What would happen if there was testing on certified fish ........and ten percent tested positive......? Does anyone actually feel that no juice fish will slip in ........what about second hand cyanide.......fish that are exposed by seafood fishermen {or others} and then collected unsuspectingly by MAC collectors................What is an acceptable number......and what if we cant reach it? What happens to a collector if his batch is ten percent positive? And if he is kicked out , at what point will there be no collectors with a perfect record still in MAC?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What would happen....
- Thread starter Kalkbreath
- Start date
"Answers?" THERE ARE NO ANSWERS>>>>>>>>THATS THE POINT.....YOU cant come up with one...even in theory........HOW in the world could MAC....... Remember when I said be careful for what you wish..........two years ago...........Dont ask for testing if you have not fully thought out what kind of results would need to be achieve .......in order to pass.....{its like beating your wife.......even a little is not acceptable}............. I know it will mean a death blow .........MAC knows it will mean a death blow.........EVEN if were all net fishing were still going to be blamed for any cyanide fishing.........Thats why I have tried for years to show that its the other guys {seafood}that are not only in control of the fate of the reefs in PI .but also in control over our hobbies fate...........
Kalk, I interpret your comments to be "if there is cyanide testing the sky will fall". The IMA did testing and the sky did not fall. It issued CDT certificates that meant more than MAC Certification. Which do you prefer MAC Certified cyanide-caught fish or some measure of the real situation? I don't see the need for the MAC to be involved in CDT. I do see the need for an unbiased CDT tied to law enforcement in the Philippines, and other countries such as Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Papua New Guinea. Law enforcement should be directed at all sectors of both the food fish and aquarium fish fisheries. The coral reefs and the fisheries will benefit by becoming more sustainable.
PS lets stop calling it "positive" cyanide is present or it is not.
PS lets stop calling it "positive" cyanide is present or it is not.
Stiil not answering the question..{.ITS A HAARD ONE }..What would you say is an acceptable number...........a percentage that is OK ........if 2 percent of a collectors fish were found to test positive.......would he , should he remain a MAC collector.......Last time we tested ....the number was about 19 percent..for ALL collection..........if 19% is not okey doekey.......then is five percent? one percent?... With ten thousand seafood fishermen and easily MILLIONS of daily local dinner collectors........using cyanide........Even MAC fish are not going to come up 100%clean ......and people like Steve and Mary are going to jump all over them ............Many other people have clearly voice themselves ,that ....NO amount of hobby juice fishing is cool.......How many times have you heard ;[QUOTE..." Even if our hobby IS only responsible for 1% of the poison fishing , its still too much " ] ..........................................AGAIN , the question is ; What amount of cyanide positive fish is OK if testing happens? I know lets ask Naesco.......... :wink:
Kalkbreath":2mmz7shq said:What would happen if there was testing on certified fish ........and ten percent tested positive......?
Kalkbreath,
Please ask MAC these questions.
Asking us, we have no freakin' clue how MAC would respond.
Once MAC has responded, I will be happy to weigh in with an opinion.
Until such time that they do, anything we do or say is sheer conjecture, not even informed opinion, and worth about as much as the paper these electrons are written on.
Regards.
Mike Kirda
Kalkbreath":1u26gtgu said:The question is how would you respond..........
Why? I am not in any way affiliated with MAC, nor did I write their Standards.
I'll tell ya what... I'll forward this thread to Paul and Sylvia on your behalf.
Regards.
Mike Kirda
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
Kalk,
The hypothetical you pose would become real IF there were MAC fish about. The numbers are so few and of such scant variety....that the issue may never arise.
So you're talking theory here...something that endures for years without linking with real life field production.
I for one would not be so upset about things I already know have been happening. Nor do I think that keeping a few fish pure...to mix w/ fish that aren't...is much to talk about.
Instead of being tainted by the cyanide fish in a dealers facility, the certified fish are supposed to deodorize them. I see it of course in reverse. I see the cyanide fish in a certified facility [ already a conflict] as tainting the few fish from the few certified areas.
This arrangement appears good to ;
a] Insistant, enduring cyanide fish buying dealers..who get certified and sprinkle in certified fish in the facility...and
b] Eco-reform types that somehow find this fronting for the trades commercial interests acceptable and not a 'sell out' of their mission.
Environmentalists used to strive for the environment...not just the richer operators in the industry....Unbeknown to this new breed...a healthy , well producing marine environment was the most important thing in the trades interest...[ not just P.R.] By the time the 'phase in to sustainability is complete, there won't be much left to talk about.
Impacts, harmful impacts on the better areas multiply geometrically as reform efforts plod along arithmatically.
Time to eventually get this right thru error and error is not a luxury we can forever afford.
Steve
The hypothetical you pose would become real IF there were MAC fish about. The numbers are so few and of such scant variety....that the issue may never arise.
So you're talking theory here...something that endures for years without linking with real life field production.
I for one would not be so upset about things I already know have been happening. Nor do I think that keeping a few fish pure...to mix w/ fish that aren't...is much to talk about.
Instead of being tainted by the cyanide fish in a dealers facility, the certified fish are supposed to deodorize them. I see it of course in reverse. I see the cyanide fish in a certified facility [ already a conflict] as tainting the few fish from the few certified areas.
This arrangement appears good to ;
a] Insistant, enduring cyanide fish buying dealers..who get certified and sprinkle in certified fish in the facility...and
b] Eco-reform types that somehow find this fronting for the trades commercial interests acceptable and not a 'sell out' of their mission.
Environmentalists used to strive for the environment...not just the richer operators in the industry....Unbeknown to this new breed...a healthy , well producing marine environment was the most important thing in the trades interest...[ not just P.R.] By the time the 'phase in to sustainability is complete, there won't be much left to talk about.
Impacts, harmful impacts on the better areas multiply geometrically as reform efforts plod along arithmatically.
Time to eventually get this right thru error and error is not a luxury we can forever afford.
Steve
Kalk,
Why don't you express your opinion?
What should MAC do with regards to certified collectors caught with cyanide?
Or what should they do if their fish test postitive for cyanide?
How about if a certified collector is caught with cyanide outside the certified collection area?
How do you think MAC should deal with these issues?
Regards.
Mike Kirda
Why don't you express your opinion?
What should MAC do with regards to certified collectors caught with cyanide?
Or what should they do if their fish test postitive for cyanide?
How about if a certified collector is caught with cyanide outside the certified collection area?
How do you think MAC should deal with these issues?
Regards.
Mike Kirda
Kalk,
No amount of cyanided fish is acceptable. If the purpose of the MAC is to Certify fish from Collection Areas where cyanide is not supposed to be used. Then, yes those cyanide fishermen/collectors should lose their certification.
In terms of testing, it should not be the MAC doing it. Government agencies in the Philippines and other countries need to use CDT to help enforce existing laws against cyanide fishing. This is not the role of a foreign-based NGO; which appears to be trying to protect the status quo with the aquarium and food fish trades. The MAC is not a law enforcement agency. The most they might be able to do is convince those in the trade to voluntarily stop using and or trading is cyanide-caught fish. Without CDT being conducted by some independent group; it is impossible to verify compliance.
PS-Where did you come up with the 19% figure?
No amount of cyanided fish is acceptable. If the purpose of the MAC is to Certify fish from Collection Areas where cyanide is not supposed to be used. Then, yes those cyanide fishermen/collectors should lose their certification.
In terms of testing, it should not be the MAC doing it. Government agencies in the Philippines and other countries need to use CDT to help enforce existing laws against cyanide fishing. This is not the role of a foreign-based NGO; which appears to be trying to protect the status quo with the aquarium and food fish trades. The MAC is not a law enforcement agency. The most they might be able to do is convince those in the trade to voluntarily stop using and or trading is cyanide-caught fish. Without CDT being conducted by some independent group; it is impossible to verify compliance.
PS-Where did you come up with the 19% figure?
Thats my point.!.....{QUOTE.." No amount of cyanided fish is acceptable. If the purpose of the MAC is to Certify fish from Collection Areas where cyanide is not supposed to be used. Then, yes those cyanide fishermen/collectors should lose their certification."} end}.....{even if they were not using cyanide?.................... Again the question is ....what would it mean if testing results showed five percent of fish contained cyanide........And if testing improvements alow the detection of even lower levels of cyanide.........could second hand cyanide lcause five percent of every fish in PI {from minnows to grunts}to contain cyanide......reguardless of nets or not?........... The 19% was from your reporting .....is this wrong?
Kalkbreath":aqwbcim7 said:Why would you need to know my stance ......to find you own?
My stance is irrelevant here, Kalk. You brought this subject up, not me.
Since I doubt that anyone from MAC will respond, I decided, for the sake of conversation, to ask you what your own stance is. You ask some decidedly tough questions. You said you had a point. I am asking you to elucidate it.
What would you do in MAC's place?
Regards.
Mike Kirda
They are handling it the only way they can ........not test. ............................It would be suicide.......Not that their collectors are cheating......but that they know there is no way 100% of the fish are clean.....and the public and reeformists are not going to stand for anything short of perfection...{like Peter} Reeform needs to establish itself ......first in a country that the rewards of net fishing can be seen....{like Tonga}........That way there is no question as to industry "reeformability" and the respect that would be gained with this proven accomplishment {kinda like a boxer beating up a nobody before his first big fight} Then, even if they fall just short of perfection .......the reeform movement could rest on its laurels with a 95% rate in PI......and 100 percent elsewhere ..........As it is .......both MAC and the anti MAC reeformers have set up a no win situation......".The puplic thinks we beat our wives, and we will never be able to prove that we are not doing it any longer"{ this is an analogy} Got to go...... I hear my wife calling .......
Kalk, It is extremely unlikely that 10% or more of the fish would have cyanide present accidentally (eg. by taking up cyanide from collectors, escaping, and then being caught with nets by a MAC collector). The figure overall for cyanide presence in my paper was 25% not 19% as you stated.
As someone who has devoted 20 years to try and correct this problem (stop cyanide use) I have little sympathy for the MACs efforts to greenwash the pet trade. Cyanide testing needs to be reimplemented in a scientifically honest manner and enough collectors/fishermen, middlemen, and exporters prosecuted to stop the distribution of cyanide and its use by fishermen. Otherwise, the USA and other importing countries will be forced to ban the import of marine fish from the countries where cyanide fishing occurs.
Peter Rubec
As someone who has devoted 20 years to try and correct this problem (stop cyanide use) I have little sympathy for the MACs efforts to greenwash the pet trade. Cyanide testing needs to be reimplemented in a scientifically honest manner and enough collectors/fishermen, middlemen, and exporters prosecuted to stop the distribution of cyanide and its use by fishermen. Otherwise, the USA and other importing countries will be forced to ban the import of marine fish from the countries where cyanide fishing occurs.
Peter Rubec
The spectre of an import ban from cyanide prone countries again comes up...let's see how it is argued away this time...
REMEMBER: IF AN IMPORT BAN WAS TO BE PLACED ON SOME COUNTRIES IT IS BECAUSE MANY COLLECTORS IN THAT COUNTRY ARE BREAKING THE LAW AND BECAUSE THEIR COUNTRY REFUSES TO TAKE THE PROBLEM SERIOUSLY.
-Lee
REMEMBER: IF AN IMPORT BAN WAS TO BE PLACED ON SOME COUNTRIES IT IS BECAUSE MANY COLLECTORS IN THAT COUNTRY ARE BREAKING THE LAW AND BECAUSE THEIR COUNTRY REFUSES TO TAKE THE PROBLEM SERIOUSLY.
-Lee
Lee, Arguing with people on this forum won't make it happen. It probably will take time and a change in administrations (in the US and elsewhere). Unless, the MAC and/or EASI can effect "Reeform" in the trade, bans are inevitable. I don't expect the trade or hobby to like it.
I agree with you that "it is because many collectors (and other fishermen) are breaking the law and because their countries refuse to take the cyanide problem seriously." The problem is not confined to that country (the Philippines).
I agree with you that "it is because many collectors (and other fishermen) are breaking the law and because their countries refuse to take the cyanide problem seriously." The problem is not confined to that country (the Philippines).
Peter,
For all of the reason that you stated in your last post I feel that a selective, U.S. industry/hobbyist imposed import ban from the worst exporters in the worst countries makes sense. A Federally imposed ban most likely wouldn't descriminate between the good suppliers and the bad suppliers, but would be broad in its application. A self imposed ban would allow for reward of the good and punishment of the bad and might prevent broad government involvement.
I hope EASI and MAC are successful and that grass-roots efforts can prevent this. I wish that Naesco could have cooled down his rhetoric a bit and asked that people boycott very questionable, cheap, cheap fish from questionable countries.
Sincerely,
-Lee
For all of the reason that you stated in your last post I feel that a selective, U.S. industry/hobbyist imposed import ban from the worst exporters in the worst countries makes sense. A Federally imposed ban most likely wouldn't descriminate between the good suppliers and the bad suppliers, but would be broad in its application. A self imposed ban would allow for reward of the good and punishment of the bad and might prevent broad government involvement.
I hope EASI and MAC are successful and that grass-roots efforts can prevent this. I wish that Naesco could have cooled down his rhetoric a bit and asked that people boycott very questionable, cheap, cheap fish from questionable countries.
Sincerely,
-Lee
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:
