What would happen....

[Kalkbreath]

If you really think there are only 400 fish per square kilometer in PI you ........I cant help you..........First of all more fish then that are removed for seafood per year so its not even possible .....Second thats only ten million fish IN ALL OF THE PHILIPPINES!.....I show my math.......you show me more then one study that suggest there are only 400 fish per square kilometer.....thats less the on fish per football field! ............ I will make up a number as well I say there are 400 fish per square inch ! So I guess we need something more substaintial then guessing.......Go find it .........Ill be back ......

 

[Kalkbreath]

.And if being caught with cyanide fish in your possession means that in the eyes of the reeformers, that your guilty .....then does that mean that if a grouper eats some second hand exposed fish .....that nothing could convince the reeformers that the grouper was not "collecting with cyanide" because inside its stomach is all the evidence one needs?

Who is this group 'reeformers"?
Why don't you ask them directly?
I have no idea who this group is, nor have any idea what they stand for, nor any interest in being their spokesperson.

Also, how does a grouper collect with cyanide? I've never seen a grouper with big enough fins to hold a squirt bottle, nor can I figure out where they would get ahold of cyanide tablets. Wouldn't fish collectors be the only ones with access to this sort of stuff? :wink:

If a certain percentage of fish came up testing for cyanide no matter who was collecting..would you be comfortable with never being able to boast a 100 percent clean test result? Never being able to prove one way or another that any of our collectors are still juice collecting or not?

Show me that this has ever happened.

Right now, it appears that you are grasping at any last chance to make your case. Is this all you have left? Are we left with only these hypothetical and extreme examples that have never been shown to have any basis in reality? Hey, I'm all for testing it out, this secondhand cyanide idea, just to see how little merit it actually has. I've already poked holes in your numbers, and I'm perfectly willing to do so again in perfectly logical and perfectly understandable fashion.

As of testing the last time around............it was twenty percent.......and I guess that most people thought 20 percent is too high..................lets say I use the example of thirty years ago ,testing found 85% of hobby fish from PI tested for cyanide...........twenty years ago it shrunk to 50% .....then again to 30 % ten years ago.........with the last testing results finding 20%.....How do we not know that only ten percent of collected fish today are tainted? How do we know how many collectors are still juicing it up? And what percentage of those still using cyanide are in experienced first time prospectors?

Again, these numbers have no basis in reality as the rest of the world knows it, Kalk. If you cite the numbers coming out of the CDT lab, the situation is vastly, vastly different. Peter has pointed them out to you repeatedly, in numerous posts. Why is it that you continue to spew fantasy numbers rather than the correct ones, even after being repeatedly corrected? Your agenda is showing.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

OH! but these numbers were giving in a report by PETER.......and published in the Woods report{2001} {QUOTE} During the 1980s 80 to 90% of fish exported from PI had been captured using sodium cyanide"}........and 80% in 1993 ......47% in 1996 .......and finally 20% in 1998..........See, I wait to provide my sources to increase the impact they will have on the readers.......Are you calling Peter a liar? Our are you ready to admit you have little little other then blind emotion ....

 

[Kalkbreath]

This double posting is ......

 

[Kalkbreath]

.And if being caught with cyanide fish in your possession means that in the eyes of the reeformers, that your guilty .....then does that mean that if a grouper eats some second hand exposed fish .....that nothing could convince the reeformers that the grouper was not "collecting with cyanide" because inside its stomach is all the evidence one needs?

Who is this group 'reeformers"?
Why don't you ask them directly?
I have no idea who this group is, nor have any idea what they stand for, nor any interest in being their spokesperson.

Also, how does a grouper collect with cyanide? I've never seen a grouper with big enough fins to hold a squirt bottle, nor can I figure out where they would get ahold of cyanide tablets. Wouldn't fish collectors be the only ones with access to this sort of stuff? :wink:

If a certain percentage of fish came up testing for cyanide no matter who was collecting..would you be comfortable with never being able to boast a 100 percent clean test result? Never being able to prove one way or another that any of our collectors are still juice collecting or not?

Show me that this has ever happened.

Right now, it appears that you are grasping at any last chance to make your case. Is this all you have left? Are we left with only these hypothetical and extreme examples that have never been shown to have any basis in reality? Hey, I'm all for testing it out, this secondhand cyanide idea, just to see how little merit it actually has. I've already poked holes in your numbers, and I'm perfectly willing to do so again in perfectly logical and perfectly understandable fashion.

As of testing the last time around............it was twenty percent.......and I guess that most people thought 20 percent is too high..................lets say I use the example of thirty years ago ,testing found 85% of hobby fish from PI tested for cyanide...........twenty years ago it shrunk to 50% .....then again to 30 % ten years ago.........with the last testing results finding 20%.....How do we not know that only ten percent of collected fish today are tainted? How do we know how many collectors are still juicing it up? And what percentage of those still using cyanide are in experienced first time prospectors?

Again, these numbers have no basis in reality as the rest of the world knows it, Kalk. If you cite the numbers coming out of the CDT lab, the situation is vastly, vastly different. Peter has pointed them out to you repeatedly, in numerous posts. Why is it that you continue to spew fantasy numbers rather than the correct ones, even after being repeatedly corrected? Your agenda is showing.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

OH! but these numbers were giving in a report by PETER.......and published in the Woods report{2001} {QUOTE} During the 1980s 80 to 90% of fish exported from PI had been captured using sodium cyanide"}........and 80% in 1993 ......47% in 1996 .......and finally 20% in 1998..........See, I wait to provide my sources to increase the impact they will have on the readers.......Are you calling Peter a liar? Or are you ready to admit you have little little other then blind emotion ....

 

[Kalkbreath]

All fish recover fully .....at a rate less of less then one fish per square kilometer per year.......120 fish means that with 100 fish types there are some fish types that are not removed at all .......lets say 120 blue damsels are collected ......that means no fish other then blue damsels were removed that year........

 

[mkirda]

If you really think there are only 400 fish per square kilometer in PI you ........I cant help you. {snip} So I guess we need something more substaintial then guessing.......Go find it .........Ill be back ......

Kalkbreath,

You start out displaying critical thinking, then pass the onus onto me to finish your thought. :wink: Sorry, no can do. You have problems with the number presented, contact the person who presented them, find out the citation, contact the study's author, then figure out how the numbers were generated.

Just saying "I don't think those numbers are right" doesn't qualify as proving anything.

As for fish densities as low as mentioned, yes, of course they are true. So are the 10,000 to 100,000 ranges. While you jumped to an erroneous conclusion (that I was saying that because there exist areas where fish counts are low, that the entire reef system across the entire Philippines is that low..), you also missed my point. Let's say a village has severely degraded reefs that already have extremely low fish population densities. Is it impossible to imagine that two fish per week per square km can be too much fishing pressure? Heck, the scientists have talked about the Grand Banks cod fishery as needing absolutely zero collection for the next 20-50 years in order to have the fishery recover. Why is this so hard to accept? Why is it so difficult to believe that while fish numbers have been relatively stable over the past decade, that the unit effort required has risen rather dramatically since the 70's? And that while the prices have remained fairly steady, that the exchange rates are now such that the exporters have had a relative windfall which has never trickled down in terms of higher prices to collectors?

Sustainability is a major issue, Kalkbreath, not something to make light of.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[mkirda]

This double posting is ......

Annoying? How about the previous five duplicates?

 

[Kalkbreath]

Do you really think 120 fish out of millions is that much more then Zero? Yes Zero is Zero.....but our hobby removes less fish per Kilo2 then the average Grouper eats in a year........{and we collected and Ate that grouper so there is a surplus}..... I have not found any reports on fish densities in PI as of yet.......but I did find a report Peter participated in , which states that a healthy reef of average size has been found to support 10,000,000 {ten million fish} by its self.....? Finding one reef in PI that only has 400 fish .......{if there even Is one} and using it to display the unsustainability of PI reefs.......is weak..

 

[Kalkbreath]

.....MKirta....Again, these numbers have no basis in reality as the rest of the world knows it, Kalk. If you cite the numbers coming out of the CDT lab, the situation is vastly, vastly different. Peter has pointed them out to you repeatedly, in numerous posts. Why is it that you continue to spew fantasy numbers rather than the correct ones, even after being repeatedly corrected? Your agenda is showing.

Regards.
Mike Kirda.....................You are the one stating these numbers have no basis in reality...........Peter said them ......last year.......Maybe not this week ........it seems he has adapted his data to fit this discussion......Read his reports ......I did and I am using his numbers .........If you have a better set of numbers .......please share them and their author with the readers....?

 

[mkirda]

......47% in 1996 .......and finally 20% in 1998...Are you calling Peter a liar? Our are you ready to admit you have little little other then blind emotion ....

Peter's post quotes them differently, Kalkbread.

In the paper I summarized trends determined by the six IMA/BFAR CDT laboratories from 1996-2000 (not 20 years ago). The trend of 7,703 aquarium fishes tested for cyanide ion was 43% with cyanide present in 1996, 41% in 1997, 18% in 1998, 8% in 1999, and 29% in 2000.

I am accusing you of misrepresenting the facts.

Even if I averaged those four years of results, the number is still 30%.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

Please read Peters written reports..and or the Woods report....Peter has posted something different here on this forum then he has turned in as scientific literature...and published in his own reports...............either way it shows a huge decrease every three years......at that rate of decrease..... it would be around five percent today........Five to ten percent of the 3million yearly collected fish is a scant 1.2 fish per square kilometer per year collected with cyanide..................Thats one cyanide squirt every five hundered football fields ......worth of live coral reef area ONCE A YEAR.........even if its still twenty percent its only TWO squirts.........or two fish ........and since blue tangs and other schooling fish are collected in groups .....its even less then that........Silly silly silly.............................................http://www.icriforum.org/docs/Aqua-MCS-report.pdf

 

[Kalkbreath]

"Over 32,000 marine fish have been tested at the six cyanide detection test laboratories since 1993
(Rubec et al. 2000). This is only a tiny proportion of the total exported (possibly about 30 million
between 1993-1998). Of those sampled, there has been a marked drop in the proportion of aquarium
fish tested with cyanide residues present from over 80% in 1993, 47% in 1996 to 20% in 1998.".............".They can earn more money using
cyanide because they can catch as many as three times more fish" (Rubec et al. 2000).......................................................................................................................................Rubec, P.J. (1986). The effects of sodium cyanide on coral reefs and marine fish in the Philippines. p.
297-302. In Maclean J.L., Dizon L.B. & Hosillos L.V. eds., The First Asian Fisheries Forum.
Asian Fisheries Society, Manila, Philippines.
Rubec, P.J. (1987) Fish capture methods and Philippine coral reefs- IMA Philippines visit. Part II. Mar.
Fish Mon. 2(7): 26, 30-31.
(Rubec et al. 2000).

 

[mkirda]

either way it shows a huge decrease every three years......at that rate of decrease..... it would be around five percent today........

If you extrapolated from 97, 98, and 99, then in 2000 the rate should have been near zero too, Kalk. Yet it wasn't even close. This is the danger in your approach. This is why you cannot extrapolate in this case.

You fail to understand the real situation. You fail to understand that exporters cheat the system by sending net-caught fish to BFAR for testing. You fail to understand that the cyanide collectors themselves will hold fish for up to a week in order to have the evidence be literally peed away. You fail to understand that the test is not randomly conducted, so the exporters chose the fish to be sent.

There are so many ways around the test, and the test has never been used to prosecute anyone of consequence.

In other words, I don't believe the numbers either. Anything from the past six years or so is really on the low side. When an exporter tells you how to cheat the CDT, you have to believe that this is common knowledge. BFAR made a huge stink apparently one year about how the test was going to be used to prosecute cyanide users. Immediately, the positive rate went down. Cyanide usage didn't. Everyone just put their effort into getting around the CDT. When the positive results never resulted in the threatened crackdown and prosecutions, what happened next? The rates shot back up. And since in the meantime submissions have been voluntary, I do not consider those figures, should they become available, to be credible.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[PeterIMA]

Mike, The exporter may think he cheated on the CTD. In actual fact the testing done by the IMA did detect cyanide in many many cases when the exporter thought otherwise. The fact is most of the sampling from exporter's facilities was not for prosecution but for "monitoring". It never was intended to support prosecution of exporters. In my opinion it should have been.


Most of your comments relate to the CDT situation since BFAR took over running the laboratories in October 2001.
Peter Rubec

 

[Kalkbreath]

There are other tell tale signs that cyanide use is down by our collectors .......exported PI fish are much heather then ten years ago.......now that fish are more scarce in collection areas.......collectors value each fish more so then in the past.......How do we know that they have not stopped juice fishing altogether.........My point of this topic was the foodfish industry and its impact on our collection .......if the 20% test results for hobby fish were low because of cheating........then the food fish results of 44% were as well, that would place seafood at 88% and hobby at 44 percent cyanide present........thats half of three million hobby fish 1.5 and 88% of 150 million fish {seafood export reports are 150 times greater}{I was using 50 times greater but that was based on 12 million hobby fish } ......or 132 million cyanide collected food fish ........that number combined with the local consumption would place cyanide fish totals above 200 million.........to our hobbies 1.2 million.............Still think anyone will be able to see or notice the results of our hobbies reeform?...................Imagine one day of cyanide fishing by our hobby evry six months and six months of daily cyanide fishing by the seafood collectors...........200 to one.......................................

 

[mkirda]

Imagine one day of cyanide fishing by our hobby evry six months and six months of daily cyanide fishing by the seafood collectors...........200 to one.......................................

Whatever.

One days worth of our hobby's cyanide fishing is inexcusable, Kalkbreath.
Are you going to start letting single murders off while prosecuting only mass murderers now? Same logic you are using.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

How bout one fish? If it turned out only one fish was collected with cyanide last year ,would this be too many? Would you lose sleep? How bout two fish ? How bout Red fish ,how bout BLUE fish? {Dr. Suess} :wink:

 

[mkirda]

How bout one fish? If it turned out only one fish was collected with cyanide last year ,would this be too many? Would you lose sleep? How bout two fish ? How bout Red fish ,how bout BLUE fish? {Dr. Suess} :wink:

What if it was your mother that was murdered?
Or your father?
Or your sister or brother or wife?

Your argument is a logical fallacy, Kalkbreath.
I expect better from you.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

The topic of this post is what would you be content with? You keep implying that even one fish is too many......but it seem kind of silly ? Is that still your answer? Even if only one coral head is saved ......its still worth reeform?

 

[blue hula3]

Kalk,
We had the whole "how many fish are on the reef" discussion already - see link below. Until you can come up with some numbers that are SUPPORTED by a reference or citation or person or something ... can you give it a rest?

http://reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t ... c&start=80