SeaCare's Response

[dizzy]

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/

Glenn,
Is this a list that was submitted by hobbyists and not by the stores themselves or their employees? Also are you sure all of them have an actual storefront?
Mitch

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, it was (is?) submitted by hobbyists.. - I added a handful of entries myself.

It would be nice though if those of us who submitted could somehow edit our submissions so that the info doesn't go stale..... (Or whatever, some means of keeping it cleaned up..)

I guess when I get done with my web design I can pass a template back to RDO for use with the LFS directory.. (I'm working on something like this for e-tailers..)

 

[Len]

The list can be contributed to by either hobbyists or vendors. There are no assurances that the stores have actual storefronts; we only go by information that is provided us since it is far too time-consuming for Reefs.org to validate this information. If someone wants to volunteer their time to do this type of validation, feel free to contact me

 

[PeterIMA]

Mitch and some others have made postings implying that by the time marine ornamental fish make it to the hobbyist they are almost completely those not caught by cyanide. Having purchased marines since the early 1960s, I disagree. Hobbyists are purchasing marines and an unknown percentage were caught with cyanide. While, it is appealing to hope that most of those caught with cyanide have died through the chain from reef to retailer (over 90% by my calculations) the remaining fish left to be sold by the retailer undoubtedly still have a proportion that suffer the effects of cyanide exposure (like refusing to eat or eating and wasting away and finally dying in hobbyists's tanks). I think that was the gist of Tim Tessier's posting (a hobbyist he knew had spent $1500 on fish and had $150 worth surviving in his tank). It may be unfair for hobbyists to blame the retailer (the retailer does not control how they were caught) and claim the fish died from cyanide (rather than other causes). However, the scientific research indicates that cyanide exposure can cause irreversible damage to enzyme systems (like cytochrome oxidase) and block the metabolism of ATP, cause neural damage, interfere with thyroxine metabolism, affect the progeny of flagfish (genetic damage passed to F1 generation) etc. Cyanide plus stress leads to higher delayed mortality. These are scientifically proven facts that lead me to state that cyanide is harmful to the fish and contributes to the high delayed mortality evident in the trade and in hobbyists' aquaria.

Peter Rubec

 

[Ad van Tage]

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.

.............................................snipped a bunch

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.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lest there is any doubt about precisely what was asked of <[email protected]>, here is the verbatum msg I sent:

----- Original Message From: "_Ad van Hotmail" To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 3:13 AM
Subject: ... fish randomly tested by the Philippine Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources for the presence of Cyanide ...


Hello,

Your webpage contains the following information:


Do you sell Cyanide caught fish?
a.. We exclusively carry Cyanide Free fish from the Solomon Islands,
Marshall Islands, Vanuatu, Hawaii, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Brazil and
Caribbean.
b.. Our Philippine supplier has their fish randomly tested by the
Philippine Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources for the presence of
Cyanide.
c.. We DO NOT import fish from Indonesia because Cyanide use there is
rampant.
d.. Yes, the fish maybe cheaper but when you have to buy them 3 or 4 times
to get one that lives, the final cost to you and the reef is much greater.
e.. It is a documented fact that 95% of Cyanide caught fish perish before
they reach your aquarium.
f.. How many more then slowly waste away and die in the next 3 to 6 weeks?
g..
h.. It is very sad that people still sell Cyanide caught fish due to
business reasons.
i..
j.. If the Governments ban the import of wild caught corals and fish we
have the cyanide stores and our own apathy to blame!


We are puzzled by the reference to http://www.imamarinelife.org/cdt.htm
[which does not produce any results ],
as well as the claim that BFAR is doing random CDTs.

Are you sure that this information is correct?

WE certainly agree with your final points!

Sincerely,

Ad van Tage

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And lest there be any doubt about what Tim wrote back, below is MOST OF his reply; there is one paragraph
that I will not post publicly, as it would potentially put him in a difficult posistion. I would not want to do that.
[ Tim may want to reread his complete reply to me. ]

----- Original Message From: <[email protected]> To: "_Ad van Hotmail"
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: ... fish randomly tested by the Philippine Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources for the presence of Cyanide ...

Dear Ad van Tage,

At 03:13 AM 1/13/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>Hello,
>Your webpage contains the following information:

My web page has recently been changed to reflect that we only sell
wholesale to Canadian Retailers. The previous webpage was very out of date.

I will answer your questions later today as I have to pack out some
shipments now.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, one paragraph snipped...........

Best Regards,
Tim


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The above exchange seems quite straightforward to me! And I certainly am totally puzzled why Tim Tessier came out swinging.
Not just at me, but at RDO as well. I feel that is counterproductive. And wasting more time on that is likewise not gonna help anything.

For my part I wish to refer readers to the original thread, where I have NOT MALIGNED Seacare, nor Tim Tessier with one word.
In fact au contraire mon ami, I stated clearly:

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???

It is unfortunate that first Mary Middlebrook and then Tim Tessier both got their knickers in a knot, for the only thing
under discussion was the information posted on the webpage. Rather than quote some unspecified source, I provided the references.
NEVER did I slander anyone, nor did I intend any malicious harm. To suggest otherwise is insulting.
However, the responses are quite the eye-openeres though. More on Mary's knotty knickers later.

I am grateful that Rover used his fine nose and sniffed out precisely what had been said, and what had not.

In future let's all try to remain rational.

So long for now, it is even later here!

 

[Kalkbreath]

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/

........This board {Reefs.org }has turned a deaf ear to my requests for a sponsorship ......And I own a Brick and mortor and an internet presence..... I also care enough about the hobby to actually participate on the board itself {not just reap its fruits }...........So dont think for a minute that there are not certain agendas within message boards . :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

Ad van Tage


i'm not so sure that posting email correspondences between two parties should be posted publicly

at least not w/out the permission of the party whos email your posting

did you ask tim if it was ok to do so?

note to self: do not correspond w/ Ad van Tage
unless i put a warning in th email about posting private correspondence on a public forum



i'm wondering if this is a bad precedent we see here

 

[Ad van Tage]

Ad van Tage


i'm not so sure that posting email correspondences between two parties should be posted publicly

at least not w/out the permission of the party whos email your posting

did you ask tim if it was ok to do so?

note to self: do not correspond w/ Ad van Tage
unless i put a warning in th email about posting private correspondence on a public forum



i'm wondering if this is a bad precedent we see here

Vitz, you raise a valid point. Here's the scoop: Tim Tellier took the conversation to this board, without adequately quoting. I have taken no offense, but since the discussion was pushed on the public stage, that's where I replied. And as you can see, with great care.

I don't think you will see me initiate such a procedure. Also there is no need for *you* to worry Vitz. No offense, but not a great possibilty of a fruitful dialog.
:wink: :!:

 

[dizzy]

Mitch and some others have made postings implying that by the time marine ornamental fish make it to the hobbyist they are almost completely those not caught by cyanide.

STOP THE PRESSES!
Peter you need to go back and reread my post. I was simply using the the figures that you arrived at and Tim T posted. I have no personal knowledge about cyanide use. I just read what others write on the subject. I can tell you for 100% certainty that in my 19 years as a retailer, I have never had one fish death that I could be absolutely sure was caused by cyanide. What I did was to take your numbers and spin out another interpretation of their meaning. I'm sure your IQ is well above mine, but here it is again: Tim T. said it is a documented fact that 95% of the fish that are captured with cyanide die before reaching hobbyist tanks. Your research and your publications tell us only 25% of the fish that IMA tested had high enough levels to be considered cyanide positive. Here's the math. 100 fish are captured for the MO trade. 25% were cyanide caught and the other 75% were clean. That's 75 good fish. Out of the other 25 dirty fish, 95% will die before being sold to hobbyists.
that's 23.75 out of the 25. That means that out of 100 fish that come from areas that are known to use cyanide, only 1.25 of them that were captured with cyanide get sold to hobbyists. If my logic has a flaw feel free to point it out. If you factor in fish from other areas where cyanide is not used the odds of buying a fish that was cyanide caught go even lower.

I guess someone could make this statement on their web site: "It is a documented fact that the average hobbyist has a nearly 99% chance that the fish he bought at the pet store was not cyanide caught." Once again we are using your figures and not mine. It's called spin Peter and when I see it being used it makes me dizzy. :wink:
Mitch

 

[Anonymous]

I would like to point out that Tim has removed that particular data from his site as being outdated. So it might not be fair to continue to attribute that quote from him,

 

[dizzy]

Glenn,
I stated that Peter arrived at the figures and Tim posted them. (past tense). We can state that the site has been changed, but we can't change the fact that having the information posted is what got this thread started to begin with. Can we?
Mitch

 

[PeterIMA]

Mitch, I think your logic is faulty. The way I see it, is that at each step of the chain 30% of the fish die. I believe that 25% of the fish remaining still were caught with cyanide. The 25% caught with cyanide does not change at each step of the chain despite the cumulative mortality. They just take longer to die.

When they die at the retail level you ascribe it to a) stress, b) disease, c) starvation, or d) cyanide. You fail to realize that causes a), b), and c) are being induced by d) cyanide capture that causes "irreversible" damage to the liver, brain, spleen, and kidneys, reduces the fishes resistance to disease, compounds stress, and interfers with electron transport in the mitochondion (by blocking the action of cytochrome oxidase and other enzymes that mediate the breakdown of ATP) resulting in the fish not metabolizing food that it injests. But, you think that because there is no test in the USA you can get away with saying "the fish died but it wasn't due to cyanide". Or to be more charitable to you and others, "I can't tell what killed the fish".

The trade needs to put its money into net training and stop the mortality problem irrespective of the causes of the mortality (for its own financial gain). I don't think more research is needed, just deal with the problem (stop cyanide fishing/collection).

 

[Anonymous]

I agree Mitch. Just wanted to be careful about the details.

 

[naesco]

Mitch, I think your logic is faulty. The way I see it, is that at each step of the chain 30% of the fish die. I believe that 25% of the fish remaining still were caught with cyanide. The 25% caught with cyanide does not change at each step of the chain despite the cumulative mortality. They just take longer to die.

When they die at the retail level you ascribe it to a) stress, b) disease, c) starvation, or d) cyanide. You fail to realize that causes a), b), and c) are being induced by d) cyanide capture that causes "irreversible" damage to the liver, brain, spleen, and kidneys, reduces the fishes resistance to disease, compounds stress, and interfers with electron transport in the mitochondion (by blocking the action of cytochrome oxidase and other enzymes that mediate the breakdown of ATP) resulting in the fish not metabolizing food that it injests. But, you think that because there is no test in the USA you can get away with saying "the fish died but it wasn't due to cyanide". Or to be more charitable to you and others, "I can't tell what killed the fish".

The trade needs to put its money into net training and stop the mortality problem irrespective of the causes of the mortality (for its own financial gain). I don't think more research is needed, just deal with the problem (stop cyanide fishing/collection).

Very well put Peter.

 

[clarionreef]

Gentleman...
What if cyanide collecting miraculously improved the health of the fish?
What if it caused them to spawn and become more colorful and vibrant?
What if it allowed for greater mark-ups and profit?

Regardless to the benefits enjoyed by Americans...
There would still be a serious question about the damage to vital habitats that produce the fish in the first place. That alone would make its use treason against the interests of the trades sustainability, coastal people and the nation of origin.

Customizing an opinion based on how well you can screen and cherrypick from the mass of fishes affected in order to get the "quality" you say makes it all OK for you...is selfish, myopic and shortsighted.

Regardless of the quality of the product...if habitat was cashed in to get it...its indefensible.

Steve

 

[clarionreef]

It would be like...
Like cutting down old growth redwoods and defending the deed by saying that the 'quality of the wood' you selected was very nice.
Fine, I'm sure it was. Which has nothing to do with the other more serious question.
But, if one were a woodcarver from Pittsburgh and had no inkling [ and only theoretical interest] of what has happened to the coastal redwoods, one could be understood for having such an isolationist attitude towards all questions beyond the immediate, local economic one.
Steve

 

[DBM]

I agree with you there Steve. It is a fishery after all, and habitat is a crucial part to a sustainable fishery, loss of habitat = fewer fish.

I was wondering though Steve, do you know what the effects of the clove oil/alcohol mix have on corals? I read somewhere that it causes coralline to go white but that it eventually recovers (but it also recover after 48hrs of being shipped dry too).

I can't seem to find any references to the effects of clove oil on corals. Peter, do you know of any studies done?

 

[Ad van Tage]

I would like to point out that Tim has removed that particular data from his site as being outdated. ...

Rover , with all respect, you are mistaken. Tim Tessier [TT] has NOT removed a thing.
The URL: http://seacare.org/Merchant2/graphics/0 ... SCFAQ.html still leads straight to the information which I cited, and which started the discussion, which now runs over three threads... We read that

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.

A simple "Ooops" would have been better in my view. The above TT method, is called digging yourself in deeper. Allow me to explain:

It is a lame excuse to say: "my main page no longer links to that information", and stop there. Having spent time as a webpage designer, and website "architect"...
let me assure you that there is NO excuse for leaving things "float" in cyberspace. Decent people don't do that in toiletbowls, fishbowls, etc.
So why should they do it in their cyberbowls/cyberbowels???

And it is more bad news to represent the problem as "stale search engine links ". That Seacare webpage is ACTIVE and PRESENT.***
The portion of the FAQ I quoted viz.

Do you sell Cyanide caught fish?
We exclusively carry Cyanide Free fish from the Solomon Islands, Marshall Islands, Vanuatu, Hawaii, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Brazil and Caribbean. Our Philippine supplier has their fish randomly tested by the Philippine Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources for the presence of Cyanide. <http://www.imamarinelife.org/focus.htm> We DO NOT import fish from Indonesia because Cyanide use there is rampant. Yes, the fish maybe cheaper but when you have to buy them 3 or 4 times to get one that lives, the final cost to you and the reef is much greater. It is a documented fact that 95% of Cyanide caught fish perish before they reach your aquarium. How many more then slowly waste away and die in the next 3 to 6 weeks? It is very sad that people still sell Cyanide caught fish due to business reasons. If the Governments ban the import of wild caught corals and fish we have the cyanide stores
and our own apathy to blame!

is still there as I type this. I suppose "our own apathy {is} to blame! " :wink:



One has to understand that folks who use the Internet efficiently, don't necessarily find your information by coming in via - what you (may) consider - the front door.
Thus "no longer available through the main page on our site" is not really a reason for having information WEB-PUBLISHED that by all accounts is 4-5 years old,
but no longer "current". Not to mention possibly inaccurate. Clearly seacare.org/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/SCFAQ.html is under the webdomain of seacare.org!

Here is how I arrived in Seacare's FAQ:

a) After Mary Middlebrook resurrected the MAC-attack URLs I again carefully read the Steiger/Holthus/Tessier letters.

I was intrigued by both Steiger's and Tessier's comments. I looked for more information on Steiger and Tessier by googling.
And I believe that "cyanide & Tessier" led me straight to seacare.org/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/SCFAQ.html.

In fact if you throw in "marine" in the search field you will also see Steiger's stuff... AND a lot more than was ever discussed here.

Well, I think that is enough for, must post before i ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ off...

_________________
~ Ad aka Ecoworrier ~

*** Let me state clearly, that I do not care whether it is there or not. It would be better if the Seacare webpages contained dates about when the pages were last updated...
But hey, usually I charge for my cyber consulting advice... So we won't go there.

One last point: at the bottom of the above mentioned FAQ we find a link to http://www.seacare.org/Merchant2/mercha ... e_Code=SMP
which looks like a frontdoor to me...

Finally let me repeat that I was and am interested in the consensus of opinions of the forum members here about the material I posted at the start of the original "Seacare says" thread... [ which now is locked ]


NOTE Edited: I corrected the typos that slipped in as Tellier, when Tessier was the correct name ( 4 times; OUCH! ).

 

[dizzy]

Ad,
Who is Tellier?

 

[JennM]

I'm confused about "Tellier"... Ad, you are usually too astute to make such a repeated error. In one post, you referred to Tim Tessier as "Tim Tellier" and now again in your most recent post in the thread, you repeat "Tellier" several times.

Is this a Freudian slip, or are there 2 different people, "Tessier" and "Tellier"?

Given your link to a French page in another thread, I think you are fluent enough in French to know the difference.

You really have me puzzled... posting private communications... I daresay you wouldn't want me to post your private communications with me, would you, eh?

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Jenn