For every one hobby cyanide fishermen in PI .......there are one hundred food fish collectors......fishing alongside.with their cyanide bottles{50 % of seafood tested for cyanide}.......the chances of inadvertently collecting some of the fish that they stunned with juice is high....If reports are true that very few fish are in some of the collection zones..{blue hula}.Then the chances of collecting one out of twenty blue bluetangs that were in the seafood fishermen's cyanide plume is much greater if there are only two hundred and fifty blue tangs in that area {25out of 250]......Thats ten percent and I am suggesting that perhaps three percent of current hobby collected fish have been exposed to food fish industry fishermen........ .The question is, what if this is true..........what happens if even a controlled collection experiment {with nets} proves that even Steve Cortez or You........... will unknowingly collect second hand cyanide exposed fish on an average of one ore two percent??{its like weekly drug testing at work ......even if you only come up with illegal drugs in your pee,two percent of the time....?...Your still going to get fired when that second time in a hundred shows up} How would the public, reeformers, or MAC react to a non perfect score........If twenty percent {last testing results} is clearly not acceptable....... what number is ?............and what if circumstances beyond our hobbies control prevent us from reaching the set goal ? What is the goal ........? What result would you deem acceptable? And why is it that very few readers are willing to answer this tuff question?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
One strike and your out?{MAC baseball league}
- Thread starter Kalkbreath
- Start date
Kalk,
I agree with Mike Kirda. The question is very hypothetical. There is no scientific evidence that it is occurring. If a fish did take up cyanide and then escape and then be caught by a net collector, the chances are the levels detected by the CDT would be very low.
The MAC has not implemented CDT on MAC Certified export facilities (through the assistance of BFAR), so the question can not be answered pertaining to cyanide presence in fish coming from MAC certified sites.
The question has legal ramifications. I already explained that the Philippine court system is conservative. So, it is unlikely that even if cyanide was detected that the collector would be convicted solely based on a CDT result (one fish tested with cyanide present). The courts might convict if the collector was caught with cyanide in his possession and the fish tested positive.
I don't believe that any level of cyanide is acceptable. However, I agree with Mike Kirda that it will be difficult to completely eradicate its use. If some concentration was set (as it was previously) below which the collector was not prosecuted, then you end up with a system where some cyanide presence becomes acceptable for law enforcement purposes. That does not change the fact that cyanide fishing and the possession of cyanide by fishermen in the Philippines is illegal.
It also does not change the fact that cyanide is harmful to the coral reefs, the fish being collected, and to the collectors. So, from a scientific point of view it is totally unacceptable to permit its use to support cyanide fishing.
You keep alluding to some % of the MAC fish testing positive (5%, 10%, 20%). That is different than my stating that a national CDT program run by IMA under contract to BFAR found that 25% of 7,703 aquarium fish specimens tested were found to have cyanide present. There were also 12,852 specimens of food fishes tested with 44% found to have cyanide present. This is based on specimens tested from 1996 to 1999. Overall, there were over 48,000 specimens tested from 1993 to 2001. The total database has not yet been fully evaluated.
Since no MAC certified exporters are presently having their aquarium fishes tested (that I know of) the question is totally hypothetical. It is impossible for me to know how the Philippine court system might deal with this. I did already suggest that the MAC could repeal the certification of the Collector's Association.
Whatever might be done is up to the MAC and the Philippine legal system. We don't know how they would deal with it. The MAC has refused to answer the questions posed (at infinitum). So, I think you should stop wasting space asking it on this forum.
Peter Rubec
I agree with Mike Kirda. The question is very hypothetical. There is no scientific evidence that it is occurring. If a fish did take up cyanide and then escape and then be caught by a net collector, the chances are the levels detected by the CDT would be very low.
The MAC has not implemented CDT on MAC Certified export facilities (through the assistance of BFAR), so the question can not be answered pertaining to cyanide presence in fish coming from MAC certified sites.
The question has legal ramifications. I already explained that the Philippine court system is conservative. So, it is unlikely that even if cyanide was detected that the collector would be convicted solely based on a CDT result (one fish tested with cyanide present). The courts might convict if the collector was caught with cyanide in his possession and the fish tested positive.
I don't believe that any level of cyanide is acceptable. However, I agree with Mike Kirda that it will be difficult to completely eradicate its use. If some concentration was set (as it was previously) below which the collector was not prosecuted, then you end up with a system where some cyanide presence becomes acceptable for law enforcement purposes. That does not change the fact that cyanide fishing and the possession of cyanide by fishermen in the Philippines is illegal.
It also does not change the fact that cyanide is harmful to the coral reefs, the fish being collected, and to the collectors. So, from a scientific point of view it is totally unacceptable to permit its use to support cyanide fishing.
You keep alluding to some % of the MAC fish testing positive (5%, 10%, 20%). That is different than my stating that a national CDT program run by IMA under contract to BFAR found that 25% of 7,703 aquarium fish specimens tested were found to have cyanide present. There were also 12,852 specimens of food fishes tested with 44% found to have cyanide present. This is based on specimens tested from 1996 to 1999. Overall, there were over 48,000 specimens tested from 1993 to 2001. The total database has not yet been fully evaluated.
Since no MAC certified exporters are presently having their aquarium fishes tested (that I know of) the question is totally hypothetical. It is impossible for me to know how the Philippine court system might deal with this. I did already suggest that the MAC could repeal the certification of the Collector's Association.
Whatever might be done is up to the MAC and the Philippine legal system. We don't know how they would deal with it. The MAC has refused to answer the questions posed (at infinitum). So, I think you should stop wasting space asking it on this forum.
Peter Rubec
Kalkbreath":1nffrnax said:.......the chances of inadvertently collecting some of the fish that they stunned with juice is high....If reports are true that very few fish are in some of the collection zones..{blue hula}.Then the chances of collecting one out of twenty blue bluetangs that were in the seafood fishermen's cyanide plume is much greater if there are only two hundred and fifty blue tangs in that area {25out of 250]......
Kalk,
It doesn't work that way. You need to take into account the "dilution factor" of fish on these reefs. Because there are fewer fish on the reef (NOT if by the way), the probability of any individual fish getting juiced due to proximity to a target grouper is even lower. Think of it as if they are just spaced out a lot more ...
And I'm with Steve .. the almost complete absence of fish targetted for the live food fish trade - groupers, big wrasse, on many of the reefs still being targetted by aquarium collectors makes the probabiity of an aquarium fish being squirted inadvertently pretty damn low. Not to mention the time factor ... you'd have to demonstrate how long indirect cyanide exposure lasts and then argue that the probability that the aquarium fish got caught within that period was high.
Occam's razor sounding ever more attractive.
Blue hula
Many feel that if your testing showed clownfish and Mandarins to test for cyanide......that is scientific evidence those fish are getting exposer elsewhere........! why is it so hard to imagine some secondhand fish being caught the next day......When one takes into account the incredible number of fish exposed to cyanide daily by the food fish industry.....why is it so far fetched? .0001% of 500 million fish ending up in a net is far from impossible......Peter why was the data never fully studied.......was this reason similar to why Frank never got around to finishing his study before releasing is own agenda? :wink:PeterIMA":15oev77v said:Kalk,
I agree with Mike Kirda. The question is very hypothetical. There is no scientific evidence that it is occurring. If a fish did take up cyanide and then escape and then be caught by a net collector, the chances are the levels detected by the CDT would be very low.
Peter Rubec
Kalk, I interpret the data showing that some mandarins and some clownfish to contain cyanide differently. Even Steve has admitted to me in the past that many cyanide fishermen carry only one tool (a squirt bottle). They don't carry a squirt bottle and a barrier net or hand net. Hence, they squirt all the fishes they wish to collect with cyanide (including the clownfish and the mandarins). Other collectors may use capranda or a net. I don't see the need to invoke the presence of food fishermen using cyanide. To me the data indicates that aquarium fish collectors using cyanide targeted the species just mentioned. Steve is not right about everything. The data is not evidence thatthe fish are getting cyanide exposure elsewhere.
Again, where did the 500 million fish come from? I doubt that there are that many fish in either the live food or live fish trades.
PS. Frank and I are working on the mortality data and will publish it in due time. If we had an agenda, the trade would already be shut down.
Again, where did the 500 million fish come from? I doubt that there are that many fish in either the live food or live fish trades.
PS. Frank and I are working on the mortality data and will publish it in due time. If we had an agenda, the trade would already be shut down.
How many reef fish do you think are exposed by the seafood industry each day? Tell me how you came up with your number.....then I will tell you mine..........If you have never attempted such an equation......then perhaps you should ......how can you rule out second hand exposer if you have never determined what extent of exposer is out there? Kinda like Frank speaking about results of a study he still HAS NOT FInISHED!
How many reef fish do you think are exposed by the seafood industry each day? Tell me how you came up with your number.....then I will tell you mine..........If you have never attempted such an equation......then perhaps you should ......how can you rule out second hand exposer if you have never determined what extent of exposer is out there? Kinda like Frank speaking about results of a study he still HAS NOT FInISHED!
How many reef fish do you think are exposed by the seafood industry each day? Tell me how you came up with your number.....then I will tell you mine..........If you have never attempted such an equation......then perhaps you should ......how can you rule out second hand exposer if you have never determined what extent of exposer is out there? Kinda like Frank speaking about results of a study he still HAS NOT FInISHED!
How many reef fish do you think are exposed by the seafood industry each day? Tell me how you came up with your number.....then I will tell you mine..........If you have never attempted such an equation......then perhaps you should ......how can you rule out second hand exposer if you have never determined what extent of exposer is out there? Kinda like Frank speaking about results of a study he still HAS NOT FInISHED!
PeterIMA":hs4533pf said:PS. Frank and I are working on the mortality data and will publish it in due time. If we had an agenda, the trade would already be shut down.
Peter,
Please notify us when that data is formally published. I saw the appalling trend the data was taking when Frank was posting it, but I'd really like to see what it looks like when it is cleaned up.
-Lee
Kalkbreath":30u20nm4 said:None of the data that was posted on this board ever approached 60%......
When not even 10% of the total data was ever presented, Kalk, it is *absolutely impossible* for you to draw any sort of conclusions from it whatsoever.
I really shouldn't have to explain this to you.
How would you have felt as a high school student if your teacher graded you on a single question out of the 100 on a test? That is what you are doing to Frank.
Regards.
Mike Kirda
Not true 80% of the species exported form PI were listed on this board.........Now Im sure extra data will magically appear after three years ........Why was this study used in countless reports {years ago}if the data has yet to be counted.......and what take three years to complete? We exposed it for what it was ...........
And the results did not show 60% .....So why is 60% what is quoted in these reports?PeterIMA":23vvs8m8 said:Kalk, I was totalled and tallied, just no broken down for subsequent analyses.
Peter
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
