. Things won't change in those countries. This bill will force major players to learn the hard way.

Your question is hypothetical and I do not want to waste my valuable time stating something that won't happen.

IF you ask "what to do, knowing that the industry as a whole is not willing neither committed to tackle the problems in the Ph. and In. ?" My answer is close down, until the major players show the willingness and commitment to resume operations in a sustainable way. They have to learn the hard way. By doing it there is going to be a positive message send to major players dealing with MO in other developing countries where the situation could be similar but with less % of the trade..

The Status quo is not an option. You can not sit down in front of your computer "trying to fix the problem" by denigrating, insulting, and lacking of respect to other people who have worked hard contributing to find solutions to the many problems you contributed to create .

This bill will force major players to learn the hard way.

Your question is hypothetical and I do not want to waste my valuable time stating something that won't happen

you may want to take your own advice, the bill passing into law is just as big a hypothetical :wink:

The Status quo is not an option. You can not sit down in front of your computer "trying to fix the problem" by denigrating, insulting, and lacking of respect to other people who have worked hard contributing to find solutions to the many problems you contributed to create

i know you must be addressing naesco w/that statement, thanks



how do you intend to deal w/the issue of increased cyanide use and destructive fishing when the collectors for the mo biz go back to wider scale food fishing jaime ?

 

[MaryHM]

Here we go once again. The industry has done nothing during the last TWENTY years to tackle the cyanide issue in specific places such as the Ph. and In. suppliers of over 60% of the MO. There is not willingness neither commitment to do so. Things won't change in those countries. This bill will force major players to learn the hard way.

Your question is hypothetical and I do not want to waste my valuable time stating something that won't happen.

IF you ask "what to do, knowing that the industry as a whole is not willing neither committed to tackle the problems in the Ph. and In. ?" My answer is close down, until the major players show the willingness and commitment to resume operations in a sustainable way. They have to learn the hard way. By doing it there is going to be a positive message send to major players dealing with MO in other developing countries where the situation could be similar but with less % of the trade..

The Status quo is not an option. You can not sit down in front of your computer "trying to fix the problem" by denigrating, insulting, and lacking of respect to other people who have worked hard contributing to find solutions to the many problems you contributed to create.

Jaime, I have not been disrespectful or insulting with my question to you. I am curious as to how long you think it will take. If you don't have an answer, say that. How can my question be hypothetical if, as you say, the industry will be forced to make these changes if the bill is turned to law? I am not asking what to do. You lined that out. I'm asking you how long, in your opinion, do you think it would take to implement all of that.

 

[Jaime Baquero]

No, that comment was addressed to Mary. I read the messages she wrote lately. What would you say if I told you that "you blow me off with more pissing and moaning'. Your language is very rich and I thing there are more polite ways to state something. I guess is a matter of education..right?

Is the Filipino government who has to take action to protect the natural resources of its country. So far the government has been absent. There are laws but no means to enforce them. If, for the government the trade of MO is an important source of revenue they'll have to act. So far the Filipino government has not shown interest in protecting their coral reefs. The economic situation in the Philippines is a major problem for the country.

With this bill, collection of marine ornamentals for the aquarium trade using cyanide is stopped, this measure will help to protect the coral reefs in that country.

This forum is oriented to the trade of marine ornamentals, there are things that we as hobbyists, retailers, importers can do.

The food fish issue is another matter that worries me as many of the readers. Many of the participants in this and other forums have been denouncing it for years. It is a problem that has to be solved with the participation of all the countries involved in that illegal and destructive trade. [/b]

 

[MaryHM]

Jaime, you yourself accuse people in here of dwelling on the past, whining about past failures, etc... instead of moving to the future. I was just pointing out that you were doing the same thing you tend to get so frustrated about when others do. You've been asked a direct question about the future. Do you have an answer or not?

 

[naesco]

Jaime, you yourself accuse people in here of dwelling on the past, whining about past failures, etc... instead of moving to the future. I was just pointing out that you were doing the same thing you tend to get so frustrated about when others do. You've been asked a direct question about the future. Do you have an answer or not?

What do you think about the 3 year timetable I felt would be necessary?

How ong to you think it would take, Mary?

 

[MaryHM]

Thank you for your answer, Wayne. I'll respond on it as soon as Jaime answers.

 

[naesco]

Thank you for your answer, Wayne. I'll respond on it as soon as Jaime answers.

Of course you have the right to answer at any time or not at all.
But, is there a reason why you need to hear from Jaime before answering my questions?
Thank yoe
Wayne

 

[MaryHM]

The original question was addressed to Jaime, and I want his response prior to giving mine. Thanks for answering, and I will get back to you as soon as the person this question was originally intended for answers. Of course I have the right not to answer, but I'm not such a coward that I refuse to answer questions or pretend I don't see them. Even if my answer is "I don't know", I don't run from questions.

 

[naesco]

The original question was addressed to Jaime, and I want his response prior to giving mine. Thanks for answering, and I will get back to you as soon as the person this question was originally intended for answers. Of course I have the right not to answer, but I'm not such a coward that I refuse to answer questions or pretend I don't see them. Even if my answer is "I don't know", I don't run from questions.

It is apparent to everyone on this board that you are running from this one. :lol:
This is a forum where everyone shares their ideas.
The "you show me yours and I'll show you mine" doesn't cut it here.
Let's hear from you Mary.
How long do you think it will take?
Thanks
Wayne

 

[Anonymous]

how much more insulting can you get wayne ?

 

[MaryHM]

5 seconds. There. You got an answer. Happy? What were those 4 initials that created an acronym just especially for you and these situations...??? Hmmm....

I will answer this question as soon as the person I originally asked it to responds. This is a conversation, and Jaime's answer is pertinent to the continuance of it.

 

[Kalkbreath]

If we agree that many MO collectors will move into full time food fish collectors if MO collection is banned in certain areas and made far more difficult to make a living on ..........Which has already happened to many collectors over the last few years , because there are not enough fish currently being exported from PI to support the 4000 collectors of yesteryear. If even Jamie agrees that food fishing is not going away any time soon ......how can anyone base in fact that this bill would help the reefs not harm them furture? .....Why would anyone want more natives collecting food fish?

 

[Kalkbreath]

As for getting exited every shipment ............Its all up to how you live your life. I have basically awoken to the same world every day for forty years. Yet because I have over the years varied my existence. I dont experience the same events day after day. If your bored with your store day after day ......just imagine how bored your customers are !

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Jaime, you yourself accuse people in here of dwelling on the past, whining about past failures, etc... instead of moving to the future. I was just pointing out that you were doing the same thing you tend to get so frustrated about when others do. You've been asked a direct question about the future. Do you have an answer or not?

During the last two decades different organizations have been asking for the support of the MO industry to tackle serious issues such as collection, handling and holding and economic incentive for the collectors in the Ph.. The last call came from AMDA almost a year ago, if I remember it was "the AMDA net fund", that happened after the last MACNA event. We have seen what the results are, US$ 1000 after one year. The industry has failed once again, I'd say that it was the last chance the industry had to show its willingness and commitment to tackle the different problems that many of us have been denouncing for decades.

With the real money you have from the industry to deal with the Ph, meaning the $ 1000, you won't go anywhere. The problem remains. Is because of this reality that would be better to close down operations and teach a lesson to the industry by no supporting this trade-cide.

If you had the Filipino government and everyone within this industry interested, motivated and committed (from middlemen/women to aquarium hobbyists), to deal with all the different issues we have been discussing over the years, and to satisfy your curiosity, I'd speculate by saying that it could take from 3 to 5 years of intense work to correct the situation in the Philippines alone. Please do remember that everyone within the industry has to be involved, it can not be the responsibility of NGOs working by themselves to solve the problems the industry has created, the industry as a whole has to be involved and participate in the process of change.

It won't happen!

 

[MaryHM]

Jaime,

The reason I asked you for a timeline is because you yourself stated that this bill would force the industry to do something. That's all I was focusing on- if the bill became law how long would it take for the forced industry to complete its task? Your answer: 3-5 years. I'd say 5 years is a fairly realistic timeline for cleaning up SOME of the major issues. Of course, MAC has been trying to get a CDT together for how long and that hasn't even happened. And that's something that's not under another country's governmental control. My point is this. If the bill becomes law and industry is forced to finally do something, how is industry going to afford to do it? This bill would effectively shut down the industry. If that happens, I highly doubt the people whose businesses are closed are going to put out money for the next 3-5 years in hopes that something will happen to get it running again. I agree that something should have been done already. But I don't agree that this bill would force industry to change it's ways. As is, it would just close the industry. And closing the industry would not put us any closer to getting healthy reefs than we were before.

 

[Anonymous]

And closing the industry would not put us any closer to getting healthy reefs than we were before.

If so many divers depend on the industry to feed their families, why wouldn't they just switch over to the food industry since it's the same skills used? Why would this bill make an impact on the reefs if OUR industry is shut down? There's another, much larger industry out there that does the SAME thing, right?

I don't get it.

Peace,

Chip

 

[MaryHM]

Chip, it's easy to understand. None of the "save a reef- ban the MO industry" people in here have a link to the food fish world. That goes on everyday and they don't hear about it, don't have a live food fish tank in their house that they pull fish out of for dinner, don't go to a live food fish resturant, don't hang out with people who share an interest in eating live reef fish, etc... They think that as long as they have no contact with detrimental reef practices, that it isn't occurring. Out of sight, out of mind.

 

[naesco]

Chip, it's easy to understand. None of the "save a reef- ban the MO industry" people in here have a link to the food fish world. That goes on everyday and they don't hear about it, don't have a live food fish tank in their house that they pull fish out of for dinner, don't go to a live food fish resturant, don't hang out with people who share an interest in eating live reef fish, etc... They think that as long as they have no contact with detrimental reef practices, that it isn't occurring. Out of sight, out of mind.

Wrong again Mary.
Those who will be responsible for closure of the MO industry are not the "save a reef people" it is the industry itself by it lack of action on reeform. And you know this to be true.