Re: More Input from the AGA MC

["James Purchase" <jpurch@interlog.com>]

Thanks for the feed-back Ken. Don't get me wrong, I'm as "loyal" an AGA
member as the next person. My main point was highlighted by the final part
of your "sig" line - you stand to save a whole $5.00 under the proposed rule
changes. Big deal! <g>

But what is a small deal to entrants (anyone who can't afford the $5.00 is
not likely to be a potential entrant anyway, considering the cost to set up
and maintain an aquarium) could be a very big deal to the AGA and how it
could best serve it's membership. If 150 AGA entries are submitted, that
represents $750.00 which the AGA wouldn't have to use for other purposes. As
an AGA member, I am VERY concerned about how the organization spends it's
(our) money, even though as a regular member I've never been asked my
opinion on the matter. (Come to think of it, I've never seen a financial
statement in TAG which would allow the membership at large to comment upon.)

The number two item in the list of AGA goals is to study and improve upon
techniques for culturing aquatic and bog plants in aquariums and ponds. In
my opinion, this is best done through the sponsoring of independent research
in areas of interest to aquatic gardeners. That $750.00 could go towards
furthing our REAL knowledge of aquatic plant husbandry rather than the
bantering back and forth of annecdotal evidence as is done daily on the APD
(I'm not confusing the APD with the AGA). The AGA does have a Research
Committee, led by Diana Walstad and it does fund independent research
proposals.

I am aware of one individual (I don't know if he is an AGA member or not, or
if he is receiving AGA funding) who is currently conducting some VERY
interesting research into aquarium substrates. I have recently had the
opportunity to help his work by providing him (at my expense) with samples
of a number of substrates, both commercial and non-commercial, for testing.
Several other people have helped him out in the same manner. I've seen some
raw data from his research and it is QUITE interesting and should provide a
lot of "real" information for discussion and further research. My point is
that studies such as the one this chap is conducting will be more valuable
to aquatic gardeners than people's personal annecdotes about this material
vs. that material, which, in the absence of real data, is all that we can go
by.

I realize that this is not a forum to discuss issues such as this, but as
there really IS no real-time forum provided by the AGA to allow members to
voice their individual opinions, for now it will have to do (I'm also aware
that at least 2 AGA MC members are likely to read this).

I think that our actually offering to DO this as an AGA sponsored event
should be enough of a "perk" for AGA members. None of the AGA dues is going
to pay for the uncounted hours I or any of you have put into this project to
date (nor should it) and if any AGA member who has heard about this effort
and decided not to get involved and help out feels slighted because they are
expected to pay a $5.00 entry fee, I have only two words for them, and I
can't use them here. <g>

As I said in my initial post, the issue really IS up to the AGA MC - if they
don't want members charged, they won't be, but I do hope that they consider
the consequences very carefully before reaching a final decision.

Enough. Back to waiting.

James Purchase
Toronto
AGA Member-at-large-with-a-big-mouth <g>

  ------------------
  To unsubscribe from this list, e-mail majordomo@thekrib.com
  with "unsubscribe aga-contest" in the body of the message.
  To subscribe to the digest version, add "subscribe aga-contest-digest"
  in the same message.
  Old messages are available at http://lists.thekrib.com/aga-contest