Letters from the WWF

[SPC]

Naesco, I must disagree with you on your assumption that these two organizations are simply stroking each other. As a member of the World Wildlife Fund and other conservation groups I can say that I am very proud of the work they do. There Main goal is still the same as it always was, to protect the worlds natural resources. Do you see something different?
Steve

 

[naesco]

SPC , Mary.
For me it is very simple.
Present the list of the impossible to keep species in total to MAC from this forum of reefs.org.
As a first step, LET THEM CHOOSE say a minimum of one dozen to ban. They are in the industry. They know the facts.
If they are not prepared to take this first step well than we know don't we, and we have been all wasting our time. I for one will than seek govenment intervention.
If MAC is prepared to take the first step than we, industry and the hobbyist, can work together on many things in a constructive manner.
One thing for example that the hobbiest throughout the world can do is refuse to buy from LFS and online stores who are not members of MAC or who continue to import the agreed banned species.
What do you all think?

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: naesco ]</p>

 

[Anonymous]

I think we are about 5-10 years away from any real progress. I get the impression you think it could all be solved by next Tuesday.

 

[naesco]

Rover
No, I am thinking this Friday at the meeting Mary said she is attending.

 

[Kalkbreath]

Have we all agreed that banning some fishes will "help" the reefs? if so ,then tell me how this ban would help the reefs? Taking more of certain fishes and less of others can have a more harmfull effect on the overall health of a reef.....one might say , that removing more coral eating butterflies would HELP the coral reef and that removing more herbivors like tangs {hardy} is what is hurting the reef?A ban might make "us" the hobbists look more caring....yet to any Marine scientists , we might look sophomoric?

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: Kalkbreath ]</p>
_________________
save my home

 

[MaryHM]

The list will not be presented to MAC at the Friday meeting. When the topic comes up (and I know it will), I will reiterate to MAC what we are doing here on reefs.org concerning the USL. Once the committee for the USL is put into place by MAC, then the list will be presented. At that point, everyone on the committee will be presenting their own lists and opinions and we will all come to a final decision. I can't walk into the MAC meeting, say "Here's a USL list", and expect them to implement it the next day. Unfortunately, that's not how beauracracy works.

 

[naesco]

We have all agreed that some fish do not survive in our aquariums.
So why collect them, ship them and sell them to unsuspecting newbies only to have them die in their tanks causing untold collateral damage to the existing fish and coral in their reefs.?
Who could possibly disagree with this?

 

[naesco]

Why don't we try the impossible and see whether there is a consensus on 12 fish? Only twelve.
OK ten than! A first step.
Than send a press release to everyone: "Industry is policing itself"
Do it and I will do my part. I will sign up all the LFS for MAC in Vancouver that I can.

Mary there are MAC footsoldiers dying to help you at ground level (footsoldiers,! ground level,! God I'm sounding like an American, eh

)
You NEED the support of the hobbyist. If someone brings up the list, spring it on them.
Only ten fish, Mary!

 

[naesco]

****** Please! *****

 

[Anonymous]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr> So why collect them, ship them and sell them to unsuspecting newbies only to have them die in their tanks causing untold collateral damage to the existing fish and coral in their reefs.?
<hr></blockquote>

Because the overall collection numbers one change a bit. They'll just have to collect more in order to make the same amount of money.

Think clesely about what this means:

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr> In the Philippines alone, for example, there are an estimated 7,000 collectors
benefiting from this high value trade in which aquarium fish sell for almost
$250 per pound compared to food fish at $3 per pound, and live coral for
$3.50 per pound compared to crushed coral at 3 cents per pound.
<hr></blockquote>

SO by saving one unsuitable aquarium fish you are dooming dozens of others to the fish market. This is why this needs to be a sustainabilty issue based on natural resource availabilty. Collection needs to be monitored and controlled through quotas and sustained harvest numbers. This allows the collector to "harvest X amount of X species in a month, year etc.". What the collector does with the fish is his business. If he wants to eat it fine, if he wants to sell it for the aquarium trade at 100x the value, fine. If we are going to pitch a fit about unsuitable species in our tanks we also need to be lobbying against any one who eats a fish for dinner. Including the citizens of those countries who are doing the collecting.

 

[Anonymous]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MaryHM:
<strong>The list will not be presented to MAC at the Friday meeting. When the topic comes up (and I know it will), I will reiterate to MAC what we are doing here on reefs.org concerning the USL. Once the committee for the USL is put into place by MAC, then the list will be presented. At that point, everyone on the committee will be presenting their own lists and opinions and we will all come to a final decision. I can't walk into the MAC meeting, say "Here's a USL list", and expect them to implement it the next day. Unfortunately, that's not how beauracracy works.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

It is a shame that so many people took all the hours of helping with this list thinking Mary had any intention of actually helping.

She is aware of many fish that do not survive in hobbyists aquariums and she ignores the standards that she says she will uphold from the American Marinelife Dealers Association.

Importers will try to not purchase marine specimens shown to not survive in captivity, unless for research.

If she was ever serious about helping she would not want to wait for anyone to ask.

I will give Bruce Bunting a call and ask him to look at the list, I will also talk to Randy the President of the American Marinelife Dealers Association, maybe he will help also seeing as he was the curator of the Pittsburg Zoo for 13 years and takes these matters seriously.

Its a shame so many trusted this list with Mary.

Unfortunately, that's not how beauracracy works.

A beauracracy is created by people who are looking for favors to be returned.

 

[JeremyR]

Isn't it wonderful that fishaholic is once more giving us his help? I'm sure after he calls the 2 figures mentioned this USL will go straight thru, and as of tomorrow no wholesalers will be importing said fish. Especially since the AMDA is so famous for taking outside advice and changing the hobby, I"m sure all they need is a little fire lit under their butt by dave. Thanks dave, yer the man!

 

[Anonymous]

Jeremy

I think it is worth the people who may be able to do something with the list to see the list. Both Bruce and Randy have worked in in the same field I used to and both I have had conversations with in the past.

There are still people who want to do the right thing and not use excuses as to why someone who can make a difference to look at the work. I have no intention of doing anything except getting this list to them and starting a correspondance between Randy, Bruce and Wayne, as Wayne seems to be the person who is passionate about this becoming something and not allowing it be buried.

 

[MaryHM]

Fishaholic,

You say that it's just too darn bad so many people trusted me with the list since I'm not willing to help. Well, if you'd read the quote you reposted from me, you'd see that I AM going to help, but I have to go through the proper channels. The Friday MAC meeting is not being held in order to determine an unsuitable species list. As I've stated earlier, there is a certain process to doing things. If you will go and read Annex 4 of the MAC standards located at www.aquariumcouncil.org, you can read that process for yourself. The USL will be determined by a COMMITTEE of people that are set up specifically to discuss this issue. NOT by Mary Middlebrook walking into a MAC meeting. I am going to be on the USL committee, and that is when I will be presenting the COMPLETE list to MAC. I'm not going to present an incomplete list and I'm not going to present a list in a meeting that is not specifically for that. I will discuss my position on this list at the Friday meeting, because I know it will be a topic. I think it's important for all of you to realize that Annex 4 of the MAC standards adopted WORD FOR WORD my recommendations for a USL that I submitted during the public comment phase- namely the 3 criteria we've been working on. So to imply that I don't care or am not serious is just another ridiculous, unfounded personal attack from you- at this point I would expect nothing less. Also as stated earlier, MAC and AMDA (Randy Goodlett), are aware of the presence of the list, so calling them about it isn't really going to change anything. Discussions concerning the list will be presented when they are on the agenda (Friday). The list itself will be presented when the committee is in place. All of you can gripe and moan and demand more, but that's the way it works and there's nothing I can do about it. We will follow the proper channels. That is the only way to really get something accomplished. Fishaholic, I also find it humorous that you are so concerned with a list you never even took the time to help create. Naesco has contributed an enormous amount of information to the list, and I truly appreciate his concerns.

Because my time is quite limited right now, I am inviting any of you to take the lead and continue working on the "Too Large" list. If any of you are interested, let me know.

 

[MaryHM]

Whoa Nelly!! I just noticed this from Fishaholic:

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

She is aware of many fish that do not survive in hobbyists aquariums and she ignores the standards that she says she will uphold from the American Marinelife Dealers Association.

I DO NOT IMPORT ANY FISH THAT HAVE QUESTIONABLE SURVIVAL RATES, MUCH LESS ANY OF THE FISH ON THE CURRENT USL.

Your unsubstantiated personal attacks are just so ridiculous I don't know how you can type them with a straight face. Have you ever seen my stocklist? Do you have a clue what fish I import? Or are you just trying to stir the pot with some stupid, unfounded comment? I will not tolerate continued personal attacks on me or any other contributors to this forum. As I've always stated, your views are welcome here but you need to check the attitude at the door. You've received many warnings in the past from me and other reefs.org moderators. Please heed them.

 

[Anonymous]

Mary I think I can cut some of your red tape with a few phone calls so it is not a problem to me how you want to take it.

Bruce has jury duty today but I am sure he will want to see the list and talk to Wayne.

 

[SPC]

Dave, If you discuss

matters with these gentlemen the same way you do here, you will be hurting our efforts. I for one, who care about these issues, would ask you to refrain from calling these two men. You could very well have a negative effect on all the effort we have put forth here. Please do not tell them that you have had a part in the lists we have developed.
Steve

 

[Anemone]

Sheesh!

If Mary presented this forum's concerns in any way similar to Fishaholic's dealings here, any organization she dealt with would turn a deaf ear. I believe I said once before that gadflies get ignored more often than they get acknowledged.

Naesco sees conspiracies and conflicts-of-interest everywhere, but at least he is willing to participate and be part of a discussion, whereas Fishaholic just comes in to bash Mary and say "I told you so."

Fishaholic's posts are so inflammatory and void of anything even resembling helpful information that he is clearly detrimental to this forum.

His grandstanding "withdrawal" from Reefs.Org several months ago over the opening of this forum, and his non-stop haranguing of Mary since then show his only purpose here is destructive - he wants Mary out and this forum gone.

If I were Mary, he would have been gone long ago. I think Mary has only put up with his antics this long because she doesn't want to be saddled with the label of banning those who disagree with her. She has repeatedly warned him (more warnings than any of the rest of us would get for such inflammatory behavior). Well, maybe one of the other Moderators or Adminstrators needs to step in and take action. Enough is enough!

Kevin

 

[Modo]

I'm only posting here to point something out to some of you. In an organization, committee, business or any other organization of several representatives from different fields there is an order of business. Meetings are called to discuss specific issues and follow a set order. You DO NOT jump up and start babbling about some other order of business. You will be percieved as a bafoon. You also DO NOT EVER present partial information and allow a board to make a decision on partial info of anything.

If Mary did present a partial list for acceptance of banning collection/import of only 12 fish. We would lose an opportunity to get the whole list approved. If she went in and said okay guys NOOOW here is the complete list AND we want all of them banned, she would get major push back. Why in the world would you ever want to propose a partial work to anyone? Mary is going at this just as any educated, business minded person would.

This is a very large ship we are trying to turn around. It will take alot of work and alot of time. This isn't something that can be fixed overnight. I know we all wish it would. But to do it right lets let the initiators initiate and if you want to be a part of it be constructive and follow the lead.

Too many Chiefs and not enough indians in here!

[ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: Modo ]</p>

 

[Anonymous]

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

Let the initiaters initiate

I agree

Wayne initiated this in the general discusson forum before this forum existed and from the beginning of this post when he asked about it being discussed it did not sound at all that the piece of work that he started and he has put the most time and effort was being given much of an explaination.

Maybe it is time for the initiater to seek a route that gives him more feedback.