[Coral-List] banning wild collection when mariculture sources exist [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

[Charles Delbeek]

margiea wrote:
> Les
> I agree - my personal view is that the key word in this entire debate is 
> "sustainable". From a conservation point of view it should be prefixed 
> by the word "ecologically" sustainable. The trick is definitely in 
> getting the triple bottom line-balance sorted, to foster stewardship. I 
> would be keen to see some more dialogue about other people's efforts to 
> resolve this one.
>
> Cheers
> Margie
>
> Margaret Atkinson
>
> Project Manager
> Fisheries Issues Group
> Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
> 2-68 Flinders St
> PO Box 1379
> Townsville, Qld  4810
>   
Then we need to start a dialog with those in the field actually trying 
to run such a business so that we can better understand the issues and 
problems facing these operations. We need to understand how the other 
half "lives" instead of condemning and/or lumping them all under the 
label of unsustainable "reef rapers" and recognize that there are some 
out there who want to, and are trying to, do the right thing for their 
business, the industry, the local population and the environment. Unless 
one can show the value of the living reef to those who live next to 
them, then you will not have much chance to convince them that using 
coral to make concrete for roads, houses and bridges, allowing logging 
and construction run-off to flood over a reef, or blasting reefs to get 
the fish, may not the best use of that resource. With all the economic 
pressures that reefs are placed under, the trade in aquacultured coral 
from the source, may well be one of the few of these with the most 
concern for their recovery and survival. Most other industries using the 
reefs are strictly consuming them with little regard for the long term 
survival of the reefs.

Aloha!
Charles