What's the point here? That is like comparing an apple to a potato.
I wasn't trying to compare, I had mentioned them earlier, since they share my view that the trade with wild animals and plants is part, or at least could be part, of the solution to many environmental problems.
Got any documented sources for that idea? If Europe is getting any fish from Indonesia and the Phillipines, it's pretty much a guarantee that some have been indeed caught with cyanide.
Let's see, cyanide collecting for the ornamental trade damages reef habitat.
Once again, can actually document this? Yes, there have been efforts to reduce it, but it is still commmon.
Well when i started out in the hobby there where tons of talk about people buying fish that had later turned out to be cyanide poisoned. There were always at least one thread going in the Swedish forum where I hangout about someone being angry about having bought a fish that showed sympthoms and had later died, or how to spot a cyanide poisoned fish in the LFS etc.
But now there is max one thread a year which dies away quickly. So something must have changed for the better.
Where/when cyanide fishing is still conducted, I completely agree that it's awful. But I don't really know what i could do to help the issue other than buy my livestock from reputable LFS:s.
Bangai's in their original range have seen overfishing, while at the same time seen introduction to areas outside of their original range.
I am well aware of this. As i mentioned earlier there are a few cases where collection for the ornamental trade could make an species go extinct/ or nearly extinct. And in those cases one needs to act accordingly.
But as a whole i think the trade with wild animals and plants is part of the solution to many environmental problems.
Localized damage isn't an issue?
Of course i certainly hope i didn't come of as if i didn't think so.
BTW, collecting ornamentals is very much a fishing industry. While it might not be on the same scale as large fishing trawlers and offshore factory ships, it's still a commercial fishery.
Sorry, maybe i expressed my self in the wrong way. But you seem to have understood what i meant.
it seems to me that most of what your saying are totally unfounded opinions.
I base my opinions on discussions people with people in Sweden mostly, some who are in the industry, some who have been in the industry, and some who has just been in the hobby for a long time. And what i see my self ofc.
1st off (and the most entertaining, for me) is your comparison of the wwf w/cites. do you know what each is, or at least what 'cites' stands for ?
I as i said earlier, i didn't compare them.
if you don't have a cdt (cyanide detection test), how can you make any claim about cyanide based on what you see upon arrival to your country? you can't. it's well known that the countries that supply the m.o. market in europe, the u.s., and anywhere else use cyanide still, to a large part. it's still VERY common. in some areas, it's actually INCREASED.
All the importers I've talked to says its better for them now that they found suppliers they trust (but Sweden is small so there's not that many importers)
If cyanide fishing is still very common, then that is terrible! Is there any good place where i could find statistics or something? Link may bee? If I made a faulty assumption then ofc I will change my mind :uhoh2:
"The main positive effect on the ecosystem, is not an effort from collectors to help the reefs. It's that they work with collecting for the ornamental market, which has to be done on a relatively small scale."
wut? where's the effect you seem to want to mention ? are you aware that the m.o. collection has all but eliminated various species of corals from certain areas. many corals and fish are arriving in smaller and smaller sizes, because THE BIG ONES ARE ALREADY TAKEN. your 'small scale' may not be as small, or non impacting, as you think.
The effect is that it probably would have been worse if the collectors had had other occupations, of course I can't prove this, just as little as you can prove me wrong. Sometimes we just think differently nothing anyone can do, I hope we can still discuss things
Sure there are many examples of where the collection of a species has made that species decline in that area, that does not automatically mean the species is in danger. It might mean that in a few instances, and then we should act accordingly. But all in all i think the trade with animals and plants have the potential to help allot of environmental problems.
i won't even deal w/ your self proffessed ability to foresee the future re: #4, and your assertion that livestock collection is a sole, or best, alternative doesn't hold for everyone or everywhere. not by a long shot.
Of course not always and everywhere, but in allot of places.
how much personal experience do you have directly w/ any of the orgs, assumptions/assertions you've listed/made here ? have you worked in the industry ? which part, and for how long ? i get the impression you haven't, and don't.
You got it right, but if you have/ do I would love if you could give me a tip on some literature so i can go study, I'm always interested in learning new stuff :reading:
and i won't waste MY time doing YOUR work for you, let alone help teach someone arrogant enough to use unfounded opinion, stated as 'known facts', as you have done-coming out into a thread and making claims about an industry you basically know NOTHING about, past or present, is NOT the way to go about educating ones self, or approaching others for that info 
:sad2: :love2: Nether was i trying to state anything as fact, but just general observations, principles. Again I'm sorry if it came out that way, nuances are the trickiest part of language :sad2:
