Maybe "more accurate" is the more accurate description of weights or counts. I'll assume that it is much easier to weigh cargo than to count what is in it, much less, identify what's in it. Ever see a customs depot? Folks there are just trying to get the most processing done that the day allows. Bill.
Hobby responsible for 1/100thof 1% reef collection
- Thread starter Cappuccino Bay Aquarium
- Start date
I have never said that these numbers are not correct, you give me the numbers and I will question them. You give me a dry weight for live corals {kilograms}and i ask how you how does one come up with a dry weight for a wet dripping Plate coral? I see from your numbers that the number of pieces is not increasing with the rate of kilograms each year? and still No response? Does this mean that the aveage piece is getting bigger? Why is it "WRONG to accurately display the amount of coral You and CITIES say this hobby collects?
_________________
Trade Credit Insurance Forum
_________________
Trade Credit Insurance Forum
Airlines are weighing water and boxes too...Both of those things contribute greatly to weights. I might have a box that weighs 18kg, but when all is said and done there is only about 4kg of actual coral. Plus most boxes contain fish AND corals- how do you distinguish between the two if you're using airline weights???
So what have we learned here. Statistics throughout the industry including CITES, airlines, GMAD and others are inaccurate because either they do not have to be or need to be for some reason (CITES being submitted 2 weeks early).
To make any decision based upon statistics you have to rely on the fact the statistics were collected in a scientific manner and they are accurate. If eithier of those conditions are not achieved then your conclusions are as flawed as the data.(9 out of 10 doctors promote X product syndrome) They maybe right and or correct but accurate probably not.
What does it mean?:
1. The industry needs to report imports accuratly
2. A study needs to be done on mortalities/life spans of the animals we import in home aquariums
3. Studies need to be done on the actual impact upon the environment when removing these animals.
Until the pieces of the puzzle fall into place all we can do is guess and or postulate.
To make any decision based upon statistics you have to rely on the fact the statistics were collected in a scientific manner and they are accurate. If eithier of those conditions are not achieved then your conclusions are as flawed as the data.(9 out of 10 doctors promote X product syndrome) They maybe right and or correct but accurate probably not.
What does it mean?:
1. The industry needs to report imports accuratly
2. A study needs to be done on mortalities/life spans of the animals we import in home aquariums
3. Studies need to be done on the actual impact upon the environment when removing these animals.
Until the pieces of the puzzle fall into place all we can do is guess and or postulate.
Airlines are weighing water and boxes too...Both of those things contribute greatly to weights. I might have a box that weighs 18kg, but when all is said and done there is only about 4kg of actual coral.
I'm assuming the airlines only if no one else is taking weights. I assume customs does, though. Regardless of the weight percentage of packing materials, the absolute figures tell a pretty clear story of yearly increases and percentages. I doubt the amount of packing materials has increased to cover the increased weight reported in subsequent years
Plus most boxes contain fish AND corals- how do you distinguish between the two if you're using airline weights???
I don't know. How do you? Without knowing where these figures came from -- airlines, exporters, or customs (and if customs, what customs procedures are) -- it's not a question that can be answered.
Ultimately, though, it still remains besides the point. If the numbers are useful for nothing else, they're absolutely useful for determining the percentage increase by weight of marine livestock imported. And, really, isn't that the important figure?
I'm assuming the airlines only if no one else is taking weights. I assume customs does, though. Regardless of the weight percentage of packing materials, the absolute figures tell a pretty clear story of yearly increases and percentages. I doubt the amount of packing materials has increased to cover the increased weight reported in subsequent years
Plus most boxes contain fish AND corals- how do you distinguish between the two if you're using airline weights???
I don't know. How do you? Without knowing where these figures came from -- airlines, exporters, or customs (and if customs, what customs procedures are) -- it's not a question that can be answered.
Ultimately, though, it still remains besides the point. If the numbers are useful for nothing else, they're absolutely useful for determining the percentage increase by weight of marine livestock imported. And, really, isn't that the important figure?
Sometimes airline weights are not accurate. Some airlines also dimensionalize cargo. They add up all outer dimensions and then apply a conversion factor to get the chargeable weight. eg. On a small Florida box this is ten kilos even though there was only 2 kilos of dry packed gorgonians inside.
Bill made some very good points. Although I think that there is not the time or money to do scientific studies on coral survivability, reef impacts etc of this industry.
Cheers,
Tim
Bill made some very good points. Although I think that there is not the time or money to do scientific studies on coral survivability, reef impacts etc of this industry.
Cheers,
Tim
Posted by Tim:
Bill made some very good points. Although I think that there is not the time or money to do scientific studies on coral survivability, reef impacts etc of this industry.
Tim, I must respectfully disagree with your statement, money and time are not the major issues, priorities are.
Steve
Bill made some very good points. Although I think that there is not the time or money to do scientific studies on coral survivability, reef impacts etc of this industry.
Tim, I must respectfully disagree with your statement, money and time are not the major issues, priorities are.
Steve
So are we in agreement ,that these kilos are The most imported possible,if every indication is that these weights are high? Also is the 570,000 and the 550,000 the total number of items reported reguardless of weight, the most number of items? If This is correct, would this place the total maximum numbers of active hobbists at one million....if each person only bought one piece of live rock or coral. less any deaths of coral pieces during shipping or not sold by the LFS.so if the average New hobbists buys four corals and four pieces of live rock that would make the number of hobbists about 60,000? Thats also if no existing reefers are buying this stuff. I think we can come up with an estimate for the number of active reef hobbists with these numbers...
_________________
Ecstasy Rehab Forum
_________________
Ecstasy Rehab Forum
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
Ya gotta admit,
There is a consistancy to the storyline here thru the years.
The "theres nothing wrong with the trade vs. theres so much to fix " etc.
Steve
There is a consistancy to the storyline here thru the years.
The "theres nothing wrong with the trade vs. theres so much to fix " etc.
Steve
Have you ever been able to explain what those coral import numbers translate into? 90% of the 15,000 kilograms in the hard corals data is water! and 70% 0f the total in coral is not from our hobby! But people like Dr reef love to use numbers like these to further reeform when they have little idea what the numbers are actually stating!vitz":3e92moal said:i think this thread is an excellent indication of for how long people here have been wasting their time trying to establish reasonable dialogue w/an individual who cannot use reason
thanks for diigin this one up
Kalkbreath":8n5h5buw said:Have you ever been able to explain what those coral import numbers translate into? 90% of the 15,000 kilograms in the hard corals data is water! and 70% 0f the total in coral is not from our hobby! But people like Dr reef love to use numbers like these to further reeform when they have little idea what the numbers are actually stating!vitz":8n5h5buw said:i think this thread is an excellent indication of for how long people here have been wasting their time trying to establish reasonable dialogue w/an individual who cannot use reason
thanks for diigin this one up
i am not here to argue numbers, or anything else with you, kalk, nor do i intend to enter into any discussion/argument with you on industry related issues
you have nothing new to contribute to anything you've previously stated, and i have nothing to say to you that hasn't already been said
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:
