Reefs.org Forums

[Carpentersreef]

I'm not talking about a research institute. I'm thinking about a large manufacturer that has something to gain by developing products to keep corals alive and thriving.
For example, Aquamedic, I think, has a plancton reactor that may help with gonipora survival. (it may not, either) But i don't want to be the one to go through a number of goni's trying to find out.

Mitch

[Rover]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote

But i don't want to be the one to go through a number of goni's trying to find out.

I think in cases like this we need to look at the situation from a natural resources position. If goni's are endangered of being overcollected maybe we should just leave them be. If there are plenty in the sea and more coming every year (i.e. the collection is easily sustainable) I don't think it would hurt to continue to collect in order to open a few doors. They would turn into trees for sake of argument, as opposed to a beloved pet.

Glenn

[naesco]

There are reefers like Terry from Aquarium Frontiers who is 'experimenting with dendro'.
Unfortuneately dendro are available to all hobbyists and are prettier than the brownish frags and are sold without warning.
I agree that it will be reefers like Terry who will find the answers and not labs. I consider Terry and other experienced reefers who do these sorts of things to be under the definition of researchers.

[MarkS]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Carpentersreef:
<strong>I'm not talking about a research institute. I'm thinking about a large manufacturer that has something to gain by developing products to keep corals alive and thriving.
For example, Aquamedic, I think, has a plancton reactor that may help with gonipora survival. (it may not, either) But i don't want to be the one to go through a number of goni's trying to find out.

Mitch</strong><hr></blockquote>

The problem with that idea is that we are currently fighting a growing number of cure-alls and products that we just cannot live without. Why would we want to help this increase?

I would rather do it myself than rely on a company to tell me their product is all that will work.

I have very little trust is the current aquarium product companies that are out there.

[ December 15, 2001: Message edited by: MarkS ]</p>

[Carpentersreef]

O.k., I can agree with that. (naesco's post)

Maybe we should start licensing aquarists so that they need a certain level of certification in order to purchase certain corals [img]images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Mitch

[ December 15, 2001: Message edited by: Carpentersreef ]</p>

[Chucker]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Carpentersreef:
<strong>Maybe we should start licensing aquarists so that they need a certain level of certification in order to purchase certain corals.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually, I know quite a few people who would support just such a thing, and not just on the retailer level- at the hobbyist level,too. SCUBA is self-regulating in that regard, but for another reason altogether- the safety issue.

Usually the reason I see it come up is when a hobbyist is looking for info on critters or problem X. They are given an answer which they may not like, even though it is in their critter's best interests. They then continue to solicit info until they receive the answer they want to hear, even though it is wrong. Having gotten the answer that reinforces their own idea(s), they happily wander off again, to their critters' detriment. This is the sort of ignorance that disturbs me, especially since most of the people I have seen do this are repeat offenders. Experiences with folks like this make me wistfully dream of a qualification process.

In all honesty though, I never see a test of any sort being put into place unless all outside (i.e. non-captive raised) imports were banned except to those who had such a license.

[ December 16, 2001: Message edited by: Chucker ]</p>

[Carpentersreef]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MarkS:
<strong>

The problem with that idea is that we are currently fighting a growing number of cure-alls and products that we just cannot live without. Why would we want to help this increase?


[ December 15, 2001: Message edited by: MarkS ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

I agree, and I think that actually supports my position on banning certain species.
I think that the reason that there are so many cure-alls on the market is because many aquarists don't understand the needs of hard or impossible to keep animals, as the knowledge isn't available yet. In an effort to keep their animals alive, they will believe any claim thrown their way and as a result if the animal DOES survive, wrongly gives credit to a product that may or may not have had anything to do with it.

Mitch

[SPC]

Motivated hobbiest my friends are few and far between, in the mean time the majority of the hobbiest continue to kill hard to keep species that they purchase at their LFS. The general public has no problem with the correlation between reef destruction and the reef hobby. IMO we that are motivated hobbiest need to show the general public that we do care about marine life. By banning the import of certain species, we can prove that we indeed care about these animals and are willing to make sacrifices for the health of our oceans.

[MaryHM]

As far as the unsuitable species list that we're working on goes, Rover hit the nail on the head with this one:

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote

A line must be drawn somewhere. Technology eventually caught up with the desire to keep SPS and success was the result. The biology of the animal was not changed, our ability to meets its needs did. In the case of many of the species we are discussing, we know exactly how to keep it alive, it just simply isn't practical to do so.

I myself have used the SPS argument with MAC to help them understand why they needed to narrow down the criteria to the 3 catagories I suggested: Deadly, Too Big, Obligate Feeders. There will be nothing on the Unsuitable Species list that does not fall into one of those catagories.

[naesco]

Mary.
So if their own livlihood is at stake, why is it such a difficult pill for MAC to swallow.
If there was nothing to worry about I could understand their position.
I would like to get in the industry but the main roadblock is the real possibility that government will effectively close it down in a few years.