Re: HAP Programs

[Neil Frank <nfrank@mindspring.com>]

I might as well also include my response I sent to the original requester. 

Interesting situation. I am familiar with the HAP program I ran for Raleigh
Aquarium Society during the early 80's and since we basically adopted
another club's program (with a few minor requirements about documentation),
I assume that your HAP program is similar. Certainly, when these HAP
programs were developed,  - and assigned cumulative points according to
success level - they did not have the technology advantages in mind. In
particular, CO2 injection is the most important and perhaps gives the
largest single benefit over traditional fish tank methods . So, I tend to
agree with you that the number of points assigned for success with CO2
injection are no longer appropriate. Raising most plants are too easy.
However, I think it is quite arbitrary to say the it is twice as easy with
CO2 injection and therefore give them half the points. 
One approach may be to set up two subcategory HAPs -- one with CO2 (and
perhaps with some other new technology benefits) and one without. The
challenge to you will be how to define the "low-tech" or old style aquarium
approaches. Once done, however, the low-techers and high-techers dont
compete with each other;  and master growers among each group can be
independently recognized. On the other hand, many people who were
successful in the early HAP programs had an edge over the less fortunate. I
always used loam or peat in my tanks; had low flow filters, no aerators;
small fish loads, extra lighting, etc and I could grow plants that no one
else could. Should I have been in a category by myself? (In fact, I was...
I managed the program, but did not participate because i felt that I would
discourage others from participating).
Another thought is that certain species or genus dont get enough points.
With all the technology, I still cant grow any plant I try. Some of it is
my local water conditions that I dont want to change. At least in a HAP
program, most people have similar water... but this is also not true...
hard and soft water supply might be another dichotomy.
--Neil