Spyderturbo007
New member
I've donated to PIJAC twice now since this started. So no, everyone isn't just sitting on their hands. Maybe you are, but I'm not. Contrary to what the OP thinks, I feel this is an attack on reefkeeping...
Reefkeeping is NOT under attack
- Thread starter Leonard
- Start date
I've donated to PIJAC twice now since this started. So no, everyone isn't just sitting on their hands. Maybe you are, but I'm not. Contrary to what the OP thinks, I feel this is an attack on reefkeeping...
FraggledRock
New member
right.
I commend you on your "proactivity".
and yes it is an attack on reefkeeping entirely/
typical government.
here's a little tidbit- the way things are going, the collection ban won't make any difference anyway (heck just read the reports by those who want to ban it!)
crush the reefkeeper , THEIR the ones causing all this harm to the reefs.
what a joke.
go to the next NOAA meeting and tell me how much fossil fuels were burned so that the "holier than thou" politicians can discuss just how bad the "general population" is to our planet.
funny stuff....
here's a little tidbit- the way things are going, the collection ban won't make any difference anyway (heck just read the reports by those who want to ban it!)
crush the reefkeeper , THEIR the ones causing all this harm to the reefs.
what a joke.
go to the next NOAA meeting and tell me how much fossil fuels were burned so that the "holier than thou" politicians can discuss just how bad the "general population" is to our planet.
funny stuff....
FraggledRock
New member
Big business will ALWAYS finger point away from themselves LOL
some people don't want to accept or realize that little business tactic around here.
Leonard
10 & Over Club
Allow me to clarify. The hobby isn't under attack by the NMFS/ESA process. Being under attack and being under pressure/threat are two very different things. The first denotes a deliberate act to directly harm someone. The ESA's' directive/intent is not to harm our hobby. I would like to see people stop treating the process (or NMFS) as an attack. IMO, we're often far too divisive (the "me vs. you" mindset). I'm also not a fan of the "end of the hobby" scare tactics. I know this is one way to mobilize your base, and I know it's effective. Politicians do it all the time. I just find it intellectually dishonest and cheap.
That said, I endorsed PIJAC as the most meaningful way the average hobbyist can engage in this process:
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/blo...he-esa-process-and-actually-make-a-difference
Last edited:
Leonard
10 & Over Club
Joe,
It's not our mandate to supply NOAA with good data, but NOAA is specifically soliciting it from all parties. It's not their responsibility to generate data but to collect and review it. That's what this whole process is about. If we let "the other side" (as you guys seem to like to think of it) present their data and "our side" remains silent, that's all the data NOAA has to make their determination ... however bad you or I may think of that data. So if we don't contribute to the process hoping someone else will, it's on us if NOAA is working with bad data.
BTW, the Veron quote you put in the biggest bolded font is Veron saying we have outdated, incomplete data. We are data deficient.
It's not our mandate to supply NOAA with good data, but NOAA is specifically soliciting it from all parties. It's not their responsibility to generate data but to collect and review it. That's what this whole process is about. If we let "the other side" (as you guys seem to like to think of it) present their data and "our side" remains silent, that's all the data NOAA has to make their determination ... however bad you or I may think of that data. So if we don't contribute to the process hoping someone else will, it's on us if NOAA is working with bad data.
BTW, the Veron quote you put in the biggest bolded font is Veron saying we have outdated, incomplete data. We are data deficient.
Leonard
10 & Over Club
As I mentioned two responses back, I'm not a fan of the feeding into people's worst fears, uncertainty, and doubt. I want everyone to be engaged and understand this process, but I was not particularly fond of the amped-up rhetoric (e.g. "Are we going to have a MACNA in two years? I don't know.") They also made many people panic that this isn't only about "certain types of coral if it passes" but that ALL corals is in imminent danger of being contraband. It's noble that they are trying to mobilize hobbyist. I just didn't like the way they did it. My 2 cents of course.
justinky
New member
How would you go about getting peoples attention then?
I hate to categorize but... Let's say there are 3 types of people in this hobby.
1. The Average Hobbyist: In the hobby for stress relief, fun, and enjoyment. They prefer a little challenge here and there. This will obviously be the majority of the hobby.
2. The Spender: They have money and love fish tanks. They may or may not enjoy the work associated or even have the time in a lot of cases to learn the proper fundamentals of the hobby; in some cases just the more expert material. I believe this will be a small amount but more people then the last category.
3. Advanced Reef Enthusiast: The people who are always learning everything reef, who nose dive into the expert aspects of the hobby after research, those who have some of the most awe inspiring tanks after tons of dedication. I may be wrong but I believe this to be the category with the least people and the category you don't necessarily need to reach as they will look into it on their own usually.
You have to remember a lot of people who are in the hobby don't have time to be "fully engaged", that's not why they joined the hobby. If it's not necessarily affecting them, then it's not a concern. Don't take this the wrong way but I think you've been at this for so long you've forgot what this hobby is for most, just my opinion based off of what I've read.
Leonard
10 & Over Club
I believe you can educate and engage people without appealing to emotions. This applies to any experience level. Tell it like it is. Tell people why they should invest in the process and how it will effect - honestly effect - them. Tell aquarists how to engage. You can do all this without scaring the beejeezus out of people or making the cause into a crusade. Sure; it may be harder to get someone's attention without sensationalism or appealing just to their self-interests. But I trust you don't believe that this is the right way to do things. People with social platforms have tremendous responsibility to present issues honestly, accurately, and fairly.
justinky
New member
I agree whole-heartedly. The issue goes back to what they put out in this situation, we don't know what will happen but the way the Endangered Species Act is wrote allows this to be some what cause for concern. Let's say the act allowed aquaculture with an exotic animal license or permit and this tactic was still used to rally people behind them. That is where I would say they went too far.
JPMagyar
New member
Leonard,
I have long enjoyed your writing and have been amazed at your connections and the information you manage to uncover. Truthfully since your initial editorial I feel that your comments have been much more inline with what I believe. I think we may actually agree on several issues:
1) I believe conservation of wild corals should be a primary concern for all interested parties.
2) I support the efforts of PIJAC and have donated money and expressed my support via email.
3) It behooves the average aquarist to be informed on this topic.
What I think we disagree on is whether or not the NOAA cares if there are a flood of non-science based comments and whether or not the science used to create the listing was really science. On the latter note I think you are misreading Veron's comments. There are two sentences that go together:
In this complex piece of English, the two inconsistencies are not the same. The first inconsistency is the NMFS' "application". The application was not consistent across species with similar data. The second inconsistency refers to the actual results achieved from the original inconsistent application. The opening sentence in the summary is a simple rebuke of the NOAA/NMFS process, and then Veron goes further to say that the results of that inconsistent application are themselves inconsistent with what we later found to be the truth. Yes, Veron is saying the original data was deficient, but he is very clear that the "application" of that data was itself inconsistent.
Last edited:
Leonard
10 & Over Club
I know for a fact NOAA does not want a flood of non-science, non-conservation based comments. This isn't really a matter of opinion. You just have to ask NMFS officials or read what comments they are explicitly soliciting.
The data may be wrong (and has been argued as flawed by Veron et al.), but that doesn't mean it's not science. Conclusions are only as good as the data its derived from, and I think everyone involved in this process (NMFS, CBD, Veron, hobbyists, etc.) would like to see more and better data. That's why I'm calling for our hobby to contribute to research. We claim to be a stakeholder in the process. Let's take on a stakeholder's responsibility then.
As for Veron's analysis, he's saying a lot of things. He's saying we lack sufficient data, that some of the data is outdated or incorrect (some of the cited data is his BTW), and that some of it is not applied consistently. I believe NMFS' counterargument to the last charge is that distribution data is not the only factor used to determine threat levels for a species.
The data may be wrong (and has been argued as flawed by Veron et al.), but that doesn't mean it's not science. Conclusions are only as good as the data its derived from, and I think everyone involved in this process (NMFS, CBD, Veron, hobbyists, etc.) would like to see more and better data. That's why I'm calling for our hobby to contribute to research. We claim to be a stakeholder in the process. Let's take on a stakeholder's responsibility then.
As for Veron's analysis, he's saying a lot of things. He's saying we lack sufficient data, that some of the data is outdated or incorrect (some of the cited data is his BTW), and that some of it is not applied consistently. I believe NMFS' counterargument to the last charge is that distribution data is not the only factor used to determine threat levels for a species.
Last edited:
Khemul
New member
Pointing out that the data is inconsistent or flawed doesn't really do much. They know that. It fits what they want though and it's usable. Unless something else comes along that is also usable and fits what they want, pointing out the flaws and inconsistencies isn't going to accomplish much. Basically they'll ignore it by saying that, even though it may be flawed, it is the data they have to work with.
^
Best available science.
Best available science.
JPMagyar
New member
Of course they don't WANT a flood of comments, but they are human and intelligent, and so they hopefully recognize a "Polar Bear" listing when they see it. In this case I doubt they will see the proverbial "Forest for the Trees" and so this will end up in court where the NOAA will have their "Head Handed to Them" once again. Who knows? Maybe someone will go to jail or be fired like the prior head of the NOAA.
CStrickland
New member
Jail is for criminal charges, who from NOAA do you think would be prosecuted?
This would be, at its most illogical extreme, a civil case if someone showed damages caused by the ESA and exhausted their remedy under the APA. Loggers have done it when timber areas were protected.
I think it's 5 USC sec 551 off the top of my head.
If you mean Dr. Sullivan, I'm not sure whether she could just be fired. she was confirmed by the senate, they might have to impeach her. Could always resign like Dr. Lubchenco did. But jail? Come on.
This would be, at its most illogical extreme, a civil case if someone showed damages caused by the ESA and exhausted their remedy under the APA. Loggers have done it when timber areas were protected.
I think it's 5 USC sec 551 off the top of my head.
If you mean Dr. Sullivan, I'm not sure whether she could just be fired. she was confirmed by the senate, they might have to impeach her. Could always resign like Dr. Lubchenco did. But jail? Come on.
mr.feebles
Member
There isn't ONE thing about this hobby, or the keeping of captive corals/inverts/fish, that isn't destructive to the natural habitat of the above. Not. One. Thing.
Given the extremely precarious state of reefs worldwide, and the pressure on them that mounts DAILY, ANY hobby or industry that removes item one from these environments is something that needs to be stopped immediately.
Just the act of keeping corals at home helps to kill corals in the wild. Compounding the damage by collection is something we can no longer 'afford' to do.
Any pretense that anyone involved in this hobby is doing anything 'conservation oriented' is ludicrous. The opposite is true.
Given the extremely precarious state of reefs worldwide, and the pressure on them that mounts DAILY, ANY hobby or industry that removes item one from these environments is something that needs to be stopped immediately.
Just the act of keeping corals at home helps to kill corals in the wild. Compounding the damage by collection is something we can no longer 'afford' to do.
Any pretense that anyone involved in this hobby is doing anything 'conservation oriented' is ludicrous. The opposite is true.
Really?
How about all the science and information that has been discovered about corals and reefs through this hobby. For example, effects of temperature, chemistry, light spectrum, etc. And we're still discovering new things. If we don't understand these animals how could we possibly help them in the wild. That is if they actually need helping.
How about the fact that because of the science and information we have learned through this hobby we are capable of restoring the reefs through aquaculture. There are programs around the world that are currently doing this. Without this hobby this likely would have never been a possibility or at least would have delayed it substantially as without the economic incentive, no one would have developed skimmers, power heads, nutrient reducing equipment/techniques, etc.
How about the fact that if the true cause of reef decline is climate change and ocean acidification (which I don't believe is the cause) or pollution (which I do believe is the cause) and not collection (as already admitted by the NOAA as not as great of a threat) were to wipe out a species, the existence of the species would still remain on this planet because of this hobby.
How about the fact that if you remove a portion of a colony in the wild, that remaining portion will continue to grow and now the collected portion will grow in captivity only to be repeatedly fragged and continue its distribution throughout the world. Let's not forget that reef building corals naturally die as the coral grows reducing the light to the areas below the new growth. We can easily correlate this to a shrub. We want our shrub to be a certain height, so we cut it. And it grows back over and over again. Same thing with corals. Now obviously this has to be done in a sustainable way. If you keep cutting the shrub down lower and lower, eventually it will die. Same goes for corals.
How about the fact that because of this hobby it brings exposure to the importance of our reefs. I'm confident when people leave my home after seeing my tank and having a lengthy discussion about corals and reefs, they leave with a better understanding of how important these animals are. Humans have a flaw, out of sight, out of mind. How many people have read or saw a report about deforestation or an animal that is endangered and just consider it another story in the news and move on about their life. This hobby exposes people to these animals. Humans have another flaw, they don't care about what they don't understand. I can sit with the children in my family and discuss how important marine life is and put a face on it. And when I talk about the effects of pollution in my living room I'm not surprised that they pick up trash on the beach or an island when I take them on my boat.
I think there are a lot of good things our hobby does. As Julian Sprung said at MACNA we have a public image problem. Your post is proof of it. We also, as Lenoard stated, need to come together to be more proactive in sustainability, conservation, etc. And finally, in my opinion, put pressure on governments to stop allowing pollution, ports, shipping lanes and agriculture right smack on the reef. There's a PDF report you can find on the net titled "Boom Goes the Reef". It was produced by Greenpeace an organization I don't always agree with, but this particular report highlights what is going on at the Great Barrier Reef with the current coal boom in Australia. A blind man can see with his cane that this isn't good for the Great Barrier Reef. It's sad the government, et al. wants to point fingers at pollution, agriculture, etc. yet at the exact same time they'll permit these types of activities from happening right smack on the reef. Talk about insane. Or better yet, money and politics.
Last edited:
Similar threads
