Letters from the WWF

[Kalkbreath]

what if these people ask the simple question of how this plan will help the reefs? Banning all adult fish would help, banning all herbivors would help the reefs, even a plan to kill every last coral eating Parrot fish would help the coral reefs ? Once they ban one fish it will become very easy to ban all the fish which truely have an impact on the reefs......then all fish and coral will be at jeopardy from blast food fishing......even the coral eating butterflies you wish to protect.....fish which we would never want harming are own little captive reefs, yet aim to aid in the wild? If keeping a healthy Kole tang is so important in our reeftanks why is it not even more vital to the health of the wild reefs.........Butterflies? the reefs second worst pest after Parrot fish......
_________________
Student Loans Forum

 

[Anemone]

Kalk,

Your, um, flights of fancy, are just as disruptive and no more productive than Fishaholic's Mary-bashing.

You made the point long ago that anything we do may have no long term effect on the health of the reefs. So what! We are reasoning creatures who can recognize the consequences of our actions - the only actions we can effect are our own - and if we truly want to preserve the unique biosphere the reef represents, then we are morally obligated to be part of the solution. Currently, our hobby is part of the problem (no matter how small a part) and here we are trying to take what steps we can (no matter how small) - so please help.

Kevin

 

[JeremyR]

The point is they already know about the list. Quit trying to grandstand.. you just want to call them up and act like you had something to do with the list when all you did was gripe, moan, and complain. Then you swoop in at the end and try to take credit. Blah.

<<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.
>>

 

[Kalkbreath]

Okey .....why not do something that might help? Even you cannot explain how not removing coral eating fish will help the reefs? I have said many times that fish removal does have a harmfull effect, {Its coral removal that is so little it is squat} Its that these butterflies are the LEAST important of all the possible fish which we might stop importing ,that makes this ....well silly If you want to help the reefs , then remove the greatest threats to its health.....remove ALL the coral eating Butterflies....all the Coral eating Parrots fish and give the natives a bonus for every one they kill and then applaud any and every importer and hobbists that kills one of these coral munchers? What you want to do is the opposite .lets all dawn our skimpies and take a dip with butterflies and help them munch the corals...what is it you all have against the corals?you are actually harming the reefs by banning the collection these coral killers? Are you not? where is the Crown of thorns starfish on the list? it kills coral too ?lets pay the Solomon Islands to raise the Crown of thorns Starfish .....need to make sure those starfish are in stong numbers out over the reef.....
_________________
Ariakon SIM-5

 

[MaryHM]

To clear up this latest twist...

The reason for the USL is not to help protect the reefs. As long as any fish is being collected sustainably, it is a given that the removal of that fish will not negatively impact the ecosystem. Doesn't matter if that fish lives for 10 minutes or 10 years- it's never going back to the reef. You have to realize the criteria for inclusion- the fish are ones that are MORALLY/ETHICALLY wrong to import. No one is saying "Save the reefs- stop the import of fish on the USL". It's more like "Stop needless death- stop the import of fish on the USL".

 

[JeremyR]

Why don't we just hire some mercenaries to block import of cyanide to these countries? Might have a better long term affect for the reefs. How much does a merc group cost?

 

[Green Lantern]

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

I worry about what your intentions are. As Steve mentioned you are hardly the most tactful individual around and I fear that you'd do more damage than good...or... whomever you talk to just gives you a black eye. Either or.

Signed:
Dave's long time fan.

 

[Anonymous]

You know what I am most amused about This forum goes for weeks with very few posts, I post and bang a 50 post thread. I am most amused by this, ask my buddy Steve we actually discussed this once, he said if most of the people here knew it they would be more pissed, that kills me

By the way Troy if you have not noticed yet I enjoy confrontation. The threat of a black eye makes me smile.

Hell I have not given ya'll enough to get pissed about so, here is a question. How many people make up the staff of MAC?.............. Two, not one, not three but two.

 

[JeremyR]

<<You know what I am most amused about This forum goes for weeks with very few posts, I post and bang a 50 post thread. I am most amused by this, ask my buddy Steve we actually discussed this once, he said if most of the people here knew it they would be more pissed, that kills me
By the way Troy if you have not noticed yet I enjoy confrontation. The threat of a black eye makes me smile.>>

In other words yer just a troll. Ok people, from now on ignore dave, he's just a troll.


Dave who?

 

[naesco]

Tomorrow is Friday, eh. The big day.
I am sure that MAC has many, many things on the agenda with certification and all that.
But, it is nice to know that while we go about our day the subject of banning unsuitable fish will also hit the agenda.
If I'm really lucky my suggestion may be acted upon. At the minimum a committee will be set up. A bureaucracy, but progress none the less.
I suspect there will be the same split of opinion as in this forum. There will be those that view that it is unethical to import and sell fish which have no chance of success.
And, there will be those that view that a ban is an infringement of their right to sell what they want.
My money is on the ethical side because it is a win win for both industry and concientious reefers. Stay tuned!

 

[MILPIL2]

Sitting here reading this post, has me very amused. Mary, is actually trying to help out the hobbyists out there, and you guys are bashing her, all over the place. A Mr. Arnold Newman, has been working with world leaders for close to 25 years on the Tropical Deforestation issue, and has authored 4 HIGHLY acclaimed books on this very important issue. However, even though in these books it points to what can be done to help alleviate the problems, along with sustainable lumber harvesting, you still have people buying Tropical Hardwoods. Where are these hardwoods being sold? In North America, Europe, and Industrialized Asian nations. Why is this being mentioned ? That is quite easy, because the MAJOR contributors to the demise of the Tropical Coral Reefs, is Deforestation, and then harvesting of coral reefs for building material. Mary is 100% correct in what she stated about the fish"" As long as any fish is being collected sustainably, it is a given that the removal of that fish will not negatively impact the ecosystem. Doesn't matter if that fish lives for 10 minutes or 10 years- it's never going back to the reef."The real problem, is coming up with a quota, for certain reef areas, on a monthly or even yearly rotational basis. Yes, you the hobbyists help in bringing the issue up, but one thing is certain, total banning of the collection, and importation of Marine ornamentals, is a death knell, not a solution.

 

[Kalkbreath]

What if "they find out that 9 out of ten yellow tangs die in captivity within 2 months .....or that 9 out of ten Captive bred clownfish die as well ...due to the captive clownfishs' lack of immunity tward wild diseases.....what is more cruel then placing a defenseless tankraised clownfish in with wild desease carrying tankmates? Its like the "white man and Tha Indians.....We maybe need to ban captive bred fish on moral grounds as well? Lets place size limits on Adult "Baby making" fish and make a real gain for the hobby and the reefs ?

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: Kalkbreath ]</p>
_________________
Mercedes 35 hp

 

[Fredfish]

Hehehe...

Speaking of the WWF, some of the posts on this forum remind me of that other WWF: lots 'o entertainment value, kinda short on...

Mary, there are those of us out there who read, listen and understand how hard you are working towards a sustainable hobby.

Though I don't (usually) post here, I do read and I do appreciate your efforts.

Fred

 

[naesco]

Milfish and fredpil your comments on this thread are fair.
I know you do not have the time to look through this forum but if you did you would see fair comment and a willingness to meet halfway of the issue which Mary has summarized in her most recent post.

 

[Kalkbreath]

Originally posted by MILPIL2:
[QB]Sitting here reading this post, has me very amused. Mary, is actually trying to help out the hobbyists out there, ......................................................No... Yes,she may be "trying" to help the hobby......but she will be hurting both the hobby and the reefs with what she is proposing! Once the system is set up to ban these 12 fish, then it will be too easy to add other fish to ban as well...like tangs ...groupers etc and what the Reefs will gain with this ban and this idea of carring about the coral eating fish and not a yellow tang is silly .....why does a butterfly fish deserve our protection but not a grouper? {Solely based on what it likes to eat ?}

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: Kalkbreath ]

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: Kalkbreath ]</p>
_________________
recession in us history

 

[danmhippo]

Naesco, what do you do for living? If I may ask. As Modo, Mary, Jeremy (and forgive me if I did not mention your name) has previously mentioned, presenting the USL at wrong/inapropriate time is the most destructive thing to our effort of coming up with our list. Normally in an organization, big or small, when you meet, you discuss the assigned topic. If there are time left, then talk about the rest. Even if there are time left, bring up the list is not going to make any impact because of the lack of time to go into detail about it.

Instead, I would recommend discussion of USL should be mentioned to be placed into the next meeting, if the topic of the next meeting is not yet decided yet.

I normally do not post into this forum, but just read as a bystander, but I have to commend Mary to put up with personal attacks directed at her repeatedly. I might have already submitted my resignation to JamesW if I were Mary. I think you (and you know who I am referring to) should refrain from personal attacks and throw away your conspiracy theory against Mary for God's Sake. The biginning of this post as Mary stated, is simply a post to let us the hobbyist know what's happening in the industry, just as Mary has promised us when this forum is first opened. Personal attacks should never been put forth in the first place.

Jimmy

 

[Anonymous]

huzzah!!

 

[naesco]

Huzzah???
Am I in the sump?

 

[SPC]

Thank you Mary, I think most of us now have a better appreciation for what takes place at these meetings. I also feel that it is the obligation of some of us who frequent this forum to come up with more data if we truly care, let me explain this a little more. An excellent point was brought up in the meeting about captive raised obligate feeders. My first thought was, what % of these are available vs wild caught? In 5 years will this % have changed much? Without hard data it is very difficult to argue a point with the guy who is bringing in tank raised. Now if we had data that said only 1% are captive raised and will be in 5 years, then I think an argument could be made. I know that it is hard to predict 5 years down the road but I still feel that we should be looking into this. There is a real possibility that tank raised will never be able to keep up with the demand, do any of us have a clue if this might be the case?

Posted by Mary:
One thing that was mentioned at the meeting is that Germany and England have designations for marine ornamentals instead of ban lists- beginners, intermediate, and advanced. Maybe we could figure out some way to do the same thing.

- Does anyone know how this is being done? Is it at the pet shop level or is there an organization running this?
Steve

 

[naesco]

I would also like to thank you for endeavouring to present MAC our, the reefers, view on the issue of impossible to keep fish and coral. Although we did not all agree on everything, 99% agreed that something should be done.