If you're planning a trip to Florida...
- Thread starter sfloridasalty
- Start date
Contender, I am not trying to "dissect" what someone says, what I am attempting to do is make sure we understand each others view, clearly.
Contender posted:
-I have no idea why you decided to post this :? , it seems as if you are getting close to finishing this discussion sinse you have decided that my point of view is laughable.
-That Indonesian diver that you seem to look down on understands (or could understand) economics as well as you. Demand does not have to equal destruction, especially if that destruction causes one to loose their livelihood.
-They do in the year 2002. The reefs are being destroyed by human beings, it will take humans to save them.
Uh oh, there goes the personall insults again :roll: . The main reason for the destruction of the reefs is pollution and the food industry. Think about it, if you wanted to catch a mess of fish wouldn't the easiest way to do this is just dynamite an area without any concern for what is killed in the collateral damage. Well that and other similar destructive practices are taking place in the Pacific. Now, if we were to change the thinking of the native peoples (actually it is already being done) to one where they saw the reef as a way to feed their families without destroying the reef, then IMO they would be the ones who would protect them. If they were to see, for example, a cruise ship dumping crap on their reef then they could demand that this practice stop.
The destruction of the reefs will continue whether the reef hobby is banned or not. If the reef hobby continues however, there could be real value given to the reefs by the native people and a possibility for them to stand up and save what they own. Collection by the aquarium trade
Steve
Contender posted:
-I have no idea why you decided to post this :? , it seems as if you are getting close to finishing this discussion sinse you have decided that my point of view is laughable.
-That Indonesian diver that you seem to look down on understands (or could understand) economics as well as you. Demand does not have to equal destruction, especially if that destruction causes one to loose their livelihood.
-They do in the year 2002. The reefs are being destroyed by human beings, it will take humans to save them.
Uh oh, there goes the personall insults again :roll: . The main reason for the destruction of the reefs is pollution and the food industry. Think about it, if you wanted to catch a mess of fish wouldn't the easiest way to do this is just dynamite an area without any concern for what is killed in the collateral damage. Well that and other similar destructive practices are taking place in the Pacific. Now, if we were to change the thinking of the native peoples (actually it is already being done) to one where they saw the reef as a way to feed their families without destroying the reef, then IMO they would be the ones who would protect them. If they were to see, for example, a cruise ship dumping crap on their reef then they could demand that this practice stop.
The destruction of the reefs will continue whether the reef hobby is banned or not. If the reef hobby continues however, there could be real value given to the reefs by the native people and a possibility for them to stand up and save what they own. Collection by the aquarium trade
be done in an ethical and non destrutive way, in my self righteous opinion :wink: .
Steve
Calling your opinion self righteous is not a personal insult. A personal insult is attacking the person, not the issue (for example, calling someone an a-hole). I respect your opinion, and am debating, not attacking. Don't be insulted.
I find it interesting how you constantly pull quotes and then comment on them, when in the very next sentence, I say the same thing you are trying to prove. Example:
I am also saying that humans are destroying our reefs, and that it will take humans to save them. That is what I mean when I say that we need to protect the reefs from ourselves. I'm sorry if we didn't use the same terminology. In the future, I would appreciate it if you stuck to the big picture, rather than approaching each sentence as an entity in itself, especially when the next sentence proves your point. We are arguing in circles.
Now for what we are discussing....whether economics is a driving force for preservation. IMO, it isn't. It is a beautiful notion to think that uneducated poor fish collectors living in third world countries will join hands and decide to save the reefs. But in reality, this is not whats going to happen. If your livelyhood depended on catching fish, and being destructive meant more food on your family's table, you wouldn't stop to think that maybe you should do it a little more eco-friendly and catch a little less fish for the sake of the environment. Economics has existed for a long time, and the same principles that existed years ago, still exist today .... demand=supply. You mention that dynamite fishing is a bigger cause of destruction than aquarium fish....It absolutely is. But if what you say is true, then these dynamite fisherman should have stopped this extremely destructive practice decades ago. The same principles should exist for these fisherman, and even for the cruise industry...is this not true?...they all depend on the reef to make money.
In many places, dynamite fishing has stopped, but it is almost always thanks to the government banning, and not the fishermen choosing to do so. If one fisherman stops dynamite fishing, he is giving competitors the upperhand, just like it would be to stop destructive fish collection. IMO, the best way to stop this destruction is by either the government banning it, or us, the consumer, stop demanding it. If there is no demanding these fish, then there is no reason for people to go out and catch them.
And, for the record, I still think that it is self-righteous to believe that by buying fish caught in a destructive manner, you are somehow promoting change and in the long run helping the reefs.
I find it interesting how you constantly pull quotes and then comment on them, when in the very next sentence, I say the same thing you are trying to prove. Example:
I am also saying that humans are destroying our reefs, and that it will take humans to save them. That is what I mean when I say that we need to protect the reefs from ourselves. I'm sorry if we didn't use the same terminology. In the future, I would appreciate it if you stuck to the big picture, rather than approaching each sentence as an entity in itself, especially when the next sentence proves your point. We are arguing in circles.
Now for what we are discussing....whether economics is a driving force for preservation. IMO, it isn't. It is a beautiful notion to think that uneducated poor fish collectors living in third world countries will join hands and decide to save the reefs. But in reality, this is not whats going to happen. If your livelyhood depended on catching fish, and being destructive meant more food on your family's table, you wouldn't stop to think that maybe you should do it a little more eco-friendly and catch a little less fish for the sake of the environment. Economics has existed for a long time, and the same principles that existed years ago, still exist today .... demand=supply. You mention that dynamite fishing is a bigger cause of destruction than aquarium fish....It absolutely is. But if what you say is true, then these dynamite fisherman should have stopped this extremely destructive practice decades ago. The same principles should exist for these fisherman, and even for the cruise industry...is this not true?...they all depend on the reef to make money.
In many places, dynamite fishing has stopped, but it is almost always thanks to the government banning, and not the fishermen choosing to do so. If one fisherman stops dynamite fishing, he is giving competitors the upperhand, just like it would be to stop destructive fish collection. IMO, the best way to stop this destruction is by either the government banning it, or us, the consumer, stop demanding it. If there is no demanding these fish, then there is no reason for people to go out and catch them.
And, for the record, I still think that it is self-righteous to believe that by buying fish caught in a destructive manner, you are somehow promoting change and in the long run helping the reefs.
Dizzy,
Right on! Thanks for posting that link! I hope everyone reads that document as well as the web site. That's just the kind of thing that we were talking about. The only drawback is there isn't anything to force someone to follow these standards. It still will take the buying public to only support those dealers or LFS's that are MAC certified. I know I'll be asking my LFS about their thoughts on this.
Right on! Thanks for posting that link! I hope everyone reads that document as well as the web site. That's just the kind of thing that we were talking about. The only drawback is there isn't anything to force someone to follow these standards. It still will take the buying public to only support those dealers or LFS's that are MAC certified. I know I'll be asking my LFS about their thoughts on this.
Posted by Contender:
Maybe you can explain to me how in this quote you were attacking an "issue":
-Ok, only if you promise not to use HAHAHA again in what is supposed to be an adult discussion :wink: .
-No one said that they would stop fishing for food fish to be more eco friendly, the point is to educate these people to understand the true value of the reef animals in their back yard. The difference in the price of a tang used for food as opposed to selling it to the aquarium trade is huge. Once these people understand the economic importance of this difference in value then they will protect that resource.
-No this is not true. The dynamite fisherman are after a quick buck and are not educated enough to know what they are doing. The cruise industry does not depend on the reefs, they are satisified if there is enough water to float their ship.
-Once again you are confussed with the current state of the reef and what is possible for the future. Just because dynamite and destructive fishing practices are used now does not mean it will be used in the future. The dynamite fishing BTW is done for food fish, when you say:
are you referring to dynamite fishing? Other practices?
-There is that darn "you" word again. I agree that buying fish that are caught in a destructive manner is not helping the reef. What I have been talking about is collecting fish in a non destructive manner and that having real possibilities of helping the reefs through education and economic incentives.
Steve
Maybe you can explain to me how in this quote you were attacking an "issue":
Do you see the you part of that Contender?
-Ok, only if you promise not to use HAHAHA again in what is supposed to be an adult discussion :wink: .
-No one said that they would stop fishing for food fish to be more eco friendly, the point is to educate these people to understand the true value of the reef animals in their back yard. The difference in the price of a tang used for food as opposed to selling it to the aquarium trade is huge. Once these people understand the economic importance of this difference in value then they will protect that resource.
-No this is not true. The dynamite fisherman are after a quick buck and are not educated enough to know what they are doing. The cruise industry does not depend on the reefs, they are satisified if there is enough water to float their ship.
-Once again you are confussed with the current state of the reef and what is possible for the future. Just because dynamite and destructive fishing practices are used now does not mean it will be used in the future. The dynamite fishing BTW is done for food fish, when you say:
are you referring to dynamite fishing? Other practices?
-There is that darn "you" word again. I agree that buying fish that are caught in a destructive manner is not helping the reef. What I have been talking about is collecting fish in a non destructive manner and that having real possibilities of helping the reefs through education and economic incentives.
Steve
ok, this argument is rediculous. I see you can't stop the pull quotes. Call me when you could have a real discussion and when you could see past your nose, STEVE AKA SPC (personal insult). This has degraded to a silly discussion based on sentences you decide are worth quoting...it makes me wonder...have you ever truly thought about somethiing before you posted it?
Goodbye,
Contender
Goodbye,
Contender
SPC, everyone is free to disagree. God knows I don't hold all the answers, and I am very willing to change my opinion if someone gives me a convincing argument. Don't be upset just because you yourself weren't able to. I think in the long run, we both lost sight of what we were even talking about.
Dizzy, thank you for directing me to this website...I had never seen it before. The speech is very interesting....I look forward to seeing MAC certified stores in my area. It is definitely a positive step...but notice this was brought about by concerned consumers in America, and not by increased awareness by the native fish collectors.
As for the evidence he provides about economic incentives saves reefs, I find that is, for the most part, not very scientific and based on speculation. I hope that it is true that economic incentives will help, but no one knows for sure. I do not like the fact that he embraces wild caught specimen as the answer to the reefs problem, and turns his back on aquaculture completely.
Notice he uses alot of "could" and "likely" in the paragraph where he addresses how loss of marine aquarium industry would lead to greater destruction of reefs. This speech is based on his opinion, but many experts would not agree that shifting to a aquaculture dominated industry would lead to more destruction in the reefs (by creating less demand). The information he quotes is not enough to make me want think that we should by wild caught instead of aquaculture. And I hope others take the initiative to go out and research this topic more thoroughly before they stop buying aquacultured specimens and embrace wild caught ones.
Dizzy, thank you for directing me to this website...I had never seen it before. The speech is very interesting....I look forward to seeing MAC certified stores in my area. It is definitely a positive step...but notice this was brought about by concerned consumers in America, and not by increased awareness by the native fish collectors.
As for the evidence he provides about economic incentives saves reefs, I find that is, for the most part, not very scientific and based on speculation. I hope that it is true that economic incentives will help, but no one knows for sure. I do not like the fact that he embraces wild caught specimen as the answer to the reefs problem, and turns his back on aquaculture completely.
Notice he uses alot of "could" and "likely" in the paragraph where he addresses how loss of marine aquarium industry would lead to greater destruction of reefs. This speech is based on his opinion, but many experts would not agree that shifting to a aquaculture dominated industry would lead to more destruction in the reefs (by creating less demand). The information he quotes is not enough to make me want think that we should by wild caught instead of aquaculture. And I hope others take the initiative to go out and research this topic more thoroughly before they stop buying aquacultured specimens and embrace wild caught ones.
You have all made very good points.
Many of us tend to ignore what we believe once we enter the lfs. I consider myself very env. sensitive. But I can recall an earlier time in my interest in this hobby at the lfs when I purchased a fish that was wild caught that could have been captive bread. Afterwards realizing this was due to pure spur of the moment desire, ignoring the fact that the same fish could be purchased later, captive bread. Since, I have made a point to be much more careful in my purchases and what I have now noticed is that care must be taken to be sure that what the lfs says may be captive bread may not be. A certain unnamed lfs was caught by a friend of mine in a lie.
We often tend to turn our heads at the wrongs in our hobby. Like it was said earlier, the majority of people in this hobby are newcomers who are not yet educated on these concerns. It should be our duty to complain, cause a scene, etc. to change the lfs ways. Because, as in many topics, people cant be trusted to act morally so the only way to stop the purchasing of these species is to make it not possible to do so.
Just my opinions.
Many of us tend to ignore what we believe once we enter the lfs. I consider myself very env. sensitive. But I can recall an earlier time in my interest in this hobby at the lfs when I purchased a fish that was wild caught that could have been captive bread. Afterwards realizing this was due to pure spur of the moment desire, ignoring the fact that the same fish could be purchased later, captive bread. Since, I have made a point to be much more careful in my purchases and what I have now noticed is that care must be taken to be sure that what the lfs says may be captive bread may not be. A certain unnamed lfs was caught by a friend of mine in a lie.
We often tend to turn our heads at the wrongs in our hobby. Like it was said earlier, the majority of people in this hobby are newcomers who are not yet educated on these concerns. It should be our duty to complain, cause a scene, etc. to change the lfs ways. Because, as in many topics, people cant be trusted to act morally so the only way to stop the purchasing of these species is to make it not possible to do so.
Just my opinions.
SPC and Dizzy, I think you have hit upon an extremely interesting and influential topic....one that definitely deserves it's own post, where more people could benefit from it. Please join me under "Is Aquaculture Really the Answer?" to further discuss this view.
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
