What would happen....

[Kalkbreath]

Again , to all that are just tuning in.......I support certified collection {MAC}.........cyanide free fish are better for the customer......The fact that there is another much greater industry fishing with cyanide along side our collectors, does not mean our guys should do it......But to blame our guys for the handy work of seafood collectors Today or in the future.......is incorrect and unfair.......

 

[Anonymous]

Kalk your ideas are at the least far fetched. Do you jsut take a bunche of speed and then start typing away or are you just manic? try to settle down and form reasonable fluid sentences. Which I may add might make you a little more easy to take, or understand although you right now are making no sense what so ever. I agree with mike your hypothesis for cyanide poisoning and contamination is at best proposterous.

 

[Kalkbreath]

Okey........what part ? IM starting to feel like Monica Lowensky.........."Im a crazed stalker" But actually IM the one telling the truth....!.ps I only have a few minutes to type at a time........and a lot of the time I am referring to information from months back on this forum...........What do you disagree with ?

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, The percentage overall of food fish found to have cyanide present was 44%. This included live groupers and Napoleon wrasse for export but also dead fishes sold locally and eaten by Filipinos.

You still insist that the food fishermen use much more cyanide. I don't buy that.

 

[mkirda]

So you agree that only seafood collectors use full strength cyanide bottles? Or not?

Jeez, Kalk. You complain that I don't ask specific questions... So I do.
Do I get answers? Heck, no. I get more questions. :roll:

Ok, I don't understand your question. How do you define 'full strength cyanide bottles', and how do these bottle differ from those used by MO cyanide collectors, Kalkbreath?

Picture this ......How could a hobby collector surrounded by 100 seafood collectors ...fishing the same reef not accidentally catch some of those 100 food fishermen's fish?

Again, Kalkbreath, you are making an assumption that bears no likeness to reality. I have listed out for you before how many different ways food fish are caught besides cyanide. Are you asking me if a MO fisherman is snagging fish off a hook and line to sell? Or collecting dead fish from a blast zone? How about the fish off a speargun?

If I enter the hypothetical world you posit, where one net collector goes down and is surrounded by 100 cyanide food fish collectors, and we were to take 100% of his fish and test them for cyanide exposure, can I say with 100% utter certainty that none of his fish will test positive? No, of course not. But you know this already, because I have stated this at least once before.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

Kalk, The percentage overall of food fish found to have cyanide present was 44%. This included live groupers and Napoleon wrasse for export but also dead fishes sold locally and eaten by Filipinos.

You still insist that the food fishermen use much more cyanide. I don't buy that.

Peter, If the fish you tested were voluntary ......samples.......and still 44% came up cyanide exposed........do you feel that a blind sampling in which YOU chose the fish for testing would reveal 80% cyanide present? I mean if the voluntary urine tests of NFL player came up 44% for steroids......then a surprise test would most likely find double results......

 

[mkirda]

Peter, If the fish you tested were voluntary ......samples.......and still 44% came up cyanide exposed........do you feel that a blind sampling in which YOU chose the fish for testing would reveal 80% cyanide present? I mean if the voluntary urine tests of NFL player came up 44% for steroids......then a surprise test would most likely find double results......

And the point is?

You are asking Peter to make a conjecture. For what possible purpose?

Regards.
Mike Kirda
P.S. Add two more specific questions to the unanswered list...

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, The vast majority of the fish tested from 1993 to 2001 by the IMA (under contract to BFAR) were obtained by random sampling. There were a small number of fish submitted voluntarily by exporters. You should address your questions to BFAR since they now do the CDT analyses and apparently rely on "voluntary" submission of samples.

Peter

 

[Kalkbreath]

I was interested in your opinion concerning the seafood fish testing.........How were the food fish samples obtained? A 45% .......That would lead one to believe over half of all food fish collected are done so with poison........and could it be that the other half of the seafood fish are collected with blast fishing?..{BLAAM!.....When I read non hobby reports and TV programs........about the reef decline in PI........... it seems there is more attention given to blast fishing then cyanide...........................................................If thats true.......this would only allow a scant .... ten to twenty percent of "other fish collecting methods" like hook and line or netting., to round out the rest of a 100%.......................................Still think the hobby collectors are doing squat compared to the food fish industry.....? Ten times the collectors, fifty times the fish , much stronger cyanide levels ...........combined with little concern if their targets DIE in the reef.........I dont sea how you cannot,but I will let the readers decide. :wink:

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, I have stated repeatedly that the CDT should be applied to both the aquarium fish and food fish fisheries. Both use cyanide illegally. They both need to be dealt with irrespective of how much cyanide each sector uses.

 

[mkirda]

Still think the hobby collectors are doing squat compared to the food fish industry.....?

Jesus, Kalk.

Let me spell it out for you again.

It is a GIVEN that food fishing as currently practiced causes more environmental harm than marine ornamental collecting.

Do I have to go back and find ever post I've ever made that spells that out for you?

However, this is completely irrelevant to the point that we keep making:
Cyanide use in the MO fishery kills fish and coral (and more than a few divers), is illegal, and completely unnecessary.

Your defense of its use is quite frankly disturbing. Can you see the court system using this defense? Oh, you only murdered one person, while this serial killer murdered 48... Your crime isn't so bad in comparison, so you are free to go...

I don't know how much more simple I can make things for you.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[clarionreef]

Gentleman,
I submit to you that the cyanide trade in ornamentals specifically and obsessively goes after one, two and three inch blue tangs more than the food fish industry. The implications of this automatically bring to bear the question of how much damage focused cyanide fishing does to the blue tangs crtitical niche habitats.
The burned and grey table top corals they inhabit are the indicators of aquarium fisherman in the vicinity...past or present. These old acroporas are the very first corals to die in any collecting area. This is but an example with one single species...After 40 years or so, hundreds of thousands have been killed with nary a grouper or napoleon wrasse in question.
If the discussion gets general enough and esoteric enough, the serious and measureable truth of things like this can be 'overlooked'.
The need to clear the trade from blame is a long running and purely economic one carried in the past by the exporters in Manila. Recently the task or job of doing this has been passed on to "eco-reform firms". Kalk is serving both of these interests well and should submit an invoice...if nothing else, at least for his DSL bill.
The damage to habitat...the most vibrant and relevant [to us ]habitat...is considerable and attempts to conceal it behind the great damage caused by the live food fish trade...[also defended by "eco-reform firms"] are counterproductive. Defending the crimes of our trade by pointing the finger at another wanton industry lessens alarm and waters down the genuine story. Why train? Why supply netting? Why do anything? We heard on reefs.org that we're all OK after all.
Steve

PS. In case facts matter... the classic live food fish trades plunder that is used to minimize and water down the aquarium trade issue is hardly a factor in many, many reef areas now. The big napoleon wrasses and panther groupers are in serious trouble demographically and exist only in the frontiers of the nation. This and many more things are never revealed in the selective second- hand, old, anecdotal information flow fed to Kalk by his "sources".

 

[clarionreef]

And...
Remember the last time we got the apologists for the live food fish trade started in reefs.org?
Remember how they minimized, watered down and claimed that they were responsible and 'working closely' with IMA and MAC type eco groups?
They have money and they pay better. Kalk...Why not submit a resume and see if they can't use another apologist for cyanide food fishing. You could join them...do a little moral shuffle, a little ethical swing move and then re-emerge blaming all the reef damage on aquarium fishing!
Former eco-reform/ngo hired guns have already done this...why be left out? Don't give it away son. You actually know more about fish then these guys!
Steve
PS. And then offer services to the 'We didn't really land on the moon" crowd and in defense of the Nuremburg Nazi defendants who claimed they didn't really kill that many Jews.

 

[Kalkbreath]

You not addressing my point, I have attempted to show the reader that the food fish industry is so vast ......so huge compared to our collection that, with over fifty percent of the seafood fish testing positive for cyanide......there is going to be some second hand smoke......it is going to effect testing....AND ITS YOU NOT ME thats going to jump down MACs back if testing shows 3% dirty...{many think second hand cyanide already has effected test results} even you Steve stated that clownfish and lion fish are not collected with juice except in the most rare circumstances.. and you have argued with me for years that GOBIES and BLENNIES ARE NOT collected with cyanide! Then why the h*** did they testing positive for cyanide?....You and I both Know that only a few fish like Tangs and Angels are collected with cyanide {about five percent of collected fish{its just that you wont come out and say it}..Unlike some people on this board ....{you}.....I support the efforts of MAC ......... This discussion is about "testing"........and whether its even possible to have 100% clean fish in tests......when our collectors are fishing next to seafood colloctors using cyanide thousand times more concentrated and 100 times more collectors?..........."just because I am pointing out that the babys hair smells like cigarettes.....doesnt mean I think its O.K for the baby to smoke" :wink:

 

[clarionreef]

AHHa...
Now thats why you need to work for MAC...
WHEN YOU ESTABLISH AHEAD OF TIME THAT A POSITIVE READING MEANS NOTHING BECAUSE IT MUST BE ON ACCOUNT OF ALL THE 'RESIDUAL CYANIDE FROM FOOD FISHING"...then the aquarium trade has a ready made escape clause. In fact, this would even REDUCE THE NEED for reform because of the 'get out of jail free' card you offer here.
"Cyanide in the MAC certified dealers boat"... you say? Nah..it must be on account of all the residual food fish poison about.
Kalk...Hold out for free thinking and independant reasoning...are you becoming part of the whitewash as well?
When you 'turn' also, who will be left to inflame us?
Steve




PS. You mentioned MAC fish again...What MAC fish?

 

[mkirda]

You not addressing my point, I have attempted to show the reader that the food fish industry is so vast ......so huge compared to our collection that, with over fifty percent of the seafood fish testing positive for cyanide......there is going to be some second hand smoke......it is going to effect testing....AND ITS YOU NOT ME thats going to jump down MACs back if testing shows 3% dirty...{many think second hand cyanide already has effected test results}

Interesting. Can you find one place where I stated this?
Can you find one *single* attribution of this, Kalk?

I'll bet you that you cannot.

I have never addressed this in writing, nor in any public forum.
How the heck can you have any freakin' idea what I think on the subject?

I asked you before directly what you thought about this, and how you thought MAC should address it. (oh, yeah... Another specific question unanswered... Go figure!) No answer.

I refuse to get involved in the discussion because I feel that MAC should address it publicly. They are the ones who will have to live with it, not me.

As far as the second-hand smoke idea goes, here comes another specific question:
Do you attribute clownfish testing positive to:
a) Being caught with cyanide?
b) Flawed cyanide test giving false results?
c) secondhand smoke effect of cyanide use by food fishermen?
d) something else?

even you Steve stated that clownfish and lion fish are not collected with juice except in the most rare circumstances.. and you have argued with me for years that GOBIES and BLENNIES ARE NOT collected with cyanide! Then why the h*** did they testing positive for cyanide?....You and I both Know that only a few fish like Tangs and Angels are collected with cyanide {about five percent of collected fish{its just that you wont come out and say it}

Really? How exactly do the fishermen in far outlaying areas that fish with squirtbottles and their hands catch the all the non-tangs and non-angels that they catch? (and also test positive for cyanide, just like their tangs and angels...)

..Unlike some people on this board ....{you}.....I support the efforts of MAC ......... This discussion is about "testing"........and whether its even possible to have 100% clean fish in tests......when our collectors are fishing next to seafood colloctors using cyanide thousand times more concentrated and 100 times more collectors?..........."just because I am pointing out that the babys hair smells like cigarettes.....doesnt mean I think its O.K for the baby to smoke" :wink:

Well, Kalk... You don't have to worry about it because MAC certified collection areas have consulted all the stakeholders, and there is no cyanide food fishing going on in those areas. :wink:
So why even start down this line of questioning?

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

You not addressing my point, I have attempted to show the reader that the food fish industry is so vast ......so huge compared to our collection that, with over fifty percent of the seafood fish testing positive for cyanide......there is going to be some second hand smoke......it is going to effect testing....AND ITS YOU NOT ME thats going to jump down MACs back if testing shows 3% dirty...{many think second hand cyanide already has effected test results}

Interesting. Can you find one place where I stated this?
Can you find one *single* attribution of this, Kalk?

I'll bet you that you cannot.

I have never addressed this in writing, nor in any public forum.
How the heck can you have any freakin' idea what I think on the subject?

I asked you before directly what you thought about this, and how you thought MAC should address it. (oh, yeah... Another specific question unanswered... Go figure!) No answer.

I refuse to get involved in the discussion because I feel that MAC should address it publicly. They are the ones who will have to live with it, not me.

As far as the second-hand smoke idea goes, here comes another specific question:
Do you attribute clownfish testing positive to:
a) Being caught with cyanide?
b) Flawed cyanide test giving false results?
c) secondhand smoke effect of cyanide use by food fishermen?
d) something else?

even you Steve stated that clownfish and lion fish are not collected with juice except in the most rare circumstances.. and you have argued with me for years that GOBIES and BLENNIES ARE NOT collected with cyanide! Then why the h*** did they testing positive for cyanide?....You and I both Know that only a few fish like Tangs and Angels are collected with cyanide {about five percent of collected fish{its just that you wont come out and say it}

Really? How exactly do the fishermen in far outlaying areas that fish with squirtbottles and their hands catch the all the non-tangs and non-angels that they catch? (and also test positive for cyanide, just like their tangs and angels...)

..Unlike some people on this board ....{you}.....I support the efforts of MAC ......... This discussion is about "testing"........and whether its even possible to have 100% clean fish in tests......when our collectors are fishing next to seafood colloctors using cyanide thousand times more concentrated and 100 times more collectors?..........."just because I am pointing out that the babys hair smells like cigarettes.....doesnt mean I think its O.K for the baby to smoke" :wink:

Well, Kalk... You don't have to worry about it because MAC certified collection areas have consulted all the stakeholders, and there is no cyanide food fishing going on in those areas. :wink:
So why even start down this line of questioning?

Regards.
Mike Kirda

I was directing the line of questioning tward Steve....who is still afraid to touch any of my question.....I answered your question as to what I thought .....".they cant test".....because there will never be 100 percent clean results......As for cyanide food fishing still going on in those areas.......Its an illegal act to fish with juice everywhere in PI, they cant stop it in those areas any more then can elsewhere.....

 

[Kalkbreath]

AHHa...
Now thats why you need to work for MAC...
WHEN YOU ESTABLISH AHEAD OF TIME THAT A POSITIVE READING MEANS NOTHING BECAUSE IT MUST BE ON ACCOUNT OF ALL THE 'RESIDUAL CYANIDE FROM FOOD FISHING"...then the aquarium trade has a ready made escape clause.quote] ..................................................................................................................................Establishing the facts .....never has been a strong point in reeform......Remember Frank and his 60%doa...Its been used in several published books.? Remember the Australian fish export dream?....12 million.....only 100 times too much {its being used as a standard for reeform }....Remember the 1200 Clarion Angles a year?{gee like we wouldnt have noticed that many turning up in the wholesalers} How bout the......100,000 sps colonies exported from Fiji in 1998{It was actually ten thousand} Or the Fact that even if every airplane leaving Fiji was carrying only live rock for the whole year....that your numbers in this report are still too high Eric!}Now we have a ban in Fiji and it started with Erics report...........heaven forbid letting the facts get in the way of reeform.........Thats why you have me :wink:

 

[mkirda]

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

Since you accuse me later of not asking specific questions, then muddy the waters by brings a bunch of IRRELEVANT CRAP into the discussion, I thought I would bring it back to the point. You started this thread, Kalkbreath. You asked about testing for cyanide in the Philippines, not about Australia, not about US-based DOA figures, not about the Fiji ban, but about cyanide testing.

I asked you some very specific questions, to be answered with deafening silence.

Why can't you share with us your thoughts on these specific and on-topic questions?

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[clarionreef]

Mike,
Could you translate for me...What is Kalks question that all are afraid...yes I believe 'afraid' was the term he used...to answer.

Kalk,
About the folly of;
'nearly all the fish dying' study,
12 million dollar exports out of Oz,
12,000 clarions
100,000 sps out of Fiji etc.
You are right of course. Its the predictable result when outsiders hitchhike on the trade to futher a seperate agenda. Environmentalists used to be a lot more genuine and passionate I think...but the trade gets into their blood and intoxicates them. They get excited over the great dollar figures [gross] and lose their moral and professional compasses.
Common among them is how to figure out how to tap into the riches imagined and so pumping up the figures and fudging the data seduces them into a fervor.
My favorite is when false date is repeated as fact, reinforcing itself by calling it anecdotal evidence and citing itself year after year.
Getting money to leech off the trade has become an obsession w/ many would be reformers and bitter are they who lose a grant to a competitors.
It ain't reform anymore and it sure isn't environmentalism. Its simple corruption that happens when getting to close to... 'the ring.'
So Kalk...you can hold me to account for my own absurdities and errors...but not to the errors and absurdities of the new wave of aqua-eco wannabies...
To them I say...you like fish...get an aquarium. You wanna make money with em? Open a store and sell some.
Parasitizing a host while critizicizing it and simutaneously depending upon it for your own income is a strange new way to make money. This trade needs reform in many areas. I just doubt the sincerity and competence of the column lining up to take a stab at it.
Steve
Why don't real fish people do it you may ask. Simple. Its such a hard job and consumes so much time and energy...collectors, dealers and retailers rarely have the luxury to sit around all day trying to figure out how to cash in on it.