As I was correcting the statement you pointed out, I also noticed that there was a statement about our Fijian collectors. As we have not imported livestock from them in almost a year, I removed that statement as well. John, I'm not here to defraud people. I run both of my websites by myself. Things change in this business, and something I said that was 100% true a year ago may change as time goes by. However, I may not always remember that I have something in writing about it somewhere. For instance, even after I started importing net caught fish from the Philippines, there was a statement on ReefSource saying that I don't import fish from there. Because I clearly denote country of origin on my stocklists, it was obvious that wasn't the case. When the statement was pointed out to me, I corrected it. Whether you believe it or not, I do thank you for pointing it out. I think it would have been better suited to a private message, but then I guess you couldn't get the enjoyment of attacking me and a distraction from the original question all in one public shot. As I've said numerous, numerous, times publicly to you- if you will treat me with respect I will do the same for you. (For those curious, do a search. I've asked this of John at least twice that I can recall.) Why you continue to treat me with hostility is beyond my understanding, but I really do wish you would just stop it.
MAC News 3rd Quarter 2003
- Thread starter John_Brandt
- Start date
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
John,
Suggesting that Marys weekly efforts to glean netcaught fish from the current supplier situation is somehow insincere is rather obtuse.
The "how do you know its sustainable" even more so.
Imagine if you applied that same suspicion to the certified dealers who pass cyanide fish thru their certified facilities every week.
Perhaps these facilities would carry more netcaught certified fishes if they were available. Until these fish arise from the years of concept and paperwork, what is a dealer to do? Buy cyanide fish in the meanwhile?
Of course he does...making a mockery of everything you stand for.
Are these cyanide fish being run thru the certified facilities now worthy of less scorn then that which you heap on Mary?
Why are you all so defensive about reform minded importers who do not ally with your team?
Is it simply turf and territory like the Oakland Raiders vs 49'er fans?
Or does it mean more than plain ol competition?
Do you think that if a fish is netcaught and yet not a MAC certified fish that it means nothing?
If the netcaught [non MAC] supplies mean nothing...and MAC produces next to nothing in their pretend field trainings in depleted areas...what are we left to deal in?
By denigrating the netcaught fish of others and producing nothing yourself...you have left us with nothing to be proud of!
Do you think that only thru a gospel of certification there is truth, proof, ethical behavior and sustainable practice?
Theoretically its easy to imagine that. Honestly? You are already empowering the biggest dealers of cyanide fish in the trade by bestowing the certification mantle on them and giving them some paper to point to.
Cleansing and cloaking on going cyanide fish dealers while belittling and fighting with reformers smacks of sinister purpose.
It is exactly this fear of becoming complicit in a possible whitewash movement that has kept many would-be allies and insiders from joining you.
Futhermore it is also the ease in which one can become certified that reveals a dumbing down of the process to the point of meaninglessness. This painlessness and simplicity will entice the trade to join. Soon it will mean as much as a drivers liscence...everyone will have one. Everyone will be tagged, bagged and registered.
From a business point of view...good for you guys!
As far as converting a few thousand cyanide fisherman, saving coral reefs and ensuring abundant and better handled fish supply...we'll have to look elsewhere it now seems certain... That kind of work will have to be done by people not afraid to get wet, not afraid to stay in the field, not afraid to work the front lines and not afraid to immerse in cyanide fishing villages. On top of that, they will actually have to know the subject matter and be able to really teach fisherman without cue cards and a manual.
This is different kind of work and beyond the capability of the MAC.
MAC should accept that and support other organizations more qualified to implement, teach and train in the outlying regions where all the fish come from. With that kind of understanding...conflict disapates and perhaps disappears.
Sincerely, Steve
Suggesting that Marys weekly efforts to glean netcaught fish from the current supplier situation is somehow insincere is rather obtuse.
The "how do you know its sustainable" even more so.
Imagine if you applied that same suspicion to the certified dealers who pass cyanide fish thru their certified facilities every week.
Perhaps these facilities would carry more netcaught certified fishes if they were available. Until these fish arise from the years of concept and paperwork, what is a dealer to do? Buy cyanide fish in the meanwhile?
Of course he does...making a mockery of everything you stand for.
Are these cyanide fish being run thru the certified facilities now worthy of less scorn then that which you heap on Mary?
Why are you all so defensive about reform minded importers who do not ally with your team?
Is it simply turf and territory like the Oakland Raiders vs 49'er fans?
Or does it mean more than plain ol competition?
Do you think that if a fish is netcaught and yet not a MAC certified fish that it means nothing?
If the netcaught [non MAC] supplies mean nothing...and MAC produces next to nothing in their pretend field trainings in depleted areas...what are we left to deal in?
By denigrating the netcaught fish of others and producing nothing yourself...you have left us with nothing to be proud of!
Do you think that only thru a gospel of certification there is truth, proof, ethical behavior and sustainable practice?
Theoretically its easy to imagine that. Honestly? You are already empowering the biggest dealers of cyanide fish in the trade by bestowing the certification mantle on them and giving them some paper to point to.
Cleansing and cloaking on going cyanide fish dealers while belittling and fighting with reformers smacks of sinister purpose.
It is exactly this fear of becoming complicit in a possible whitewash movement that has kept many would-be allies and insiders from joining you.
Futhermore it is also the ease in which one can become certified that reveals a dumbing down of the process to the point of meaninglessness. This painlessness and simplicity will entice the trade to join. Soon it will mean as much as a drivers liscence...everyone will have one. Everyone will be tagged, bagged and registered.
From a business point of view...good for you guys!
As far as converting a few thousand cyanide fisherman, saving coral reefs and ensuring abundant and better handled fish supply...we'll have to look elsewhere it now seems certain... That kind of work will have to be done by people not afraid to get wet, not afraid to stay in the field, not afraid to work the front lines and not afraid to immerse in cyanide fishing villages. On top of that, they will actually have to know the subject matter and be able to really teach fisherman without cue cards and a manual.
This is different kind of work and beyond the capability of the MAC.
MAC should accept that and support other organizations more qualified to implement, teach and train in the outlying regions where all the fish come from. With that kind of understanding...conflict disapates and perhaps disappears.
Sincerely, Steve
John_Brandt":31qonz7r said:
John,
And what would you like me to defend whilst I'm waiting for a response?
I've answered your posts on "what is science" ... "what is my philosophy re: fisheries management" with more patience than most of my colleagues would credit me. And these weren't even on topic, IMHO. I have also answered questions others have asked of you (i.e. how big is the Batasan MPA and what is the habitat like).
In return, I had some expectation that you would respond to the specific questions I have repeatedly posed that were IN LARGE PART driven by your own posts. I don't know why it is so hard for you. Let me boil it down into one question with a corrollary:
Has MAC completed resource assessments in Batasan and, if not, how on earth can you claim that these are sustainably caught fish???????
It is only polite to answer questions if you pose some yourself. Remember the game we played as children ... "you show me yours ... I'll show you mine".
Well I feel like I'm running around naked while you're dressed for the Montreal winter.
I'd encourage you to either engage in two way (informative) dialogue or keep your mudslinging, diversions re: Mary and others to yourself.
Sincerely,
Jessica
If one leaves out the word-possible- in the above quote-yes, this is why many of us have stayed out.
For the record, Words can be written in manifestos, as MAC does-but- it would mean a whole lot more, if MAC would answer questions when asked.
This complete silence-avoidance-attack the questioner attitude, simply is BAD PR !!!! Rehearsed speeches dont get it either.
Not only does this also keep many of us out, but it also turns many of us AGAINST MAC.
If turning people against them, is how they deal with us here in the states, what are they doing to the people over there ???
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
Blue,
Time to put one together? Put together what? A response or a real resource assessment and not one from a template with the blanks filled in?
Frankly...it was not imagined that a real scientist with working knowledge of the area would show up.
This should be interesting.
Steve
Time to put one together? Put together what? A response or a real resource assessment and not one from a template with the blanks filled in?
Frankly...it was not imagined that a real scientist with working knowledge of the area would show up.
This should be interesting.
Steve
Jessica,
It's my understanding that Batasan Island was subject to a rapid resource assessment by ReefCheck using the MAQTRAC protocols.
The fishes that are collected in quantity there are the marketable species most abundant there. Mandarins, copperband butterflies, clownfishes, lionfish, cleaner wrasses and panther groupers top the list of their catch.
There are quite a few other fish found in relative quantity there but are not targeted...species of damsels (including chromis), gobies, blennies, cardinalfish.
Your statement here from July 21st is rather misleading, "Gosh, in Bohol you can swim for 20 minutes on many of the coral reefs, such as they are, and see no more than a dozen fish, mostly gobies."
My experiences in the waters at and around Batasan contradict this. In 20 minutes I could have counted many hundreds of fish (even with the very poor visibility). Even a single school of Apogon cardinalfish can contain over 50 individuals. Anemones can contain a dozen clowns each; and when they house domino damsels there can be dozens per anemone. It's easy to find schools of coral cats of over 100 individuals throughout this area. The place is thick with mandarinfish.
Depleted and degraded as they may be, the reefs of Batasan have consistently produced a limited number of species for decades. These reefs are best characterized as adapted to continual coastal runoff of great quantities of sediment. The island of Bohol is washing (running) into the sea. A few km away there are areas with reduced sediment and the reefs are of a different nature.
It is approaching a year that MAC has had this area certified. Catch numbers are documented and stockpiled allowing for meaningful comparisons for future surveys. Developing a real baseline population level is a difficult task anywhere. Fish that are not highly-territorial could give meaningfully variant counts on different days. It's really easy to give an armchair audience (such as this forum) the impression that developing statistic-based sustainability studies are simple and straightforward.
Simple things like individual observers' abilities are brought into question. I know some people who seem blind as bats when looking at a reef. There are always more fish than people see when doing 'counts'. Rubec posted an interesting bit on July 20th which was somewhat revealing, "The total densities (Numbers per square kilometer) for all 336 species was A 405.63 fish over Coral and Sand, B-661.13 fish over Corals and Sand, C-409.60 fish over Seagrass, and D-395.19 fish over Sargassum. The total densities of all species was 398.89 over the Reef slope. The roller bean trawl total was 1257.38 fish per sq km." Unless I am mistaken in understanding what this reveals, the roller beam net shows that people count far fewer fish than are actually there.
It's my understanding that Batasan Island was subject to a rapid resource assessment by ReefCheck using the MAQTRAC protocols.
The fishes that are collected in quantity there are the marketable species most abundant there. Mandarins, copperband butterflies, clownfishes, lionfish, cleaner wrasses and panther groupers top the list of their catch.
There are quite a few other fish found in relative quantity there but are not targeted...species of damsels (including chromis), gobies, blennies, cardinalfish.
Your statement here from July 21st is rather misleading, "Gosh, in Bohol you can swim for 20 minutes on many of the coral reefs, such as they are, and see no more than a dozen fish, mostly gobies."
My experiences in the waters at and around Batasan contradict this. In 20 minutes I could have counted many hundreds of fish (even with the very poor visibility). Even a single school of Apogon cardinalfish can contain over 50 individuals. Anemones can contain a dozen clowns each; and when they house domino damsels there can be dozens per anemone. It's easy to find schools of coral cats of over 100 individuals throughout this area. The place is thick with mandarinfish.
Depleted and degraded as they may be, the reefs of Batasan have consistently produced a limited number of species for decades. These reefs are best characterized as adapted to continual coastal runoff of great quantities of sediment. The island of Bohol is washing (running) into the sea. A few km away there are areas with reduced sediment and the reefs are of a different nature.
It is approaching a year that MAC has had this area certified. Catch numbers are documented and stockpiled allowing for meaningful comparisons for future surveys. Developing a real baseline population level is a difficult task anywhere. Fish that are not highly-territorial could give meaningfully variant counts on different days. It's really easy to give an armchair audience (such as this forum) the impression that developing statistic-based sustainability studies are simple and straightforward.
Simple things like individual observers' abilities are brought into question. I know some people who seem blind as bats when looking at a reef. There are always more fish than people see when doing 'counts'. Rubec posted an interesting bit on July 20th which was somewhat revealing, "The total densities (Numbers per square kilometer) for all 336 species was A 405.63 fish over Coral and Sand, B-661.13 fish over Corals and Sand, C-409.60 fish over Seagrass, and D-395.19 fish over Sargassum. The total densities of all species was 398.89 over the Reef slope. The roller bean trawl total was 1257.38 fish per sq km." Unless I am mistaken in understanding what this reveals, the roller beam net shows that people count far fewer fish than are actually there.
Advance clarification for moderators :wink:
I took John's suggestion that I am misleading this "arm chair" forum personally ... it may have influenced the tone of my response
John,
I have been unable to confirm whether or not a resource assessment has been completed in Batasan, rapid appraisal or otherwise. Nor have I been able to confirm whether catch and effort is being monitored nor whether there is any information on the number of fishers exploiting the area nor even the size of the fishing ground. In addition to asking these questions on RDO, I posed these questions to MAC directly and the silence has been … well deafening. Almost three weeks now, and I am still waiting for a simple “yes/no” response. If it has been done, how hard would it be to simply say “yes, we’ve done it on this date”
Since it is your understanding that a rapid assessment has been done, could you please confirm when and that it was indeed using MAQTRAC? Thank you.
Frankly, I don’t trust statements such as: “the fish collected in quantity are most abundant”. Cow patties that butterflies, lionfishes and groupers (as you list) are most abundant on the reef. Naturally, these families are in low abundance. Groupers on the Great Barrier Reef, for instance, form less than 2% of the mobile community which doesn’t include all the damsels, gobies and blennies. Throw in the site attached species, and this proportion probably drops by half to two thirds. Butterflies are also not that common.
As to my statement that you can swim for 20 minutes on a typical reef in Bohol (I didn’t say Batasan in particular) and see few fish … I stand by this assessment for the Bohol reefs in general, with some notable exceptions, few and far between. I worked in Bohol for three years and our team quantitatively surveyed 30 reefs. I have personally probably swum on a 100 along that coast. Densities are outrageously low and arguing for additional pressure through collection … in the absence of resource assessments and catch data … is, well irresponsible and while certifiable …IMO, only for Bellevue.
Your suggestion that the reefs in this area are “adapted to coastal runoff” shows a poor understanding of the history of the area and reef ecology. The reefs of northern Bohol have been hammered by coastal runoff in the past 50 years associated with land clearing. Evolution certainly doesn’t occur that quickly and the reefs in Bohol are best described as heavily degraded rather than "adapted". They are not ok. I first dove in the Phils in 1981 … and the change since even then is remarkably depressing. For those new to the area, it may however be less obvious.
How do we know that the reefs from Batasan have “consistently produced a limited number of species" over the years"? I know there are no long term fisheries data for the area. Did MAC do formal interviews with fishers to assess historical catches and changes since? Is that information available? Our interviews with fishers in Bohol suggested declines in seahorses of 80% since the 60’s.
Great that MAC is collecting catch data (summarising invoices?) but what about effort ? Alone these data are as helpful as the GMAD report for assessing sustainability.
What about the in situ resource assessments? You say it is difficult. I disagree but say for a moment it is, why is MAC then pushing MAQTRAC ? Seems inconsistent? Say you’ll do it, get the tool developed, and then it’s too hard ? Say you’ll do it, certify and then a year later still be saying “it’s too hard?”. Ouch. How do you explain that to funders?
Resource assessments with good statistical design for most of the fish targeted for aquarium collection are, to borrow an Aussie expression, a piece of piss. Straight forward. Many are sufficiently site attached (fish not aussies). What is difficult is getting the capacity within the village to do the work … hiring a good Community Organiser … hiring a good biologist. You need to put the work into the VILLAGES not into Manila.
I am offended that you suggest I am misleading an ”arm chair” audience. I have more integrity than that. I also have more respect for this gang than that .. particularly my good friend Kalk. And ‘sides, it is not an armchair audience. There are quite a few members with their own direct experience underwater in the Phils plus those on the receiving end of fish and information from the field. I also have consistently backed up my statements with references, data or indicated the relevant professional experience.
However, your pollyanna anecdotes based on a quick fly through are a perfect example of such … influence. Went for a swim … lots of fish. Another example would be your inability to provide basic information on the Batasan MPA (e.g. size) whilst implying its mere presence is leading to sufficient spill over to balance collection …sounds great, eh? Wa’ay problema dinhi.
I stand by my assessment of the resource based on a number of years experience in Bohol and even more years experience with the methods needed to do the work (despite being a youthful 60’s baby). How long were you there John ? How many reefs did you visit? I LIVED IN THE VILLAGES. I live and breath statistical design professionally.
Are you questioning my ability to see fish? I wear glasses but my mask is prescription. I have worked on reefs in the Caribbean, Red Sea and SE Asia for more than 15 years. I am at least competent at counting fish, recognising that cryptics are always hard and short of rotenoning the reef (or hang on, cyaniding or dynamite) difficult to count. I haven’t seen the study of Peter’s but differences in density could simply reflect differences between areas. I don’t know where the roller beam trawl was … my guess would be in deeper water, off reef and these communities might have higher biomass; may also have caught more schooling fish, dunno. But out of context, it means nothing to me.
While I have your attention, perhaps you could tell me why MAC is/was pushing into Bilang-bilangan for a CAMP given there has been no historical aquarium collection there? Why add pressure? Looking for a better source of fish than the “healthy, consistently productive” reefs of Batasan?
Sincerely
Jessica
I took John's suggestion that I am misleading this "arm chair" forum personally ... it may have influenced the tone of my response
John,
I have been unable to confirm whether or not a resource assessment has been completed in Batasan, rapid appraisal or otherwise. Nor have I been able to confirm whether catch and effort is being monitored nor whether there is any information on the number of fishers exploiting the area nor even the size of the fishing ground. In addition to asking these questions on RDO, I posed these questions to MAC directly and the silence has been … well deafening. Almost three weeks now, and I am still waiting for a simple “yes/no” response. If it has been done, how hard would it be to simply say “yes, we’ve done it on this date”
Since it is your understanding that a rapid assessment has been done, could you please confirm when and that it was indeed using MAQTRAC? Thank you.
Frankly, I don’t trust statements such as: “the fish collected in quantity are most abundant”. Cow patties that butterflies, lionfishes and groupers (as you list) are most abundant on the reef. Naturally, these families are in low abundance. Groupers on the Great Barrier Reef, for instance, form less than 2% of the mobile community which doesn’t include all the damsels, gobies and blennies. Throw in the site attached species, and this proportion probably drops by half to two thirds. Butterflies are also not that common.
As to my statement that you can swim for 20 minutes on a typical reef in Bohol (I didn’t say Batasan in particular) and see few fish … I stand by this assessment for the Bohol reefs in general, with some notable exceptions, few and far between. I worked in Bohol for three years and our team quantitatively surveyed 30 reefs. I have personally probably swum on a 100 along that coast. Densities are outrageously low and arguing for additional pressure through collection … in the absence of resource assessments and catch data … is, well irresponsible and while certifiable …IMO, only for Bellevue.
Your suggestion that the reefs in this area are “adapted to coastal runoff” shows a poor understanding of the history of the area and reef ecology. The reefs of northern Bohol have been hammered by coastal runoff in the past 50 years associated with land clearing. Evolution certainly doesn’t occur that quickly and the reefs in Bohol are best described as heavily degraded rather than "adapted". They are not ok. I first dove in the Phils in 1981 … and the change since even then is remarkably depressing. For those new to the area, it may however be less obvious.
How do we know that the reefs from Batasan have “consistently produced a limited number of species" over the years"? I know there are no long term fisheries data for the area. Did MAC do formal interviews with fishers to assess historical catches and changes since? Is that information available? Our interviews with fishers in Bohol suggested declines in seahorses of 80% since the 60’s.
Great that MAC is collecting catch data (summarising invoices?) but what about effort ? Alone these data are as helpful as the GMAD report for assessing sustainability.
What about the in situ resource assessments? You say it is difficult. I disagree but say for a moment it is, why is MAC then pushing MAQTRAC ? Seems inconsistent? Say you’ll do it, get the tool developed, and then it’s too hard ? Say you’ll do it, certify and then a year later still be saying “it’s too hard?”. Ouch. How do you explain that to funders?
Resource assessments with good statistical design for most of the fish targeted for aquarium collection are, to borrow an Aussie expression, a piece of piss. Straight forward. Many are sufficiently site attached (fish not aussies). What is difficult is getting the capacity within the village to do the work … hiring a good Community Organiser … hiring a good biologist. You need to put the work into the VILLAGES not into Manila.
I am offended that you suggest I am misleading an ”arm chair” audience. I have more integrity than that. I also have more respect for this gang than that .. particularly my good friend Kalk. And ‘sides, it is not an armchair audience. There are quite a few members with their own direct experience underwater in the Phils plus those on the receiving end of fish and information from the field. I also have consistently backed up my statements with references, data or indicated the relevant professional experience.
However, your pollyanna anecdotes based on a quick fly through are a perfect example of such … influence. Went for a swim … lots of fish. Another example would be your inability to provide basic information on the Batasan MPA (e.g. size) whilst implying its mere presence is leading to sufficient spill over to balance collection …sounds great, eh? Wa’ay problema dinhi.
I stand by my assessment of the resource based on a number of years experience in Bohol and even more years experience with the methods needed to do the work (despite being a youthful 60’s baby). How long were you there John ? How many reefs did you visit? I LIVED IN THE VILLAGES. I live and breath statistical design professionally.
Are you questioning my ability to see fish? I wear glasses but my mask is prescription. I have worked on reefs in the Caribbean, Red Sea and SE Asia for more than 15 years. I am at least competent at counting fish, recognising that cryptics are always hard and short of rotenoning the reef (or hang on, cyaniding or dynamite) difficult to count. I haven’t seen the study of Peter’s but differences in density could simply reflect differences between areas. I don’t know where the roller beam trawl was … my guess would be in deeper water, off reef and these communities might have higher biomass; may also have caught more schooling fish, dunno. But out of context, it means nothing to me.
While I have your attention, perhaps you could tell me why MAC is/was pushing into Bilang-bilangan for a CAMP given there has been no historical aquarium collection there? Why add pressure? Looking for a better source of fish than the “healthy, consistently productive” reefs of Batasan?
Sincerely
Jessica
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
Blue Hula,
Did you ever get a response to your questions?
You made some extremely vital points and I for one would love to hear some answers to them.
Creating more collectors where there was none [ Bilangbilangan] is a disturbing thing to do...and a "training scheme" for non fisherman for the CIA in the Sulu Sea just because there's money in it...well thats as telling as anything we've heard yet.
I guess the real cyanide fisherman will have to wait as they are seen as a lesser priority it would appear.
These are things even knee jerk supporters try not to hear because it doesn't add up. It doesn't jive with the need to believe in the sincerity and integrity of purpose.
Cash and carry training for money is what a private consultant business may do...but it sure isn't the mission of any would be reformers in this trade.
It is one of those defining things that slipped out in public [ recent MAC report] and was touted as an achievement though unaware of what it really means.
Any answers for the Blue Hula post...or is she now regarded as just still another incorrigible?
Steve
Did you ever get a response to your questions?
You made some extremely vital points and I for one would love to hear some answers to them.
Creating more collectors where there was none [ Bilangbilangan] is a disturbing thing to do...and a "training scheme" for non fisherman for the CIA in the Sulu Sea just because there's money in it...well thats as telling as anything we've heard yet.
I guess the real cyanide fisherman will have to wait as they are seen as a lesser priority it would appear.
These are things even knee jerk supporters try not to hear because it doesn't add up. It doesn't jive with the need to believe in the sincerity and integrity of purpose.
Cash and carry training for money is what a private consultant business may do...but it sure isn't the mission of any would be reformers in this trade.
It is one of those defining things that slipped out in public [ recent MAC report] and was touted as an achievement though unaware of what it really means.
Any answers for the Blue Hula post...or is she now regarded as just still another incorrigible?
Steve
What an interesting turn of events. I remember a few months back when I was (once again) asking hard questions and getting no response. I was informed by a MAC board member in an extremely rude and vindictive way that it was because I was a "hostile tyrant" and MAC wasn't interested in communicating with me because of this. To my knowledge, Blue hula hasn't once been hostile or tyrannical. So MAC, what's the excuse now?? Oh wait, let me guess- you have no answers to the questions and you have no cause to attack Blue hula publicly to divert attention, so silence is the reply. DISGUSTING. MAC, MAC, MAC, when will you ever learn?????
Jessica, since you brought up their funders, maybe you should direct the questions to them and see if you get some type of a response. I'd be more than happy to send you their contact information.
Jessica, since you brought up their funders, maybe you should direct the questions to them and see if you get some type of a response. I'd be more than happy to send you their contact information.
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:
