Groups should participate - split from conservation thread

[clarionreef]

Eric notes;

...it's not our intention to vertically integrate, but it was the original plan by CCIF if you all remember. That was the business plan where we would do such and be able to put ourselves into the position to not only improve the collectors positions, but to increase wages as well. That is not a viable plan at this point. "....
This was pointed out here often.

MAC has been featured here as group that also had trouble in its planning.
This was pointed out here often.
The director agreed...and fired the entire team.


I THINK THESE GROUPS HAVE MORE TO LEARN FROM US AND SHOULD PARTICIPATE.
We can go easy on them but they need to listen more to avoid the costly mistakes that all accept...now. We proof-read and edit unworkable notions for free here.
Huge sums of money could've been saved if they all listened better to us.
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

You may be making good points, but I think you aren't being all that inviting.

 

[JennM]

Well criticism is seldom seen as "inviting" no matter how nicely it's put. I think Steve is right - we can keep the claws in if the participants are genuinely looking to make positive changes, not just pay lip service.

Sadly, a bunch of us are rather jaded now, and perhaps that does reflect in our "tone" online - we've been there, heard that, but haven't seen results.

I do think that if the parties concerned would come here in good faith, you would see a demonstration of good faith on the part of us critics.

We all really do want to see an ethical, sustainable trade - just that at this point there seems to be a gaping chasm between what those of us in the trade believe needs to be done, and what is actually happening at the NGO level.

Respectfully,

Jenn

 

[Tropic]

You may be making good points, but I think you aren't being all that inviting.

:roll: When has reefs.org ever been inviting? especially this forum. From what i understand the whole point of this forum is to discuss issues and put them up essentially for peer review. The NGO types should be accustomed to this type of thing, being that most of them are science based! Lets get some dialogue going, be respectful, and come up with solid, well thought out solutions. Of course some people might get their feelings hurt, but hey, thats life. Personally, i have had to defend my position right out of the gate! fair dinkum....so i would hope that these guys would also have some thick skin and be able to defend their positions and outlooks. Afterall, my day to day activity isnt changing the world we live in, theirs are.(or supposed to be)

 

[Anonymous]

There is nothing wrong with asking people to defend their positions. There is nothing wrong with taking people to task. However, asking people to participate by essentially shouting at them that they have 'more to learn from us" is hardly a good way to to get them to participate, or a good way to engender dialogue. Please understand that my comment was to Steve who has a touchier history in this forum than others might.

This forum has been uninviting in the past, but that is hardly a reason to excpect it to be uninviting currently or in the future. If people feel that they are going to get bashed right out of the gate (bashed, not asked to defend their ideas), I can understand why they would continue to be lurkers instead of posting.

If there is going to be motion forward in this forum, I think the 'jaded' posters need to curtail their jadedness and start the discussion fresh. Not to say that history shouldn't matter, but attitudes towards each other need to start from square one giving everyone the benifit of the doubt. If people on all sides of the issues won't talk to each other, noting will happen. If we want others to post here in good faith, we need to make it clear that we are interested in behaving the same way.

 

[Rascal]

Ditto what Jenn said...she saved me a lot of typing.

My thought was that it would seem appropriate for those here to:
(1) Define/outline a series of topics/items/agendas appropriate for discussion, (2) compose a list of professional bodies and individuals to participate in this dialog, (3) establish a time frame for discussions to begin, and (4) send out invitations.

Everybody would get out of the gate at the same time, and if the content grew to the point of being unmanagable or became a distraction to Industry Behind the Hobby, then dedicate another forum.

 

[naesco]

There is nothing wrong with asking people to defend their positions. There is nothing wrong with taking people to task. However, asking people to participate by essentially shouting at them that they have 'more to learn from us" is hardly a good way to to get them to participate, or a good way to engender dialogue. Please understand that my comment was to Steve who has a touchier history in this forum than others might.

This forum has been uninviting in the past, but that is hardly a reason to excpect it to be uninviting currently or in the future. If people feel that they are going to get bashed right out of the gate (bashed, not asked to defend their ideas), I can understand why they would continue to be lurkers instead of posting.

If there is going to be motion forward in this forum, I think the 'jaded' posters need to curtail their jadedness and start the discussion fresh. Not to say that history shouldn't matter, but attitudes towards each other need to start from square one giving everyone the benifit of the doubt. If people on all sides of the issues won't talk to each other, noting will happen. If we want others to post here in good faith, we need to make it clear that we are interested in behaving the same way.

Right! Righty
I am now looking forward to a more receptive and welcoming forum.

When it gets off the ground I think a good start would be to have the "regulars" post a little about themselves and why they post here.
I fully understand the frustrations many feel with the perceived inaction on the conservation front. I for one promise to be less extreme and give the new forum or this forums new focus a chance, eh.

 

[sdcfish]

Jenn wrote:

Sadly, a bunch of us are rather jaded now, and perhaps that does reflect in our "tone" online - we've been there, heard that, but haven't seen results.

Jenn, I agree it is very sad. Especially when much of what you have read you now believe as truth. You have to remember that there are two sides to every story and not ALL of us believe all the negativity that has been thrown around in these forums for too long now. People just believe what they read, and after they repeatedly read it, it just becomes more believable. The parties are now here "in good faith" and it's up to you and all to take advantage of it.

I really hope that all of us that are interested and truly want this industry to be long lasting, we need to keep an open mind while participating in a positive and constructive discussion.

The time is now.....the forum is now open. It's up to us all to make it work or throw the opportunity away. More will and join in if the discussion shows promise.

These little side discussions seem to me to be a distraction from the real discussion that is now happening on the Conservation Thread. Please join in. The topic is now how tracking the fishery is being done and how it will be done in the future. This is not rocket science, we are not re-inventing the wheel, and I believe we are moving in the right direction.

Best regards

Eric

 

[Anonymous]

There is nothing wrong with asking people to defend their positions. There is nothing wrong with taking people to task. However, asking people to participate by essentially shouting at them that they have 'more to learn from us" is hardly a good way to to get them to participate, or a good way to engender dialogue. Please understand that my comment was to Steve who has a touchier history in this forum than others might.

This forum has been uninviting in the past, but that is hardly a reason to excpect it to be uninviting currently or in the future. If people feel that they are going to get bashed right out of the gate (bashed, not asked to defend their ideas), I can understand why they would continue to be lurkers instead of posting.

If there is going to be motion forward in this forum, I think the 'jaded' posters need to curtail their jadedness and start the discussion fresh. Not to say that history shouldn't matter, but attitudes towards each other need to start from square one giving everyone the benifit of the doubt. If people on all sides of the issues won't talk to each other, noting will happen. If we want others to post here in good faith, we need to make it clear that we are interested in behaving the same way.

Right! Righty
I am now looking forward to a more receptive and welcoming forum.

When it gets off the ground I think a good start would be to have the "regulars" post a little about themselves and why they post here.
I fully understand the frustrations many feel with the perceived inaction on the conservation front. I for one promise to be less extreme and give the new forum or this forums new focus a chance, eh.

:lol:

Where's Vitz?

 

[Anonymous]

vitz was on a much needed vacation for a week :wink:

 

[clarionreef]

Eric writes;
..."not ALL of us believe all the negativity that has been thrown around in these forums for too long now."


The GEF managing the MAMTI /MAC initiatives anchored in the issue of aquarium trade reform apparently believe there is enough negativity out on the reefs to warrant an 8 million dollar dispersal.
Are they overstating the cause?
Steve

 

[sdcfish]

Steve,

I was not reffering to negativity regarding the industry....I was reffering to unwarranted negativity towards the groups that are helping to improve the "cause".

Cheers

Eric

 

[clarionreef]

Eric,
Gregor says;

Now lets use teh common sense approach. There are many reefs where CN fishing has been practiced by hundreds of fishermen for over 50 years now, and they do not appear to be any worse off than reefs where no CN fishing has been practiced.

I am just giving my personal experience/observations here, not trying to say that I have done the needed field experiments. So you can take my opinions and add a few dollars and buy a cup of coffee or ignore them.

To me, the problem with the CN issue is that it has diverted energy and resources away from solving the real problems which are how to come up with fiancial incentives to increase fish supply and reduce fishing pressure on wild caught fish. Hopefully, through our current work we can find a few answers.
Greg


He appears to infer that the damage has not been that bad...or its bad ...but habitat destruction from cyanide was not so bad .
:roll:
So...if the habitat was not so compromised then aquarium trades effect has been merely one of extraction of the reefs faster growing fishes...and has therefore been given a bad rap...Why then so much money granted to fix a lesser problem?
I am confused.

Steve
_________________

 

[sdcfish]

Steve,

I think that is a good question for the other thread. I dont' necessarily agree that it has been "so much money" as you state.....this is a huge issue we are dealing with and I think it's all relative to the big picture.

Please bring your good questions over to the other thread which really seems to be progressing nicely.

Best regards

Eric