Inklinkerman
Member
How did a thread about fish collection get onto the subject of World War II?:hmm4:
We can discuss at length about responsible collecting but it seems to me that the collectors in Hawaii only rotate their collecting sites in response to diminished returns. There is nothing responsible about this. They are a business and collect as many fish and inverts as they possibly can during every collecting trip.
The claims of self-regulation by the collectors is all lip-service. As long as they are making a good living they care little for the fish stocks.
Let's just talk Hawaii then. It's estimated that there are less than 100 divers responsible for all of the commercial aquarium collection on the islands. Compare that to several thousand commercial and recreational fishing boats around the islands. I'm not sure how much more the Hawaiian food fish "slaughter" will be impacted if these folks become involved with it upon leaving collecting.
Sadly, the stereotype of greedy fishermen pillaging the ocean is something that demagogues like Bob are quick to exploit.
It's probably a mix, but the fact is a most wild captured fish don't make it to resellers alive. I know a lot of dealers and they'll admit this if you ask them.
The guy from Norway makes a good point; we eat cows and don't treat them very good in slaughterhouses. It's all about proper management, which is the point.
They need to change their suppliers, drop the bad (cheap) ones they are currently using and switch to good suppliers that will get 95 to 100% of the livestock to the reseller alive and in good shape. And yes, good suppliers to indeed exist. The only reason bad ones exist is short sighted retailers and consumers that are more interested in the cheapest price, not the healthiest livestock.
BTW, as an official reminder, keep the politics and flames out of the discussion![]()
All formal studies done in Hawaii show large decreases in ornamental fish biomass in collection areas and all come to the same conclusion: we have no idea what the impact is to the ecosystem due to these decreases.
Choosing to selectively focus on lesser, sustainable impacts whilst ignoring the obvious and undeniable heavy ones is token, dishonest, cowardly and academically corrupt. This "routinely reading it wrong" also doesn't do much to help the ocean very much at all.
Steve
I work with a village in Mexico that offers a perfect illustration of the difference between food fishing and tropical fishing.
The food fishers [ about 40 of them] average 40 kilos a day each or about 200 kilos a week of slow growing, adult snappers, basses, tunas and parrotfish.
The tropical fishers [ about 4 of them] average a kilo a day each or about 5 kilos a week of fast recruiting young omnivores and herbivores.
Any independant biologist can already read and forecast this to its scientific conclusion and see what the difference in impacts is.
The tropical fish guys are monitored, studied, regulated, restricted, checked and under the microscope with every transaction .
The food fish guys suffer a tenth of the attention.
I asked a gov't. biologist why this is and was told;
"Everyones been doing the food fish stuff for years. People want new subjects and variety for...especially where there are not to many researching the same thing."
To justify spending time on little jawfish instead of groupers one must amplify its importance. Justifying careers and salaries is a huge force behind the over-concentration on smaller subjects and smaller impacts.
Choosing to selectively focus on lesser, sustainable impacts whilst ignoring the obvious and undeniable heavy ones is token, dishonest, cowardly and academically corrupt. This "routinely reading it wrong" also doesn't do much to help the ocean very much at all.
Steve
I think the only way to make money off of taxes is to tax. Regulation does not equal taxes.Anything the Gov't gets involved in will just be regulated for TAX purposes, The best thing is leave them out of any regulation. If you think this guy is clueless then wait until some gung hoe Congressmen gets his nose in our hobby. JMO
Bill
That's a pretty bold blanket statement. Pop and trendy is fine with me, that means it's at the forefront where it should be. Shallow though? Maybe the individual person is shallow if they think CF bulbs are going to save the world, but environmentalism isn't shallow.I think its really sad to see the environmental movement become so pop, trendy and shallow.