What would happen....

[Anonymous]

I feel that a selective, U.S. industry/hobbyist imposed import ban from the worst exporters in the worst countries makes sense

Who's opinion would that be based on?

 

[Anonymous]

Devil's in the details, ain't he? Any suggestions? I'd say base it on CDT results.

 

[Anonymous]

So I'm back to the same old, same old. PI isn't doing public testing on MO. Without testing it is impossible to determine impartially who is naughty and who is nice. Without figuring out who is naughty and who is nice we can't decide who to ban. Stateside testing would be inconclusive and the people with the money from the hobby don't want to underwrite it.

So...slap a ban on exporters who do not have CDT verification on file from the PI and Indo. If MAC wants to certify PI fish and PI doesn't want to test, MAC needs to flip the bill if they want the certification to mean much.

-Lee

 

[mkirda]

So...slap a ban on exporters

{Playing devil's advocate...}

So, guilty before being proven innocent, eh?

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Anonymous]

{also playing devil's advocate...}

IMA testing has proven the guilt. Just trying to figure out how to separate the guilty from the innocent now. I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, either. What can one do until the PI does something? Just throw money at net funds that might/might not provide results? I don't know whether the fruits of the net fund had come to the U.S. or will ultimately offset the destructive practices of others.

 

[mkirda]

IMA testing has proven the guilt.

Old news though. Are you planning to charge them with what they did three years ago? Also, where to draw the line? Zero Percent? 5%? And what happens when the exporters figure out a way around the test?

I'm wondering if we could form our *own* consensus even...

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Jaime Baquero]

By allowing the " benefit of the doubt" fish that showed very low traces of cyanide were considered as negative. I consider this "is/ was" one of the main problems the CDT has/had. If we are expecting to see that this trade is 100% clean, all tests have to show 0 concentrations of cyanide. The benefit of the doubt is the factor allowing exporters to play the game. No cyanide equals Zero readings. Peter is that possible?

 

[Kalkbreath]

The test last time showed lion fish and clownfish to have cyanide .................these fish are not collected with cyanide ......neither are 80% of the fish from PI..... mandrins damesels.... There sno way testing again is going to show 100% clean fish ........And a complete ban on ornamental exports ......will cause 4000 fishermen to start collecting seafood fish instead .........{"better order more cyanide, those groupers aint like a four once blue tang."} ...................................................................................................good job guys......... "way to save those reefs"! :roll: Remember when they banned coral collection , lot of help that brought.....now no one cares about the coral...............in PI

 

[Anonymous]

By allowing the " benefit of the doubt" fish that showed very low traces of cyanide were considered as negative. I consider this "is/ was" one of the main problems the CDT has/had. If we are expecting to see that this trade is 100% clean, all tests have to show 0 concentrations of cyanide. The benefit of the doubt is the factor allowing exporters to play the game. No cyanide equals Zero readings.

I fully agree. None is zero - period.

Correct if I'm wrong (Peter), but wasn't it basicly an honor system for some time? The exporter picked the fish and sent it in?

The test last time showed lion fish and clownfish to have cyanide .................these fish are not collected with cyanide ......neither are 80% of the fish from PI..... mandrins damesels.... There sno way testing again is going to show 100% clean fish ........And a complete ban on ornamental exports ......will cause 4000 fishermen to start collecting seafood fish instead .........{"better order more cyanide, those groupers aint like a four once blue tang."} ...................................................................................................good job guys......... "way to save those reefs"!

Ban = more pressure on the reef and TOTAL BACK SLIDING, Kalk is right.

Some one check my temp, am I running a fever? I'm agreeing with both Jaime and Kalk, and they're both making sense to me today.

 

[mkirda]

The test last time showed lion fish and clownfish to have cyanide .................these fish are not collected with cyanide

When people don't know any better, they will use whatever means onhand in order to collect the fish, Kalkbreath. Clownfish *are* caught with cyanide in some places. There are places where fishermen don't even have scoop nets: They use their hands.

I know that you are trying to imply that either:
a) The CDT isn't accurate, or
b) The exposure is limited to 'secondhand' cyanide from seafood fishermen.

Occam's Razor suggests that the simplest explanation is probably the right one. And the simplest explanation is that the fish are testing positive due to the fact that they were caught with cyanide.

The possibility of secondhand exposure seems like it would be too small to even consider, however, it is not a possibility I can discard lightly. I do feel like it might be a candidate for an experiment to validate the hypothesis. Maybe this could be pursued later on.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

Fish swim away from cyanide blasts .......When Seafood fishermen spray a reef in which a grouper just swam into ........a lot of fish get stunned.{usually hundreds}.....not just the one twelve pound grouper......and because food fish collectors use a grouper sized dose when hunting large fish ..{It takes more tranquilizer to stun an elephant then a mouse}........its a lot of cyanide........ picture two hundred fish being left dazed in the coral heads.....as the fishermen swim away with the one fish .{grouper}........then in time , the non target fish that were not outright killed by the heavy cyanide blast .......come out of their sleep to swim away and resume life on the reef...............The idea that the the next day or that same day ......these healthy looking burt easier to catch fish are not accidentally scooped up by un suspecting Certified fishermen .......is not out of line............in fact the when one considers that even Peters' tests showed one third of seafood fish to contain cyanide........and at fifty times more seafood fish exported ......your looking at fifty squirts to one .....seafood compared to hobby use .......and thats using a one squirt to one fish ratio.........when in fact, multiple fish are collected at a time when fishing for blue tangs or other schooling fish with juice......so the ratio is most likely closer to five hundred or one thousand to one {grouper} verses a school of ten blue tangs or thirty damsels.........Thats a lot of other cyanide fishermen tainting the intire fish stocks in PI ......

 

[PeterIMA]

Lee, I think your last posting has merit. People can vote with their dollars. They can buy net-caught fish from either the MAC suppliers or from other companies who buy from the exporters dealing in fish where Ferdinand is training collectors. For my part, I plan to post on a web site, the names and contact information for the companies who export net-caught fish. If that does not effect change, I will post the names of the companies and the percentages of their fish that have cyanide present from the CDT database.

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, Lets consider your allegation that fish are exposed to cyanide escape, and are later caught with nets. It sounds like a good strategy to use in court. However, I don't think the judge will buy it.

Cyanide is metabolized over time into thiocyanate. The test used is specific for cyanide ion. So, fish exposed several weeks previously may not have cyanide ion present that can be detected with the CDT presently in use. The fish are exposed to concentrations in excess of 2000 ppm. I believe most die on the reef, if they are not brought back by the cyanide fisherman. Hence, I don't buy the idea that a large proportion of cyanide stunned fish get up and swim away. Many of the fish that die on the reef are gathered up and eaten by the collectors and their families.

Your claims don't prove that there is a ratio of 1000 to 1 or 500 to 1 food fish to aquarium fish exposed to cyanide. The percentage of food fishes found with cyanide was 44% (not 33%). The percentage overall for aquarium fishes with cyanide present was 25%. The sampling was generally at random across the country from collectors and from export facilities. This does not indicate the ratios you suggest.

I would agree that cyanide is being used by food fishermen both for the live fish trade (e.g. groupers, Napoleon wrasse), and the dead fish trade (e.g. for consumption in the Philippines). Law enforcement needs to be directed at all sectors of the fishery.

PS-The judge generally only convicts those collectors caught with cyanide in their possession and who possessed fish with cyanide tested as being present. The Philippine courts are generally conservative. They don't convict fishermen based solely on test results for the presence of cyanide. So, your argument is not reflective of how the Philippine court system operates.

 

[PeterIMA]

Jaime is correct to state that the fishermen were given the benefit of the doubt by the use of a scoring system with the fish being considered Positive for concentrations of 0.2 ppm and above and negative for levels of cyanide below 0.2 ppm. Presence means cyanide was detected, Absence means the results were zero. The actual test results rather than Positive/Negative scores are what should be presented in court. The court may decide to be lenient based on social/economic considerations. There may be justification for a cut-off level below which the collectors are not prosecuted. This should be lower than 0.2 ppm. Scientists need to determine what that cut-off concentration should be.

As far as Gresham's comment, I continue to point out that the samping done by biologists working for IMA from 1993 to 2001 was based on random sampling. The testing now being conducted by BFAR is based on samples submitted to the CDT laboratories. There is presently no random sampling that I am aware of.

 

[mkirda]

Fish swim away from cyanide blasts .....

Kalk,

Your numbers are dubious, as well as your underlying assumption that all food fish are collected with cyanide. I have seen many ways in which fish are caught including (but not limited to):
Blast fishing
Spear guns
Hook and line
Gill nets
Weirs
Fish traps
Fish cages (box with a hole in it)

Again, the simplest assumption is that 20% test positive because at least 20% are caught that way.

I would assume that the live reef food fish trade's fish actually would test out at a higher overall percentage though.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[PeterIMA]

PS, Kalk there are CDTresults in the database created by IMA indicating some lionfsh and some clownfish were collected with cyanide.

 

[mkirda]

PS, Kalk there are CDTresults in the database created by IMA indicating some lionfsh and some clownfish were collected with cyanide.

Peter,

He doesn't believe those results because of what he has been told...
That lionfish and clownfish are NEVER collected with cyanide...

I think the only absolutes would be:
ANY FISH can be collected with cyanide.
NO FISH must be collected with cyanide.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

Actually your helping the prosecution prove its point........your saying , no live cyanide fish reach the USA?, amost every fish hobby collectors stun ...swims again , otherwise they would have nothing to collect or sell...{kina like collecting butterflies with a shot gun}...So there IS a level that stuns fish and then they swim again {in a fish tank}{its about 2ppm}................ In a 2000 ppm cyanide blast ,{like you suggest} what size is the outer ring.....dont the levels of cyanide decrease away from the center.........{like a nuclear blast} A 2000 ppm squirt a few seconds after ..........is a 20ppm 100 time greater in size.......so their is your 100 times greater cynario .{pun intended}.....hobby fishermen like their fish to be alive when they try to sell them.......so unlike the seafood fishermen {45% of Peters seafood testing showed cyanide.{Mkirta...and that was voluntary samples}Seafood fishermen are the only ones using 2000ppm squirts {and the only ones killing the coral} so again one 2000ppm squirt is the same as one thousand 2ppm squirts{which is the level that stuns fish without killing them}........thats a 1000 to one ratio even if fish food collectors are collecting the same number of fish....{its 50 times greater} whats fifty times 1000?

 

[Kalkbreath]

So ......one 2000ppm seafood fishermen squirt kills everything {except the grouper} in nine cubic feet.area....then seconds later has a 200ppm in about 90 cubic feet ......then 900 cubic feet of 20 ppm ........then {hobby collectors level}...2ppm in an area of 9000 cubic feet....."Thank you Mr.Rubic the defense has no further questions" :wink:

 

[mkirda]

Seafood fishermen are the only ones using 2000ppm squirts {and the only ones killing the coral}

Kalkbread,

This is a bunch of bovine excrement.

Shown time and time again- corals subjected to cyanide exposure bleach and die at levels used to catch aquarium fish.

Try as hard as you want, you cannot deny that fact.

Regards.
Mike Kirda