House Bill HR 4928
- Thread starter PeterIMA
- Start date
How dumb are you? That's a hypothetical question, you don't have to answer. The passing of legislation does not require people to be served a subpoena (you're supposedly an attorney and you can't spell that word????). There is no court case, especially a federal one. If you're lamely trying to refer that "once the CDT is implemented you, Mary Middlebrook, will be tried in a court of law", then get over it. The chances of that happening before I get out of this industry are about ZILCH.
You may now continue your regularly scheduled crying in the wind.
You may now continue your regularly scheduled crying in the wind.
Good grief this has eroded into the absurd.
Wayne -- what colour is the sky in your world?
Subpoenas for Mary? Supportive PMs and emails? Puhlease.
If all of your "supporters" don't have the cajones to anonymously join an online bulletin board to join in the pissing match, what makes you think they're going to testify to anything in court or any other place you have your fantasies about?
You want to change the marine ornamentals industry? TAKE A JOB IN IT. Then you can do something besides spew idle threats and gaseous ramblings about "reeform" and whatnot.
In my opinion, you've done more to HARM any serious attempt at industry reform than good.
Ugh.
Jenn
Wayne -- what colour is the sky in your world?
Subpoenas for Mary? Supportive PMs and emails? Puhlease.
If all of your "supporters" don't have the cajones to anonymously join an online bulletin board to join in the pissing match, what makes you think they're going to testify to anything in court or any other place you have your fantasies about?
You want to change the marine ornamentals industry? TAKE A JOB IN IT. Then you can do something besides spew idle threats and gaseous ramblings about "reeform" and whatnot.
In my opinion, you've done more to HARM any serious attempt at industry reform than good.
Ugh.
Jenn
OK Jen so what are the next steps you feel should be taken by the industry you are a part of
Do you feel that the BILL should be ignored?
Do you feel that the BILL (in large part) should be supported?
Do you feel that industry should itself take immediate steps to reeform itselfso that the BILL becomes unecessary?
Your comments and the comments by others to the questions I have posed are very welcome.
Thank you
Wayne
Do you feel that the BILL should be ignored?
Do you feel that the BILL (in large part) should be supported?
Do you feel that industry should itself take immediate steps to reeform itselfso that the BILL becomes unecessary?
Your comments and the comments by others to the questions I have posed are very welcome.
Thank you
Wayne
For the love of Pete, quit mis-spelling REFORM!
No I don't think the bill should be ignored. I think we the people of the industry, and the hobbyists here in the US, should write to our congressman and express our concerns.
I think the intent of the bill is generally good, but it's the implementation of it that is potentially devastating. If the bill is amended and provisions made for the necessary studies and etc., then perhaps some incarnation of the bill is feasible. As it is now, it's not IMO.
Of course I feel that the industry should take steps. I WALK THE WALK. I do it NOW. I'm not waiting for some savior, I'm making the buying choices that I believe to be the most reef-friendly from all the choices that are available. I challenge everyone else to do the same. That's what *I* am doing, here and now.
Jenn
No I don't think the bill should be ignored. I think we the people of the industry, and the hobbyists here in the US, should write to our congressman and express our concerns.
I think the intent of the bill is generally good, but it's the implementation of it that is potentially devastating. If the bill is amended and provisions made for the necessary studies and etc., then perhaps some incarnation of the bill is feasible. As it is now, it's not IMO.
Of course I feel that the industry should take steps. I WALK THE WALK. I do it NOW. I'm not waiting for some savior, I'm making the buying choices that I believe to be the most reef-friendly from all the choices that are available. I challenge everyone else to do the same. That's what *I* am doing, here and now.
Jenn
naesco":jw6kax8c said:
Typical post from Wayne.
No proof.
No proof.
No proof.
Here's a quote from me :
"Secondly, you are wrong when you say I do not have a third eye.
The fact is I do have a third eye (and a third leg)."
Wayne, don't you see how absurd this all is? No one believes anything you say because you never offer up proof that confirms what you say.
Peace,
Chip
Peter,
Does HR1721IH tie into HR4928IH?
H.R.4928
Title: To prohibit the import, export, and take of certain coral reef species, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Case, Ed [HI-2] (introduced 7/22/2004) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 8/2/2004 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Executive Comment Requested from Commerce.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATUS: (color indicates Senate actions)
7/22/2004:
Introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1517-1518)
7/22/2004:
Referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
7/22/2004:
Referred to House Resources
8/2/2004:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans.
8/2/2004:
Executive Comment Requested from Commerce.
7/22/2004:
Referred to House Ways and Means
7/22/2004:
Referred to House International Relations
H.R.1721
Title: To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide for debt relief to developing countries who take action to protect critical coral reef habitats.
Sponsor: Rep Kirk, Mark Steven [IL-10] (introduced 4/10/2003) Cosponsors (13)
Latest Major Action: 4/10/2003 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATUS: (color indicates Senate actions)
4/10/2003:
Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
Does HR1721IH tie into HR4928IH?
H.R.4928
Title: To prohibit the import, export, and take of certain coral reef species, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Case, Ed [HI-2] (introduced 7/22/2004) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 8/2/2004 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Executive Comment Requested from Commerce.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATUS: (color indicates Senate actions)
7/22/2004:
Introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1517-1518)
7/22/2004:
Referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
7/22/2004:
Referred to House Resources
8/2/2004:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans.
8/2/2004:
Executive Comment Requested from Commerce.
7/22/2004:
Referred to House Ways and Means
7/22/2004:
Referred to House International Relations
H.R.1721
Title: To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide for debt relief to developing countries who take action to protect critical coral reef habitats.
Sponsor: Rep Kirk, Mark Steven [IL-10] (introduced 4/10/2003) Cosponsors (13)
Latest Major Action: 4/10/2003 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATUS: (color indicates Senate actions)
4/10/2003:
Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
Does HR1721 tie in with HR4928? Probably not. I don't really know.
It is interesting to see so much concern about House Resolution 4928. At the scientific meeting I just attended (American Fisheries Society 134th Annual Meeting) I met a woman who worked for a while as a congressional aid. There are numerous bills posted associated with natural resources. The two resolutions mentioned are only a few of about a hundred or more that have been posted for review by congressional subcommittees. Less than 5% will ever make it to review by Congress. About 1% may become law.
So, the answer is I don't believe these two resolutions are related.
Peter Rubec
It is interesting to see so much concern about House Resolution 4928. At the scientific meeting I just attended (American Fisheries Society 134th Annual Meeting) I met a woman who worked for a while as a congressional aid. There are numerous bills posted associated with natural resources. The two resolutions mentioned are only a few of about a hundred or more that have been posted for review by congressional subcommittees. Less than 5% will ever make it to review by Congress. About 1% may become law.
So, the answer is I don't believe these two resolutions are related.
Peter Rubec
It is interesting to see so much concern about House Resolution 4928
It doesn't surprise me Dr. Rubec, as news of the pending legislation circulates around the industry fear sets in.
Most reasonable industry types know that you can't fight this BILL but lack the leadership to mount changes within the industry itself that would make the BILL virutally unecessary.
It doesn't surprise me Dr. Rubec, as news of the pending legislation circulates around the industry fear sets in.
Most reasonable industry types know that you can't fight this BILL but lack the leadership to mount changes within the industry itself that would make the BILL virutally unecessary.
I still have yet to see any actual charges? What damages to any reefs has every been traced back to MO collectors? twenty years and not a single event?? Please list one actually documented event in the wild , which the use of cyanide to collect MO fish alive ....has killed the reef ? There are hundreds of accounts of cyanide use in which not only did the fish live on for years .......but the surrounding coral was un affected. Yet for some reason all it takes to convict this hobby is the site of bleached reefs and "It must be those PET fish collectors " mentality takes hold. I find it odd that Mr Case fails to list any evidence as to why he feels the MO collection is at fault for any of the declining reefs he has witnessed. So you think Big foot exists! And you want to enact legislation to protect Big foots from fly fishermen accidentally hooking our Harry friends as the fish . Then please show me some sort of proof that ONE........ Big foots actually inhabit the wild and TWO , that there has ever been more then a passing event in which an angler ensnared a Bigfoot while fishing! Does Mr Case actually think corals are still collected in Hawaii in any great amount? Or that MO collection is responsibe for the reef decline he himself says he witnessed in Hawaii?Why would he knowingly use Hawaii as an example of how MO collection needs legislation unless he is clueless?
Kalkbreath":2vhtozbp said:
Damn I'm, beginning to agree with Jeff Kalknik. He's right about that folks. Bushy didn't ship those jobs overseas, Walmart customers did. We are tearing down the industrial base that built this country. I get email notices from an industrial auction site. About every week there is a factory closing auction somewhere. It is truly disturbing how many factories are selling their equipment and moving operations to Mexico or China. Or just closing the doors forever.
A change in the White House will not reverse the trend.Mitch
How about getting back on topic.
Putting bigfoot aside, I will try to address the other questions.
There is evidence that applying cyanide to coral reefs in the Philippines at the doses used by collectors kills coral reefs. I summarized research by the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resource in my 1986 and 1987 papers where cyanide was squirted onto test quadrats and the corals monitored 2 months apart. Needless to say, the corals in the test quadrats died. James Cervino has also like myself and Steve Robinson interviewed collectors who attest that cyanide kills corals. He also did controlled studies that verified that cyanide kills corals (Acroporids died withing 24 hours).
There evidence against the use of cyanide (harmful to both fish and corals) is substantial and has been verified. The same cannot be said for bigfoot.
Peter Rubec
Putting bigfoot aside, I will try to address the other questions.
There is evidence that applying cyanide to coral reefs in the Philippines at the doses used by collectors kills coral reefs. I summarized research by the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resource in my 1986 and 1987 papers where cyanide was squirted onto test quadrats and the corals monitored 2 months apart. Needless to say, the corals in the test quadrats died. James Cervino has also like myself and Steve Robinson interviewed collectors who attest that cyanide kills corals. He also did controlled studies that verified that cyanide kills corals (Acroporids died withing 24 hours).
There evidence against the use of cyanide (harmful to both fish and corals) is substantial and has been verified. The same cannot be said for bigfoot.
Peter Rubec
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:
