Reefkeeping is NOT under attack

[Leonard]

Thanks John Saved me some typing.

Look guys: Unnamed sources within NMFS' process have already said they're "surprised" (to put it nicely) by hobbyist's comments. Judging by some of the comments in this thread, I can completely understand if they're not happy with our participation. If you want to hurt our hobby, then keep submitting comments devoid of factual validity or substantiated reasoning in context of conservation.

I would much prefer you stop shooting our hobby in the foot though.

 

[Leonard]

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.

But the NMFS is not looking for us to better express our passion for the hobby. We're talking about a science-driven process regarding conservation policies.

 

[hart24601]

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?

Now this is perfect!!! Thank you!

It clearly demonstrates how knowledge and principles vary from one person to the next. How much knowledge does one need? What principles do you need and how much should you consider them?

"Now that wasn't that hard, was it?" is a perfect example. I knew the definition and clearly wanted one to look at the deeper meaning of what or who defines knowledge or how much is required - does one have to have a published paper on the subject? Just google it? Have a degree in it? It's still an opinion. The copy and pasting of a google search with no thought is a great example of what one might consider informed while others might consider that quite the opposite as no thought went beyond it.

 

[woodnaquanut]

What is scientific about private aquaculturing?
:sad2:

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by that! Is it really a question or a disguised comment of some sort?

I don't see how it pertains to the discussion.

Looking for enlightenment!

 

[hart24601]

But the NMFS is not looking for us to better express our passion for the hobby.

Perhaps this is the problem. I said a better way to funnel peoples passion. Not talk down. You see passion as the problem. I see it as a great tool if an article was written by someone that people read, like you, that instead of talking down like you did again, provided resources or even a rough guideline of what you think they are looking for and what people could provide with personal experiences to help. Clearly people want to get involved.

 

[Mishri]

So.. do you guys know, since you seem to have all the facts. Do we simply need to get an exotic owner's license to keep and transport those corals/fish in the future? Because that wont be so bad. I can get a bengal tiger and keep it at my house if I want to, just need to get that license.. and there are only about 2500 of those tigers left.

 

[Leonard]

Perhaps this is the problem. I said a better way to funnel peoples passion. Not talk down. You see passion as the problem. I see it as a great tool if an article was written by someone that people read, like you, that instead of talking down like you did again, provided resources or even a rough guideline of what you think they are looking for and what people could provide with personal experiences to help. Clearly people want to get involved.

I don't see passion as the problem at all. I'm as passionate about this issue as you'll find. The problem is people who willfully deceive or willfully ignore the facts (or don't even bother learning the facts). You are absolutely right about me: I have no tolerance for these people.

Get involved by getting informed first. And stop the fear-mongering. I hoped this was the takeaway from my op-ed. And I provided reading resources and thought I was pretty clear what we should and shouldn't be doing with the public comment period (half my op-ed was dedicated to this topic).

 

[Leonard]

So.. do you guys know, since you seem to have all the facts. Do we simply need to get an exotic owner's license to keep and transport those corals/fish in the future? Because that wont be so bad. I can get a bengal tiger and keep it at my house if I want to, just need to get that license.. and there are only about 2500 of those tigers left.

Nothing has been determined yet, which makes this whole thing that much more bizarre. We're all fueling our own worst fears that aren't reality. And again, they're looking into a tiny handful of species that likely will not impact you.

 

[PIPSTER]

But the NMFS is not looking for us to better express our passion for the hobby. We're talking about a science-driven process regarding conservation policies.

We don't care what they are looking for. They answer to the public, they included the possible ramifications in their statement that regardless of actual enforcement, they could:

1. confiscate my coral (who cares what kind it is) How do you explain to them that "scientifically"?

2. Not allow me to swap a frag with another individual. (science?)

3. Not allow me to purchase "banned" coral from a domestic aquacultralist. (what studies should I produce to them on that?)

If you think the 1,2,3 points above are irrelevant, than how do you think they will enforce their ruling?

Maybe we should just ignore the whole thing and let them rule like the royalty they are.


(why bring slaves up? They are people. See, some of you think we are all just advanced animals. I do not share that view.)

 

[woodnaquanut]

That's just it, there are better ways for Leonard to have gone about this. He automatically turned many readers hostile with this approach.

Nobody is perfect (except me! :thumbdown )!

As I have already stated, I had heard a lot of what Leonard mentioned in the first paragraph and the title of the article inflamed me. I read the first paragraph and the flames cooled.

It didn't take long for the flames to go all the way out.

To each his own.

 

[Leonard]

I thought I was pretty well behaved by not naming any names. Maybe I should have so that you guys would know I'm not just randomly lashing out at average, passionate hobbyists

 

[PIPSTER]

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by that! Is it really a question or a disguised comment of some sort?

I don't see how it pertains to the discussion.

Looking for enlightenment!

They are not going to ban collection, ok? They will ban me owning, you selling, the other guy swapping. They are not interested in science, if they were, the words possession, trade, commerce wouldn't be in their statement. There is an agenda there, and it isn't real conservation.

 

[deleau]

But the NMFS is not looking for us to better express our passion for the hobby. We're talking about a science-driven process regarding conservation policies.

But the hobby can have a legitimate, positive effect on conservation and conservation policies. (As you yourself have stated with regards to interstate commerce of frags and captive bred/grown)

Conservation and conservation science should be able to expand beyond "lookie, no touchy" with regards to these creatures in the wild and by embracing ideas from the passionate hobbyists, NMFS may very well get ideas and solutions that can aid in conservation efforts outside of their very insular think tanks.

Certainly, there will be a lot of chaff, but to claim that insiders at NMFS are becoming hostile to hobbyists who express their opinion (constructive or not) only lends to the idea that NMFS do not care about science or conservation but to their already settled view on this topic.

 

[gone fishin]

What is the agenda?

 

[KafudaFish]

We don't care what they are looking for. They answer to the public, they included the possible ramifications in their statement that regardless of actual enforcement, they could:

1. confiscate my coral (who cares what kind it is) How do you explain to them that "scientifically"?

2. Not allow me to swap a frag with another individual. (science?)

3. Not allow me to purchase "banned" coral from a domestic aquacultralist. (what studies should I produce to them on that?)

If you think the 1,2,3 points above are irrelevant, than how do you think they will enforce their ruling?

Maybe we should just ignore the whole thing and let them rule like the royalty they are.


(why bring slaves up? They are people. See, some of you think we are all just advanced animals. I do not share that view.)

So is it your opinion that slaves are not advanced animals or all people?

If we are not advanced animals what are we?

 

[Mishri]

What is the agenda?

I think to get us to stop spending so much money on our reefs and high end lighting and bringing back the pet rock! yeah!! Pet rock dudes are behind it.

or anyone that doesn't sell acro... probably car manufacturers.

 

[gone fishin]

Let me consult my magic 8 ball.

 

[PIPSTER]

The agenda is just to have power and control over the individual. They ban the corals, the sellers will have to stop selling them, there will be a lucky few, who will absolutely have a black "swap" market for obscene profit (I'm not against that). And then they dust off their hands, see that their little power grab test worked, and plan for the next ban.

Who funds Centre for Biodiversity?

I applaud the ESA for what they do

Why? You know they can't enforce collection bans, so what gives?

The petition by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) is a good thing

Are you sure about this? If they hadn't brought this up we wouldn't be worried about coral bans...remember they CANNOT enforce banning collection, and probably won't bother the individual directly...but I won't be able to buy an aquacultured specimen.

 

[woodnaquanut]

We don't care what they are looking for. They answer to the public, they included the possible ramifications in their statement that regardless of actual enforcement, they could:

1. confiscate my coral (who cares what kind it is) How do you explain to them that "scientifically"?

2. Not allow me to swap a frag with another individual. (science?)

3. Not allow me to purchase "banned" coral from a domestic aquacultralist. (what studies should I produce to them on that?)

If you think the 1,2,3 points above are irrelevant, than how do you think they will enforce their ruling?

Maybe we should just ignore the whole thing and let them rule like the royalty they are.


(why bring slaves up? They are people. See, some of you think we are all just advanced animals. I do not share that view.)

You seem to be very concerned 'someone' is coming to confiscate your corals. I don't remember Leonard saying anything like that.

Same with swapping. What's up? NSA flying drones around you, DEA knocking at your door?

I'm not sure what #3 is about. If, and I say IF, any corals are listed as endangered, it will be illegal to import them, sell them and trade them.

The NMFS does not make them illegal, the law does that. The NMFS puts species on the list. That's all. They need to follow the rules and procedures set down by their agency in the process of listing.

I brought up slavery because it was the first example I could think of that most would agree should be illegal. At the time of the Emancipation Proclamation (1860 ish), slaves were not considered people. People owned slaves and were so upset when they were told it was illegal, they went to war. It's an example of what was once private property can be declared, by the consensus of the people, to be illegal to own.

 

[woodnaquanut]

The agenda is just to have power and control over the individual. They ban the corals, the sellers will have to stop selling them, there will be a lucky few, who will absolutely have a black "swap" market for obscene profit (I'm not against that). And then they dust off their hands, see that their little power grab test worked, and plan for the next ban.

'They' seem very petty. Maybe 'they' need to get a life?