A message from REEForm

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, The evidence that there is still a serious cyanide fishing problem in the Philippines is in the paper I published earlier this year.

Rubec, P.J., V.R. Pratt, B. McCullough, B. Manipula, J. Alban, T. Espero, and E. R. Suplido. 2003. Trends determined by cyanide testing on marine aquarium fish in the Philippines. Pages 327-340, In: J.C. Cato and C.L. Brown (eds.) Marine Ornamental Species, Collection, Culture, & Conservation, Iowa State Press, Ames, Iowa.

In the paper I summarized trends determined by the six IMA/BFAR CDT laboratories from 1996-2000 (not 20 years ago). The trend of 7,703 aquarium fishes tested for cyanide ion was 43% with cyanide present in 1996, 41% in 1997, 18% in 1998, 8% in 1999, and 29% in 2000. A similar trend was found in 12,852 food fish tested for cyanide. There was 73% with cyanide found to be present in 1996, 68% in 1997, 39% in 1998, 8% in 1999 and 30% in 2000.

I proposed a number of reasons for the resurgance in cyanide use in 2000. I think the main reason was that the exporters feared a total ban on live marine animal exports. Hence, during 1997-1999 they stopped distributing cyanide to the collectors. When the bill in the Philippine Congress to implement the ban died without being enacted, the exporters went back (in 2000) to distributing cyanide to the collectors (and selling cyanide caught fish for export). So, I believe there is still a very significant problem with cyanide fishing in the Philippines. By all accounts it is even worse in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam.

Peter Rubec

 

[MaryHM]

Gee Kalk, are you shooting for 2 straight Naesco "question avoidance" awards?? I'm getting so tired of people who make accusations or ask specific questions of others, yet absolutely refuse to answer anything specifically themselves. Makes you wonder what their agenda/knowledge level is.

 

[mkirda]

Makes you wonder what their agenda/knowledge level is.

Isn't that obvious already?

Mike

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Following the summary and conclusions of the study " Effects of Cyanide exposure on Dascillus aruanus, a tropical marine fish species: lethality, anaesthesia and physiological effects' conducted by M. Hanawa, L.Harris, M. Graham, A.P. Farrel, and L.I Bendell-Young.

Under non-stressed condition, pulsed doses of 25 and 50 mgl-1of CN- for 60 s or less produced anaesthesia without immediate death. On recovery, fish that experienced this exposure were feeding and intercating in a manner similar to that of the controls. However, the window for non-lethal cyanide anaesthesia was demonstrated to be narrow, as a 2 min exposure resulted in mortality, regardless of the concentration. Further more, under stressed conditions, doses that were previously anaesthetic (50mgl-1 for 60 s) became lethal. Hence, it is likely that the high rates of mortality in cyanide-collected tropical fish destined for trade are a consequence of the combined effects of exposure to the poison and post-capture handling stress.

Of the various physiological end-points measured, the liver O2 consumption rates were profoundly affected by both direct exposure to cyanide (reduce O2 consumption rates), as well as the combined effects of exposure followed by stress (enhanced O2 consumption rates), suggests that the O2 consumption rates of either the liver or whole fish are altered as a consequence of cyanide exposure. Further studies investigating the implication of impaired liver tissue respiration on the long-term survival of cyanide-exposed fish are warranted.

If some one wants a copy of this study please send mail address.

jaime

 

[horge]

Re: testing on either side of the Pacific

Checking for SCN (via HPL Chroma) stateside is the natural step to take if you want vetting on both sides of the urinal. Your country (and the MO industry) might better afford its upkeep, and besides, the time between juicing and landing stateside metabolically means you're pretty much limited to sniffing for SCN.

On THIS side of the urinal, I personally can't see the funding for HPLC-based vetting (and we're not just talking about one or two machines now, are we?). With all its limitations, ISE has its uses, especially if you get the samples early --and that sort of aggro field audit costs arguably less cash to support than the purchase of new machines.

I'd love to see frequent ISE audit built into MO-inclusive CBFMA's from the git-go, and this is why it's CB and not "community-exclusive" --there has to be someone riding shotgun, deputized by or from DENR (if you want line agency cachet) or BFAR (if you want to get some actual work done).

 

[PeterIMA]

Horge, Good comments about CDT implementation. As I said, there are problems on both ends. Testing at both ends is needed.

Unfortunately, BFAR does not appear to be doing a good job at your end. There are rumours of BFAR CDT staff taking bribes.

There is $5 million USD ear-marked for equipment to support CDT in the Fisheries Sector FRMP loan from the Asian Development Bank. So purchasing HPLCs would not be a problem. However, I agree that the ISE approach is effective and more cost-efficient.

At the US end, the US Fish and Wildlife Service will need to get involved in using results from the SCN test when it becomes available.

Peter

 

[Kalkbreath]

Gee Kalk, are you shooting for 2 straight Naesco "question avoidance" awards?? I'm getting so tired of people who make accusations or ask specific questions of others, yet absolutely refuse to answer anything specifically themselves. Makes you wonder what their agenda/knowledge level is.

One tenth of one percent............now answer some of my questions for a change .........What percent of the live coral in the Indo Pacific do you feel at anyone time is dead from cyanide fishing by this hobby ?

 

[Kalkbreath]

Peter ,how could only 9% of hobby fish be collected with cyanide in 1999........and the total amount of imported fish for that year be equal to 2000 ? If the same number of fish can be collected without juice ..........why would there be a return to illeagal fishing and the health risks.......? Ps. check the reported increase in exported seafood from 1999 to 2000.....and you will find your answer.

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, Disinformation. Your comments are irrelevant.

Peter

 

[MaryHM]

Kalk,

You're asking me to make a scientific data call. I asked you to make a personal judgement call. Two different things. However, I will try to answer.

One problem with answering your question is knowing how you think. You think of the reefs as the "big picture", always citing how much of the reef the hobby doesn't affect. I think of the reefs in the smaller picture, concerned with the adverse affects the hobby causes in the collection areas themselves. I would take a wild guess and say that probably somewhere in the vicinity of 30% of the reefs in collection areas used by the hobby have been adversely affected by cyanide use from within the trade.

 

[horge]

There are rumours of BFAR CDT staff taking bribes.

I dislike dealing in rumours.
Given the amount of disinformation and fact-twisting on this thread alone, perhaps it would be best to stick to verifiable fact, no?

It would be fairer to say BFAR has NOT lived up to its mandate regarding the MO sector, and this is quite disappointing --a lack of funding can be used as an excuse only so much. I believe BFAR needs to stop devolving into a mere lab/consultancy and take up the militant aspects of its original mission.


..

 

[Kalkbreath]

Kalk,

You're asking me to make a scientific data call. I asked you to make a personal judgement call. Two different things. However, I will try to answer.

One problem with answering your question is knowing how you think. You think of the reefs as the "big picture", always citing how much of the reef the hobby doesn't affect. I think of the reefs in the smaller picture, concerned with the adverse affects the hobby causes in the collection areas themselves. I would take a wild guess and say that probably somewhere in the vicinity of 30% of the reefs in collection areas used by the hobby have been adversely affected by cyanide use from within the trade.

Fair enough.......You mean kind like this for a judgement call.........."60,000 acres of woods are plowed down each day in the great USA.....Question, what would you say is a acceptable number to have plowed down each day? {keep in mind that your community Greater Los Angeles, already has two-thirds impermeable surface...... that means 2/3 of every square foot is drive ways ,roof tops ,sidewalks,etc.only 1/3 soil ........Question what do you think is an acceptable percentage of ground in a community? ..................................I say an acceptable amount to any of these ,be it reef or your backyard......would be, ill effects in which there seems to be a great bit of difficulty finding these negative effects at all..{ie. with a camera}....Yet with 30% of reefs in collection zones dead {YOUR NUMBERS} would you not think combined with the greater seafood collectors damage.....these vast areas of white bleached coral would not only be able to be photographed........but since this would amount to thousands of acres of white bleached reefs......one could also see this hobbies cyanide damage from the space shuttle...... :wink:

 

[Kalkbreath]

Kalk, Disinformation. Your comments are irrelevant.

Peter

Sorry Peter, these are your numbers.......you stated that only 9% of the fish tested pos for cyanide in 1999......How did the collectors collect the same amount of fish {ie. the total fish imported to the USA in 1999 was about the same as year 2000} ........If you cant explain how this was possible , perhaps someone needs to ? Second , there is even more pressure today in 2003 to have clean fish then in 1999.........There are MANY more alternative Countries for US importers today and MAC has at the least placed pressure on juice fishermen throughout PI............Why given your data of decreased cyanide fishing in the late 1990s......do you not think the trend has continued again in 2000s?

 

[mkirda]

{ie. with a camera} {snip}these vast areas of white bleached coral would not only be able to be photographed........but since this would amount to thousands of acres of white bleached reefs......one could also see this hobbies cyanide damage from the space shuttle...... :wink:

:wink: :wink: :wink: Ya think that all the cyanide used in a year is used only over the course of a day or two, Kalkbreath? :wink: :wink: :wink:
If so, then, sure, it probably would be visible from space. For a day or two.
Then the algae would cover the dead skeleton, followed by coralline maybe.
Then it would be indistinguishable from the other rock substrate from space.

Again, I offer my services to you. You pay my way, I'll come back with rolls and rolls and rolls of film filled with frames of dead and dying corals. Just pay my expenses, I ask for no fee. You will then have photographic evidence of hundreds, if not thousands of dead and or dying corals... Evidence you couldn't reject as 'eel rubbings' even. Just give me the go-ahead, and I'll make the arrangements.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

So let me get this straight.........even you have yet to see the widespread destruction first hand?................. I have seen several programs by the Discovery channel ................a few from Animal planet,PBS , etc., .....They had lots of cameras....and found very little of what they thought to be fishermen harming the reefs {in fact the polluted waters around where the truly dead reefs were located made photographing anything underwater difficult .........{a bell should have just sounded in your head}....... ......Not once have they suggested that hobby collection is at all a measurable factor in the dead reefs anywhere in the world ..............Why do you?.......

 

[Anonymous]

kalk -you still don't get it

just because it isn't 'measurable', or noticeable from space, doesn't make it excusable :idea: :!: :!: :!:

that it does happen/affect the reefs is quite enough for our concern, dontcha think? :roll: :roll: :roll:

you are the terminal rationalizer-and it's old, and highly irresponsible

you're like someone who says-'hmmm-it'll take a 4 degree increase in global temp to mess up my backyard, and the forecast is for only 3-it's ok if my neighors get screwed, now lemme go get my suv' :roll: :roll:

 

[Kalkbreath]

How bout reasonable or inevitable? ......how do you feel about the clear cutting of 60,000 acres a day.......are you stating that "zero" is the amount necessary in order to be responsible? Does this mean you sleep standing up and sell your fishes in the woods as to not disturb the natural habitat you preside in? Are the tangled nets , dragging anchors hand prints all over the corals a necessary part of net collection? Is removing the fish a part of the necessary activities? We have never even established what our part of the damage is .........of course there is some inevitable negatives to catching fish ........every activity by man is going to disturb the natural state..........even Not collecting fish has a negative impact in areas where other substitute means of a living would replace fishing.......like agriculture.......or tourism... Attempting to comprehend exactly whats happening out there on the reefs before you try and solve it seems like an oldfashion principal ...but hey dont let me stop you ..............{By the way the reefs are over there, Thats a pond}:wink:

 

[mkirda]

Attempting to comprehend exactly whats happening out there on the reefs before you try and solve it seems like an oldfashion principal ...

Fer Chrissakes, Kalkbreath- this "whats (been) happening out there on the reefs" is already known. You ignore all of it, despite having your nose rubbed in it every time.

You are never going to see vast fields of white corals unless there is a massive bleaching episode for reasons previously outlined. (And even after a bleaching episode, I don't think I've ever seen pictures of it from outer space., so I don't think your request is doable anyway.)
Regardless, cyanide doesn't act that way, and corals killed with cyanide will not remain white. They will turn rather quickly into green and brown and gray, etc., as they get covered in various types of settling algaes. Cyanide rarely kills the entire coral- AS THE PHOTOS I HAVE TAKEN (AND POINTED OUT TO YOU) SHOW, THE DAMAGE IS LIMITED TO THE SPOT OF APPLICATION AND THE AREA DOWN-FLOW.

Again, please examine my offer- I think it quite fair, seeing as how I derive no income for it for my time. I'm offering to work for free. It will provide you with enough photographic evidence to convince you, and whomever feeds you this crap, that you both are wrong.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

You only found two coral that may or may not have been harmed by cyanide, during several days of diving did you not ?.............. Mary is the one whom stated she thought 30% of PI coral is dead from hobby fishing........................... ....What would you say your two corals would amount to ..........one millionth of one percent? :wink:

 

[Kalkbreath]

My point to all of this is............Naesco and others want to ban PI and Indo fish .......even though they have never once seen or established that there even is very much hobby fishing damage.........I can Go to the Fla Keys reefs and look around and determine that this must be cyanide damage {look at all the algae covered, dying coral!} Any cyanide fishing is too much cyanide , but with only 9% of tested fish in 1999 comming up positive.......there is a good chance that todays collectors are cleaning up their act...........with zero evidence to believe otherwise, why not establish what the facts are before jumping on any bandwagons..........Lastly, with the lack of hard facts and any photos illustrating the reasons we need REEForm.........there is no way in hello that you will get anyones attention for more then five seconds......................You must look at the issue from the average hobbyists or potential hobbyists view point..........either they get FALSE visions of huge areas of vast destruction that this hobby brings about ...........hearing that most fish are caught with poison and corals being clear-cut with underwater chainsaws...........or they take the opposite extreme and dont even give reform a second thought. Both scenarios are bad .........the potential hobbyist thinks he will be harming the reefs for sure if he enters the hobby ..so he doesn't..............and the remaining group never see the proof required to get interested {like real photos} I have been trying to get you to understand that in order to become more effective, you must think outside the box .........kinda like re-oxing the whole wharehouse,not just the fish bags ..........you all need fresh approaches and a lot more ammo in your war for change........... :wink: