A message from REEForm

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, In 1986 Don McAllister and myself estimated that there were about 1000 aquarium fish collectors using cyanide fishing for 225 days a year. This translated in 33 million coral heads being doused with cyanide per year in the Philippines. Now we believe there are at least 4,000 collectors. Even if a smaller percentage of them use cyanide, there is more cyanide being squirted onto the reefs.

We now know the problem is not restricted to the aquarium fish trade (as you keep claiming). Cyanide is widely used for capturing live groupers for export to Hong Kong, Taiwan, mainland China, and Japan. It is also widely used in the countries of origin (Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Papua New Guinea) Also, please add the Maldives, the Marshall Islands, and probably Sri Lanka to the list. Cyanide is used to capture food fishes eaten in these countries as well.

There are many factors affecting coral reefs. Not all the destruction can be blamed on the aquarium trade. However, your attitude is not acceptable, and could induce governments to ban the trade in marine ornamental fish. Your postings represent the worst aspects of the trade-exporters and importers who don't care what collecting does to the environment.

Peter Rubec

 

[Kalkbreath]

I find it very hard to believe that 100 million coral heads would be so illusive to photographers, The Discovery channel,etc. ..... This combined with fifty times more dead coral heads from seafood fishermen.....{they collect fifty times more fish from the same reefs , would be several billion dead coral heads per year..............and if you truly believe this is the case out on the reefs of PI ...... {You} are why the Governments are concerned ....Just like when Boreman told the government that Fiji was exporting more live coral then was even physically possible if EVERY airplane leaving the island only carried live coral {The reported amount was twenty time greater then the truth} It was only the fact that this amount was so extreme and even greater then all the airlines could carry .....that some one {like me} pointed this out {Years later.}....Had Bornemans report been only twice as much a the truth ......no one would have caught it......Franks data also had been accepted as truth ..{Even before he added up the numbers?}....yet now after the fact this report has been found to have had "fuzzy" math ......{think anyone will republish the correct Data? {Will you?Peter } WHY NOT?.........You still have yet to explain how collectors could collect the same number of fish in 1999 with only 9% of them using cyanide? Funny how you scientist never think look at more then one angle? ........................................... Trying to fix the real problems with collecting and exporting fish from thirdworld countries is a noble cause ....and I am in total support of this ........But to rely on deception and scare tactics to further your movement is not ........and only further denigrates this hobby and its reputation. The main threat to this industry ,is the continued participation in false reporting of the true state of affairs .......... Math and logic .....how ever unpopular, are the only tools that will bring about both an real understanding and the empowerment necessary to implement change .......

 

[mkirda]

Math and logic .....how ever unpopular, are the only tools that will bring about both an real understanding and the empowerment necessary to implement change .......

Huh. Math and Logic Training fund, anyone?
That ought help them there collectors.

Funny, I always thought that net and holding/shipping procedure training was what was needed. Math and Logic, huh? Well, I'll be... :wink:

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[mkirda]

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:

Kalk,

I photographed two corals with evident patterns of cyanide induced bleaching.

In addition, I found a great number of dead coral heads which I did not photograph. Dead algae-coverd corals don't make great photographic subjects, and as I have pointed out to you time after time after time after time after time, an underwater photographer will try to shoot the best shots they can, and that will typically emphasize living fish and living coral.

Besides, I'd wager a $20 that if I waded through all my slides and found the odd dead coral and posted it, the first thing you would argue is How can you be sure what killed it? So what would be the point?

Every single one of your arguments can be countered effectively by comparing the % coral cover and abundance of fish before and after cyanide fishermen have decimated a reef. Where coral cover was 80-90%, now it is 10-20%. Fish species have dropped from 100 to 12. The numbers of fish supported by this reef are cut by a factor of ten, if not a hundred.

You can argue against the facts all you want, but facts do not bear your argument out. You can pick apart Rubec's numbers. You can pick apart Lallo's numbers, the 0.5% of them that have been posted... But you cannot pick apart decades worth of field monitoring numbers. They tell the story in a way that all of your twisting cannot cover up.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, I don't see that I am using fuzzy math. It is difficult to estimate precisely how much area has been decimated by cyanide. Underwater surveys by Dr. Edgardo Gomez found that less than 4% of Philippine coral reefs are in good to excellent condition. Cyanide is widely used. Where do you come up with your information that cyanide use by food fishermen is 50 times higher than that used by aquarium fish collectors? I acknowledge that the proportion of food fishes found with cyanide present is somewhat higher overall (44% versus 25% in my latest paper based on CDT testing). What factual information do you have to base your claims?

All I hear from you is "its not us its them". Don't accuse me of fuzzy logic. I understand from your postings that you have relatives in the Philippines who ship you marine ornamental fish. Will you allow your fish to be tested once the SCN test in place? Kalk lets test your fish; and if cyanide is found to be present lets report you to USFWS. Try that logic.

Without some honest effort on the part of the trade to "reform" I am beginning to believe that "REEFORM" is the only way to go. A CDT tied to legal action directed against those most responsible for the problem will be implemented.

Peter Rubec

 

[Kalkbreath]

Peter, fuzzy is when Franks data is quoted months before he has even added them up ........he is still not finished and there have been many published papers of the 60% doa,daa , and the daduda ah ... ........You kept the 1999 study that found only 9% of fish to be positive for cyanide hidden .............and now that you let the catfish out of the bag..........you wont further discuss what this means about collection abilities without juice.................As for how much cyanide it takes to stun a twenty pound wrasse .......I should suspect that it takes a hell of a lot more poison for a fish that size then lets say a three ounce juv. blueface...... the export data on the amount of fish exported from PI ....demonstrates that fifty times more fish are taken for seafood then the hobby collects {that doesnt even include the juice fishing fathers feeding the millions of fish eaters on the island daily}..........most of the seafood, is sold dead at export, this means the collectors cant give a poop if the fish they just squirted is killed...........this intern leads to huge amounts of cyanide being used in the seafood trade................even if food fish collectors used the same doses of juice while fishing ................... .its still fifty times more .......most likely a thousand times more because each squirt is targeting much larger fish ........! Thats why clownfish are testing positive, its like second hand smoke ........lastly my family is not from PI....nor are my fish connections although i do at times get in some fish from Brem ................on the other hand a lot of my fish ARE collected by Philippine fishermen,but they are working in many many other Countries ........thats why I have twenty male Pictilis Anthias, this week ......only the PI divers do it that deep. :wink

 

[Kalkbreath]

Kalk, In 1986 Don McAllister and myself estimated that there were about 1000 aquarium fish collectors using cyanide fishing for 225 days a year. This translated in 33 million coral heads being doused with cyanide per year in the Philippines. Now we believe there are at least 4,000 collectors. Even if a smaller percentage of them use cyanide, there is more cyanide being squirted onto the reefs.


Peter Rubec

I missed this , there are not 4000 collectors active in PI.............this would amount to only one half box a week per collector.............. ask any importer in LAX ........Sunday night is busy at customs ,but it is not that busy .........less then 2000 boxes a week and California imports 90% if PI fish ...............There are six million actors in southern California .........but only a few thousand are active............hell, there are 200 hope to be Governors .........and they will all tell you that they are going to be in office ........ :wink:

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, Frank added up his data and calculated the percentages by regions of the USA. I just quoted the data he gave me.

As far as how much cyanide is used by the food fishermen. We don't know. In 1986 Steve Robinson wrote a report for the Phils Dept. of Agriculture based on undercover work which identified the number of boats larger than 100 feet fishing of Palawan using cyanide. This indicated that each boat used about 1250 kg of cyanide every two weeks. This supported about 500 collectors of food fish (primarily groupers).

The study I published recently is based on the CDT database. Some species of groupers are being targeted with cyanide (>50% of specimens by species tested found with cyanide present). I would agree that they food fishermen use more cyanide in their squirt bottles. Still it is difficult to extrapolate to how many food fishermen there presently are (estimates posted here by Horge and Ferdinand range from 3000 to 8000, but may be pure fiction). So, while you may have a point, the evidence to support your assertions (that 50 times more cyanide is used by food fishermen) does not exist. You can not assume that all food fish exported were caught with cyanide.

Lets test your fish anyway (even if they came from somewhere other than the Philippines). Then we will see who is blowing smoke.

Peter

 

[Kalkbreath]

I actually will be glad to if you can get a lab up and running .....I will supply fish it will be interesting just how clean the other countries are ...Frank was still adding up his numbers on this forum long after people were using his study ? Kinda like the network TV guys calling the Presidential race before the votes were counted ...................................... Ill try this again ........please look up the export numbers for PI with reguards to food fish ..{I cant find a good link}........But It is fifty times greater then the numbers for this hobby......if seafood collectors are using the same amount of poision per fish then they are using fifty times more juice...............but now picture this........how many fish does the average Philippino eat a week? Three ? four? five fish a week ........and how many citizens are there in PI ? ...............81 MILLION! THATS MORE FISH IN ONE DAY THEN THIS HOBBY TAKES IN A WHOLE YEAR! The seafood fishermen collect fifty times more the our little hobby and the fine people of PI remove 350 times more fish ........and they aint using rod and reels to fetch supper..........That comes out to 400 squirt bottles for every one of ours ........If there still are any still in use by our guys}.......Think about it :wink: 400 to ONE

 

[Kalkbreath]

I actually will be glad to if you can get a lab up and running .....I will supply fish it will be interesting just how clean the other countries are ...Frank was still adding up his numbers on this forum long after people were using his study ? Kinda like the network TV guys calling the Presidential race before the votes were counted ...................................... Ill try this again ........please look up the export numbers for PI with reguards to food fish ..{I cant find a good link}........But It is fifty times greater then the numbers for this hobby......if seafood collectors are using the same amount of poision per fish then they are using fifty times more juice...............but now picture this........how many fish does the average Philippino eat a week? Three ? four? five fish a week ........and how many citizens are there in PI ? ...............81 MILLION! THATS MORE FISH IN ONE DAY THEN THIS HOBBY TAKES IN A WHOLE YEAR! The seafood fishermen collect fifty times more the our little hobby and the fine people of PI remove 350 times more fish ........and they aint using rod and reels to fetch supper..........That comes out to 400 squirt bottles for every one of ours ........If there still are any still in use by our guys}.......Think about it :wink: 400 to ONE

 

[Kalkbreath]

See!..... there is someone else that thinks like me?.......................................... No ,wait ,.......that was me double posting

 

[MaryHM]

Think about it 400 to ONE

So as long as the ornamental industry poisons fish/the reef in smaller quantities than other industries, then it's ok? As long as we keep a big ratio between us, we should overlook the problem?? :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

Think about it 400 to ONE

So as long as the ornamental industry poisons fish/the reef in smaller quantities than other industries, then it's ok? As long as we keep a big ratio between us, we should overlook the problem?? :roll:

that, in a nutshell, is exactly kalk's mentality and stance :roll:

and it's a deplorable, immoral one, at that :evil:

 

[Anonymous]

So as long as the ornamental industry poisons fish/the reef in smaller quantities than other industries, then it's ok? As long as we keep a big ratio between us, we should overlook the problem??

Maybe I'm completely offbase here, but I don't think that's his point at all. Worrying about the vast degradation of the reef hobby alone is pointless unless the food fishing part is solved. We have several organizations all trying to "reform" a hobby, and little attention is paid to the people focusing on the real industry. Is there a food fish version of MAC? If not, why not?

 

[Kalkbreath]

"Context.".......Its always my point..........while you all are saving the reefs ........the rest of the world is killing them after you leave ............kinda like on the TV program ER.......the doctors save the life of a 13 year old gangbanger who was shot in a drive by .........only to have him killed the next day in another driveby.....? This is an example of how important it is to address all the threats ...... .............If we address both the seafood and the hobby with a campaign like"Dont feed your children poisoned fish " or "Hey Japan ,that cyanide sushi your eating will make your nads smaller!" This would have a noticeable impact out on the reefs .......................even ending collection for the hobby completely in PI would faintly amount to one days seafood/dinner collection.....thats 1/365th !! of a difference {WOW Naesco saved the reefs}.......... ....................................... ...................Whats immoral is to tell your children that they can make a difference in world hunger ......by eating all the food on their plate? ......Yes your children may feel great that they just saved someone from starving .............................And that is what some are doing when they tell newbies that reeform will make unhealthy reefs .......well again ...... Its much more important that we actually save the reefs, then feel good about trying to.............does anyone truly believe that ending cyanide fishing by our industry will have any effect on the seafood or dinner fishermen..........? What more immoral then lying to yourself?

 

[MaryHM]

Kalk,

Herein lies the problem- your idea of what reformers are actually trying to do. I don't think anyone here thinks that if cyanide use by the ornamentals trade is ended today that the reefs would be saved. Please show me one place where that has been stated. Just one comment from a reformer on this board. Find it and post it here for the world to see.

Here is what the actuality of the situation is. Of course there are 100 pressures on the reefs, and they've been listed on this forum numerous times. I don't have control over the food fish industry. I don't have control over run off. I don't have control over bleaching events. But what I can control is the industry I have chosen to be in. If I can help to protect the reefs by not adding to the pressures via my livelihood, then I am. This whole "the industry should be allowed to rape the reef completely because our impact really doesn't matter in the long run" is sick and perverse. The "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" mentality is apalling. If you want to join them, be my guest. If it doesn't bother you that cyanide is used by this trade- destroying fish, reefs, and COLLECTOR'S LIVES, then by all means continue your status quo attitude. Just don't bother trying to convince me you're right.

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, Lets discuss the food fish situation. The IMA had a fairly large grant to monitor the food fish trade from the McArthur Foundation. This has ended and Frazer McGilvray (formerly of IMA based in Hong Kong) now works with Patrick Chan in a Live Food Fish Consulting group. The IMA was the best source of information about the Live Food Fish Trade (it created a database). Now, that infomation is no longer being updated.

The IMA has worked with the MAC. The MAC has set out to develop a Live Food Fish trade Certification System. Perhaps, they can explain why a group dedicated to the aquarium trade is doing this? In any event it has been IMA helping the MAC with this. Geoff Muldoon of IMA in Australia has been working under a small contract from the MAC (about $25,000). It is not clear how the MAC has spent the remaining $400,000 obtained from the Nature Conservancy (mostly in travel and attending meetings as far as I can determine).

My impression is that now that IMA is no longer monitoring the live food fish trade, there is a void that cannot be filled. Less is being done to stop the use of cyanide for the capture of live groupers sold to restaurants in Hong Kong and mainland China.

 

[Anonymous]

This whole "the industry should be allowed to rape the reef completely because our impact really doesn't matter in the long run" is sick and perverse. The "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" mentality is apalling. If you want to join them, be my guest. If it doesn't bother you that cyanide is used by this trade- destroying fish, reefs, and COLLECTOR'S LIVES, then by all means continue your status quo attitude. Just don't bother trying to convince me you're right.

But likewise, I haven't seen anyone here say any of those things either. No one has said that they will continue to buy cyanide fish until the food fishing stops. I've just seen a few people point out that industry reform alone does nothing but ease our own consciences. Industry reform should be a no brainer, we are the ones that wish to keep the fish alive. Convincing the guys who are trying to kill the fish from the get go, will take a little more convincing.

 

[Jaime Baquero]

So as long as the ornamental industry poisons fish/the reef in smaller quantities than other industries, then it's ok? As long as we keep a big ratio between us, we should overlook the problem??

Maybe I'm completely offbase here, but I don't think that's his point at all. Worrying about the vast degradation of the reef hobby alone is pointless unless the food fishing part is solved. We have several organizations all trying to "reform" a hobby, and little attention is paid to the people focusing on the real industry. Is there a food fish version of MAC? If not, why not?

This, Rover, needs the participation of the Filipino central government. They are the ones responsible for protecting the coral reefs ecosystems. Little can be accomplished by NGOs without the support of the government to enforce the laws. While NGOs are training collectors to use nets, tons of cyanide are being traded every year. The government knows who is importing cyanide but is clear that nothing is done to control its illegal trade.

jaime

jaime

 

[Jaime Baquero]

So as long as the ornamental industry poisons fish/the reef in smaller quantities than other industries, then it's ok? As long as we keep a big ratio between us, we should overlook the problem??

Maybe I'm completely offbase here, but I don't think that's his point at all. Worrying about the vast degradation of the reef hobby alone is pointless unless the food fishing part is solved. We have several organizations all trying to "reform" a hobby, and little attention is paid to the people focusing on the real industry. Is there a food fish version of MAC? If not, why not?

This, Rover, needs the participation of the Filipino central government. They are the ones responsible for protecting the coral reefs ecosystems. Little can be accomplished by NGOs without the support of the government to enforce the laws. While NGOs are training collectors to use nets, tons of cyanide are being traded every year. The government knows who is importing cyanide but is clear that nothing is done to control its illegal trade.

jaime

jaime

are been traded looks better than are being traded

Sorry.

jaime