Take your pick, Biopiracy or tank acclimated livestock?

[clarionreef]

' I'm not suggesting that any group has done this..."

And I'm suggesting that theres hardly a group that hasn't.

Mitches proposed re-definition of the term is right on;

Bio-piracy is exploiting and 'stealing' the real issues of other countries resource problems to justify reform and research activity without reform or local benefit and in most cases...without even being there beyond a token, unqualified presence!
Local environmental groups used to call it eco-imperialism until they got their shot at the money pot and behaved the same way.
Its not skin color...its money color.

Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Its not skin color...its money color.

...something I've said since I signed up to this here dump.



Peace,

Chip

 

[clarionreef]

Chip,
Its so obvious but in certain pursuits people just can't seem to accept what they readily accept about marinelife dealers....that they are in it for the money. Well...most BUSINESSES are.
The pretense of higher thinking and purpose however...is thought to be...well higher and above money-grubbing.

My point has been for several years...er...decades, that money grubbing knows no boundaries or creeds and that money grubbing eco-ngos are ruining the chance to save what they profess to.

REPEAT; That money obsessed NGOs are ruining the chance to save what they profess to love and care for.
The take-over of environmental missions by narrower and more powerful funding streams have well...streamlined their thinking.

Now the passion and independant thinking that used to forge uncorruptable environmentalists is screened out and selected against in favor of eco-bookkeepers, accountants and grant writing pros.

Thats fine for liquidating and accounting for budgets granted but hardly what is needed to make the best use of money granted.
The more spent on the environment in the name of reform...the less we have come to expect.
Steve

 

[dizzy]

http://www.biodiv.org/doc/meeting.aspx?mtg=ABSWG-03

Third meeting of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Access and Benefit-Sharing


14 - 18 February 2005 - Bangkok, Thailand
22 document(s) currently available




6. UNEP/CBD/WG-ABS/3/5
Analysis of measures to ensure compliance with prior informed consent of the contracting party providing genetic resources and mutually agreed terms on which access was granted, and of other approaches, including an international certificate of origin/source/legal provenance en es fr ar ru zh
en es fr ar ru zh

 

[naesco]

JeremeyR is 100% correct.

 

[Kalkbreath]

Seems we have a lot of Clinton mindsets onboard.
The pont is NOT how to correctly coin the phrase.{but its a nice detraction}
The issue IS the phrase........ is it a good idea to become self sustained using captive propagation even if the result is a better product for the consumer?
Does removing the wild reefs from the production process help our industry reputation to the extent that its better then continued blame for the loss of wild habitat and the plight of the reefs on our backs?

 

[naesco]

Seems we have a lot of Clinton mindsets onboard.
The pont is NOT how to correctly coin the phrase.{but its a nice detraction}
The issue IS the phrase........ is it a good idea to become self sustained using captive propagation even if the result is a better product for the consumer?
Does removing the wild reefs from the production process help our industry reputation to the extent that its better then continued blame for the loss of wild habitat and the plight of the reefs on our backs?

Sorry I thought most posters were dealing with semantics.

is it a good idea to become self sustained using captive propagation even if the result is a better product for the consumer?

Yes. Because most of the reefs in the Philippines and Indonesia have been destroyed by the use of cyanide to catch fish, the reefs need time to heal.
The industry needs to ready itself for the day that there will be a ban on imports from these countries. Those in industry who are prepared will grow. Those who ignore the obvious will be out of business.

Does removing the wild reefs from the production process help our industry reputation to the extent that its better then continued blame for the loss of wild habitat and the plight of the reefs on our backs?[/quote]

Yes. If industry takes the initiative it will be much better for them than if Government does. The restoration of the reefs will allow the restoration of imports but without the cyanide problem, and, sustainability and training programmes in place.

 

[dizzy]

You really are a biopirate. 8O

 

[coralfarmin]

Say in the future I do business with a mariculterist who agrees to let me propagate their corals in closed systems as well as distribute their mariculterd stock..long as I donate a portion of the captive raised frags profit to the mariculterist's..(ie the islanders who do it)

Do you still consider this biopiracy?

this also adds insurance to the effort of preventing extinction of certain rare species..by placing them in my care

 

[dizzy]

I think you need to take Peter Rubec up on his offer to send you the paper he wrote on biopiracy and see how he defines it. And yes I believe aquiring brood stock or mother colonies from third world countries, and then working to have future exports banned from those countries is morally wrong.

 

[coralfarmin]

???just how would that be working to have future exports banned???By just captive propagating some speices that are exceptional.

dont every hobbyist contribute when they trade frags instead of buying mariculterd then?Try to make that fly here or anywhere.

I think bio piracy and all the drama around it here is crap..its almost like someone is trying to get communistic control over the industry by saying you should only buy this from these people or else we will riddle you with a guilt trip >>GIVE US A BREAK

 

[dizzy]

The above quote makes it sound like we should prepare ourselves to take the industry away from the countries of origin. I repeat that you need to contact Peter Rubec for his formal definition of biopiracy. Did you miss his offer? It is his term and if it has found a nerve, you need to see what he means by it. I believe in the free market system and letting competition decide who wins in the marketplace. I have been to several of the US culturing operations and I have have brought in the in-situ cultured stuff. IMO places like Indo, Fiji, American Soma, Solomon, etc. will be able to offer a product that competes well and there will not be a need to have artificial price support. I do however realize that Peter Rubec is not alone in feeling like the people in countries of origin have certain rights to the products that originate from their reefs. The link I provided in one of my earlier posts gives the dates of some of the conferences on Biodiversity that discuss these issues. There is talk of putting some form of royality on products that originated elsewhere. I have mocked that logic as being unrealistic to administer fairly, given all the different products that are grown or raised in countries other than the place they originated. If you are really going to get much beyond the talking part and actually make a significant investment in greenhouses and culturing you need to keep yourself informed of the events that are going to shape how that industry will be regulated. And I'm not talking about by gossip here on rdo, but by real world events. I have no part in shaping the laws that will effect our future, but these people do: http://www.biodiv.org/doc/meeting.aspx?mtg=ABSWG-03 And you should be paying attention.
Mitch

 

[mkirda]

And you should be paying attention.
Mitch

Mitch,

The funny part about this is that you can see this happening in the seed business already.

You take a company that produces seeds for grain. The company produces a variety that produces a bumper crop and needs no insecticide - BUT the grain that is produced will not sprout. In other words, you cannot use the seeds from your crop to sow a new crop next year. The company has bio-engineered it out so that the farmer MUST come back to them to get the seeds for the next year's harvest.

According to the company, this is a way for them to protect their revenue stream.

To me, it may all be legal, but it sure seems rather morally slippery.

The ideas about biopiracy come from this sort of behavior. There are companies right now that are doing this very same thing. They go and sample all sorts of animals and plants and bring them back home to see if they can find some use for them. If they can, since they have the sample, they can make a small change, patent it and sell it. The country of origin receives nothing, and in fact could get sued for marketing the original genetic source material.

Does this seem at all fair to you?

Relating it back to coral frags and fish, biopiracy as defined is going on right now. We have fish that have very, very limited geographic ranges which are appearing in other locations - a deliberate introduction by fish traders to build up another source. And you have coral frags that are apparently moving from location to location, being raised a long ways away from the villages they came from without the source village receiving anything in compensation.

This is the crux of the issue - Should an entity that owns the source material receive anything from sales of that material? *

Biopiracy exponents would argue most vociferously YES.

Regards.
Mike Kirda
Who remains on the fence on this one...

*The most ironic thing is that this is a Big-business Republican argument...

 

[clarionreef]

Well ...
since the freshwater trade is based so heavily on fishes that originally came from Mexico., Central and South America..now produced without involving Latins in Florida, Singapore, Thailand and Sri Lanka ...it would mean that they are first in line to receive the million dollar wire transfers.
No one bio-pirates like South East Asia and they will never pay a cent. ..to anyone in Latin America.
Is third world on 3rd world "piracy" for things approved of and paid for by their respective governments still called bio=piracy?
Thats just a fact of life and makes it hard to make the case for some countries ponying up when the majority never will.
Steve
PS.
Imagine what McDonalds owes Peru for French Fries!

[ Since the potato originated in Peru}

 

[JeremyR]

Yeah.. again a load of crap. IF country A says.. screw these guys, they can't manage their reefs or rainforests and they are going to kill them all, so we are going to ban import and grow it ourselves.. well.. maybe if they had managed their reefs properly people wouldn't have that attitude. It's like a guy looking for sympathy because he decided to chop his legs off for kicks, then found out he couldn't walk anymore.

As far as the "farms" "expoiting" villages by removing acros and growing them on the farm.. well, how do you think all farms work? You take seeds from point A and grow them at point B. If I want to harvest my own seeds and regrow them and never buy from the seed company again, then that's my right since they sold me the seeds knowing I could do that, and I legally purchased the seeds from them with no disclaimer as to what I could do with my harvest.

 

[mkirda]

Yeah.. again a load of crap.

So then, Jeremy, you are advocating then that the only thing worthy of protection is the farm???

 

[JeremyR]

No, what I'm saying is that growing frags here that were legally bought from another country is not bio-piracy any more than growing anything else you legally purchased is.

 

[mkirda]

Well ...
since the freshwater trade is based so heavily on fishes that originally came from Mexico., Central and South America..now produced without involving Latins in Florida, Singapore, Thailand and Sri Lanka ...it would mean that they are first in line to receive the million dollar wire transfers.

I would never even attempt to argue biopiracy on trade that has been established for decades or centuries or since before recorded history, nor do most of its advocates AFAIK.

It isn't to right historical 'wrongs' (as they could possibly be viewed), but to protect current and future resources from being pilfered by others and offered for sale without the current owners making a cent.

In other words, I'm trying to narrow down the topic of discussion to exclude righting historical wrongs. So much of that is pre-written history anyway- How do you right a wrong that was done before LAW as a concept was even established? It isn't possible.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[mkirda]

No, what I'm saying is that growing frags here that were legally bought from another country is not bio-piracy any more than growing anything else you legally purchased is.

So if the overseas farmers come up with a Microsoft-esque EULA, you'd be ok with it?

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[JeremyR]

Are you going to tell hobbyists that they can't trade amongst themselves because that's bio-piracy?