Does this hobby have a lobby group?

[Gatortailale1]

Does this Hobby have a Lobby group?

After reading 98% of the posts on the "not my fault" thread, I was inspired to find out whether or not this hobby has any formidable lobby group. I know of a few groups like AMDA and MASNA, but I'm unaware of their presence if any as a lobbying group to congress.

With all the repeated talk about coral reef bills, and the potential for new ones coming out in the near future, I think it would be important for our hobby group to have a substantial group to voice our concerns. I know the hobby demand is responsible for a portion of reef destruction. (As mentioned in other threads there are other destructive practices that harm the reefs, but that puts blame on them and not us, which is not what responsible hobbyists want to do.)

I for one would rather see action taken now so we have a voice to promote our point of view.

So, before I ramble on and open all the doors to feed the fire, I'll keep it short and hope that some discussion will be generated on this subject and a responsible lobby group will be formed.

[If a group already exists, someone please point it out to me. It took me 9 months of reefing before I found this board so it's possible a group exists and I'm unaware of it.]

Craig

[ December 04, 2001: Message edited by: Gatortailale ]</p>

 

[MaryHM]

The only formal lobbying organization I am aware of is the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC). They are an all-encompassing industry group (dogs, cats, birds, fish, etc...). As far as an organization that lobbys exclusively on behalf of hobbyists, I don't know of any. The only real group that even represents the hobbyists on any level is MASNA.

 

[loosbrew]

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

As mentioned in other threads there are other destructive practices that harm the reefs, but that puts blame on them and not us, which is not what responsible hobbyists want to do

define a responsible hobbyist.

Would being a responsible hobbyist be mad if they did ban the collection of wild animals?

Would a responsible hobbyist purchase wild animals "until its illegal" ?

Would a responsible hobbyist even take part of this hobby after doing the research that a "responisble hobbyist" is supposed to do, and find out that what the "hobby" does is pillage the reefs to display animals, many times in less than ideal conditions, in our offices or homes?

I think that there are many responisble hobbyists, but don't try to justify the collection of wild animals and still call your self a responsible hobbyist.

loosbrew

 

[loosbrew]

this isnt intended for anyone in particular. just to be clear

 

[SPC]

Loosebrew, whats wrong with the responsible collection of wild animals, if they are in fact a renewable resource?
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

The problem is not neccessarily the collection of the animlas but the fact that there is no real governing body to regulate them. By that rationale in order for a "responsible hobbyist" to buy captive caught animals he must know for a fact every detail about the handling of the animal from collector to retailer and then only buy those animals that have been collected in a responsible manner. Although as long as there are others collecting willy nilly with no regard for the consequences you could argue that purchases in that manner would still be destructive because the reefs are still being impacted in a negative way. I suppose the "responsible hobbyist" should say that he will not buy any more animals at all until the entire industry has been reformed.

Glenn

 

[loosbrew]

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

I suppose the "responsible hobbyist" should say that he will not buy any more animals at all until the entire industry has been reformed.

or purchase captive bred animals, IE many many SPS, clowns, gobies, dottybacks etc...

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

Loosebrew, whats wrong with the responsible collection of wild animals, if they are in fact a renewable resource?

i just dont agree with any collection of wild animals if there are penty of captive bred coral and fish. especially in a "hobby" that is mainly for decoration.

loosbrew

 

[Anonymous]

Craig

"our point of veiw"

Is a large point that encompasses many opinions. It also is a point of view that changes.

Why not look forward to the bans and the effect they will have on our hobby. It is very clear that The only sustainable harvest is what we can produce.

There was a time when it was not price but ability to keep most corals and some fish alive that caused many to stay away. The technology to sustain these animals has opened this hobby to many previous people who would not attemp it.

It is appearent that tank raising fish and corals will not become wide spread untill it is completely neccessary to do so.

If bans are the catalyst needed for this hooby to do the right thing then bring them on.

 

[Gatortailale1]

Thanks for all the replies so far.

Yes this is a broad topic. I guess I could of narrowed it more, or expanded it some. I am hoping it takes on its own flavor of discussion.

I'll only say for now that if collection is done responsible, then the reefs can be sustained and even bounce back and expand. Problem that most of know, is that collectors get paid pennies and go for the easiest method of collection.

Why do I think it can be sustainable? I believe it's similar to hunting and control of animal populations. Granted reefs provide more protection to coastal areas from sea storms than any land animal can, but the reefs ability to reproduce is still barely known.

As for the "responsible hobbyist." On the extreme it's hard to be 100% responsible in buying life for aquaria. I guess when I wrote it, I was thinking that I was being honest about the effect my interest int he hobby has on a reef. That is that yes what I purchased has impacted a reef somewhere, and I freely admit that it has impacted it. In being responsible, I'm not pointing the finger at other industries to pin blame on them for the impact I have made on the reef.

Lobby group:
Maybe hobby group is to narrow a stance, but I strongly believe the collective body that makes up this hobby/trade needs to unite and form a group. No matter what role it would play, - forming legislation, education, ect.- at least we would be ready and not caught with our pants down. I agree we need more aquacultured life to buy However, until that expands to the point of sustaining the hobby demand, there will be collection until some government shuts it down. If we step up and lead, maybe we can keep big brother government off our back or at least help shape the legislation it writes.

 

[nhkimmy]

I just wanted to post this quote. Originally posted on the "Not my fault mentality" thread. I felt like it makes some good points that are helpful to the discussion on this thread.

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Adam:
<strong>Hi folks,

All of this bantering is wonderful, and some great points have been made. I personally feel that properly managed aquarium trade collecting could have beneficial effects for the reefs by creating an economic incentive for preventing blast fishing, dredging, etc. I also agree that we are a minor part of the problem.

Unfortunately, none of this matters! The aquarium industry is highly visible and makes a great political pawn. More importantly, the fact that we are a small part of the problem means that we are economically minor as well, and therefore have little lobbying power. Cement making is a big industry in Indonesia. They dredge the reefs for CaCO3, put it in an oven to drive of CO2 leaving CaO also known a portland cement!! This is big business in Indonesia, and puts alot of food on alot of tables as well as alot of tax dollars in the bank. Who do you think is safer from restrictive legislation, them or us??

All that says nothing about domestic bans on importation. It is politically popular to be "enviornmentally friendly" here at home too. The public perception of the hobby will be easily molded by politicians looking to "green up" their image.

Don't kid yourself by again shifting the blame and saying that it is the ignorant people who eat up whatever the even more ignorant LFS tells them, and that the answer is some kind of certification. The cost would be so prohibitive that it would grind the industry to a halt. You may say "If I can care for a mandarin, I am willing to get pay $150 to get certified, and $100 for the fish" Great!! Good for you, but when only 1000 people in the country will pay those prices, not to mention meet the certification requirements, it will not be worth the collector/wholesaler/transshippers time to deal with it.

I am sorry for the long winded ranting, but we will be the target of legislation, and it ain't gonna be regulation, it will be severe restriction or bans. It is too politically complicated and expensive to impose effective regulation, and most importantly, it doesn't make a profound political statement.

Adam</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think adam is right on. This hobby is an easy target for the politicians.

 

[Anonymous]

I think adam is right on. This hobby is an easy target for the politicians.

Yes, and?

Sorry, but this isn't anything we're not already well aware of. In fact, last year the CRTF's formal recommendation to congress was to enact regulation on importation. If Gore were in the White House, it probably would have happened already in fact. Bush doesn't take much interest in environmental issues generally, so we'll see if/when it's finally acted upon.

As far as sustainability... I think the hunting analogy isn't as good as another one we could use. The farming analogy. Anyone who has already read my posts on this subject is familiar with what I mean, but briefly... in situ aquaculture operations are probably the best way to both provide monetary value to the well-being of the reefs and to provide an incentive for the locals and 'collectors' to keep them protected.

 

[Anonymous]

or purchase captive bred animals, IE many many SPS, clowns, gobies, dottybacks etc...


This would fit into my example of the 'responsible hobbyist" knowing every detail about where the fish came from. But unless you buy those fish from a source that only deals with captive raised and they deal with a source that only deals with captive raised, your money will eventually contribute to the destruction of the reef.

It is very clear that The only sustainable harvest is what we can produce.

I strongly disagree with this statement. The level of sustainability may not be able to keep up with the current demand, but there is a sustainable collection level. Someone has already mentioned the hunting analogy. We use natural resources in a sustainable way every day, there is no reason to think that this resource is any different. The beauty of the reef needs to keep some monetary value, (especially to the locals) in order to keep it protected. If you knew that you could sell the pine straw in your back yard to people across the world would it affect your appreciation for pinestraw? Would it suddenly matter to you if someone was going to destroy the trees? Sustainable harvest is the answer, the problem is developing a governing body to regulate and set the numbers and procedures.

Glenn

[ December 05, 2001: Message edited by: Rover ]</p>

 

[Anonymous]

Charles

After being a part of both In Situ and Ex Situ Conservation projects I can say it takes both to make it work.

Although the Work I did directly was with primates, I also helped with the fund raising for Rhinos.

The biggest pit fall with In Situ is you for the most part must make the area secure. When doing this work it is very easily compromised.

With what we are talking about Ex Situ starting and finnishing In Situ is almost impossible.

A great example of In Situ Farming is Aquacultured Liverock. The area's have not been compromised and there is over site, although minimal.

This is good for corals that are natural to the location but could be disastrous to non-indigenous species. Now How many people who are trying to make a profit will not try and introduce a species closer to a shipping point?

In the eyes of many this un-ethical In Situ Farming is already taking place. The Banggai Cardinals That had never been found anywhere except their home range but miraculous appear in waters that have been dived and collected from for decades, Oh and it just so happens to be close to a convenient shipping point.

So with the many un-ethical import/ export, which is not just to this feild. I can see where there will be great success and horrific failure. I wonder how many failures In Situ Aqua-farming the reefs can handle?


For those not well versed in Conservation and or Zoology, In Situ is in the wild or in country were the conservation or farming takes place.
Ex Situ is done in captivity or out of the wild.

 

[Chucker]

Moving this one to the Industry Forum too.