A
Anonymous
Guest
discuss (that is, if ya want to, hehe)
and one gold star to whoever can guess who said it, WITHOUT using the search engine :wink:
discuss (that is, if ya want to, hehe)
and one gold star to whoever can guess who said it, WITHOUT using the search engine :wink:
You said it! [Edit: Bah I was wrong]
I fully agree with the statement. If the industry isn't able nor willing to make itself appear consciencious and responsible about its activities, then the fanatical lobby groups will just turn, one after another, and pursue the aquarium hobby.
Are we evil and inhumane? Oh, probably. The definition keeps changing.
"Our" hobby (I say our as North America/EU) can be threatened by severe lobbying because everything "we" need comes from overseas, and if the imports are shut down, the hobby is over. And they would probably do it, too. That's just the philosophy "our" countries hold - if it's bad, we stop it. Compare to curio industries and asian medicinal industries - they aren't going anywhere, and I doubt even threat of extinction will slow them down. Great examples sitting in the seahorse thread.
I fully agree with the statement. If the industry isn't able nor willing to make itself appear consciencious and responsible about its activities, then the fanatical lobby groups will just turn, one after another, and pursue the aquarium hobby.
Are we evil and inhumane? Oh, probably. The definition keeps changing.
"Our" hobby (I say our as North America/EU) can be threatened by severe lobbying because everything "we" need comes from overseas, and if the imports are shut down, the hobby is over. And they would probably do it, too. That's just the philosophy "our" countries hold - if it's bad, we stop it. Compare to curio industries and asian medicinal industries - they aren't going anywhere, and I doubt even threat of extinction will slow them down. Great examples sitting in the seahorse thread.
PeterIMA":14u0258l said:
will the gov't shut down the trade ? i've yet to hear of anyone from the gov't (NOT a task force, that's a group put together BY the gov't) about mo industry legislation/regulation-but if anyone else has, i'd be most eager to hear
which branch of gov't would be closing it down, and enforcing the tropical fish industry ban?
what proposed actual legislative bills are presently before congress to make the law ?
the whole industry would have to be shut down , no ?
if it's selective, how would it be enforced ?
where would the appropriations for the budget needed for the enforcement come from ?
would political/economic pressusre from the exporting countries be applied to lift the 'ban' ?
it's not as simple a thing as 'just shutting down' an international industry on our end, methinks
oh- and netting funds should continue regardless of a potential threat of shutting down the hobby, imo
it's justifiable in and of itself, methinks
Reply to Vitz,
The Draft Coral Reef Act of 2000 is still being reviewed by the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force. Last fall the Trade Subcommittee of USCRTF recommended that it be submitted to Congress. The main committee deferred submission pending further work by the Trade Subgroup. In other words, the legislation may still be enacted. My guess it that won't happen until the Democrats come back to power under John Kerry. This is becoming more likely and could occur after the next federal election.
How will the Act be applied? My guess is selective bans against exporting countries and/or US territories that do not take steps to stop cyanide use and other forms of destructive fishing, and do not enact management plans. So, it won't happen tomorrow, but it will happen.
The hobbyists and the trade have put their hopes in the MAC and MAMTI. When this fails, there will be nothing but the legislation and associated inevitable bans on the MO trade. Comments on this forum (e.g., the Clarion scandal, blue tang depletion etc) all indicate that steps are needed urgently, and that the trade has failed to act to solve their own problems.
Peter Rubec
International Marinelife Alliance
The Draft Coral Reef Act of 2000 is still being reviewed by the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force. Last fall the Trade Subcommittee of USCRTF recommended that it be submitted to Congress. The main committee deferred submission pending further work by the Trade Subgroup. In other words, the legislation may still be enacted. My guess it that won't happen until the Democrats come back to power under John Kerry. This is becoming more likely and could occur after the next federal election.
How will the Act be applied? My guess is selective bans against exporting countries and/or US territories that do not take steps to stop cyanide use and other forms of destructive fishing, and do not enact management plans. So, it won't happen tomorrow, but it will happen.
The hobbyists and the trade have put their hopes in the MAC and MAMTI. When this fails, there will be nothing but the legislation and associated inevitable bans on the MO trade. Comments on this forum (e.g., the Clarion scandal, blue tang depletion etc) all indicate that steps are needed urgently, and that the trade has failed to act to solve their own problems.
Peter Rubec
International Marinelife Alliance
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
Hes right of course,
But this trade is much too excitied about city based captive coral culture to get interested in the other side of the world...and the real coral reefs off fishing villages.
Fish and corals come from LA...the internet and Petco don't they?
Websites and stock lists fill us with images of color, variety and abundance with the click of a mouse. See, no problem. Plenty of stock around.
Bothering miopic obsessives with political and environmental realities angers and alienates them.
Again...as John Tullock said, before he got out of the industry...this will never be fixed on this side of the ocean. It doesn't care about the sea nearly enough. It covets...collects and keeps...but does not care.
Steve
But this trade is much too excitied about city based captive coral culture to get interested in the other side of the world...and the real coral reefs off fishing villages.
Fish and corals come from LA...the internet and Petco don't they?
Websites and stock lists fill us with images of color, variety and abundance with the click of a mouse. See, no problem. Plenty of stock around.
Bothering miopic obsessives with political and environmental realities angers and alienates them.
Again...as John Tullock said, before he got out of the industry...this will never be fixed on this side of the ocean. It doesn't care about the sea nearly enough. It covets...collects and keeps...but does not care.
Steve
Although I have lost hope for industry doing something even though their survival depends on it, I would not agree that all is lost.
I had the opportunity of watching Mr. Kerry speech as he is hitting the right buttons.
He support Medicare for all rich or poor.
He supports equal access to Canadian drugs (the ones legal in the US)that are often 25% less.
We wants to tax the rich and give the working poor and middle class a break.
He is an evironmentalist and their is no doubt whatsoever that he will shut down the Phillippine cyanide cartel and their American lackeys.
Than, industry will be forced to reform.
Like most citizens of the world, I can't wait until Bush and his right wing dildos get the bums rush.
I had the opportunity of watching Mr. Kerry speech as he is hitting the right buttons.
He support Medicare for all rich or poor.
He supports equal access to Canadian drugs (the ones legal in the US)that are often 25% less.
We wants to tax the rich and give the working poor and middle class a break.
He is an evironmentalist and their is no doubt whatsoever that he will shut down the Phillippine cyanide cartel and their American lackeys.
Than, industry will be forced to reform.
Like most citizens of the world, I can't wait until Bush and his right wing dildos get the bums rush.
Peter is right. Let's keep politics out of this. A&E is running one of those profiles on Kerry on Biography hosted by Brian Williams. It shows Kerry right after he got out of the war. It is good to learn all we can about the candidates for such important political offices. It is worth watching.
Mitch
Mitch
Geez, I am sorry I started a "vote Kerry" thread. This website is about the aquarium industry is it not?
We need to focus on the steps needed to reform collection methods and how fish are transported/handled to ensure sustainable collection and fish that live to be sold at each step of the chain of custody. All I was saying it that some government regulation is needed to help make this happen. I for one need more information on your DOA and DAA. Lets discuss that issue.
Kerry's war record and alleged war crimes shoiuld have no place on this forum. Rover where are you with the hook?
Peter Rubec
We need to focus on the steps needed to reform collection methods and how fish are transported/handled to ensure sustainable collection and fish that live to be sold at each step of the chain of custody. All I was saying it that some government regulation is needed to help make this happen. I for one need more information on your DOA and DAA. Lets discuss that issue.
Kerry's war record and alleged war crimes shoiuld have no place on this forum. Rover where are you with the hook?
Peter Rubec
Peter,
The more I think about it, the more I realize that it is relevant to discuss what effects a change in the white house might have on the industry. Having said that I also think there are more important issues than just the future of our hobby that should go into shaping who you vote for in presidential election. I'm not really certain why vitz started this thread, but I'm fairly certain it wasn't to discuss DOA/DAAs. If we are going to discuss candidates we need to do it in a fair and balanced fashion.
The more I think about it, the more I realize that it is relevant to discuss what effects a change in the white house might have on the industry. Having said that I also think there are more important issues than just the future of our hobby that should go into shaping who you vote for in presidential election. I'm not really certain why vitz started this thread, but I'm fairly certain it wasn't to discuss DOA/DAAs. If we are going to discuss candidates we need to do it in a fair and balanced fashion.
dizzy":38tqqwcr said:
i brought it up in an attempt to bring up to discussion the various factors involving the govt's possibly, or not, enacting and enforcing legislation, and pet trade legislation in particular
food for thought:
if petco, after repeated violation of animal welfare laws, is STILL doing business as usual, what makes anyone think that the gov't will step in and regulate the mo biz?
does which administration really matter? these things really have little to do w/ who's elected president, most, if not all regulation, stems as a result of congress's actions/pressures/priorities, no ?
it has much more to do w/ economics, lobbying, etc., imo
it was also to discuss this statement on its own merits, or lack thereof, irrespective of who posted it
the 'gold star' bit was just some trivia fun (yes, it WAS naesco)
although, i AM curious as to how that quote leads to....
how does worrying about a gov't shutting down one's hobby as a motive for reform indicate a love for true reform, and a love for the hobby ?
seems to more indicate a fear of having something you derive pleasure from being taken away by authority, than anything else, really :?
dizzy":24r4ts8u said:
it was not legislation, as i incorrectly believed at the time, iirc
it was either the lacey act, or the coral reef act of '02
why not first deal with the question of whether or not such acts will ever be law, and enforced, and why ?
what use is discussing what the lacey act will mean, if it's never going to be implemented anyway ? (and which has little to do stopping the trade as a whole, it deals w/illegally collected animals, and is still severely limited in actually stopping an outside country from collectin the way they do now)
the lacey act also seems to be more an act of trade (i.e.-carrying goods across state lines), than an act of environmentalism
i've yet to see any indication that any administration, or congress, is even vaguely interested/concerned w/this as a priority on any publicly stated environmental agenda
we don't even correct flagrant humane laws violators at the local and state level, and you think the fed gov't is gonna come swooping down all of a sudden because ngo's keep using that scenario as a scare tactic ?
i would like to see just one serious proof that shows that there's a likelyhood, or even a small possibility, that gov't intervention/regulation of the entire mo biz is actually a reality w/in the next decade
anyone here know for how long the regulation of 'otc' antibiotics in lfs's has been bantered about in the press, and in our legislature ?
it's a more 'immediate' issue, just from the concerns of places like the cdc, and yet not much has ever been done about it-there are people goin to lfs's and buying e.m./penicillin tabs for self medication purposes, and this issue has been in the press for years, and it's still a non-issue, from a legislative standpoint :wink:
it's a more 'immediate' issue, just from the concerns of places like the cdc, and yet not much has ever been done about it-there are people goin to lfs's and buying e.m./penicillin tabs for self medication purposes, and this issue has been in the press for years, and it's still a non-issue, from a legislative standpoint :wink:
Vitz, Last year you did post a portion of the Draft Legislation called the Coral Reef Act of 2000. It was not the Lacey Act which is already legislation passed by Congress. I have been told that the Coral Reef Act of 2000 is needed because of weaknesses in the Lacey Act.
Some on this forum and some with the MAC feared what was in the Coral Reef Act of 2000. Before it was even completed, Marshall Meyers, Paul Holthus, and Bruce Bunting went to Washing (in May 2000) to oppose it by lobbying Congressmen. What I object to is that Holthus used the MAC to lobby without the consent of his member organizations. The MAC is a 501c3. Hence, it is not allowed to take political positions and to carry out lobbying. This is illegal.
It is OK for a private citicizen or a private company (like a pet store) to lobby if they wish. That is their right under US law.
From reading the Draft Coral Reef Act of 2000 and from discussions with members of the USCRTF, I feel that the Draft legislation would have benefited the aquarium industry. Somehow, members of the aquarium trade were led to believe the opposite. You were led to believe (falsely) that the US government sought to ban the aquarium trade. This never was the intention of the USCRTF or the Draft legislation. The MAC postion paper submitted to members of the USCRTF and to Congressmen accused the USCRT Draft legislation of being against free trade.
If free trade means exploiting people (like aquarium fish collectors) and destroying wildlife and habitats (like coral reefs) in other countries, then I am against it. We should be able to have an aquarium trade that is based on sustainable harvesting techniques that do not destroy/degrade the marine environment. I thought that was one of the goals of the MAC. But, now I know that was never one of their goals.
Peter Rubec
Some on this forum and some with the MAC feared what was in the Coral Reef Act of 2000. Before it was even completed, Marshall Meyers, Paul Holthus, and Bruce Bunting went to Washing (in May 2000) to oppose it by lobbying Congressmen. What I object to is that Holthus used the MAC to lobby without the consent of his member organizations. The MAC is a 501c3. Hence, it is not allowed to take political positions and to carry out lobbying. This is illegal.
It is OK for a private citicizen or a private company (like a pet store) to lobby if they wish. That is their right under US law.
From reading the Draft Coral Reef Act of 2000 and from discussions with members of the USCRTF, I feel that the Draft legislation would have benefited the aquarium industry. Somehow, members of the aquarium trade were led to believe the opposite. You were led to believe (falsely) that the US government sought to ban the aquarium trade. This never was the intention of the USCRTF or the Draft legislation. The MAC postion paper submitted to members of the USCRTF and to Congressmen accused the USCRT Draft legislation of being against free trade.
If free trade means exploiting people (like aquarium fish collectors) and destroying wildlife and habitats (like coral reefs) in other countries, then I am against it. We should be able to have an aquarium trade that is based on sustainable harvesting techniques that do not destroy/degrade the marine environment. I thought that was one of the goals of the MAC. But, now I know that was never one of their goals.
Peter Rubec
The Coral Reef Act of 2000 is ready-to-go legislation that has not made it past Capitol Hill. It seeks to regulate certain marine ornamental species trade importations to the US. It only demands that the importation of CITES-listed species come from sustainably managed collecting areas. The only species in the marine ornamental trade that would be regulated by this Act are listed on CITES Appendix II. These are limited to the Scleractinia (stony corals and live rock), Tridacna clams and Syngnathids larger than 10 cm (those under 10 cm are banned from importation by CITES). There are no provisions in the Act to regulate marine ornamental fishes because they are not CITES-listed.
Having said that, the Act could be revised to include fishes. Or, any other potential legislation could be forwarded that does include fishes. But to say that potential legislation would/could regulate the importation of fishes caught with sodium cyanide (or other chemicals) is to suggest that there would be practical means to determine if this has taken place. The Lacey Act already prohibits the importation of species that are collected illegally (the use of chemicals to collect fish is illegal in Southeast Asia), but it is not practical to enforce, partly because no means of determining if fish have been caught with chemicals is being employed by US Customs. To win cases involving The Lacey Act against the use of chemicals, the prosecutor (US Government) would need to bear the burden of proof and withstand reasonable doubt. At present, it is unlikely to be able to do this. The common knowledge, aspirations, and proclamations of this forum are quite different from the mechanisms of a Court of Law.
Having said that, the Act could be revised to include fishes. Or, any other potential legislation could be forwarded that does include fishes. But to say that potential legislation would/could regulate the importation of fishes caught with sodium cyanide (or other chemicals) is to suggest that there would be practical means to determine if this has taken place. The Lacey Act already prohibits the importation of species that are collected illegally (the use of chemicals to collect fish is illegal in Southeast Asia), but it is not practical to enforce, partly because no means of determining if fish have been caught with chemicals is being employed by US Customs. To win cases involving The Lacey Act against the use of chemicals, the prosecutor (US Government) would need to bear the burden of proof and withstand reasonable doubt. At present, it is unlikely to be able to do this. The common knowledge, aspirations, and proclamations of this forum are quite different from the mechanisms of a Court of Law.
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:
