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

[mrhasan]

Originally Posted by naesco

Than God for the environmentalists in Hawaii Indonesia and the Philippines and other countries that provide fish coral and inverts for our hobby

Theses are the gals/guys who:

1. Lobby their governments against the use of cyanide and dynamite that destroys the reefs and the critters that live therein.
2. Lobby to set up marine parks to preserve breeding areas for the critters we keep. Only a dumber than dumb reefer would suggest that national parks in Canada are bad.
3. Pressure the marine industry to stop the import of impossible to keep species and very difficult to keep fish like cleaner wrasse that provide a vital cleaning job on he fish in the oceans.
4. Are the leaders in Cites and worldwide endangers precise listings.
5 pressure the government to prohibit the wholesale mining of the reef for live rock
6. Demonstrate against mining, manufacturing and oil industries to pressure them to lower water pollution so that the reefs do not die from pollution and silt infiltration

And the list goes on.

Imagine what would happen in these countries without their good work

Those are obviously good works. And they are termed as "regulation" while this guy, in his campaign, is not promoting "regulation" but instead making a path for black market by saying "legal trade is immoral". Our human nature is such that the forbidden fruit is always the tastiest and put a ban on the marine hobby and the industry will find a way that is not regulated or anything - which can be the worst nightmare for the hobbyist as well as the nature. There's a huge difference between people who create/works with regulations and policy and treehugger who write "save trees" on pieces of papers.

[naesco]

Originally Posted by mrhasan

Those are obviously good works. And they are termed as "regulation" while this guy, in his campaign, is not promoting "regulation" but instead making a path for black market by saying "legal trade is immoral". Our human nature is such that the forbidden fruit is always the tastiest and put a ban on the marine hobby and the industry will find a way that is not regulated or anything - which can be the worst nightmare for the hobbyist as well as the nature. There's a huge difference between people who create/works with regulations and policy and treehugger who write "save trees" on pieces of papers.

Fair comment but these regulations came as a result of Greenpeace and the sponge bobs of the world forcing governments and industry to reform and change their ways

But for the environmental lobby no regulations would have happened. For example we are going to get tighter regulations on pipelines in BC which is in everyone's interest.

[Dearth]

Originally Posted by mrhasan

Those are obviously good works. And they are termed as "regulation" while this guy, in his campaign, is not promoting "regulation" but instead making a path for black market by saying "legal trade is immoral". Our human nature is such that the forbidden fruit is always the tastiest and put a ban on the marine hobby and the industry will find a way that is not regulated or anything - which can be the worst nightmare for the hobbyist as well as the nature. There's a huge difference between people who create/works with regulations and policy and treehugger who write "save trees" on pieces of papers.

Couldn't of said it any better myself Raied

I work in the pulp and paper industry and it drives me batty when the so called environmentalists say it takes 3 trees to make one piece of paper what those idiots don't tell you is no pulp mill in the world uses trees we use byproducts from the sawmills namely chips or get chips from a chipper plant very little if anything goes to waste. They use a play on words to make it sound worse than it really is.

[mrhasan]

Originally Posted by naesco

Fair comment but these regulations came as a result of Greenpeace and the sponge bobs of the world forcing governments and industry to reform and change their ways

But for the environmental lobby no regulations would have happened. For example we are going to get tighter regulations on pipelines in BC which is in everyone's interest.

Definitely. There are obviously environmentalists who find "ways" to "solve" the problem instead of attacking it. Every profession has two sides but its just, some big names in this profession are more eager to just whip out everything which can never be a solution. For example, cyanide poisoning definitely underwent scientific researches to justify and then the concerned activist took it to promote regulation of not using cyanide. That's a solution. But what would have happened if they just said "stop catching fish all together"; that would have caused major issues. Over here, instead of stating moral issues (which can never solve problem) he could have brought in scientific research instead of "they can go anywhere"; its just not right. I have seen "proper" environmentalists attack these type of hypocrites; that tells the conclusion how things work :P

[naesco]

Originally Posted by mrhasan

Definitely. There are obviously environmentalists who find "ways" to "solve" the problem instead of attacking it. Every profession has two sides but its just, some big names in this profession are more eager to just whip out everything which can never be a solution. For example, cyanide poisoning definitely underwent scientific researches to justify and then the concerned activist took it to promote regulation of not using cyanide. That's a solution. But what would have happened if they just said "stop catching fish all together"; that would have caused major issues. Over here, instead of stating moral issues (which can never solve problem) he could have brought in scientific research instead of "they can go anywhere"; its just not right. I have seen "proper" environmentalists attack these type of hypocrites; that tells the conclusion how things work :P

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

[naesco]

Originally Posted by Dearth

Couldn't of said it any better myself Raied

I work in the pulp and paper industry and it drives me batty when the so called environmentalists say it takes 3 trees to make one piece of paper what those idiots don't tell you is no pulp mill in the world uses trees we use byproducts from the sawmills namely chips or get chips from a chipper plant very little if anything goes to waste. They use a play on words to make it sound worse than it really is.

And why do you NOW use chips and why do you NOW recycle white and black liquor, use less bleach and no longer see the poisonous green chlorine plume from the stacks that was released at night that polluted your neighbourhood. Maybe that happened before your time, eh?

[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 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

[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