A
Anonymous
Guest
:lol:
You da man Vitz!
You da man Vitz!
A
Anonymous
Guest
vitz":8falb7fj said:
Because RDO is generally not in the business of banning people because some don't agree with their opinion.
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
The culture of live rock is largely a fraud designed to mollycoddle light thinking, knee jerk greens.
The area of collection in Fiji is pretty small and hard to find.
Look at a map of the Fiji Islands. Now look at the main island. Now look at the Southern part.
What % of the reef areas is represented there? Its near tourist developments which is why there became a concern about it. The hotels wanted to replace nature with themselves...They are not called an eyesore, an environmental disaster or a blight on the eco-diversity of the area.
They are called tourist areas.
The collection of live rock in Mexico came from less then 1% of the permit zone and was therefore banned.
IT WAS BANNED BECAUSE PEOPLE WANTED TO BUY IT.I was ALSO told that it was banned to protect something that was not understood....which is why it was banned in the first place.
The area of collection in the Florida Keys ...with dozens of people working the same narrow coastlines day after day is not neccessarily what happens elsewhere...and yet its where perceptions are formed.
This eco-tokenism however has really muddied the water on the issue.
There is nothing simpler to understand, regulate, campaign about, complain about and fix....then the live rock thing. Its such a small part of the real problems out there on the reefs yet takes up the more of the fair share of energy that other issues deserve.
Meanwhile....the live rock crumbles to sand in the immense coral reef areas where it is never touched.
The Philippines leads the world in live rock non production.
Their institutional embrace of dynamite and cyanide fishing for 40 years has generated more live rock then the trade could ever hope to buy.
Why such a concern about dead rock when there was so little for it when it was alive?
Steve
The area of collection in Fiji is pretty small and hard to find.
Look at a map of the Fiji Islands. Now look at the main island. Now look at the Southern part.
What % of the reef areas is represented there? Its near tourist developments which is why there became a concern about it. The hotels wanted to replace nature with themselves...They are not called an eyesore, an environmental disaster or a blight on the eco-diversity of the area.
They are called tourist areas.
The collection of live rock in Mexico came from less then 1% of the permit zone and was therefore banned.
IT WAS BANNED BECAUSE PEOPLE WANTED TO BUY IT.I was ALSO told that it was banned to protect something that was not understood....which is why it was banned in the first place.
The area of collection in the Florida Keys ...with dozens of people working the same narrow coastlines day after day is not neccessarily what happens elsewhere...and yet its where perceptions are formed.
This eco-tokenism however has really muddied the water on the issue.
There is nothing simpler to understand, regulate, campaign about, complain about and fix....then the live rock thing. Its such a small part of the real problems out there on the reefs yet takes up the more of the fair share of energy that other issues deserve.
Meanwhile....the live rock crumbles to sand in the immense coral reef areas where it is never touched.
The Philippines leads the world in live rock non production.
Their institutional embrace of dynamite and cyanide fishing for 40 years has generated more live rock then the trade could ever hope to buy.
Why such a concern about dead rock when there was so little for it when it was alive?
Steve
Lee,
With TMAT, a USAID project, the requirements were simply reduced to "reasonably achievable" numbers. This occurred after a USAID evaluation. The same will probably occur with MAMTI. There may be something in the 167 page document regarding this but I highly doubt it. Perhaps the worst that will happen is the "performance" will likely affect the opportunities for future funding.
Mark
With TMAT, a USAID project, the requirements were simply reduced to "reasonably achievable" numbers. This occurred after a USAID evaluation. The same will probably occur with MAMTI. There may be something in the 167 page document regarding this but I highly doubt it. Perhaps the worst that will happen is the "performance" will likely affect the opportunities for future funding.
Mark
JennM":1f2skg34 said:
Jenn
Let me clarify what I meant. I was happy that aquacultured rock is being accepted as a viable business and that MAC is endorsing it.
I don't understand why they have to manufacture it when it is suggested that dead rock is lying aloing the roadway though.
I read the Gatherham posts that appear when I post. I have answered the questions he posed already and have been advised to ignore these posts which I have been doing.
Thanks
Wayne
Thales":9fqisrot said:
you think that's what i'm saying ? :lol:
there are plenty of folk i disagree with that i'm fine with posting-you think i'd have the chutzpah to request someone be banned merely because they disagree w/me? you evidently have not been following me in the sump on the israeli threads, heh
this is an issue of incessant rantings and ravings of an infantile troll-no more, no less
SciGuy2":189mrtl5 said:
I don't know why anyone waist there time reading naesco's posts. I stoped reading his post some time ago.
Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets
[email protected]
Thales, Unless RDO comes up with a rule that states that only persons in the trade are allowed to post on The Industry Behind The Hobby, Naesco has every right to post here. The question asked repeatedly by Caterham is biased and discriminatory. It may also be illegal to ban anyone from this forum (other than ones who use defammatory or libelous language aimed at individuals). There are many hobbyists who read this forum and I doubt that most have any direct involvement in the industry proper. Hence, I don't believe that Naesco needs to respond to Caterham. Perhaps you as the moderator need to advise Caterham to stop asking these type of questions.
Peter Rubec
Peter Rubec
PeterIMA":1p1dnbu8 said:
Umm. Thats what I said. I would like it if people read the entire thread before making statements regarding the administration of RDO.
I disagree. It is a simple question asked respectfully as per my request long ago.
I respectfully think you need to stop crying legal 'wolf' lest you be treated like the boy from the fable.
RDO is a private forum, and as such, we reserve the right to ban whomever we like - however, we have chosen to bend over backwards to try to not ban anyone.
No one 'needs' to respond to anyone.
Again, just as Naesco is allowed to post, so is Caterham. I find it strange that you don't see how the two are similar.
Caterham":3v7pord2 said:
Your welcome Catherham.
You may know that if there was such a thing as founding members of this forum, I might be considered to be one of them.
The purpose of the forum as set up was to provide an opportunity for industry to answers questions and have a dialogue with hobbyists concerning industry issues that affect hobbyists.
As a hobbyist, I am gravely concerned about my hobby and whether there is a future. I than envisioned trading brown frags with other hobbyists, live rock a thing of the past and fish like clowns and pseudochromis and a few others being the only ones available.
Mary Middlebrook was the original moderator and she enlightened forum members about industry's dirty little secret, cyanide. Although she eventually gave up in frustration as industry would not change its ways, I didn't.
I tried my best to have industry get together, find a leader and voluntarily adopt reeform; advancing the cause of net caught fish and fishers, developing an unsuitable species list (USL) composed of fish and coral that have no reasonable prospect of success in hobbyists chance and most importantly stopping the use of cyanide which is a cancer on the industry and hobby that I love.
When it was obvious to me that industry embraced the use of cyanide in order to have a source of cheap fish irrespective of the catastrophic consequences to the reef and the critters that live therein.
I considered giving up as Mary had done ,however, I was encouraged by many to continue. Some people hear the striking of the bell and others need to be struck with the bell but eventually one would think the message would sink in.
In the past, I seriously considered getting into the industry but the heart could not overcome the ultimate business decision that must prevail. I could not get involved in this industry because I came to the conclusion that it was a sunset industry. Sorry. I may however assist those who deal in net caught fish to find markets for their product in Canada.
I trust that you find the above information meets with your approval. That you understand why I post as I do and what drives me to post as I do.
Respectfully submitted
Wayne Ryan
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
"Your life's work on this forum makes me proud to know you...."
Chat is not actually work.
It is spare time recreation for most....marketing for the rest.
For a % or two, its perhaps an attempt to link action, deeds and events to forge a better reality.
Our participation here is to reality what email is to dating.
Its a discussion over strategy, a plan...hope for a better reality...
But real life dating it ain't.
An attempt is also unreal. Unsuccessful effort is not reality anymore then wishful thinking in a lost election is. Nor can it be held up as achievement.
A Successful attempt to rally the troops and change the status quo in the field where there are no links to RDO....
Now thats what needs to happen. But that won't happen thru chat. Especially when all your villains are not reading it.
Steve
Chat is not actually work.
It is spare time recreation for most....marketing for the rest.
For a % or two, its perhaps an attempt to link action, deeds and events to forge a better reality.
Our participation here is to reality what email is to dating.
Its a discussion over strategy, a plan...hope for a better reality...
But real life dating it ain't.
An attempt is also unreal. Unsuccessful effort is not reality anymore then wishful thinking in a lost election is. Nor can it be held up as achievement.
A Successful attempt to rally the troops and change the status quo in the field where there are no links to RDO....
Now thats what needs to happen. But that won't happen thru chat. Especially when all your villains are not reading it.
Steve
Steve - Your actions over the years speak volumes and provide substance and credibility to your voice and participation here. Your last post is very well stated and puts things into perspective. I liked the online dating analogy, though I was more thinking along the lines of armchair quarterback.
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:
