Summary of USCRTF Oct 2-3 meeting now online

[naesco]

I agree with you Peter.
IMO industry is paranoid. Dizzy's comments confirm that and I don't mean to be personal Dizzy.
The fact is there ARE fish and coral which should not be available to our hobby. Take a look at the unsuitable species list (USL) (at the beginning of this forum) There are maybe 50 in this category. I would settle for a start of ten. But industry wont even admit one.
Is there any fish you see listed there that should not be on the List?
You yourself have gone on record that you will not buy certain fish for resale. Why?
When I speak this way I mean that some of this fish should be available for research by experts. That does not mean that they should fill the tanks of LFS and sold to unsuspecting newbies.
It is high time industry takes some initiative to do something about the wholesales slaughter of fish that should never to sold in LFS.
Their refusal to anything invites the government and environmental groups to step in. When they do so our hobby will be severely restricted and you will have a hell of a lot less to sell.

 

[clarionreef]

Hello,
I too agree that there are "unsuitable" species...however, I can't muster the passion to campaign for a deletion of nurse sharks or trifasciatus butterflies ie. "unsuitable" species while we are barely making progress on establishing a sustainable fishery and by definition a defensible industry...a priority that dwarfs the other problem.
Suggesting that the "industry", [whatever that is] rally to ban commerce in certain species implies that the industry has a sense of common good and unity. The truth is that the trade behaves more like a "Borg collective" and vacuums up life whereever it can find it. Instead of leading with a fear of bad P.R. why not think in terms of creating alliances and organizations that will in fact attempt to work for the common good on several fronts, in sequence of priority?
Make AMDA A FORCE TO EDUCATE, PROPOSE, CAMPAIGN, AVOCATE AND FIGHT FOR ISSUES OF IMPORTANCE? If not AMDA then what? I suggest AMDA because none of the other groups claiming to represent the interests of common good are from the industry and as such, have very little experience to reccomend reforms with credibility. I'm allergic to regulation from inferiors and agree that we need to be more proactive in order to prevent that.
Its not "what species are bad" that we need to argue, Its whats the vehicle to promote change and reform? When we galvanize and create such a united front, our reccomendations for sustainability and suitability will have more chance of becoming reality.
Revive AMDA and make it a force with a voice.

Steve
Elections soon!

 

[Kalkbreath]

Once again ....some of this is quite silly. It should not matter how well a prisoner does in his cell {tank} It is much more important how the society {reef] will benifit from this prisoner being removed ! Or better, how will it be missed ? Tangs are quite missed when in short supply..........breeding adults are too missed when not around to do their thing. The tiny number of butterflies and other" unsuitable "fish that are removed for the trade is so small that concern over them is unfounded........
_________________
Honda VFR750F
_________________
South American Forum

 

[dizzy]

I agree with you Peter.
IMO industry is paranoid. Dizzy's comments confirm that and I don't mean to be personal Dizzy.
.

naesco,

I don't take offense to that comment. I am paranoid. When I see lies and deceit being used by the outsiders who have come to reform us, I get real concerned, real fast. Once you have established that someone is not being honest with you it becomes almost impossible to accept anything they say. I think Peter has always been honest and I highly respect his opinions. A lot of people are afraid. If you speak out against some of these people they will try to destroy you. That is why it is so inspiring to hear from people who happen to think truth is more valuable than a career in deceit.

MG

 

[flameangel1]

Mitch,,
AMEN to that !!!