Coral For Sale

[Hard Rock]

do you always had all this stuff for sale?

[Kojek]

Hi Folks

Firstly , I think we all should calm down and not put anyone in the "spotlight"

Secondly, I would like to understand your views on the following.

Lets have a reality check.

1)The buying of CITIES and non CITIES corals.

I believe that the "CITIES" document is to state that these "livestock" are harvested without being a treat to the existing marine ecosystem.

However,in reality, these livestock are being reduced by the numbers. but we are "not aware" of it, solely because theres such a document as "CITIES"

I believe we all have heard the term "under table" or "back door" to get the

required.

My question is, do we feel better knowing that the Corals are "CITIES" cleared and that we (in our clearest conscience) are posing no harm or contribution "indirectly" by maintaining our hobby.

Heres my second question.

2)The conservation and preservation of coral reefs and marine life.

I would like to know, how many of us have kept any livestock without it dying in our hands ? If We say that we are truly into conservation and preservation , than we should not start this hobby in the first place,because we are indirectly contributing to the destruction of our ecosystem.Purely because that is a supply and demand chain.

How many of us have had our Livestock totally wiped out because of an oversight.Secondly, can we all safely say that our tanks are "fail proof".

I do understand that most of us go into this hobby because we are attracted to the beauty of the reefs and we try our best to mimic what nature has to offer by setting up a marine tank,and we are doing this not because we are trying to "safe the reefs".

To conclude, I don't think that we should finger anyone,because directly or indirectly most of us doing the above.Last but not least, I am sure that all of us will agree that "loads of good" have come out of this forum.

I have met nice people who have taught and shared with me their ideas and lessons,And some have sold me frags,corals,etc.

In my humble opinion, I think we should all treat each other with respect and make this an educational and excellent forum.

Best Regards and have a Beautiful day.

KOjek

[stingray]

Maybe all those who want to sell their corals shld disclose their source.

[bwilly]

Spicyball... good question.

It's not as clear-cut as they may be referring good lobangs without benefit.

I will give the benefit of doubt to these people. At end of the day, we can go to anyone who makes tanks and we know the pricing anyway... with a little homework.

At this moment, I am flexible with this. But of course, any tank maker who comes in here to advertise his wares will be considered commercial.

eh, if u refer to one of the thread its indicated clearly

(he himself says so) that the lobang when he intro

to SRC mbrs will be "taxed" n he will not assume

any responsibilty whatso ever after he got his

share of "introduction" money.

[Ricordia]

If We say that we are truly into conservation and preservation , than we should not start this hobby in the first place,because we are indirectly contributing to the destruction of our ecosystem.Purely because that is a supply and demand chain.

Well Spoken....

Anyway, it is a willing seller and willing buyer market.

That is the most basic fundamental factor for an ecomomy to function.

[DaY]

Hmm..i just got a few question for PacificBetta. since most of his post was directed at me

Firstly, Pacificbetta. i assume u have a marine tank else you would not be in here right? if yes

Secondly, i assume you have some forms of corals/fishes etc either b4 or now?

if yes

Thirdly, when u buy those corals/fishes etc, did u ever ask for a cities permit?

if yes how many times?

fourthly, can you describe how a cities permit look like?

That's all..

If i not wrong, every coral in batches or watever brought in is suppose to have cities permit stating the type of corals and how many pieces.

But because cities will make the cost of corals goes up. Most of the farms that brough the stuff in get their stocks from Indonesia fisherman etc who harvest then transport into Singapore without going through custom.

Then again, the farms will just sell those corals. even if AVA comes and check or watever, they can just produce any old cities which states the type of corals and they can say it just leftover stock which they did not sell finish.

Unless u specify check for cities permit everytime u buy a coral. Dun talk to me about having morals. U are also buying corals without cities except at a higher price

Anyway, At have say no commercial post of Corals and i have stopped doing that. The rest about sea lettuce and snails, i have pm him but he never respond. thus again i would not know what is his stand.

There nothing wrong about me cultivating snails and sea lettuce to sell.. what there to say i can't breed trochus snails and sea lettuce?

anyway,i will attach a pic of a baby trochus just in case u dun know they could give birth inside my tank

That's all..

[reefer guy]

Well Spoken....

Anyway, it is a willing seller and willing buyer market.

That is the most basic fundamental factor for an ecomomy to function.

agree..... one way or another, we are no exception in affecting the conservation and preservation of marine life, so let's not point fingers and pretend we are all morally upright...

[Achilles Tang]

Day,

Thank you for complying with taking your sale stuff out of the forum in compliance with my ruling. I did not expect this to become such a furore but it's good for the club members to speak out on such issues.

I may not fully agree with some trade practices/bypass of checks/laws that may have allowed some livestock importation without proper clearances. As it is, if LFS are taking the risk, it is their own perogative to do so, and have to bear the consequences of their actions.

What I do not want is negative consequences to hit SRC should news that our forum was used as a public vehicle for such transactions to be carried out.

While there are moral and ethical grounds that can be debated on about the supposed illegal harvesting of livestock have somehow reached your hands and into our tanks, the bottom line would still be the commercial gain which violates the rule that I had since day 1 ie. no commercial posting is allowed except by our sponsors and DIY hobbyists who are doing projects as a service to fellow hobbyists at little profit for the time and effort put in.

I did not reply you on the sea lettuce and snails issue as I have not ascertain whether you have harvested them or breeding them... but now that you have said that you bred them... then there is nothing to debate about if that is the truth.

Don't get me wrong... this is not a debate about the ethics of keeping a marine tank OR how you get hold of your livestock... its about you using this forum for commercial gain.

If there is a need to discuss any moral or ethic issues, we should do it in a new thread.

AT

[pacificbetta]

Firstly, Pacificbetta. i assume u have a marine tank else you would not be in here right? if yes

Secondly, i assume you have some forms of corals/fishes etc either b4 or now?

if yes

Thirdly, when u buy those corals/fishes etc, did u ever ask for a cities permit?

if yes how many times?

fourthly, can you describe how a cities permit look like?

Day, you can be very very sure I know how the cites proceedure works. Except for the farm operators who surfed into this site, I dare say I know this industry better than anyone else in this forum.

If i not wrong, every coral in batches or watever brought in is suppose to have cities permit stating the type of corals and how many pieces.

But because cities will make the cost of corals goes up.

Now, I have said these before, and I am going to say this again. The CITES permits do not add significantly to the costs of the corals. This is a myth just like "net caught fish cost a lot more than cynaide caught ones, so we do not ship net caught ones in". The CITES proceedure is cheap to businesses. Of course we will then ask why do CITES stocks always cost more?

The key point is that the prices of the corals themselves of those exporters capable of issuing CITES permits are much higher. Eg (numbers may not be representative of actual prices)

Cost of a acropora by CITES export A is

US$20/pc + US$1 for CITES = US$21 total

Cost of a acropora by non-CITES export B is

US$7 = US$7 total

Of course it is ideal if we have a company C that has a cost structure

US$7/pc + US$1 for CITES = US$8 total

Unfortunately, such companies do not exist. Which brings us to "Then again, the farms will just sell those corals. even if AVA comes and check or watever, they can just produce any old cities which states the type of corals and they can say it just leftover stock which they did not sell finish. "

<Allowing me to digress a little, but this is where I always have very different opinions with AT. Despite all claims that he

may not fully agree with some trade practices/bypass of checks/laws that may have allowed some livestock importation without proper clearances

,

his forum is basically used as a platform to pass information to assist in such stock clearances. Yes, there are rules in place to not do it publicly, but the information being passed around in private is mind-boggling. Yes, I know it is not possible for him to block all such activities from happening, but I will really like to see him and the forum at least make a little more effort to curb such message. Trying even when you knowingly cannot succeed completely, is very different from not trying at all.>

Coming back to where we drifted off, so we see a scenario of people who knowingly help this activity continue. Again, we can ask ourselves, where did these people err, after all they are merely doing something to lessen their personal financial burden.

Before we answer that question, lets look at this statement:

Anyway, it is a willing seller and willing buyer market.

The free market is a good policy, I like it too. The problem is that too often, left to your own, men often overdo it. The ocean is once seen as a pool of unlimited resources. You can catch as many fishes you want from it, it will regenerate itself. Unfortunately, this is not true any more. But the sea, being a communal property, where the things are coowned, it is there just for taking. There is always a feeling of "If I don't remove that piece of coral, and make something out of it, someone else will". This is the basis for control, that is the reason for CITES quota. And this is where I am very unhappy with the way you perceive things. If you have gone to collect the specimens for yourself and yourself only, I have nothing against that. After all, the typical human being probably harms the reefs more by consuming seafood than by catching a few snails from the coast. It is all part of the damage oneself does to the environment. You have to spend the effort to go down to the collection site and remove a few snails and some sea lettuce, even some coral pieces, so be it, I never complained about that. But now things are different, you are going down to pick up 100 snails. Yes, it is still a demand and supply situation, but you are tweaking the supply curve too much and making things even more unsustainable. This is the same argument that I will use for not supporting non-CITES stocks.

There nothing wrong about me cultivating snails and sea lettuce to sell.. what there to say i can't breed trochus snails and sea lettuce?

It is perfectly alright to culture snails and sea lettuce. In fact it is preferred, as far as I am concerned. But are you saying that you have been breedign 100 snails every 2-3 weeks, and growing them (up to a 50cents or 20 cents or 10 cents). I can give you the benefit of doubts over a few "batches" since it can be a backlog from previouse productions, but really I do not see how you can manage this growth rate in the long run. Sea lettuce...... I have grown it myself, and how fast it can go. For someone who claims to be feeding it to his own aquarium, you surely grow them fast. If it is wild collected, admit it, let the forum moderator decide if it should be allowed. Passing off wild collected things as home cultured is disgusting. Yes, I understand AT has no way of verifying wild collected or not, but I will like to hear from you again, are ***ALL*** the trochus snails and sea lettuce you are selling, 100% home cultivated?

is pacificbetta against the commercial post or the hobby altogether?

ocean, I am in the hobby, and have no intention in the foreseeable future to be against myself.

Last but not least, bad analogy about G Bush religion. No offences intended. I apologise if I disturbed any muslim forumers here.

[pospeh]

After pacificbetta post, I would just like to add 2 small point sregarding conservation.

There is a common misconception that conservation means that we are against the harvest of any wild livestock.

This is far from the truth.

In fact, conservation encourages sustainable use of natural resources so that there is enough left for the future.

Here is how Webster's Dictionary defines "Conservation": "a careful preservation and protection of something; especially : planned management of a natural resource to prevent exploitation, destruction, or neglect"

Left to its own devices, a free market eventually will ruin and destroy the market because everyone acts selfishly.

Second, I also have real problems with people saying that AVA's enforcement of CITES is not perfect, so that gives everyone the moral right to ignore the regulations. This is like saying it is ok to import contraband cigarettes from Malaysia (or maybe even steal) because the police doesn't catch everyone.

[PornStar]

Left to its own devices, a free market eventually will ruin and destroy the market because everyone acts selfishly.

The age old problem of capitalism and globalisation - the social and financial norms that most of us have been conditioned to believe and hold so true in our formative years. What other social system would we be comfortable with?

Sadly capitalism has led to the erosion of some social values which are extremely difficult, but not impossible to uphold.

I champion the goal of capitalism but not all its means.

Often the aim of the goal is lost once the means to achieve that goal is changed.

[Kojek]

Hi Folks

I am keen to understand your views with regards to the following

1) The Ocean has enough resources to regenerate its "Jewels" therefore the harvesting of livestock is "ok" if it is CITES cleared.

I understand that research has to be done before stamping a place as "Harvesting Ground" which is suppose to be safe within the given boundaries.

However I do understand that "research" was done during a particular period and that the factors and circumstances were in favour and forcast.

Like the weather, the earth goes through changes contributed by actions indirectly cause by mankind (e.g oil spill,Climate changes), and no one can assure us that our reefs will flourish again.

Now, Can we clearly state that by buying CITES cleared livestock, we are not contributing to the destruction of the reefs because "a piece of paper" has clearly indicated that these livestock pose no threat to the diminishing marine ecosystem.

Im my opinion by the purchasing of livestock, we are not only contributing to the diminishing livestock population,but we are also off setting the balance of the marine ecosystem.

The bottomline is that there is no concrete answer to the replenishing of livestock naturally by mother nature.

2) Secondly, with regards to the aquiring of Cites documents.I would like to know, if it is possible to aquire the relevent documents through "other means",and if such a practice were to exist. We being the "Demand Chain" have contributed in a negative aspect by purchasing the livestock .

3)Thirdly,We are no different from the People that harvest the corals from the sea be it legal and illegally, because the only difference, is that we make a trip down to the LFS, forkout pieces of paper with numeric denominations and return home with the livestock. The major difference is that we did not go to the Sea to pay mother nature for her jewels.

In the true spirit of conservation and preservation , I believe that we are all guilty as charged.If there wasn't a demand of livestock in the first place, we would not be having this discussion and the need for Cites.

Reality BItes~

Cheers

KOjek

[pacificbetta]

Now, Can we clearly state that by buying CITES cleared livestock, we are not contributing to the destruction of the reefs because "a piece of paper" has clearly indicated that these livestock pose no threat to the diminishing marine ecosystem.

You cannot ensure that the CITES quotas are correct. But I am pretty sure if we continue to encourage people to flout this quota, we definitely are creating a bigger threat to depleting the oceans.

The bottomline is that there is no concrete answer to the replenishing of livestock naturally by mother nature.

Agree, but there is concrete evidence that the CITES quotas are being reduced every year. The problems are always with enforcing the CITES. If everyone were to follow the quota requirements and let market set the prices, then it will make sense. If not, a lower quota is going to be just another number.

2) Secondly, with regards to the aquiring of Cites documents.I would like to know, if it is possible to aquire the relevent documents through "other means",and if such a practice were to exist. We being the "Demand Chain" have contributed in a negative aspect by purchasing the livestock .

What that happens on the CITES politics is outside the scope of this discussion. What that matters is that you, as a end consumer, do not encourage further unmoderated exploitation.

[Kojek]

Hi Pacificbetta

Thanks for sharing your point of view.I appeciate this discussion as it broadens my undestanding and views. I have a few points which I would like to share and appreciate any feedback.

1)To begin with, if we are not able to ensure the authenticity of a particular document, Should we not purchase the livestock ? I would call that social responsibility.

2) I do agree that the Cites act is always placing new species of flora and fauna under the controlled and Endangered Act, however the driving force behind this purely due to the demand of a particular livestock in the marine aquaria trade.

Please refer to your "point no 1" that you have shared.

3)Last but not least, with regards to point no 3 ("Cites Politics"). I think it is related in a way that this discussion has surfaced.Correct me if I am wrong,but should we encourage "moderated" exploitation ? If yes , by which benchmark or yardstick.

Much Appreciated and thanks for sharing

KOjek

[pacificbetta]

1)To begin with, if we are not able to ensure the authenticity of a particular document, Should we not purchase the livestock ? I would call that social responsibility.

I respectfully disagree. Buying livestocks that are documented, is still IMO better than buying livestocks that are not. Even if you want to question how the documents are procured in the first place. Unless, not buying livestocks is another option, in which case that would be most ideal, but right now I think we need to bound our discussion scopes a little right. I do not want to be a super duper "keep no pets" activists.

2) I do agree that the Cites act is always placing new species of flora and fauna under the controlled and Endangered Act, however the driving force behind this purely due to the demand of a particular livestock in the marine aquaria trade.

Yes, I agree. The CITES will FIX the total amount of resources that can be exploited. If implemented fully, and obeyed universally, it will creatic a perfectly inelastic supply curve, which means regardless of demand by the aquarium trade, the total supply is still the same. The problem is that out-of-quota supply by passes this model. We as a forum that claim to want to build reef awareness, should not in anyway find excuses to do otherwise.

Correct me if I am wrong,but should we encourage "moderated" exploitation ? If yes , by which benchmark or yardstick.

I am more against unmoderated and uncontrolled exploitation. However since total non-exploitation is out, at least to me, than it seems moderated exploitation is the only avenue left, IMO. Unless you can point me to yet another path? As to why I find the CITES politics out of bounds of this discussion, it is because I do not see how we can influence that, and since we cannot influence that, maybe we can put our energies to better use by applying it on something that we can improve?

[Achilles Tang]

Yeah... but I have still yet to see your list of practical steps to take, dude. If it's logical and workable, I'll implement them.

[pacificbetta]

Yeah... but I have still yet to see your list of practical steps to take, dude. If it's logical and workable, I'll implement them.

1. How about strongly discouraging the exchange of information on non-certified lifestocks, both publicly and privately? I am sure you are more than creative enough to do that, if you want to do so.

2. Or do it the entirely opposite way, strongly encourage all to report all new livestock arrivals, and let authorities handle the rest. It may make you extremely unpopular, but it did solve the problems as demonstrated in the past. Though I remembered some fish with a tail scalpel did get threatened

Either way, I find the present system of using *** so ridiculous. It is making us all part of a bigger conspiracy.

At the same time, build a little awareness.

Pacificdude

[Achilles Tang]

1.  How about strongly discouraging the exchange of information on non-certified lifestocks, both publicly and privately?  I am sure you are more than creative enough to do that, if you want to do so.

1. We can certainly do that publicly. It will take a lot of policing and effort through. But with everyone's co-operaton, of course! Privately? How do I do that?! I do not have the means or time to check what is discussed in private unless I get help from my ISD bros.

2. How do we verify non-certified livestock in the first place??

2.  Or do it the entirely opposite way, strongly encourage all to report all new livestock arrivals, and let authorities handle the rest.  It may make you extremely unpopular, but it did solve the problems as demonstrated in the past.

Either way, I find the present system of using *** so ridiculous.  It is making us all part of a bigger conspiracy.

At the same time, build a little awareness.

I think this is happening now. Most of the LFS are abiding with AVA rulings and getting proper clearances. Those that do not, run the risk of being caught and paying the price. We have been talking openly about livestock arrivals.

The present system of using *** as part of self-censorship is to protect one from stating blatantly which establishment they are unhappy with. Knowing how poorly some shops react to negative comments, this is the only discourse unless one can take the time to give very vague descriptions.

There is no conspiracy... I encourage open comments on the establishments provided you are willing to standby what you said or be identified for easy contacting should there be a need for communications. Most people won't bother anyway and hence use the *** for mostly negative feedback and to avoid the backlash. Positive feedback... there is no real need for using ***.

[pacificbetta]

Privately? How do I do that?

You can do better than that. Take this part offline? This thread is making me very much of a asshole already, dun want to make it a double ######.

[Achilles Tang]

LOL! Okie okie. Private conversation then. Double A!

[Kojek]

Hi MarineBetta

Thanks for the feedback,I understand your views but my question boils down to the individual.

1)Do i make an assumption that its "ok" to buy corals "so long as theres a "valid document" supporting the harvesting of these livestock.Even if we know there is a possibility that the documents may have surfaced via "other means"

2)Secondly,would you consider ourselves (including myself) as a negative factor indirectly contributing to the number of livestock being reduced with regards to the purchasing of livestock from LFS.

I'm not reflecting about a "no Pet" or hobby discussion,just appreciating and understanding views

3)With regards to the "Cites act" managing the supply curve.Once again If the documents are "uncertainties" would it be effective in acting as a measure of control or would it have a devastating effect .The fact of the matter is that we are creating a demand by purchasing the livestock.

4)The keyword here is exploitation. As for livestock exploitation,be it moderated or unmoderated.... it is still exploitation.

5)Cites politics,IMO, if we feel so strongly about our beliefs and they echo out from the fiery gut of our bellies.Every ounce of blood in our bodies would be worth thecause. Would you agree ?

Thanks for sharing and taking the time to express

KOjek

[pacificbetta]

MarineBetta

Pls take note of the different species, I represent betta splendens, and will not want to cause any grief and angish to our lovely comet brother.

1)Do i make an assumption that its "ok" to buy corals "so long as theres a "valid document" supporting the harvesting of these livestock.Even if we know there is a possibility that the documents may have surfaced via "other means"

Lets put it this way, *IF* you have to buy, which is the less sinful way? Documented or otherwise? You decide.

2)Secondly,would you consider ourselves (including myself) as a negative factor indirectly contributing to the number of livestock being reduced with regards to the purchasing of livestock from LFS.

Unfortunately, yes. Even myself is very guilty of this charge. However I do not see an alternative hobby right now. We all are guilty of straining the environment by trying to pamper to our perverted idea of fun in keeping some fishes in a glass tank. Sometimes we try to atone for our sins by pretending to teach others how fragile this reef environment is.

3)With regards to the "Cites act" managing the supply curve.Once again If the documents are "uncertainties" would it be effective in acting as a measure of control or would it have a devastating effect .The fact of the matter is that we are creating a demand by purchasing the livestock.

I do not understand.

4)The keyword here is exploitation. As for livestock exploitation,be it moderated or unmoderated.... it is still exploitation.

Strictly speaking, the very fact that we are alive means that we have to be exploiting the environment in some way. What I am advocating is moderating this exploitation, not total non-exploitation.

5)Cites politics,IMO, if we feel so strongly about our beliefs and they echo out from the fiery gut of our bellies.Every ounce of blood in our bodies would be worth thecause. Would you agree ?

I hope you are not suggesting that since I have been so vocal, I should go spill my guts somewhere

[Kojek]

Hi Pacificbetta

Sorry about the name difference.Thanks again for sharing,I appreciate your openess in communication.

Best Regards

KOjek

p.s with regards to spilling your guts ? was suggesting that you express and share your views through suggestions.

[DaY]

I think it quite simple to resolve this.

It just choosing the lesser evil ( in your opinion )between two evil.

If you think you want to choosing the lesser evil of buying corals with cities (or you think with cities) but at a higher price then go ahead and buy (even though u are indirectly harming mother nature)

Or you can choose the other evil, buying corals without cities but at a lower price(but then u are also indirectly harming mother nature)

But remember that it is the demand of the hobbyists be it with cities or non-cities

that cause damages to Mother Nature. If there is no demand of corals from people like us, even with cities or non-cities, no one would bother to go to the sea to harvest it. So regardless of how people act or talk as if they are against buying of corals without cities. It just empty words without much action as they are also contributing to the destruction of mother nature.

pacificbetta Posted: Sep 17 2003, 03:51 PM 

Lets put it this way, *IF* you have to buy, which is the less sinful way? Documented or otherwise? You decide.

But does anyone check the document before buying corals?

pacificbetta Posted: Sep 17 2003, 03:51 PM 

Unfortunately, yes. Even myself is very guilty of this charge. However I do not see an alternative hobby right now. We all are guilty of straining the environment by trying to pamper to our perverted idea of fun in keeping some fishes in a glass tank. Sometimes we try to atone for our sins by pretending to teach others how fragile this reef environment is.

Same here. As long as we keep a marine tank, we are destroying mother nature one way or another. Thus IMO, of the two evil path, you are just choosing another route different from what i am choosing. It does not make sense really for you to curse or pinpoint at me in the first place which started all this discussionas the final destination of your route is the same as me (contributing to destruction of mother nature). Maybe you are just trying to atone your sins for it by pinpointing at me. Shrugz

Strictly speaking, the very fact that we are alive means that we have to be exploiting the environment in some way. What I am advocating is moderating this exploitation, not total non-exploitation

I am also advocating moderating this exploitation. You do not see me selling tons and tons of corals like those LFS. And if you have seen their backyard full of those death corals skeleton. you know what i mean. If those people does not buy from me, they would still buy from somewhere to fill up their tanks. So if they buy from me snails or watever, once they have enough, they would not need to buy from somewhere else and thus it would equal out the demand of corals/snails etc somehow or another in the long run if u understand this equation. It is only because more and more people are getting started into Marine with the better equipments/technology etc that will eventually cause the destruction of Mother Nature.

I hope this thread will be put to an end. Quite tired of typing long post.

[pacificbetta]

If you think you want to choosing the lesser evil of buying corals with cities (or you think with cities) but at a higher price then go ahead and buy (even though u are indirectly harming mother nature)

Or you can choose the other evil, buying corals without cities but at a lower price(but then u are also indirectly harming mother nature)

The point is YOU are creating yet another source of corals. YOU, with little expertise in handling such items, actually attempt to harvest and sell these items. YOU, despite having it highlighted to you, continue to think it is perfectly ok to create extra damage.

It just empty words without much action as they are also contributing to the destruction of mother nature.

I am a man of action. I vote with my wallet. And for the record, until YOU stopped all forms of commercial harvesting of corals, YOU and the following people, who have contributed to your operations, are not welcomed at 1 balestier rd, there are a lot of other shops that you can turn to. I may not recognise everyone, but those that I do recognise, I will mean what I say.

1) Golden Tooth

2) Woon Ming

3) Anthony

4) Cedric

5) nicky30092002

6) Joop?

7) Hecter

8) Kais

9) nqh7

10) Bwilly

11) Reefy

12) Ancelot

13) lima16_sg

14) Alvy

15) Ruel