Seacare says... : Cdn Importer's Comment abt CYANIDE CAUGHT.

[clarionreef]

People,
What MARY said is true.
Public aquariums are full of cyanide caught fish and have been for decades. [ Quite a percentage of those fish have died...of old age.]
They have rarely shown a disposition to hold back buying whatever they need based on environmental criteria .[ My but I sure wish they did! ]
The problem with cyanide collecting is the routine and eventual destruction of critical fish habitat...the impoverishment of fisherman and the sabatoge of the resource...not its health effects. I don't care if it improves the health of the fish...its still indefensible on environmental grounds.
As an importer I can't imagine how a trade can base itself on 'burning its own capital'. Thats just stupid and bad business. Then again, many dealers live in the short term on a permanant basis.
This short term needs to be understood by any money- grubbing front groups that ride this beast like a commensal organism. As goes the beast go they. But then again they too may live in the short term on a permanant basis.
Its ironic...but where but RDO will you find the businessman lecturing the NGOs on reform and more effective environmentalism?
Sincerely, Steve

 

[Ad van Tage]

For dizzy's

I just dispute the fact that it has been documented that 95% ...

what is your data?

Ad,
A couple of things for you to ponder. When I said do a search it was in conjuntion with a reference to Frank Lallo. To my knowledge no testing has been done at the import level. For someone to state that 95% death rate is a "documented fact" there would need to be some form of proof that the reason fish were dying was because of cyanide. How can you assume that if 25% of the fish tested positive, then 100% or 90% or whatever of the fish that died was because of cyanide? Some of us challenged the Lallo figures and you should go back and read why.

We have cyanide testing and we have a guy who calls pet shops and asks for their DOA information. How in hell someone can get 95% from that is beyond me.

BTW your right kalk has admitted that cyanide is bad. I was talking about Jeff Moore the guy across the street. Sorry for the confusion.

What we can say for absolute sure is that 100% of the fish that were cyanide positive in the tests, died before they reached hobbyist aquariums. This is a documented fact. :wink:

What I am pondering is:
a) Dizzy did not anser the question: "what is your data?
b) Since I did not quote, nor bring up "Frank Lallo", why is he there?
c) Till you mentioned it, the reference to 95% and testing at import level, were not "connected"... How did the connection happen?

And me thinks that:
c) The "someone" who "published" that 95% number is the Seacare crowd on their webpage, I merely "quoted" their page in the discussion. I have made no claims about any other source, nor the veracity of the number.
d) But if, as you state

I just dispute the fact ...

I think it reasonable for you to explain your "sources" or the published data that you are using.

Your statement and then question of

We have cyanide testing and we have a guy who calls pet shops and asks for their DOA information. How in hell someone can get 95% from that is beyond me.

is another "dizzy" introduction.

I think the quoted statement from the Seacare webpage [ the veracity whereof I do not attest to ] was
"It is a documented fact that 95% of Cyanide caught fish perish before they reach your aquarium. "
Coupled with your ""What we can say for absolute sure is that 100% of the fish that were cyanide positive in the tests, died before they reached hobbyist aquariums. This is a documented fact. :wink:"" we now are at 95-100% , are we?? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Btw. Jeff K & Jeff M... do they come in PAIRS?? :roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[Ad van Tage]

For those seeking more CDT data from my paper go to the IMA website at http://www.marine.org Tim has the old website which is now inactive.

Peter Rubec

PS As far as Mike Kirda's statements about mortality "In my opinion" should be used to qualify his statements. I will present data at MO 04 that is more than speculation.

Peter Rubec

Specifically the IMA webpages show:
IMA testing of 48,000 fish in the Philippines shows that 25% of aquarium fish destined for the US and Europe, and 44% of live groupers and humphead wrasse going to Hong Kong were caught using cyanide. Too much emphasis is being placed on certification as the silver bullet. Cyanide use is still rampant and certification does not address the problem. Certification can only work if backed up by IMA’s comprehensive cyanide detection testing (CDT) and monitoring, inspection and surveillance (MIS) programs. Data safeguards have disappeared and only 10% of the samples are now collected in the Philippines from three CDT facilities since IMA turned over the CDT laboratory network of six functional labs and three monitoring stations to the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) in September 2001. Who wants “certified” cyanide caught fish? Not IMA.

per http://www.marine.org/Content/CDT/CDThtml.html

 

[Ad van Tage]

And how can you be sure that there are no cyanide caught fish that do survive past a few months and end up dying of old age in captivity?

Gee whizzzzzzz Mike? Why would one want to PROVE THAT?

"HEY WORLD!!! I HAVE A FISHIE that survived the odds!!! ... Well DUH!

Surely rather than "some" surviving...
i.e. a small percentage,
why not have ONLY SOME dying???
The latter is disappointing enough!




There was this fella Methusela, Mike, but chances are pretty slim that you or I will beat his record... but who is to say IT COULD NOT HAPPEN, eh?

_________________
~ Ad aka Ecoworrier ~

~NEVER SAY NEVER!~

 

[Ad van Tage]

........
Public aquariums are full of cyanide caught fish and have been for decades. [ Quite a percentage of those fish have died...of old age.]

Hmmmmmm, I can't help but wonder if "sans cyanide" they might not have died of "older age" instead 8O 8O 8O

I bet there are not too many studies on that yet:

"Longevity as a function of cyanide exposure"

Heck the baseline for such a study will be tricky for starters...

 

[PeterIMA]

Just for the record, Tim Tessier was referring to my papers concerning mortality through the chain. The papers in question were the paper published in 1986 presented at the First Asian Fisheries Forum in Manila, a longer version published in 1987 in Marine Fish Monthly, and a paper presented in 1990 at a Toxicity Workshop held in Vancouver, the Proceedings appeared in 1991. In the 1986 paper (which was on line until recently) I stated that the mortality on the reef from acute cyanide exposure was 50%. I also estimated that the average mortality at each step in the chain was 30% from the collector (village), exporter, importer, and retailer. If you start with 1000 fish and apply the percentages to the survivors at each step, the cumulative mortality is over 90%. I believe that in the 1986 and 1987 paper I stated the mortality (excuding the reef) was over 80%. I admitted on reefs.org some months ago that the estimates were "anecdotal" in the sense that they are averages of numbers published in the aquarium literature and based on personal communications wih many people in the trade. They are the best information available (concerning the cumulative mortaliy over the entire chain). I still believe they are correct and do not see any reason to retract them. However, I have never stated that all of the mortality can be ascribed to cyanide per se. In my 2001 paper (Cyanide-Free Net-Caught Fish..." published in the journal Aquarium Sciences and Conservation, I discussed possible causes including cyanide, stress, ammonia, and starvation. There is good scientific evidence (Hall and Bellwood 1995, Hanawa et al. 1998) that demonstrates that cyanide is a major factor and that the other factors also contribute leading to high mortality. Basically, the scientific studies demonstrated that cyanide plus stress are the main culprits. Hall and Bellwood for example held fish after exposure (for 13 days) to cyanide alone, stress alone, and starvation alone. The mortality was 37% for the cyanide alone, 25% for the stress-alone, and 0% for the starvation (not fed) condition. The factors together led to higher mortality rates (eg., cyanide plus stress condition resulted in 41% mortality). This was all discussed previously on reefs.org if you wish to consult earlier postings (about six months ago).

 

[mkirda]

Gee whizzzzzzz Mike? Why would one want to PROVE THAT?

"HEY WORLD!!! I HAVE A FISHIE that survived the odds!!! ... Well DUH!

Surely rather than "some" surviving...
i.e. a small percentage,
why not have ONLY SOME dying???
The latter is disappointing enough!

Given the nature of collection in the Philippines, die-off, to some degree, is inevitable due to the stress of capture, independent of the capture method.
Yes, Virginia, this means that even the gentlest net capture will mean that some fish die, but the percentage is anecdotally quite low.

Compare that to cyanide capture where upwards of 50% of some species die outright when exposed to cyanide- and I've been told much larger numbers for certain species which apparently exhibit an extreme sensitivity to cyanide exposure. Is there an 'average' that could be used across fish species? I don't know, and frankly, given the habitat destruction that cyanide capture causes, I'm not sure any scientists would even want to study this on ethical grounds.

A study would be seeming straightforward, and would involve a net fisherman and a cyanide fisherman working in tandom on the same reef, capturing the same species, and handling them the same way post-capture so as to minimize variables. Yet when the results are a foregone conclusion, with the only meaningful piece of data coming out of it is being able to nail down that elusive percentage, you have to ask why you would even bother with such 'research'?

If people really want to find out, raise some cash to sponsor the research.
Shouldn't be all that difficult to find someone to do it.

Regards.
Mike Kirda
P.S. And, yes, I realize that this is only one piece of the puzzle- The PI side, but if people are really that interested, I'm sure you can find an interested Importer on this side to bring them in and compare the numbers for the US side. All it would take is a couple of grand I figure...

 

[Ad van Tage]

[color=red[[b]Gee whizzzzzzz Mike? Why would one want to PROVE THAT?[/b][/color]

"HEY WORLD!!! I HAVE A FISHIE that survived the odds!!! ... Well DUH!

Surely rather than "some" surviving...
i.e. a small percentage,
why not have ONLY SOME dying???
The latter is disappointing enough!

...................snipped
I don't know, and frankly, given the habitat destruction that cyanide capture causes,I'm not sure any scientists would even want to study this on ethical grounds.

A study would be seeming straightforward, and would involve a net fisherman and a cyanide fisherman working in tandom on the same reef, capturing the same species, and handling them the same way post-capture so as to minimize variables. Yet when the results are a foregone conclusion, with the only meaningful piece of data coming out of it is being able to nail down that elusive percentage, you have to ask why you would even bother with such 'research'?

Mike, I already wrote "Gee whizzzzzzz Mike? Why would one want to PROVE THAT?
Somewhere in your reply you wrote: you have to ask why you would even bother with such 'research'?

Let's just leave it at that.

I'll just say that I would not design a study the way you describe it, [ on a reef... ]


In summary, all I tried to say, is that quoting that some fishies live to a "ripe old age" in captivity, is not exactly a statement that would have scientific significance...

 

[Ad van Tage]

Just for the record, Tim Tessier was referring to my papers concerning mortality through the chain. The papers in question were the paper published in 1986 presented at the First Asian Fisheries Forum in Manila, a longer version published in 1987 in Marine Fish Monthly, and a paper presented in 1990 at a Toxicity Workshop held in Vancouver, the Proceedings appeared in 1991. In the 1986 paper (which was on line until recently) I stated that the mortality on the reef from acute cyanide exposure was 50%. I also estimated that the average mortality at each step in the chain was 30% from the collector (village), exporter, importer, and retailer. If you start with 1000 fish and apply the percentages to the survivors at each step, the cumulative mortality is over 90%. I believe that in the 1986 and 1987 paper I stated the mortality (excuding the reef) was over 80%. I admitted on reefs.org some months ago that the estimates were "anecdotal" in the sense that they are averages of numbers published in the aquarium literature and based on personal communications wih many people in the trade. They are the best information available (concerning the cumulative mortaliy over the entire chain). I still believe they are correct and do not see any reason to retract them. However, I have never stated that all of the mortality can be ascribed to cyanide per se. In my 2001 paper (Cyanide-Free Net-Caught Fish..." published in the journal Aquarium Sciences and Conservation, I discussed possible causes including cyanide, stress, ammonia, and starvation. There is good scientific evidence (Hall and Bellwood 1995, Hanawa et al. 1998) that demonstrates that cyanide is a major factor and that the other factors also contribute leading to high mortality. Basically, the scientific studies demonstrated that cyanide plus stress are the main culprits. Hall and Bellwood for example held fish after exposure (for 13 days) to cyanide alone, stress alone, and starvation alone. The mortality was 37% for the cyanide alone, 25% for the stress-alone, and 0% for the starvation (not fed) condition. The factors together led to higher mortality rates (eg., cyanide plus stress condition resulted in 41% mortality). This was all discussed previously on reefs.org if you wish to consult earlier postings (about six months ago).

Thanx Peter for pointing out the possible source of Tim Tessier's information.

By the way, will the paper be back online? If so what is the URL?
< Or else what is the name of the paper, I may be able to "resurrect" it >

Do you have any information on how much reef is destroyed - on "average" per cyanide caught fish.

Somewhere I read = I think it was a Filipino biologist who was quoted = that on average for each so caught fish 1 square meter of reef was destroyed.

Using such a number, as well as the estimated mortalities, one does come up with a horrible number for "reef destroyed" ...

And that will be year in year out! :!: :!: :!:

 

[clarionreef]

Dear Ad,
You draw the conclusions unfettered by conflicts of interest and naturally see that the trades nefarious practices in S.E. Asia have no defense.
All they have is the constant support of the entire industry in deed... if not verbage.
However, the sincere outcry against the worst crimes of this industry were brought to light from WITHIN the industry.
Now, the fact that environmentalism is in vogue [in theory at least ]has reform groups scrambling for the blessing of funders. In this stampede the real case against the trades inequities is being paraphrased and mis-defined by people unfamiliar with the trade in general. This leads to the predictable errors, misinformation, misdiagnosis and faulty remedies so prevalent.
In the evolution of the reform NGOs we have seen a shift towards 'representing' the trade rather then exposing it, reforming it and fixing it.
This has occured because the trade would not co-operate otherwise. This intrasigent position, voiced strenuously at several closed meetings caused a fundamental shift in the mission of the current custodian of our destiny.
They backed down on the USL, the CDT, the real net training, the net supply and the genuine survey work mandated and not rendered.
At the same time they have ALREADY certified the status quos larger players as OK...[ without even reforming fish supplys] understandably angering the dealers trying to keep it clean.
Survival is the mode and adjusting to whatever the host organism demands in order to be welcome is what has happened. It ain't environmentalism, it ain't reform...its just business.
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Any disagreement there?

The 95% NUMBER is certainly "documented" in papers, but it is probably based more on worst-case field observations than objective scientifically verifiable numbers.

For some few species, the number is near that. For others, not so at all.
Some fish tolerate exposure better than others.

It is believed that fish caught with cyanide tend to die from stress easier than net-caught overall.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

No Mike Kirda, fish caught with cyanide die from cyanide poisoning.
Half of them die immediately and of the remaining, half die by the time they hit the beach.
Those that survive the transit time to the wholesaler online store and LFS are sold to unsuspecting reefers where they languish for a few months and die for no apparent reason.

Thank you Seacare for .........caring!!!!

welcome back naesco

i seem to recall you vehemently affirming to everyone, including me, that mac would have a cdt test in place by now

care to explain how you intend to take yer foot outta yer mouth? :wink:

you seem to have been avoiding the issue ever since

do you still feel the same way about mac as you did before taking your 'hiatus' from the Ind. forum?

 

[naesco]

Any disagreement there?

The 95% NUMBER is certainly "documented" in papers, but it is probably based more on worst-case field observations than objective scientifically verifiable numbers.

For some few species, the number is near that. For others, not so at all.
Some fish tolerate exposure better than others.

It is believed that fish caught with cyanide tend to die from stress easier than net-caught overall.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

No Mike Kirda, fish caught with cyanide die from cyanide poisoning.
Half of them die immediately and of the remaining, half die by the time they hit the beach.
Those that survive the transit time to the wholesaler online store and LFS are sold to unsuspecting reefers where they languish for a few months and die for no apparent reason.

Thank you Seacare for .........caring!!!!

welcome back naesco

i seem to recall you vehemently affirming to everyone, including me, that mac would have a cdt test in place by now

care to explain how you intend to take yer foot outta yer mouth? :wink:

you seem to have been avoiding the issue ever since

do you still feel the same way about mac as you did before taking your 'hiatus' from the Ind. forum?

I am deeply disappointed that it appears that nothing has happened with CDT implementation.
However, I understand why MAC would want to avoid this forum.
I will contact them directly and with their permission post the progress if any.

 

[Anonymous]

naesco:

btw, i'm curious to know what, if any, developements there are re: your 'reeform' initiative. (didn't you promise all here some substantial results from your venture, like 'toppling of gov't.'s/industry', or some such stuff?

i'll await the info along w/your promised mac cyanide info relay patiently, but i will keep asking :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

i'll await the info along w/your promised mac cyanide info relay patiently, but i will keep asking

Just keep it civil and face to face.

 

[MaryHM]

I really think this topic could have been discussed without using SeaCare's name. I guess I'll have to do a search of every RDO sponsor's website and pull off anything questionable so we can all discuss it here.

 

[Anonymous]

Your opinion has been duly noted and recorded.

If you feel a topic is worth discussing, please feel free to post the relevant information.

 

[jamesw]

I know that Mary was joking here (I hope) but I should advise folks - that you will be personally responsible for what you say and post here. Read our user agreement carefully to understand your rights and the rules that you agreed to when you signed up.

Reefs.org is NOT responsible for what you all say and do here in this public forum - YOU are.

With that said, just use some common sense, eh? It's worked so far.
When in doubt - just don't use company names...

Cheers
James

 

[MaryHM]

One can find the following statement on *** website:

***

I thought it was widely known that the 2 countries with the horrible cyanide problems were the Philippines and Indonesia. Doing a random search for "Indonesia" on *** site, one finds numerous corals that they state are collected from there. Also, a quick search of fish finds tons of species that come mainly from the Philippines- such as Mandarin gobies. I've never seen that fish on any other list other than Philippines and Indonesia.

So that being said, can we assume that some of the big players in the industry are completely unaware of the cyanide situation in the Philippines and Indonesia? If that is the case, what can be done to educate them?

 

[MaryHM]

One more thing. If large industry players don't think there is a cyanide problem in Indonesia, what countries do they think are affected? Do they only think it is a Philippines problem? Again, if that is the case, how do we educate them differently?

 

[Anonymous]

So that being said, can *we* assume that some of the big players in the industry are completely unaware of the cyanide situation in the Philippines and Indonesia? If that is the case, what can be done to educate them?

*You* are free to assume whatever *you* like. Not sure if it's safe to apply your personal line of reasoning to the community at large.