Thanks again for your considerable time answering these questions. We realize you have been intimately involved with these issues for decades and much of this seems so obvious to you. The truth is that most of us, myself included, know precious little about the MO trade, the cyanide legacy, the reform movements and their difficulties. I do know it is an expansive, expensive, complex and often bruising history.
Without asking you to rehash all of that--- it is all there on Reefs.org in the Industry Behind the Hobby Forum ( caution wear your seat belts
) ---- there appears to be 2 major points that leave people unconvinced about this venture and I know you have tried to address both, but if you could expand a bit more on the following, it might help clear up the goals of the project.
1) Given the long list of places you just mentioned that already follow sound net caught fishery practices, why do we need another area opened at all? To some this just seems like a well couched way to rape more reef for profit. Wouldn't it be time better spent to educate hobbyists about choosing fish from these already existing areas and working towards reforming the cyanide areas? In short, "let them continue to ruin what is already ruined and leave the pristine stuff alone".
2) The case for hobbyist "investors" as a small but significant part of the plan is not hitting home with many people. What are you really after here? Making sure there is a public to buy the product once it is available? Has this been problematic in the past?
The truth is (and I think you know this) that I'm playing a bit of devils advocate here as I think I personally have a grasp of most of this and am very supportive. However, the message as you intend it has not come through as clearly as it needs to and as you move forward with this beyond MR to other potential hobbyist stakeholders you should know how the message is being received.
Randy