Not this again...

[Slocke]

Because most collection areas in the world are used by people with the foresight to preserve them for future use (and not overfish and use poison and the like for short term exploitation)? Or because there's such a positive historical record of market forces motivating environmental preservation generally?

Because when people make money by collecting nice things they are incentivized to make sure those nice things are still there.

A good case study is Hawaii where fish collectors where suddenly left without income after the ban. So what did they do? They started collecting for food instead but because the fish where worth far less they had to collect more and less sustainably.

I used to work in animal conservation. The groups that were successful were not the most moral. They were the ones who could best get rich tourists to fork out money. Look at trophy hunting conservation parks. Most people hate trophy hunting but they raise a ton of money for conservation and in the end a few old animals die vs the alternative which is often the complete destruction of a population. The best run trophy bunting parks even boost threatened population by targeting infertile but dominant specimens.

 

[KrisReef]

From the original linked article:

It is not an accident that the week this bill was reintroduced, Martin Sheen launched a PR campaign to promote an anti-aquarium film starring Snorkel Bob, and PETA published social media posts stating that fish don’t belong in homes, but “in nature, with their families.” The bill is part of a larger, coordinated push by activist organizations to end aquarium keeping, both by setting public perception against aquarists and by using the law to mandate their agenda and ideology.

This is going to get political, that is the what has started it.

 

[EliMelly]

Biota is definitely behind this to an extent. They are very prone to benefit from this.

 

[Slocke]

Biota is definitely behind this to an extent. They are very prone to benefit from this.

Any evidence? I think this will hurt aquaculture too

 

[Science/G]

I think there is a lot of merit to that sentiment. I would hope they take a similar course as the various hunting conservation organizations. I know in our state specifically that has been a massive help to huntable wildlife both in terms of population growth as well as habitat preservation.

I am not a population biologist, but I don't think that you can compare the population of deer or elk to corals, maybe to tangs or other primary consumers (herbivores) on a reef. I get your point though.

 

[Science/G]

Any evidence? I think this will hurt aquaculture too

Why? Aquaculture facilities at least in the State of Florida already have to be registered.

 

[Slocke]

Why? Aquaculture facilities at least in the State of Florida already have to be registered.

“Under the Saving NEMO Act, Aquaculture, even in the United States, will fare no better. The bill outlines regulations with standards so that even the most sophisticated aquaculture operations will have difficulty achieving the “qualified” facility designation required to continue operating. Fragging and home breeding will cease to exist as the cost of meeting the regulations will be exorbitant for commercial operations, let alone hobbyists.”

 

[skyrne_isk]

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." Mr. Spock

Also: Mao, Marx, Stalin, Lenin, Engels.

 

[Science/G]

The Idea that those with a financial stake in this issue will be the ones who will actually protect the resource is somewhat flawed, based on human nature. When discussing sustainability in a classroom, whether lower school, high school or in college, The Tragedy of the Commons is always brought up.

AI Summary

The tragedy of the commons illustrates how individuals acting in their own self-interest, when given unfettered access to a shared resource, can lead to its depletion and eventual destruction for everyone, highlighting the need for regulation or alternative resource management.



The Core Concept:
The "tragedy of the commons" is a scenario where individuals, using a shared resource, deplete it because they prioritize their immediate gains without considering the long-term consequences for the community.
Garrett Hardin's Contribution:
The concept was popularized by Garrett Hardin in his 1968 essay, "The Tragedy of the Commons," which used the example of a common pasture where shepherds, each trying to maximize their own herd size, over graze the land, ultimately ruining it for everyone.

 

[Science/G]

“Under the Saving NEMO Act, Aquaculture, even in the United States, will fare no better. The bill outlines regulations with standards so that even the most sophisticated aquaculture operations will have difficulty achieving the “qualified” facility designation required to continue operating. Fragging and home breeding will cease to exist as the cost of meeting the regulations will be exorbitant for commercial operations, let alone hobbyists.”

That is from the article written by a "guest writer" not in the bill. I linked the bill in this thread, it's an easy read.

 

[mjszos]

Am I missing something in this article, or does it not actually outline anything that would come of this? I vaguely recall the Hawaii ban, but given that I try and only source aquacultured coral and captive-bred species (when possible), I didn't have much of an opinion.

So basically, can someone explain what we're worrying about I'm a 5 year old?

 

[Science/G]

An Aquaculture Certificate in the State of Florida costs $100 a year to maintain.

 

[Science/G]

Am I missing something in this article, or does it not actually outline anything that would come of this? I vaguely recall the Hawaii ban, but given that I try and only source aquacultured coral and captive-bred species (when possible), I didn't have much of an opinion.

So basically, can someone explain what we're worrying about I'm a 5 year old?

Probably nothing. Lobbyists for big business will make sure it doesn't happen.

 

[Science/G]

Also: Mao, Marx, Stalin, Lenin, Engels.

I am a bit of a Marxist–Leninist–Maoist

 

[BeanAnimal]

Does that mean they have the right to approve or disapprove merchants? How does that work? Sorry, just trying to understand.

It means anything that "they" want it to mean -- by decree of the named "secretary". It is left open and ambiguous so that it can be leveraged as they see fit if they can get it passed.

 

[Science/G]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/2176/text/ih#H352F3453DD9E4E33ACACF9FC3AD6C182

 

[Science/G]

I hope all of you realize that we are in a hobby that involves the trade of species that are in trouble in the wild, right?!!?

"Out of the 892 warm-water reef-building coral species reassessed, at least 340 are considered threatened, with 56 species categorized as "vulnerable", 251 as "endangered", and 33 as "critically endangered".

 

[BeanAnimal]

Something else I have no problem with..........."Most of the states, licenses or permits are generally required for owning certain exotic animals, especially those considered Class I, II, or III wildlife, or venomous reptiles, to ensure public safety and animal welfare."

The "problem" between sentiment and implementation (spirit and intent) is that more often than not - said licenses are a means to both generate revenue and keep competition out of a market or discourage participation in an activity.

Want to be the biggest paving company in town? Lobby local government to enact a paving law requiring expensive qualifications that only your company has the means to easily acquire or can afford to pay for -- lobby in the name of safety and environmental impact.

Want to set a certain market sector up for domination by a big player? Create a license structure that prevents the little guy from entering.

Want to keep people from buying certain items, create an expensive and invasive license structure around them.

One must weight or recognize that bad (abuse) that comes with the need or the good. Regulation is a tool of both.

 

[Science/G]

The "problem" between sentiment and implementation (spirit and intent) is that more often than not - said licenses are a means to both generate revenue and keep competition out of a market or discourage participation in an activity.

Want to be the biggest paving company in town? Lobby local government to enact a paving law requiring expensive qualifications that only your company has the means to easily acquire or can afford to pay for -- lobby in the name of safety and environmental impact.

Want to set a certain market sector up for domination by a big player? Create a license structure that prevents the little guy from entering.

Want to keep people from buying certain items, create an expensive and invasive license structure around them.

One must weight or recognize that bad (abuse) that comes with the need or the good. Regulation is a tool of both.

The expression," the cost of doing business" come to mind here

 

[BeanAnimal]

I hope all of you realize that we are in a hobby that involves the trade of species that are in trouble in the wild, right?!!?

"Out of the 892 warm-water reef-building coral species reassessed, at least 340 are considered threatened, with 56 species categorized as "vulnerable", 251 as "endangered", and 33 as "critically endangered".

Let’s be honest: our hobby does little, if anything, to safeguard reefs. The idea that reefkeeping is some kind of conservation effort is mostly self-excusatory and feel-good BS. Sure, maybe it spreads a bit of awareness. But that’s about it.

At the same time, the negative impact of our hobby is probably just as irrelevant in the big picture. What this bill and others are about is control and lobby and business interest appeasement.

The real reef damage comes from commercial fishing—long-lining, drag nets, and other destructive practices. And many of the people involved don’t even pretend to care about sustainable practices. Fix that, and you’d actually see change.