My Hairy Ass has pointed out that the Boston Globe article
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/119/s ... ing+.shtml contains some inaccuracies, and I do agree, but as MHA has not replied yet, I feel I shall reply to address the balance and answer the questions asked.
Hong Kong gourmands alone eat 20,000 tons of live fish caught on the coral reefs of Southeast Asia each year
Hong Kong is the largest importer of Live Reef Food Fish in the world, much of which is trans-shipped into PRC. The total amount of food fish imported last year is 20,000 tonnes at its upper limit, and a substantial amount of this comes from aquaculture. There is a discrepancy here as it is unknown just what percentage of this aquaculture is wild caught juvenile cage growout as opposed to full-cycle.
will pay up to $200 to pick a live coral trout or grouper from a tank
This is a hugley inflated cost. A $200 coral trout would have to be upwards of 4kg, which is just too big for the market demand.
The Philippine fisherman might get $20 of this, five to 10 times the price he'd get for a dead fish
This is true to a certain extent, but fails to detail the costs that are involved in buying the fish, transporting it to Manila in private aircraft, transshipping it to a cargo plane and getting it to HK. Also factor in the cost of shipping the water to Hong Kong, and 10% to the
fisherman is a pretty good price.
WWF, the world's top environmental organization that was originally called the World Wildlife Fund, is opposing calls to ban this destructive trade in live reef fish. It says there is nothing wrong with the trade itself, nor with catching fish the conventional way, using a hook and line. It is the use of cyanide that is destructive, and the only way to stop its use is to keep the trade legal, but crack down on cyanide
For once I agree with WWF, it is not the trade itself that is destructive, but the method of capture. However, there is the issue that even if the fishermen use hook and line, taking too many fish off the reef and the targeting of spawning aggregations lead to the depletion of the stock on the reef.
In Coron, a port amid the islands of the western Philippines where small-time fish traders sell to international conglomerates with offices in Hong Kong
Don't kid yourselves that the traders in Coron are small-time! They are the ones that are making the $, it is the middlemen that make the $ in this trade, not the 'big-time' Hong Kong merchants.
''Banning could drive the whole business underground. The fish would be collected from the fishermen at sea by smugglers, and taken to Hong Kong in fast boats.
Perhaps someone would be kind enough to send me a photo of the 'fast boat' that would bring the fish to Hong Kong over 600km of the South China Sea, which can be notoriously rough a great deal of the year? The fastest way to HK is by air, which is the way the vast majority of Philippine fish arrive here.
Don't the restaurant owners and their customers in Hong Kong and elsewhere have an interest in maintaining the reef-fish business for the longer term?
Environmental awareness is low in HK, and even lower in China. Many importers (the restaurant association is slowly getting involved) are working, in collaboration with NGOs, to develop an international standard for the trade in live reef food fish, a voluntary code of conduct for the industry.
Traders interviewed in Hong Kong didn't seem too concerned by......(Most reef fish never get to reproduce before being squirted in the face by cyanide and getting air-freighted to Hong Kong.)
Unfortunately this is a rarity. What industry wants to see good business relations destroyed, and a reliable source of business dry up? This just doesn't make good business sense, and after all, the Chinese are known for their business savvy.
Would customers object if they knew their hugely expensive fish had been caught using cyanide? Nobody, it seems, has ever asked them.
WWF carried out an attitude survey in 2000 regarding consumer preference when it came to live reef food fish.
Reinhard Renneberg of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology is developing a test for the telltale breakdown products left in the fish by cyanide. Unlike tests for cyanide itself, this could work many days after the fish had been caught - on the Hong Kong dockside or even in its restaurants.
I have seen this
laboratory test first hand and it requires a small amount of fish blood to test. How likely is it that a restaurant is going to let a customer try to take blood from a fish before they decide that they want to order that one? Would any of you LFS keepers allow this practice from a customer? I wouldn't think so. Renneberg also was developing a hand-held 'dip-stick' test that could have been ideal if it could have been accredited and used in the field. A regionally based NGO offered to field test the prototype, but he refused.
So these are my comments on the article. I would welcome an open and frank discussion if anyone feels what
I have said is inaccurate.
Regards
Frazer McGilvray
Hong Kong