MAC Cyanide Detection Testing

[mkirda]

Reefcheck is one of the NGO's who is qualified and has done the surveys for some of the CAMPs. I'm talking about management plans.

Really? Which ones? You've seen the CAMPs and can verify this information?
I asked that question and was told that they could not tell me anything.

Besides, even if ReefCheck did the u/w surveys, that is just one small (and not even required! Go read the Interpretation document!) component of the CAMP process. In the end, they still need a 3rd party certifier from the a/m list to certify the collection site itself.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[MaryHM]

James, please show me where I said ReefCheck knows nothing about the reefs.

 

[jamesw]

Mary,

Let's not get into he said she said. This one was a two step process stemming from confusion.

You stated the 3rd party certifiers know nothing about reefs - because you thought I was referring to the 3rd party certifiers.

I was not. FWIW, the 3rd party certifiers on that page MAY know nothing about reef ecosystems. I haven't spoken w/ any of them.

Cheers
James

 

[mkirda]

I will rephrase, Reefcheck is one of the NGO's that performed the surveys. You can call it whatever you want to - but their surveys were used and will continue to be used to write management plans.

Again, James, where did you get this information?

To say they don't know what they are talking about or know anything about the reefs (or even the industry) is wrong.

Cheers
James

Agreed. Gregor has some idea of what he is talking about.
ReefCheck has done nothing wrong at all. They do know something about reefs, and I daresay it is more than most here.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[MaryHM]

Let's not get into he said she said.

Of course not, James. Even though you implied that I said ReefCheck knows nothing about reefs after the confusion had already been cleared up. :roll:

I think a rule for this forum should be "If you say it, OWN IT."

 

[Anonymous]

Let's extend that to LIFE.

 

[PeterIMA]

Comments about CDT and MAQTRAC.
1) The CDT test done previously by IMA for BFAR (and now by BFAR) involving ISE was (and still is) an accurate reliable test procedure. I explained to Horge that a level of 0.2 ppm was set for prosecution purposes. This was too leniant and let exporters off the hook (since most fish sampled from Manila export facilities were found to have cyanide levels below 0.2 ppm). Hopefully, BFAR will lower this cut-off level to something more realistic associated with the MAC/BFAR cyanide testing program.

2) The IMA conducted random sampling of aquarium fish and food fish from collectors and from export facilities. My understanding is that BFAR will conduct random sampling of MAC Certified export facilities. Random sampling of aquarium fish has not been done since BFAR took over running the CDT from IMA in October 2001.

3) Sampling for cyanide testing should be applied to all fish species held in MAC Certified export facilities (not just to the ones from MAC Certified Collection sites).

4) The test results should be used to prosecute exporters and/or collectors. The MAC has not clarified how the results will be utilized. If there are no prosecutions the testing has no legal authority.

5) Some bright person (idiot) in BFAR decided that the present cyanide testing should be self financing (though fees charged to exporters). Exporters presently can have their fish tested for cyanide by voluntarily submitting specimens and paying a fee. Will the MAC Certified exporters be required to pay fees for the cyanide testing done on the fish randomly sampled from their facilities?

6) Some of you believe that certain species of aquarium fish were targeted with the use of cyanide. This implies that other species were collected without cyanide. The latter statement is not true. Of over 600 species of aquarium fishes tested almost all species were found to have been exposed to cyanide at some time or another. There is a serious problem with cyanide fishing for: a) aquarium fish, b) food fish sold in local markets; and c) for live food fish for export. Cyanide testing should not just be focused on a few species of aquarium fish that some misguided persons "believe" are targeted by fishermen/collectors. There needs to be a comprehensive sampling and testing program to a) protect human health, b) protect the coral reefs, and c) protect species diversity on the reefs. The MAC/BFAR CDT program as described appears to be a band- aid to deodorize MAC Certified exporters.

7) There are many more net-collectors than those that are presently MAC certified. There are negotiations presently being conducted between Ferdinand Cruz and Lino Alvarez (the MAC Philippines Coordinator). Hopefully, this will lead to the MAC certifying the collection sites and collectors where Ferdinand Cruz conducted CAMP training for the MAC during 2002. To do this the MAC must endorse the underwater surveys and CAMP documents created by the collectors in the municipalities of Palauig, Busuanga, Coron, and Bagac. The underwater survey methods applied by the collectors in these areas used methods documented by Ferdinand with several other co-authors. I can attest (from reading the survey manual and reading the CAMP documents) that the underwater surveys conducted at these sites (not MAC Certified) were done in a scientifically sound manner.

8) As far as I know ReefCheck did not use the MACTRAC underwater survey methods at either Batasan Island or at Clarin (based on an email communication from Craig Shulman of ReefCheck). MACTRAC was not finalized until January of this year. They may have applied a Rapid Appraisal Method (RAP) at Batasan Island this year after the CAMP was created and after the third party certifier had visited the Island of Batasan to conduct MAC Certification last year. No matter how good MAQTRAC appears to be (my reading of the document), I see no indication that it has been adopted or endorsed by the MAC. Since, no CAMP documents and no reports concerning underwater surveys have been publicly released for either Batasan or Clarin, I can not conclude that that the underwater surveys were conducted in a scientifically sound manner or that these sites are "sustainable".

Sincerely,
Peter Rubec, Ph.D.

 

[JennM]

The basic process: 1) certify the supply chain and species list that, based on research and personal experience, you trust the most and certify them (that is, pick the collectors that are already trained and use nets)

So why start in the Philippines? Why not start in a country where nets are the standard???? Fiji, Australia.... there are other places where certifications could have started, but nope, they went right for one of the more difficult places to make a certification count for anything tangible.

Jenn

 

[PeterIMA]

One clarification about CDT.

I published a paper about the CDT testing conducted by IMA for BFAR. I worked from the actual test results in the CDT database. I tablulated these results as the Numbers and Percents "Cyanide Absent" and "Cyanide Present". These results are not related to whether or not the levels of cyanide detected were above or below 0.2 ppm. Overall 25% of the aquarium fishes and 44% of the food fishes tested were found to have Cyanide Present in the fish (sample size was over 22,000 specimens). This implies that the remainder of the fish tested had no cyanide present (Zero ppm=Cyanide Absent).

Peter Rubec

 

[Anonymous]

Overall 25% of the aquarium fishes and 44% of the food fishes tested were found to have Cyanide Present in the fish (sample size was over 22,000 specimens). This implies that the remainder of the fish tested had no cyanide present (Zero ppm=Cyanide Absent).

When you say 'implies' does that mean there is no record of the fish having 0% cyanide? If 22,000 specimens were tested, and only 25% tested positive, then that would mean that 75% definitely had none.

Just wondering why you used the word 'implied.'

Thanks, Peter.

Peace,

Chip

 

[kylen]

Mary,

Sorry, I must have received your fish you ordered (all uncertified of course) :wink: . Have I got a deal for you.

Steve,

Please don't hurt me. I have a couple of small clown triggers that I ordered from Marivi a while ago. I trust her. I can report that they are still alive and eating like horses to date.

 

[kylen]

Mary,

Sorry, I must have received your fish you ordered (all uncertified of course) :wink: . Have I got a deal for you.

Steve,

Please don't hurt me. I have a couple of small clown triggers that I ordered from Marivi a while ago. I trust her. I can report that they are still alive and eating like horses to date.

 

[PeterIMA]

Jenn, Sorry to use the word "implied". Those fish where no cyanide was detected had concentrations of 0 ppm. This is a fact not an implication.

Peter Rubec

 

[clarionreef]

Kylen,
Its good you got some...AND THERE ARE SOME NETCAUGHT ONES available to the lucky one who spends thousands and thousands on the ordinary stuff to merit a few. Now if there were four and there were four buyers, thats one per importer. ..or more so long as you cut out Mary!
I'm not going to fight for scraps with some other netcaught people who need their precious few to compete with the cyanide trade with.
The token amount coming in is merely a tribute to a long history of not training divers. Thats why training is so important. At least to honest importers it is. People who don't deal in netcaught fish don't see the point and don't understand what the fuss is about. In fact the futher you are away from the day to day business, the more esoteric the debate.
For me, clown triggers are in indicator species. Their indicators of reef health, indicators of training credibility, indicators of dealer integrity and indicators how far we still have to go to reform this industry. We used to just struggle against the cyanide cartel but now its more with the Quislings of a different sort of cartel. This cabal of NON AQUARIUM oriented NGOs that have failed to get things right have collectively spent several millions of dollars on the pretense of solving the trades big problem.
And so, here comes ANOTHER clown triggerfish season. Thousands will be collected with cyanide. Dozens will be collected with nets. The cyanide trade will win. They win every day they hold off and obfuscate efforts at reform. Another year gone, another complete lack of issue resolution and another year of serious salaries for lack luster performances.
Selling Cyanide fish pays and Reform failure pays. Good work if you can get it but I guess I don't qualify.
Just jealous perhaps.
Steve.

 

[My Hairy Ass]

I have a couple of small clown triggers ......... they are still alive and eating like horses to date.

Kylen, where did you get nosebags small enough for clown triggers, and given their lack of ears, how does the bag stay on long enough for them to get to the mini oats?

 

[dizzy]

Steve,
I've seen baby clown triggers this year for $11.99. What are the net caught selling for wholesale?

 

[MaryHM]

I haven't even seen a baby clown trigger on either of the net caught exporter's lists (I haven't seen Marivi's list in a few weeks though). The smallest I've had is about 5".

 

[kylen]

MHA,

Never underestimate the ingenuity of a Canadian. You would be surprised what we think of in the eleven months of winter with nothing to do.

Mary,

Like I said, I've had those clown triggers a while.

Dizzy,

$11.99 a trigger...where do I get some. I can pass those off as certified and crank up the price (just kidding :wink: )

 

[clarionreef]

Mitch,
Because there have been no trainings for the past decade in clown trigger country, there is little action in net collectors bringing them in.
If they come in, I'd have to pay more than what you were offered them at...plus frieght. Since the market will have been inundated by the drugged, cheap ones, I will be expected to sell them at or very near the same price. That means cost or less then cost.
But a netcaught fish and a certified fish is worth more I heard someone say. Most people who say that are not in the business. Its an uninvolved philisophical viewpoint and one made with little understanding of how the trade works. Only fools and reformers pay more for the fish collected with nets. They get the unrewarded 'good feeling' for 'doing whats right' while the rest get the sale..
I trained 75 collectors in the clown trigger areas back in '92. I wrote it up in FAMA magazine in Feb of '93 I believe it was. The NGO that I dare not bash, refused to supply nets, embezzled the funding for the nets and ruined the achievement. And thats why the divers were forced to go back to using cyanide to collect clown triggers.
The cyanide collecting ruined so much habitat that the collecting grounds became deeper and deeper. Upon surveying the villages involved we found that dozens of divers had died there catching this fish for our noble industry. Since the sabatoge of training effort there several dozen more divers have died collecting these fish.
Two thoughts come to mind.
1] Don't expose NGOs cause they don't like it.
2] $11.99 ! $11.99! Good to know the boys didn't die for nothing.
Sincerely, Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Jenn, Sorry to use the word "implied". Those fish where no cyanide was detected had concentrations of 0 ppm. This is a fact not an implication.

Peter Rubec

Sheesh...I finally find something worthwhile to post about and you mistake me for a woman.

I gets no respect, I tellsya!



Thanks for the clarification Peter.

Peace,

Chip