MACNA reports

[clarionreef]

Macna reports....

---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------

But not from me.
I wasn't there.
Steve

 

[bookfish]

Me either, but it sounds like everyone who went had a great time. Steve, can you fill us in on any of your more current projects? I heard you were going to do some more training somewhere I think.-Jim

 

[clarionreef]

I just finished a two month training in Nicaragua in May and am heading for the South Pacific soon it appears.
I like training collectors in real life a lot more then advocating it!
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

I was there

What I feel was the biggest launch at MACNA this year...CORALidea

 

[Anonymous]

David and Thales deep in conversation.

John Brandt in conversation

David talking to Burton Patrick (bet he didn't know I got that shot )

David, Bill, Thales and John at the banquet. Gerald Allen was the key note speaker.

Coral from my tank

Chuck S. successful non phytosythetic reef tank loaded with swiftas, dendros, basket stars (not coral, I know ) and loads more. Simply amazing tank.

 

[Anonymous]

Roy Torres, the lead NOAA investigator did a presentation on the Leopard shark bust that happenned a few years back, mainly talking about the Bay Area Church Ring. He showed the mug shots of most, talked about their envolvement and what punishment they recieved. He also touched on illegal coral imports, but very breifly. It sounds like NOAA is going to be far more involved in this industry now.

 

[clarionreef]

Thanks for the report Gresham.

Goodness gracious...but I just have to say something.
A MACNA presentation on our most abundant species!
Of all the priorities in conservation, the NOAA guy chose that one to trumpet their relevance and involvement?
Did he touch on the fact that it is also illegal to catch them unless they are breeder size? [ 3 feet long] Only mature, breeding age adults may be taken...and all year round at that. This is on account that they are doing so well.

What is it about catching fish and keeping them alive that brings out the newborn conservation ethic in people who were asleep on the issue just a day before?
He showed mug shots and all? You mean like a proud fisherman showing his catch!
Steve :?

 

[bookfish]

What's that "thing" John Brandt is reading? :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

Yup, that was mentioned as was the push to get this listed as endangerred. I'm more for the conservation then capture myslef. IMO all sharks should be off limits, including to the aquarium trade. They do not make suitable aquarium inhabitants. Being they're so high in mercury, they don't make that great of food either.

Those people in those pics are EVIL :twisted:

 

[Anonymous]

What's that "thing" John Brandt is reading? :lol:

IF you look all the way left, you'll see some one is holding a book and showing him something. Shortly after that he was looking at the program guide with the person talking to him.

 

[clarionreef]

I agree...
Its just the penny wise and pound foolish nature of "pop conservation" these days is so non scientific.
Thousands of fishers fish for leopard sharks all the time in California and catch pregnant females and older fish regularly.
If the regulators were serious about the welfare of the animal...the mass fishing trade would get a bit more attention then the tiny trade in small leopard sharks.
"Pop conservation" is not for the animal...its for the self...and we see a lot of it in our own industry.
Scientific conservation is not nearly as popular and yet what I would expect from NOAA. They know better.
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

NOAA can not do just "feel guide" things by the seat of thier pants. Belive it or not they have to go on scientific studies of which many show the declining popolution of all sharks, including this one. They are at odds with the CA F & G over these vary issues. Don't think the status wouldn't ban them from being caught by those evil people as well as they're the first target Steve. They know and acknowledged the fact the MO trade isn't as bad of a pressure to the species as fishing, but it is a pressure none the less.

Your bullets hold no powder to me Steve. I understand where you come from and you must have forgotten I hold some very similiar views as you. Don't think for a second hard question weren't asked by me. I spent 20 minutes after Roy's talk speaking to him on multiple issues re: the above and the MO trade. He's from Monterey by the way

 

[clarionreef]

Well,
Did he tell you the case anchored a fund raising event that made it difficult to see it for what it was?
Read below and see how the importance of the case was amplified for other purposes.
Snagging a big fish ..er Rev Moons church affiliate perhaps made it more of a money pot. Without the money pot...the case would have went down a lot differently.
Well, the case at least resulted in the restoration of mud habitat.
Steve

Fr;
Underwater Times.com
Shark Poaching Preacher's Church to Pay Into Wildlife Fund Over Convictions; 'Dark World'

The church founded by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon will pay $500,000 to restore damaged habitat...[ the leopard shark live on mud bottoms in the S.F. Bay surrounded by 10 thousand sources of pollution and degradation from non fisher sources! :lol: ]
Underwatertimes.com News Service


email to a friend print this link to this article Save to del.icio.us
San Francisco, California (Feb 13, 2007 18:20 EST)

United States Attorney Kevin V. Ryan announced that $1.5 million has been designated for rehabilitating and restoring marine wildlife habitat in the San Francisco Bay to further protect the California leopard shark. $910,000 of the funds have been assembled from payments by a San Leandro church, and restitution by the church’s pastor and five other criminal defendants who were involved with an operation that poached thousands of California leopard sharks from the San Francisco Bay for more than ten years. The Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity (HSA-UWC), which includes the Bay Area Family Church in San Leandro, has agreed to pay $500,000 for the wildlife restoration partnership.

In addition, $300,000 from the California Coastal Conservancy and $300,000 through the combined contributions of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation were today designated for the same purpose.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow...what a feeding frenzy for restoration of what ?? mud bottom habitat ...or was it just fund raising enabled by the story?

 

[Anonymous]

Wait a sec...a group systematically poaching several hundred shark pups a day from a pupping ground being busted and that bust being used to raise money to restore damaged habitat (not mud, but habitat around the bay) and raise awareness of illegal harvesting is somehow a bad thing?

 

[clarionreef]

No...but it is a different thing.
Once invested in the project ...ie super heros save the ocean from the bad guys....and raise big money off it....how do they back off and keep it in perspective and fit the punishment?
One of the guys who recieved a dozen or so sharks has been made into an international villain....where the Mr Big got off by making a contribution to the project.
How do you shrug that off?
Catching them for the aquarium trade is has become illegal therefore wrong....ok...fine.
What on earth must you think of the thousands of mature sharks that are killed legally every year for sport that we do not notice?
Token, selective, Penny wise and pound foolish environmentalism hurts the cause of the oceans as it belittles the real issues.
The S.F.Bay has serious problems that threaten all the marinelife in it...not just the pretty patterned sharks.
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

No...but it is a different thing.
Once invested in the project ...ie super heros save the ocean from the bad guys....and raise big money off it....how do they back off and keep it in perspective and fit the punishment?

Roy is a big superhero?

One of the guys who recieved a dozen or so sharks has been made into an international villain....where the Mr Big got off by making a contribution to the project.
How do you shrug that off?

Who are you talking about?

Catching them for the aquarium trade is has become illegal therefore wrong....ok...fine.
What on earth must you think of the thousands of mature sharks that are killed legally every year for sport that we do not notice?

Isn't that different from systematically poaching the pupping grounds? It seems to me you are combining two issues, which helps neither issue.

Token, selective, Penny wise and pound foolish environmentalism hurts the cause of the oceans as it belittles the real issues.

What are the real issues and what are you doing to solve them?

Because NOAA finally had enough resources and evidence to do something in this case, somehow they are the bad guy? Sure, this case only got nailed because of the moonie involvement, but that sure seems like a good place to start. Media attention about illegal harvesting of animals for the trade, money for habitat restoration, and media coverage of that all seem like good things that should lead to more realistic involvement in the future.

The S.F.Bay has serious problems that threaten all the marinelife in it...not just the pretty patterned sharks.

And that's what the money from this case is going towards.

 

[clarionreef]

I said;
"One of the guys who recieved a dozen or so sharks has been made into an international villain....where the Mr Big got off by making a contribution to the project.
How do you shrug that off?"

Again how and why would you shrug that off?

[You ask;

"Who are you talking about?"

You already know. You used to buy coral from him.

And why do you ignore inconvenient issues and nit pick the lesser?
....where the Mr Big got off by making a contribution to the project.
And you used to buy fish and such from him as well!

Isn't that different from systematically poaching the pupping grounds? It seems to me you are combining two issues, which helps neither issue.

Pupping grounds? Did you say pupping grounds :roll: as if big leopards don't range far and wide and drop em on the run ?
The issue of killing broodstock is not an issue here you say? Seems to me that cherrypicking portions of the problem to nit pick on doesn't help the issue.

Then you ask ;

What are the real issues and what are you doing to solve them?

Are you kidding?
What are the fundamental ecological issues affecting fishery welfare in the Bay and what am I doing about em? Is that your question? Really?
1. Port of Oakland and Alameda.
[ filthy, oily, chronically polluting mega developments in the center of the Bay .
2. Huge runoff of drains and agriculture into the delta and carried into the Bay.
3. Mega city of San Francisco and its drainage into the bay.
4. Super metropolis surrounding the bay draining all its street effluent into the bay.
5. Mass international traffic of mega ships moving in and out of the bay daily...carrying invasive species and emitting dozens of pollutants from their very existance.
6. and this is just a start ....the list can go on for a very long time.
What am I doing to solve these and all the rest?
Uhh...the pop answer would be "I don't let my car oil drain into the bay and I recycle???"

Because NOAA finally had enough resources and evidence to do something in this case

...
Uh uh ...The California Fish and Game Dept has offices next to the bay. They have resources as well if they want to use them. Leopard sharks are easy to track and trace if anyones interested. The insiders question is why NOAA went past them and didn't rely on them to do it locally.
Answer?
Any one care to venture a guess?

There are billions of dollars in commerce, traffic, drainages, pollution, salt ponds, shipping, noise, settlement of metals and chemicals into the bottom ruining our bay every day 24/7.
Picking on the least of our worries still needs to be done I accept. Its just that tokenism and trite effort puffed up to mean more then it is is a cowardly way to avoid taking on the real issues affecting marinelife.
feel good Therapy...OK why not?
And still...The big local wholesaler ie. Mr Big got away by paying an affordable bribe which polluted the whole case. Today we call a bribe a conservation contribution? My what a precedent.

Steve

 

[Anonymous]

I said;
"One of the guys who recieved a dozen or so sharks has been made into an international villain....where the Mr Big got off by making a contribution to the project.
How do you shrug that off?"

Again how and why would you shrug that off?

I didn't. I didn't know who you were talking abotu.

[You ask;

"Who are you talking about?"

You already know. You used to buy coral from him.

He has not been cast as an international villain, more like a bit player.

And why do you ignore inconvenient issues and nit pick the lesser?
....where the Mr Big got off by making a contribution to the project.
And you used to buy fish and such from him as well!

I don't think you are remembering the case correctly. The guy you are calling Mr. Big did not get off so easily. I also don't think you understand the situation or why they got the sentences they did.

Isn't that different from systematically poaching the pupping grounds? It seems to me you are combining two issues, which helps neither issue.

Pupping grounds? Did you say pupping grounds :roll: as if big leopards don't range far and wide and drop em on the run ?

They were getting 100 pups a day in the same place for a long time.

The issue of killing broodstock is not an issue here you say?

Where did I say that? I didn't say that.

Seems to me that cherrypicking portions of the problem to nit pick on doesn't help the issue.

I think you are trying to generalize the problem, which make you impossible to please.

Then you ask ;

What are the real issues and what are you doing to solve them?

Are you kidding?
What are the fundamental ecological issues affecting fishery welfare in the Bay and what am I doing about em? Is that your question? Really?
1. Port of Oakland and Alameda.
[ filthy, oily, chronically polluting mega developments in the center of the Bay .
2. Huge runoff of drains and agriculture into the delta and carried into the Bay.
3. Mega city of San Francisco and its drainage into the bay.
4. Super metropolis surrounding the bay draining all its street effluent into the bay.
5. Mass international traffic of mega ships moving in and out of the bay daily...carrying invasive species and emitting dozens of pollutants from their very existance.
6. and this is just a start ....the list can go on for a very long time.
What am I doing to solve these and all the rest?
Uhh...the pop answer would be "I don't let my car oil drain into the bay and I recycle???"

I was just wondering. You seem so passionate about these issues, so I wanted to know if you actually did anything more than talk about how horrible they are.

Because NOAA finally had enough resources and evidence to do something in this case

...
Uh uh ...The California Fish and Game Dept has offices next to the bay. They have resources as well if they want to use them. Leopard sharks are easy to track and trace if anyones interested. The insiders question is why NOAA went past them and didn't rely on them to do it locally.
Answer?
Any one care to venture a guess?

Beats me. I am just happy NOAA picked it up.

There are billions of dollars in commerce, traffic, drainages, pollution, salt ponds, shipping, noise, settlement of metals and chemicals into the bottom ruining our bay every day 24/7.
Picking on the least of our worries still needs to be done I accept. Its just that tokenism and trite effort puffed up to mean more then it is is a cowardly way to avoid taking on the real issues affecting marinelife.
feel good Therapy...OK why not?

I think that is nuts. Part of winning any of these fights is raising money and awareness, yet you slam them for doing either. Just seems weird to me. If you think they are doing things badly, I wish you would get directly involved and fix it.

And still...The big local wholesaler ie. Mr Big got away by paying an affordable bribe which polluted the whole case. Today we call a bribe a conservation contribution? My what a precedent.

I think you don't understand what happened or who was accused of what.

 

[clarionreef]

They were getting 100 pups a day in the same place for a long time.

No they weren't!

I think you don't understand what happened or who was accused of what.

Then that would make two of us then.

You asked for the real stresses that threaten the fish life of the bay...and then dismiss them.
1. Port of Oakland and Alameda.
[ filthy, oily, chronically polluting mega developments in the center of the Bay .
2. Huge runoff of drains and agriculture into the delta and carried into the Bay.
3. Mega city of San Francisco and its drainage into the bay.
4. Super metropolis surrounding the bay draining all its street effluent into the bay.
5. Mass international traffic of mega ships moving in and out of the bay daily...carrying invasive species and emitting dozens of pollutants from their very existance. .etc. etc.

I was just wondering

.
Were you really?

You seem so passionate about these issues, so I wanted to know if you actually did anything more than talk about how horrible they are.

You mean they may not be bad?
Which one first? The effluent from the city of San Francisco or did you think I should take on the international shipping issues?
How bout stopping sportfishing for broodstock that kills so much more?

And if I fail to save the S.F.Bay then do I lose credibility?
Making this a referendum on my efforts on behalf of the oceans is a pretty rude tactic of yours. You do it often. God forbid one ask for anything you have done. Why do you always make these things personal? [should I notify a moderator I wonder]

This case was conducted in a shady fashion and the leopard shark poaching [ shark...shark!!!] was just sensationalized and evolved a whole other agenda.
The worst offenders bought their way out with cash and the small fry got hurt the most.
Great effort for conservation? No it wasn't. It was tainted with corrupt deal making that betrayed its alturistic pretentions.


Steve

 

[Anonymous]

They were getting 100 pups a day in the same place for a long time.

No they weren't!

Ok. You know more than the agent that made the case.

You asked for the real stresses that threaten the fish life of the bay...and then dismiss them.

1. Port of Oakland and Alameda.
[ filthy, oily, chronically polluting mega developments in the center of the Bay .
2. Huge runoff of drains and agriculture into the delta and carried into the Bay.
3. Mega city of San Francisco and its drainage into the bay.
4. Super metropolis surrounding the bay draining all its street effluent into the bay.
5. Mass international traffic of mega ships moving in and out of the bay daily...carrying invasive species and emitting dozens of pollutants from their very existance. .etc. etc.

I did not dismiss them, I didn't address them. I think there are seperate, but related issues. Combining them, as you are doing, makes all of them less important.

I was just wondering

.
Were you really?

Yeah, I was. Thats why I said I was.

You seem so passionate about these issues, so I wanted to know if you actually did anything more than talk about how horrible they are.

You mean they may not be bad?

I am at a loss as to how you reached that conclusion from what I wrote. There are two ideas to keep in mind at the same time. The bust was a good thing for several reasons; other impacts to the bay are bad.

Which one first? The effluent from the city of San Francisco or did you think I should take on the international shipping issues?
How bout stopping sportfishing for broodstock that kills so much more?

Beats me - you are the one that brought them up, so you pick.

And if I fail to save the S.F.Bay then do I lose credibility?

I believe that is how you would react to someone else only dealing with a single issue impacting the bay. Unless everything gets fixed, you belittle what gets done.

I don't think someone loses credibility by trying and failing. At the same time complaining about the efforts of others while doing little to nothing ones self seems odd.

Making this a referendum on my efforts on behalf of the oceans is a pretty rude tactic of yours. You do it often.

I'm not doing that, I'm questioning your efforts regarding the bay. Since you were belittling others efforts, I wanted to know if you were doing anything in this arena. I am always interested to discover if people attacking/belittling the efforts of others are actually doing something about the issues they seem to care so much about.

God forbid one ask for anything you have done.

Ask away. I have done basically nothing to save the bay - at the same time, I am not belittling those that have.

Why do you always make these things personal? [should I notify a moderator I wonder]

Asking you questions about your involvement in the issues you bring up is personal? Perhaps, but it isn't they type of thing discussed in the UA or UAA IMO.
If you have a problem with me, feel free to report me to another admin.

This case was conducted in a shady fashion and the leopard shark poaching [ shark...shark!!!] was just sensationalized and evolved a whole other agenda.
The worst offenders bought their way out with cash and the small fry got hurt the most.
Great effort for conservation? No it wasn't. It was tainted with corrupt deal making that betrayed its alturistic pretentions.

IMO this shows a naiveté regarding how the justice system works.
Sensationalizing a 'win' is a good thing for the effort in general.
Almost all those involved paid fines. I am a little bummed the moonies got to pay with no other consequences, however, since I am not involved in the case or the work or the politics, I don't feel really good critiquing those who made the decisions about how hard to push.
Not a great effort, but an effort with some actual results - which are in short supply these days.