Even in the face of overwhelming evidence that since the first years of Peters cyanide testing ten years ago ......Not only did the cyanide rate in tested fish drop in half {with a little pressure from the PI government} But the total number of fish collected from PI has also dropped in half. That translates into only one-fourth as many cyanide squirts on the reefs of PI by our industry. And thats using Peters DATA! How do you call a 75% reduction in Cyanide use in PI Nothing? This was achieved even before MAC and hundreds of net training programs further reduced the need to squirt! Then during the last few years ,Even when reducing the total number of fish imported for the trade ... the industry has increased collection 1000 percent in Non cyanide collecting nations like Tonga , Fiji , Vanuatu , Phonape, Shri Lanka , Solomon's, Marshals and such . How can you and others like you down play the boom in mariculture of corals? Proof that our industry has accomplished much in the last few years, Much more then any of the other industries effecting the reefs. Today in 2004 unlike in 1997 There are no less then ten Clam farms world wide that our industry supports. There are also about eight coral farms with tens of thousands of farmed Ecco friendly corals ready to export . The industry has accomplished so much in the years following that decade old data you fill you thoughts with and poison the impressions of others . How some outsiders belittle the tremendous hard work hundreds of people world wide have carved out to better this great industry of ours I stand by the record of our industry , Yet there are others that like to use the past to trick onlookers into thinking otherwise ..........The days of obfuscation are over :wink:
[Industry reeform] Quick review of the last ten years
- Thread starter Kalkbreath
- Start date
Kalk, My recollection is that IMA did CDT until 2001 (and a little beyond when the IMA contract with BFAR ended). That was 3 years ago not 10 years ago. CDT is still being done by BFAR at a reduced level.
What about cyanide use in Indonesia, Vietnam, Papua New Guinea, and Malaysia? I would say the problem has grown, not declined. Furthermore, you have no proof that cyanide use has declined in PI. The data released through the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development (that came from the Puerto Princesa CDT lab run jointly by the City of Puerto Princesa and BFAR) indicates an increase in cyanide use (not a decline).
The reasons for the decline in cyanide use from 1996 to 1999 documented in my CDT paper (in book Collection, Culture, and Cultivation, Iowa State Press published in 2003) are complex. The CDT laboratories appear to have had an effect, but so did the threat of a complete ban on exports of live fish due to a bill before the Philippine Congress. It demonatrated that by putting a gun to the head of the exporters, that they could reform the trade (probably by not selling/distributing cyanide to the collectors). Now the U.S. Congress is holding the gun. I don't think they will be impressed without the trade coming up with documented facts about cyanide fishing etc.
Coral farming and giant clams are another issue. I applaud the efforts of those who have invested in aquaculture of fish and/or invertebrates that may eventually take some pressure off the reefs by reducing the need for wild harvest.
Peter
What about cyanide use in Indonesia, Vietnam, Papua New Guinea, and Malaysia? I would say the problem has grown, not declined. Furthermore, you have no proof that cyanide use has declined in PI. The data released through the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development (that came from the Puerto Princesa CDT lab run jointly by the City of Puerto Princesa and BFAR) indicates an increase in cyanide use (not a decline).
The reasons for the decline in cyanide use from 1996 to 1999 documented in my CDT paper (in book Collection, Culture, and Cultivation, Iowa State Press published in 2003) are complex. The CDT laboratories appear to have had an effect, but so did the threat of a complete ban on exports of live fish due to a bill before the Philippine Congress. It demonatrated that by putting a gun to the head of the exporters, that they could reform the trade (probably by not selling/distributing cyanide to the collectors). Now the U.S. Congress is holding the gun. I don't think they will be impressed without the trade coming up with documented facts about cyanide fishing etc.
Coral farming and giant clams are another issue. I applaud the efforts of those who have invested in aquaculture of fish and/or invertebrates that may eventually take some pressure off the reefs by reducing the need for wild harvest.
Peter
Again What make you think cyanide use has not again returned to 8% or 18% like your tests found in 1998 99 ? If thats again the current rate of cyanide I dont think one could demonstrate that our collection could be placing much strain on the region. Whats 15% of 4 million fish ? Thats not very many squirts for an area as large as PI . One thing your study did show is that the rate of cyanide use can vary quite a bit even in just two Years time . And judging by your DOA findings in 1997 of 68% compared to todays 2004 DOA rates of maybe ten percent. It sure seems that a fresh set of data would help give some validity to your speech. Im still not too sure why it takes you so many years to tally up 2001 CDT results ? But has it ever crossed your mind that concluding the data four or five years later makes the results practically useless? What use would 1996 data[68%] play in guessing the rate of cyanide in 1998[8%]? Or 1999 data to determine the rate of cyaie in 2000? The truth is you have no idea what the current rate of cyanide use is in 2004 ? Nor the current rates of DOA DAA for import. That would not make me very confident if I was to report back to the trade .....but maybe thats just me
Kalk, I never used a figure of 68% in anything that I published. Why do you think your credability is so low?
If others in the trade can provide data for mortality at the import and/or retail levels, I will use it in my publications (including the paper still being modified for pubication). The people providing the data need to be believable.
Peter Rubec
If others in the trade can provide data for mortality at the import and/or retail levels, I will use it in my publications (including the paper still being modified for pubication). The people providing the data need to be believable.
Peter Rubec
MaryHM":2dnnlr10 said:
Really, Peter?? What "believability" criteria was used when choosing the retailers who participated in the phone survey?? I have a feeling that "believability" = "reports high amounts of DOA".[/quote
Mary your comment makes no sense at all.
Mary, First, the 30% figures for each step of the chain were obtained by averaging widely divergent mortality figures mostly taken from the aquarium literature (summarized in the 1986 paper). It also was based on personal communications from those in the trade.
I think the accusation is that Frank Lallo interviewed over 300 retailers for over two years (about 25 shipments per retailer) and only dealt with retailers who would voluntarily state that their mortalities were high. Otherwise, they were not credible and he did not use their data? I find that unbelievable. What retailer would lie on the high side?
If you want to contribute to my study send me a private email at
my email address: [email protected]
Hate mail will be eaten by my virus sniffing dogs.
Peter
I think the accusation is that Frank Lallo interviewed over 300 retailers for over two years (about 25 shipments per retailer) and only dealt with retailers who would voluntarily state that their mortalities were high. Otherwise, they were not credible and he did not use their data? I find that unbelievable. What retailer would lie on the high side?
If you want to contribute to my study send me a private email at
my email address: [email protected]
Hate mail will be eaten by my virus sniffing dogs.
Peter
Plenty. Especially the ones who like to claim huge losses for income tax purposes and those who like to routinely claim high DOA to get freight credits back.
Participate in your study? I don't think so. Last time I "participated" with you, you stiffed me for over $200 in net caught fish for your experiments. Pay that, and we'll talk.
The accusation was not toward Frank at all, but toward you asking now for input. I think you're hell bent on writing as many papers about the "horrendous" industry as you possibly can, and you aren't going to let any good news get in your way.
Here is what I find hilarious about Frank's study.
Both you and Frank have publicly stated that not all of the data has been analyzed. But it sure didn't stop you from analyzing just enough of it to get some numbers to publish in the scientific literature and make broad judgements about mortality within the industry, did it?? That is what makes me believe you're on a one way train to EndTheIndustryVille. And you aren't going to detour through Realityland if it disagrees with what you've already made your mind up about.
How you can possibly take mortality statistics out of aquarium literature, that by your own admission is "widely divergent" and think that averaging those numbers hits the magic mortality number nail on the head is silly to me. If the numbers are WIDELY divergent, then something is probably wrong with the numbers. And just because you average them doesn't mean you're any closer to the truth. I think that a professional study on mortality has yet to be done. A study that actually follows some type of scientific criteria. But unfortunately that doesn't stop the scientific types from trying to come up with some number so they can get published.
Mary, The anthias that you provided got well taken care of and have been used in experiments (where the fish donated blood rather than their lives).
However, the scientist now needs more net-caught anthias. I believe that some were provided recently by Cortez Marine.
Peter
Peter
However, the scientist now needs more net-caught anthias. I believe that some were provided recently by Cortez Marine.
Peter
Peter
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
