A
I'm sure Walt knows about this forum. You don't see any wholesalers getting into the thick of things in here except Steve and I. Why, I don't know. I know that several wholesalers read this board. Maybe they're just smarter than me about keeping their mouths shut. I do believe him 100% when he says that the journalist basically screwed him over. I didn't trust the author when I spoke with him. He was trying to get me to say things I was not comfortable saying about MAC, etc... Wasn't interested in what I was saying- just what I wasn't saying. If you know what I mean. Typical LA Times garbage. They have some seriously sleazy "journalists" over there.
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
Dear LA Times ,
The article you published, hence to be known as the 'puffer piece'was gleaned from many interviews, hundreds of facts and important points. Your reporter missed most of them and turned in a silly story pointing nowhere and squandering the opportunity to make a contribution to the cause of reporting on the issues concerning the conservation of coral reefs, sustainable fishing or the struggle for the soul of the industry and the hobby that sustains it.
I guess he was just looking for a cute human interest fluff piece to sell some papers. Kinda like doing a story on the local four H club and raising rabbits to show at the county fair.
Folks, I think it underscores an important point. OUTSIDERS will never understand us and as such can never be counted on to prescribe for us, speak for us or help us save our own industry
We have to not delegate responsibility for our destiny to others. We have to really develop the power and the means to do it ourselves, because if we don't...it apparentely won't get done!.
Steve
The article you published, hence to be known as the 'puffer piece'was gleaned from many interviews, hundreds of facts and important points. Your reporter missed most of them and turned in a silly story pointing nowhere and squandering the opportunity to make a contribution to the cause of reporting on the issues concerning the conservation of coral reefs, sustainable fishing or the struggle for the soul of the industry and the hobby that sustains it.
I guess he was just looking for a cute human interest fluff piece to sell some papers. Kinda like doing a story on the local four H club and raising rabbits to show at the county fair.
Folks, I think it underscores an important point. OUTSIDERS will never understand us and as such can never be counted on to prescribe for us, speak for us or help us save our own industry
We have to not delegate responsibility for our destiny to others. We have to really develop the power and the means to do it ourselves, because if we don't...it apparentely won't get done!.
Steve
cortez marine":3m3tf93d said:
Steve,
Someone nominated you for the Presidency of AMDA at the AMDA meeting at MACNA IX. I honestly think you should give it some serious consideration. You have more knowledge of how the industry works than anyone I have met. Someone needs to rally the troups and you just may be the guy.
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
Well shucks Dizzy,
I don't know what to say. I never thought my thought process was palatable for the mainstream. Being direct and honest about things has usually shone to be a liability as much as a benefit.
It might be worth it for no other reason than to be the official representative to the MAC.
I would also envision a power sharing arrangement with 4 other members if such a thing were possible...Something of a directorate with active motivated members of note.
Finally, I would hope to frontload the issues most critical to the trade first and take an activist approach in dealing with them. Rubberstamping anything is not in the project.
It bears thinking about. I'll think on it and see if there is interest in making AMDA into something thats going to make a difference in the chaotic aquarium trade.
Eric B, Bob Fenner, James W. ??? A penny for your thoughts.
Steve Robinson
I don't know what to say. I never thought my thought process was palatable for the mainstream. Being direct and honest about things has usually shone to be a liability as much as a benefit.
It might be worth it for no other reason than to be the official representative to the MAC.
I would also envision a power sharing arrangement with 4 other members if such a thing were possible...Something of a directorate with active motivated members of note.
Finally, I would hope to frontload the issues most critical to the trade first and take an activist approach in dealing with them. Rubberstamping anything is not in the project.
It bears thinking about. I'll think on it and see if there is interest in making AMDA into something thats going to make a difference in the chaotic aquarium trade.
Eric B, Bob Fenner, James W. ??? A penny for your thoughts.
Steve Robinson
Steve,
I think any trade organization that represents independent wholesalers and retailers needs to be staffed by people who work in the trade or come from the trade. I mean people who sell livestock and not a bunch of maintenance people. Bob Fenner would certainly qualify. We need an organization that represents reform, but also one that wants to see the trade continue in a sustainable manner. John Brant, Mary, Elwyn, John T, Walt, Morgan Lidster, Bruce Davidson, people like that. People who understand what working in the trade is all about. If we don't get some type of organization that is looking out for the interests of the independent retailers, they will soon be gone and so will the wholesalers who supply them.
I think any trade organization that represents independent wholesalers and retailers needs to be staffed by people who work in the trade or come from the trade. I mean people who sell livestock and not a bunch of maintenance people. Bob Fenner would certainly qualify. We need an organization that represents reform, but also one that wants to see the trade continue in a sustainable manner. John Brant, Mary, Elwyn, John T, Walt, Morgan Lidster, Bruce Davidson, people like that. People who understand what working in the trade is all about. If we don't get some type of organization that is looking out for the interests of the independent retailers, they will soon be gone and so will the wholesalers who supply them.
The International Marinelife Alliance (IMA) conducted cyanide testing for the Philippine Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) from 1993 to the end of September 2001. The test conducted was (is?) based on the Total Cyanide ion test method approved by the American Public Health Association pubished in a book called Standard Methods for Water and Wastewater Analysis, also in another book on Testing Methods by the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) and by the USEPA. The IMA tested over 48,000 speciments in six laboratories with professional chemists on staff. BFAR took over the laboratories and the testing has almost stopped (they still have four laboratories nominally open). I can supply the test proceedures to agencies with a serious interest in them (since I helped to create the four Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) manuals). I also have a paper In Press on the results from the CDT laboratories (Iowa State University Press) based on the presentation that I made last November 2001 at the Second Marine Ornamentals Conference in Lake Buenovista, Florida (near Orlando). I will be happy to answer questions about the CDT testing in relation to the aquarium trade.
Sincerely,
Peter Rubec, Ph.D.
International Marinelife Alliance
Sincerely,
Peter Rubec, Ph.D.
International Marinelife Alliance
Question-What percentage of 48.000 fish were positive?
Answer-From 1996 to 2000, the % of aquarium fishes tested with cyanide present was 25%. With food fish the % was 40%. Ovell for both groups the % with cyanide found to be present was 37%.
Question-What species had the highest proportion of fish positive?
Actually, the species with the most cyanide present were species being caught as food fish (groupers). One species had over 80% of the specimens tested with cyanide present species in the family Acanthuridae (tangs) had the highest proportion of cyanide followed by Balistidae (triggerfish).
Question-Can the fish be tested for cyanide while alive?
Answer-No, the test involves killing the fish, weighing a sample, mascerating it in a blender, digesting it in a reflux condenser with strong sulfuric acid and other chemicals to release hydrogen cyanide gas, the HCN is then captured in a tube containing strong sodium hydroxide. Cyanide ion concentrations were measured with a cyanide ion specific ion selective electrode (ISE) linked to a meter.
Question-Can you elaborate on why the cyanide testing has slowed down.
Answer-Probably because the BFAR staff doing the testing don't have the competence and the willingness to do the CDT testing the right way. Several months ago, they issued certificates to Aquarium Habitat (Filipino exporter of net-caught fish) which got sent to Tim Tessier of SeaCare Aquaculture Products in Vancouver, BC Canada, indicating the fish were tested using picric acid testing. They were having problems conducting the APHA/ASTM method (briefly described above) that had been done by IMA (under contract to BFAR). The picric acid test has been shown to be unreliable (by SeaWorld in the early 1980s).
Sincerely,
Peter Rubec, Ph.D.
Answer-From 1996 to 2000, the % of aquarium fishes tested with cyanide present was 25%. With food fish the % was 40%. Ovell for both groups the % with cyanide found to be present was 37%.
Question-What species had the highest proportion of fish positive?
Actually, the species with the most cyanide present were species being caught as food fish (groupers). One species had over 80% of the specimens tested with cyanide present species in the family Acanthuridae (tangs) had the highest proportion of cyanide followed by Balistidae (triggerfish).
Question-Can the fish be tested for cyanide while alive?
Answer-No, the test involves killing the fish, weighing a sample, mascerating it in a blender, digesting it in a reflux condenser with strong sulfuric acid and other chemicals to release hydrogen cyanide gas, the HCN is then captured in a tube containing strong sodium hydroxide. Cyanide ion concentrations were measured with a cyanide ion specific ion selective electrode (ISE) linked to a meter.
Question-Can you elaborate on why the cyanide testing has slowed down.
Answer-Probably because the BFAR staff doing the testing don't have the competence and the willingness to do the CDT testing the right way. Several months ago, they issued certificates to Aquarium Habitat (Filipino exporter of net-caught fish) which got sent to Tim Tessier of SeaCare Aquaculture Products in Vancouver, BC Canada, indicating the fish were tested using picric acid testing. They were having problems conducting the APHA/ASTM method (briefly described above) that had been done by IMA (under contract to BFAR). The picric acid test has been shown to be unreliable (by SeaWorld in the early 1980s).
Sincerely,
Peter Rubec, Ph.D.
Peter,
Nice speaking with you this afternoon and glad to see you posting here. It's nice to get insight from different aspects.
Folks,
About Peter: There are only 3 people in the US that I have personal relationships with and have always given me "straight talk". I hold these 3 people in very high esteem and until they prove otherwise I will trust what they tell me. (I'm not a very trusting individual) These people are Steve Robinson, Morgan Lidster (of Inland Aquatics), and Peter Rubec. We've got two of the three here now...just gotta work on Morgan!!
Nice speaking with you this afternoon and glad to see you posting here. It's nice to get insight from different aspects.
Folks,
About Peter: There are only 3 people in the US that I have personal relationships with and have always given me "straight talk". I hold these 3 people in very high esteem and until they prove otherwise I will trust what they tell me. (I'm not a very trusting individual) These people are Steve Robinson, Morgan Lidster (of Inland Aquatics), and Peter Rubec. We've got two of the three here now...just gotta work on Morgan!!
Question: Are the amounts of total cyanide greater in the larger fish or in the smaller specimens, being per gram off flesh? Example; larger triggers seem to come out of it, yet tiny triggers nearly all surcomm? Is this due to a larger amount of poison in relation to body weight or simply due to younger fish being weaker to begin with? And how are the fish to be sampled chosen? Are they average blind samples or are they chosen because they 'Look" like "GOOD" candidates...ie {sunken bellys} And I would also ,again like to thank you for taking the time to share your experiences.........
_________________
Mercedes O530 Citaro
_________________
Mercedes Benz 300 SLR
_________________
Mercedes O530 Citaro
_________________
Mercedes Benz 300 SLR
Question-Do large fish have more cyanide in their tissues than small fish?
Answer-I am not sure I know. Larger fish like groupers exhibited higher concentrations (mg/kg which is the same as parts per million). However, this may have been related to the fact that with small fish the IMA digested the whole fish, whereas with large fish the internal organs (heart, liver, spleen, kidney, gills) were removed and tested. Organs like the spleen and liver concentrate blood borne cyanide. Hence, it is possible the higher concentrations in the larger food fish were related to the organs sampled. I am still analyzing the CDT database, and will be looking into the size question in more detail later.
Question-How were the fish tested sampled?
Answer-The IMA had a Marine Inspection Sampling (MIS) program. Deputized fish wardens (IMA biologists) conducted random sampling on boats (with law enforcement officials), at landing sites, at the villages, at airports, at other areas (like markets) as well as randomly sampling the facilities of exporters in Coron, Palawan (for food fish) and Manila-based exporters (mainly aquarium fish). Fish were taken alive from holding tanks at random. Larger fish like groupers were shipped in coolers on ice to the nearest MIS field station (four throughout country) frozen and shipped to the nearest CDT laboratory (six throughout country) situated in Davao and Zamboanga (Island of Mindanao), Cubu City (Island of Cebu), Palo (Island of Leyte), Puerto Princesa (Island of Palawan), and Manila (Island of Luzon). Aquarium fish usually were transported alive in plastic bags to the nearest CDT laboratory. This is described in the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) manual for Sampling.
Question-Were fish sampled that looked sick (e.g., sunken belly etc).
No-Fish were not sampled based on a debilitated appearance. In fact the IMA did not sample and test dead fish, since this could lead to false positive readings (dead fish may generate sulfides in their gut, which sometimes can give a positive reading with the ISE). The addition of lead carbonate to the sodium hydroxide absorber tube can precipitate sulfides removing this problem. Basically, the IMA sampled fish that were alive and generally looked normal.
Peter Rubec/IMA
Answer-I am not sure I know. Larger fish like groupers exhibited higher concentrations (mg/kg which is the same as parts per million). However, this may have been related to the fact that with small fish the IMA digested the whole fish, whereas with large fish the internal organs (heart, liver, spleen, kidney, gills) were removed and tested. Organs like the spleen and liver concentrate blood borne cyanide. Hence, it is possible the higher concentrations in the larger food fish were related to the organs sampled. I am still analyzing the CDT database, and will be looking into the size question in more detail later.
Question-How were the fish tested sampled?
Answer-The IMA had a Marine Inspection Sampling (MIS) program. Deputized fish wardens (IMA biologists) conducted random sampling on boats (with law enforcement officials), at landing sites, at the villages, at airports, at other areas (like markets) as well as randomly sampling the facilities of exporters in Coron, Palawan (for food fish) and Manila-based exporters (mainly aquarium fish). Fish were taken alive from holding tanks at random. Larger fish like groupers were shipped in coolers on ice to the nearest MIS field station (four throughout country) frozen and shipped to the nearest CDT laboratory (six throughout country) situated in Davao and Zamboanga (Island of Mindanao), Cubu City (Island of Cebu), Palo (Island of Leyte), Puerto Princesa (Island of Palawan), and Manila (Island of Luzon). Aquarium fish usually were transported alive in plastic bags to the nearest CDT laboratory. This is described in the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) manual for Sampling.
Question-Were fish sampled that looked sick (e.g., sunken belly etc).
No-Fish were not sampled based on a debilitated appearance. In fact the IMA did not sample and test dead fish, since this could lead to false positive readings (dead fish may generate sulfides in their gut, which sometimes can give a positive reading with the ISE). The addition of lead carbonate to the sodium hydroxide absorber tube can precipitate sulfides removing this problem. Basically, the IMA sampled fish that were alive and generally looked normal.
Peter Rubec/IMA
Peter,
In recent conversations with Steve Robinson he has stated that certain types of young marine ornamental species are almost totally caught with cyanide, while others are easily caught with a net. Philippine species nearly always caught with cyanide (per Steve) are clown triggers, blue hippo tangs, majestic angels, and imperator angels.
I would be interested to know if the above species were tested, and if so what the percentage was for each of these species. Also do you think the people that were tested were caught off-guard by the tests, or do you think some may have had an advance warning of a coming test?
Also I believe Steve stated that BFAR sort of lets the exporters submit the species they want for testing, to insure mostly net caught fish are tested verus the above mentioned species which would likely have very high positive readings for cyanide. Is this the case?
Finally I was wondering how long sufficient amounts of cyanide for testing purposes remain in the fish. In other words how soon after the cyanide exposure occurs do the fish need to be tested?
In recent conversations with Steve Robinson he has stated that certain types of young marine ornamental species are almost totally caught with cyanide, while others are easily caught with a net. Philippine species nearly always caught with cyanide (per Steve) are clown triggers, blue hippo tangs, majestic angels, and imperator angels.
I would be interested to know if the above species were tested, and if so what the percentage was for each of these species. Also do you think the people that were tested were caught off-guard by the tests, or do you think some may have had an advance warning of a coming test?
Also I believe Steve stated that BFAR sort of lets the exporters submit the species they want for testing, to insure mostly net caught fish are tested verus the above mentioned species which would likely have very high positive readings for cyanide. Is this the case?
Finally I was wondering how long sufficient amounts of cyanide for testing purposes remain in the fish. In other words how soon after the cyanide exposure occurs do the fish need to be tested?
Peter, I think Dizzy has posed some good questions. I would like to add to them. Sorry they're a little off topic, but since we've been lucky enough to have you on this message board...
Cyanide use is illegal in the Philippines. If fish were testing positive for cyanide, were the collectors and exporters being held responsible? As well, along with the training program was netting being supplied to those collectors? If so, do you have an idea of how much netting material was imported?(wasn't the stuff illegal to import?).
The IMA had alot of money to do cyanide testing and training in the Philippines and have been doing it for a long time. How have the efforts of the IMA affected the industry and what are the barriers to reforming the industry in the Philippines? I've been hearing about reform for years, but I personally have not seen anything really come of it.
Thanks in Advance
Doug
Cyanide use is illegal in the Philippines. If fish were testing positive for cyanide, were the collectors and exporters being held responsible? As well, along with the training program was netting being supplied to those collectors? If so, do you have an idea of how much netting material was imported?(wasn't the stuff illegal to import?).
The IMA had alot of money to do cyanide testing and training in the Philippines and have been doing it for a long time. How have the efforts of the IMA affected the industry and what are the barriers to reforming the industry in the Philippines? I've been hearing about reform for years, but I personally have not seen anything really come of it.
Thanks in Advance
Doug
Question- Are angelfish targeted using cyanide?
First I might state that as far as I know, Steve Robinson has not been in the Philippines for at least 10 years. What is happening now concerning the use of cyanide may not match what he recalls concerning whether or not Majestic angels, Emperor angels, clown triggerfish, and blue tangs are being caught with the use of cyanide. Steve believes these species are targeted. If this is true one would expect to see a higher % of them found with cyanide present than for the CDT results across all species of fish tested.
In a previous post, I mentioned that the proportion of 20,555 aquarium fish tested from 1996 to 2000 with cyanide present was 25%. In my study I analyzed the data by species, but did not have the room to present results by species in the paper. At the species level, certain species like Majestic angelfish and Emperor angelfish were not very abundant (less than 25 specimens of each species were tested). This is to be expected when one considers that these species are becoming rare in exporters tanks and they command a high price. Random sampling means that rare species were sampled less frequntly (in proportion to their relative abundance in exporters' tanks). I also learned that exporters were reluctant to give up angelfish to the MIS samplers (because of their value-a Majestic angelfish is worth about $25 US dollars export level). Hence, I am reluctant to discuss the % of these two species with cyanide level, because the sample size is too small. I have summarized in my paper (Table 3) the results by Family. In the Family Pomacanthidae (angelfish) there were 836 specimens tested representing 7 Genera and 34 Species/sp. OUt of this there were 594 angelfish (71%) found with Cyanide completely Absent, and 242 fish (29%) with cyanide found to be Present. This is slightly higher than the overall average across all Families of fishese (25%). I can not conclude from this that angelfish were being targeted with cyanide more than other fish families.
Question-Do I think the exporters (being sampled) had advance notice of when the samplers would sample their facilities, or were they caught off guard?
Answer-It does not matter because once the MIS samplers working for IMA arrived the sampling was conducted at random from tanks throughout their facility.
Quesion-Does BFAR let the exporters submit net-caught fish for sampling (rather than allowing sampling at random)?
A former IMA employee now working for the MAC alleged that the sampling conducted by IMA from 1996 to 2000 was not random, and that exporters were giving the samplers net-caught fish from special holding tanks. I asked Joy Alban the head of the MIS Program for IMA, whether this was true. He emphatically denies this allegation. Being directly involved with sampling in Manila and also being in charge of IMA's sampling nationwide in the Philippines, he knows the truth. The truth is that the MAC first tried to discredit the reliability of the CDT testing, and when that failed they spread false rumours about the reliability of the sampling.
I might add as a clarification that IMA also tested net-caught fish supplied on a voluntary basis by certain exporters (like Asian Marine Resources, Aquarium Habitat, and Aquascapes Philippines). These tests were not part of the regular monitoring program, since they were conducted to help the exporters determine which suppliers (middlemen and/or collectors) were selling them net-caught (hence cyanide-free) fish. In this case, the samples were not random (they were selected by the exporter), and the results were not included in the CDT database (some of the latter results supported prosecutions/legal actions against collectors).
Since, the end of September 2001 BFAR has been directly sampling marine fish (presumably both food fish and aquarium fish) and conducting cyanide testing. I am not aware of how they are conducting their sampling. Presumably, they are following the instructions laid down in the Sampling SOP manual (that I helped to prepare) which were given to BFAR. Benita Manipula (chief chemist) and Joy Alban (MIS) of IMA provided free advice to BFAR for a year after our contract ended. All reports I have received indicates that BFAR is doing very little testing. Presumably, this means they also are doing very little sampling. But, I do not know and neither does Steve Robinson.
Question-Please explain how long cyanide ion can be expected to remain in the fish being tested.
Answer-A common belief (misconception) is that cyanide ion is rapidly excreted and hence not detectable a short time after the fish were collected. This unsubstantiated claim was made in an unpublished report prepared by Paul Holthus based on a scientific panel appointed by the MAC that reviewed the IMA/BFAR CDT SOP Manual. My response to them was that the allegation has no scienific basis (it is an unsubstantiated allegation).
Cyanide uptake and clearance studies have been conducted on freshwater fish, but not on marine fish. Cyanide ion is transformed to thiocyanate ion (mainly in the liver) by an enzyme called rhodanese. This process is slower than one might predict based on enzyme kinetics, since the conversion process is limited by the availability of sulfur in the fish.
Another factor which may influence this, and allow cyanide and/or thiocyanate to be retained in marine fish longer than with freshwater fish is the difference in osmoregulatory physiology. Marine fish excrete urine at a much lower rate than freshwater fish in order to retain fresh fluids in their blood. Hence, they can be expected to excrete cyanide at a much slower rate than freshwater fish.
A proposal to look at cyanide enzyme kinetics (uptake and release) was submitted (twice) to the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) by myself on behalf of IMA and the New England Aquarium in 1989 and 1990. PIJAC chose not to fund the proposed research. The IMA recently received a grant to look into these questions.
The quick answer to your question is that the IMA routinely was able to detect cyanide ion in marine fish tested by the 6 CDT laboratories in the Philippines at least 2 to 3 weeks after the fish were collected. Hence, the allegation made by the unpublished MAC report that cyanide was not detectable (within several hours or days) after they were collected is false.
I hope my responses help clarify the situation.
Sincerely,
Peter J. Rubec, Ph.D.
International Marinelife Alliance
Email: [email protected]
First I might state that as far as I know, Steve Robinson has not been in the Philippines for at least 10 years. What is happening now concerning the use of cyanide may not match what he recalls concerning whether or not Majestic angels, Emperor angels, clown triggerfish, and blue tangs are being caught with the use of cyanide. Steve believes these species are targeted. If this is true one would expect to see a higher % of them found with cyanide present than for the CDT results across all species of fish tested.
In a previous post, I mentioned that the proportion of 20,555 aquarium fish tested from 1996 to 2000 with cyanide present was 25%. In my study I analyzed the data by species, but did not have the room to present results by species in the paper. At the species level, certain species like Majestic angelfish and Emperor angelfish were not very abundant (less than 25 specimens of each species were tested). This is to be expected when one considers that these species are becoming rare in exporters tanks and they command a high price. Random sampling means that rare species were sampled less frequntly (in proportion to their relative abundance in exporters' tanks). I also learned that exporters were reluctant to give up angelfish to the MIS samplers (because of their value-a Majestic angelfish is worth about $25 US dollars export level). Hence, I am reluctant to discuss the % of these two species with cyanide level, because the sample size is too small. I have summarized in my paper (Table 3) the results by Family. In the Family Pomacanthidae (angelfish) there were 836 specimens tested representing 7 Genera and 34 Species/sp. OUt of this there were 594 angelfish (71%) found with Cyanide completely Absent, and 242 fish (29%) with cyanide found to be Present. This is slightly higher than the overall average across all Families of fishese (25%). I can not conclude from this that angelfish were being targeted with cyanide more than other fish families.
Question-Do I think the exporters (being sampled) had advance notice of when the samplers would sample their facilities, or were they caught off guard?
Answer-It does not matter because once the MIS samplers working for IMA arrived the sampling was conducted at random from tanks throughout their facility.
Quesion-Does BFAR let the exporters submit net-caught fish for sampling (rather than allowing sampling at random)?
A former IMA employee now working for the MAC alleged that the sampling conducted by IMA from 1996 to 2000 was not random, and that exporters were giving the samplers net-caught fish from special holding tanks. I asked Joy Alban the head of the MIS Program for IMA, whether this was true. He emphatically denies this allegation. Being directly involved with sampling in Manila and also being in charge of IMA's sampling nationwide in the Philippines, he knows the truth. The truth is that the MAC first tried to discredit the reliability of the CDT testing, and when that failed they spread false rumours about the reliability of the sampling.
I might add as a clarification that IMA also tested net-caught fish supplied on a voluntary basis by certain exporters (like Asian Marine Resources, Aquarium Habitat, and Aquascapes Philippines). These tests were not part of the regular monitoring program, since they were conducted to help the exporters determine which suppliers (middlemen and/or collectors) were selling them net-caught (hence cyanide-free) fish. In this case, the samples were not random (they were selected by the exporter), and the results were not included in the CDT database (some of the latter results supported prosecutions/legal actions against collectors).
Since, the end of September 2001 BFAR has been directly sampling marine fish (presumably both food fish and aquarium fish) and conducting cyanide testing. I am not aware of how they are conducting their sampling. Presumably, they are following the instructions laid down in the Sampling SOP manual (that I helped to prepare) which were given to BFAR. Benita Manipula (chief chemist) and Joy Alban (MIS) of IMA provided free advice to BFAR for a year after our contract ended. All reports I have received indicates that BFAR is doing very little testing. Presumably, this means they also are doing very little sampling. But, I do not know and neither does Steve Robinson.
Question-Please explain how long cyanide ion can be expected to remain in the fish being tested.
Answer-A common belief (misconception) is that cyanide ion is rapidly excreted and hence not detectable a short time after the fish were collected. This unsubstantiated claim was made in an unpublished report prepared by Paul Holthus based on a scientific panel appointed by the MAC that reviewed the IMA/BFAR CDT SOP Manual. My response to them was that the allegation has no scienific basis (it is an unsubstantiated allegation).
Cyanide uptake and clearance studies have been conducted on freshwater fish, but not on marine fish. Cyanide ion is transformed to thiocyanate ion (mainly in the liver) by an enzyme called rhodanese. This process is slower than one might predict based on enzyme kinetics, since the conversion process is limited by the availability of sulfur in the fish.
Another factor which may influence this, and allow cyanide and/or thiocyanate to be retained in marine fish longer than with freshwater fish is the difference in osmoregulatory physiology. Marine fish excrete urine at a much lower rate than freshwater fish in order to retain fresh fluids in their blood. Hence, they can be expected to excrete cyanide at a much slower rate than freshwater fish.
A proposal to look at cyanide enzyme kinetics (uptake and release) was submitted (twice) to the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) by myself on behalf of IMA and the New England Aquarium in 1989 and 1990. PIJAC chose not to fund the proposed research. The IMA recently received a grant to look into these questions.
The quick answer to your question is that the IMA routinely was able to detect cyanide ion in marine fish tested by the 6 CDT laboratories in the Philippines at least 2 to 3 weeks after the fish were collected. Hence, the allegation made by the unpublished MAC report that cyanide was not detectable (within several hours or days) after they were collected is false.
I hope my responses help clarify the situation.
Sincerely,
Peter J. Rubec, Ph.D.
International Marinelife Alliance
Email: [email protected]
Reply to Doug,
Question-Since CN use (cyanide fishing) is illegal in the Philippines were the collectors and exporters being held accountable?
Answer-Cyanide fishing is illegal and so is knowingly exporting cyanide-caught fish under Philippine law (since passage of Presidential Decree 704 in the 1970s). Until the IMA started to conduct cyanide testing under contract to BFAR (in 1993) it was difficult to prove conclusively whether or not cyanide fishing was occurring (other than apprehending the fishermen in the act with cyanide in their possession). More recently, the laws were updated and the penalties for cyanide fishing modified (reduced number of years in prison) by the new Fisheries Code of 1998. It is still illegal and there is still legislation that deals with the fishermen and the exporters.
The direct answer is that IMA worked closely with law enforcement officials such as the Philippine Constabulary, Philippine Coast Guard, the navy, and with BFAR to support prosecutions concerning cyanide fishing by aquarium fish collectors and by those involved with using cyanide to capture food fish (live groupers and dead everything else sold in the markets). The IMA chemists were often called to testify in court concerning he CDT testing of samples submitted by law enforcement. MIS staff often accompanied law enforcement on boats that apprehended collectors/fishermen. Generally, the cases filed for prosecution were clear-cut. The fishermen were apprehended with cyanide in their possession and the CDT tests indicated the fish had high concentrations of cyanide(Positive). Positive is defined as the fact that the fish tested had concentrations of cyanide present greater than 0.2 mg/kg (ppm). Fish found with cyanide present below 0.2 mg/kg still supported the fact that cyanide was used, but were rarely used for prosecution purposes. To my knowledge no cases were filed against exporters of marine aquarium fish. While the test results from export facilities confirmed that they were selling cyanide-caught fish, there was a reluctance of law enforcement to file cases against these business interests. Most of the BFAR/IMA testing was classified as "Monitoring" and not used to support prosecutions of exporters. Prosecutions have been filed against middlemen in the aquarium trade and against captains and the crew of vessels involved with using cyanide to capture live food fish (primarily groupers and Napoleon wrasse).
One Hong Kong captain and 30 crew members were tried and each sentences to 8 years in jail. About 100 aquarium fish collectos are presently in jail, and there were about 50 cases pending when BFAR chose not to renew the CDT contract with IMA. Benet Manipula was still being sent requests to testify in court a year after the contact with BFAR ran out. The IMA finally instructed Ms Manipula not to testify in court, since IMA is no longer employed by BFAR.
BFAR still owes IMA about $100,000 USD for the work conducted during 2000 and 2001. One serious ramification of BFAR not renewing the contract with IMA is that the laws against cyanide fishing are not being properly enforced. Another ramification is that aquarium fish export companies that have been selling net-caught fish (according to MAC certification standards) can no longer get cyanide testing conducted through BFAR to verify that the fish are cyanide-free. (A limited amount of testing using the picric acid test was done for a short time earlier this year as mentioned in a previous posting).
Question-Was netting being supplied to the collectors?
After I helped to establish the Haribon/IMA Canada Net-Training Program in 1989, I learned that Haribon was not supplying the collectors with netting (despite the fact that funds were provided in the IDRC grant). At that time, it was difficult to obtain the barrier net material made by TechNets in Japan. I personally sent netting to the Philippines. So did several individuals in the trade including Elwyn Segrest (owner of Segrest Farms and part owner of Brem-the largest Philippine export company). Eventually, netting was manufactured and sold by Lolita Ty of Aquascapes Philippines (head of the Philippine Tropical Fish Exporters Association-PFTEA). Hence, barrier netting no longer needs to be imported. This is a good thing, since the Philippines has a 100% duty on imported goods (including netting).
Recently, Steve Robinson informed me that the collectors needed fine-mesh netting for constructing hand nets. He sent some to Ferdinand Cruz to assist with work being conducted associated with the MAC sponsored feasability study (evaluation of the MAC Collection-Fishing-Holding standards) during 2001.
I am not sure how much netting was imported by different individuals. At one point the PFTEA donated 20 rolls of netting to BFAR for use by IMA. The IMA then received the invoice demanding payment from PFTEA. The aquarium trade has done very little to support net-training. Most of the funding has come from foreign donors like the International Development Research Center (IDRC) of Canada, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and the United States-Agency for International Development (US-AID).
The IMA net-training conducted from 1998 to 2000 was funded with a grant from USAID (about $400,000 USD). There was no need for IMA to supply the collectors with netting (other than that supplied during the training) since they can buy it through the PFTEA.
Question-How has the efforts of IMA affected the industry? What are the barriers to reforming the industry in the Philippines?
Answer-First, I might ask what the industry has done to help itself? Other than participating on the MAC, the industry has done very little. Even on the MAC, I learned they have contributed very little funding to help with Net-Training, to support the MAC Feasability Study, or the Collection Area Management Plan (CAMP) work done by the MAC.
The IMA has been actively involved in trying to reform the aquarium trade since 1985. I have documented this in a paper titled "Net-Training to CAMP:Community-Based Programs That Benefit Coral Reef Conservation and the Aquarium Trade." This paper is now In Press and will appear in the next issue of the OFI Journal published by Ornamental Fish International. It highlights how the Haribon and IMA net-training programs feed into the MAC Certification Process (such as evalation of CFH and Ecosystem Management core standards). The IMA has done more than any other organization. The article should help inform the trade and hobby concerning what is being done both by IMA and the MAC. Despite my criticisms (of BFAR and the MAC) on this website, there are positive things being done by both IMA and the MAC.
The IMA prepared a report in 1997 titled Sullied Seas (by Charles Barber and Vaughan Pratt). If the recommendations had been supported by the Philippine government, there no longer would be a cyanide problem (in the Philippines, Indonesia, or Vietnam). With regard to the Philippines progress has been slow due to lack of will to enforce Philippine law by government agencies.
The MAC has maintained that cyanide testing in the Philippines is not necessary. At least, they did not endorse the IMA/BFAR CDT testing. The IMA's position is that voluntary MAC certification by itself cannot work. The people in the trade buying and selling cyanide-caught fish will continue to do so. They may even become MAC certified. Without cyanide testing there is no way to independently confirm whether the fish were caught in an environmentally friendly way (nets) or not.
IMA's position is that cyanide testing is necessary both in the exporting countries and in the importing countries. The IMA will continue to assist those companies in the aquarium trade that want to buy net-caught fish. We are conducting research that will soon provide a thiocyanate test that can be used in importing countries. Without testing, I see no means to level the playing field. Basically, any company exporting to the United States or other importing countries should be required to prove that their fish are cyanide-free. After that, I might accept MAC Certification that they are "Net-Caught".
Basically, stronger legal controls (by both exporting and importing countries) and MAC Certification are needed to reform the aquarium trade. The Philippines has done more to reform than Indonesia. So, my comments apply to all of the countries involved.
Reform is coming (albeit slowly). The IMA is willing to work in a constructive manner with government agencies, the MAC, other NGOs, the aquarium trade, and the marine hobby to solve these problems.
We recognize that the problems are more complex than they might first appear and that we all need to work together to effect the necessary reforms to help conserve coral reefs, benefit the fishemen, and ensure a sustainable aquarium trade.
Sincerely,
Peter J. Rubec, Ph.D.
International Marinelife Alliance
Question-Since CN use (cyanide fishing) is illegal in the Philippines were the collectors and exporters being held accountable?
Answer-Cyanide fishing is illegal and so is knowingly exporting cyanide-caught fish under Philippine law (since passage of Presidential Decree 704 in the 1970s). Until the IMA started to conduct cyanide testing under contract to BFAR (in 1993) it was difficult to prove conclusively whether or not cyanide fishing was occurring (other than apprehending the fishermen in the act with cyanide in their possession). More recently, the laws were updated and the penalties for cyanide fishing modified (reduced number of years in prison) by the new Fisheries Code of 1998. It is still illegal and there is still legislation that deals with the fishermen and the exporters.
The direct answer is that IMA worked closely with law enforcement officials such as the Philippine Constabulary, Philippine Coast Guard, the navy, and with BFAR to support prosecutions concerning cyanide fishing by aquarium fish collectors and by those involved with using cyanide to capture food fish (live groupers and dead everything else sold in the markets). The IMA chemists were often called to testify in court concerning he CDT testing of samples submitted by law enforcement. MIS staff often accompanied law enforcement on boats that apprehended collectors/fishermen. Generally, the cases filed for prosecution were clear-cut. The fishermen were apprehended with cyanide in their possession and the CDT tests indicated the fish had high concentrations of cyanide(Positive). Positive is defined as the fact that the fish tested had concentrations of cyanide present greater than 0.2 mg/kg (ppm). Fish found with cyanide present below 0.2 mg/kg still supported the fact that cyanide was used, but were rarely used for prosecution purposes. To my knowledge no cases were filed against exporters of marine aquarium fish. While the test results from export facilities confirmed that they were selling cyanide-caught fish, there was a reluctance of law enforcement to file cases against these business interests. Most of the BFAR/IMA testing was classified as "Monitoring" and not used to support prosecutions of exporters. Prosecutions have been filed against middlemen in the aquarium trade and against captains and the crew of vessels involved with using cyanide to capture live food fish (primarily groupers and Napoleon wrasse).
One Hong Kong captain and 30 crew members were tried and each sentences to 8 years in jail. About 100 aquarium fish collectos are presently in jail, and there were about 50 cases pending when BFAR chose not to renew the CDT contract with IMA. Benet Manipula was still being sent requests to testify in court a year after the contact with BFAR ran out. The IMA finally instructed Ms Manipula not to testify in court, since IMA is no longer employed by BFAR.
BFAR still owes IMA about $100,000 USD for the work conducted during 2000 and 2001. One serious ramification of BFAR not renewing the contract with IMA is that the laws against cyanide fishing are not being properly enforced. Another ramification is that aquarium fish export companies that have been selling net-caught fish (according to MAC certification standards) can no longer get cyanide testing conducted through BFAR to verify that the fish are cyanide-free. (A limited amount of testing using the picric acid test was done for a short time earlier this year as mentioned in a previous posting).
Question-Was netting being supplied to the collectors?
After I helped to establish the Haribon/IMA Canada Net-Training Program in 1989, I learned that Haribon was not supplying the collectors with netting (despite the fact that funds were provided in the IDRC grant). At that time, it was difficult to obtain the barrier net material made by TechNets in Japan. I personally sent netting to the Philippines. So did several individuals in the trade including Elwyn Segrest (owner of Segrest Farms and part owner of Brem-the largest Philippine export company). Eventually, netting was manufactured and sold by Lolita Ty of Aquascapes Philippines (head of the Philippine Tropical Fish Exporters Association-PFTEA). Hence, barrier netting no longer needs to be imported. This is a good thing, since the Philippines has a 100% duty on imported goods (including netting).
Recently, Steve Robinson informed me that the collectors needed fine-mesh netting for constructing hand nets. He sent some to Ferdinand Cruz to assist with work being conducted associated with the MAC sponsored feasability study (evaluation of the MAC Collection-Fishing-Holding standards) during 2001.
I am not sure how much netting was imported by different individuals. At one point the PFTEA donated 20 rolls of netting to BFAR for use by IMA. The IMA then received the invoice demanding payment from PFTEA. The aquarium trade has done very little to support net-training. Most of the funding has come from foreign donors like the International Development Research Center (IDRC) of Canada, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and the United States-Agency for International Development (US-AID).
The IMA net-training conducted from 1998 to 2000 was funded with a grant from USAID (about $400,000 USD). There was no need for IMA to supply the collectors with netting (other than that supplied during the training) since they can buy it through the PFTEA.
Question-How has the efforts of IMA affected the industry? What are the barriers to reforming the industry in the Philippines?
Answer-First, I might ask what the industry has done to help itself? Other than participating on the MAC, the industry has done very little. Even on the MAC, I learned they have contributed very little funding to help with Net-Training, to support the MAC Feasability Study, or the Collection Area Management Plan (CAMP) work done by the MAC.
The IMA has been actively involved in trying to reform the aquarium trade since 1985. I have documented this in a paper titled "Net-Training to CAMP:Community-Based Programs That Benefit Coral Reef Conservation and the Aquarium Trade." This paper is now In Press and will appear in the next issue of the OFI Journal published by Ornamental Fish International. It highlights how the Haribon and IMA net-training programs feed into the MAC Certification Process (such as evalation of CFH and Ecosystem Management core standards). The IMA has done more than any other organization. The article should help inform the trade and hobby concerning what is being done both by IMA and the MAC. Despite my criticisms (of BFAR and the MAC) on this website, there are positive things being done by both IMA and the MAC.
The IMA prepared a report in 1997 titled Sullied Seas (by Charles Barber and Vaughan Pratt). If the recommendations had been supported by the Philippine government, there no longer would be a cyanide problem (in the Philippines, Indonesia, or Vietnam). With regard to the Philippines progress has been slow due to lack of will to enforce Philippine law by government agencies.
The MAC has maintained that cyanide testing in the Philippines is not necessary. At least, they did not endorse the IMA/BFAR CDT testing. The IMA's position is that voluntary MAC certification by itself cannot work. The people in the trade buying and selling cyanide-caught fish will continue to do so. They may even become MAC certified. Without cyanide testing there is no way to independently confirm whether the fish were caught in an environmentally friendly way (nets) or not.
IMA's position is that cyanide testing is necessary both in the exporting countries and in the importing countries. The IMA will continue to assist those companies in the aquarium trade that want to buy net-caught fish. We are conducting research that will soon provide a thiocyanate test that can be used in importing countries. Without testing, I see no means to level the playing field. Basically, any company exporting to the United States or other importing countries should be required to prove that their fish are cyanide-free. After that, I might accept MAC Certification that they are "Net-Caught".
Basically, stronger legal controls (by both exporting and importing countries) and MAC Certification are needed to reform the aquarium trade. The Philippines has done more to reform than Indonesia. So, my comments apply to all of the countries involved.
Reform is coming (albeit slowly). The IMA is willing to work in a constructive manner with government agencies, the MAC, other NGOs, the aquarium trade, and the marine hobby to solve these problems.
We recognize that the problems are more complex than they might first appear and that we all need to work together to effect the necessary reforms to help conserve coral reefs, benefit the fishemen, and ensure a sustainable aquarium trade.
Sincerely,
Peter J. Rubec, Ph.D.
International Marinelife Alliance
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
