House Bill HR 4928

[Anonymous]

Steve,
They're light years ahead of me and 1000 times more devious. I'm just trying to figure out where all this is leading. You just need to learn how to read the tea leafs my boy.
Mitch

Chicken bones or tea leaves, they're both saying the same thing to me Mitch. :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

I think most are forgetting the point here.

MAC didn't create the cyanide issue. MAC didn't cause overcollection of MO species leading to local despeciation. I find it wildly hypocritical that the trade types here are busy "going mental" on an NGO when the problems lie directly before the feet of the trade and a largely uninformed/lied to hobby.

As long as the trade continues without some form of comprehensive ecological program, and as long as the quality of reefs continue to degrade there will continue to be legislative challenges.

As the reefs get worse and the trade stands by doing nothing the legislative challenges will become more frequent, more burdensome and more zealous.

Go on hacking on Paul H., MAC, CITES, H.R. 4928 and MAMTI. Continue reading tea leaves, and looking for nefarious plots, bigfoot and ufo's. It's a whole lot easier than building a consensius and reforming the trade and the hobby.

 

[Anonymous]

I am just a consumer, but I am not yet completely convinced this is not some PETA(ish) eco-nazi push.

I am not saying that I do not see the need for conservation, quite the contrary. However, this stands to put a lot of preasure on importers, vendors, and retailers, in the United States without addressing the root of the problem, which lies on foriegn reefs for the most part.

The speach even mentioned that the reefs in Hawaii has been preserved to the extent that it has because of State legislation, so it is more a trade and international conservation issue, but we will be the ones (ornamental fish consumers and suppliers) that will pay for the rest of the world's folly.

 

[clarionreef]

Lee,
The reform element in the trade is a lot more coral reef conscious then the very group that has squandered the issue thus far and sent hundreds of divers back to cyanide fishing.
That is the crux of the issue.
Not wether the trade is too dirty. It is.
But wether we can get clean reform and clean policy to clean up the act.
You say the patient is ill...and
So have I for 25 years.
You say this doctor is better then none.
I say we may not die at the hands of incompetent non medical people if we actually get a real doctor.
Steve

PS. Yes...this trade has terrible crimes...and so do its accomlplices...its mouthpieces and its whitewashers.

 

[Anonymous]

I am just a consumer, but I am not yet completely convinced this is not some PETA(ish) eco-nazi push.

Same concern here. That's why I haven't written my congressional representatives one way or the other about this bill.

I am not saying that I do not see the need for conservation, quite the contrary. However, this stands to put a lot of preasure on importers, vendors, and retailers, in the United States without addressing the root of the problem, which lies on foriegn reefs for the most part.

Anything that interupts the flow of American Dollars to the exporters and collectors definitely will get the attention of the foriegn participants of the trade.

The speach even mentioned that the reefs in Hawaii has been preserved to the extent that it has because of State legislation, so it is more a trade and international conservation issue, but we will be the ones (ornamental fish consumers and suppliers) that will pay for the rest of the world's folly.

Sad that the trade/hobby can't say that it is above reproach.

Sincerely,
A Hobbyist

 

[Anonymous]

Can anyone site statistics that show the percentage of the trade of ornamental fish, and specifically marine reef dewlling ornamentals, that the United States consumes, excluding aquacultured fish?

This may give me a better Idea of what impact the United States alone has.

 

[John_Brandt]

Can anyone site statistics that show the percentage of the trade of ornamental fish, and specifically marine reef dewlling ornamentals, that the United States consumes, excluding aquacultured fish?

This may give me a better Idea of what impact the United States alone has.

In these reports....


INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN CORAL AND CORAL REEF SPECIES: THE ROLE OF THE UNITED STATES

Report of the Trade Subgroup of the International Working Group to the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force - March 2, 2000 - Washington, D.C


Table of Contents and Executive Summary: http://www.coralreef.gov/international/tablecon.pdf

Main Report: http://www.coralreef.gov/international/trade.pdf

Appendices: http://www.coralreef.gov/international/append.pdf



FROM OCEAN TO AQUARIUM: THE GLOBAL TRADE IN MARINE ORNAMENTAL SPECIES

United Nations Environment Program - World Conservation Monitoring Center - 2003


Main Report: http://www.unep-wcmc.org/resources/publications/WCMC_Aquarium.pdf

 

[Anonymous]

Alf,

You can start here.

http://www.unep-wcmc.org/marine/GMAD/

 

[JT]

MAC didn't cause overcollection of MO species leading to local despeciation.

And who said the MO industry caused it? There are alot more industries out there that do more damage to the reefs than we do. Not to mention pollution problems of third world countries. I don't think it's ever been proven that the MO industry is to blame.

 

[Anonymous]

John, I kinda Figured I'd see you come up with a few.

Thanks John and SciGuy,
I will look into them.

 

[dizzy]

Go on hacking on Paul H., MAC, CITES, H.R. 4928 and MAMTI. Continue reading tea leaves, and looking for nefarious plots, bigfoot and ufo's. It's a whole lot easier than building a consensius and reforming the trade and the hobby.

If MAC had been more transparent and all this stuff didn't have to be drug out one detail at a time, there would have been no thoughts of conspiracys. MAC created all this by keeping MAMTI secrete (almost) for all those years. They lied to us and they deceived us and they created the controvery. If they had a fish supply there might have been a reason for stores to get certified. Since they failed in that regard legislation is now needed to get stores to seek certification. Wouldn't it have been much better if they had just done the field work? Wouldn't it be better if there were fish to go along with certification?
Mitch

Why would anyone want to pay these guys thousands of dollars to get certified? That bogus dealer/cost benefit study will never come true. There will never be enough fish to go around. We all know it Lee. All expect for you perhaps.

 

[Anonymous]

80% of Live Coral, and 95% of Live Rock.

Those are prety impressive numbers, but it makes me wonder why legislation has made it so difficult to aquaculture live rock commercially.

Between 60-80,000 animals
are traded internationally each year with over 70% destined for the United States. Captivereared
clams supply an increasing portion of the trade for aquarium specimens. The U.S. also
imports shells as curios, but not a significant amount of giant clam meat.

I don't think this number is too terribly alamring.

International Trade Subgroup 23
7. Develop additional measures as appropriate to ensure that U.S. consumer demand
for marine aquarium organisms does not contribute to the decline and degradation
of coral reef species and ecosystems.

In March 1999, the Task Force requested that the Council on Environmental Quality lead an
accelerated interagency review of the advisability of pursuing legislation that addresses the trade in
coral and coral species. Based on a preliminary analysis, the Trade Subgroup recognized that new
legislative authorities may be necessary to help address the concerns relating to commerce in coral
reef species and the United States' involvement in that trade as a major consumer of coral reef
products. The Trade Subgroup proceeded to undertake an accelerated consultation with exporting
and importing countries, states and territories, non-governmental organizations, industry, and the
public to obtain all available information and to determine levels of support for national legislation
and/or new regulations, and to obtain recommendations for the most effective solutions to the
problems related to trade in coral reef species.
At this point in the consultative and review process, the Trade Subgroup does not recommend a
complete restriction on all trade in marine aquarium organisms. However, there are major concerns
about the unsustainable use of CITES-listed species, the use of destructive fishing practices, and the
high mortality rates during handling and transportation. New measures may be needed to stem these
adverse impacts of trade in coral and coral reef resources, ensure a more responsible trade, and
encourage the conservation and sustainable management of coral reef ecosystems.
As a major consumer and importer of coral reef organisms, a major player in the world trade arena,
and a leader in coral reef conservation efforts, the United States has a responsibility to address the
degradation and loss of coral reef ecosystems that may arise from commerce in coral reefs species
and products, and to encourage more responsible trade. The U.S. should not promote or encourage
the use of destructive or unsustainable collection practices that may jeopardize the future potential
of coral reefs to sustain the local communities who depend on them for food and livelihoods,
particularly in developing countries. Rather, we should encourage responsible use of these precious
resources.
Suggestions for New Authorities. Following are some measures that have been suggested to
reduce the adverse impacts of trade and collection in coral and coral reef resources, encourage more
responsible trade, and encourage the conservation and sustainable management of coral reef
ecosystems both domestically and internationally.
• The United States should prohibit domestic harvest or collection and the import or export of
coral reef species and products listed under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora that are not sustainably managed or from environmentally-sound
mariculture programs. Exceptions might include organisms intended for approved captive
breeding programs, scientific research, or public display. Restrictions might be extended to other
species of concern under certain circumstances.
Draft Report to the USCRTF
• The U.S. should work with members of the marine aquarium industry, environmental
organizations and other stakeholders to develop, within a specified time limit, responsible
practices and guidelines for collection and transport of coral reef species that reduce mortality
rates throughout the trade stream, improve product quality and ensure survival in captivity.
• After working with stakeholders over a specified time period, the U.S. should prohibit the
domestic harvest and collection of any coral reef species by defined destructive fishing practices,
such as the use of reef-dredging, explosives or poisons.
• After working with stakeholders over a specified time period, the U.S. should prohibit the import
or export of any coral reef species unless accompanied by certification that the products were
not taken through the use of destructive fishing practices.
• The U. S. should develop a coordinated national strategy for conservation and sustainable
management of coral reef species and ecosystems within the U.S., and then work with the
international community to share this strategy and develop criteria for the conservation and
sustainable management of coral reef ecosystems in other parts of the world.

Seems to me I read about some classes given to Philipino fishers that address some of this. Where has that drive gone?

What is going to hapen is that the price of participating in this hoby will eventually skyrocket, putting most of us out of it and most retailors out of jobs. Driving the prices through the roof is the best way to accomplish the goal as stated.

How are these organizations currently funded?

I would be happy to have a 3 or 4 % tax added to my live marine critter purchaces to help this along, but I do not want to see the end of reefkeeping as a hoby that I can afford (barely) to participate in.

 

[naesco]

MAC didn't cause overcollection of MO species leading to local despeciation.

And who said the MO industry caused it? There are alot more industries out there that do more damage to the reefs than we do. Not to mention pollution problems of third world countries. I don't think it's ever been proven that the MO industry is to blame.

This dated dated thinking in largly responsible for the fact that industry has done nothing to reeform itself.

This post is evidence that industry does not think that they are part of the problem.

Why would you post something like this when industry has but a few weeks to redeem it self or face certain closure?

 

[JT]

This post is evidence that industry does not think that they are part of the problem.

I never said we wern't part of the problem, we aren't the ONLY ones to blame like some orgs and individuals claim.

Why would you post something like this when industry has but a few weeks to redeem it self or face certain closure?

Enough with the paranoia already. Judas Priest.

 

[naesco]

Semantics!
Paranoia!
Have you read the Bill??????
What are YOU doing about it? Do I have to define 'it' for you?

 

[MaryHM]

I find it wildly hypocritical that the trade types here are busy "going mental" on an NGO when the problems lie directly before the feet of the trade and a largely uninformed/lied to hobby.

And I find it wildly hypocritical that the organization that has been lulling everyone into a false sense of security (just sit back and relax- MAC will take care of everything) is actually trying to turn this industry into it's own personal "monopoly" (for lack of a better word). I, for one, can "go mental" on anyone I please. Frankly, at the risk of sounding braggy, I think I've earned it. I tried my hardest to educate, to create change. Where did I get?? No where. So don't call me a hypocrite. I tried. I don't feel one piece of guilt about railing on MAC and pointing out these huge fallacies. I can spend my free time however I please at this point. And believe me, now that I'm not running around tooting the industry reform horn, I have a lot more of that free time on my hands. Here's a question Lee. What, in your opinion, should the "trade types" be doing right now in light of this new legislation?

 

[Anonymous]

I supose the real issue here, as far as the survival of the "Industry" goes, is what the opinion in congress will be. Which set of lobiests have the loudest mouths. Those for sustaining the industry through conservation, or those for killing the industry for eco-nazi reasons.

There is no doubt that these natural resources need to be protected, but if Industry leaders will not step up to the plate, there is little that consumers can do.

Retailers, distributers, and importers have to realize that consumers are a bunch of sheep that will graze off of whatever is available too them. that is just a fact of life. In order to sustain the industy, and put preasure on destructive collection, more fish and corals need to be purchaced from responsible collectors.

I do not see how this can hapen unless one of 2 things happen.

1.) Some sort of governance over collection practices is enforced and tracked all the way from collection to distribution.

2.) Western Companies are opened in foriegn collection sites that pay a bit better, and require more responsible collection methods from employees.

In either scinario the price of marine onramentals will go up.

The problem seems to be that sales is too far seperated from "Production" so to speak. the industry in the United States is selling a product without a clear vission of how it is "produced" (collected, and I mean the individual fish that arrives at a fish store) or if the production methods are sustainable.

 

[JT]

}} {Woof! You sure gotta climb a lotta steps to get to this Capitol
}} Building here in Washington! But I wonder who that sad little
}} scrap of paper is?}

I'm just a bill,
Yes, I'm only a bill,
And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill.
Well, it's a long, long journey
To the capital city,
It's a long, long wait
While I'm sitting in committee,
But I know I'll be a law someday...
At least I hope and pray that I will,
But today I'm still just a bill.

}} {Gee, bill, you certainly have a lot of patience and courage!}
{Well I got *this* far. When I started, I wasn't even a *bill* - I
was just an idea. Some folks back home decided they wanted a law
passed, so they called their local congressman and he said "You're right,
there ought to be a law." Then he sat down and wrote me out and
introduced me to Congress, and I became a bill. And I'll remain a
bill until they decide to make me a law.}

I'm just a bill,
Yes I'm only a bill,
And I got as far as Capitol Hill.
Well now I'm stuck in committee
And I sit here and wait
While a few key congressmen
Discuss and debate
Whether they should
Let me be a law...
Oh how I hope and pray that they will,
But today I am still just a bill.

}} {Listen to those congressmen arguing! Is all that discussion and
}} debate about you?}
{Yes. I'm one of the lucky ones. Most bills never even get this far.
I hope they decide to report on me favourably, otherwise I may die.}
}} {"Die?"}
{Yeah: die in committee. Oooh! But it looks like I'm gonna live.
Now I go to the House of Representatives and they vote on me.}
}} {If they vote "yes", what happens?}
{Then I go to the Senate and the whole thing starts all over again.}
}} {Oh no!}
{Oh yes!}

I'm just a bill,
Yes I'm only a bill,
And if they vote for me on Capitol Hill,
Well then I'm off to the White House
Where I'll wait in a line
With a lot of other bills
For the President to sign.
And if he signs me then I'll be a law...
Oh, how I hope and pray that he will,
But today I am still just a bill.

}} {You mean even if the whole Congress says you should be a law, the
}} President can still say no?}
{Yes, that's called a "veto". If the President vetoes me, I have to
go back to Congress, and they vote on me again, and by that time
it's...}
}} {By that time, it's very unlikely that you'll *become* a law! It's
}} not easy to become a law, is it?}

No! But how I hope and I pray that I will,
But today I am still just a bill!

}} {He signed you, bill! Now you're a law!}
{Oh yes!}

 

[dizzy]

]Why would you post something like this when industry has but a few weeks to redeem it self or face certain closure?

Enough with the paranoia already. Judas Priest.

JT is right. Nothing can happen until Congress convenes again, which I have been informed is next year. If passed there will be a one year grace period from that date until doomsday. This all has the feel of a high stakes poker game bluff. I really don't see the threat of no more fish making people want to join MAC who doesn't have any fish either. :? I'm not sure who thunk all this up. If I figure it out y'all will be the first to know. That is if my speculating doesn't upset Lee and John too much. :lol:
Mitch

 

[naesco]

Mary asks:
Here's a question Lee. What, in your opinion, should the "trade types" be doing right now in light of this new legislation?

May I please take the liberty of expressing my opinion.

In my opinion Industry must immediately

1. Appoint a spokesperson from their reeform minded industry brothers and sisters. Someone with the leadership skills to gather all interested parties (the LA boys, environmental leaders, industry reps from AMDA etc. concerned hobbyists etc.) together. Someone with the balls to call a spade and spade (out the offenders, silence the nerds who think the issue is paranoia etc. (Isn't it about time)

2. The spokesperson forms a committee including experts knowledgeable in CDT, training, transport and sustainability issue.

3. The Reeform group presents reeform proposalsand a timetable to the government to make the necessary changes which must include.
a. the implementation of a mandatory CDT on all fish imported into the USA.

b. the implementaion of a Unsuitable Species List (USL)

c. a transport policy governing length of time, size and type of bags etc.

d. a proposal to have industry pay for the CDT together with a % per fish levy to be used for training and restoration of the reefs caused by improper (I am being polite here) catchment techniques.

Respectfully submitted.