Data: Wrong; Sustainability: Don't care; Robert Wintner: Aquarium trade should stop!

[naesco]

Originally Posted by mrhasan

Those are obviously good works. And they are termed as "regulation" while this guy, in his campaign, is not promoting "regulation" but instead making a path for black market by saying "legal trade is immoral". Our human nature is such that the forbidden fruit is always the tastiest and put a ban on the marine hobby and the industry will find a way that is not regulated or anything - which can be the worst nightmare for the hobbyist as well as the nature. There's a huge difference between people who create/works with regulations and policy and treehugger who write "save trees" on pieces of papers.

Fair comment but these regulations came as a result of Greenpeace and the sponge bobs of the world forcing governments and industry to reform and change their ways

But for the environmental lobby no regulations would have happened. For example we are going to get tighter regulations on pipelines in BC which is in everyone's interest.

[mrhasan]

Originally Posted by naesco

Fair comment but these regulations came as a result of Greenpeace and the sponge bobs of the world forcing governments and industry to reform and change their ways

But for the environmental lobby no regulations would have happened. For example we are going to get tighter regulations on pipelines in BC which is in everyone's interest.

Definitely. There are obviously environmentalists who find "ways" to "solve" the problem instead of attacking it. Every profession has two sides but its just, some big names in this profession are more eager to just whip out everything which can never be a solution. For example, cyanide poisoning definitely underwent scientific researches to justify and then the concerned activist took it to promote regulation of not using cyanide. That's a solution. But what would have happened if they just said "stop catching fish all together"; that would have caused major issues. Over here, instead of stating moral issues (which can never solve problem) he could have brought in scientific research instead of "they can go anywhere"; its just not right. I have seen "proper" environmentalists attack these type of hypocrites; that tells the conclusion how things work :P

[naesco]

Originally Posted by mrhasan

Definitely. There are obviously environmentalists who find "ways" to "solve" the problem instead of attacking it. Every profession has two sides but its just, some big names in this profession are more eager to just whip out everything which can never be a solution. For example, cyanide poisoning definitely underwent scientific researches to justify and then the concerned activist took it to promote regulation of not using cyanide. That's a solution. But what would have happened if they just said "stop catching fish all together"; that would have caused major issues. Over here, instead of stating moral issues (which can never solve problem) he could have brought in scientific research instead of "they can go anywhere"; its just not right. I have seen "proper" environmentalists attack these type of hypocrites; that tells the conclusion how things work :P

But the threat of no you can't do it forces a dialogue and reasonable negations and a solution

So the role 'what some may call the extreme' plays forces governments and industry to rethink when they see reasonable people also questioning