kalk wrote.....

[Anonymous]

Cyanide collecting of marine fish for food or the aquarium market is still practiced in many places in the low wage countries of the western Pacific where net, traps, hook and line, and aquaculture are increasing. It, nevertheless, difficult to assess whether a box of fish brought to a buyer anywhere was collected by net, trap, bleach, cyanide, quinaldine, or even puffer poison. The only way to be certain is to go out with that collector, and in many cases, that is not feasible or the buyer doesn't want to know. What are the consequences of chemical collecting? It is undeniable that bleach, cyanide and quinaldine are cost- effective at anaesthetising fish or chasing them out of holes. The downside of collecting fish in this manner are several. First, the dose is uncontrollable because concentrated drug is squirted from a plastic bottle to inside or outside a hole with very varied currents. Fish of different species and sizes have different susceptibilities, respond to different contact times, and many will die almost immediately. More important are the effects on invertebrates, which are in some cases more susceptible to than fish. Tubeworms can withdraw and, in the process, rapidly flush out, or otherwise avoid a noxious chemical, but coral polyps have no such defence. The effects of cyanide collecting on coral reefs have been documented to be devastating to the corals and other marine life.

 

[Kalkbreath]

...........if you are suggesting that collectors squirt fish after fish after fish ......killing one after another and coming home empty handed because they dont realize that a person can actually break a tablet into smaller pieces to lessen the concentration inside the bottle to a dose which is fruitful in the current fishing conditions...........You must think Philippinos are pretty dumb. It is clearly food fishing which required large cyanide concentrations due to the fish being on average twenty times larger the MO targets . You cant cut back the strength of the squirt on a three pound food grouper....... it will flee and you cant collect a three inch MO copperband alive with anything but the lightest of dose. Pet fish collectors sell live fish for a living. A dead damsel is of no use. while a dead three pound grouper is still sellable.......so the food fishermen wins even if the fish is killed by the over use of cyanide.

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, As you can see with the first quote I did not attribute all of the cumulative mortality figure (80%) to cyanide in my house testimony (that I sent to you last month by email).

Thank you for clarifying the source of the second quote (Dr. Robert Goldstein). In your original posting you implied incorrectly that I was the source of the quotation.

It should be noted that the so-called "cyanide-syndrome" wherein the fish refuse to eat or eat and starve to death was originally described in a series of papers by Nelson Herwig (two appeared in FAMA in 1981).

Within the article by Dr. Goldstein that you quoted are inaccuracies pertaining to the scientific paper by Hall and Bellwood (1995). Goldstein incorrectly states that there was no difference in the mortality between net-caught and cyanide caught fish. This refers to where experimental groups of damselfish were exposed to cyanide, stress, and starvation for 13 days either alone or with various combinations of the factors (e.g, cyanide+starvation, stress+starvation, all three factors together). There was a 37.5% mortality from cyanide-alone, 25% mortality from stress- alone, and 0% from starvation-alone, and 16.7% mortality for the control (nothing done to the fish other than holding them like the others). The combined effects are of interest and were higher than for each test factor alone. The experiment supports my contention that the factors in combination contributed to higher mortality (as Dr. Goldstein stated in a somewhat unclear manner). I disagree with his conclusion that blaming delayed mortality on cyanide use is a red herring. However, I do agree that other factors (especially stress, pH changes, and ammonia accumulation during shipping) are very important. I tend to agree with his conclusion that "If the fish from any supplier anywhere are inferior, it is because of collecting and handling and difficulties in shipping."

It is important that we undertand that fish die from more than one factor. It is also important that we take steps to reduce or eliminate the high mortality rates that occur throughout the chain of custody from reefs to retailers (irrespective of the causative factors). This can be done by changing the collection practices (nets rather than cyanide) and by developing better methods for handling and shipping marine fish.

In about another week Terry will publish his article, and then we can discuss what he had to say about these problems and their possible solutions.

Peter Rubec

 

[Kalkbreath]

No , you used the words this is how its stated in the paper you sent me......

A large proportion (perhaps more than 80%) of the stunned fish, that survive the initial
exposure to cyanide, die later throughout the chain from reef to retailer (Rubec 1986, Appendix 1).

That seems quite clear you were referring to STUNNED FISH THAT SURVIVE INITIAL EXPOSURE Its also clear you are running from that statement now ! The idea that cyanide has little effect on the hobby at retail purchase is a big deal to you . Because the idea that cunsumers are not effected by cyanide fishing ......takes the wind out of getting consumers to care. Dont blame me for exposing the truth........blame yourself for hiding it.

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, Consumers don't care. That is already plain from the postings by Mary Middlebrook and Steve Robinson. If they did, they would demand net-caught fish and be willing to pay a little more for them.

I am not hiding anything. The direct quote stated that there was controversy concerning whether all of the delayed mortality was due to cyanide and went on to state that other factors like ammonia accumulation may also be important. Can't you read? Or do you insist that you know better about what I stated?
Peter

 

[Kalkbreath]

No, you said "of the stunned fish that were exposed".........it was unclear if the entire eighty percent DOA DAA was to solely be blamed on cyanide. Was the Congress of the United states supposed to think all MO fish are "stunned and exposed"?

A large proportion (perhaps more than 80%) of the stunned fish, that survive the initial
exposure to cyanide, die later throughout the chain from reef to retailer (Rubec 1986, Appendix 1).
There is controversy whether all these deaths are due to cyanide. Some of the moralities may be due
to other factors, such as ammonia that accumulates in the shipping bags. IMA has tried to make the
3

Thats preeeety clear cut to any Senator ......... how can the Author include words like "Exposure to cyanide and stunned fish" if he wants the reader to think he is talking about all MO collected fish? Further more what is at issue is not why cyanide fish die during transport........its that fact that they dont reach the consumer in any great number. If cyanide fish are more sensitive to ammonia that accumulates in bag water then , thats one less cyanide fish at market. If the ammonia killed the fish before the cyanide so what . The cyanide still caused the death. Whats the point in separating delayed acute cyanide death and other related to cyanide exposer deaths like sensitivity to ammonia?

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, It was never clear to me why it is so important for you to play down the % of cyanided fish that reach the marine hobbyists. What is at issue is not what % of cyanide-caught aquarium fish die at the retail level, what is at issue is that too many fish die throughout the chain of custody from reefs to retailers from various factors. This makes the fish that live more expensive, and puts undue fishing pressure on the reefs. More than 80 million fish die so that PI can export 3 million fish per year; which continue to die at the importer, wholesaler, and retailer levels of the chain. There is no scientific literature that indicates that more cyanide-caught fish die because they are more sensitive to ammonia. However, I am concerned that the cumulative mortality is too high. In addition to my concern about cyanide, I am concerned that fish die from ammonia-alone, stress-alone, that CN+stress+strarvation accounted for 41.7% mortality, and that stress+starvation accounted for a mortality of 66.7% in the paper by Hall and Bellwood (1995).

It is not up to you to define the issue. The issue is not whether cyanide-caught fish make it to the hobbyists. The issue is that all sources of mortality are of concern and must be dealt with. Then, a hobbyist will be able buy a net-caught fish because it did not die from stress brought about by incompetent shipping and handling practices.

Peter Rubec

 

[Anonymous]

Consumers don't care.

Not to jack the thread or divert it in any way, but it really grates me every time I see something like this....

 

[clarionreef]

Kalk?
Your use of Goldstien as a 'credible source' on the question is silly. As silly as Goldstien himself. I have never regarded a less qualified person to comment on quality issues generated from the field. He was a quack, a 'field dysfunctional' and was totally ignorant of what happens underwater. He was however one of the very first apologists for the cyanide trade and deserves a footnote for that.
Jealous of the reigning 'petshop scientist' of the time, a George Blasiola...Goldstien wanted the title and wrote many articles based on gossip from select sources..He wanted to blunt the rising reform movement in the 80's and tried to build himself up as a saviour of the conventional trade from the sinister reformers.
He was a a lab rat and built a reputation on a doctorate in another field and let people imagine that credibility there was transferrable to the area of our concern.
The only respect ever paid to him by people in the know is...well Kalk. Kalk, ironically actually knows a lot more about this stuff then Goldstien as he actually gets wet and deals in the subject matter daily.
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

well, he DID write some freshie cichlid books :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

Consumers don't care.

Not to jack the thread or divert it in any way, but it really grates me every time I see something like this....

Why? The majority of the consumers really don't care.

I don't like it either, but it's the truth.

Peace,

Chip

 

[Kalkbreath]

The majority of consumers do care.........its only that they place "price" above all else and "care" some where around forth. But then again this is the most expensive hobby around. The average hobbyist after five years will spend more money then most Photo hobbyists .....most model airplane hobbyists and even more then most people spend on a once and a life time vacation. It takes a couple of thousand bucks to really wet your feet in this hobby ........most people have a problem with spending two hundred on a dog or cat. Let alone $200 on a Fairy wrasse? That will most likely jump to its death soon after you buy it. What portion of the public would spend 200 bucks on a cat variety that is notorious for jumping to its death? Saving money every where possible is so much a part of this hobby that most people spend more time trying to find a bargain then they actually spend tending to the tank. :wink:

 

[clarionreef]

I totally agree with Kalk,
However...I would also add that todays hobbyist is evolving so deeply into a 'search-engine for cheap marinelife' that he spends more time on the internet then tending his tank!
Steve

Alas...if only limited wild creatures could keep pace w/ the escalating demand for them. The ignorance of resource issues and the caring even less about them will be on this trades tombstone one day.

 

[naesco]

Alas...if only limited wild creatures could keep pace w/ the escalating demand for them. The ignorance of resource issues and the caring even less about them will be on this trades tombstone one day

You got that right Steve!
Did someone mention gold?

 

[Anonymous]

*milzed*