Visit us on the web at www.absolutelyfish.com

CNN.com - Caribbean coral suffers record die-off - Mar 31, 2006
Bob & Crew,
Thought I would pass this along for you and the WWM board readers.  
very sad stuff
<Thank you for this... When will folks get serious re discussing, doing what needs, can be done re "root causes"? E.g. When will the catholic pope state that birth control is okay? Bob Fenner>
********************
If you are having trouble with any of the links in this message, or if the URL's are not appearing as links, please follow the instructions at the bottom of this email.
Title: CNN.com - Caribbean coral suffers record die-off - Mar 31, 2006
CNN.com will expire this article on 04/30/2006.
  Copy and paste the following into your Web browser to access the sent link:
http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&etMailToID=1601064449&pt=Y
Copy and paste the following into your Web browser to SAVE THIS link:
http://www.savethis.clickability.com/st/saveThisPopupApp?clickMap=saveFromET&partnerID=2006&etMailToID=1601064449&pt=Y
Copy and paste the following into your Web browser to forward this link:
http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=forward&etMailToID=1601064449&partnerID=2006&pt=Y

[Coral-List] Sticky issue   Reefs vs. Aquarium Trade  - 03/09/2006
To: Coral-List@coral.aoml.noaa.gov  
Yes it is an overwhelming sticky issue, but the problem is that nobody, specially governments (votes) and religious groups (power of the masses - contributions), wants to even talk about it. On the other hand, it seems that the people who needs the most education are those living in the developing countries, who most of the time drive/push the undeveloped countries to destroy their natural resources to satisfy their ever-increasing appetite for unnecessary things.
<...? Simplistic... like what? Food? Clothing? Education for their children?>
A good example, at least in our field, is the exploitation/destruction of reefs for the aquarium trade.
Major consumers, yes you guessed right, the USA and Europe, at least in some statistics I saw last year. How many of those fish, anemones, shrimps, seahorses, soft- and hard corals do you think survive one year in the aquariums at home or hotels??
<Very few indeed live a year>
How many die during the whole process since capture to the retail stores??
<Variable, but likely 10-20% at this junction alone>
The same is happening for rainforest and other terrestrial and fresh water system creatures as well, just visit the
nearest pet-store. Developed countries usually protect their natural resources well,
<Very- overly simplistic and racist... how is "one people" using, mis-using resources "of their own" when all so-called developed countries utilize the resources of so-called undeveloped ones?>
but pressure the underdeveloped countries to destroy theirs to satisfy the local markets for these. Are there solutions to these
problems, of course there are, are we willing to implement them, well, here is where we are limited because we do not implement policies, we just provide scientific-based recommendation to those responsible to legislate, and most of you know what happen with these recommendations.
Saludos,
<Again, I would not count on a/the "government" to save the planet... thus far such bureaucracies have consistently proven ineffective, parasitic, and ultimately self-destructive. Bob Fenner>
The long view is for the Undead: reefs ARE in trouble today The people who live in these underpopulated areas are still trying to earn
a living... often by fishing their own reefs and selling to those who have depleted their own fisheries and willing to pay the price.
<What other choices might they have?>
Yes, over-population is at the base of many world problems but it is a sticky issue, at once cultural, ethnic and religious.
<Yes... for one, can't the Catholic pope say for the sake of humanity that prevention of conception is okay?>
Not exactly one to be solved by reef scientists. Perhaps women's education in general and in reproductive rights are the answers?
<Part of it, yes>
Women want better lives for their children, after they've been fed, saved from curable infectious diseases, and educated....and who
is to determine what that better life is? Is it what they perceive as the lives that other children in the world have, including yours?
Joan Koven
Astrolabe, Inc.
<Good questions, remarks. Bob Fenner>

A Discussion Regarding PETA's Stance on Pet Fish 10/11/05
Good morning everyone,
<Mar>
I was doing some Googling for other research, and came across this: http://www.peta.org/factsheet/files/FactsheetDisplay.asp?ID=30 
<"You can't keep fish because it's cruel"... retarded>
Is anyone else familiar with the PETA stance and propaganda? More importantly, has WWM received any contact from PETA representatives?
<Nope>
While there are certainly valid points (such as "painted" fish - Mike G's pet cause), as someone who earned her living working the trade, I find some of their assertions disturbing, and their recommendations even worse. Should this be something that is gaining in popularity, it could very well spell the demise of the entire pet fish trade, or at least cut into the hobby.
<Some groups have gone "over the edge" in their one-sidedness, militancy...>
I'm curious as to what the rest of you think of this - asking the general population nets entirely different results.
Marina
<Ah, back to the gov't's propaganda... BobF> 

A Discussion Regarding PETA's Stance on Pet Fish - Sabrina's Take 10/11/05
I have seen this and/or other such pieces of bunk propaganda from PETA regarding keeping aquarium fish (and various other pets) many, many times in treks across the 'net. My outlook on keeping companion animals (fish included) has not changed for reading these things, though my outlook on PETA has grown more and more grim with each piece from them that I read.
These types of articles from PETA and others have been around for a long time, and haven't seemed to impact the aquarium or other pet industry in any significant manner, and I doubt that they ever will. The only folks that will be swayed by these are probably young-ish, impressionable folks that will later grow up and learn better.
Or, at least, that's my opinion.
-Sabrina 

A Discussion Regarding PETA's Stance on Pet Fish - Adam Cesnales Pipes Up.. 10/11/05
Hmmm..
Looks like propaganda typical of any agenda related group.... take facts and exaggerate and spin them to support your agenda. The thing that scares me is that PETA is better organized and better represented that our industry.  
Also... make no mistake about it..... their goal IS to shut down the trade of most animals (for pet use, food use, etc.). I do agree however, that most folks with any ability to think for themselves see right through such tremendous overstatements.
I also agree it would be much better to see certain aspects of the pet fish trade end. Bettas and goldfish as carnival prizes is a classic. Most of these fish go home with people who didn't expect or want them in the first place and are doomed to die (the fish, unfortunately).
Also, there is no arguing that some collection, handling and selling practices (cyanide, inappropriate species, etc.) are shameful.
All that said... their recommendations are pitiful. I especially jumped at the "3 gallons for every one inch of fish"! Sweet! Now I can feel good about putting my 10" lionfish in a 30 gallon tank..... as long as I have a "proper working air pump" that is! Ha!
Adam

A Discussion Regarding PETA's Stance on Pet Fish - Jorie's Suggestion 10/11/05
Perhaps we can write a polite rebuttal to some of the misstatements contained within PETA's article? If we are "politically correct", praise them where they are correct, yet delicately point out where they are mistaken (using research, where possible), perhaps they might consider our position? From what I can tell, WWM has a very good reputation for being
conscious aquarists, an even though not as well known as PETA, obviously, it might also be a good way to get the WWM name out there?
Just a thought. I'd be happy to help on such an article if we decide to go that route.
Jorie
<Please do Jorie... am moving, saving the comments to WWM... will add yours as well. BobF> 

A Discussion Regarding PETA's Stance on Pet Fish - Sabrina Responds to Jorie's Suggestion 10/11/05
I, for one, would strongly recommend against such an endeavor. When dealing with any group that has militant factions, avoidance is (in my opinion) the best route to take, despite how beneficial other portions of the group might be. PETA for this reason is not a group that I would ever want my name associated with in any manner, and I would feel similarly regarding WWM's "name" (or web presence, or whatever). Just my $0.02, for what it's worth.
SCF 

A Discussion Regarding PETA's Stance on Pet Fish - Ted Truex Responds 10/11/05
I agree. In my experience, you can't have worthwhile or meaningful discourse with Kool-Aid drinkers. You're better off not engaging. Ted

A Discussion Regarding PETA's Stance on Pet Fish - Back to Marina 10/11/05
To tell the truth, I had not considered at all (hadn't entered my mind) the idea of writing or otherwise communicating with PETA regarding their stance.  I agree with Sabrina and Ted.
First, I see no point in trying to engage in anything resembling a discussion or debate with people who are clearly deeply entrenched in their belief system and who have no desire to be presented with differing opinions or ideas. It would serve no purpose, ultimately.
Second, I must agree with those who make the observation that such attempts at dialogue would more likely lead to an aggressive stance/response from them. 
However, I thought it would be interesting to discuss amongst ourselves, as well as any others who may wish to offer their insight, and possibly inviting introspection for many hobbyists who visit the site. How many do we deal with who are simply not considering their animals' welfare, whether or not the idea has occurred to them? It needs to enter their heads, first, and I view it only as a state of ignorance, remedied by education.
I had only just discovered this page, and actually had no idea (though could have surmised if asked) that PETA had such a stance published on their site. 
I don't think I could encourage anyone to communicate with PETA, as their stance seems quite clear - there is NO room for other ideas or opinions, no room really for "conscientious" owners.
I think the real value lies in exposing *our* readers to different ideas, and it may be helpful for them to come to understand that groups like PETA are a result, I think, of people behaving so irresponsibly with life. While it is not helpful to anthropomorphize other life, I think we'd agree that respect for other life *is*, even if at its core the concept is selfish (species-centrific). 
Enjoying the discourse!  Marina 

A Discussion Regarding PETA's Stance on Pet Fish - Jorie Clarifies Her Position 10/11/05
Just to be clear, I am more concerned with teaching non-PETA members what is real and what isn't, as opposed to converting any die-hard PETA members. I have a hard time leaving incorrect facts un-rebutted, as many folks who just don't have any other learning tools at their disposal may erroneously rely on such false facts. I am not suggesting we engage in a 10-yr. long argument with PETA, merely a succinct, factually-based statement of rebuttal, to be taken or left as people so choose.
Jorie

A Discussion Regarding PETA's Stance on Pet Fish - A Dissertation by Mike G 10/11/05
Wrote this dissection of their article a few months ago. Thought it was appropriate.
<<We have chosen to eliminate quoting of PETA the article in its entirety, as folks can simply follow the above link and read it for themselves.  What follows is the remainder of Mr. Giangrasso's article.>> 

A Discussion Regarding PETA's Stance on Pet Fish - Catherine Adds to the Discussion 10/11/05
I’m not a huge PETA fan, but I’m not a big fan of most of the pet industry either. PETA is correct; many wild caught fish are caught using techniques that lead to collateral damage. PETA seems to be advocating keeping fish in good conditions – much as we advocate. Don’t put goldfish in bowls; put schooling fish in schools; don’t flush fish; don’t give away fish at carnivals. PETA is attacking the trade in much the same way those of us keep fish do. I think we really agree on 90% of the information PETA gives. It’s the way the message is delivered that I have a problem with.

A Discussion Regarding PETA's Stance on Pet Fish - Adam Cesnales Offers More 10/11/05
I agree with all of the above and agree there are serious problems in the trade, but don't fool yourself.... PETA does not want an ethical trade, they want NO trade. If their goal was education and responsibility, they would seek folks like us out and recruit us for those purposes. At very least they would have better researched their own information and recommendations and realized the serious errors. Instead, they try to make people feel guilty for participating in the carnage they portray.
A few years ago PETA almost succeeded in pushing through legislation that would have required all animals being transported by air to be carried in pressurized, climate controlled parts of planes. It also required a  mountain of paperwork for each transported animal as well as mountains of paperwork to report every injury or death. There is no question that this would have made air transportation of animals unprofitable for the airlines, or driven the price so high that the pet trade would not be profitable.  There was no common sense or reasonable expectation in this effort... those pushing it knew that it would destroy the trade of tropical fish as well as many other exotic pets, and that was their real agenda.
Also, Mike.... Brilliant! Several of my favorite sayings come to mind..... 
Salad is Murder! (had this bumper sticker)
If we weren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made out of meat?
If we weren't supposed to eat animals, why do they taste so good?
I like cats... they taste good.
I [insert the clover-shaped playing card symbol here instead of the heart] Baby Seals
Last but not least, it also crossed my mind that we could volunteer to be the educators on behalf of PETA, but any association at all with such a radical group would be bad. I also agree that they would likely turn the whole thing around on us.  
Adam <<Marina thinks Adam has a wicked streak of black humor.>>

A Discussion Regarding PETA's Stance on Pet Fish - James Gasta 10/11/05
Marina,
Agree with saving the reefs. I think much has been done in this regard as many of our purchased corals are propagated by coral farms. I am very much against the use of cyanide for catching fish. Not sure but I think the Philippines is the only area where this is condoned. 
As far as fishkeeping, I'm for that provided the aquarist provides an environment suitable for the fish to live a long healthy life. After all, they were perfectly happy where they were, no waiting list to enter a home aquarium that I know of:) I also wish that certain species, both fish and invertebrates, that are almost impossible to keep for any length of time (Moorish Idols, Spanish Dancers, etc) be banned from exporting. That probably won't happen in my life time as I've already been here longer than I'm going to stay.
Regards, James (Salty Dog)

A Discussion Regarding PETA's Stance on Pet Fish - Jager Well my area used to have the kinder gentler version of PETA, one who worked with the pet stores to spay and neuter animals whose owners wanted it at very low cost. Nowadays it has turned ugly as you all know.  
One head lady in particular has earned the local PETA chapter the moniker "People for Extreme Terrorist Actions".... 
As James about the reefs said I'm all for certain fish catching techniques being disbanded and certain fish/corals not being exported, like those who import cleaner wrasses. That is a biggy on my list of no nos.

Re: A Discussion Regarding PETA's Stance on Pet Fish 10/12/05
Here is an interesting link about PETA's dirty little secret: http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm 
Daniel Gallen
<Thank you for this. Bob Fenner> 

Re: A Discussion of PETA's Stance on Pet Fish 10/13/05
I agree with Sabrina. and think we as a group must be very careful here. While we don't like PETA's message as it comes across, we also do not want PETA's wrath upon WWM. We have absolutely no idea who reads WWM and while its not a business with a location for PETA to boycott etc, I think they could make even our internet existence uncomfortable if the sponsors pulled their ads due to PETA's interference. 
I think regardless this discussion should be left out of the FAQ's and off WWM. People are polarized by discussions like this and this one is a very sore spot after all the PetSmart and Petco troubles. 
I also think that for the readers who do come to WWM that they are smart enough to figure out that PETA's message, as most political stance messages are, is from one side and not a balanced issue paper or anything.
<<These discussions are being put up on WWM for anyone to view.  Marina>>
Please do not get me wrong. I would love to throw red paint on a PETA demonstrator any day that they protest a good and decent pet store, though I do think even though they may be rabid, they do help keep the industry on its toes and at least somewhat better since they have become the bogeymen of our world.
<Well-stated Jager. BobF> 

PETA - James Adds More of His Insight 10/14/05
In my opinion, the aquarium trade will always be here. It will not be hampered by PETA or any other organization. After all, it is the number one hobby in this country by far. I believe sites like WWM, and there are others, are necessary to help guide the inexperienced aquarist on the whys and ways of this hobby. Books do give valuable information but experience is the best teacher. Steering them away from purchasing fish/invertebrates that are difficult or impossible to keep is one facet. The information alone that is available on the WWM should attest to anyone of our goals, along with our personal replies to their queries.
James (Salty Dog)

Further Discussion Re: PETA Discussions on WWM - Do We, or Don't We? 10/14/05
I agree with Sabrina. and think we as a group must  be very careful here. While we don't like PETA's message as it comes across, we also do not want PETA's wrath upon WWM. We have absolutely no idea who reads WWM and while its not a business with a location for PETA to boycott etc, I think they could make even our internet existence uncomfortable if the sponsors  pulled their ads due to PETA's interference. I think regardless this discussion should be left out of the FAQ's and off WWM. People are polarized by discussions like this and this one is a very sore spot after all the PetSmart and PetCo troubles. I also think that for the readers who do come to WWM that they are smart enough to figure out that PETA's message, as most political stance messages are, is from one side and not a balanced issue paper or anything.
Please do not get me wrong. I would love to throw red paint on a PETA demonstrator any day that they protest a good and decent pet store, though I do think even though they may be rabid, they do help keep the industry on its toes and at least somewhat better since they have become the bogeymen of our world.
<<Justin,
While I understand the concerns, when there is talk of "keeping our mouths shut" altogether, just to avoid their attentions, well that just gets my hackles up! You are talking about freely choosing to squelch our RIGHT to free speech here. What you're talking about would mean that we would kow-tow to this entity, thereby ascribing them too much power.
On one hand, sure we can worry about advertisers pulling their ads, but it's not as though they can advertise in a whole lot of places. Remember, our advertisers are part of the industry PETA wants to destroy entirely (this is so reminding me of the Reagan years' Moral Majority, and currently, the Extreme Right's moves to take over our judiciary - anyone ever hear of Justice Sunday?)
Discussion on privately owned and operated sites cannot, should not, be curtailed simply for fear of these people. Instead, my own stance is that for this very reason we are obligated to discuss this! We moderates stand mute far
too often, and for that we should (collectively) be ashamed. 
When it comes to posting these discussions in a publicly viewable forum or site, I feel we should, we must, or we become weaker and allow them to become more powerful, without lifting a finger. Does that set right with you? I
believe that the mindset of "Don't say anything to aggravate them" goes right along with "Why should I vote? My vote doesn't matter", and that just gets my hackles up as well.
I personally believe that they have done much to purposely mislead (especially after doing more research on this wealthy organization) the general public AND their own members. They will misconstrue, twist, and contort facts until they
fit their agenda. The more people speak up and speak out about this, the more others will be educated to the FACT that PETA does nothing to actually improve the lives of animals. PETA does quite a bit to ruin peoples' lives. They use
this (animals' rights) avenue only as a means by which to direct their ire with the world. "Four Legs Good! Two Legs Bad!"
I have no desire to "throw red paint" on anyone. Using their tactics does not make me a better person, nor could it ever make me equal in any other way than to bring me down to that sort of "terrorist" level. I DO desire OPEN debate and discussion - part and parcel of how our government and society operate. Give "Carnage and Culture" (by Victor Davis Hanson - I am currently on the Cortez campaign, battle at Tenochtitlan, 1520) a read, and you will quickly learn just how deeply ingrained this mindset is to our culture. 
There is no question in my own mind that this MUST be discussed, openly, with NO fear of reprisal, or we make ourselves victims. That is completely anathema to how I have lived my life. I would wager that the same might be true of
many, if not most, of our crew. 
Sincerely, Marina
P.S. In the meantime, I am off to adopt a pound puppy - one that PETA may very well have killed had they gotten a hold of her.>>

More Discourse Between Justin and Marina Re: PETA and Posting Discussion on WWM 10/14/05
Marina while I think your argument is a sound one I believe you take me for something I definitely am not and while I do not think you meant anything to be personally affronting, it does seem caustic.... I do think a very basic explanation of WHY I think and why I wrote the response should help you see why.
<<I don't understand why you think that. I can only take you at "face" value, based upon what I read of your writings. If my response seemed caustic, I apologize, it was never meant to be caustic. It *was* (and still is) meant to be quite emphatic, however.>>
I have absolutely nothing against free speech nor any other right to be practiced openly. I do believe there is a line that one crosses where personal expression of freedom while correct simply adds fuel to a fire that does not need any gasoline thrown on it. and also when personal freedoms lump in individuals whom do not agree or do not want their opinion known to be lumped in with everyone else.
<<I'm sorry, you didn't want any of your responses posted? If that was the case, then simply saying so would have done the trick.>>
I Highly value the opinions of anyone I talk to even the PETA members who are so rabidly anti pet stores, simply because its their belief, whether I agree or disagree is my personal choice. But You seem to advocate turning WWM from a non biased and simply a collection of the best and brightest that the aquarist minds can assemble, and rather than continue to display FAQ's on the site, spend time filing our personal opinions on PETA and giving them out for anyone
to read. 
<<Alright, you seem to be under the impression that somehow I believe I "run" WWM. FYI - Bob takes many of these discourses and forwards them to the crew email, then places them in the "sent" folder. This means that HE wants it put up into the FAQs. If I ever have any questions regarding any correspondences, I talk directly to him about it.  It was his decision to place these discussions in the FAQs, it was mine to bring the discussion up to the crew via this avenue (our private emails).
Anthony is always included in the correspondences I send out, so if he cares to offer up an opinion on *anything*, he has that opportunity. What say you now? 
I must admit, I resent what you're implying, as a LOT of work goes into putting up the FAQs. I don't look for more work than I already have (unless I find things that I think may need further work/correction, etc.). And, I absolutely would NOT use Bob's bandwidth without his blessings.>>
I think that as a group, and one whose different backgrounds allow us to approach each question as best we can does so much more to advocate our position than any bullhorn ever could or any number of posts can. 
<<When it comes to this issue, how can you be so sure of this?>>
That alone is a statement against PETA as it shows that we as responsible individuals are willing to sacrifice our time and energies to help keep fish healthy and in the best homes they can have. WWM though is not a place to force our personal opinions out on.  
<<You have to be joking. You really think that *I* am trying to use the site as my personal pulpit?>>
Here is the reason why. I believe PETA is the worst organization out there, and Id rather not see them continue to lie and lead people on at least nationally about who they are, BUT that may not be Bob's nor Anthony's opinion and since WWM is a group who shows a single face and entity to the public and who is built upon working as a unit I find it morally reprehensible to assume that any one shares my opinion without asking them first. 
<<What? Who said anything about assuming anyone shares opinions? This is about education, Justin. This is about knowledge, and WWM is about disseminating good, accurate knowledge and information. It is not just about how to keep fish, it is also about the issues that affect this industry.>>
Also I have noticed that less questions on fish will be answered as our inboxes will fill with pro and anti PETA information which is not only irrelevant, its damaging to our goal and helps PETA as we spend more time bashing them and less time answering emails from those who need our help for all things related to fish and care. 
<<Since this discussion began, I have seen all of ONE, count 'em - ONE response from a reader regarding PETA. And all he did was give us a link. Don't you think that the people who are reading this site might want to know what's going
on? Did you object when I posted the correspondences and news releases from my mother regarding farm-raised salmon?>>
I personally have no problem stating my opinion about anything and I applaud anyone who can stand on their principles as well, but I think bringing WWM to bear against PETA is the equivalent of throwing paint at a protest against them in your mind. We stoop to their level and resort to pointing a finger at what they have admitted and couldn't care less about since it doesn't stop their funding?
<<I am at a loss, here. I never thought my words could be so misconstrued. It seems that you believe I am on some personal campaign against PETA. I'd like to try to understand how and why you arrived at that opinion, I'd thought that based upon what I've actually written one could surmise that I am/was quite surprised to learn what I have, and I thought it bore discussion, open discussion.>>
that seems to get us nowhere. PETA has openly admitted killing animals and even though they can afford no kill shelters it easier they said to dispose of the unwanted animals. did that hurt their bottom line one iota... not in the slightest.
<<I have never heard a public admission from PETA, and I have only very recently (thank you, reader) learned of the large number of animals they kill instead of adopting out. You really believe that if the general public that supports PETA had a clue that they would continue to support this organization?>>
WWM is regarded for our unbiased opinions and our hard factual information that we coalesce from years of our own experiences and our highly lauded trials and tests from years of keeping and battling the things fish have and come down with. 
<<Ok, do you realize what you just said? Opinion and unbiased can't really be used in the same sentence. An opinion is, by definition, quite biased. And guess what. We all have them! (Hopefully we all have belly buttons, too.) We do indeed provide factual information, but when it comes to the art of fishkeeping, well, that is where opinion comes in.>>
To sink down and use WWM to fight a losing battle against a group who thrives on controversy only makes us seem to be the bad guys and WE lose the most because we cannot ever be unbiased as a group ever again.  
<<Again, completely misconstrued in my opinion. How are we any more the bad guys for discussing this issue than for discussing any other (such as how best to euthanize animals in our care, for instance)? There are plenty of other sites that are dedicated to fighting PETA. Maybe we should research what's happening to them. 
However, I don't believe that's really necessary - WWM will always be a site dedicated to the betterment of the fishkeeping hobby, promoting sustainable sources for fish, invertebrates, etc., and for keeping hobbyists up to date on the current state of the hobby. I fail to see how this discussion takes anything away from that.>>
That loss is more damaging than any loss we may have from not tackling PETA as a group. 
If you would like to speak out against PETA tell me a time and place and Ill gladly bring myself there and add another line to my FBI file, and make another analyst scared that as a registered gun salesperson who can run background checks is also anti PETA. 
<<WHAT?!? What on earth do guns have to do with this???>>
but to hold it under the WWM name only makes it a joke. If we cant trust people who we know are so callus toward political opinions anyway to see PETA's message for what it is, a political issue paper and nothing else, we have lost touch with what people are these days. 
<<I really wish I could grasp what you're trying to say here.>>
People hate our opinio0ns sometimes as it is and many a disgruntled person has written several times and even cursed us for being asses, I cant imagine any other mixed response to anything else. People come to us for help with fish, lets not lose people valuable information and the chance to truly make a difference where it counts by actually saving fish, because if we reform the mythologies surrounding fish keeping and truly bring about a change as we are slowly doing, Then PETA loses its weaponry and we never fired a shot toward them. They cant argue for no fish industry if the fish industry is at a standard where people laugh at complaints because they know they are not true. 
<<Of course they can, and they will. Part of the reason why this is important to me is because in their message, there is no room for human beings. Have you ever seen the poverty of a third world nation? Ever see up close and personal any of the islands of Indonesia? Do you have any idea what these people go through, how they risk their lives to provide us with pretty fish for our pretty boxes of water, and for the Hong Kong live fish market? How about the folks who inject the "painted" fish for us?  Remember, these people do this to make a living, too. There is, ultimately, a whole lot more to the message than first meets the eye. 
In my world there's room for people, in PETA's there isn't. Sure, saving fish is great, but paying attention to the issue as a whole is even more responsible, in my honest opinion.>>
Personally I believe in the right to vote and exercise it vigorously and am offended that anyone would take my words as a call to sit on our collective asses and do nothing at all.  
<<That's not what I said. I would appreciate it if you re-read my response.>>
I advocate doing it productively. 
<<Prompting intelligent discussion is not productive?>>
If Anyone wants a polarizing issue to run with there is no first amendment without the second amendment.
Take the guns and you lose the ability to criticize.
Take the guns and governments become unaccountable to the people. 
and as a gun owner I firmly believe in individuals right to own firearms if responsible individual safety is used and some decent common sense. I don't need a government telling me to keep my guns away from kids its simple knowledge that kids don't understand them without parental supervision on a range and being taught basic safety much as teaching basic fish care. 
<<While I believe that we should retain the right to own guns, I don't see where that belongs in our discussion. What I, personally, believe is more pertinent to what you bring up is that we pay attention to the manipulation of our judiciary by extreme factions, again, another discussion not at all suitable to WWM.>>
But lets do what we do best and leave the derisive out of the site. It only takes up the space that could be used for such a higher purpose that actually will accomplish something besides eating more bandwidth and disk space. 
<<Tell you what - why don't you bring this up directly with Bob, see what he has to say about this? He wants these discussions put up, so I do that. I asked about putting up Mike G's article (with a small bit of editing for space and readability), and he said, "Make it so." If we're worried about bandwidth, let's provide another server or two, or some cash for it. 
Clearly, our positions are 180 degrees apart regarding open discussion of this issue being placed onto WWM. However, I answer to Bob, and when any other questions arise I refer and defer to him. My intentions were *never* to spur contention between us - they were/are to spur discussion, debate, and to disseminate knowledge. Marina>>

Anthony Gives His Opinion
"Anthony is always included in the correspondences I send out, so if he cares to offer up an opinion on *anything*, he has that opportunity."
Commenting on this point, above... let me ask that my silence not (ever) be taken as consent on any issue... or that I've even read the e-mail. It is presumptive and inaccurate.
Like most of friends here at WWM... it is a struggle for me to keep up with various daily mail/necessary work, etc. Furthermore, and FWIW, my absence from WWM almost wholly for many months now makes my opinion "less" valuable (OK... IMO) than any active crew member re: WWM group decisions. :p
I frankly feel the energy spent on discussing this PETA issue would be much better spent in other ways. Even if simply on another constructive dialogue like 'Best "reef" lighting'?... where exactly are those missing socks?... how MAC will save the world, etc.
Anthony

Marina Responds w/Input from Bob
Anthony, I would like to respond to this. 
Unfortunately, whether one means to or not, silence does very often imply acceptance. Yes, this is absolutely presumptive, and I, personally would not make the assumption of acceptance or lack simply based on response or lack of from you. However, the most I can/will do is include you in the correspondences. This does indeed allow you an opportunity to offer up your opinions - whether you take that opportunity or not is entirely up to you.
Also, I think you should know that your opinion is among the most valued in many circles.  Participation, or lack thereof, does not diminish this value.
Reef lighting is always going to be an ongoing discussion, even for the simple reason that someone may not have used the site to its fullest in their own research, which of course prompts questions.
If Bob and you decide that these discussions have no place on WWM, then just let me know and I will remove them or not post altogether. Simple as that.
MAC is another very pertinent issue, and one that in my mind goes along almost the exact same lines as PETA - even though their goals are different.
<Mmm, no... not IMO... both "fringe" associations principally interested in "making noise", generating revenue, making some phony name for themselves... both have been largely ineffectual, but larger than they're worth in the public eye... "In the world there are makers, takers, and fakers"... both groups are not makers> 
Check the dailies, I don't think this discussion has taken away one iota from WWM as a whole, as a service offered up freely. This is, of course, my own biased opinion. Others may certainly disagree, and the neat thing is that it's still a discussion. Just because people disagree does not necessarily mean that they are fundamentally at odds with each other, it simply means that they disagree. Marina
<The "news" is pet-fish related... of interest, discussion. BobF> 

Steve Allen's Take
Marina:
Your points below are part of the overwhelming evidence that PETA is actually a cult. If you study the definition of cults, you will see that PETA fits the bill on every count. They even have prophets (Ingrid Newkirk, Peter Singer) with doctrines (e.g. "a rat is a dog is a pig is a boy," a "human baby is not a person, but an adult chimp is," etc.). There is absolutely zero flexibility in any of their positions. There can be no more reasoning with them than there can be with Tom Cruise . 
The shame of it is that there is a core of truth to what both are saying (animals should be treated kindly, too many people are being medicated without really being helped, etc) but their stridency and exaggerations undermine real progress on such issues. It is sheer fantasy on PETA's part to think that they can convert even a meaningful minority of Americans to veganism and it is sheer fantasy on Scientology's part to think that they can rid the U.S. of psychiatry.  
I have read a lot about PETA and have read some of the writings of Singer and Newkirk (she's the founder). Very odd ideas IMO. It's a shame, because so much good could be done for animals if reasonable people focus on achievable ends through proper means. It's a lot like that anti-war rally in DC a couple of weeks ago--the reasonable criticisms that could actually accomplish something are drowned out by the ranting of anarchists and nuts who support Kim Jong Il. The war advocates (an animal abusers) can then lump the reasonable critics in with the nuts and derail any efforts for reform. There are many fascists in the modern world: Islamo-fascists, Christo-fascists, PETA-fascists, etc.
Steve 

PufferPunk Takes Action
Ok Folks, I will not be re-upping my membership to PETA. I am learning a lot about what is really going on with them. To take the heat off WWM, I have posted PETA's letter on about 20 other aquarium websites, so write & post whatever you wish at WWM.  ~Jeni/PP

No Rest for the Weary
Uhm.
To coin a phrase, "Can't we all just get along?" If not with PETA, then at least with each other and ourselves?
-Sabrina-the-sleepless

Re: RFG final design draft is READY! RMF tosses exasperated wrench in  9/27/05
There is already another "somewhat"-similar card  to the RFG  ( I say somewhat because its conceptually similar) , however, on a much smaller scale. The Pittsburgh aquarium has released the F.I.S.H. guide (Fish ill-suited for home aquariums). Its looks primarily at the fish which are brought to public aquariums after they outgrow home tanks. The card focuses on Large fish (both fresh/salt) e.g..,  Pacu, groupers,  etc and carnivores e.g. snakeheads, Blacktip sharks  about 20 fish in total. The card is a tri-fold and has a goal of trying to convince hobbyists to not buy these fish due to extreme size or feeding requirements. I have no clue about its distribution, but it is a great first start
frank
<Outstanding! Saluds, BobF>

Something to be ashamed of 7/5/05
Hi, <Hello Sean>
Firstly, I would like to say that I love this site, and find it immensely useful in educating me in the needs of my oceanic pets. <Thank you>This is not really a question but more something I noticed. It is with great distress and disgust, that while browsing a website called monsterfishkeepers.com, I came across a member's gallery of a member called HilJack41. While browsing this gallery I found a picture of said
member posing with a dead Hammerhead shark, to say I was distressed was an understatement. Given the current situation with ever decreasing shark populations, this kind of behaviour from a supposedly responsible site is outrageous. I am usually more of a reader than a contributor but this time I had to say something. I believe that it is has always been
my duty to become educated and care for the fish in my care to the best of my ability and protect those in the ocean. Sorry to be a bit preachy but I firmly believe education is the way forward to stop this kind of behaviour and I believe you guys are instrumental in educating me and the countless others in this fantastic past time of ours. Anyway, keep
up  the good work and I look forward to my trip to Washington and MACNA. <Thank you for your note.  Unfortunately, as long as the government allows shark fishing, not much can be done about it.  I guess it is no different that someone posing with a dead deer hanging from a limb. I enjoy watching deer and am not a hunter so something like this bothers me somewhat the same as your case.  James (Salty Dog)>
Thanks again
Thanking you in advance,
                              Sean

Re: Thanks for the book and can you help
Bob
I think Darrell should try approaching the Agri[cultural] and Veterinary Authority in Singapore to find out what kind of assistance he can obtain if he wants to set up a breeding station for marines.  They have some sort of research station on Saint John's island and recently they have helped a local farm breed seahorses for the export market.
Perry
<Thank you for this Perry. Oh, hope to see you at least in Sing. during Aquarama... and after if you can make it... over to N.E. Sulawesi... Will cc Jason, Di here for adding you to the heads-up list on the itinerary. BobF>

Ecosystem and Biodiversity Conservation in Indo-Pacific, a likely school paper
Dear WWM crews,
Firstly, many thanks for all of your information and helpful mails, previously. I've just planning to moving from now on, and possibly a new look on my saltwater aquarium. Anyway, I'm writing a paper as a school homework. Titled 'Ecosystem and Biodiversity Conservation in Indo-Pacific', I would like to have an interview with you, discussing exclusively on this topic, and also related to aquarium business. Here's my questions :
a. What is your general opinion about the damage caused by humans in our marine ecosystems (all oceans) ?
<At local levels, sometimes quite destructive... compared to natural predators, disasters, minimal>
b. Do you think it is possible to 'replant' corals into their natural habitat, to fully form a completely natural, functioning, healthy ecosystem?
<No... many well-meaning people, folks who want to live on OPM like to present this as a viable option... Ridiculous notion>
c. Do you know possible ways to prevent cyanide-fishing and bombings for aquarium stock ?
<Yes... have presented many talks, articles, book sections on the topic. See CMA re... or WetWebMedia.com re Cyanide Use... Sources of Mortality on the World's Reefs>
d. Do you know the most efficient ways to circulate the aquarium trade without disturbing the ocean ?
<Is as it is now... depending on whose (my) definition of terms, esp. "efficient"... the stocks that are best wild-collected are done so... to the benefit of local and non-local agencies, folks...>
e. Can we build fish and coral farms to re-stock both nature and aquarium needs in a sustainable way ?
<Not nature... should be left alone, the non-scientific folk who are leading such efforts, the ignorant people supporting same or being robbed to do so informed, their mis-placed efforts and funds redirected. Aquarium livestock can be easily produced in captivity... just a matter of market forces, education>
f. What do you think about marine ecosystems in Indo-Pacific ? are they healthy enough ?
<Enough.... overall, sort of... regionally, some localities I've been to, am aware of... definitely not... Much to be done in producing sewage treatment, stopping soil erosion, effecting sustainable fisheries...>
I hope WWM supports for conservation -  and I would be very grateful and highly appreciate your help.
<I do support conservation. In particular I am set against the further wanton reproduction of our species... THE root cause of environmental destruction... AND education of the present population... LESS government, MORE science, technology. Bob Fenner>
Thanks
Yours Sincerely,  Anargha