the greatest amazon desaster!

[Miguel]

Mato Grosso was not “ the thickest primary rainforest on earth”. Its name tells you exactly what that region was from its first discovery by outsiders: Mato Grosso, meaning Thick Weeds.
It is true that a lot of soy has been planted there, but there were only ever relatively small pockets of forest in the area Bleher refers to and they are mostly still there. ‘Weeds’ ( varieties of the grass family) have been replaced in places by Soy. In terms of AGW and deforestation it is almost a balance. It looks worse than it is from the road because that is where the bulk of soy is grown, within easy distance from the road for easier transportation .

A little correction, David, from one that speaks the language, knows the country and has also travelled on the Amazon.

Mato is "weeds", in the sense of scrub, in portuguese. It is "forest" in "brazilian". And Mato Grosso means Thick Forest in "brazilian".

The same applies to that huge swath of forest along the atlantic coast of Brasil, called Mata Atlântica. It is a forest. A very thick forest.

Having said that, the existence of large extensions of scrub regions in the Amazon region, as well as in Mato Grosso, are reality.

Your writings- with which I tend to agree- make me sad.

I wouild like for Mr Bleher to defend his position and would have expected him to contribute already.

 

[DavidW]

Yes Miguel you are correct, but it wasn't it the Portuguese who named it while Brazilian Portuguese was still developing as a dialect and was much closer to its mother language (not that it is so far away today)
Mata Atlantica is almost gone in comparison, although I think Lula promised to restore some of it.

 

[DavidW]

interesting thread. i agree with david. awhile ago on simply discus forum. there was a heated thread that some guy came in and called bleher out. saying all he does is take peoples credits for their work and saying its his...it was interesting. ill try to look for that thread.

i found the thread:

http://forum.simplydiscus.com/showthread.php?72104-Are-wild-discus-endangered

it starts getting interesting on page 3 when that unknown guy "wildthing" shows up

that guy wasnt you was it david?
enjoy!

Yep...I got banned from there for that one and another one about the Tucurui dam

 

[cichlid2006]

http://en.microcosmaquariumexplorer.com/wiki/Heiko_Bleher_Arrested_for_Fish_Smuggling
After a quick read of this thread I decided to check Blehers criminal record and found the above link upon a whole 10 seconds of research. I am sure there would be more information if someone were to look deeper and had more time to surf for the information. In the discus article he is quite defiant about having a criminal past but that article proves otherwise so what else is he lying about. If he can steal and attempt to smuggle fish out of Brazil I am almost positive stealing research and a photograph would not stop him sleeping at night.

 

[krichardson]

Yep...I got banned from there for that one and another one about the Tucurui dam

I'm not into discus currently and I have never heard of that site before now but thanks for the link it was interesting reading.Would you happen to have a link that pertains to the Tucurui dam discussion?

 

[DavidW]

I'm not into discus currently and I have never heard of that site before now but thanks for the link it was interesting reading.Would you happen to have a link that pertains to the Tucurui dam discussion?

http://forum.simplydiscus.com/showthread.php?78663-Hydroelectric-Plants-Planned-in-Brazil

 

[DavidW]

This is what you drive around the rain forest when you want to be environmentally responsible, if you are concerned about Man's impact on the planet

 

[DavidW]

Wiki says that in the USA an estimated 9 million homes have tropical fish tanks, with an estimated 40% of those having more than one tank.
If you do the math with those numbers, using perhaps 20 gallons as an average tank size and estimating the wattage needed to power heaters for those tanks ( 1 watt per gallon) the USA electricity bill alone comes to perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars annually. It is a massive amount of energy being used for no practical benefit to almost anyone. Lets face it. Keeping tropical fish is not beneficial to the environment in any way, in terms of the energy consumed and what it takes to produce that energy or in terms of the ecological damage done by some collectors.
For Sr Bleher to exhort us to “ breed more fish” is self-serving and circular . The tortured logic of this suggestion is in effect: increase the effect your fish activities have on the AGW in order to reduce AGW and its effects on tropical fish. This is obviously non-sensical.
He talks grandly about global warming and deforestation but fails to recognize his own part in it.
If he is seriously concerned with the real causes and effects of Global Climate Change then perhaps he should consider not publishing on printed paper and especially not jetting all around the globe burning outrageous amounts of fossil fuels directly into the stratosphere (by his own claim 171 countries) or blundering around the rainforests of the world 10 times a year (from his own writings) creating a larger carbon footprint and creating more deforestation and having a bigger negative impact on our planet than any other 10,000 average people combined or a even small war ( see photo of military vehicle in previous post)

Sr Bleher’s stated concerns and his activities are in complete conflict with each other.
With ‘friends’ writing junk like this article AGW doesn’t need enemies!

 

[CLDarnell]

David, I appreciate your comments and research. Every point you make is valid.

In a world where a little bit of negative exaggeration creates a ton of bad press ("flesh eating piranhas" for example), I don't see a problem with someone over-exaggerating in an effort to protect and preserve valuable, natural resources. Even if only certain areas of trees were cut down, telling the world that a forest was demolished to bring world-wide attention to the matter...well, it's exaggerating the issue, but I don't see a problem. Obviously, it's working since, here we are, a collection of aquariasts discussing matters of deforestation and global climate change. Sometimes, you need to yell a bit louder than others to get everyone's attention.

I absolutely do not condone Mr. Bleher using copyrighted photographs unless of course he had permission. I also agree that his use of the photos was misleading at best. But I don't think his reputation or credentials should be stripped in leu of his intentions.

In regards to his carbon foot print...well, that's how we travel. Again, your points are valid. But calling him out because of his choice of limited methods of travel is a bit condescending. Corporate America executives...even the President himself has, I believe, more "frequent flyer miles" than Mr. Bleher.

The truck...well, again, your point is valid. But research requires equipment. It takes equipment to move equipment. I believe that 3 or 4 people in a single vehicle is going to create less environmental disturbance than a large crew of hired "packers" walking and camping throughout this area. A small group with a single truck can get in and out quicker than a larger, slower group, therefore limiting the impact.

I admit, I have done very little reading and research in regards to Mr. Bleher. Of the discussions I have read, I can understand some of the controversey. But, over-all, I don't believe his intentions are all entirely self serving. It appears that most of his research has been beneficial and has had a positive impact in many ways.

Its very easy to criticize someone else's work. Especially when their methods are somewhat controversial. But so far, I see the benefits of his work far out-weighs the negative impact.

Again, it's sort of cool to see someone over-exaggerating and exploiting hype for a good cause for a change.

 

[DavidW]

Again, it's sort of cool to see someone over-exaggerating and exploiting hype for a good cause for a change.

Some folks love to criticize Al Gore for his efforts to educate us and some of his information Vs his carbon footprint. They say he is a hypocrite and therefore his message is wrong.
Even on MFK there are plenty of fishkeepers who believe AGW is a hoax.
There have been some heated debates on that subject to the point where the subject is very 'touchy' here.
Hyped faulty information is bread and butter for AGW deniers. So , although I can agree with you in principle, at least maybe, about Bleher having good intentions, in fact hyperbole is counter-productive as it is too often used to discredit the real science, which he has never done.
I guess when I go to starbucks and look at the menu to choose a coffee that is 'research ' too, by his measure?