Responsible Reefing Series #1- Unsuitable Species

[Kalkbreath]

[

which of these reef fish are highly consumed as food by the nations they would be exporting them to? i've never seen yellow tang,or hippo's, in my supermarket....[/quote] ...............................................................Its what you dont see thats the problem.......If you dine in Hawaii you would see them and its the Asian markets that consume reef fish . take a look at some of the export fisheries for these islands, you will find that food fish exports are 80 times the pet fish by weight. Grunts and snapper hide in the coral heads too!
_________________
Honda Cub F
_________________
Dilaudid Rehab Forum

 

[Anonymous]

maybe the butterflies represent a necessary control for corals?

Maybe Humans represent a necessary control for corals?....................maybe malaria,the bubonic plague and the measles represent a necessary control for humans?

ok kalk, i'll bite :wink: :roll:

so you contend, then, that the developement of sodium cyanide was the result of nature's way of selecting us as a predatory control of fish on the reef?this is the logical extension of your statement :wink:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


(yes, diseases of any kind are part of the controls system for any animal in any environment-are we then a disease of the reefs? :wink: )

this is not even connected to your first point,and your first point is not connected to mine.

again, you blind yourself, and use a very twisted type of 'logic' in your escapist arguments.(in fact, it's no logic at all... :roll: )

you also seem to be very ignorant about the interconnectivity of the different inhabitants of ecosystems, and unwilling to accept the possibility, even, that our actions may have repercussions we aren't aware of, yet.(or are , for that matter)

it is my sincere and profound hope that your words fall on deaf ears-rather, even, that all turn a deaf ear to your words-as long as you keep running full gas in neutral, for you have yet to stop your circular logic, or offer anything new to your contentions, since your first posts on other threads i've read of yours since i've started reading this bb-that we should keep collecting anything we want, regardless of whether it may, or may not, have any consequences.-though, if you would like your great grandchildren to be able to either enjoy this hobby, or make a living from it, you'll need to change your preference for forced self ignorance.

it is also my profound and sincere hope and wish that you, and each and every single retailer and wholesaler, exporter and importer,who shares your point of view, suffers the fate of having their business fail as quickly and completely as possible, in the most self damaging fashion.you can always sell shoes, or open up a hardware store, and still be your own boss,right?-better for the world if you do :wink:

 

[Kalkbreath]

If mankind and all his demands,polution and effects on the reefs could end today. If we could escort all the native poeple off the islands and leave the islands and reefs back the way they were thousands of years ago.............then yes, your ideas would work. But thats not how it is. The islanders are going to farm the islands with or without this hobby. Its the fact that this hobby is one of the least damaging and it is the greater damage replacement industries will have on the reefs, that most people fail to see. By ending the collection for this hobby, we might remove all blame this hobby has on the reefs demise, but inturn force the islanders to allow other industries to come in and increase the damage with more blasting, mining and agriculture . I want to save the reefs, not just save this hobbies reputation.....
_________________
Honda Civic
_________________
Snap shot

 

[Anonymous]

two wrongs don't make a right!

you silly infant, you... :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

my apologies to mary, and all who engaged in this discussion in seriousness and earnest-i will refrain from responding to this thread, and i apologize for helping to sidetrack the issue.

i just hope the industry is able to help itself, before the gov't decides to do it for us.....

 

[SPC]

Posted by Kalk:

Maybe Humans represent a necessary control for corals?....................maybe malaria,the bubonic plague and the measles represent a necessary control for humans?

-I am having a little trouble following this logic Kalk. I understand the disease part being a control for humans, but I don't understand how humans could be a control for corals. Coral reefs can only grow in a very small ecological niche in the oceans. If man were not around it would not mean that coral would run wild and take over the oceans, they are limited by environemental factors. Man on the other hand does have the ability to live in any area on the planet and therefore has the potential to "run wild" and destroy habitat that is not a part of his niche. Why would corals be dependent on man to control them?
Steve

 

[tazdevil]

Besides, from what I have read, isn't the crown of thorns starfish doing a pretty good job at controlling coral growth, to the fact that it has caused coral decline in plenty of reefs. 8O :evil:

 

[Kalkbreath]

My point is , when was it that man no longer counted as part of nature? Was it when we killed off all the mastodons and slaughters our cousins the Cro-Magnon man? Or were the Indians the last natural form of Mankind? Most people would agree that there was a point that humans were within the natural order of things? What is "natural"? Is it natural for humans to protect ourselves? When we cured small pox, was this a un natural act or just a species adapting to survive? When a meteor blasts into the Earth and destroys 90% of all life on this planet, like has happened before......is this natural? If mankind intercepts the next "BIG ONE" and redirects the comet so it does not hit the Earth......would this be unnatural? If a meteor coming from outside the Galaxy is natural, how can man ......be un natural........?
_________________
Honda Valkyrie
_________________
Ariakon SIM-5

 

[SteveC1]

My point is , when was it that man no longer counted as part of nature?

As soon as the concept of "nature" entered human consciousness and language. By definition, nature excludes humanity and all its creations. Whether this is a useful distinction or not can be debated, but the fact of the distinction itself cannot.

 

[Kalkbreath]

If man is not nature then how is it that certain organisms {diseases} can only exist and reproduce with humans as their host? Would not this make those organisms un or not natural?How did these organisms come to be? Also if man is not nature, why is it that we must obey all laws of nature {physics}?
_________________
Sexual Dysfunction Forum
_________________
list of bankrupt airlines

 

[SteveC1]

If man is not nature then how is it that (yadda yadda yadda)?

Dude, I did not make up the language. The word "nature" is defined as excluding humanity and human creations. We use it to distinguish those things in the world that are not created by us from those that are. This seems to be a useful distinction and everyone understands it. It does not imply that humanity is not a product of nature or not subject to natural laws.

What you are doing is taking positive and negative connotations of words like "nature" and "natural" as if they were part of the definitions. They are not. "Nature" is not defined as being "good" or "not subject to value judgments"--these things are many people's opinions of nature, but they aren't part of the definition. In your previous messages, you argue that it does not seem correct to say that a bad thing like an asteroid impact is natural, but human intervention to prevent such a bad thing is unnatural because such intervention would be good. However, something being natural does not make it good and something being unnatural does not make it bad. Good and bad are statements of opinion, but natural and unnatural are facts about the universe--either something is the result of human action (=unnatural) or it is not (=natural).

I think what you want to say is that, since humanity is a product of nature, humanity's effects on the world are by extension a product of nature, so we should not judge those effects differently than we should judge nature's effects on itself. Have I stated your argument correctly?

 

[Kalkbreath]

no not really.......... it Is odd that we{ human kind} agree that man is no longer nature, even though we never really collectivly discussed why or when humans became something that is now no longer part of the natural order of things..........? Yes, mankind has given the word "natural" a specific meaning, but we have also given a rock a name ,but it was a rock long before we humans called it such.......this brings us full circle ...............just because we have chosen to seperate ourselves from the order of things , it sure seems as if nature has chosen to include us .......? Is it not really up to nature to decide? And I think nature has decided to include us for some 40,000 years ............so again , please explain .....
_________________
free government grants
_________________
Lost Forum

 

[SteveC1]

...but if everyone had basic set theory this wouldn't be so difficult.

I've tried to just let this go but I can't. Apologies to everyone who doesn't care.

By definition, humans are not part of nature, because nature is defined as all things in the universe excluding humans and their creations. So saying that humans are not part of nature is not the same as saying that humans are not part of the universe, and saying that something is not part of nature is not saying anything about whether or not that thing is subject to "natural" laws (get a book on logic and read about the fallacy of equivocation).

"Natural" and "artificial" are arbitrary human distinctions that we use to talk about the universe, because it's handy to distinguish those things that are under our control and/or a result of our actions, from those that aren't. It does not reflect any deep fundamental division.

For example...

Let U be the set of all real numbers.
Let H be the set of all i, where i is a multiple of 3 and any other integer.
Let N be a subset of U such that no element of H is contained in N.

By definition, any element of H is not included in N. That's easy enough to understand, right?

Now, change the definition of H to "the set of all human beings, or anything created by human beings." If N is "nature", do you understand now why "by definition", nature (the concept and term) doesn't include humans?

In other words, it's just a fact of human language and thinking. Why it is useful to talk about humans and the rest of the world separately is a different question. I believe that it is a very useful distinction, but I have little tolerance for equivocation, definitions games, and other semantic stunts and can't stand a discussion in which the semantic foundation shifts like quicksand.

 

[Kalkbreath]

Okey...................................Then .when was it that man was removed from the natural order?
_________________
definition of recession economy
_________________
1950 recession

 

[naesco]

i just hope the industry is able to help itself, before the gov't decides to do it for us.....

If we can see it. Why can they not? They have their investment, and livelyhood at stake

 

[MaryHM]

Here I go...pissing off all of my colleagues...

Because they are short sighted. They make money NOW, so why change anything. Philippine fish are cheap. Indo fish are cheap. Why rock the boat?? Let's play along with MAC, secretly ***** about them in private, and continue to do things the way we have for the past 30 years. FRUSTRATING. :x

 

[Kalkbreath]

Without cheap fish, this hobby is doomed. Too many people are involved in bringing the fish to market............a 22 cent damsel costs up to twentytimes at retail! Or a Huma trigger thirty times markup from 1.50 to 45 bucks........All profit to keep the various parts of the industry functioning. The idea that the current collection numbers are somehow not sustainable, has never been shown to be the case.........20 years of mostly unchanged fish collection amounts have depleted no reefs....{WOODS' REPORT}....no study showing any significant decreases in fish stocks , even in the few areas worldwide that fish collection for this hobby takes place! let alone the Majority75% of the worldwide reefs ,of which NO collection takes place at all. Yes,There are certain species of which the numbers are suppressed slightlyby the trade, But funny, none of those species are on any ban list? A ban on breeding age fish like 16' inch clown triggers would make more sense? But instead we worry about the most abundant fish ?
_________________
Honda CL77
_________________
Honda Vamos

 

[LilFishInBigPond]

Kalkbreath Wrote:

A ban on breeding age fish like 16' inch clown triggers would make more sense?

Size max. limits are the most over looked (or not want to talk about) regulations in US wild life management. I fully agree with Kalk, why not make breeder limits too. California Fish and Game sets size min. but not max on every thing from fish to inverts. I don't know about fish, but abolone produce more eggs every year they live (starts @ 6 years for reds I belive). They (CA F&W) allow collections just after the ab begins producing young. The prized ab, the "dog bowl", the "hubcap" (Deep, 12" + ), is the highest producer of eggs. It should be left for population growth. Unregulated, it's what EVERY ab diver is ultimatly looking foor. Regulated, most divers will stay a way. If a clown trigger reaches breeding age @ 16", than at 16" the fish should protected. On the flip side though, if we ban breeders, how do we get broodstock? We may close the door on "hobbiest" break thrus if we make breeders banned. I guess the same goes for banning butterflys, how can we make any head way on learning to keep something if it's not availabe to the masses?