PDA

View Full Version : who has a problem with wild collecting?


ctenophors rule
04/15/2009, 11:57 AM
as it says above, i would like to know why somepeople are against small scale wild collecting, for yourself, and maybe a few others, but ultimately not for profit.

what cons are their?

by wildcollecting you are saving all the fish that die in the shipping processes.

by wild collecting you could possibly help reduce the population of non native invasive species. or create a native fish tank that will beter educate those who visit your humble abode.

you will beter understand your environment.

i dont see any cons.

care to share?

Beaun
04/15/2009, 12:40 PM
The only issue that could possibly arrise is a case of "The Tragedy of the Commons". If everyone says "I'm just taking a few" then it really starts to add up, which is why we have catch limits for fishing.

I collect locally in the Northeast US and have no problem with the practive of collecting just for personal use. As long as you are not breaking laws for game fish (size limits) then it should be fine. I agree that creating a native species tank is both educational and enlightining. Not many people realize what is out in local waters or cant appreciate them in the wild settings.

ctenophors rule
04/15/2009, 01:35 PM
i like that "tragedy of commons" i will have to remember that for debates!

but following those rules, or even slightly exceeding them, we would still have less fish loss than what we have now.

so why is their so much negativity towards it.

on another post someone said that wild collecting is bad for the reef keepers image?

i've heard people get into masive arguements over wild collecting on other forums as well.

why is their any problem, what are the aposing arguments.


i personaly have been yelled at while collecting animals that are completely legal, i have a liscence and everything.

(best part, i was collecting for a science project studying the affects of ocean acidification on snails( nassarious, cerith, etc)

username in use
04/15/2009, 08:32 PM
I am all for wild collecting as long as its done responsibly and within the law. Id hate to see endangered species taken out of the breeding pool, but I dont see anything wrong with it in practice. Besides, any one of us would probably be a lot more responsible in our collection methods than the people that collect the fish that we all buy at stores.

KarlBob
04/20/2009, 03:23 PM
In the discussions I've seen, the distinction is not so much "personally wild-caught" vs. "tank raised", but more like "wild-spawned" vs. "tank raised". The idea is that each "wild spawned" fish collected robs an ecosystem of an inhabitant. "Tank raised" broodstock comes from the wild, but each generation after that includes hundreds of fry that would have died in the wild before reaching display size.

I haven't seen many discussions pitting "professionally caught by divers thousands of miles away" vs. "personally caught at the beach near my house". I agree that catching your own fish is likely to result in fewer shipping deaths, but it is subject to local and national laws.

iamwrasseman
04/20/2009, 03:49 PM
i will probably get some flack for this but i am for it in many ways . we are living on a planet that is as closed as a fish tank ,and we are polluting it at an astonishing rate ,we are and will ruin this place! we are the smartest "animal"living and we are so smart that we cant see beyond our noses . yes im sorry to say , take everything ,take it all . we are committed to a death sentence in this world and within a small time this planet will burn ,freeze,and then burn again so what does it matter what we do . humans may posess the knowledge to save tha planet but are to money oriented to see past the next few decades and i am sorry to inform you that we will distruct this place one way or another .man made disease's, pollution,religeous differences ,and a myriad of other insane problem exist and we will never do anything to rid this world of hate and distruction because it just happens to be that way . i really am sorry to say but take it all while its there to be taken !...............some may hate my response but thats the general direction that we are headed in and i really , really dont see anything different happening in this greed filled world .sorry but thats my 2 pennies.

ctenophors rule
04/21/2009, 06:47 PM
thank you everyone, i appreciate the imput from all.

iamwrasseman, prepare to be torn a new one. lol

but seriously, i thought like you with all the points exept the "collect it all, man", until i read that last thurday the epa was granted the ability to override congress and enforce stricter co2 regulations.

the tunnel is brightening, but are we too late to avoid the train?
( wow that was totaly my own, it just came to me)

iamwrasseman
04/21/2009, 09:24 PM
nice saying you put together there ! really i may have overdone it a bit but you have to understand that at present growth the world will be overpopulated in less than a century ,we will have no food or resourses . put that together with the fact that our capabilities of being able to erradicate all life forms probably more than a thousand different ways its really just a matter of time .no matter what, we are creating our own coffins and we needed to figure that out about fifty years ago and start doing something then . we are way to far behind to ever catch up .i am a very optimistic person in life but i also am very realistic . i really do not enjoy having thease thoughts but we must all be realistic here .being responsible in reef inhabitant collecting is never going to change the path that our world is on so realistically what does it really matter ? to little too late IMO

mushroom head
04/21/2009, 10:14 PM
I totally agree,we just take...and ...take....till there is no more.There's fish at lps all over the world,that should never be taken from our oceans.But we just keep buying them,they die shortly after,and just go buy another one.

billsreef
04/22/2009, 10:29 AM
To go with the can't do anything about it, so just take and take till there is nothing left is a great way to absolutely ensure that there will be nothing left :rolleyes:

ctenophors rule
04/22/2009, 11:46 AM
nice bill.

i dont believe in overpopulations, as of now only 5 percent of the earths surface is being used by humans. but i do see where you are com ing from, their is a unique balance that we have been pushing to the limits.

from what i have read we aren't yet too late, we just need drastic measures put into place.

china is regulating child births +1

most of the rest of the world regulates who gets to go to school based on apptitude +1

and we aren't doing either, but we are regulating the co2 emmited by the companies within our borders, and i believe if i read the article right, the will be able to stop the us from trading with companies overseas that aren't up to standards.

we have an oxygen powered car coming to market soon, and it will start at 18,000, but in india a similar car is 2,000$

we have started renourishing estuaries, and making it far more difficult (not impossible) for them to be developed, and estuaries, and that can save the us around 7,730$ in tertiary waste and in life support (defending beeches, removing co2 from air,etc).

their is so much more i could go on about, but i realy think that IF their is a chance to save our planet, it can only be reached by EVERYONE pulling together, fighting the same common enemy we will call climate change, and rising above, a greater, and mor eproductive earth.

for example, today i am sick, and i am making legislation that will make dune renourishment and dune developement nigh impossible to have happen, uinless for an educational purpose. but proff of the educational merit will have to be clearly outlined in a report to one form of government. (as i said still working on it
) when i am done, and have had it checked by more educated people than y self, i will post it hear, set up a website where people may sign under it if they aprove, and i will actively campaign it.

iamwrasseman
04/22/2009, 06:37 PM
we are regulating co2 pollution ? yes on a certain level but have you ever heard about buying pollution credits ? this is when BIG companies pay money to over pollute ,the more they pay the more they can pollute. there are no real limits to the amount that they can pump into the air . why are all of the adirondeck lakes and ponds dead? ans,detroit pollution buying credits still to this day .almost all of chinas lakes and streams are so polluted now because there are no laws to even enforce . california has hydrogen cars uh , six of them and they are studying to see the if they are okay .where are we gonna get the hydrogen in say nevada? there are to many screwed up things in this world to even make a dent trying to repair any of them .yes this balance is being tested every day and it will tilt the scale soon to a point of nonreversability . where is the water from the polar caps going ? how many islands are going to be under water or diminish to a pinhead above water .as i stated before i am an optimist but with strong ties to reality and we are going to have alot of "fun "in the next fifty to one hundred years .

ctenophors rule
04/22/2009, 07:59 PM
but all that "buying pollution credit" is going to end, the epa can overide congress. unless the epa is corrupt, in which case their is a realy easy fix( old yeller style) that will cease to happen.

i know what the reality of the situation, but instead of domb saying before the majority of people loose hope do something.

eeucate the masses.

write legislation!

i am 14. if a 14 year old can write legislation, go ouit and collect signature, write letters for support, and eventualy when i am fuly prepared try to pass it through my county, then tallahasee(i am in florida) every single person on hear can do the same!

recently a study showed that some sponges , i believe the cryptic ones, feed 90% off of dissolved carbon. poison ivy's limiting factor is nutrients, phytoplankton is easily grown at our own house with only the cost of water, if you have the skimmate for it. if not you can always use cheap fertilizer, or make your own with a compost.

and if you realy want the hydrogen car in nevada, start a petition.

get 20-30,000 signature, write legislation, you will get that car, or atleast enough media coverage, that if you keep capmaigning you will eventualy get the car.

(though why use hydrogen, when they have oxygen)

iamwrasseman
04/23/2009, 12:12 PM
they have hydrogen cars already built and sold in california and less then four hydrogen stations for them so ehere are they going with that technology at its current rate ? as far as oxygen being used for fuel its to far away to use across the board ,heck they cant even do without the older cars that are known heavy polluters because it reaches to far into the infastructure of america !it cost billions of dollars to concieve ,build,maintain,and provide fuel for any new technology as far as transportation. if you are 14 i really feel for you because it will get crazy in your life time .i literally could spend hours explaining how we have screwed ourselves to the point of near extinction in the near future but that would bore you and also waist my time . the thing to do is to have fun while were here and dont get hurt doing it .20,000signitures are not going to do anything in our present government.the pollution credits will end when all the industries money runs out ,thats when it gets really fun when we dont produce a thing here in america and all out money goes to some other country .the well will run dry and it really doesnt have much water in it now !also the use of hydrogen is because it is in every drop of water and is easily used with present technologies and it's byproduct would be oxygen so you can put it in your car !i wish the best for you in your endevers whatever they may be.

ctenophors rule
04/23/2009, 07:18 PM
i think we are going to halve to agree to disagree, if i may use the
old cliche.

although i would like to end with this.

i whole heartedly dont expect my bill to be passed.
thats the honest truth. but i do know that if enough bills like this are proposed, and if their is enough support, than our government, by its very definition, will have to bend to our will.
for if they dont, they will have me, and all my powers as a citizen of this once great nation to face.

and the impending impeachments, aint so peachy.

also, i just reread my orriginal post, and we realy begged the question here! lol

we went from wild collection, to future of america!

iamwrasseman
04/23/2009, 07:35 PM
i was using the future for my basis that we should take what we want out of the ocean because as i stated above we are really screwing things up 24/7/365 everywhere . sorry to obscure your original question but as i said what was being pointed out is the obserd stupidity of technology and the american way of life . thanks for not hiring a hitman on me !

ctenophors rule
04/23/2009, 08:15 PM
no problem, i thi9nk that the purpose of this is for educational discussion for the betterment of oursleves and others, and this conversation did just that.

and as for the hit man, its pretty early to start thanking me.

you think i am stupid enough to tell him to hit you durring our little conversation?

wait a month or two, then thank me. lol

iamwrasseman
04/23/2009, 08:33 PM
i hear ya and please dont take my statements wrong ,as i said its really not us its the rest of the world that cant be controlled . government can and will be bought no matter what we do so its a coin flip weather or not the right things happen . i just really think that its a bit to little way to late as far as pollution and the economy is concerned and that is why i say take it while its there because we will exterminate this planet one animal by one .

ctenophors rule
04/23/2009, 09:01 PM
i hear you as well.

and i dont take comments strongly, wheather they are affirmative or negative. that is another problem we have with our government. as soon as someone says something that goes against their beliefes (and i have noticed this more in the republican, specificaly rush limba suppoorting religious republicans)(just an observation, i hold ties with niether party)
and you get yelled at and filabustered till everything goes their way. if they realy cared about the good of the country they would set their egos aside and listen to what others had to say.
( though they would probably have to cut down thousands of acres of trees to fit all the ego's) 8)

thank you for the engaging conversation, but i have to get a good nights sleep for tommorow.

tommorow, i start collecting signatures! (cant hurt)

iamwrasseman
04/23/2009, 09:06 PM
good luck ,you should still remain optimistic and at least try to help . i am 47 yrs old and am tired of trying to change the unchangable so now that you have started i give my position to you and i hope you do well ! i also appreciate your views and comments ..................................nice day 2 u

therealfatman
05/17/2009, 07:31 AM
My beliefs are pretty hard lined. No one but permitted researchers, mariculturallists etc., should harvest any fish, coral etc., that can not be bred or propagated in captivity. No harvesting for indidual hobbyists at all. I also believe therefore only captively bred, propagated etc species should be able to be leaglly sold or purchased with out permits. I do not have a problem with private, and even commercial permits being issued to breeders or propagators to harvest limited numbers of stock that they suceesfully breed or propigate if they need to expand stock genetic strains, but I also believe in strong oversite of this action. If a commercial breeder wany to introduce another species to the operation a person should be trained to deal with this species by another licensed breeder and thereby certified. Repeated failures by the certified breeder even after bcertification eans a loss of that individuals certification and, therefore the facilities permit for that breed etc.

therealfatman
05/17/2009, 07:46 AM
The technology already exists for a new generation of coal fired power plant that emits no carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and what little carbon dioxide it produces is food grade. Its main pollutant produced is nearly pure hydrogen. Several have been built under government reserach grants. Several existing plants have been modified into these plants with goverment grants. The outcome results were thay they work ver well, but the electricity produced would cost 20 percent more without calculating in the money eraned by selling the clean carbon dioxide and nearly pure hydrogen. The power companies do not want to spend the money to build or modify and wont if they are not required to as the old power plants are still usable and more profitable.

So the present top shelf design by the goverment is to try to trap and colect CO2 and pumped it into empty oil wells and caverns as well as under the ocean and maybe into the deep ocean wg here thet say it will nearly solodify under the pressure and cold conditions. they have tried but so far not found ocena storage possible. They can get it to work in laboratories though so they keep trying. They have spent huge sums of monet in grants to build and modify coal plants where they can strip the CO2 out of the exhaust stacks to later pump it into caverns and the ocean. Much more than they have spent on the new gw eneration plants producing hydrogen.

iamwrasseman
05/17/2009, 04:43 PM
as i said this is a twisted world and unless its good for some high official with unlimited funding then nobody will listen . we should use what we can because they will take it or kill it if its worth it monitarily . this place is gonna burn and freeze a bunch more times so what does it matter what we do while we are here . i do realize that people will hate my comments but the truth is the truth and it is what it is . sorry but thats the way i see our destiny.

sweetdreamfiji
05/23/2009, 06:11 AM
I see no problem with people collecting for their own use. In Tampa people often collect in the bay and get snails and a few other items. It does not really reduce the mortality very much. People often keep a seahorse or other interesting fish that they end up not wnating or being able to keep. If you collect by SCUBA (few people do) bringing the fish to the surface and transport are not that simple. I am thinking about going to Fort Pierce tomorrow to collect and the gas will cost me more than the value of the fish I hope to get. I like to get out on the water and keep a local tank that it is hard to find the fish in the store.

People who think that the USA regulates carbon dioxide emissions need to read the newspaper more closely. The Obama administration has proposed regulating CO2 but it has not passed yet and may never pass. We are getting deeper and deeper into warming and the US is still doing nothing.

There are no functioning coal power plants that sequester CO2 anywhere in the world. Coal companies falsely claim that it is possible to do. It may be possible to sequester CO2, but it has not been demonstrated. The recent stimulus package includes money to build a pilot plant to sequester CO2 from coal.

iamwrasseman
05/23/2009, 09:08 AM
thanks for your comments sweetdreamfiji ,you are on key with reality . i wish it was different and perfect but its so far from it that i really doubt we can get on the right track in time to "save" the planet as we see it . it really is all about money , the reason that we are in a recession with 12% unemployment is simply because we have been selling out for years and finally we sold to many jobs . we will never get them back in large numbers and im sorry to say it will spiral out of controll .this is one of the reasons that i support taking from the reefs ,simply to little to late .

imacrazyidiot231
05/25/2009, 04:04 PM
I think wild collecting should never be done. You destroy the beautiful Ocean reefs when you harvest corals and fish. Plus there are benfits to the environment by reefs. I don't mind if people frag corals from the ocean, like breaking off a branch of a coral, but don't take the whole thing.

iamwrasseman
05/25/2009, 07:54 PM
there are many that cannot be fragged in such a way . you have to understand that what we are taking is so small in comparison to what is being killed off by global warming and man made pollution . we are destroying the reefs at great speed just by the huge corperations excessivly polluting and not being held accountable for their actions . what do we do with the ornamental fish and corals ? i thinke they are much better preserved in out reef tanks than on the reefs themselves . also we can frag them into great numbers over the period of years. i have a few corals that i have fragged 30 or 40 times in five years and that makes more of a difference by not removing them from the reefs in great numbers.they,the reefs will die and regenerate so many time over the period of a million years we just aint gonna make that big of a difference IMO .

sweetdreamfiji
05/25/2009, 07:55 PM
Wild collecting can be done in a sustainable manner. It is just another type of fishing. I know fishermen have a bad reputation but it is done sustainably in many locations. The amount collected for aquariums is so small compared to the resource there are only a few corals that are overcollected. Frequently people add fish collected for aquariums to fish collected for food and that makes aquarium collecting look worse than it is. In addition, it provides jobs and a reason to preserve the reef in developing countries. I have gone out diving with commercial collectors and they were doing a good job to act in a sustainable manner. Keep in mind that they use tons of coral rubble mined from the reef to build roads in many tropical locations.

iamwrasseman
05/25/2009, 09:51 PM
thats kinda what im speaking of ,no matter what we do something bigger is gonna wipe it out in a different way .

jdmap2
05/29/2009, 12:25 PM
mee!

ctenophors rule
05/29/2009, 06:22 PM
youu!!!!!!! lol

chevellesteve
06/01/2009, 02:16 AM
wow thread hijacked much . dude if you are so pessimistic you should end your existence. 10 min of my life i will never get back

ctenophors rule
06/01/2009, 03:00 PM
are you suggesting that someone commit suicide?

i must have misread your post, or maybe a typo

also by posting this, are you not hijaking the thread?

(whats the word???!!!):D :D :D

iamwrasseman
06/01/2009, 05:29 PM
im just trying to explain why we should take from the reef ! this world will freeze and burn many times over regardless of our intervention or existance here .believe me i will FIGHT for every last breath of my existance and i always do more than less every day so i can be fuller in life so please dont even begin to suggest that i do something so obserd !

ctenophors rule
06/02/2009, 02:49 PM
chevelle steed, did it realy take 10 minutes for you to read the posts? lol

stugray
06/08/2009, 09:52 AM
I believe wild harvesting of corals is actually a good thing.

The reefs are dying all over the world.
By collecting & sharing with other reef hobbyists, we are captively propagating the species.

In addition we are preserving them too.

For all the people that think the future is all doom & gloom due to "Global Warming" do a google search ( or youtube ) of "Global Dimming".

The truth might be the only way to avoid the earth freezing is to make MORE CO2.....

Think about it.... Antarctica used to be A RAIN FOREST.
The earth is at one of it's COLDEST points that it has been in the last 100 million years!

The solar irradiance at the earth's surface has reduced by 20% in the last 20 years. Does anyone have a clue how much of a change that is??

Stu

ctenophors rule
06/08/2009, 03:55 PM
i heard that the source of that info was pretty shotty.

look who funded it.

at least w/ some of the global warming research the funding has better sources.

iamwrasseman
06/08/2009, 04:17 PM
with the proper funding the facts can be "arranged"to accomidate either side or opinion . thats what our government is all about !

ctenophors rule
06/09/2009, 12:47 PM
yeah, just like the stupid "study" that said chocolate and peanut butter were good for you, and could reduce certain blood fats.

thats the problem with scientific research, it is not held to as high a degree of critisism as other academic field, and as such science has been allowed to 'slouch' a bit.

what with endowments, and the guessing proclaimed as fact.

at least thats my oppinion on the matter, and i am not critisising any scientist, far from it, i actualy want to be a marine biologist specializing in estuarine ecology when i grow up, just saying.

canesfins
06/14/2009, 05:21 PM
Well I was out diving the reef and collected a number of pieces of rock with corals that were broken off the reef and corals starting to be traumatized. I dont see the issue with collecting broken pieces. I do not advocate breaking pieces off the reef.

ackee
06/24/2009, 11:29 AM
Ctenophors, one of the few positive aspects of having been around for a long time, and traveling and scuba diving since the 1960s, is that I have seen the natural world go from a mostly beautiful place to a mostly degraded and frequently destroyed remnant. The direction is obvious, and we are already almost at the end point. It's fine to say that only 5% of the world is utilized by humans, but whoever you got that statistic from is peddling crap. The forests and coastal margins are vanishing so fast it makes almost every trip I take an excercize in dismay. There really is, compared even to 30 years ago, very little left. The world 50 years ago, when the population was only a fifth of what it is now, looked like a different planet, a sad vanished dream. We are, virtually every scientist concedes, living in an age of mass extinction, similar to those that occured in the distant geologic past.

Another thing: it's not "America's future" that is the issue. It's a global phenomenon. The reefs are dying from human population impact, the natural global water distribution systems like the Gulf Stream are threatened by melting ice caps and global warming in general, and what once was a basically wild and natural world surronding pockets of human activity has totally reversed, with only shrinking pockets of the natural world surrounded by mankind's poisonous filth. Perhaps, instead of Marine Biology, Waste Treatment Management might be a more appropriate field for the immediate future.

iamwrasseman
06/24/2009, 07:19 PM
thanks ackee ,i really hate the obvious impact that humans have had here and you are telling the truth exactly how it really is . no sugar coating here ,we all need a wake up call and it really is a bit late to try to save . if we knew that we would have such an impact do you thing we would have stayed in the same path ? i think so and thats why america is in such a depression and alot dont even know it .

ackee
06/24/2009, 07:48 PM
In addition to the blindness of those who choose not to see, the thing that keeps surprising me, and which dates and classifies me clearly, is the term 'fragging'. The first thing I think of when I read or hear that word is a fragmentation grenade tossed into the tent of some officer interested in glory and promotion, however many casualties it takes. Then I think "OH! Silly me. They mean cutting sections of coral."

iamwrasseman
06/24/2009, 08:13 PM
thats a good thing ,fragging !

unstopable
06/26/2009, 05:48 PM
The only problem with wild collecting is most people, and please everybody don't take offense to this, but MOST PEOPLE naturally greedy and will do what they have done to the reefs in the past and rape the reefs. Look at the reefs now because of mans influence on them in the last 50 years. we need less pressure and more laws stopping the average human being with a net and a snorkel to take from our DYING REEFS.

ackee
06/26/2009, 07:17 PM
I've collected, only a fish or two at a time, all over the world. The only place I've ever seen non-commercial individual fish collecting was in Florida. I know people do it, but very very few, because very few people have the ability to keep fish alive while on holiday, and successfully transport them. It really is a lot of work, and requires a lot of pre-planning. Then there are the legal restrictions, which are considerable. I have academic credentials which usually allow me to obtain a local permit to collect. Not always, though. Since 9/11 the transport issue has made things very difficult. No more plastic bags with water and a fish in your carry-on.

The real issue, though, is the destruction of the reefs. Individuals with a net and snorkel have a vanishingly tiny, virtually immeasurably small effect on the reefs. I've seen hords of cruise ship passengers with flippers and masks do terrible damage. Banning that kind of thing would be far more effective than going after the net and snorkel people, whose numbers are insignificant.

The deadly damage to the reefs, of course, is the result of non-recreational human activity. Siltation from road building and other construction, the expansion of village settlements to formerly pristine areas, a virtual Amazon of poisons pumped out of places where lots of people live, and intentional dredging of the reefs, in many cases just to get limestone to crush for various industrial and construction purposes.

I've seen drag lines wipe out huge sections of coastal reefs in Florida, so that canals can be dug and 'waterfront' homes built. By the hundreds and hundreds of thousands. I remember Florida when it was still beautiful, with small bays up and down the west coast, coral growing to the shoreline throughout the Keys. People who build houses and people who buy and live in them and people who make their living in some direct or indirect way from all this activity destroyed most of the reefs and lovely little coves and bays. All over the world, not just in Florida. Jamaica once was as lovely beneath the water as it still can be topside. No more. Not really. The same can be said for an endless list of places.

Who killed **** Robin? The blame game is ultimately futile, as are meaningless laws that target harmless activity while major destruction is carried on with government compliance and assistance, and the support of the majority of citizens who, not surprisingly, see 'growth' as a good thing. Want to try to get politicians to invoke a construction ban? HAHAHA! How about doing the Chinese solution to famine and similar human catastrophies: legally forbid people to have more than one child, , until the population is reduced. Of course, that presents long term problems with taxes, Social Security, even the prison industry. Also, some people actually think it's their right to fill up the planet with their progeny, and react badly to restrictions on their right to procreate.

Do you think we can preserve the levees along flooding rivers by making it illegal to pee in the water while swimming? Maybe help
save New Orleans? The pee ban logic is the same as banning a snorkler with a net. Maybe it's only a tiny drop in the bucket (no pun intended), but every little bit helps. Right? Addressing issues like paving over the land, building over absorbent forests, constructing ever bigger cities, etc. is not going to get much attention. Jobs, you know. Pogo was right about the identification of the enemy.

stugray
06/29/2009, 12:10 PM
ackee,

All very good points, but you missed one of the largest things affecting the reefs. - Nitrogenous Waste!

America uses a huge quantity of fertilizers in farming. Any that is not used by the plants washes downstream and is dumped in to the ocean.
This causes the red-tides and kills ALL marine life in the area.

NOW we decide that Biofuels are a GOOD THING!!???!!

What the heck are the politicians thinking??

We need to farm less and more efficiently NOT get farmers to farm every square inch of the available land for corn so we can burn it in our cars.

Its MADNESS I SAY!!!

Stu

iamwrasseman
06/29/2009, 04:22 PM
really gotta wonder if we were so smart that we killed ourselves on purpose or due to greed .its a stupid human making all the rules that kill humans !vichious circle of stupidity

iamwrasseman
06/29/2009, 04:23 PM
really gotta wonder if we were so smart that we killed ourselves on purpose or due to greed .its a stupid human making all the rules that kill humans !vichious circle of stupidity !

ctenophors rule
07/02/2009, 09:17 AM
wow, this has gotten some good responses.

iamwrasseman, you feel to operating under the false assuption that humans are naturaly smart! lol it takes a lot of work to make smart people!

with the corn, i heard on 60 minutes that sweet grass was like 10 times better, i don't know why they still use corn.

in brazil, what like 75% of the country runs on corn ethonol. look at all the deforestatiopn associated, and the pesticides and fertilizer running into ground water, i wouldn't want to be
brazilian in a decade, thats for sure!

ackee, when you were talking about coral fragging and granades that got me thinking of a vid i got that shows some indopacificers who through tnt into the water. one big boom later and a bucn hof nice 2-3 inch frags littered the floor, andall the fish lucky enough to be with in the right range away, were merely stunn ed, those to close to the blast radias died instantly, or went death as the censory cilia broke.

ackee
07/02/2009, 12:06 PM
Fishing with explosives is common worldwide, and has been for many decades. It's quick and relatively cheap, requiring little equipment other than a boat and some dynamite or C4 or Semtex or grenades, all of which are readily available, especially in third world countries. It was and probably still is is widely used in Haiti, the Philippines, SE Asia, etc. Troops in the Pacific Theater during WW2 became expert explosives fishermen.

Blowing up the reefs for a few bucks and a meal has been going on for so long that it's almost respectable. It really puts some of the goody two-shoes mini-measures devoted to reef preservation in perspective. In a couple of places a few grids with frags are set in the bottom with much hoopla and publicity. In hundreds of other places dynamite fishing is standard operating procedure.

Think about all those hungry kids who are waiting for their next meal. When the kids are crying for food today, long range strategy becomes a joke, a fools errand.

ackee
07/02/2009, 12:15 PM
Ctenophors. there is very little chance of your becoming Brazilian over the next decade, so stop worrying.

Another thing: 'People who live in glass houses' (or california) should reconsider rash condemnations.

ctenophors rule
07/04/2009, 11:48 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15293950#post15293950 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ackee
Ctenophors. there is very little chance of your becoming Brazilian over the next decade, so stop worrying.

Another thing: 'People who live in glass houses' (or california) should reconsider rash condemnations.

the rash condemnation thing, was that directed at me?

i live in florida.lol

ackee
07/05/2009, 12:55 PM
Nothing was "directed at" you, PT. Certainly not the Cali remark, which was related another thing altogether. I know where Port Saint Lucy is. In any case, there may be things that I wish to call to your attention, but 'direct against' suggests some sort of criticism, an intent absent from any reply I written in response to your comments.

We all, I think, live in metaphoric glass houses when it comes to environmental issues. None of us in this part of the world can point fingers at others in that connection without descending into ludicrous hypocrisy. It's just that there are more and bigger glass houses in some places.