SeaCare's Response

[Tim Tessier]

Hi, my name is Tim and I own SeaCare. Now that I have let everyone know who I am and what my agenda is(making a living importing and selling healthy fish) I feel that I can offer some answers to the old(4 to 5years) info on my website.

I immediately responded to Ad's request for info that I was busy but would reply when I could. Seeing as I had never heard of him/her I asked Mary for references before I responded. She mentioned that they would not answer her questions on who they were, who they represented and their agenda. At that point I decided that I would not respond directly but would tailor my words to not offend any delicate sensibilities and not possibly provide PETA with any ammo.

Following is my response to your questions.

I must say your little spelling typo(Seascare) was quite ignorant.

Rover where were you? Oh thats right. I just remembered, I am a Canadian company and not an RDO sponsor.

I do believe people can get sued for slander/libel for what they say and publishers can get sued for what they publish. Is this BB not a form of publishing? James mentioned that if RDO gets sued thats the end. Thus even if the case was won it would still sink RDO. You are fortunate that I, like Mary, feel this site helps the hobby. Other companies may not be so nice.

Sorry folks, now I will respond to the questions.

First off, the page in question is no longer available through the main page on our site. It can still be located via stale search engine links etc.

When I first started in this industry I was a niave purist. No cyanided fish and No COPPER. I now use copper, thanks Steve for that tip - "Better to be poisoned than eaten alive". I now use a digital meter so that I can barely poison the fish instead of OD'ing them. As for no Cyanided fish. I used to import/purchase from a company that provided CDT test certificates performed by the BFAR(I still have half a dozen or so with the nice little gold foil stamp). The ISE CDT test was effective but the fish provided for the test by the company were species that were not caught with cyanide anyways. A useless permit but good for PR. A few years later I changed exporters to another one and had her send several fish for testing. I chose which species, paid for them and then had them sent to the BFAR lab. I was charged 15USD each for the three permits. I chose a Coral Beauty Angel, Midnight Angel and a Niger Trigger. I talked with Vaughn Pratt of the IMA and he advised that that test was a joke. He told me that basically BFAR rubbed a litmus like paper strip against the side of the fish to check for Cyanide. So much for that 50$ ;-)

You questioned where I got all my info ie 95% mortality, buy fish 3-4 times, have them wither away in 3-4weeks.

The 95% figure came from Peter.

The buy fish comment came from my discussions with a hobbyist friend who buys fish from a local discounter. He added his receipts after a year and they came to 1500CAD. He added up the value of the fish in his tank and it was 150CAD. It had nothing to do with his fish keeping skill but the quality of the fish.

The withering away comment came from discussions with Peter and a friend Minh Nguyen, a Dr of internal medicine who advised me that the cyanide destroys a fishes ability to convert Adenosine Di Phosphate into Adenosine Tri Phosphate, which can be used for energy. Seeing as a cyanided fish gets no energy from the food it eats it must use it existing muscle mass, consequently it wastes away.

The comment about not importing from INDO as cyanide use is confirmed there.

Old info. I am in process of doing some experiments on survivability of supposed cyanided fish. ie Blue Tangs, Emporer Angels. I have had zero mortality on 20 large emporers of 5" to 9". The only Blue Tangs I lost out of over 100 fish across multiple shipments were when a shipment came in at 65°f. I have observed as good survivability on the Bali Blue Tangs as on Blue Tangs from Phil, Vanuatu and the Solomons. This supplier is one that Steve knows and he told one of my customers that they are cyaniders. It would seem the fish speak otherwise.

Some may ask why I am experimenting with Bali fish.
First, the bank does not care about cyanide... only $. The competition does not care about cyanide... only $. The retailers don't care about cyanide... only $. The hobbyists don't care about cyanide... only how much it will cost them for that fish. The collector does not care about cyanide... only that his family can have ONE meal a day. It seems nobody cares except when they post on the BB's. It is kind of ironic that cyanide is rampant because of greed and it is also used to refine gold.


I have had discussions with both of my Indo suppliers and both have said "Our divers use clove oil, we do not however know what the freelance collectors that we also buy from use" Consequently I do not order typically cyanide caught species from there. I source those species from either Vanuatu or my one supplier in the Phil.

Anyways it 2:04am and I have to get up early and send fish across Canada.


ZZZZZZZZZZ,
Tim

These are the feelings of Tim Tessier. They are based on 5 years of 14 to 20 hour days trying to do it right.

 

[Anonymous]

The hobbyists don't care about cyanide...

Ahh yes, we're all just apathetic drones, dropping dollars for pretties, how astute! :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

Tim, I'm glad to see you participating. Although I wish the circumstances were a bit different. I did not catch the misspelling of your companies name, it has nothing to do with who is or isn't a sponsor. Ad has a rather unique writing style as it is and the spelling of your name went unnoticed by me in the midst of the discussion of what was at hand. Rest assured a quick pm pointing it out would have cleared it right up. Like you, we all have jobs and businesses to run, I try to give as much attention as I can to each post, but no doubt I will occasionally miss something. I have re-read the thread in question several times, and it is very apparent that no one spoke negatively of your comany. Ad stated several times that he wasn't holding anyone responsible for the number, he was merely stating his source. The subject then turned to the validity of the data in question and never implicated Sea Care at all.

1st) I have actually, before posting here, already contacted Tim Tessier's company Seacare.
And have IMMEDIATELY had a response. Unfortunately at this time I have no further technical data from Tim yet...

2nd) I understand that it clearly is the Tessiers' intent to not sell any cyanide caught fish.

5th) Last and not least, I too am trying to understand claims one finds on webpages. The 95% seems high to me... But since I havve no counter data, I have asked for clarification.

IF the data is so, and the statement is correct, it is shocking and ALL should take note. If the data does not support that statement , then it needs to be revised. Likely it will still be shocking! ***

AND, I applaud Seacare for drawing attention to the problem, rather than trying to sweep it under the carpet.

How many others =- exporters, importers, and retailers alike -= are doing the same???

No where was any negative comments made about your company other than to call into question the 95% data that you posted on the site, and the dialogue remained foucused on the veracity of the statistic itself and not on your company.

The IRONY to me is that a company that pushed hard to sell
"clean product",
is now selling into ALL, including "cyanide friendly", channels.
To be sure, I didn't suggest a thing about morals or ethics.

The comments here, were dealt with accordingly, and would have been dealt with further had the subject been pushed. Again, I feel that the poster was making a general statement about the Industry and not a particular slight on a specific company. It is sometimes difficult to know what level of background each individual poster may bring into the context of their statements, but again in this particular case I feel the comment was directed at the lack of retail stores as steadfastly dedicated to carrying clean fish as a few of our wholesalers are. But you can rest assured that if anything had been said to give me a different impression, I certainly would have put a stop to it.


Again, thanks for your reply, and I hope you will find time to particiapte here again.

 

[clarionreef]

Tim,
I know your dealer in Bali from the old days. . . where everybody there bought their fish from people all over who delivered to Denpasar.
Since them there has been a few new develpments. Most for the worse but two notable ones for the better.
Two village centered stations opened in the 'liberated zone' in Northern Bali. Your guy has one of them.
That area is clean. The more fish he pulls from that station...the cleaner he is.
He also has other source including the notorious West side. Ask him to not ship any fish taken in from there.
Keep up the struggle,
Steve

 

[PeterIMA]

Tim Tessier's comment about Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP) is of interest since it is a possible explanation for the "cyanide syndrome" first discussed by Nelson Herwig. Fish ate but slowly wasted away and died after cyanide exposure. David Bellwood in FAMA in 1981 showed how the mucosal cells lining the stomach of the fish were destroyed by cyanide exposure (histological sections done before and after exposure). In a subsequent scientific paper (Hall and Bellwood 1995) they repeated the histological work and concluded that the destruction of the mucosal cells in the anterior intestine was due to starvation and not cyanide. They speculated that the cyanide must act on neural centers to stop the fish from eating. The ATP theory just described by Tim is consistent with what is known about the effect of cyanide with mammals (and presumably fish). Basically, cyanide interferes with electron transport in the mitrochodrion, an organelle found in cells that acts as the powerhouse in the cell. Phospate molecules in the ATP compound are split off releasing energy that the cell can use. If cyanide blocks this reaction (the breakdown of ATP) then the fish can not derive energy from the food it is trying to metabolize. Viola, it wastes away and eventually dies.

 

[MaryHM]

Rover,

I have to say this, and then it's my last comment on it. First of all, I never spoke privately to Tim about his company being bashed, so I didn't talk him into having those feelings. He obviously came to the same conclusion I did- that his company was being slighted in that thread. And even though I know that you and Len and James and practically everyone else doesn't think that is the case, it really doesn't matter what YOU think. It matters what the owner of said company thinks. It's his opinions and feelings on the situation that will cause him to decide if legal action is necessary. Remember that. Everyone perceives things differently. What you may perceive as benign is out and out blasphemous to someone else. Especially when that someone else is the owner of a company being questioned in a public forum. One would hope that this would serve as a lesson, but I doubt it, so I'll move on.

Ahh yes, we're all just apathetic drones, dropping dollars for pretties, how astute!

C'mon Grateful, you know he was making a general statement and that he is right. 95% of hobbyists (theoretical statistic people- don't ask for documentation!) don't even know cyanide is a problem. And of the 5% who are aware, maybe 2% really care enough to try to avoid cyanide caught fish. To say that hobbyists care about cyanide use and speak with their $$ to prove it is silly. They don't. If they did, we wouldn't have a cyanide problem.

Last, but certainly not least, I communicated with Marine Depot yesterday. They too are victims of stale information on their website. We all fall prey to this occasionally- it's happened to me, Tim, and Marine Depot- and there are probably other companies with it as well. I completely understand their situation and they informed me that they are updating their website- not in response to yesterday's situation, but because they're due for one. It is very difficult to keep up with pages and pages of information on sites- especially pages that are static and don't require weekly/monthly maintenance. My advice? If you see something questionable on a private companies website, contact them directly and try to clear it up prior to bringing it to a public forum. Remember that these companies are busy and may not be able to respond immediately- especially this time of year when we're all extremely busy. If you find something askew on my website (either of them), you can post it here if you want. I don't care, I have nothing to hide, and I'm here on a regular enough basis to be able to spot it and respond accordingly. Companies like SeaCare and Marine Depot are not, and it's not fair to single them or others out in a public forum.

 

[dizzy]

I'd like to add a couple of comments. First like Rover I didn't notice the s that was added to Tim's company name. Ad is clever enough that we are not likely to know if it was intentional or accidental. The second is that it was Tim's loose use of the term "documented fact" that inspired a challenge. He should have used a term like "it has been estimated to be as high as 95%" or something to that effect. The third part is more of a question than a comment. Why hasn't someone done tests on fish to see what effect the cyanide has? It could first be done on some cheap, plentiful fish like goldfish or koi. The next step could be testing cultured clowns or something like that. It doesn't seem like it would be all that expensive, and when the tests were made public we would have some documented facts, we might all feel comfortable with. Or at least we would have some results that could be peer reviewed and attempts could be made to duplicate the results. Sure would be better than just pulling stuff out of the air.
Mitch

 

[Anonymous]

Mary, your advice is appreciated. In moderating a board such as this one, there are many judgement calls that need to be made. Hopefully I will get more of them right than I will get wrong. For anyone who has any questions or comments about the moderation of this board: I would appreciate a quick email or private message first. Dragging out every percieved difference of opinion, and making up examples to prove points, and going into minute he-said-she-said arguments is counter productive. It stifles the discussion of the topics at hand and is much better suited to a private discussion. If it is a topic that garners a lot of questions or comments, I will be sure to post a clear announcement for everyone to clarify the situation. Stopping a discussion mid stream every time someone percieves a *rules violation* doesn't work in anyone's favor.

For now, just make sure that you are following the guidelines as best as you can personally and leave the moderating to me.

I would like to point out that there are three examples of web sites with erroneous information that have now been corrected thanks to the discussions that have taken place here. Ultimately this forum is about obtaining the truth, and presenting the information in as factual a way as possible to everyone. I think that is progress.

 

[mkirda]

Why hasn't someone done tests on fish to see what effect the cyanide has? It could first be done on some cheap, plentiful fish like goldfish or koi. The next step could be testing cultured clowns or something like that. It doesn't seem like it would be all that expensive, and when the tests were made public we would have some documented facts, we might all feel comfortable with. Or at least we would have some results that could be peer reviewed and attempts could be made to duplicate the results. Sure would be better than just pulling stuff out of the air.
Mitch

Mitch,

Tests have been done. The papers are sometime harder to find as they are not in the normal databases used- Many were done in the 80's, so they are not found in places like ArticleFirst or ScienceDirect (Databases I have access to through my place of employment). The results of the papers I have read were pretty clear- The fish got pretty messed up. Many died, many wasted away (see Peter's comments on histology results), and some lived. Peter referenced two papers in another post- You can pull them for confirmation of what he is saying.

Reading them will confirm the truth of the situation. Cyanide exposure is, for fish, pretty nasty stuff. I don't know about you, but I'd feel a little Mengele-ian doing experiments on fish just so I could tease out the exact percentage. Does it really matter?

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[dizzy]

Mike,
Peter made it sound like the ATP testing had been done on mammals and not fish. Probably the good old lab rats or mice. :wink: We all know that you can overdose on many things including oxygen. Seems to me that it would be worth sacrificing a few ugly carp in the interest of understanding how much exposure causes permanent damage. And this is not an attempt at a koutnikian style defense of the status quo. I was somehow under the impression that science seeks more definitive answers than those we have been given so far. I guess it depends on on what your definition of is, is.

 

[clarionreef]

Dizzy,
Not to be like 'the incredible Mr. Limpet', but wouldn't
the differences in osmo-regulatory processes of freshwater fish as opposed to marine perhaps skew the experiment a tad and produce different results?
Surley there is an old, hole in the head, bare faced, lateral line protruded, clamped fin blue tang running around somewhere.
Steve

 

[jamesw]

Tim, thank you for posting here!

I should point out that Rover has absolutely NO financial interest in reefs.org. I doubt he gives a toot if site sponsors are discussed - and we like it that way. Rover is as modest and fair of a guy as I know. I was lucky to get the chance to meet him and his wife at MACNA this year in Louisville.

This bulletin board is here for the free discussion of marine and reef aquarium related topics. It is NOT for any one business to use to further their interests and we have tried STRONGLY and for years and years to keep it this way.

Thanks for your support and I am glad to hear that you don't take the discussion here as as attack by reefs.org on your company. We've talked before and have mutual friends and mutual interests - helping others and furthering the aquarium hobby.

Cheers
James

 

[clarionreef]

James,
The independance of the discussion boards is vital and above the ability of special interests to co-opt them. Thats what makes it so worthwhile and not just some companys public relations.
You said ..."It is not for any one business to futher their interests..."
[You mean except for advertising?]
Steve

 

[mkirda]

Mike,
I was somehow under the impression that science seeks more definitive answers than those we have been given so far. I guess it depends on on what your definition of is, is.

Mitch,

The problem will be that you don't just need to sacrifice one or two individuals- You need to sacrifice a few dozen at least to get the statistical probability of error down lower. "Science" like to see things with a p<=0.05, meaning 95% of the values would fall within a given range. (See a Stats book on Standard Deviation and Standard Error for explanations if this doesn't make sense.)

So, say a number of individuals of 50 or so, times roughly 500 species imported regularly? Awful lot of work, awful lot of waste, just to arrive at a percentage that would (likely) be different for each species involved.

I'm curious if such an experiment would even be allowed in the US...

Hmm... Maybe I'll ask one of my contacts.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[jamesw]

Steve,

I'm glad you agree.

Cheers
James

 

[clarionreef]

But James,
We agree on most things of importance.
Could you imagine if this board were routinely haunted by the conventional and unapologetic dealers in the 'regular' fish supply that makes reform imperative?
How would you like them to constantly weigh in with how you 'goody two shoes types' make it difficult for them to make a quick buck?
What if you were always threatened [as Don Dewey of FAMA was by some in LA ] that if you don't cool it you'll lose your advertising?
Imagine the role of the free media if dominated and pressured by its heaviest and wealthiest players?
Nah...the other 95% of the trade ain't here. Just the fringe folks who actually focus more on fish care issues than pure sales talk.
Sincerely and gratefully yours, Steve

 

[PeterIMA]

Reply to Mitch and other about cyanide and ATP. Mitch was not very clear about what kind of research should be conducted or who would pay for it. First the sour grapes. If the Pet Industry Advisory Council (PIJAC) had funded research proposals that IMA submitted to them in 1989 and again in 1990, you might have more answers about the effects of cyanide on fish, uptake and release rates etc.

With regard to my ATP comments I think you need to understand that we are talking about basic biochemical reactions common to all vertebrates. For those with some biochemical training go back to your college text (such as Lehninger) and read up about the Kreb's cycle and the Calvin cycle. These reactions mostly occur in the mitochondrion in living cells. They occur in the same way in all vertebrates. I don't mean to imply that the only harmful effect of cyanide is to interfere with the metabolism of ATP. But, it is a very fundamental reaction. I don't see the need to do research on this topic to determine that fish have this biochemical reaction. They have it.

As far as Tim Tessier saying that the 95% cumulative morality is documented, he acknowledged that it was myself (Peter Rubec) that wrote the papers. You can email me at [email protected] and if you provide your real name and address I will send you photocopies of the papers in question. Until the trade or someone else does a rigorous scientific study (similar to the one described by Mike Kirda) my data are the best information available concerning cumulative mortality through the chain from reef to retailer (whether you like it or not).

Peter Rubec

 

[dizzy]

We may have to get kalk to come in and do the math, but let's assume the 95% figure is accurate. We are also assuming 75% of the fish are clean and not collected with cyanide. Using these figures we can determine there is a 98.75% chance that the the Indo or PI fish that the hobbyist purchases from the pet store was not caught with cyanide. When you factor in the Fiji, Hawaiian, Red Sea, Carribean, etc, the number drops even lower. I guess what this shows us is that while cyanide is a big problem for wholesalers and retailers, there is little risk for the average consumers to worry about, as far as cyanide is concerned. Sorry for the koutnikian analogy.

Hey Peter I'm a PIJAC member and for PIJAC sending the money to do the testing. How much do you reckon it will cost?

 

[Anonymous]

You said ..."It is not for any one business to futher their interests..."
[You mean except for advertising?]

It's not as if RDO is turning down advertising money for brick and mortar stores in preference of the etailers. And it's not reasonable to expect that a group of volunteer's weasel out every bit of information about every sponsor. If a brick and mortar store wanted to be a sponsor I'm sure they would be glad. But the medium simply doesn't match the demographics, and most businesses could spend their advertising dollars better elsewhere.

As for the brick and mortar shops I'd like to direct you to the following link which is a service provided by RDO and free of charge.

http://www.reefs.org/lfslist/

 

[Anonymous]

C'mon Grateful, you know he was making a general statement and that he is right. 95% of hobbyists (theoretical statistic people- don't ask for documentation!) don't even know cyanide is a problem. And of the 5% who are aware, maybe 2% really care enough to try to avoid cyanide caught fish. To say that hobbyists care about cyanide use and speak with their $$ to prove it is silly. They don't. If they did, we wouldn't have a cyanide problem.

Yes, I can be a sarcastic little sob too huh? - But seriously, I'd be suprised (and scared) to learn that anywhere near 95% of aquarists are unaware that cyanide is a problem.

Heck, before I ever started keeping marine fish (only back sometime in early '89 I think) I had known about it. But maybe you're right, I mean, not only have I been interested in marine issues since I was a kid but I also have a former oceanographer and a former commercial fisherman in my family to have run into this type of information quite a while ago.

Anyway.. Point is, I only meant to be sarcastic, not cruel, sorry if it came out that way.. I'm one of the 2% that DOES speak with my $$ about this (and more) and I probably assume more people are like me than what they really are... :?