Data: Wrong; Sustainability: Don't care; Robert Wintner: Aquarium trade should stop!

[Ian]

I am always amazed by so many of the "environmentalists" that get a tonne of publicity even though they are blatantly promoting some self serving agenda and using flawed science at best to further said cause.

Honestly any environmentalist that wants to really make a difference should be talking about population control. Any and all issues that this planet have are made worse by our massive population explosion. Its simple folks too many humans on the planet for the planet to manage. Either we change how we all live or we reduce our population dramatically or the planet will do it for us!

[naesco]

Originally Posted by Ian

I am always amazed by so many of the "environmentalists" that get a tonne of publicity even though they are blatantly promoting some self serving agenda and using flawed science at best to further said cause.

Honestly any environmentalist that wants to really make a difference should be talking about population control. Any and all issues that this planet have are made worse by our massive population explosion. Its simple folks too many humans on the planet for the planet to manage. Either we change how we all live or we reduce our population dramatically or the planet will do it for us!

Overpopulation is an issue but I can't help with that problem.

But I can promote the self serving agenda of ensuring a sustainable flow of healthy fish coral and inverts for you me and future reefers.

That is why I am posting my comments in this thread. Don't bite the hand that feeds ya!

[mrhasan]

Originally Posted by naesco

But I can promote the self serving agenda of ensuring a sustainable flow of healthy fish coral and inverts for you me and future reefers.

Now "that" would be a solution Shutting down the industry is not. It is clearly mentioned in the article that he is not concerned about "sustainability" - that's a pure BS! The world is not about stopping how it moves, you can never stop nor delay a possibility of ice age; its just how the aging of the earth works. You can just ensure you are not changing the course of nature since that can be devastating. One example: mutation

[mrhasan]

Originally Posted by naesco

But the threat of no you can't do it forces a dialogue and reasonable negations and a solution

So the role 'what some may call the extreme' plays forces governments and industry to rethink when they see reasonable people also questioning

"No you can't do it" has to follow scientific backings instead of "personal grudges". For example, nuclear power is clearly one of the source which can easily provide world's energy demand without emission. The cost? Its the risk associated with possible explosion. Environmentalists started going against nuclear power without thinking that it has a much lower risk factor that coal mining. Instead, if they grabbed scientific researches and tried to convince the world to increment the security measures, further lower risk factors, limit the enrichment to fission grade instead of weapon grade and find cures for radiation, nuclear might not have been a "threat" and could easily replace coal plants which are, infact, more devastating. People are getting more and more aware and instead of "we have to", they are now asking "why we have to and the alternatives". Interdisciplinary researches are playing a big role now a days in green movement and not relying on personal weapons.

Lets take Wintner's case. If he promoted "captive fishes and corals" instead of trying to shut down the whole industry, it can be beneficial in every ways. And why did he attack instead of defending the scene? Because he lacks the basis on which he can strongly stand other than personal opinions. On the other hand, a marine biologist, who is also a concerned environmentalist, would be able to tackle this situation in a much sound way with "alternatives".

Originally Posted by Ian

I am always amazed by so many of the "environmentalists" that get a tonne of publicity even though they are blatantly promoting some self serving agenda and using flawed science at best to further said cause.

Honestly any environmentalist that wants to really make a difference should be talking about population control. Any and all issues that this planet have are made worse by our massive population explosion. Its simple folks too many humans on the planet for the planet to manage. Either we change how we all live or we reduce our population dramatically or the planet will do it for us!

Haha; don't start about population :P Population will reach 10 billion one way or the other till it stabilizes :P

[naesco]

I didn't expect that you would know much about snorkel bob.
He was and is the lightning rod against the marine ornamental industry, our hobby.
He saw the fish and Coral disappear because he was in the dive/snorkel tourist business .
Our industry ignored him and continued to rape the reefs notwithstanding his offer to share the resources.
Only when he took an extreme view and got regulators involved did industry start cleaning up their act and offering solutions.
Everyone was involved in the new regulations to the betterment of the Hawaiian reefs.

[mrhasan]

Originally Posted by naesco

I didn't expect that you would know much about snorkel bob.
He was and is the lightning rod against the marine ornamental industry, our hobby.
He saw the fish and Coral disappear because he was in the dive/snorkel tourist business .
Our industry ignored him and continued to rape the reefs notwithstanding his offer to share the resources.
Only when he took an extreme view and got regulators involved did industry start cleaning up their act and offering solutions.
Everyone was involved in the new regulations to the betterment of the Hawaiian reefs.

Is it only because of the marine industry? What about snorkeling/diving? What about CO2 sequestration? What about the ozone? Yes I don't know the history behind him but is taking things to the "extreme" always the answer? Yes marine industry did have some noticeable impact on the reef but to what extend? It seems like pet/hobby industries are always easy to blame and hence this sort of issues are always on the book.

[Reef Pilot]

I have always considered myself an environmentalist, because I love nature, whether it is hiking in the back country, or snorkeling in a tropical reef. But I don't like the extremists who want to not just regulate or protect, but stop all development, and seem to be more politically motivated, than true science based.

I once met and had the opportunity to talk to Al Gore, many years ago, when he was doing his dinner speech tours. I was quite surprised and very disappointed at his lack of knowledge of the underlying science associated with many of his popular global warning examples that he would use, especially when it came to Canada. He was great at picking up a headline and using it in a speech, without checking any facts. But when questioned (and caught), he would not engage, and like any politician, would just try to change the subject.

Don't know much about Snorkel Bob (just see his business tours everywhere), but given his business interests and like Al Gore, I suspect that it is not just the environment that he is trying to promote and protect.

Having said all that, I fully support science based based regulations and research that reduce pollution and make our planet a better place to live. I have seen the bad old days with commercial and native overfishing (some of that still happening unfortunately), loggers destroying fish streams, and miners polluting watersheds with their tailings waste. We have come a long ways from that though, and great to see the effort and progress now also with the oil companies to reduce their impact and protect the environment. And I do agree that public opinion has driven governments to implement and enforce the regulations necessary to make this happen.

But we can't go back to the cave man days, as that is what the extremists are really saying, by trying to stop everything. I do believe in sustainable development and we have to continue the research and development to keep moving forward. I believe the world is a better place (not just North America) and people everywhere have a right to try and improve their quality of life. Ironically, the extremists may actually be adding to pollution in the world, by advocating against development and resource extraction in places that are trying to reduce the impact. And indirectly then, they are supporting extraction in areas of the world that do not have the same standards and goals.

As for the reefs, I believe that we need to advance the science to protect them. But again, don't think out and out bans are the answer. The oceans and reefs are vast, and our hobby really should not have any impact. Regulation, though, is definitely necessary to prevent destruction and pillaging of such a sensitive resource. Maybe reef farms are the answer.

[mrhasan]

Originally Posted by Reef Pilot

I have always considered myself an environmentalist, because I love nature, whether it is hiking in the back country, or snorkeling in a tropical reef. But I don't like the extremists who want to not just regulate or protect, but stop all development, and seem to be more politically motivated, than true science based.

I once met and had the opportunity to talk to Al Gore, many years ago, when he was doing his dinner speech tours. I was quite surprised and very disappointed at his lack of knowledge of the underlying science associated with many of his popular global warning examples that he would use, especially when it came to Canada. He was great at picking up a headline and using it in a speech, without checking any facts. But when questioned (and caught), he would not engage, and like any politician, would just try to change the subject.

Don't know much about Snorkel Bob (just see his business tours everywhere), but given his business interests and like Al Gore, I suspect that it is not just the environment that he is trying to promote and protect.

Having said all that, I fully support science based based regulations and research that reduce pollution and make our planet a better place to live. I have seen the bad old days with commercial and native overfishing (some of that still happening unfortunately), loggers destroying fish streams, and miners polluting watersheds with their tailings waste. We have come a long ways from that though, and great to see the effort and progress now also with the oil companies to reduce their impact and protect the environment. And I do agree that public opinion has driven governments to implement and enforce the regulations necessary to make this happen.

But we can't go back to the cave man days, as that is what the extremists are really saying, by trying to stop everything. I do believe in sustainable development and we have to continue the research and development to keep moving forward. I believe the world is a better place (not just North America) and people everywhere have a right to try and improve their quality of life. Ironically, the extremists may actually be adding to pollution in the world, by advocating against development and resource extraction in places that are trying to reduce the impact. And indirectly then, they are supporting extraction in areas of the world that do not have the same standards and goals.

As for the reefs, I believe that we need to advance the science to protect them. But again, don't think out and out bans are the answer. The oceans and reefs are vast, and our hobby really should not have any impact. Regulation, though, is definitely necessary to prevent destruction and pillaging of such a sensitive resource. Maybe reef farms are the answer.

Right to the point sir Nothing should be presented without scientific research/proof. Keeping this planet livable is our duty and it should not be placed on the hands of extremism.

[Psyire]

As with any profession, there are people who are good at it and people who stink. Nothing new here, just media sensationalism at it's worst... again..

[Reef Pilot]

Originally Posted by Reef Pilot

I have always considered myself an environmentalist, because I love nature, whether it is hiking in the back country, or snorkeling in a tropical reef. But I don't like the extremists who want to not just regulate or protect, but stop all development, and seem to be more politically motivated, than true science based.

I once met and had the opportunity to talk to Al Gore, many years ago, when he was doing his dinner speech tours. I was quite surprised and very disappointed at his lack of knowledge of the underlying science associated with many of his popular global warning examples that he would use, especially when it came to Canada. He was great at picking up a headline and using it in a speech, without checking any facts. But when questioned (and caught), he would not engage, and like any politician, would just try to change the subject.

Don't know much about Snorkel Bob (just see his business tours everywhere), but given his business interests and like Al Gore, I suspect that it is not just the environment that he is trying to promote and protect.

Having said all that, I fully support science based based regulations and research that reduce pollution and make our planet a better place to live. I have seen the bad old days with commercial and native overfishing (some of that still happening unfortunately), loggers destroying fish streams, and miners polluting watersheds with their tailings waste. We have come a long ways from that though, and great to see the effort and progress now also with the oil companies to reduce their impact and protect the environment. And I do agree that public opinion has driven governments to implement and enforce the regulations necessary to make this happen.

But we can't go back to the cave man days, as that is what the extremists are really saying, by trying to stop everything. I do believe in sustainable development and we have to continue the research and development to keep moving forward. I believe the world is a better place (not just North America) and people everywhere have a right to try and improve their quality of life. Ironically, the extremists may actually be adding to pollution in the world, by advocating against development and resource extraction in places that are trying to reduce the impact. And indirectly then, they are supporting extraction in areas of the world that do not have the same standards and goals.

As for the reefs, I believe that we need to advance the science to protect them. But again, don't think out and out bans are the answer. The oceans and reefs are vast, and our hobby really should not have any impact. Regulation, though, is definitely necessary to prevent destruction and pillaging of such a sensitive resource. Maybe reef farms are the answer.

Just one further point, if I may....

I also believe we need to separate the moral and ethical issue of keeping fish from the reef sustainability argument. That's what seems to be driving the extremists like Snorkel Bob (and maybe Naesco), with their extreme positions on bans.

Having said that, I believe it is indeed a legitimate consideration when deciding to keep fish, especially certain species, and without the proper knowledge and methods to care for them. I have to admit that sometimes when I look at my tanks, I do think about the fish being better off back in their native reefs. But at the least, it does motivate me to provide the best possible environment I can for them.

However, I don't think it is right to use (and misuse) the sustainability argument just to promote your own ethical and moral beliefs. If that is what you believe, then make that clear. That should be enough to advocate and promote your position.