ARE YOU COMMITTED TO THE MAC cyanide testing

[naesco]

MAC through its posting of this board has gone on record of instituting a cyanide test in the shortest possible time.

AMDA and IMA as organizations, do you support MACs position on instituting a cyanide test in the shorest possible time?

PeterIMA, you state you represent several Phillippine organizations. Would you advise them of the question I have put and have them email their answers.

Others please give your personal opinion to this question.

 

[MaryHM]

I am committed to seeing a stateside cyanide test put in to place. That is the only way to insure the problem is solved. However, I think that MAC putting a test into place will help in the meantime. It is not an overall solution to the certification fiasco or cyanide collection, but it is a step in the right direction. A direction MAC hasn't gone in in a long time. To me, it's more of a "we are willing to do things right" move- not a "you can now trust certification" move.

 

[PeterIMA]

Naesco, I am committed to the reimplementation of cyanide testing and hope that it will be tied to the MAC Certification program. I have already stated that the MAC has no expertise in actual testing. Right now, the agency responsible for this is the Philippine Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR). Without my knowing what MAC means when they state they will give a high priority to cyanide testing, I can not state whether I support it or not.

Peter Rubec

 

[Anonymous]

Mary,

In the past you explained to me that the most effective way to do stateside testing would be for Fish & Wildlife to do it. So you are saying that you are interested in seeing Fish & Wildlife implement a testing program stateside even if MAC successfully implements a program? I thought that we are striving to affect positive change without govenment intervention.

I don't doubt that having Fish & Wildlife monitor and test imports would be the fastest way to cause change; I'm just surprised that you seem to me to be adamant about having government intervention.

Do you propose that we hobbyists concentrate our efforts on lobbying Fish & Wildlife to implement a stateside testing program rather than lobbying MAC to implement a program at the exporter?

Thanks,
-Lee

P.S. I'm committed to the implementation of a comprehensive testing program for cyanide and enforcement of legal action on those that use illegal collection techniques.

 

[My Hairy Ass]

Let's face it, as long as we have a credible and verified system of cyanide detection in place, it doesn't matter who operates it. Paul et al won't be running the labs themselves, they will hire people to do it, and I assume they will be qualified chemists.

What we all must realise here is that the most important thing is the health of the reef, not who runs, funds or operates the laboratories. If mandatory testng is in place, whether it applies to MAC certified fish or not, it will lead to an overall reduction in cyanide use on the reef.

MHA

 

[dizzy]

Paul et al won't be running the labs themselves, they will hire people to do it, and I assume they will be qualified chemists.
MHA

Please be careful with what you assume hairy, lest u make an ass out of you and me. :lol: Actually I think you are right. MAC should eventually be able to get this testing done right without bothering Uncle Sam. I would like to see a test that could determine if cyanide casued the death of the fish. I don't really like killing healthy fish just because some of them "might" have been caught with cyanide. It would be kind of sad everytime a fish were tested. Sad if cyanide was present, and sad if a clean fish was sacrified.

 

[MaryHM]

Cyanide testing done in the Philippines is fine and dandy and it's definitely where we should start. It will at least put pressure on the exporters to make sure their fish are clean. But when it comes down to it, the Philippines is a very corrupt country and I don't trust them to run a test properly. I have said it before and I'll say it again, the only way to insure that cyanide is stopped is by implementing a stateside test. I don't know why the goal is to fix the industry without government intervention. Is it because everyone is scared that the government will find out we're using cyanide and shut us all down?? You know what, if that's the case then so be it. All of you know that I do not think that shutting the industry down will save the reefs- just the opposite. But if the exporters and importers refuse to clean up their act what are we supposed to do?? Continue to allow cyanide use?? Honestly, I used to think the government wanted to shut us down. But after talking with them I'm not so sure anymore. I think they want to work with us to insure the industry is sustainable and ethical. And if that's true, then I'm with 'em. I know I'm probably the only person in the industry that would say that, but I'm the only one in the industry that says a lot of things.

 

[My Hairy Ass]

I agree Mary, as I have heard it from those in the Coral Reef Task Force, NMFS, etc., that they do not want to shut down the trade, just to see it done in a more sustainable, equitable manner. Shutting down the trade will just drive it underground, and as you say, the Philippines and Indonesia have histories of corruption. If a villager is faced with an option of catching a fish to feed his family or letting them starve by not going fishing, we all know what will be done.

I assume the industry players would be behind a sustainable reef, thus providing a long term business for them. No-one wants to see their businesses forced to close. So, whatever the methods used to 'certify', 'guarantee' or whatever buzzword you choose to use, as long as a program is in place that works, provides fish that are taken from a (and I hate to use this word) sustainable reef area, have a very low cyanide caught chance (i.e. if a fish in the same batch tests negative, this fish may also be innocent by association) to the market, and a fair equity is returned for the product, it doesn't really matter what or who runs that method, does it?

I would like to hear what people think about that. Please, a discussion, not an 'anti-MAC / pro-whoever' rant?

MHA

 

[dizzy]

Hairy Ass

You assume right. I don't think you are going to find one person in the industry that is going to come out against sustainability. I believe we all want healthy fish that were collected in a manner that does not harm the reef environment. I would love to have netcaught, stress reduced, and disease free fish.

Many of the problems come from trying to place unrealistic standards on the trade. Many of us feel sustainability and sustainability alone, should be used to determine harvest numbers. If a fish is being overfished then the numbers collected should be reduced. KISS.

 

[MaryHM]

I don't care who runs it, as long as they are:
1. Honest
2. Committed to conducting random testing of cyanide target species- not mandarin gobies and firefish
3. Run a test that's reliable enough to put fear in the hearts of exporters
4. The results are used to either prosecute violators or used to yank the import permits of companies supporting violators.

MAC can't "run" the test. They can help to get one established, but it's not their mandate to run the labs. As I said, a PI based test will help to threaten the exporters a bit, but a US test would go much further to stop cyanide use altogether.

I don't think you are going to find one person in the industry that is going to come out against sustainability.

Of course they won't publicly come out and say "I'm all for raping the reefs to the benefit of my pocketbook"- publicly they are all for saving the reefs because that's what their customers want to hear. But they ARE against sustainability every time they order that baby clown trigger, blue face angel, blue tang, etc.. from the Philippines or Indonesia.

 

[dizzy]

Mary,
I don't think people want their cash cow to run dry. Not any more than people who drive SUVs want to run out of gas, or people who have swimming pools in dry desert climates want to run out of water. Everybody just wants to have their cake and eat it too. :wink:

 

[naesco]

I agree with Mary. An honest test by an honest tester is all that is needed.

Dizzy as well as sustainability we must look at the ethics of the catchment, export and import of fish and corals that are impossible to keep in our aquariums.
Obviously the present issues must take priority but IMO sustainability is not the only requirement

 

[dizzy]

naesco,
If we could stick to the issues of stopping cyanide use and protecting the health of the reefs we might lick this thing. When we start trying to legislate morality we have diverted our efforts to a battle that will never be won.

 

[naesco]

Mitch I did state that cyanide is the issue and the priority.
I am responding to your post that sustainability should be the only determining factor in removing fish from the ocean.
Without in anyway taking away from the cyanide issue, IMO it is immoral to use cyanide to catch fish which are destined to die in our tanks as a result of the use of cyanide.
It is also immoral to catch fish that you and I know are impossible to keep alive in our tanks.
Hopefully we will not be required to legislate either.

 

[Anonymous]

Many of the problems come from trying to place unrealistic standards on the trade. Many of us feel sustainability and sustainability alone, should be used to determine harvest numbers. If a fish is being overfished then the numbers collected should be reduced. KISS.

Perfect!

 

[Anonymous]

Mitch I did state that cyanide is the issue and the priority.
I am responding to your post that sustainability should be the only determining factor in removing fish from the ocean.
Without in anyway taking away from the cyanide issue, IMO it is immoral to use cyanide to catch fish which are destined to die in our tanks as a result of the use of cyanide.
It is also immoral to catch fish that you and I know are impossible to keep alive in our tanks.
Hopefully we will not be required to legislate either.

naesco:

cyanide has already been legislated-it's use is illegal.

the problem is with the lack of enforcement of the legislation :wink: