What would happen....

[blue hula3]

Kalk,

The truth is that food fishing is a problem.

The truth is that aquarium collection in the Philippines is also a problem.

In addition to the use of cyanide (any of which incremental use is a problem), there is the question of BIODIVERSITY impacts.

Steve raised the point in passing but it is a key one. The aquarium trade has the potential to effect community structure and diversity on the reef because it targets a wide range of species, many of which wouldn't be fished normally (except by blast fishing). For most of the fish targeted, we know almost nothing apart from the name, family and approximate size. We have no information on size at maturity, reproduction, recruitment, growth, mortality etc.

For example, we don't know what level of exploitation is sustainable for butterflies. Given they aren't targeted for live fish export, I'd argue that, where aquarium collection occurs, this is the main extractive pressure on them and therefore hobby collecting should be the focus of our attention. And this would apply to numerous other species including many of the small damsels ....

Cheers,

 

[mkirda]

What the hobby does matters Kalk. No amount of finger pointing elsewhere changes that.

Blue hula

Couldn't agree more.

I've pointed out again and again that there are numerous vocal marine scientists who absolutely despise the aquarium trade. They want to see the trade reformed or shut down. Regardless of its total impact percentage of all those things that hurt the reefs, Cyanide use in marine ornamental capture cannot ever be justified. The longer the trade does not recognize this, and the longer they continue to justify/condone its use, the more these scientists will push the government to regulate the hobby out of existence, net-caught, certified or not. The draft legislation was introduced once and withdrawn. As a trade, we need to show that we are part of the solution, not part of the problem.

With this, I think I will bow out of this discussion for a brief but needed respite.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

It works out to 120 fish per square kilometer...{3million by 25,000 square kilometers}..per year..........thats how many fish per species?WE import 200 fish types! If out of the 120 fish how many are chromis? Three. How many are damsels? Four? . next clownfish ? Three? then Mandarins? two........and so on.......its such a small number of fish per species per square mile per year that its silly .......Your really think the reef will miss two chromis per square kilometer? ...Peter , cyanide and blast fishing had gone on for thirty years , prior to out hobby even starting......Why did Steve state in your report back in 1979...That the food fish industry uses cyanide exclusively? Cyanide and blast fishing began in ..world war 2 .............The reefs were almost at their current state of decline in the 1970s...{only about five percent worse today }....our hobby did not begin taking volume until 80s........Also the 49% cyanide present was for municipal fishing{on the reefs} as a whole.......if it was only grouper coming up positive,,,,,,,then it would have to be 100% on the grouper and they would need to approach fifty percent of the take .........Would it not?

 

[mkirda]

Cyanide and blast fishing began in ..world war 2

Cyanide fishing absolutely did not begin in WWII. True, the Japanese did teach the Filipinos how to fish with explosives during the war, but they did not use cyanide. It happened much later than 1945. Hint: 2003 - 1942 <> 40 either.

You should know the history of the topic, Kalk.

Furthermore, for whatever reason, you continue to characterize the movements of this shadowy 'reeform' group- I have no idea who this group is and have absolutely no connection to them. Let me make things abundantly clear: While this hobby continues cyanide use for capture, it is dirty. The only two solutions that I can see are an outright ban or training in nets, combined with higher prices, LGU support, an effective CDT, random testing and a sufficient penalty to make it hurt if caught. Plus some organization to go to for support. We absolutely need to make ourselves squeaky clean first before we can begin to tackle the food fish issues, even if they cause more reef destruction than we do. I've used the example before: Comparing people who murder a single person versus people who murder multiple persons, the point is not how many you murder, it is the fact that you murder at all. Until our hobby is clean, we have no right pointing our fingers at others.

I've argued against a ban strenuously in the past as it will hurt good people as well. I continue that stance.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

The reefs were at their current state of decline long before our hobby ........ One or two cyanide squirts per square kilometer cannot have much effect on the health of the reefs........only 120 fish are collected per kilometer2 and of that only 25 percent are testing for cyanide present..........so thirty fish per year at most are being collected with juice.......and multiple fish are usually collected at a time when using cyanide.......it is silly to think one or two squirts per square mile of reef each year is having any noticeable effects....Even if our hobby totally ends any and all cyanide usage {perhaps they already have} It will be impossible to tell out on the reefs and most likely in testing because of second hand cyanide..{ I am off to the Keys tonight, for the week end........to experience how enjoyable raw sewage and what 200 fish per kilometer square is really like :wink: }

 

[Anonymous]

kalkbreath wrote:

The reefs were at their current state of decline long before our hobby

please explain to me that one, kalk, it's logically impossible :lol:

a 'state of decline' is a 'static slice' of a changing situation, so how could a changing state be the same now as it was?

unless of course, you've actually got the cojones to assert that the decline somehow stopped awhile ago? :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

kalkbreath wrote:

One or two cyanide squirts per square kilometer cannot have much effect on the health of the reefs........only 120 fish are collected per kilometer2 and of that only 25 percent are testing for cyanide present..........so thirty fish per year at most are being collected with juice.......and multiple fish are usually collected at a time when using cyanide.......it is silly to think one or two squirts per square mile of reef each year is having any noticeable effects..

geese, kalk, you can't even do your own math,or stick to the same measurement system

how does 30 fish/km(2) translate into only 30 fish/yr-are only 120 fish being taken from one kilometer(2)/yr from the entire area? :lol: :roll:

have you ever witnessed the fishing taking place to where you've seen how many squirts of cyanide are used? where do you get your figures from?

how much more nonsense do you have left to spew, before letting the topic continue intelligently? :?

 

[blue hula3]

The reefs were at their current state of decline long before our hobby ........

Kalk, got a source for this one ?

I started diving in the Philippines (Palawan) in 1982. Reefs there were in pretty good nick at the time.

 

[blue hula3]

In terms of number of fish per km2 and determining what level of exploitation is appropriate ... again, Kalk:

- we've debated the numbers on the previous thread (I posted it somewhere around page 11 I think)

- the issue isn't how many fish are taken, it is how many are taken relative to their abundance. With Peter's figure of standing stock of 500 fish /km2 on depleted reefs and my figure of 350 fish / km2 removed per year .... that represents a high proportion of those removed.

I am also going to take a pause until some new points are made.

Cheers,
Blue hula

 

[Kalkbreath]

In terms of number of fish per km2 and determining what level of exploitation is appropriate ... again, Kalk:

- we've debated the numbers on the previous thread (I posted it somewhere around page 11 I think)

- the issue isn't how many fish are taken, it is how many are taken relative to their abundance. With Peter's figure of standing stock of 500 fish /km2 on depleted reefs and my figure of 350 fish / km2 removed per year .... that represents a high proportion of those removed.

I am also going to take a pause until some new points are made.

Cheers,
Blue hula

Taking two fish of any one species from any place in PI cannot have an impact.....You keep pretending that there are only a few hundred fish per square mile.......Even in the face of reports that there are more Grouper then what you state as the total in fish !.......You never explained how fish collectors can collect two tons of sea food and a few million hobby fish from a standing stock of a few hundred fish per square kilometer? Dont instead bring up the 100 pound grouper thing ......these are the reported numbers from Municipal waters......not commercial ,not aquaculture.........Even the three to five million fish per year from hobby collection cannot be harvested from a standing stock of 350 fish ........Peter states that 90% of the collected fish die. before being exported.....so now based on "reeformers" logic thats ten million fish from three hundred and fifty ........ Ten million from 350 ?.......explain yourself

 

[Kalkbreath]

The reefs were at their current state of decline long before our hobby ........

Kalk, got a source for this one ?

I started diving in the Philippines (Palawan) in 1982. Reefs there were in pretty good nick at the time.

http://reefsatrisk.wri.org/casestudy_text.cfm?ContentID=107 Also read Peters work in the seventies/early eighties..........almost all of the reports {search the web} on reef decline .......state that the last fifteen years the reefs have only declined about 5% further.......with the vast majority occuring before 1982.......How many fish were we as a hobby collecting in 1979?

 

[Kalkbreath]

kalkbreath wrote:

The reefs were at their current state of decline long before our hobby

please explain to me that one, kalk, it's logically impossible :lol:

a 'state of decline' is a 'static slice' of a changing situation, so how could a changing state be the same now as it was?

unless of course, you've actually got the cojones to assert that the decline somehow stopped awhile ago? :roll:

Yes .....in a literal sense.........the reefs have declined some what more 5% .......but in a practical sense many areas have recovered somewhat as well .......in fact if it was not for the natural warm water bleachings in the late nineties.........the overall amount of coral coverage would be higher now then in 1982.........

 

[Kalkbreath]

kalkbreath wrote:

One or two cyanide squirts per square kilometer cannot have much effect on the health of the reefs........only 120 fish are collected per kilometer2 and of that only 25 percent are testing for cyanide present..........so thirty fish per year at most are being collected with juice.......and multiple fish are usually collected at a time when using cyanide.......it is silly to think one or two squirts per square mile of reef each year is having any noticeable effects..

geese, kalk, you can't even do your own math,or stick to the same measurement system

how does 30 fish/km(2) translate into only 30 fish/yr-are only 120 fish being taken from one kilometer(2)/yr from the entire area? :lol: :roll:

have you ever witnessed the fishing taking place to where you've seen how many squirts of cyanide are used? where do you get your figures from?

how much more nonsense do you have left to spew, before letting the topic continue intelligently? :?

IM not sure what the question is? There were 3 million fish exported from PI .....{hobby} ....from .25,000 square kilometers of reef structure.......{municiple fishing waters}......this comes out to 120 fish per kilometer square ..........of those 120 fish only 25% ON AVERAGE tested for cyanide present........thats 25% of 120=30 fish .........thirty tiny reef fish per year from an area the size of several hundred football fields is not much ........and of those 30 fish how many were collected together? I mean usually damsels, clownfish and blue tangs are collected in groups ..{ those fish types also represent over fifty percent of the total 120 }..... there is a good chance that on every squirt more then one fish was collected each time {...ie a cyanide squirt yields thirty or more fish at a time, usually the whole school}so there is a good chance that only one or two squirts per year would yeild the thirty cyanide fish in the average. What part of this is to be questioned?

 

[Kalkbreath]

kalkbreath wrote:

One or two cyanide squirts per square kilometer cannot have much effect on the health of the reefs........only 120 fish are collected per kilometer2 and of that only 25 percent are testing for cyanide present..........so thirty fish per year at most are being collected with juice.......and multiple fish are usually collected at a time when using cyanide.......it is silly to think one or two squirts per square mile of reef each year is having any noticeable effects..

geese, kalk, you can't even do your own math,or stick to the same measurement system

how does 30 fish/km(2) translate into only 30 fish/yr-are only 120 fish being taken from one kilometer(2)/yr from the entire area? :lol: :roll:

have you ever witnessed the fishing taking place to where you've seen how many squirts of cyanide are used? where do you get your figures from?

how much more nonsense do you have left to spew, before letting the topic continue intelligently? :?

IM not sure what the question is? There were 3 million fish exported from PI .....{hobby} ....from .25,000 square kilometers of reef structure.......{municiple fishing waters}......this comes out to 120 fish per kilometer square ..........of those 120 fish only 25% ON AVERAGE tested for cyanide present........thats 25% of 120=30 fish .........thirty tiny reef fish per year from an area the size of several hundred football fields is not much ........and of those 30 fish how many were collected together? I mean usually damsels, clownfish and blue tangs are collected in groups ..{ those fish types also represent over fifty percent of the total 120 }..... there is a good chance that on every squirt more then one fish was collected each time {...ie a cyanide squirt yields thirty or more fish at a time, usually the whole school}so there is a good chance that only one or two squirts per year would yeild the thirty cyanide fish in the average. What part of this is to be questioned?

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, You are right about one thing. Cyanide is being used for both the capture of food fish (live and dead) and aquarium fish. Destructive fishing practices (including cyanide, dyanamite, muro-ami (now called Paaling), kayakas fishing (use of poles to pound reefs) are degrading the reefs and reducing their ability to support reef fishes.

The underwater surveys provided counts on both food fish and aquarium fish (not separated to which kind). In the most degraded reefs the numbers were about 500 fish per square kilometer. Healthy reefs have as many as 10,000 fish per km2. In a recent posting I made, using data from the PCSD website, I provided information on both fish counts and the state of the reefs. It also provided information on the percentages that were poor, fair, good, and excellent condition in terms of a % of the reefs nationwide. Lets use the 25,000 km2 figure for the area of the reefs nationwide (it may be higher, I used a figure of 27,000 km2 and some authors estimated 33,000 km2). Please do the math as to how many fishes each area has as standing crop (numbers present observed by underwater surveys). Then extrapolate the numbers to the total areas. I want you to do these calculations and post them.

Your recent postings ignored the fact that at least one third of the fishes present on the reef were food fish. Please subtract these numbers from the standing crop numbers to determine the number of aquarium fishes on the reefs as standing crops within each of the zones. Now, calculate for each zone (poor, fair, good, excellent) how many fish present were aquarium fishes.

Now factor in the fact that 50% of the aquarium fishes squirted with cyanide on the reef die. Factor in that only 10% of those that lived (out of the remaining 50%) were collected kept for the aquarium trade. Then calculate the fact that 30% of the collected fish died while being held by the collectors. Add 30% more that die in export facilities to the estimate of the number of survivors. Now going backwards, estimate out of the 3 to 5 million marine aquiurm fish that lived to be exported from the Philippines, how many fishes were killed by cyanide (and/or other factors like stress and ammonia) to produce that export number?

You are wrong to state that only 30 fish per km2 were squirted with cyanide to produce 3 million fish being exported. You have deliberately distorted the numbers because you did not factor in: a) the numbers exposed to cyanide on the reefs for both the food fish and aquarium fish trades; b) the numbers that died through the chain from reefs to export facilities, and c) the fact that not all the reefs are degraded to the poor category etc. Your extrapolations are overly simplistic and inaccurate.

Try to use real numbers as Mike Kirda and I have suggested. Then you might have some credability.

Peter Rubec

 

[PeterIMA]

Sorry, Double posting

 

[Kalkbreath]

Peter .....your right ! your numbers are not possible? I cant do the math! Neither can you! thats my point! {QUOTE}'Now factor in the fact that 50% of the aquarium fishes squirted with cyanide on the reef die. Factor in that only 10% of those that lived (out of the remaining 50%) were collected kept for the aquarium trade. Then calculate the fact that 30% of the collected fish died while being held by the collectors. Add 30% more that die in export facilities to the estimate of the number of survivors{END}{QUOTE} LETS SEA.....Three million ,plus 30% =4million plus 30% is 5.3 million.....x 900percent =40.77millionx50% doa on reef =80Million.....In order to collect your stimate of about 80 million fish to export 3million .... from an average standing stock of 500 per square kilometer you would have to collect 80% of all the fish from the intire coutry ALL 25,000 square kilometers EACH MONTH.......{And what are the chances that 80% of the fish are even hobby fish ?} every single fish collected each month from each klometersquare and somehow there would be 500 new fish the next month..Your suggesting that 70 percent of the reefs are at the 500 fish level! You explain yourself....And its even more silly to think that municipal waters food fish collectors can collect two metric tons per kilometersquare.....from a few hundred fish ! Explain your own numbers .......I cant explain yours..........Your suggesting that these numbers are somehow possible ? Im calling your bluff ,explain how it is possible to collect 80 milliom hobby fish {mostly damsels} from a standing stock of 500 fish kilometer2......and how many of the fish in any fish count are even hobby fish ?There is over 2000 fish types in PI ! The hobby exported about 2 million damsels and clownfish and only 1million "other fish" .....Estimates are that only 1 percent of fish species in PI are even collected for the pet industry.......It silly! .....Out of an average 500 fish only about five are even of the correct species.for collecting .{hobby fish }....Silly silly silly..... :wink:

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, It is not impossible. You forgot that the densities in the zones vary. They are higher than 500 fish per square kiliometer in the fair, good, and excellent categories. I asked you to start with the numbers posted on the PCSD site (some of which I posted about a week ago). Then, carry out the extrapolations.

You stated that 80 million aquarium fish are killed so that 3 million can be exported. That is your extrapolation. If you are right, there is no reason to have an aquarium fish export trade from the Philippines (or anywhere cyanide fishing is practiced).

Peter rubec

 

[Kalkbreath]

Kalk, It is not impossible. You forgot that the densities in the zones vary. They are higher than 500 fish per square kiliometer in the fair, good, and excellent categories. I asked you to start with the numbers posted on the PCSD site (some of which I posted about a week ago). Then, carry out the extrapolations.

You stated that 80 million aquarium fish are killed so that 3 million can be exported. That is your extrapolation. If you are right, there is no reason to have an aquarium fish export trade from the Philippines (or anywhere cyanide fishing is practiced).

Peter rubec

Why do I have to explain your position?" Reeformers" state that our hobby is having an effect on the reefs ...And that there is a question of sustainability? ....I have demonstrated that only three or for fish of any one species are collected per kilometer square per year...........and thus this is such a small amount that it cannot have an impact ....Yes, there might be ONE REEF somewhere in The Philippines which cannot sustain the collection of four mandarins per year ........ Reeformer like to find the ONE area out of tens of thousands kilometers of coral reefs .. which fits the criteria of unsustainable...And use this tiny area as the poster for reeform! Its a lie and IM calling it.......If only a few limited areas of PI are degraded to only 500 fish per square kilometer........then why mention those areas at all, except to mislead the reader ? You have failed to explain one of the reeform movement conclusions and yes I too have failed to explain the silly notion that our hobby can have an effect with the limited collection......... Ill list each one separately .......

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, I will wait for your reply before I make any further comments.

Peter