Wholesaler Labels Aquaculture as Immoral!

No tension from me!

FWIW, taken as a whole, I think the statement is actually pretty clear, but if it wasn't for you, the conclusions you came to were not the only conclusions you could come to either as a customer or a writer - you just had to make an effort to ask them to clear up your confusion...before you went after them from the bully pulpet of the blog.

I don't find it surprising that they are ignoring you - you went for their throats in the title and through out the piece. In the first paragraph without giving them a chance to clarify : "This is however a company that we should all take note of and try to avoid due to their unethical philosophy regarding our environment and right to destroy it for the good of humanity." Lets be clear, you didn't publish the piece as a confused customer, you went for their throat and as you can see from the responses here, support for your positions is far from universal.

How would you feel if someone wrote something similar about you, your site, or your company?

Being a responsible journalist or customer would require that you try to get clear on the reality before publishing a hit piece. Asking for information after publicly smiting them, and lets be honest you were pretty harsh, is prolly not going to yield fruit. If you are going to write something harsh, its seems to make much more sense making sure you have covered all your bases before publication.

Again, no tension here from me, I'm just talking because this kind of stuff really interests me. I'll be happy to stop talking if you like.

 

I'm always happy to have your input rich. They weren't ignoring me. I just hadn't been able to find their contact info yet. I did just get a hold of them though, and should be getting a response in the near future. In the interest of not fueling any fire, I'm going to refrain from posting anymore until I hear from them.

Thank you everyone for your honest opinions whether you agreed with me or not.

 

Good! I love being able to have a conversation instead of a fight.
I do have to ask...isn't their phone number on their site?

 

I was referring to Bornman's book as a summary, I know it is not scientific literature.

Government records are known as "gray literature". After getting acquainted with a fishery, that is one of the first things I would look for. Unfortunately, as I start my research into Papua New Guinea's (PNG) aquarium fishery, I cannot access PNG's National Fisheries Authority (NFA) website, which makes it difficult to access what ever survey data they have on PNG's reefs. If anyone else has any luck accessing this website, let me know. It could just be my web browser.

www.fisheries.gov.pg

Regardless, the NFA is so small that I doubt it has the resources to survey the aquarium fishery regularly when they have other more valuable fisheries to look after (like tuna). This is likely NFA's reason for trying to work with outside aquarium fishery companies, like SEASMART and Ecoaquarums PNG to help control the fishery. However, therein lies a problem... it is very wrong is use data from a company with strong interests in the fishery to declare that fishery sustainable.

I have a few concerns with with SEASMART. They have not published data that I'm aware of (the maps on their website are not really data) and are not an independent source of information. This sentence from their website would raise some concerns with fisheries scientists.

In other words SEASMART is a company that wants to export fish from PNG, which hurts its credibility. I personally believe industry support is usually necessary in fisheries research, but most fisheries scientists would only very carefully use this data in assessing the fishery (if SEASMART would share it)... they would ask for fisheries independent sources of information (like a survey performed by the government or university). On the flip side, it is great that the program worked with the government, although that relationship has been far from harmonious. Does SEASMART even still exist?

My other concern is that SEASMART haven't published any fisheries data that I can find. Why do they keep their data "privileged" (aka not publicly available, which is vital for outside scrutiny)? Not many people would be willing to take SEASMARTs (or Ecoaquariums) word on the state of the fishery, since the company clearly is a stakeholder.

In my opinion, the activities of the SEASMART/Ecoaquariums company are not enough to label PNG's fishery as sustainable. While the objectives are admirable, a company with a vested interest in the aquarium industry in PNG cannot declare that the fishery is sustainable.

Please do not take what I'm am saying the wrong way. SEASMART appears to have done some great things for PNG's aquarium fishery.

 

I'm going to accept everyone's word that has discussed this with me on here and agree both that I should have contacted them sooner and that they not have meant what I perceived. Because of this, I've updated the article to reflect that.

 

Thank you Mike!

 

No thanks needed. That's how much I respective the opibionsvofvthis community and that's what I posted inherent to get.

 

Once again Tapatalk doesn't know English very well.

 

IMO, the company released a very poorly written/thought out statement. Their president had to ok it as well as probably the board. At which point it is published as an official statement of the company, why should one have to dig in and investigate their "true"/alternate theoretical meanings behind "their" own written words? It seems logical to assume that in a public statement written by a company, one would be reasonable in critiquing it, and making their own judgements and forming their own opinions about it. It happens everyday.

When apple releases their new iPad, it will get trashed by some for not having XYZ, while praised by some for having ABC. Trashing Mike for publishing his own opinion about their "own written, discussed, critiqued and then published" opinion seems hypocritical to me. When Obama gives a speech, does the AP/FOX/BBC/MSNBC send emails and letters to him before publishing their own reactions??? NO! Why? Because by putting your words out in public as an official statement, you acknowledge them as your own words. And just because you chose to word it poorly shouldn't excuse you from critique. If you're words can be strewn in multiple directions, then you should've meant them to be that way and deal with the repercussions, or you should've written them much more clearly. IMO

BTW, I'm all for sustainable responsible farming/culturing, regardless of exact mode, as long as it ensures the survival of the species being farmed and doesn't threaten them in their survivability in their natural environment. Our need for pretty and cool shouldn't supersede a creatures right to existence in the wild.

 

Was their statement not a "hit" piece? in your own words?

And they wrote something harsh, should they not be held to an accountability you're holding Mike? Just curious.?