Punchanello
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2017
- Messages
- 594
- Reaction score
- 670
- Location
- Australia
- What state or country do you live in
- Australia
Here's the video so you can make up your own minds. Julian clearly is a man that is held in deep respect within the hobby and I agree with a lot of what he says but disagree with the overall approach being taken.
I guess I have a few issues -
- I don't want to put words in Julian's mouth but what I hear from him and many other's with a financial stake in the industry is that the financial stake in and of itself is enough motivation for businesses to "do the right thing". Some also go further and say that in fact, it makes them best placed to decide what the right thing is. I don't want to get too far in to the politics here but it seems a strange position to take with so many recent and historical examples of businesses who not only survived but thrived on doing the wrong thing and the well documented and long list of harms caused by deregulation and failures of markets to respond to harm.
- Julian defends the legitimacy and appropriateness of aquaculture, mariculture and wild caught fish and corals equally. To me this is a self serving message from the industry. Clearly some methods cause more harm than others environmentally, ethically and financially. Playing in the grey areas as Julian does on some of these issues is a classic tactic that interest groups and lobbyists use but it is not a sustainable tactic in defending the hobby.
- I don't like singling out the extremists or outliers and then saying, "see, they're all crazy and nothing like us". In fact, most animal rights organisations do not take an absolutist position, respect the science and seek better regulation and improved practices - not abolition. Unfortunately, many in the industry take the position that whether moderate or extreme they should be treated the same way, as a threat. That seems silly from a PR perspective given that we are not polar opposites as Sprung tries to imply, but in many ways concerned by the same things like the welfare of these animals. Why aren't we working with them on things like certification and best practice? Better in the tent pee-peeing out than outside pee-peeing in.
- Denial, or attempting to discredit the animal rights movement is counter productive and short sighted. You can't win this way because the fact is they hold a moral high ground because they don't take animals from the wild, transport them in less than ideal and sometimes cruel conditions where many die and keep them in captivity for the rest of their lives. We can argue all day about the extent of harm because there is a whole spectrum of scientific research on sentience, pain, an psychology of animals that takes different positions on this (holding up a book that argues differently changes little), but I think most reasonable people would agree that there is in fact some harm caused by the hobby which could be better dealt with. Dealing with the issues and improving practices and regulation based on the science is the alternative and sustainable approach and one that will lead to long term sustainability of the industry.
- I found the argument about migration of species in to the Atlantic via the southern tip of Africa absurd and self serving. It is the same logic used by climate denialists. That the sudden and abrupt environmental impacts of changes caused by humans don't really mater because similar things have happened over millions of years in the past. In this case, don't blame hobbyists for the explosion of feral animals dumped by aquarists and people shipping fish in bilges causing enormous environmental harm because a species of fish once swum past the Cape of Good Hope. Here in Australia we have seen the devastation caused by the introduction of crown of thorns starfish, rabbits, cane toads and others which could only have happened with human intervention.
I guess what I am saying in summary is that denial, obfuscation and generating conflict are not good long-term strategies to help the hobby survive criticism and activism. Responding to good science through improved practices is.
I guess I have a few issues -
- I don't want to put words in Julian's mouth but what I hear from him and many other's with a financial stake in the industry is that the financial stake in and of itself is enough motivation for businesses to "do the right thing". Some also go further and say that in fact, it makes them best placed to decide what the right thing is. I don't want to get too far in to the politics here but it seems a strange position to take with so many recent and historical examples of businesses who not only survived but thrived on doing the wrong thing and the well documented and long list of harms caused by deregulation and failures of markets to respond to harm.
- Julian defends the legitimacy and appropriateness of aquaculture, mariculture and wild caught fish and corals equally. To me this is a self serving message from the industry. Clearly some methods cause more harm than others environmentally, ethically and financially. Playing in the grey areas as Julian does on some of these issues is a classic tactic that interest groups and lobbyists use but it is not a sustainable tactic in defending the hobby.
- I don't like singling out the extremists or outliers and then saying, "see, they're all crazy and nothing like us". In fact, most animal rights organisations do not take an absolutist position, respect the science and seek better regulation and improved practices - not abolition. Unfortunately, many in the industry take the position that whether moderate or extreme they should be treated the same way, as a threat. That seems silly from a PR perspective given that we are not polar opposites as Sprung tries to imply, but in many ways concerned by the same things like the welfare of these animals. Why aren't we working with them on things like certification and best practice? Better in the tent pee-peeing out than outside pee-peeing in.
- Denial, or attempting to discredit the animal rights movement is counter productive and short sighted. You can't win this way because the fact is they hold a moral high ground because they don't take animals from the wild, transport them in less than ideal and sometimes cruel conditions where many die and keep them in captivity for the rest of their lives. We can argue all day about the extent of harm because there is a whole spectrum of scientific research on sentience, pain, an psychology of animals that takes different positions on this (holding up a book that argues differently changes little), but I think most reasonable people would agree that there is in fact some harm caused by the hobby which could be better dealt with. Dealing with the issues and improving practices and regulation based on the science is the alternative and sustainable approach and one that will lead to long term sustainability of the industry.
- I found the argument about migration of species in to the Atlantic via the southern tip of Africa absurd and self serving. It is the same logic used by climate denialists. That the sudden and abrupt environmental impacts of changes caused by humans don't really mater because similar things have happened over millions of years in the past. In this case, don't blame hobbyists for the explosion of feral animals dumped by aquarists and people shipping fish in bilges causing enormous environmental harm because a species of fish once swum past the Cape of Good Hope. Here in Australia we have seen the devastation caused by the introduction of crown of thorns starfish, rabbits, cane toads and others which could only have happened with human intervention.
I guess what I am saying in summary is that denial, obfuscation and generating conflict are not good long-term strategies to help the hobby survive criticism and activism. Responding to good science through improved practices is.
Last edited:
