Aquaponic Gardening

A Community and Forum For Aquaponic Gardeners

I'm starting this forum topic for anyone who is interested in talking about the new Aquaponics Association.  While nothing will be set in stone when we officially adopt the Charter at the Conference on Sept 16, we'd like to get it as close to representative of what the aquaponics community is hoping for by that time.

If you go to the page that we've set up on the Association site (click here) you can download the Charter and Organizational structure, and answer some questions about your constructive feedback and how can we give you value for your membership dues.  Please take the survey!

Feel free to ask any questions about what we are doing here - the Organizing Committee (myself, Gina Cavaliero, Murray Hallam and Wayne Hall) is an open book, and everyone is a member in this community site.  We are 100% committed to creating an organization that will serve aquaponics well...although we obviously won't be able to do everything right out of the gate, nor will we be able to make everyone happy.  

I'd like to start the discussion rolling by asking a question  that I asked on Murray's forum this morning - how can we bring value to both Individual Members and Commercial members for their dues?  We've listed several things we could do on the survey linked above.  What are we missing?  What sounds great?

Views: 5091

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hi Kobus, I beg to differ about promoting or scoring products.  I certainly won't contribute to an organization that spends my money rating products. Then promotes so called approved products. This leaves the door wide open for commercialization and corruption. No association tells me which products sold on TV are a rip off. Buyer Beware!

Kobus Jooste said:

 

In terms of rating component suppliers or system designers I think the concern is far more about fly-by-night clowns that cut and paste other people's system descriptions and sell e-books without after sales support.  In a way, the association is capable of being a tool through which these scammers' impact can be limited.  We are not so arrogant that we think we can go to your back yard and give you a score card on your business. 
 

Enough already!   We get it!  Rupert and Earthan are against an Aussie Chapter, Murray supports it.  Can we PLEASE move on to another topic?  thanks


Sylvia Bernstein said:

Rupert and Earthen, isn't it possible that you guys don't represent the Aussie point of view on the Association, but rather the point of view of a few vocal forum members?  I have people join this site every day who tell me that they will no longer participate on the Aussie forums because of the level of bickering and rancor, and frankly arrogance, there.  I'm willing to bet that there is an entire population of Aussie aquaponic practitioners  who would be very interested in having a way to advance aquaponics that doesn't involve an online forum.

 

Sylvia, in between other things tonite I've been drafting a response, because I feel the thread is developing into a "us vs you" "Aus vs the US" trend... that isn't really the case, or certainly from my perspective, not my intention...

 

I'm certainly not claiming to represent the views of either of the Australian forums, let alone the views of "Australia"...

 

Earthan's views are his own, and not necessarily supported by many of those on the Australian forums... and often there are differences of opinion between Earthan and myself... although we may be closer than he might actually think, or concede at times...

 

Many on the Australian forum may not be aware of Earthan's credentials, and most here would certainly not be... but I can assure you that he has a level of aquaculture and academic qualification and experience that exceeds probably all but a few on any of the forums here or in Australia...

 

Gina made reference to "negative" points of view expressed from the Australian forums... but if you look at the actual posts concerning the proposed association... two things stand out... (on both forums)

 

The number of posts has been very few...

 

And probably equal in content from members from Australia... and those overseas, including members from the US...

 

While the posts have been few,  I've received a lot of emails from members of both Australian forums which I'll summarise below...

 

Most people who have emailed me are aware of the community here, although few participate... and the general opinion is they're delighted to see the adoption of aquaponics over the last few years within the US...

 

"About time they got into it" is the usual response... and the difference in geographical location, climate, time zones, and particularly fish species were acknowledged... 

 

Most people were aware that a conference was to take place and an association was to be formed... and again the response was basically the same... and certainly there was a need for such an association in the US, particularly with the boom in "commercialisation" in the US...

 

Nobody was aware however that an "international" association was being proposed... and most are surprised that Murray didn't mention it... for what ever reasons... (rightly or wrongly)

 

Nor are they surprised that after a few years.. such an "international" association was being proposed from the US... as such is the "entrepenuarial" and "cultural" nature of America... and that's not an implied criticism at all... or least not generally..  they just chuckled and basically "expected it would happen"... although some might see it as an "arrogance", usually with an Australian tongue in cheek"... ...

 

Almost all though don't see an association as representing Australian backyarders... and hence the low response rate...

 

Both Kobus and Earthan are, in their own way and styles both right to some extent.... their isn't a level of commercialisation of aquaponics within Australia, and may not be for some time... for reasons I'll try and highlight ... (Earthan may disagree... )

 

Land values, licensing and other regulatory compliance issues.. significantly inflate the capital costs of a "startup" venture in Australia.. and very probably other areas of the world...

 

The fact is that Australia, and Europe have much more strigent aquaculture and Food Safety regulations than you do in the US...

 

Likewise there are considerable climatic and fish species differences, and constraints.. particularly in Australia.. that limit, or have limited the uptake of commercialisation... and add to costs of startup and/or profitability...

 

The venture capital, and grants availability base is limited.. a reflection, particularly here in Australia of the population base compared to the US...

 

Similarly... the market base is significantly smaller... as is the niche sector of "farmers markets"... and the awareness and penertration into the "organics" market of aquaponic produce just doesn't exist at the moment...

 

The same could be said to varying extents .. despite the potential population base... within Europe... or even Asia...

 

At the moment... aquaponics is still "backyard" based.. and likely to stay that way for a while... and as such, most people would see limited, or no real benefit from joining an "International" association at this time... or even that such an association could truely serve an "international" aquaponics movement... that really doesn't exist at this time to many peoples thinking...

 

The time will come when Australia, and other countries, most likely Asia in particularly... will develop a commercial basis to aquaponics... and will seek to join an "international" association...

 

The question is... will a US based association, even if deemed an "international" association welcome them as equal partners...

 

The current charter is, in it's proposed "chapter" structure... even if unintentionally... weighted toward a possible US favour...

 

To my mind... while the proposed charter, and possibly even the voting rights... are applicable to a country association.. and subordinate branch structures...

 

It wont work on an "international" level... where to my mind... such an "international" charter would have to accord each member country equal voting rights... ie... a "national" chapter" representing an individual country...

 

In short... the proposed charter is certainly applicable to a US association... and could be the basic model for other individual country chapters... it doesn't represent an "international" structure...

 

And I doubt in it's current form that it would attract support accordingly... with many (inevitable) autonomous international based associations ultimately being formed within countries...

 

There is definitely a need, and the time is right.. for a US association... and if done correctly such a model could form the basis for an "international" association... but not it the format of the current proposed "chapters" and voting designations.. which are not reflective of a collective of nations...

 

Liekwise, in some ways... (and no critiscism intended as such)... the basis of commercial viability of aquaponics in the US... needs to be tested within a structure of International regulatory provisions and practices... which, at the moment it really isn't... and again no criticism as such... but is often resisted by many with the US... as an interference in basic rights.. of either citizenship... and/or business...

 

I say again, I'm not opposed to the concept, nor are most people I believe... but the model is, or appears to be a little flawed, or perceived to be US weighted.. and currently not reflective of most other countries...

 

Should that stop it... no... but if the intention is to be a truely "international" association... then "national" interests.. or possible perceptions of such... need to be squarely put aside.. and the charter written tightly to reflect the same...

 

I personally wouldn't, and i doubt many others would here in Australia, or even in other countries... acceed to an organisation that was run by "lifetime" trustees... or elected officials that were weighted in favour of any particular country...

 

So perhaps, in the short term... a US association structure and model should proceed... but an "international" charter needs significantly more work IMO..

In terms of any perceived "arrogance"... if I've come across that way... then it certainly wasn't intended as such.. particularly if it was due to a "shortness" of posts... and apologies if that has been the perception...

 

Please bear in mind, that when I post .. it is often very late... well into the early hours of the morning here in OZ... and my "conciseness" or "blutness" might be a reflection of that...

 

Not so Sylvia... I thought we were discussing an "international" charter... see the above...

 

Basically I think each country needs to firstly get their own "houses in order"... with an association... from which an truely "international" association, with equal voting rights... can be formed...

 

Otherwise the current proposed charter needs to be reworked to reflect a true "international" charter... essentially a seperation of chapters.. each with equal vote... to those chapters/branchs within member countries...

 

I'm not opposed to a US association... an Australian association... or even an "international" association... if structured appropriately..



Sylvia Bernstein said:

Enough already!   We get it!  Rupert and Earthan are against an Aussie Chapter, Murray supports it.  Can we PLEASE move on to another topic?  thanks

I have read with great interest the exchange of all.

 

If those of you that feel that the proposed charter as presented for discussion does not truly reflect an "international flavour", would it not be more constructive to identify the portion or portions which you may feel requires additional modification to be better aligned to reflect a truly international organization.

 

So far, all I have seen is generalizations about areas of the proposed charter which  are unacceptable.

 

The proposed charter was put out into the public forum because we wanted to have positive and constructive feedback on areas which may require further clarification. 

 

It truly is impossible to address generalizations, please be specific and identify what areas you would like to see rework, so that we can constructively move forward.

 

It was always the intention to present a document that would be truly reflective of the views of persons who where interested in participating.

Ok Wayne.... to be specific...

 

I think a "chapter" as defined within Article 7... should be "the association in any country" ... full stop...

 

Any states, territories, districts etc... should be "branchs"...

 

Each country "chapter" should have equal voting rights...

 

Edited: actually re-reading the "chapter/branch" pdf... perhaps I've misinterpreted the definition of a "chapter"... and representation at any conference...

 

Ok... please explain Article 8.3.2 ... in relation to voting rights...

 

It seems to infer any branch has a voting right...

 

My vote is we start the charter without AU at this time. Let them look at the charter and readdress this next year. I would also try and pull Rupert and Murray into the U.S charter and help write it to make the Aussies comfortable next year. Keep the talent and get past the reservations so to speak. If he is amicable to that of course. None of the Aussies seem to respect or care about each other on a professional level. See if Murray and Rupert can work together and mend fences and build a concensus within AU aquaponics community. Kind of work with who you can and move past who you cant philosophy. Nicole is off the table so to speak............

Tried to edit my previous post, but ran out of time Wayne/Gina/Sylvia/Murray...

 

Who determines the number of branch "observer delegates"... who appear to also have voting rights??

Great gosh y'all!  Ok, I am going to strongly suggest that we move on to a better and constructive topic here.  We understand that some of the folks in Australia don't think an international association is warranted.  Fine, we get it.  However it does not change the fact that we have been reached out to by people from all around the globe with interest and wanting to be a part of this association.  Places like Pakistan and Israel where aquaponics hasn't even gotten a foothold yet, want to be a part because they need the support an association could provide and if they want it, then I think they should be able to get it.  

 

In light of other concerns expressed regarding membership dues and the value associated with it, we have been discussing the benefit of discounting membership dues to half for the first 6 months.  Here are a couple benefits. 

  1. Members wouldn't pay full price while the new organization gets its feet on the ground and goes through the pains of this initial growth.
  2. It would quite possibly encourage those that ordinarily would not join for the full price to say, what the heck, for $22, I'll give it a try.  If they don't think it was worth it, they don't have to renew.  However the possibility that it could actually bring greater numbers would mean more members, more thoughts, more resources, etc.  A win-win all the way around.

Last, I would like to ask for feedback on what else could be offered to members so that there is absolute value in being a member.  What would you like to get?  See?  Do?  How do we give you, the member, bang for your buck?  Please let us know!

Thanks Rupert for bringing that to our attention,

 

I do believe that may be a remnant from a previous revision which probably should not be there.

 

Was there anything else that you felt needed to be given further review?

RupertofOZ said:

Tried to edit my previous post, but ran out of time Wayne/Gina/Sylvia/Murray...

 

Who determines the number of branch "observer delegates"... who appear to also have voting rights??

A Chapter can and should be established for a County where there is interest.

 

The Chairman from each Chapter would automatically sit on the Board of Governors, which would then give each Chapter equal weight.

 

In the case of for example the Caribbean Chapter where it encompassed more than one country, it was only put forward like that for general grouping, however there is no reason why each country could not have a Chapter if there is sufficient interest for members in a country to have a Chapter established.

RupertofOZ said:

Ok Wayne.... to be specific...

 

I think a "chapter" as defined within Article 7... should be "the association in any country" ... full stop...

 

Any states, territories, districts etc... should be "branchs"...

 

Each country "chapter" should have equal voting rights...

 

Edited: actually re-reading the "chapter/branch" pdf... perhaps I've misinterpreted the definition of a "chapter"... and representation at any conference...

 

 

You guys sound like you need to sit down around a table and have a beer or four.

 

The milk is spilt, the bridge broken, the ship sunk, no point in pointing fingers and throwing blame about at this point in time.

 

Better to work constructively and cooperatively towards making this idea work, once its up and running with all the kinks worked out of it, and there are kinks in it as is apparent and has been admitted by the creators quite clearly and repetitively, then we can sit about and figure out how it should have been done and who, if anyone, is at fault.

 

So in summation: "C'mooon, can't we all just get along?" 

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2024   Created by Sylvia Bernstein.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service