only 5% of sold fish are cyanide collected.

[mkirda]

Lets do some math.

Done the math already.

You were proven wrong.

I think this was pointed out to you already.
A few times.
Back on page five or six.

Page 12 already.
Wow.
Like those Halloween movies from the 80's.
Just as bad. Just as predictable. "Not our fault" repeated over and over and over and over and over.

But let's not dwell on that.

You mentioned Congress. You implied that Steve testified before Congress that MO fishing was not the cause of any reef degradation in the Phillipines...

I have a few questions on this- And since you mentioned it, you must have the information handy.
1) Which Congress did Steve Robinson testify before? US? Philippines? Some other country?
2) Was it before the full Congress? A hearing? A Committee?
3) You said 20 years ago. Can you provide a date when this testimony occured?
4) Are you sure it was Steve instead of Peter this time?

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Anonymous]

Sure it wasn't Olli North you were thinking about Kalk, or some movie you just saw?

 

[PeterIMA]

Mike, I testified before the US Congressional Subcommittee On Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans on May 6, 1997. The testimony is still posted on the web http://www.house.gov/resources/105cong/ ... /rubec/htm

I have no knowledge that Steve did this, although he has met with PI govenment officials (such as Ramon Mitra the Minister of the Dept. of Agriculture in 1987).

Peter

 

[clarionreef]

Peter,
I worked for Minister Mitra thru his Bureau of Agriculture Extention office and the Philippine Fishery Development Authority run by the current head of BFAR. [Philippine fisheries].
Thats where I met Lino, the PFDA information officer and current MAC country coordinator.
Mitra sold out to logging interests and Filipinized the live cyanide caught grouper trade I remember. He was also however, persuaded to end Muro Ami and allow the use of small mesh netting for catching tropical fish [which was banned].
I went to Washington only once and testified w/ a slide show to PIJAC. After that to a US AID officer...and the WWFs TRAFFIC division.
I don't recall testifying in the US Congress. I think I might have remembered that.
IMA Canada sent me to speak at the 1st Icthyological Congress in Stockholm Sweden back in 86. That was my only congress since high school.
In high school however, I was a debate finalist in the US high school student senate. The topic was the war in Viet Nam. Does that count?
It is amusing to be mistakenly referred by Kalk to have testified to the real congress...but what is really hilarious is that he claims I spoke of the little damage by our trade to the coral reefs from fish collecting!
I assure you that given the chance...I would not have backpeddled like that.
Steve

 

[Kalkbreath]

Peter quoted Steve......in his testimony........Read the quote. Notice his choice of words to describe the food fishing's use of cyanide. You will find the word "exclusively" as one of his descriptions. Either way how many fish were collected in the 1960 and 70s? Thats when 70% of the cyanide damage occured. Im sorry Mkirda I missed that some where? Can you quote it for me? I seem to be missing all your replies ? How bout you quote some of them for me ?

********

 

[mkirda]

Peter quoted Steve......in his testimony........Read the quote. Notice his choice of words to describe the food fishing's use of cyanide. You will find the word "exclusively" as one of his descriptions. Either way how many fish were collected in the 1960 and 70s? Thats when 70% of the cyanide damage occured. Im sorry Mkirda I missed that some where? Can you quote it for me? I seem to be missing all your replies ? How bout you quote some of them for me ?

********

Kalk,

In other words, you misled the readers of your post by implying something that wasn't true in the least. Sorta like Colin Powell.

It is called 'lying', Kalk.

I propose that this thread be ended.
It cannot possibly be said that 5% is supported by any data in the public domain sort of torturing assumptions.

As for your demand that I provide you with statistics, I decline.
I have much more important things to do with my life than look them up for you. You either have them and can easily post a citation to them, or you don't and you want me to waste my time looking for a needle in a haystack. Either way, it isn't relevant to this thread and any attempted linkage on your part is yet more plumes of smoke you are trying to blow up the forum's rear.

Funny how you keep waffling between "It isn't us!" and "But we don't cause that much damage anyway!"...
Especially since both have been proven wrong.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[mkirda]

Mike, I testified before the US Congressional Subcommittee On Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans on May 6, 1997. The testimony is still posted on the web http://www.house.gov/resources/105cong/ ... /rubec/htm

Dead link, Peter. Have another copy somewhere?

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

Five of my old links to Peters testimony are now dead ? All five we live six months ago? Sounds fishy to me!

 

[Kalkbreath]

Even the library of Congress link. The testimony was available for twenty years then I start making references to it and it gets unplugged....

 

[mkirda]

Five of my old links to Peters testimony are now dead ? Sounds fishy to me!

Are you accusing me of hacking into government computers and deleting them now?

 

[Kalkbreath]

Peter quoted Steve......in his testimony........Read the quote. Notice his choice of words to describe the food fishing's use of cyanide. You will find the word "exclusively" as one of his descriptions. Either way how many fish were collected in the 1960 and 70s? Thats when 70% of the cyanide damage occured. Im sorry Mkirda I missed that some where? Can you quote it for me? I seem to be missing all your replies ? How bout you quote some of them for me ?

********

Kalk,

In other words, you misled the readers of your post by implying something that wasn't true in the least. Sorta like Colin Powell.

It is called 'lying', Kalk.

I propose that this thread be ended.
It cannot possibly be said that 5% is supported by any data in the public domain sort of torturing assumptions.

As for your demand that I provide you with statistics, I decline.
I have much more important things to do with my life than look them up for you. You either have them and can easily post a citation to them, or you don't and you want me to waste my time looking for a needle in a haystack. Either way, it isn't relevant to this thread and any attempted linkage on your part is yet more plumes of smoke you are trying to blow up the forum's rear.

Funny how you keep waffling between "It isn't us!" and "But we don't cause that much damage anyway!"...
Especially since both have been proven wrong.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

As for the 5% ........The most current and ONLY data showed only 18% of PI fish had been exposed to cyanide . The Philippines and Indo account for 70% of the total imports to USA. Thats means 13% of the fish being sent to the USA were Cyanide exposed.in 1998 99 2000. Most of those cyanide fish die before reaching the hobbyist. There for the actual percentage of cyanide fish being purchased is less then 13% . I put the estimate at 5%. Since no one else cared enough to attempt to determine how many fish of that 13% reach the consumer. The final consensus is 0ne vote for 5% and zero for all the other possibilities...........so the unanimous answer is .........5% :wink:

 

[Kalkbreath]

Five of my old links to Peters testimony are now dead ? Sounds fishy to me!

Are you accusing me of hacking into government computers and deleting them now?

No, but some one removed all five of my links and Peters , thats for sure........?

 

[PeterIMA]

Mike, I am somewhat surprised to learn that the Congressional subcommittee link is no longer active. Perhaps, it is possible to access it through their archives?

I will see whether the IMA can post the testimony on its website. Anyone else who wants it as a MS-Word file, please send me an email.

My email is [email protected]

Please don't send your viruses. I have virus sniffing dogs.

Peter

 

[mkirda]

The final consensus is 0ne vote for 5% and zero for all the other possibilities...........so the unanimous answer is .........5% :wink:

Jeez, you DO have ADD, don't you?

I've cared enough to do so and have proven it cannot be as low as 5% given my assumptions.
EVEN YOU admitted that the numbers didn't add up to 5% earlier here in your thread!
Granted, it was a few days back...
And who can remember what they said a few days back, eh?

:roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

Please don't send your viruses. I have virus sniffing dogs.

He does, like 6 of them.

 

[Kalkbreath]

Please don't send your viruses. I have virus sniffing dogs.

He does, like 6 of them.

I had a virus sniffing dog back in 1980s...{Not six..... but the dog was as thorough as six or seven}......Yes even then I knew there was a threat.........But the stupid dog was quite embarrassing in public, with all the crotch sniffing and such.........So I decided I would just risk it , and not bring the dog out on dates with me any longer............I guess that I have just been lucky. :wink:

 

[mkirda]

Peter quoted Steve......in his testimony........Read the quote. Notice his choice of words to describe the food fishing's use of cyanide. You will find the word "exclusively" as one of his descriptions. Either way how many fish were collected in the 1960 and 70s? Thats when 70% of the cyanide damage occured. Im sorry Mkirda I missed that some where? Can you quote it for me? I seem to be missing all your replies ? How bout you quote some of them for me ?

********

Let me quote some of that "THIN AIR"...

"1983, Steve Robinson visited the Philippines where he lived at the village level and observed the widespread use of sodium cyanide for capturing marine ornamental fish for the marine aquarium trade. He witnessed, and documented in the aquarium hobby literature, the reef destruction, the poverty, and the reduction in daily harvest by small-scale fishermen. He noted that the average small-scale fisherman earned less than $25 (US) per month; on which they were trying to support an average family of 6 persons. With declining harvest of both food and aquarium fishes, they could barely feed their families. There was no longer much excess food fish to sell, in order to buy other commodities. In 1986, Steve discovered that sodium cyanide was also being used to capture live groupers and the Napoleon wrasse for export by air and by boat to Hong Kong and Taiwanese restaurants. A fleet of six 100 foot vessels was using 1,250 kilograms of cyanide per vessel every 15 days to capture 3-6 live metric tonnes of groupers. Cyanided (but intact) coral reefs were observed to be devoid of fish. Steve raised the alarm that the entire reef ecosystem was being decimated.
The IMA was formed in 1985 by Dr. Peter Rubec (a fisheries scientist and marine aquarium hobbyist), Steve Robinson (a professional fish collector and environmental activist) and Dr. Vaughan Pratt (an American veterinarian married to a Filipino)."

Read the first sentence. Now read it again. Now read it a third time.

I think it is unambiguous.

Peter never "quoted" Steve.
If the word 'exclusively' were used, it is not in this section dealing with Steve Robinson.

I go in expecting something of substance, only to find that you are just blowing yet more plumes of smoke up the forum's rear, Kalk.

Shame on you.

 

[Anonymous]

what more do you expect from a liar like kalk?

 

[clarionreef]

Oh my God,
Have we been failing that long?
I spent the first year on this issue actually training and have been trying to get back to it ever since.
Look how long alarm was sounded on the food fish thing!
Sad to say it was used as a blueprint to pave the way for Filipino concerns to take over the cyanide food fish industry from Chinese ones.
Steve

 

[Kalkbreath]

Peter quoted Steve......in his testimony........Read the quote. Notice his choice of words to describe the food fishing's use of cyanide. You will find the word "exclusively" as one of his descriptions. Either way how many fish were collected in the 1960 and 70s? Thats when 70% of the cyanide damage occured. Im sorry Mkirda I missed that some where? Can you quote it for me? I seem to be missing all your replies ? How bout you quote some of them for me ?

********

Let me quote some of that "THIN AIR"...

"1983, Steve Robinson visited the Philippines where he lived at the village level and observed the widespread use of sodium cyanide for capturing marine ornamental fish for the marine aquarium trade. He witnessed, and documented in the aquarium hobby literature, the reef destruction, the poverty, and the reduction in daily harvest by small-scale fishermen. He noted that the average small-scale fisherman earned less than $25 (US) per month; on which they were trying to support an average family of 6 persons. With declining harvest of both food and aquarium fishes, they could barely feed their families. There was no longer much excess food fish to sell, in order to buy other commodities. In 1986, Steve discovered that sodium cyanide was also being used to capture live groupers and the Napoleon wrasse for export by air and by boat to Hong Kong and Taiwanese restaurants. A fleet of six 100 foot vessels was using 1,250 kilograms of cyanide per vessel every 15 days to capture 3-6 live metric tonnes of groupers. Cyanided (but intact) coral reefs were observed to be devoid of fish. Steve raised the alarm that the entire reef ecosystem was being decimated.
The IMA was formed in 1985 by Dr. Peter Rubec (a fisheries scientist and marine aquarium hobbyist), Steve Robinson (a professional fish collector and environmental activist) and Dr. Vaughan Pratt (an American veterinarian married to a Filipino)."

Read the first sentence. Now read it again. Now read it a third time.

I think it is unambiguous.

Peter never "quoted" Steve.
If the word 'exclusively' were used, it is not in this section dealing with Steve Robinson.

I go in expecting something of substance, only to find that you are just blowing yet more plumes of smoke up the forum's rear, Kalk.

Shame on you.

This is not the testimony I quoted on the old Congress site.........I saved it last year.......I will look for it.