only 5% of sold fish are cyanide collected.

[Kalkbreath]

No, Im a realist. I dont hide from the truth {except for birthdays} :wink:

 

[mkirda]

You argued for weeks that Peter and Franks survey was most accurate at 68% for the East cost? What happened?

I thought this thread was about your 5% figure and not about Frank Lallo.

I did not argue that Lallo's data was correct, Kalk.

That is called "a lie", and makes you a liar.

What I said of Frank's data is that you cannot take less than 1% of the total (especially on such a small data set) and extrapolate to the end as you did.
Frank gave you the averages lumped together, then started to post one aspect of the raw data for a few fish species and you were all over that like remoras on sharks.

I never once argued that his data was true or false.

I argued that your characterization of the data could not possibly be true based on what was publicly available. It is mathematically impossible.

As far as my choice for figures, I explained the reasons why I chose them:
Mathethematical simplicity.

In other words, I was trying to make things easier for you.

 

[mkirda]

how dare you

Down, Vitz.

This is called "Baiting" or trolling.

He wants you to respond in rabid fashion.

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, The overall percentage of fish with cyanide present from 1996 to 2000 was 25% for MO aquarium fish, 44% for food fish and 37% overall. Where do you come up with the 68% for food fish?

Mike Kirda, You have stated that you felt it was easy for exporters and collectors to get around the test. Answer this question. Since random sampling was conducted by the IMA samplers across the country in the field and at collector's villages, and at other way points (eg. airports) and since testing was done at 6 CDT facilities across the country, how was it possible for exporters to bias the sampling? If they did so with every fish sampled per year in Manila, what percentage of the total number of samples would that be?

Mike, If you stated that presently there is no random sampling (in Manila or elsewhere in PI), I would agree. So, the question of bias points to the present program run by BFAR. The MAC has not implemented the CDT sampling of the 4 MAC certified exporters in conjunction with BFAR. They never promised to do sampling and cyanide testing across PI similar to what was done previously by the IMA (under contract to BFAR).


Peter

 

[JennM]

You all have the mind set that doing nothing is better then what MAC is doing.

When did we ever say we were doing nothing? I've stated repeatedly that I am doing my part by buying responsibly. Perfect? No, not at all, but I'm doing what I am able. That's at LEAST as good as MAC can do, perhaps even better. I think that putting all our eggs in MAC's basket is not only foolish, but it's irresponsible. That is my personal opinion.

I'm all for what MAC *says* they want to do -- but until they can provide infrastructure to support their fancy stickers, and high-priced certifications, it's all window dressing.

Your reply above clearly illustrates my point. YOU are even blaming cyanide fish as the reason why your last supplier had poor fish to sell.

Umm clearly you did NOT read my reply completely...

Personally, I got tired of fish dying in my store or en route, for "no apparent reason" so I dumped all of the wholesalers I was buying from. Of course all insisted that they ONLY sell net-caught fishes (riiiiiiiighhht) - so even if they were truthful (place tongue firmly in cheek here), they were doing something wrong along the way, either handling, holding or packing was detrimental.

I think I was quite clear in stating that not ONLY cyanide could/should be to blame, but other factors too.

It has been my experience in the last 18 months or so, that buying from the smaller Mom & Pop type wholesalers nets (pardon the pun) much healthier livestock overall. Choosing suppliers who care how the fishes they import are captured, makes a huge difference too. Not to mention ordering from people who know the difference between a yellow-eyed tang and a yellow tang - "Big Box Fish-R-Us" had a salesman who didn't know the difference - nor did he know the difference between a soft coral and a hard one - that was the last straw for me.... but I digress...

It's ironic that you are known here for being the "cyanide apologist" and now you are a MAC cheerleader... go figure :roll:

Jenn

 

[Anonymous]

I am one of the few people on this board that supports MAC. You all have the mind set that doing nothing is better then what MAC is doing. [NOT ME} I am ready for a new set of cyanide tests and so are the collectors. I like what MAC is doing.....

Umm Kalk,
I can't find anywhere in the MAC site where your store or yourself is a "mac supporter" or are you a mac supporter only in theary?

 

[JennM]

LOL MAC's site is full of inaccuracies - it still contains the names of entities that stopped supporting them a long time ago.

AMDA is at the top of the list here: http://aquariumcouncil.org/subpage.asp? ... &section=3

On this page, that says it's updated January 5/04, it also shows which entities have signed letters of committment to MAC... AMDA is on that one too...

It also lists Mary's company, and we are all aware of Mary's feelings about MAC.

Who knows how many others may have changed their stance on MAC, but their names have not been removed from the list.

IMO they should either remove the names of those who have withdrawn their support, or notate it on their list.

Nope, Kalk's store is not on there.

Jenn

 

[Kalkbreath]

You argued for weeks that Peter and Franks survey was most accurate at 68% for the East cost? What happened?

I thought this thread was about your 5% figure and not about Frank Lallo.

I did not argue that Lallo's data was correct, Kalk.

That is called "a lie", and makes you a liar.

What I said of Frank's data is that you cannot take less than 1% of the total (especially on such a small data set) and extrapolate to the end as you did.

No this is what frank did. He still has not finished computing all the data......He sampled some of the data he new would fullfill his perpose and released the findingds worldwide.

Frank gave you the averages lumped together, then started to post one aspect of the raw data for a few fish species and you were all over that like remoras on sharks.

I never once argued that his data was true or false.

I argued that your characterization of the data could not possibly be true based on what was publicly available. It is mathematically impossible.

As far as my choice for figures, I explained the reasons why I chose them:
Mathethematical simplicity.

In other words, I was trying to make things easier for you.

 

[mkirda]

Mike Kirda, You have stated that you felt it was easy for exporters and collectors to get around the test. Answer this question. Since random sampling was conducted by the IMA samplers across the country in the field and at collector's villages, and at other way points (eg. airports) and since testing was done at 6 CDT facilities across the country, how was it possible for exporters to bias the sampling? If they did so with every fish sampled per year in Manila, what percentage of the total number of samples would that be?
Peter

Peter,

I do not know when exactly the IMA stopped the random testing. My impression from talking to Marivi, Ferdinand and Roger was that the sampling was not exactly random even during the time of IMA's tenure. Without singling anyone specifically out, one person in particular told me that the samples could be chosen by the exporter for a small fee. i.e. Take any samples you want out of that tank.

What percentage do I think it undercounted? I have no idea how widespread this practice was, so it would be very difficult for me to say.
When asked what total percentage of fish were cyanide caught, all of them would venture a number higher than 25%. 50-75% was the spread I recall. Either they are all wet, or the testing uncovered only a fraction of what is out there. I chose to believe that the testing undercounted the total by some unknown percent. Regardless of this, 25% testing positive is an outrageous number, IMO, and completely indefensible.

Obviously, I'm not here to quibble over whether 25% is right or 30% or 35% or more. My point to Kalk is that 25% is the starting point, not 20% or 19% or 18% (notice his downward revisionist trend?). I've no problems with your paper, nor numbers, nor analysis, nor is the paper really what is at issue here.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[mkirda]

No this is what frank did. He still has not finished computing all the data......He sampled some of the data he new would fullfill his perpose and released the findingds worldwide.

No, it is not.

He gave the total percentages.
He then started giving the raw data, less than one percent of only the DOA (not DAA) stats.
He stopped posting the raw data after getting disgusted with people who couldn't understand basic statistical analysis kept making uninformed comments.

It doesn't surprise me now that you'd make that last comment.
I don't know how he could bias his dataset by choosing over a hundred stores in order to fulfill 'his perpose'. If that were the case, he'd would have to choose data from only a few select stores, and some of the worst ones in each region. Given the number of stores in the sample, this assertion of yours is unlikely to the extreme.

Why not just come out and say you think he fabricated the data, Kalk?

 

[mkirda]

double-post

 

[Kalkbreath]

Kalk, The overall percentage of fish with cyanide present from 1996 to 2000 was 25% for MO aquarium fish, 44% for food fish and 37% overall. Where do you come up with the 68% for food fish?


Peter

Peter what was the test results for the three most current years? And what happened to 2001 ?

 

[Kalkbreath]

You all have the mind set that doing nothing is better then what MAC is doing.

When did we ever say we were doing nothing? I've stated repeatedly that I am doing my part by buying responsibly. Perfect? No, not at all, but I'm doing what I am able. That's at LEAST as good as MAC can do, perhaps even better. I think that putting all our eggs in MAC's basket is not only foolish, but it's irresponsible. That is my personal opinion.

I'm all for what MAC *says* they want to do -- but until they can provide infrastructure to support their fancy stickers, and high-priced certifications, it's all window dressing.

Your reply above clearly illustrates my point. YOU are even blaming cyanide fish as the reason why your last supplier had poor fish to sell.

Umm clearly you did NOT read my reply completely...

Personally, I got tired of fish dying in my store or en route, for "no apparent reason" so I dumped all of the wholesalers I was buying from. Of course all insisted that they ONLY sell net-caught fishes (riiiiiiiighhht) - so even if they were truthful (place tongue firmly in cheek here), they were doing something wrong along the way, either handling, holding or packing was detrimental.

I think I was quite clear in stating that not ONLY cyanide could/should be to blame, but other factors too.

It has been my experience in the last 18 months or so, that buying from the smaller Mom & Pop type wholesalers nets (pardon the pun) much healthier livestock overall. Choosing suppliers who care how the fishes they import are captured, makes a huge difference too. Not to mention ordering from people who know the difference between a yellow-eyed tang and a yellow tang - "Big Box Fish-R-Us" had a salesman who didn't know the difference - nor did he know the difference between a soft coral and a hard one - that was the last straw for me.... but I digress...

It's ironic that you are known here for being the "cyanide apologist" and now you are a MAC cheerleader... go figure :roll:

Jenn

Not buying from cyanide fishermen .......does not stop them from fishing with cyanide. Thats what you dont get. you might be saving yourself ........but your not saving the reefs.

 

[PeterIMA]

Mike, You have claimed that Manila exporters were bribing IMA samplers and providing net-caught fish for testing that were not randomly sampled. I heard this accusation when I wrote my paper. I called the head of the IMA-Marine Inspection Sampling (MIS) program (Joy Alban) and he vigorously denied the allegation. He was adament that the sampling was being done properly (using random sampling). He should know, since he did most of the sampling in Manila. I believe Joy Alban rather than those in the industry being monitored, and the MAC person who first made the allegation.

I also tabulated the percentages by year of CDT samples tested by each of the 6 CDT laboratories (Table 24.6 in the book chapter about CDT). The percentage of aquarium fish samples tested by the Manila laboratory out of all tested nationwide was 35.2% (all years from 1993 to 2001). Since, the samples came from all over the country and were tested in different laboratoris nationwide, it is impossible for the percentage of fish tested positive to be biased to the extent that you have suggested (e.g. for the true percentage of fish being postive being 50-75% rather than the 25% reported from the nationwide testing program). Even if some Manila exporters biased CDT samples taken from their facilities, this would be a very small fraction of the total fish tested nationwide.

PS-As long as IMA did the samping it was conducted randomly.

Peter Rubec, Ph.D.
International Marinelife Alliance

 

[Anonymous]

kalk wrote:

Not buying from cyanide fishermen .......does not stop them from fishing with cyanide. Thats what you dont get. you might be saving yourself ........but your not saving the reefs.

uh- last time i checked, the law of supply and demand has yet to be circumvented by anyone 8O

how does helping to stop cyanide usage NOT help save the reefs?

uh- wait, you've repeatedly shown you have no sound reasonable answer for that one

so kalk, you're now saying that if there is no market for a product, the product will/can still be sold?

what a silly one you are :lol:

 

[Kalkbreath]

No this is what frank did. He still has not finished computing all the data......He sampled some of the data he new would fullfill his perpose and released the findingds worldwide.

No, it is not.

He gave the total percentages.
He then started giving the raw data, less than one percent of only the DOA (not DAA) stats.
He stopped posting the raw data after getting disgusted with people who couldn't understand basic statistical analysis kept making uninformed comments.

It doesn't surprise me now that you'd make that last comment.
I don't know how he could bias his dataset by choosing over a hundred stores in order to fulfill 'his perpose'. If that were the case, he'd would have to choose data from only a few select stores, and some of the worst ones in each region. Given the number of stores in the sample, this assertion of yours is unlikely to the extreme.

Why not just come out and say you think he fabricated the data, Kalk?

Even Franks data did not support Franks conclusion!Frank did give the data for most of the fish in his test. What data did he leave out. The data he posted did not come close to 68% ........And Then he says that the rest of the data has not been tallied! Then how did he come up with the 68%? why is he giving speaches about 68% and he has nothing to show for how came up with it? There were only about five fish that came in at 68% or above.......? The majority came in way below ..........You saw the data , what made you think the rest of the hidden data would cause the complete lot to average 68%. ? And second why is it so hard for you to compute 25% of 70% is 14% ? ..................only 70% of the fish supply is from indo/PI. Peters test showed 25% from PI not all the oceans of the world. :wink:

 

[JennM]

Not buying from cyanide fishermen .......does not stop them from fishing with cyanide. Thats what you dont get. you might be saving yourself ........but your not saving the reefs.

I'll defer to what Vitz said about supply and demand... if everyone along the chain of custody chose to raise their standards, there would be a faster change, but alas, most won't put their money where their mouth is.

In addition to not feeding the cyanide trade, I also attempt to educate hobbyists - encourage them to research the origins of the species they wish to purchase, and ask questions. No they aren't always going to received informed or truthful answers, but if the awareness is out there, perhaps more will be done.

I contributed to the netting fund - that helped to make a difference.

I'm one tiny little cog in the big wheel - but if more of us tiny cogs did all that we *could*, then change would happen.

Sadly, most choose the path of least resistance. Still that's not going to diminish my effort, nor discourage me from doing the best I can do.

What are YOU doing?

Jenn

 

[mkirda]

Mike, You have claimed that Manila exporters were bribing IMA samplers and providing net-caught fish for testing that were not randomly sampled. I heard this accusation when I wrote my paper.

I didn't claim this- I relayed on what others had told me.
I have no firsthand experience with CDT sampling.
I did, however, find it very interesting that different people would tell essentially the same story at different times.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

Not buying from cyanide fishermen .......does not stop them from fishing with cyanide. Thats what you dont get. you might be saving yourself ........but your not saving the reefs.

I'll defer to what Vitz said about supply and demand... if everyone along the chain of custody chose to raise their standards, there would be a faster change, but alas, most won't put their money where their mouth is.

In addition to not feeding the cyanide trade, I also attempt to educate hobbyists - encourage them to research the origins of the species they wish to purchase, and ask questions. No they aren't always going to received informed or truthful answers, but if the awareness is out there, perhaps more will be done.

I contributed to the netting fund - that helped to make a difference.

I'm one tiny little cog in the big wheel - but if more of us tiny cogs did all that we *could*, then change would happen.

Sadly, most choose the path of least resistance. Still that's not going to diminish my effort, nor discourage me from doing the best I can do.

What are YOU doing?

Jenn

Cyanide fishermen are cheaters.....they will still fish with cyanide .........for food fish ......unless you stop the food fish industry , you have saved no reef. If MAC cant prove 100% net caught then no one can . Remember that. Anything short of tested is not 100% net collected .....You people hold fast to this .......so now it applies to you as well. I would rather tell people that a few cyanide fish slip in the supply now and again, about five percent or less Nation wide . Then lie to customers and tell them our fish are 100% net collected. Which do you do?

 

[mkirda]

Frank did gave the data for most of the fish in his test. What data did he leave out. The data he posted did not come close to 68% ........AThen he says that the rest of the data has not been tallied! Then how did he come up with the 68%? why is he giving speaches about 68% and he has nothing to show for how came up with it? There were only about five fish that came in at 68% or above.......? The majority came in way below ..........You saw the data , what made you think the rest of the hidden data would cause the complete lot to average 68%. ?

Yada, yada, yada. Same argument, different thread.

Still don't understand basic Algebra? What is that- 7th grade Math?

(0.01 * A) + (0.99 * B) + (1 * C) = 0.68

You know A. Solve for B and C.

Kinda hard, ain't it? You sorta need two things (variables) to solve for the other one...

Until you have B and C, you got nothing to jabber about, Kalk.
This was the point I've been trying to make about Frank's data thread ever since it started.

And second why is it so hard for you to compute 25% of 70% is 14% ?

My calculator doesn't show that, Kalk. 70% of 25% is 17.5%. Not 14%.
And certainly not 5%...

..................only 70% of the fish supply is from indo/PI. Peters test showed 25% from PI not all the oceans of the world. :wink:

Ok, basic Algebra again, Kalk...

(100) - (70 * 25%) = X

or X = 100 - 17.5 = 82.5

IOW, If we assume that Peter's data is accurate, and 25% of the fish in the Philippines test positive...
Additionally, we assume that the rate out of Indonesia is the same.
Additionally, we say that PI and Indo account for 70% of US M.O inports...

Then:

We can say that 17.5% of the fish imported would have been caught with cyanide.

This rate is 350% higher than your stated amount in the title of this thread.

Didn't I cover this in one of the first two pages of this thread?