What would happen....

[Kalkbreath]

But none of that seemed to faze any of you? Peter states 3,000,000 hobby fish to 170,000 metric tonnes of seafood .....thats almost one meric ton per square kilometer! compared to our hobbys ten fish ?

 

[mkirda]

But none of that seemed to faze any of you? Peter states 3,000,000 hobby fish to 170,000 metric tonnes of seafood .....thats almost one meric ton per square kilometer! compared to our hobbys ten fish ?

Yet another logical fallacy, Kalk...

How can you possibly make the claim that all of those food fish come from the reefs? Ever heard of TUNA? Nice reef fish that is... :roll:

Can you come up with an argument based on valid facts or figures?
Just one even?

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

Yes......... 170,000 metric tons of seafood........And only 200 fish per kilo meter square.........Those are some mighty big fish ........Blue whales? See You can make up silly fish counts .......all you want........ but simple math again ..........points out this impossibility.........Im using your numbers .....................You dont want me to use my numbers ......... :wink:

 

[Kalkbreath]

Tuna is listed separately as well as crustaceans ........read the export data then speak ..........You cant get those food fish collection numbers from a standing stock of less then one half fish per football field of reef area.....Silly silly silly :wink:

 

[mkirda]

Im using your numbers .....................You dont want me to use my numbers ......... :wink:

What numbers? I've never generated *ANY* citable numbers dealing with fish counts, Kalk.

You must have me confused with someone else.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[mkirda]

Tuna is listed separately as well as crustaceans ........read the export data then speak ..........You cant get those food fish collection numbers from a standing stock of less then one half fish per football field of reef area.....Silly silly silly :wink:

You are still guilty of a logical fallacy unless you can show that every fish taken is from a reef area and not open water, blue water, sand flat, etc.

Give us the citation that supports your numbers and I'll look it up.
Until then, I consider every number you post pure fabrication.

Not that I think it matters much...

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

Kalk, I stated "Just for the point of argument".

Extrapolations of fish densities from one reef area (Bolinao) to the whole of the Philippines is not recommended. Even a small miscalculation can lead to a large degree of error in the estimates.

First the estimate of 350 fish per square kilometer may be too high since Blue Hula cut the area from which it was applied. A lower harvest estimate might be in order. For most years the number of boxes was lower than in 1995, so one could probably cut in half the estimated numbers of marine aquarium fishes exported to say 3 million. Densities on the reef differ markedly depending on whether the reefs are heavily degraded as opposed to pristine. In one of my first posts on this thread I stated that the density could be as high as 10,000 on a healthy (non degraded/pristine) coral reef. Reefs in Excellent condition are now less than 5% of the total area (one recent estimate was 3% of the total reef area in the Philippines).

It is recognized that coral reefs occur scattered over sand or coral rubble bottoms. The total reef area determined by remote sensing by ICLARM includes these other habitats like bare sand and seagrass beds within the areas delineated by ICLARM.

The Bolinao reef is heavily degraded with annual yields of about 2.5 metric tonnes per square kilometer per year. At least 60% of Philippine coral reefs are in poor to fair condition. The 500 fish per square kilometer standing stock estimate from the Bolinao reef is most probably fairly typical of the situation in the Philippines. The Florida Keys is undoubtedly in better shape although we may still speak of the Keys as being degraded to some extent.

Peter Rubec [END QUOTE] ........mkirda ,will you be so bold as to state what you think the average fish count per square kilometer might be? Or if you think Peters numbers are an any way close to actuality? I think instead of 500 the number has to be at least 100,000.

 

[mkirda]

mkirda ,will you be so bold as to state what you think the average fish count per square kilometer might be?

No, I would not. Having been diving in only five reefs in the entire Philippines, knowing my primary interest is in corals anyway, having zero training in attempting fish count surveys, plus the vagaries of human memory to begin with, I think I could not give you (or myself) any sort of accurate fish count.
I refuse to answer the question also due to the fact that you would take any attempted wild-a** guess on my part and use it as gospel.

Or if you think Peters numbers are an any way close to actuality? I think instead of 500 the number has to be at least 100,000.

Based on numbers quoted by the likes of Gregor Hodgson, I would have to say that I doubt there is *ANY SINGLE EXAMPLE* of a reef in the Philippines where fish counts reach 100,000. ReefCheck cites numbers like this only in extreme examples where the reefs are extraordinarily pristine and productive. Even given the vagaries of memory, I can tell you that my impression of the sheer numbers of fish in an area like Tukang Besi are far greater than the Philippine areas I have been to. And when I mentioned Tukang Besi to Gregor, he told me that it was already crappy in comparision with other reefs.

Given that Gregor heads ReefCheck and that he has done surveys across the Indo-Pacific for the last 20 plus years, I would defer to his numbers as my limited experience cannot compare.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[blue hula3]

I said it can be done.......if there is a 100 pound grouper to be stunned.........when a fisherman goes out he has the mindset that this will be the time he lands big.....Big takes do still happen especially with migrating fish ......

Honestly Kalk, where do you get this bull puckey from? How on earth do you reckon you have any sense of what goes through the mind of a Filipino fisherman? My guess ... and it is a guess despite having spent time in the region is that they are more concerned about catching enough fish to feed the kids rather than the sportsman's attitude of "landing something big.

And could you PLEASE stick to the topic at hand ... if we're talking marine ornamentals and coral reef fish, we ain't talking migratory species ... and this is the problem with most of your "logic". You chop and change between reef fish ... pelagics ... migatory ... live food fish ... subsistence fish ... it makes my head spin.

Peter made the comment that you need to dive to see ... your response was to suggest that math isn't dependent on being underwater. I'd agree -you can do armchair math ... but you totally lack the context to ask whether it makes sense.

Case in point ... you claim that there are still 100 lb groupers to be had and then talk about migratory species. Groupers ain't migratory, are easily wiped out, and I'd put money on it that most of the young lads I worked with in Bohol have NEVER seen a grouper bigger than 30 cm and thus are not chasing that fictitious big fellow.

Sorry to be rude but this is getting ridiculous.

Please look up the yearly exported food fish numbers from PI.......................... There you will see that there still are quite alot of fish coming out of PI ..{One of the largest in the world}

How is exported food fish relevant to a discussion of what is happening on coral reefs. MOST OF THESE FISH ARE OPEN WATER PELAGICS. And even if relevant, what do you mean by "quite a lot" ? Compared to how it was 10 years ago in the Phils ?

The exported number of hobby fish has remained steady for two decades 12million...a year.....There are still many fish if you know where to look....

First of all, where does it say that the exported number of fish from PI has remained steady ? And where did you get 12 million from ?

Second of all, total landings is irrelevant in assessing sustainability (as I've said a million times). You have to look at the catch per unit effort (and even that is rough). The question is whether, even if landings remained stable, fishers had to travel further, fish longer, hit new spots to maintain landings ... because closer places already trashed. You think that's a stable good thing?

Third, please ... tell me where I should look. Only place I saw lots of fish was the Apo marine reserve.

Name me one square Kilomter in the Fla Keys that supports as many fish as the average kilo2 in PI........

Since you've made the statement, you must have estimates of the average number or biomass of fish per km2 in Florida and PI. Could you please provide along with the source of the estimates.

By the by Kalk, are you becoming as adept at avoiding direct questions as MAC?

Cheers, Jessica

 

[blue hula3]

but our hobby removes less fish per Kilo2 then the average Grouper eats in a year........

Three issues:

(1) What fish do groupers eat ?- a major study of grouper gut contents (J. St. John, PhD thesis, James Cook University) showed that groupers primarily eat pelagic schooling fish NOT demersal fish and NOT damsels as Kalk has repeatedly inferred. Thus, it's apples and oranges to compare the hobby to a grouper in terms of impacts on species targetted by the marine aquarium trade.

(2) Fisheries should be removing sustainable levels of fish above what is consumed by the system ... even if groupers were eating lots of fish we want, the issue is whether, in terms of what's left over, the amount removed by the hobby is sustainable.

(3) The relevant info isn't how much a single grouper eats anyway. It would be (if it were relevant) how much fish is consumed in total by all groupers (and other piscivores) ... given how few groupers are left, it is unlikely that they are having much impact even on the fish they do eat let alone marine ornamentals which they don't!

Cheers,

 

[blue hula3]

Because you can use one bottle to catch thousands of fish in one week.....It wont break........You can collect fish that you cant even see.............And you can collect a one hundred pound grouper without a two hour fight...........................The means of production is far cheaper

The means of production argument only works when the supply materials are not restricted ...or in this case ... the resource base isn't the limiting factor.

 

[Kalkbreath]

[Right next door to my store is a Chinese market .....inside they sell hundreds of kinds of dried fish .......tiny fish ..They eat them like French fries.........not only are many of these fish listed as Gobies and dart fish .......BUT guess where they are from? The Philippines! There are thousands of bags and each one contains hundreds of these little fish . Next take a look at the local fish markets in PI......see any tuna? Not much............ what you do see are reef fish ........sweet lips and grunts ........groupers and wrasses..............think they collect these fish in the open water with the sword fish? asian markets in Japan and China also love these fish .........The last export break down I saw stated that 50,000meteric tonnes was reef fish ......one third of the total ...

 

[Kalkbreath]

As I search for data on the web , the same results come back again and again ...............I have yet to find one artical that lists hobby fishing as a significant contributor to reef harm .......this is a good example.........................http://www.cdnn.info/article/cyanide/cyanide.htmlHome > Articles



Catching fish using cyanide is easy. All you do is crush a few tablets of sodium cyanide, mix them up with some water in a plastic bottle, go find your fish and squirt. With a little care, the mixture will stun the fish without killing it. Thousands of Philippine fishermen are doing it every day - and selling the live fish to the restaurants of Hong Kong and southern China. It is one of the most lucrative fish businesses on the planet, worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year.


Hong Kong gourmands alone eat 20,000 tons of live fish caught on the coral reefs of Southeast Asia each year. They say Philippine fish are the best and will pay up to

 

[Kalkbreath]

but our hobby removes less fish per Kilo2 then the average Grouper eats in a year........

Three issues:

(1) What fish do groupers eat ?- a major study of grouper gut contents (J. St. John, PhD thesis, James Cook University) showed that groupers primarily eat pelagic schooling fish NOT demersal fish and NOT damsels as Kalk has repeatedly inferred. Thus, it's apples and oranges to compare the hobby to a grouper in terms of impacts on species targetted by the marine aquarium trade.

(2) Fisheries should be removing sustainable levels of fish above what is consumed by the system ... even if groupers were eating lots of fish we want, the issue is whether, in terms of what's left over, the amount removed by the hobby is sustainable.

(3) The relevant info isn't how much a single grouper eats anyway. It would be (if it were relevant) how much fish is consumed in total by all groupers (and other piscivores) ... given how few groupers are left, it is unlikely that they are having much impact even on the fish they do eat let alone marine ornamentals which they don't!

Cheers,

We as a hobby take less reef fish per square kilometer then one three pound grouper eats ! If you think grouper are not eating what ever swims past them {you have never owner one as a pet} They dont stay in open water and what for tuna or giant sun fish to swim by ...........they eat any and everything that swims by there mouth. If there are two grouper per square kilometer......then those two fish eat more fish per year the our hobby removes......from that same kilomter2...period..

 

[Kalkbreath]

Here is a study you might find of interest.....http://www.pcsd.ph/Study%20and%20findin ... ssment.htm

 

[Kalkbreath]

The grouper data is per hector.........how many hectors in a Kilometer 100.........so multiply the numbers by 100 to get how many per kilometer...........I was wrong on how many footballfields in a square kilometer........ There are 1000 acres in one square kilometer ........You really think there are only 300 fish per kilometer square in PI? thats one fish every three acres.............Those collectors must be able to swim like an Olympic freestylest........3 million fish collected per year and each diver swims around covering three acres just to find one fish! Imagine his disappointment when ......apon finding that one fish .......and it turns out to be not a hobby fish but one of the other 2000 fish species that call those waters home .........that means each diver only has a one in 1800 chanch that the one fish per three acres is even a hobby fish like a clownfish or damsel.........want to revise your answer?How many fish on average per square kilometer in PI............. I will be giving the correct answer soon!

 

[kylen]

Kalk, Kalk, Kalk...how many hectares in a kilometre? Is this a trick question? There are zero. Hectares are a metric unit of area, whereas a kilometre is a metric unit of length. I think you were trying to ask how many hectares in a square kilometre (100). Oh ya...there are about 247 acres in a square kilometre. Now I have finally figured out what that continual dull thud is...Mike Kirda banging his head on his computer desk.

 

[Kalkbreath]

Hey blue hula ...Steve says your wrong....So does Peter.......QUOTE}Robinson 1983b1983c observed that N2cn was used extensivly for capturing food fish. The cyanide fishermen with a "production -at-all-costs" mentality were noted to impoverish the non -collecting members of their own community {Robinson 1984b} The cyanider makes his living by raiding and damaging other peoples fishing grounds as well.............[END QUOTE] I could not have said it better myself.............................................."He said CYANiDER".....In my best Arnold voice.........."Ill be BAACK" ......"I am the CYANIDER" "Come with me if you want to live" ......{SQUIRT SQUIRT} :wink:.......................................................................................................................................................http://www.marine.org/PDF_Downloads/The ... ppines.pdf

 

[Kalkbreath]

Kalk, Kalk, Kalk...how many hectares in a kilometre? Is this a trick question? There are zero. Hectares are a metric unit of area, whereas a kilometre is a metric unit of length. I think you were trying to ask how many hectares in a square kilometre (100). Oh ya...there are about 247 acres in a square kilometre. Now I have finally figured out what that continual dull thud is...Mike Kirda banging his head on his computer desk.

OK" Square it " I left off the 2

 

[mkirda]

Hey blue hula ...Steve says your wrong....So does Peter.......

Robinson 1983b1983c observed that N2cn was used extensivly for capturing food fish. The cyanide fishermen with a "production -at-all-costs" mentality were noted to impoverish the non -collecting members of their own community {Robinson 1984b} The cyanider makes his living by raiding and damaging other peoples fishing grounds as well.............[/ QUOTE] I could not have said it better myself.

Kalk,

Sure you could have said it better.

Why? Because you aren't making a shred of sense here.

Where in the quote does Steve say Jessica is wrong? The quote is from 1984, way before Steve was even aware of Jessica's existence.
Where in the quote is Peter even mentioned?

This is way beyond a leap in logic- It looks to be an unbridgable chasm...

Regards.
Mike Kirda