FraggledRock
New member
That's why the ban is evidently(or lack of it) HOGWASH!
I am all about conservation, but not for Lawyers, lawmakers, politicians and judges in finding ways of propagating their pockets more!
Reefkeeping is NOT under attack
- Thread starter Leonard
- Start date
That's why the ban is evidently(or lack of it) HOGWASH!
I am all about conservation, but not for Lawyers, lawmakers, politicians and judges in finding ways of propagating their pockets more!
PIPSTER
New member
I, too, am not interested in this going "political", so this will be my last post here.
I just have a really hard time when someone tries to tell me I can't possess a coral, or get one from an aquaculturalist who self-propagates their coral to sell without any wild collection other than a first, original one, which may have been years ago. To me, private property is private property, whether it's my dollar in my wallet, my fish in my tank, my car in my driveway, or the driveway under my car. I agree with JPMagyar as far as the power and rights of the individual.
Why does anybody credit NOAA above the individual? How does these blanket rules not harm individuals? Of course, they can't split the rules, or make rules just about collection, what irks me is since they know they can't do that, they just ban everything for everyone, down to the individual owner. What about PaulB. and his 40 year old tank?
Who has combed every inch of the distance between Hawaii and the west coast of the US for these stats, anyways?
This is not about saving coral, it is about further restricting, limiting the freedom and power of the individual in the name of something else (fill in the blank with the best intention here) ___.
Intentions, good or bad, do not mean anything or matter at all. All that matters is the consequence of abuse of power.
I just have a really hard time when someone tries to tell me I can't possess a coral, or get one from an aquaculturalist who self-propagates their coral to sell without any wild collection other than a first, original one, which may have been years ago. To me, private property is private property, whether it's my dollar in my wallet, my fish in my tank, my car in my driveway, or the driveway under my car. I agree with JPMagyar as far as the power and rights of the individual.
Why does anybody credit NOAA above the individual? How does these blanket rules not harm individuals? Of course, they can't split the rules, or make rules just about collection, what irks me is since they know they can't do that, they just ban everything for everyone, down to the individual owner. What about PaulB. and his 40 year old tank?
Who has combed every inch of the distance between Hawaii and the west coast of the US for these stats, anyways?
This is not about saving coral, it is about further restricting, limiting the freedom and power of the individual in the name of something else (fill in the blank with the best intention here) ___.
Intentions, good or bad, do not mean anything or matter at all. All that matters is the consequence of abuse of power.
Last edited:
FraggledRock
New member
Leonard
10 & Over Club
The original data presented in the petition (keep in mind this document lists all 83 of the original species petitioned. Only 20 were deemed Threatened):
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/...aghorn_coral/pdfs/Coral petition_10-20-09.pdf
NMFS' published findings:
https://www.federalregister.gov/art...listing-determinations-on-proposal-to-list-66
Also search each of the twenty species in the IUCN. For example, for Euphyllia paradivisa:
http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/133057/0
Leonard
10 & Over Club
My motivation is intellectual honesty. This is a science-driven process. We can make our argument without resorting to lies and appealing to fear. Going down this path undermines our efforts to sustain our hobby. Sources within the NMFS are surprised at how we've commented thus far. I'm guessing we look petulant to them. There are plenty of people in this thread who are only for conservation if it doesn't impact them.
I have never been in favor of an all-out ban for Acroporids. Read my op-ed again.
Anyone who reads Advanced Aquarist knows who I am. I'm a reefkeeper of over 30 years. I've devoted more time to this hobby (both personally and for the hobby as a whole) than everyone in this thread combined, Gresh excluded
I don't get paid to write for AA, contrary to what most people believe; AA doesn't have the budget to pay me. It's strictly a labor of love and dedication. It's borderline comical to suggest I want to harm this hobby or benefit from its demise.
Last edited:
Leonard
10 & Over Club
It's a good thing lawyers, politicians, and judges aren't involved in this process. Only pesky scientists.
FraggledRock
New member
now i KNOW you're misinformed....
woodnaquanut
Active member
Sure, I'll comment!
There is a longstanding concept that if the society deems it unacceptable to own a thing it becomes illegal.
Like slaves.
There are also laws preventing animal cruelty. If our society deemed reef keeping cruel, we'd be lawbreakers!
Now why would endangered status make what you own illegal? To stop black market trade. For example, it's illegal to own any part of a bald eagle. You are out in the woods and find an eagle feather. Pick it up and keep it - you are in violation of federal laws. Why? Well how does anyone know you didn't shoot the eagle to harvest feathers? It's easy to see how that extends to trade and sale.
You wrote about being a free country. Well sort of. We're not free to kill anyone we want, take from anyone we want, etc. There is a whole body of law that limits our freedom. One of the exceptionally cool things about our form of government is we can decide on what limitations we put on our own freedom. It is hopefully decided by the many, not just one, what freedoms are given and taken away. Again, hopefully, these decisions are made by educated and informed citizens.
Quite frankly Leonard some of what you are posting is opinion, which isn't any more important that anyone else's opinion. I read the article on AA, as I read most and you do a good job of talking down to just about everyone there. "Too many ill-conceived opinions are formed because people simply don't bother to understand the facts." "Here's another important fact that seems to be sailing above many people's heads"
You really think statements like that help? Yes, you have some valid points. Terrible way to approach this. Clearly you view these groups as beneath you and your pedestal of knowledge: " Bloggers are doing it. Retailers are doing it. Manufacturers are doing it. "Experts" are doing it. Lobbyists are doing it."
Clearly people are passionate about this hobby, as they are distrustful of government regulations. So instead of trying to funnel that passion you just call them ignorant. Has that approach ever worked?
Public comments on government regulation and you are upset people are responding with comments that are not all about factual evidence based information? How many members of the public even have this info? Perhaps comments from the scientific and industry would have been more appropriate? Why bother having public comments then, it's not really an appropriate way of gaining scientific evidence.
You really think statements like that help? Yes, you have some valid points. Terrible way to approach this. Clearly you view these groups as beneath you and your pedestal of knowledge: " Bloggers are doing it. Retailers are doing it. Manufacturers are doing it. "Experts" are doing it. Lobbyists are doing it."
Clearly people are passionate about this hobby, as they are distrustful of government regulations. So instead of trying to funnel that passion you just call them ignorant. Has that approach ever worked?
Public comments on government regulation and you are upset people are responding with comments that are not all about factual evidence based information? How many members of the public even have this info? Perhaps comments from the scientific and industry would have been more appropriate? Why bother having public comments then, it's not really an appropriate way of gaining scientific evidence.
Mishri
Active member
The goal is preserving coral reefs. The reality is, banning trade of the corals themselves will have no effect one way or the other on the outcome of the reefs. It simply doesn't make sense. It's like saying, people can't keep pandas because their habitat is almost gone. That is actually the reverse of what we should be doing. We should be keeping reefs, both in hobby space and scientific research and in public aquariums dedicated solely to coral reefs. If they all die out in nature, we'll still have preserved the species. That makes sense. It would be different if they were being gathered by intentionally killing them (Rhinos) this is more like taking the rhinos and shipping them to zoos.... sometimes zoos with very poor care, but overall, good zoos that keep them for years many of whom successfully breed them, ultimately a net gain to the species. Instead they are saying, no more breeding allowed, hold on to what you have, if you get too many you better destroy your baby rhinos because you can't transport them. we'll just leave them in their habitat that is soon entirely going to disappear...
So.. that's my argument against banning the collection and trade.
(I'm sure public aquariums and research facilities will be able to get permission to collect/transport them still.. it's just a shame we wont be able to do frag trades with them anymore)
So.. that's my argument against banning the collection and trade.
(I'm sure public aquariums and research facilities will be able to get permission to collect/transport them still.. it's just a shame we wont be able to do frag trades with them anymore)
woodnaquanut
Active member
Good for you, Leonard!
When I started to read your article yesterday I was hopping mad! It didn't take to long to get where you are coming from.
So many people are concerned about what a rule or regulation will do to them. How it will effect their income or hobby? Are our lives so narrow that we can't look up and see a bigger picture? Just how spoiled and petty are we?
It's saddening to see how much distrust there is in science. In my lifetime I've seen science go from an extremely lofty goal to an insult in this country. Tell people what they want to hear, ignore the truth!
Dmorty217
Saltwater Addict
Hawaiian fisherys are the most studied fishery for aquarium use out there. The auarium trade help the ecology of the fish and doesn't negatively effect populations
Leonard
10 & Over Club
It was indeed an op-ed. My opinions were definitely critical. My writing was bourne out of frustration for the perpetual misinformation despite great reporting on the subject (e.g. Ret's reporting). People are either willfully trying to deceive others or are unwilling to learn the facts. I do look down on these people. Sorry.
Another point of my op-ed is that people don't understand what this public comment period is. They think it's their personal soapbox. It is not. Public comments is a perfectly appropriate way to gather scientific input and informed opinions. That's what the NMFS is seeking.
Mishri
Active member
Haven't you heard man? Never trust anyone over 30. I think people have learned to question the science behind things because things have changed so much and things that people held to be true because "scientists say..." have later been proven to be wrong. Expanding Earth theory was traded in favor of plat tectonics, now in 2005 a hypothesis similar to expanding earth theory is being studied and solves some issues plate tectonics doesn't, but does have it's own issues.
"It's Science!" appears more like, We are making our best guesses.
I dunno, that's just one theory on why people distrust the science. I just like reading all the various theories out there.
In this case the science says that human harvesting of corals isn't a significant contribution to coral deaths. So why ban it? Because you want to ban other practices? I fail to see the logic.
deleau
New member
Science is supposed to be distrustful of itself. That is the fundamental basis of science...challenge known ideas with new data to either support or reform said ideas.
However, that is in decline, and there has been plenty of public "science" that has exactly told people what they want to hear, and we all know that it has been co-opted politically.
This whole issue is tainted with politics, whether we like it or not. NOAA has a history of specious "science" in regards to AGW, and AGW has been attributed as stressors in many of these species listed, so it should come as a shock to no one that the "intellectual honesty" of NOAA is called into question.
As a scientist, I do feel saddened by the loss of status of "scientists", but we do have Big Bang Theory for positive PR.
So... you added informed opinion.
What is an "informed" opinion? Who decided what is informed or not? You? Is there a criteria that one needs to meet to have an opinion on this?
Straight from your article:
"They want facts, not your opinion" You say to only comment if you can provide information, but now an "informed opinion" is ok?
woodnaquanut
Active member
Have you gone to the NOAA comment website? Have you read the guidelines for public comment?
I've done both. They don't want, and will reject, the arguments put forward by most on this thread. Flooding the site with lots of 'I love my corals, I need to sell my corals, government rules suck, NOAA is just a bunch of left wing whale studying tax payer sucking idiots' comments do no good. It might do harm. We as a group, come off as a bunch of crazies. We might be, but there is no reason to advertise it!
If you have some science based information that pertains to the question, post. Other than that, you are wasting your time.
woodnaquanut
Active member
Really?
First hit w/ google search for informed opinion:
'An informed opinion is based on knowledge of the facts and carefully considered principles. It relies on evidence instead of limited personal experience.'
Now that wasn't that hard, was it?
Have you gone to the NOAA comment website? Have you read the guidelines for public comment?
I've done both. They don't want, and will reject, the arguments put forward by most on this thread. Flooding the site with lots of 'I love my corals, I need to sell my corals, government rules suck, NOAA is just a bunch of left wing whale studying tax payer sucking idiots' comments do no good. It might do harm. We as a group, come off as a bunch of crazies. We might be, but there is no reason to advertise it!
If you have some science based information that pertains to the question, post. Other than that, you are wasting your time.
That's just it, there are better ways for Leonard to have gone about this. He automatically turned many readers hostile with this approach. Of course many comments get ignored, how many public comments can really be valid? They have ways of searching literature and reaching out to industry. When does any area of the govt ask for public comments and not have to toss most out, but we shouldn't talk down to other hobbists, just perhaps direct them how to better express their passion for the hobby.
Similar threads
