Cyanide

[Suriden]

Hi All,

I'm curious about the focus on cyanide-related issues in this forum. My understanding is that net-caught fish are not entirely free from blame in terms of causing reef damage. Fishers in some areas are/were known to surround a coral patch with barrier nets and then bash the coral to force the fish out.

Also, juvenile and other small sized fish tend to get stuck in barrier nets. I don't have figures on what the 'bycatch' mortality is from this, but have seen feeding frenzies by dottybacks and labrids when small fish were trapped in nets.

I'm sure that using cyanide is far more destructive, but am interested in knowing what has been done in the industry to ensure that net-based fishing is as ecologically-friendly as possible.

Suriden

 

[clarionreef]

Hello Suriden,
I guess you're right that there has been a focus on the cyanide collection thing to the exclusion of more fun topics. Then again, the general forum has thousands of hits on those. The right to continue to enjoy those other areas however, depends on the trade even having a future. That brings us logically to the main thing threatening it and giving it the bad image.
If the basic fish supply did not come from S.E. Asia [because of the great diversity of species there] we would be able to frontload other alternatives more and make the illegal and notorious Asian supply irrelevant. But alas, it is not to be.

Barrier nets and hand nets are quite harmless actually, and the few fish comparatively that get 'gilled' by using mesh sizes too large is easily solved by using the proper size meshed netting in the first place.
Using a too large mesh size can gill small fish...but not poison entire coral heads micro-systems killing the thousand or so larvae, small fish and eggs that may cling to or around it. The collateral damage is counted in units, not wholesale batches.
Breaking up and smashing coral heads... is not net collecting. Its sheer stupidity that can be found in any collecting where ill or non trained divers work. Breaking up reef structure and habitat like that is also illegal in many countries.
However, if you are concerned with what the "industry has done" to ensure that net-based fishing is ecologically friendly, the answer is easy. The industry as a whole has seen to it that net collecting will NOT be implemented on a large scale in S.E.Asia and has remained tolerant of decades of training fraud and malfeascence, incompetents and con artists.
Hence. little net damage to some smaller fishes.

The "industry" is happiest when issues are not discussed and business as usual goes forth. If there is a concern....they can trot out their front group of the month and say..."They are taking care of it". That is the job of a good front group. To lull the public back to sleep and assure it that all is fine..."we're working on it."
Years may go by and if there is a re-emergence of concern....the same assurances are re-envoked; "All is fine, we're working on it."
This cycle has been repeated for years and works quite well actually. The short attention span of the public on the matter and the "just make it go away" attitude of industry people keep the issue at bay.

Living in the short term on a permanant basis while recycling eco-sustainability platitudes is the genius of our trade.

Steve

 

[clarionreef]

In Mexico...
There has been a political party in power permanantly since the beginning of the century called the PRI...The Institutional Revolutionary Party....
The idea was to keep 'the revolution' in the public mind to remind them that this is their refom in action...live and permanant.
Finally, after 90 years of corruption, mismanagement and lack of er, reform, they threw the PRI out of the presidential palace.
The pretense of reform to calm down the public is nothing new.
To actually fix the problems calls for skills other than good political strategy and advertising.
Steve

 

[mkirda]

I'm sure that using cyanide is far more destructive, but am interested in knowing what has been done in the industry to ensure that net-based fishing is as ecologically-friendly as possible.

Suriden

Suriden,

Part of the net-training addresses this issue. For example, many chromis or damselfish are interstital Acropora hiders. A typical way of catching them is to use cyanide, then waft them out using your hand, or pulling the entire Acropora head out of the water and shaking it over a net on the boat in order to catch the fish, then pitching the table coral back off the side of the boat.

Both are very destructive techniques.

The net trainers show the fishermen different techniques. For these sorts of fish, they will typically use a push net or hand net above the coral, then poke inbetween the branches with a piece of palm frond to have the fish swim into the net, or use a hookah hose to blow air into the branches with the same effect. There is essentially no damage.

Barrier nets can and do cause a bit of damage as they come into contact with the reef framework. Smaller, thin branching stoney corals like P. damicornis or S. hystrix are most at risk as the netting does tangle up in them easily. The divers are very protective of their nets- You can watch them try for a few minutes to untangle them without damaging them. They do NOT try to rip them up off the reef. So, yes, there can be some damage- I watched one diver have to break about half an inch off a colony of S. hystrix when his net got hopelessly entangled and he couldn't work it loose. But the damage is minimal and very much recoverable.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Suriden]

Steve & Mike,

Thanks for your replies. It's good to know that net-based collecting has pretty low ecological impacts.

Steve - regarding your comment about what the industry has done, My understanding was that both IMA and Haribon had been very active in promoting net training in the PI.

While cyanide is no doubt a key issue facing the industry, I would have thought that equally important failings are not banning the collection / import of unsuitable species (such as corallivores) and not addressing the need for more resource assessments to determine the ability of various species to cope with current levels of exploitation. In the live reef food fish trade, for example, overexploitation is a far greater issue than just the use of destructive fishing practices. This doesn't imply that destructive fishing methods aren't important in the LRFF or aquarium trades, only that other issues are equally important in some cases.

Suriden

 

[mkirda]

I would have thought that equally important failings are not banning the collection / import of unsuitable species (such as corallivores)

Much of the industry is of two minds on having an unsuitable species list.
I personally see the issue from both sides, but my personal assessment is probably more pragmatic. I am not for an outright ban, but I am for making the animals a darn-sight more difficult to get. If someone wants to import corallivores and try to figure out what diet might work, more power to them- As long as they are serious about it. The trick is getting them off stock lists, and having them collected only to order. The system will work, but it would be expensive.

and not addressing the need for more resource assessments to determine the ability of various species to cope with current levels of exploitation.

Couldn't agree more.

In the live reef food fish trade, for example, overexploitation is a far greater issue than just the use of destructive fishing practices. This doesn't imply that destructive fishing methods aren't important in the LRFF or aquarium trades, only that other issues are equally important in some cases.

Suriden

I'm not sure that even within the scientific circles you'd find a consensus on which is more important: Overexploitation or destructive fishing practices... In a sense, it doesn't matter which one is first and which is second- Both are BAD.

MO fishing has the potential to be a force for good.
I feel it is time that it lived up to its potential.
Sustainable net collection with equitable prices for the collectors.
Everybody wins this way.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[clarionreef]

Hey,
Its not a question of apples and oranges.
Cyanide and destructive fishing are a path to "overexploitation" of a fishery.
An observer from outside the cyanide triangle of Indonesia, [ its so wide that it forms the bottom two points] and the Philippines, can be forgiven for seeing the issue differently. As there is no cyanide problem off the GBR, observers there focus logically on the question of over-extraction vis a vis recovery cycles.
This is not a luxury that can be afforded in areas where critical habitat is so routinely compromised in the very act of fishing. To contemplate 'just' overexploitation in the Phil-Indo zone implies that there is a study area free and clear of destructive fishing to allow an assessment of fisheries in the way 'clean' countries do.
To just get to that level is what I mean by a 'luxury.'
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Steve - regarding your comment about what the industry has done, My understanding was that both IMA and Haribon had been very active in promoting net training in the PI.

Suriden - FYI, Steve was the lead trainer for both Haribon and IMA for a while. He was a founding father of IMA and was directly responsiable for Haribon doing net training in the first place.

 

[Suriden]

Steve,

I don't disagree with you - your experience in the field is impressive, as is your commitment to a sustainable ornamentals industry. I am from within the lower part of the 'cyanide triangle' you mention and have seen the effects of both blast fishing and cyanide fishing.

Overexploitation is, however, another issue that needs to be addressed by the industry (IMO). Some fish species simply cannot handle high levels of exploitation. My experience is more with LRFF species, but the same biological characteristics are found in some aquarium fish species as well. The problem is that once stocks have been heavily decimated, they may take a very long time to recover, if at all (very similar in many ways to reef corals). The wide geographical range of most reef fish species makes true extinctions very unlikely. However, local extinctions are possible, with far reaching consequences for local human communities as well as the ecosystem.

While net fishing will reduce damage to the reef, it will not necessarily reduce exploitation levels. I realise that net fishing is unlikely to be as efficient as cyanide fishing and thus cpue will decline to some extent. The point is, however, that unless we know which species can and cannot handle current levels of exploitation, net fishing will continue to deplete stock levels and cause harm to vulnerable species.

Suriden

 

[clarionreef]

Suriden,
But with nets, the larvae and tiny fishes pass thru and are not poisoned by the millions. That alone is a plus bigger than anyone knows.
However, the point is well taken.
Answer me this; Any government or industry silly enough to tolerate cyanide fishing in the first place...would scarcely be interested in the futher issues you raise wouldn't they?
You're speaking as if this science and logic played more of a part than it does.
The boys in Bogor know whats happening to the countries reefs...and traditionally have aided and abetted their demise.
Are things changing in the level of sincerity and commitment to get it right? Cyanide fishing is bold and rampant thruout Indo and it makes it hard to believe that there is much interest in the question of sustainable aquarium fishing beyond some in the scientific community and assorted environmentalists.
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

suriden:

there is also global warming, deforestation, commercial aquaculture pollution, tourism, etc etc.....

all are reef conservation issues

cyanide, however, is one the MO industry is most directly involved in/ contributes to, and is one that some have been trying to correct for awhile, only to be continually onfuscated by the very industry itself


i believe that if we can't fix this one(the cyanide/netting/transportation/holding etc etc. that comprise the MO industry) , we won't be able to fix any other pressing ecological/environmental issues that affect the reefs on a far larger scale.(i.e., bleaching from above normal ocean temps, etc)

one of my nightmare scenarios is: not even being able to replenish an area, once we have the ability/stock/knowledge to do so, after some type of more major 'event' (e.g. oil spill) because collection techniques themselves ruin the effort shortly thereafter

 

[blue hula]

I offer the following as a major problem with a one-eyed focus on cyanide.

Slight of hand PR suggests that where fish are not caught with cyanide ... they can be certified as sustainably caught.

This allows the certification of collection areas that are already depleted on the sole ground that, hey, no cyanide was used.

Sustainable techniques and sustainable exploitation levels must BOTH be addressed before the trade can live up to its potential.

Blue hula

 

[clarionreef]

The trade?
Sustainable techniques and sustainable exploitation levels must both be adressed before the trade can live up to its potential...you say?

For more than 10 years a stream of non- trade NGOs has appropriated those issues as their mission. Indeed they have based their funding and existance on adressing this.

The failure and inability to get it right is ironically not just the fault of the trade but also of all the environmental gold-diggers that have cashed in on the trades problems. Like ambulance chasers they feed off the inequity and help it to continue.

The trade does not deem any depleted areas sustainable and worthy of certification. That is done by their self appointed front group whom they have tolerated...like a remora.

To push for sustainable techniques and exploitation levels, funding agencies have paid NGOs a few million over the past few years.
Any blame the trade receives for its sins must be shared by its accomplices. Its only fair.
Sincerely, Steve

 

[blue hula]

Steve,

I wasn't pointing fingers at the trade as the topic of my post wasn't who's to blame. If I were, it would be a long list.

I was simply expressing my belief that the aquarium trade has the potential to generate strong conservation benefits if both issues were addressed.

I am less convinced that NGOs have the potential to generate strong conservation benefits thus they weren't included in the post :wink:

Blue hula

 

[clarionreef]

Bluey,
I was pointing fingers at the trade long before NGOs leered at it w/ dollar signs in their eyes. The trade is a rather mindless, pan-oceanic colony of competing interests incapable of reforming itself it has seemed.
So...theoretically, the independant environmentally oriented NGOs could lend a hand and save it from itself! Right!
But their near total inability to get to the roots of the issues left them content with paddling on the surface...kinda like doing surveys from the boat instead of underwater.
The fact that you are now not convinced that they have the potential to generate strong conservation benefits speaks volumes to me.
The only way to really achieve implementation of lofty notions of sustainability and reform is a marriage of sorts between people who can actually swim for 8 hours in the ocean doing transects and training and those that can bank it, budget for it and sit in the boat under an umbrella with their clip board....collating data passed over the side to them.

This is a recipe that has precedent. In Mexico where we have years of collaboration between scientists [ ie. people who stayed mostly in the boats] and commercials [people who dive all day know every single species without a little plastic fish ID card] . The scientists worked with the divers in a co-operative way and learned so much more about the ocean then they ever imagined! It made them better scientists and the envy of their cohorts.
One of them based a masters on it!

This is how real reform can be achieved.
Steve