My fellow congressmen (long post)

[thenewguy997]

Today, lets pretend you and I are sitting in the reefers congress as elected officials.

On the table for us today: Should the government get involved in the saltwater trade?

There are a few laws id like to propose as I have the floor.

1. Put a sales tax, property tax, collectors tax, etc. On any collector who uses cyanide, dynamite, or any other un-approved method of capture. This includes collecting endangered species, collecting from areas you are not allowed, and also may or may not include LFS's that are known to be irresponsible.
- Sub point A. This tax will be very significant so that it will not be worth it for them to collect. I feel this would be more effective than a ban.

2. We will provide assistance, subsidies, tax breaks, etc. To collectors who do it the right way, and to LFS's that are responsible. This includes aquaculturers such as ORA, etc. This will promote more aquaculture and give an incentive to collecting and keeping organisms alive and thriving.
-Sub point A. We may even be able to work out lower shipping costs because im sure shipping co's would appreciate the business, and it would help LFS with the overall hit.

3. Because prices for things may go up because of the cut in collectors, that is where the tax breaks and subsidies come in. That will help stores with the cost of less specimens, but possibly more healthy caught will help balance out the dead ones before. For example, you will now have 4/5 stay alive as opposed to 1/5 cyanide caught.

4. Possibly a saltwater trade board will be created to oversee these laws and provide assistance.


OPTIONAL - we could try to organize collectors into a sort of international union with the said benefits and to make sure collectors in discrete places are following the by-laws.





SO, what do you think?

 

[thenewguy997]

I also would like to say that this is just fodder. Im not trying to get anything done with this, its just ideas and food for thought

 

[Tiki God]

1. Aren't you the guy who said harsh fines wouldn't work, or was that someone else haha Because I think extreme fines would work. But I personally think 90 days imprisonment combined with extremely harsh fines would work. Bans do nothing IMO You can't really prove where a fish was taken from once it's been shipped across the planet.

2. I vote tax reduction, because giving them a reward for following the law is the same as the government paying me because I've never killed anyone.

3. Agreed

4. If there was a board created, I think it should have several things be key.

A. No representatives from aquarium companies. They'd be biased in favor of the profit of their business.

B. It would have to accompany all of the aquarium trade, not just SW.

C. What are you doing up at one in the morning anyway :lmao:

 

[muttley000]

Call me an old fashioned constitutionalist, but a federal government has no business in such issues. Getting involved in things a government should stay out of leads to 17 trillion in debt
I would however support interested parties getting the word out (let's just pretend there is such a group, and in our make believe scenario we can call them the press) making everyone aware why they should not do business with these types, or possibly pleading the case for paying a little more to someone who could be certified as not using these practices.

 

[Tiki God]

Why can't we call ourselves this group? Reef Central, websites I'll probably be banned for mentioning. Just reefers in general, I believe, ARE the group that can spread the word.

 

[thenewguy997]

I work late!

And sites like RC could do that tiki.

You guys made great points

 

[atreis]

One thing not included is paying for the cost of enforcement. I like it though.

 

[Tiki God]

True, atreis. It would take even more tax money to do that. Unless the US government wants to just borrow a couple billion from some other country that probably is planning to nuke us as we speak :lmao: :lmao:

 

[HumbleFish]

On the table for us today: Should the government get involved in the saltwater trade?

A resounding NO!!!

 

[Cu455]

#1 will be a penalty or fine not a tax. The majority of collecting is done in other countries. The US has no authority to tell other countries what to do. Congress can ban the importation of fish, thats about it. In America we have size limits, number limits, permits, seasons, marine sanctuaries, Lacey act, endangered species act, EPA, fish and wildlife, DEC and so on. We already do most of the stuff you said.

In short you are saying tax the hell out of businesses which deal with fish. Do this until prices are so high that no one can afford to buy fish and the fish industry can't make money due to paying taxes and having no clients. The the government will jump in and bailout companies which they like.

 

[fla2341]

Also please keep in mind that the government dosen't do anything well now. What makes you think their involvement won't make things much worse.

Reefer's like us are the key. When we find something which dosen't work, businesses which are poor in customer support/service and products which have flaws as a group we sound off. Word get's around our hobby and things change.

However if your looking to form some govt agency(if you must) you should stipulate term limits to avoid the "professional" board members/politicians which would ultimately serve their own self interests/motives and not those originaly planed for or enforce the difficult decisions for what must be done vs what is politically expeditious.

 

[thenewguy997]

Well what you must remember is our gov is made up of the public. Every politician is elected into office. So they have to be trustworthy, they are US.

Ofcourse we would have to work out the find details.

But I think gov intervention could help in a lot of ways.

I also was not only talking about the united states government. Im talking international. But if you dont think the US gov can influence a small country to make some restrictions on reef trade youre crazy! You scratch my back ill scratch yours..

The small country would probably shy away bc of the money reefing brings in the but US could easily establish more trade with said country to make up for the profits, or help out with anything else.

 

[Cu455]

Most of the decisions made are not by elected officials but people who are hired by an agency. Just because someone is elected doesn't make them trust worthy. it takes a lot of money to run for office. If politicians wanted to have a true fair election a bill would be passed to do away with all the fees associated with running, including the thousands of dollars it costs just to have your name one the ballot. I wonder why no bill was ever passed to do away with these excessive fees?

Why should the US subsidize other countries aquarium trade? It will become a never ending trend. I won't have an issue with America boycotting other countries over unethical practices but we shouldn't be subsidizing other countries aquarium businesses.

 

[thenewguy997]

Most of the decisions made are not by elected officials but people who are hired by an agency. Just because someone is elected doesn't make them trust worthy. it takes a lot of money to run for office. If politicians wanted to have a true fair election a bill would be passed to do away with all the fees associated with running, including the thousands of dollars it costs just to have your name one the ballot. I wonder why no bill was ever passed to do away with these excessive fees?

Why should the US subsidize other countries aquarium trade? It will become a never ending trend. I won't have an issue with America boycotting other countries over unethical practices but we shouldn't be subsidizing other countries aquarium businesses.

I used to say the same thing. But the way it works is, why would you want a poor person in office? Poor people are poor because they are bad with finances. None of us probably know how to run a fortune 500 company, thats why were poor. So if we cant run a fortune 500 company how could we run a country?

Thats a bit of a controversial statement but it makes sense and was a major point in my politics class.

But we wouldnt subsidize other countries, we would trade with them. They would subsidize their own workers

 

[muttley000]

Every politician is elected into office. So they have to be trustworthy

You sir, are officially living in a dream world:lolspin:

Govt agencies push their agendas, mostly very left wing. Their is no way to screw something up faster than government regulation.

The most important premise of our founding documents is that the people are civil and in general good, and that good people can take care of things better than the government. IMO regulation will make this much worse!

 

[thenewguy997]

You sir, are officially living in a dream world:lolspin:

!

:smurf: you mean im not really a smurf?

Sometimes i like to put on scuba gear and put my head in my tank like im really swimming in the ocean.













That was a joke ofcourse hahah

 

[HPark]

Actually...regulation of maritime law and interstate commerce seems to me to be the exact purview of the federal government but I generally agree with the sentiment that government regulations aren't totally necessary. That said, I don't have huge problems with recent initiatives to create large marine protected areas in the Pacific.

Really, a more ethical aquarium hobby would require more ethical aquarium enthusiasts.....ie, supporting tank-bred fish whenever possible, completely boycotting bad LFS's; demanding a transparent and accountable supply chain which would allow consumers to buy only net-caught fish. All of that requires higher consumer prices....we get what we pay for.

One other thought. This hobby is popular worldwide and the norms we have in the Western world do not completely translate to other parts of the globe. This is probably a reason why governments at a national level need to agree on some sort of framework to set reasonable and sustainable limits on the aquarium trade.

 

[HumbleFish]

I used to say the same thing. But the way it works is, why would you want a poor person in office? Poor people are poor because they are bad with finances. None of us probably know how to run a fortune 500 company, thats why were poor. So if we cant run a fortune 500 company how could we run a country?

Most elected officials in the US are rich guys. More than half of Congress are millionaires. And how's that working out for us? :uhoh3: Now, consider one of our greatest Presidents (Abe Lincoln) was born in a one-room log cabin.

Wealth & power are both great and worthy ambitions. And there's an arena for that - it's called the private sector. The problem is the rich have figured out how to use money to become (or support) elected officials. Essentially infusing enough money (whether their own or someone else's) into a campaign to overwhelm an unsuspecting public. Once in power, they're able to reward themselves and their buddies. It's pure genius and pure evil.

So, my point is the wealthy people we keep electing to office aren't using their wealth/power/education to serve the public interest. They are using their positions to further themselves. Long gone is the concept of public servant.