Simplification/Oversimplification

[Anonymous]

The Bottleneck

The Collection areas are big unorganized places.
The Salt Water Fish retail market place is a big unorganized mess.

Compared to those two, the wholesale segment of the industry holds the most fish in the smallest amount of space and in the fewest hands. Heck, there are only two or three airports that allow importation of salt water fish in the first place, right? Wouldn't regulation or reform at this point in the chain get the biggest payoff for the least amount of work? ie sending feedback to both ends of the chain and allowing the market place to correct itself? Even if you can fix all the problems at the village level, I have a feeling that making changes at the retail level will prove to be even more challenging. Especially without some regulation. Changing the wholesale landscape making it impossible for Joe Blow store owner to buy cheap cyanide caught seems the quickest way. At least that limits Joe Blow to only killing fish that didn't kill the reef.

What am I missing?

 

[MaryHM]

You can't regulate the importers to only carry cyanide free fish. For one thing, there is no stateside test. But even if there was there is...uh oh, here it is again...NO FISH SUPPLY.

 

[Anonymous]

So are you saying that 100% of the fish coming in are 100% certain to be caught with cyanide?

 

[kylen]

As long as cheap cyanide caught fish are available, someone is bound to buy/sell them, even at the wholesale level. It would be nice to see all importers do the right thing, but for many, it won't pay the bills.

 

[MaryHM]

Here's the problem with this forum. Taking what someone says and twisting it into something they absolutely never said or meant. I never said that 100% of the fish entering the US are cyanide caught. I never implied it, thought about it, perused it, or otherwise considered it. In fact, there are fish that aren't even caught with cyanide, so everyone has some net caught fish. However, if there are not enough of the essentials (angels, tangs, triggers) that are net caught to even supply me and Steve's measly little operations then how in the world are you going to supply net caught fish to the big boys??

Let me make it simple. Say the following is available net caught every week from the 2 main net caught suppliers:
3 Clown Triggers
16 Blue Tangs
20 Coral Beautys
15 Half Blacks
20 Melas
2 Imperators
1 Blue Face
12 Koran

How many wholesalers do you think that is going to supply? It can't even supply me!! Heck, that amount could fill 2 retailers orders and they'd still get shorted! You can't just say "make the wholesalers demand cyanide free fish". If the divers aren't trained to use nets and don't have nets, and for the sake of argument don't have a paid hand-holder standing next to them, then what good does it do to demand net caught. Tell ya what..I'll DEMAND 20 Net Caught Baby Clown Triggers from Marivi this week. Let's see how far I get. (Hint: I'll get none)

 

[kylen]

That's because she'll send them to me. :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

Mary: I knew you didn't mean that all fish are cyanide caught. I was taking your position to the extreme end to eliminate some possibilities. And I'm not saying that the wholesalers should just immidiately go poof and no more cyanide. And we also know that no progress will ever be made until a CDT test is produced and implemented with some authority.

So assuming that a CDT test is produced, which makes more sense, policing all the little collection stations and collectors, or policing the wholesalers on this end? Why should we force our policies on another country? Let's just handle it on this end? If they want to sell to us they will.

So how difficult would it be for the wholesalers to be randomly tested here with fines imposed for any infractions or a three strikes and you're out type policy? Sure it could be abused and circumvented, but which is more likely to be abused, here or there, and which place do we have the most power for enforcement, here or there? Wouldn't it make the most sense to shoot for the reform amongst the smallest group?

 

[MaryHM]

Red Rover, Red Rover, go back and read my previous CDT implementation posts!!

I have always said that the only way to really fix the problem is for Fish & Wildlife to implement a stateside CDT. Problem is, there isn't one that can be used stateside right now. Man, there's always a problem, isn't there?? :?

 

[Anonymous]

I remember Mary, and that's exactly what I was getting at. :wink:

I just know that there is no way you are ever going to reform all the LFS's in the US. Ever. The quickest way is to not give them the option.

 

[MaryHM]

Ok. So how do we get a stateside test? C'mon Peter Rubec, what's it gonna take?? If it's a matter of money, I'm on it. Next question, will the government even implement it.

 

[Anonymous]

Ok. So how do we get a stateside test? C'mon Peter Rubec, what's it gonna take?? If it's a matter of money, I'm on it. Next question, will the government even implement it.

F&W cannot even keep up with the responsibilities they have now.

 

[Anonymous]

So why should MAC be any different?

 

[MaryHM]

It's not that difficult. Fish & Wildlife is already physically present at the importation of every single shipment entering the US. All they would have to do would be randomly collect a sample or two and give it to a local lab they would contract out with.

 

[Anonymous]

So the why all the drives for these new organizations?

 

[MaryHM]

Because of two things:
1. There is no test than can be utilized right now.
2. We're talking about government implemention...just because something is simple doesn't mean the government perceives it as such.

 

[Anonymous]

It's not that difficult. Fish & Wildlife is already physically present at the importation of every single shipment entering the US. All they would have to do would be randomly collect a sample or two and give it to a local lab they would contract out with.

A random sample or two from *each* shipment, or is that a per-day thing? You'd have to do one from each shipment to put the fear of God into them, IMHO...

Peace,

Chip

 

[MaryHM]

No, I don't believe that's true. For instance, Fish & Wildlife, while always present to sign off on my paperwork, does not always open my boxes. But the possibility is there. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't. Sometimes they open zero out of 30, sometimes 3, sometimes 10. If there's a threat of a 3 strikes your out rule, importers and exporters aren't going to play russian roulette with shipments- trying to slip in cyanide ones hoping F&W won't open the boxes that time. Just like major importers don't try to smuggle in corals with their Philippine shipments (unless they are idiots and want to pay huge fines and go to jail). The threat of being caught is there. Threats, especially when wielded over one's import license, go a long way.

 

[Anonymous]

It's not that difficult. Fish & Wildlife is already physically present at the importation of every single shipment entering the US. All they would have to do would be randomly collect a sample or two and give it to a local lab they would contract out with.

Do you honestly think it would get through the public comment phase of government implementation? No doubt the big box dealers would do some powerful lobbying against any such testing.

Regarding your earlier comment that there is no available testing method for implementation in the U.S. at an importer level:

I think there is. I'll start a new thread to discuss it.

Sincerely,
-Lee

 

[Anonymous]

No doubt the big box dealers would do some powerful lobbying against any such testing.

Wouldn't this be where hobbyist organzations and MAC would come in?

 

[Anonymous]

No doubt the big box dealers would do some powerful lobbying against any such testing.

Wouldn't this be where hobbyist organzations and MAC would come in?

With financial backing from organizations like the Packard Foundation and the WWF, they should have the more powerful government lobby. The importers dont even have a "group" to lobby for them.