Because if the PI clean up their cyanide act the fish will cost more
a complete fallacy and a proof of a misunderstanding/ignorance of the entire issue:
if more fish become available in the wild due to INCREASED HABITAT AVAILABILITY then the price of fish will actually go DOWN-fishermen will have to travel less, spend less time to get to their sources, as well. fewer fish will die in transport/holding, and upon arrival-quality will go up, for what is basically a CHEAPER costing stock! :idea:
it does not cost more to catch fish without juice-once trained, a diver can easily meet or exceed catch rates of juicers-this has been proven in the field
however-cyanide is now not the major threat to the habitat, and this whole argument will be moot soon, as reefs are dying and disappearing at quite the fast rate globally-due to pollution, global warming, etc etc
the use of cyanide is mainly one of coersion by criminals/thugs and shortsighted/short term mispercieved economics on behalf of the LOCAL trade leaders/operators, and unless the LOCAL gov'ts/industry get on the ball, NOTHING will ever get 'fixed'.period.
Naesco is correct. If we as a trade cannot educate and adjust our demand then the government will and should do it for us
nope.sorry. won't happen-even as a reef conservation issue-it's a teeny drop in the bucket compared to the other pressures existing that are/will be a higher priority for gov't to get involved in
this is exactly the line that was used by mac to scare the industry and pressure them to join the bandwagon (see the mac files on fenner's site, or ask any amda member who was involved in the discussions back then)
-and IT WAS EVEN THEN A COMPLETELY BOGUS SCARE TACTIC
gov't doesn't even get involved in banning suv production-would they even concern themselves with such a marginal side issue like the mo hobby/industry ? :lol:
consumers will not, as a whole, educate themselves or care-the majority of consumers are not true hobbyists-they are aquarium keepers whos driving purchase motivation is price-even the internet boards will attest to this - 'hobbyists' are more concerned with price, as a group, than with how their stock is caught-most prefer to remain completely ignorant on the issue-much the same way most don't realize that tomatoes do not come from a supermarket
(group buys, anyone ?
)
while mitigating losses after import arrival IS important (and also my pov/practice) it ultimately does not reduce demand presure on the source by much, or enough to make a difference on the status at the source as a whole-for the hobby's actually increasing at a steady rate yearly, (1-3%, if i'm not mistaken) and most entry level consumers are purely/completely ignorant of the whole deal, much like the staus quo.
why SHOULD gov't take symbolic action that will ruin the livelihood of thousands here and abroad, for what is now more a cosmetic issue that will NOT save the reefs from the true, more major, and more pressing issues facing them presently? a reef that doesn't exist is certainly one you can claim is cyanide free, but it doesn't do anyone any actual good, heh.
just some food for thought
