only 5% of sold fish are cyanide collected.

[Kalkbreath]

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.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

I heard some reformers were bribing IMA samplers and providing cyanide collected fish for testing ...........so that would make it even. :wink:

 

[mkirda]

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?

I would tell the truth and say that testing showed that 25% of the MO fish tested positive in the Philippines.

I would not go through the mental contortions to convert good data (25%) into crazy propaganda (5% or less).

How can you support the MAC when you argue that there is no problem?
Why bother? If there is no problem, then MAC is a leech, nothing more, nothing less.

Are you supporting MAC the cyanide problem solver or MAC the leech?

I am getting really confused as to how you keep all the mental contortions straight.

 

[mkirda]

I heard some reformers were bribing IMA samplers and providing cyanide collected fish for testing ...........so that would make it even. :wink:

So you are saying that Marivi is bringing in cyanided fish and sending them to BFAR for testing in order to help Peter skew the results?

Wow!
I think that is pretty impressive!
She must really believe in the cause to subject herself to potential 5-10 years in jail.
:roll:

Peter,

Best to not even respond.
All Kalk is trying to do is get a rise out of either of us and watch us argue over a miniscule point.
He thinks this is funny.
Classic troll behavior.

 

[Anonymous]

kalk wrote:

If MAC cant prove 100% net caught then no one can . Remember that

:lol:

not only will i remember that, i doubt i'll let you forget you said that :wink:


and you may be in for a surprise, kalk

 

[Kalkbreath]

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?

Well, it worked ........I have to make an in correct math calculation to get you to admit that the starting pint is less then 20%. Fine, the starting point is 17.5% ........thats the fish being packed into the boxes heading to USA. Next you need to agree that cyanide fish ....1.] ship just as well as net caught......2.} that they survive in dealers tanks just as long.......3.} that poisoned fish LOOK just as perky as net caught. And thus are not chosen over net caught but sell the same as net caught. And lastly that poisoned fish eat in front of ever more demanding and enlightened hobbyists just the same as net caught. Do you agree with this silly notion? Do you understand that by agreeing that cyanide fish sell just as well as net caught fish YOU ARE rejecting many of the selling points that net collected fish bring to sales! Net collected fish survive better then cyanide collected fish , they eat better after collection , they are under less stress and they sell better. Any one of these distictions from poisoned fish makes net collected fish chosen more often then cyainde fish.........thus the 17.5 percent importation rate of cyanide does not account for the fact that very few of these fish are actually purchased .

 

[mkirda]

Well, it worked ........I have to make an in correct math calculation to get you to admit that the starting pint is less the 20%. Fine the starting point is 17.5% ........thats the fish being packed into the boxes heading to USA. Next you need to agree that cyanide fish ....

Neither I nor you have any data that would support either contention, Kalk.
All we have is anecdotes.

I have no published mortality stats from exporter to importer.
I suggested 5% to make your math calculations easy. We can assume another 5% next from exporter to LFS.

17.5% * 0.05 = 0.875

17.5 - 0.875 = 16.625%

16.625% * 0.05 = 0.831

16.625% - 0.831 = 15.794%

This is likely a fairly realistic number, given 25% starting point, Indo and PI having same rate, and 5% DOA/DAA rate on Exporter/Importer and Importer/Store leg.

Still 316% higher than your 5% number.

 

[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

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?

I've never told anybody that we are 100 % net collected - we aren't -- we have aquacultured too

I have stated, though that I buy from discriminating wholesalers who do their utmost to bring in fish collected without cyanide and in a sustainable way. That is as much as anybody can assure, and more than most can assure.

I'm in favour of testing.

Yes there are cheaters, always will be but that doesn't give them a pass, and it doesn't mean we should all lower our standards.

I can't stop the food fishing industry, I am not a part of that industry. But just because somebody else is doing something wrong, doesn't mean I shouldn't do things right.

I see you are back wearing your "cyanide apologist" hat.

Jenn

 

[Anonymous]

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?

Well, it worked ........I have to make an in correct math calculation to get you to admit that the starting pint is less the 20%. Fine the starting point is 17.5% ........thats the fish being packed into the boxes heading to USA. Next you need to agree that cyanide fish ....1.] ship just as well as net caught......2.} that they survive in dealers tanks just as long.......3.} that poisoned fish LOOK just as perky as net caught. And thus are not chosen over net caught but sell the same as net caught. And lastly that poisoned fish eat in front of ever more demanding and enlightened hobbyists just the same as net caught. Do you agree with this silly notion? Do you understand that by agreeing that cyanide fish sell just aswell as nt caught fish YOU ARE rejecting many of the selling points that net collected fish bring to sales!

:?: :?: :?:

a: who in their right mind would agree w/any of those points? cyanided fish neither look like, act like, nor eat like cyanided fish (especially eat like)

Do you understand that by agreeing that cyanide fish sell just aswell as nt caught fish YOU ARE rejecting many of the selling points that net collected fish bring to sales

i don't recall anyone agreeing w/this, in fact, if fish stay in a store for the length of time you've contended (between 2.5-4 wks), it would be patently impossible for cyanided fish to sell at the same rate as non cyanided, too many would die before purchase to sell in comparable amounts

this is why you cannot be holding fish in your store for the length of time you claim to be :wink:

it's also the reason for mac's pathetically short mandatory holding time for "certified" importers/exporters/retailers :wink:

riddle me this kalk:

if the law stated that all fish sellers, be it wholesale, retail, export, import, had to hold fish for a mandatory one month period,EACH, would there be as many cyanide fish sold as net caught?

i await your answer with great anticipation, just to see what you'll pull next :lol:

 

[Kalkbreath]

Well, it worked ........I have to make an in correct math calculation to get you to admit that the starting pint is less the 20%. Fine the starting point is 17.5% ........thats the fish being packed into the boxes heading to USA. Next you need to agree that cyanide fish ....

Neither I nor you have any data that would support either contention, Kalk.
All we have is anecdotes.

I have no published mortality stats from exporter to importer.
I suggested 5% to make your math calculations easy. We can assume another 5% next from exporter to LFS.

17.5% * 0.05 = 0.875

17.5 - 0.875 = 16.625%

16.625% * 0.05 = 0.831

16.625% - 0.831 = 15.794%

This is likely a fairly realistic number, given 25% starting point, Indo and PI having same rate, and 5% DOA/DAA rate on Exporter/Importer and Importer/Store leg.

Still 316% higher than your 5% number.

So you ARE stating that net collected fish are not very different from poisoned fish . You think that cyanide fish die during each stage of transport .......less then one percent more then net collected! What ?69% to 67% ??? You do know that means DOA rates will be the same regardless of whether the industry ends all cyanide! doesn't that in itself prove that there is far more to gain with transport improvements then with cyanide collection?

 

[Kalkbreath]

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?

Well, it worked ........I have to make an in correct math calculation to get you to admit that the starting pint is less the 20%. Fine the starting point is 17.5% ........thats the fish being packed into the boxes heading to USA. Next you need to agree that cyanide fish ....1.] ship just as well as net caught......2.} that they survive in dealers tanks just as long.......3.} that poisoned fish LOOK just as perky as net caught. And thus are not chosen over net caught but sell the same as net caught. And lastly that poisoned fish eat in front of ever more demanding and enlightened hobbyists just the same as net caught. Do you agree with this silly notion? Do you understand that by agreeing that cyanide fish sell just aswell as nt caught fish YOU ARE rejecting many of the selling points that net collected fish bring to sales!

:?: :?: :?:

a: who in their right mind would agree w/any of those points? cyanided fish neither look like, act like, nor eat like cyanided fish (especially eat like)

Do you understand that by agreeing that cyanide fish sell just aswell as nt caught fish YOU ARE rejecting many of the selling points that net collected fish bring to sales

i don't recall anyone agreeing w/this, in fact, if fish stay in a store for the length of time you've contended (between 2.5-4 wks), it would be patently impossible for cyanided fish to sell at the same rate as non cyanided, too many would die before purchase to sell in comparable amounts

this is why you cannot be holding fish in your store for the length of time you claim to be :wink:

it's also the reason for mac's pathetically short mandatory holding time for "certified" importers/exporters/retailers :wink:

riddle me this kalk:

if the law stated that all fish sellers, be it wholesale, retail, export, import, had to hold fish for a mandatory one month period,EACH, would there be as many cyanide fish sold as net caught?

i await your answer with great anticipation, just to see what you'll pull next :lol:

Then you also agree that of the 17.5 percent of cyanide fish leaving PI.......most are not sold! They die . Not all of them ,but cyanide fish die at a greater rate then net collected. Thats why the rate doesnt remain 17.5% it decreases from 17.5 to what? I say five percent is not out of the question.

 

[mkirda]

So you ARE stating that net collected fish are not very different from poisoned fish . You think that cyanide fish die during each stage of transport .......less then one percent more then net collected! What ?69% to 67% ??? You do know that means DOA rates will be the same regardless of whether the industry ends all cyanide! doesn't that in itself prove that there is far more to gain with transport improvements then with cyanide collection?

Kalk,

As I said

Neither I nor you have any data that would support either contention, Kalk.
All we have is anecdotes.

I am not aware of any study that has compared DOA/DAA rates of cyanide-caught vs. net-caught fish handled identically throughout the supply chain.

So if I were to state one or the other, I would be talking out of my rear.

For the purposes of the calculations, I stated my assumptions explicitly.

Do you have a problem with the assumptions?
If so, state your own assumptions and re-run the numbers!

As far has improvements in handling...
Kalk, for once and for all...
Can you *PRETTY PLEASE WITH SUGAR ON TOP* STOP trying to define me as somehow being AGAINST improvements in handling?
For once, this is an area I COMPLETELY AND WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE WITH YOU 100%!
Improvements need to be made in holding and shipping fish. No doubt. No question. Extremely important issue.

But completely separate from your stated topic of CYANIDE COLLECTION.

 

[Anonymous]

kalk wrote:

Then you also agree that of the 17.5 percent of cyanide fish leaving PI.......most are not sold! They die . Not all of them ,but cyanide fish die at a greater rate then net collected. Thats why the rate doesnt remain 17.5% it decreases from 17.5 to what? I say five percent is not out of the question.

where did i say that i agree or disagree w/any percentages?

now you're putting words in my mouth, as well as everyone elses :lol:


you really need to learn to read what people write

 

[Kalkbreath]

kalk wrote:

Then you also agree that of the 17.5 percent of cyanide fish leaving PI.......most are not sold! They die . Not all of them ,but cyanide fish die at a greater rate then net collected. Thats why the rate doesnt remain 17.5% it decreases from 17.5 to what? I say five percent is not out of the question.

where did i say that i agree or disagree w/any percentages?

now you're putting words in my mouth, as well as everyone elses :lol:


you really need to learn to read what people write

There are three options...........1.]either cyanide fish out live net collected and cyanide fish are better heathier fish then net collected. 2.] cyanide fish are 100 percent the same as net collected ......or 3.] poisoned fish die more often the net collected. Its one of the three ..........which do you think it is?

 

[Anonymous]

kalk wrote:

Then you also agree that of the 17.5 percent of cyanide fish leaving PI.......most are not sold! They die . Not all of them ,but cyanide fish die at a greater rate then net collected. Thats why the rate doesnt remain 17.5% it decreases from 17.5 to what? I say five percent is not out of the question.

where did i say that i agree or disagree w/any percentages?

now you're putting words in my mouth, as well as everyone elses :lol:


you really need to learn to read what people write

There are three options...........1.]either cyanide fish out live net collected and cyanide fish are better heathier fish then net collected. 2.] cyanide fish are 100 percent the same as net collected ......or 3.] poisoned fish die more often the net collected. Its one of the three ..........which do you think it is?

you only see 3 options? :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

it's also the reason for mac's pathetically short mandatory holding time for "certified" importers/exporters/retailers :wink:

Vitz,

Do you have some extraordinary insight into the MAC holding time issue or are you just creating a new conspiracy theory?

 

[PeterIMA]

Lee, Can you explain what the MAC holding times are? I am not familiar that there were any recommended holding times associated with the MAC Core Standards.
Peter

 

[Anonymous]

Peter,

I don't know of any specific holding time details other than what's in the following documents.

1) MAC Certification Mortality Allowance Information sheet:

http://www.aquariumcouncil.org/docs/lib ... 0Sheet.PDF

2) MAC Core Standards Interpretation:

http://www.aquariumcouncil.org/docs/lib ... tation.pdf

I have to admit that I don't fully understand the MAC mortality policy, but based on my reading of the above documents it appears that if mortalities do not exceed the MAC allowance in 5 days a particular species batch stays certified until sold.

Take care,

 

[clarionreef]

Well,
If it won't be done in the field...we can content ourselves to muse upon non-implemented theory I guess. Guys. Understand this.
You have serious expertise in hunting telling you this dog didn't hunt, can't hunt and won't hunt.
I know about hunting. Commercial, day in and day out hunting. And this thing is a non-starter for reasons explained infinitum.

My degree is in communication...but I cannot bring myself to mistake words for deeds and exhalt them as if it would somehow create field reality.
There are limits to 'virtual reform' here. If it doesn't translate into water work with real live fisherman...it is worthless. Inability and unfamiliarity with fishermans culture is still no excuse for continued failure.
There is a dis-connect with the "internet reform cult", the "corporate reform business" and the actual conduct of the aquarium trade.
If the trade is to be reformed...it will have to be with the involvement of people who can swim at some point.
Steve
The retreat from real life to virtual reality on this is amazing.

 

[Anonymous]

it's also the reason for mac's pathetically short mandatory holding time for "certified" importers/exporters/retailers :wink:

Vitz,

Do you have some extraordinary insight into the MAC holding time issue or are you just creating a new conspiracy theory?

http://reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=22773

 

[Anonymous]

paul holthus wrote:

If the batch exceeds the DOA mortality allowance, it loses it's certified status.
However, if the organisms are held for 3 days without further mortality, the species batch will regain its MAC Certified status. If these organisms are held for another 2 days (i.e. a total of 5 days after the excess mortality) they will remain as MAC Certified until sold.

this seems to be a pathetically short time for cyanide induced mortality to be allowed to show up

oh, wait, according to lolita ty, at least (in her emails to peter rubec, available for perusal on wwm), the ptfea doesn't use cyanide, and never has :lol: