Eric,
AMDA was formed by John Tullock who did not want it to be used for false pretenses or devious purposes.
It is to be an independant organization and not a buying club or a captive market for some grand sales vision.
Organizing sheep for the slaughter under a certain umbrella group is what has been prevented.
Selling and marketing cyanide caught fish under the cover of MAC certification is treason enough to the cause of the coral reefs.
Using AMDA to do the same thing will not happen as AMDA will never be without elections and free choice..
The constant refrain to let bygones be bygones suggests that you agree with me that there is much to let go of and forgive.
Why can't the effort to market the trade in a better light go with serious deeds as well?
You would never, ever allow the kind of
waste without results occur in business that occurs routinely with the groups whose image you are trying to improve.
The thing is...they can only improve with deeds. You simply cannot fool professionals with tricks that fool the outsiders. :wink:
I mean...why fake it....why not really do it???
Steve
RESPONSIBLE RETAILING
by John H. Tullock
My motivation for starting AMDA was the notion that the hobby of marine aquarium keeping and the industry that supports it cannot justify doing harm to irreplaceable natural resources.
While most people appear to agree with this principle, issues remain regarding what constitutes "harm," who should be responsible for resource protection, and how such issues involve the day-to-day operation of a small business. While the space available for this article does not afford sufficient opportunity to explore every issue in depth, it is possible to provide some guidelines for successful, environmentally responsible marine aquarium retailing.
First, consider three issues and the scientific discussion surrounding them:
1.
Use of chemicals to collect fish.
The literature is scanty, but evidence that exposure of corals to cyanide results in damage clearly exists. Corals exposed in the labor
atory to doses of cyanide calculated to reasonably simulate the exposure that would result from cyanide fishing near the coral produced a reduction in respiration and loss of the zooxanthellae. Loss of zooxanthellae is known to lower the ability of the coral to grow and reproduce. It is also known that reestablishment of the symbiotic zooxanthellae can take up to a year. (Jones, 1997) Loss of symbionts has also been reported as an effect of exposure to quinaldine. (Japp and Wheaton, 1975) The survival, growth and reproduction of corals is obviously essential to the continued health of a reef. We need healthy reefs to produce an abundant supply of aquarium fish, as well as for other, perhaps more important reasons. The long term health of our industry - despite the advances in captive propagation - depends upon the long term health of the world's coral reefs. Businesses at every level must come to grips with the problem of cyanide fishing and take whatever steps are necessary to eliminate the practice. Of all the issues confronting us, this one is the most clear-cut.
2.
Mortalities.
Excessive mortalities in marine fish have long been attributed to the chronic effects of cyanide exposure during capture. Research indicates, however, that this may not be the case. Stress, abetted by starvation, caused the highest mortality rate in a study designed specifically to address the question of cyanide's long-term effect on fish (Hall and Bellwood, 1995). The experimental design was also intended to mimic the stresses a fish might experience during two weeks between capture and export from the country of origin. It is interesting to note, however, that 70 percent of the fish survived even the harshest experimental treatment. If one assumes that, at this point in the supply chain, nearly three-quarters of the specimens will survive, one must look to the other links in the chain for the possible causes of higher mortalities. One obvious place to point is cargo mishandling by the airlines. However, while it is easy to bash the airlines for their contribution to the problem, I am inclined to suspect that our energies would be better spent implementing better methods for packaging marine fish for shipment. Shipments are still packed as they were 20 years ago, despite improvements in both materials and knowledge. Retailers can also look to wholesalers to improve handling methods. Despite the short stay that most specimens have in wholesaler's holding tanks, water quality in those tanks must be good, and husbandry and handling techniques must be appropriate. The same goes for retailers. Once a specimen reaches the United States, little excuse exists for increasing, rather than attempting to reduce, its level of stress. To my knowledge, no scientific study of mortalities of imported marine specimens exists. Anecdotal information available to me suggests that providing a period of rest between the times that individual specimens are transferred from one aquarium to another, during which appropriate food and shelter are provided and any apparent health problems are dealt with. Marine organisms are amazingly resilient, but they need to be given a chance. At the same time, we should acknowledge that a low level (<10%) of mortality between reef and retail is unavoidable and acceptable both economically and environmentally, as long as wild harvesting continues.
3.
Species adaptability.
The contentious issue of species adaptability is directly tied to the mortality issue. No one can deny that there are some species that simply do not, or cannot, successfully adapt to captive conditions within the grasp of the typical hobbyist. Despite the fact that numerous serious, capable amateur aquarists are making contributions to scientific knowledge, we must be careful of subjecting species about which we know little to a mass-market-driven harvest. The impact of aquarium collecting, overall, may be a pinprick, when the vastness of the reef environment is taken into account. I have estimated that we take only two or three fish per hectare per year, but I nevertheless believe that we should not be taking them needlessly. On the other hand, public aquariums, scientific institutions, universities, and even serious amateurs should not be inhibited from pursuing research, either.
Each of these issues, or more accurately your response to them, has an impact on your business.
The choice to operate your business in a manner that will minimize or eliminate the problems of damage to reefs and achieve a reduction in avoidable specimen mortality is frequently a purely ethical choice. What most AMDA members seem to be asking is for help in translating that ethical choice into policies that make good business sense. Within that context, the remainder of this article will be devoted to providing what I hope will be some new ways of looking at your business.
For starters, AMDA members should give themselves credit for their commitment to a sustainable industry.
Every demographic chart I've seen and every poll I have read places concern about environmental degradation near the top of the list of issues on the minds of your customers, the American public.
Irresponsible practices, if revealed, can have devastating consequences in the marketplace.
The existence of an array of "green" products, from clothing to house paint, in the inventories of big retailers should tell you something. The target consumer for these products is your customer, too. You must make people aware of your commitment.
I suggest that you create a written statement expressing your feelings as concisely as possible, and listing three to five specific policies that your company follows to avoid contributing to environmental damage. Post this statement in your store, and provide copies to your customers. Find ways to include the same message, in much briefer form, in each and every piece of advertising material you place before the public eye. If you do not talk about your own policies, who will?
John Tullock
