A
Anonymous
Guest
The food industry, by far. So...why are we being targeted by the government?
:roll:
Peace,
Chip
:roll:
Peace,
Chip
I would hope that everyone here knows that the answer is the food fish industry- by far. That in no way justfies destructive fishing methods used by this industry. However, a certain perspective needs to be recognized. If Rep. Case thinks that he will be protecting coral reefs with his bill, he is mistaken. Billsreef was 100% correct when he stated it was a money issue. This is a piece of feel good legislation. I mean, look at the title of the bill: "Coral Reef Conservation and Protection Act of 2004". A very all-encompassing title. Yet the bill only deals with one small contributor to the problems- the aquarium trade. Let's see Rep. Case introduce a similar bill targeting the food fish industry. It would be yanked out of Congress so fast by the food fish lobbyists that it wouldn't even get considered. Yet, because this industry has no representation or organization, we get to be the scapegoat. It's frustrating. There are so many things that could be done if the government was serious about trying to implement reform. But that requires real work. No one wants to do that- the industry, the hobbyists, the government(s). No one. Let's talk it to death- literally.
LOL- in fact this bill actually specifically excludes food fish!! Way to save the reefs, Rep. Case!! You're a hero now!!
(1) IN GENERAL- For the purposes of this Act, the term `covered coral reef species' means--
(A) any species of coral or ornamental reef fish;
(B) any coral reef species listed in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) as of the effective date of this Act;
(C) any coral reef species added to Appendix II of CITES after the effective date of this Act, unless the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, finds before the expiration of the 90-day period which begins on the effective date of the inclusion of such species in Appendix II that the take, import, and export of such species do not represent a substantial risk of harm to the sustainability of such species and its coral reef ecosystem; or
(D) any other coral reef species (excluding any finfish, mollusk, crustacean, or other animal or plant species taken for human consumption) the take, import, or export of which the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce have determined, after notice and opportunity for public comment--
(1) IN GENERAL- For the purposes of this Act, the term `covered coral reef species' means--
(A) any species of coral or ornamental reef fish;
(B) any coral reef species listed in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) as of the effective date of this Act;
(C) any coral reef species added to Appendix II of CITES after the effective date of this Act, unless the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, finds before the expiration of the 90-day period which begins on the effective date of the inclusion of such species in Appendix II that the take, import, and export of such species do not represent a substantial risk of harm to the sustainability of such species and its coral reef ecosystem; or
(D) any other coral reef species (excluding any finfish, mollusk, crustacean, or other animal or plant species taken for human consumption) the take, import, or export of which the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce have determined, after notice and opportunity for public comment--
Jaime, I don't think anyone (with maybe an exception or two) is saying that the MO industry holds no responsibility here. What I know I'm saying is that this bill's supposed purpose is to protect coral reefs, yet it only targets the MO industry. It specificially excludes the food fish industry. You use an example of who is the worse thief- he who steals a little or he who steals a lot. In our justice system (on the occasions when it works properly), the one who does the worse crime gets the most punishment. In this case, the MO industry gets punished while the food fish industry gets off free and clear. I'd have a lot more respect for this bill if it spread the blame and punishment around in a more proportionate manner.
MaryHM":1hib2e36 said:
You are wrong again Mary
The purpose of the Bill is as follows:
b) Purpose- The purpose of this Act is to provide a series of nondiscriminatory measures which are necessary for the conservation of coral reef species and further the obligations of the United States under CITES
It clearly deal with "species" and not the reef itself.
If you want to go on a crusade against cyanide in the fishery, I will be happy to support you, in another forum.
Oh come on Wayne...give your head a shake. Did you even read Mary's post. Your just repeated what she wrote. You just decided to quote a different paragraph. What do you think "coral reef species" means? I'll give you a hint...read Mary's post. There could be some useful information in it for you.
In your continuing quest to try to say I'm wrong, you're completely off base yet again. A coral reef IS the species that are in/on/around it. A coral reef is a living, breathing entity. Unless your idea of a coral reef is a bunch of dead calcium carbonate skeletons. You really need to think before you post, and not just post as an arm jerk reaction out of spite for me. It makes you look stupid. In any case, how does what you just said change any of what I said? Answer that. Since you had to take the time out to post that I'm wrong, show me where what you are saying proves I'm wrong in my previous post. And do it with words. Not rolling eye emoticons.
I'm not out to spite you or anyone. And I don't have any quest to prove you wrong although you often are but never admit it.
You, know, sometimes you get a little 'fussy' about detail so I took the opportunity of printing out the purpose of the BILL exactly as it is set out in the BILL
Sadly many of the reefs around the Philippines, destroyed by the use of cyanide are a mass of dead skelton with dabs of dirty green algae here and there. I saw this with my own eyes.
But soon they will flourish with an abundance of life for all to enjoy.
You, know, sometimes you get a little 'fussy' about detail so I took the opportunity of printing out the purpose of the BILL exactly as it is set out in the BILL
Sadly many of the reefs around the Philippines, destroyed by the use of cyanide are a mass of dead skelton with dabs of dirty green algae here and there. I saw this with my own eyes.
But soon they will flourish with an abundance of life for all to enjoy.
Hi Bill.
Hmmm.
Seriously, though...
It's not necessarily so cash-based as some peple may think: that the fishing industry has the financial weight to spare itself from this sort of attention. It's just as likely that the MO industry is being targeted because it does not provide a basic necessity. The commercial fishing industry provides food, and therefore has moral weight.
The MO industry is simply less defensible in the public eye, and therefore carries nearly zero political risk (and quite a bonus, if you consider the clueless, soundbite-only, bliss-ninny, treehugging polluters littering the voting population, and quite ocasionally this forum) in painting the leopard that a population of chimps need to unite against, all to some politician's well-paid orchestration.
.
'Wayne'. 'Actual details'.
Hmmm.
Seriously, though...
It's not necessarily so cash-based as some peple may think: that the fishing industry has the financial weight to spare itself from this sort of attention. It's just as likely that the MO industry is being targeted because it does not provide a basic necessity. The commercial fishing industry provides food, and therefore has moral weight.
The MO industry is simply less defensible in the public eye, and therefore carries nearly zero political risk (and quite a bonus, if you consider the clueless, soundbite-only, bliss-ninny, treehugging polluters littering the voting population, and quite ocasionally this forum) in painting the leopard that a population of chimps need to unite against, all to some politician's well-paid orchestration.
.
billsreef":1jla0w2f said:Hi Horge,
You do make a valid point. There are also some cultural/economic differences that come into play. I know that in some countries seafood is major and much needed source of nutrition. In the US, however, it has become a luxury food source. One could remove all seafood from US markets and there would not be a lack of food. Of course though some good seafood is far healthier of a meal than the typical red meat rich American diet
Not necessarily anymore. Many species of delicious fish are disappearing from the menu at seafood restaraunts because of dangerously high mercury levels. Red Lobster no longer even has the live fish boards with the catch of the day. I used to love their swordfish and now I can't even get it.
Other top predators are also too high in mercury, to be considered safe anymore. Going after the MO industry is a nice way for some to show how much they care. If Wayne gets that medal he seeks so badly, I hope he can live with the knowledge that his convoluted logic actually increased the rate of reef destructive. He will not have the luxury of saying wasn't forewarned.Mitch
Here, Beef is for the rich.
Pork is more affordable. Chicken's getting up there.
Fish ---well, there's lots of kinds of fish. Some, apparently more expensive than gold-plated beef. But yes. In the Philippines, fish is the common denominator in middle and low-income meals.
If some hobbyist-supplier jack*ss is damaging my family's food source, HELL I want him in jail yesterday.
If the food provider is doing the same sort of damage to the reef ---that's like, "regrettable collateral damage that we need to develop techniques to avoid in the future"
Way it is, here.
Pork is more affordable. Chicken's getting up there.
Fish ---well, there's lots of kinds of fish. Some, apparently more expensive than gold-plated beef. But yes. In the Philippines, fish is the common denominator in middle and low-income meals.
If some hobbyist-supplier jack*ss is damaging my family's food source, HELL I want him in jail yesterday.
If the food provider is doing the same sort of damage to the reef ---that's like, "regrettable collateral damage that we need to develop techniques to avoid in the future"
Way it is, here.
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:
