I received the following message from John Tullock on March 29, 2002. It was rather prophetic. So, I am presenting it to this forum for consideration in relation to recent developments like H.R. 4928 and MAMTI.
Peter Rubec
Peter,
Regarding the subjects you mentioned, my thoughts in a nutshell are:
Without extensive net training in all exporting countries, an export monitoring program that includes cyanide testing, and cyanide testing at ports of entry to the US, the program will fail. The simple reason, as I have asserted many times, it that the lower cost of cyanide-caught fish gives them too much of an economic advantage in the marketplace. This is because only the tiniest fraction of marine aquarium owners, perhaps 1% are knowledgeable or care about coral reef conservation issues. The remainder are looking for a pretty decoration for the living room, and generally shop with price as the only consideration when buying fish. I base this assertion not, of course, on any scientific study, but rather on my experience in the retail trade. Robinson is right, in my view, that MAC or any similar program will simply absorb funds and spend the majority on administrative costs, rather than actual field training, testing, etc.
I have reached the conclusion that closure of the import trade is a good idea. This will solve the cyanide issue with a single stroke (except of course for the live food fish trade). Livestock will still be available from Florida, Hawaii, and captive propogation, since the task force does not regulate interstate commerce. Since any closure is likely to be known well in advance, propogators will have ample opportunity to obtain potential breeding stock, and the closure will stimulate investment in this area.
I really do not care about the economic impact on US importers. If they do not have sufficient personal investments to weather the changes until they find other work, that is their problem. As for the fisherfolk in PI, etc., the US provides all kinds of economic aid to developing countries now, and there should be room in these budgets to help them, too. As to the impact on the hobby in general, I do not believe that there are any valid reasons for the continuation of destruction of natural resources in developing counties merely to allow affluent Americans to indulge themselves in an activity that is neither essential nor a significant contributor to the US economy. If we take the upper figure of US $200 million as the current economic value of the marine aquarium trade, this is equivalent to just over 5% of the business done annually by the company I work for, which is not even a Forutune 500 company. $200 million is totally insignificant in terms of the US economy.
Best regards,
John Tullock
Peter Rubec
Peter,
Regarding the subjects you mentioned, my thoughts in a nutshell are:
Without extensive net training in all exporting countries, an export monitoring program that includes cyanide testing, and cyanide testing at ports of entry to the US, the program will fail. The simple reason, as I have asserted many times, it that the lower cost of cyanide-caught fish gives them too much of an economic advantage in the marketplace. This is because only the tiniest fraction of marine aquarium owners, perhaps 1% are knowledgeable or care about coral reef conservation issues. The remainder are looking for a pretty decoration for the living room, and generally shop with price as the only consideration when buying fish. I base this assertion not, of course, on any scientific study, but rather on my experience in the retail trade. Robinson is right, in my view, that MAC or any similar program will simply absorb funds and spend the majority on administrative costs, rather than actual field training, testing, etc.
I have reached the conclusion that closure of the import trade is a good idea. This will solve the cyanide issue with a single stroke (except of course for the live food fish trade). Livestock will still be available from Florida, Hawaii, and captive propogation, since the task force does not regulate interstate commerce. Since any closure is likely to be known well in advance, propogators will have ample opportunity to obtain potential breeding stock, and the closure will stimulate investment in this area.
I really do not care about the economic impact on US importers. If they do not have sufficient personal investments to weather the changes until they find other work, that is their problem. As for the fisherfolk in PI, etc., the US provides all kinds of economic aid to developing countries now, and there should be room in these budgets to help them, too. As to the impact on the hobby in general, I do not believe that there are any valid reasons for the continuation of destruction of natural resources in developing counties merely to allow affluent Americans to indulge themselves in an activity that is neither essential nor a significant contributor to the US economy. If we take the upper figure of US $200 million as the current economic value of the marine aquarium trade, this is equivalent to just over 5% of the business done annually by the company I work for, which is not even a Forutune 500 company. $200 million is totally insignificant in terms of the US economy.
Best regards,
John Tullock
