Woods Report

[PeterIMA]

About a month ago, I mentioned that the 2001 report about the aquarium trade by Dr. Elizabeth Woods was no longer available on the Marine Conservation Society web site. I have located a link to the report on the web site for the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI). The URL is the following:

http://www.icriforum.org/docs/Aqua-MCS-report.pdf


PS-The site has other reports that may also be of interest to those on Reefs.org.

Peter Rubec

 

[naesco]

Thanks for the cite, Dr. Rubec

It is too bad industry did not adopt the recommendations.

Pages 31 to 35 should be required reading for everyone on this forum.

Only 10% of the fish 'squirted with the cyanide come out of the reef heads to be caught. The rest stay inside and die.

I just can't wait to see the expression on the face of the judge when this type of evidence comes out. Better yet I just can't wait to see the expression on the face of the wholesaler/imported when he is sentenced to the slammer.

 

[clarionreef]

The false efficiency of drug collecting is a secret of drug collectors.
For a long time, eco-reformers "citing the ease and efficiency" of cyanide collecting said we need to pay more to get the divers to switch to nets!
All the while, these same reformers did not , could not and/or would not supply the right nets nor competent training to do the job.
Nor could they ever make the cartel pay more anyway.
Nets done right have always been superior and this has hardly ever been believed or accepted by the outside 'know it alls' who ran the programs.
I have maintained in print for 20 years what Dr Wood has revealed.
And its still true. Please eco people. Believe it now.
Steve

 

[Kalkbreath]

Total crap......Yes many of the fish dont come out........but there is no coral-ation or conformation between coming out and dying. Why would fish survive simply because they floated out into the arms of the divers? Do the divers perform some sort of CPR on the fish? And how exactly does one know what happened to the fish that did not come out?This would take hours of jackhammering and sledge hammer work. Again it all boils down to how intense the concentration of cyanide being used is . If you over stun the fish , yes they die instantly and dont come out . Only the fish that act quickly and dart out survive.This is the type of "TEST results anti industry types like to cite........ But thats not a real world event. Squirt a tiny dose, one in which none of the fish die and many come out slightly impaired enough to net......and walla no dead fish.

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, I think we know who is full of it. There may be a concentration of cyanide that is low enough to cause fish to flee a coral head without killing them. But, there is no evidence that collectors are fishing with those concentrations (less than 5 ppm cyanide ion).

Peter

 

[PeterIMA]

The quote in the Woods report that only 10% of the fish come out of the coral heads squirted with cyanide is based on something I wrote about 20 years ago. I believe that the original quote was different. I stated that only about 10% of the fish exposed to cyanide were of interest to aquarists. Hence, only about 10% of the cyanide-exposed fish were being collected. My estimate for acute mortality from cyanide exposure on the reef was 50% (not 90%).

Peter Rubec

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the cite, Dr. Rubec

It is too bad industry did not adopt the recommendations.

Pages 31 to 35 should be required reading for everyone on this forum.

Only 10% of the fish 'squirted with the cyanide come out of the reef heads to be caught. The rest stay inside and die.

I just can't wait to see the expression on the face of the judge when this type of evidence comes out. Better yet I just can't wait to see the expression on the face of the wholesaler/imported when he is sentenced to the slammer.

evidence?

what evidence. wayne?


you think a judge calls a sentence in a report evidence?


:roll:


i wonder if your latest rant subject will take as long for you to drop as the cyanide test you kept telling everyone was just around the corner a yr or two ago :lol:

 

[Kalkbreath]

The quote in the Woods report that only 10% of the fish come out of the coral heads squirted with cyanide is based on something I wrote about 20 years ago. I believe that the original quote was different. I stated that only about 10% of the fish exposed to cyanide were of interest to aquarists. Hence, only about 10% of the cyanide-exposed fish were being collected. My estimate for acute mortality from cyanide exposure on the reef was 50% (not 90%).

Peter Rubec

Sounds like you just spoke with Mrs Woods? Did she offer advise as to how your writting got so twisted? Also , I dont think our industry collectors are squirting large areas like your scenario. Target squirtings seem to be the norm. Diver sees a fish dart into a coral head........diver squirts only the area he saw the target fish enter. With Blind cyanide squirting its too difficult to apply the correct concentration of juice....The concentration will vary greatly from one area of the reef to another....one third too lite one third to strong and one third just right .{Back to the Plume issue}. What is the use of fishing if you kill the target fish .Target fish are in short supply in 2004...... The notion that fishermen Knuke the whole reef is something found in food fishing. Not blue tang or Angel collecting.

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, First, I did not help Dr. Woods write her report. I have only met her about twice at conferences. There are several "facts" that she has misquoted from my papers concerning cyanide use. I sent her an email about this about a year ago. But, by then the report was already finished and distributed to IUCN, ICRI etc. She did take the report off the MSC web site sometime after I voiced my concerns.

As far as our disagreement, I still maintain that the divers cannot control the cyanide concentrations used while collecting. They are selective about the species they collect. They have to be species in demand by the hobby and the ones that survive the initial cyanide exposure (we agree on that). My point was that many fish die needlessly because of the use of cyanide (she got that part right).

Peter Rubec

 

[clarionreef]

Kalk,
It is the repeated, 'proper' use of the stuff by many divers thruout the year...after year that ruins the most vital of coral habitat.
Measured, talented divers doing this right still kill their collecting areas.
This comes from their own long term observation and my own participation in it.
The divers never wanted to waste expensive cyanide and as witness to more application of it then any other honkey...[ meaning a lot more then those advising you] I can tell you for sure that the 'careful' dosing for angels and blue tangs still wiped out the corals.
They swirled in "brown snot" days after application. Dozens of divers in an area 225 days a year catch up to all the good corals after awhile and finish them off.
I never saw curtains of the stuff dumped everywhere...not even in food fishing. Discrediting a non event avoids the real issue of how the stuff in normally applied to the reef.
Attacking a false option to divert from the real one is a cute trick but reveals a motive that is hard to understand from a person who depends on the reef for his stock and trade.
As I've said before...you gotta get some new advisors.
Steve

 

[Kalkbreath]

So your are stating for the record that a food fishermen squirting for a three pound wrasse or grouper, uses the same volume and concentration of cyanide in his plume as that of a pet fish collector squirting a tiny four ounce copperband butterfly? I would like to see that pulled off in a lab....

 

[Kalkbreath]

I understand that repeated over use of any coral head , even using light doses of cyanide when collecting two ounce fish will over the long run effect the coral. But that does not explain the wide spread cyanide damage happening in PI. If collectors are concentrating on the same coral heads as you suggest then that would mean even a smaller number of total coral heads being effected. 800,000 cyanide fish {20% of 4mill}per years is how many squirts per kilometer per year? ......not many . Especially if the squirts are concentrated on the same coral heads as you claim! Four fish per squirt, ten squirts per coral head and what we are left with is twenty-thousand squirts divided by 100,000+ square kilometers! That hardly explains the current rate of cyanide dammage. I Am in no way supporting the idea that cyanide collection if a good thing but unless we find a way to stem the larger food fishermen's use of cyanide, even ending the hobby collection altogether will have little effect on the current rate of damage.

 

[Anonymous]

I understand that repeated over use of any coral head , even using light doses of cyanide when collecting two ounce fish will over the long run effect the coral. But that does not explain the wide spread cyanide damage happening in PI.

correct, it doesn't

that's because your opinion as stated is just opinion and not fact

the fact that cyanide instantly kill corals on contact explains it wonderfully, though

 

[Kalkbreath]

Thats never been shown to be true......Its never been demonstrated that it is possible to kill the coral and not the fish in any tests performed to validate that notion ............ you agree that hobby fish are sent to the US alive. So either hobby fish are not collected with cyanide which is why even cyanide prone fish like blue tangs and blue face angels hardly ever show any signs of having been poisoned .....or tiny doses of cyanide cyanide do not kill the fish..... Once the level of concentration is high enough to kill the coral the fish also die. Thats not how pet fish are collected. They are for the most part collected alive . But further more your not following my point. There is not enough hobby fishing taking place. Even if every single hobby fish from PI was collected with cyanide and every single squirt killed the coral the fish were hiding within. Four million squirts [one for each fish }spread out over 365 days and across 150,000 square kilometers .......is how many squirts a day per square kilometer? Thats assuming each of the 2 million damsels is collected one at a time mind you! Even with a silly scenario like one fish per squirt .......What will you say when hobby collection in PI is stopped altogether ......and yet the corals there continue to die even at a greater rate of decline? I dont like cyanidefishing any more then you. But I cant help but understand that something else bigger and vaster must be at work there .......

 

[Anonymous]

But I cant help but understand that something else bigger and vaster must be at work there .......

Kalk, if you bring God into this, I'll sick the Sump Dogs on you...

Peace,

Chip

 

[Anonymous]

Thats never been shown to be true......Its never been demonstrated that it is possible to kill the coral and not the fish in any tests performed to validate that notion ............ you agree that hobby fish are sent to the US alive. So either hobby fish are not collected with cyanide which is why even cyanide prone fish like blue tangs and blue face angels hardly ever show any signs of having been poisoned .....or tiny doses of cyanide cyanide do not kill the fish..... . Thats not how pet fish are collected. They are for the most part collected alive . But further more your not following my point. There is not enough hobby fishing taking place. Even if every single hobby fish from PI was collected with cyanide and every single squirt killed the coral the fish were hiding within. Four million squirts [one for each fish }spread out over 365 days and across 150,000 square kilometers .......is how many squirts a day per square kilometer? Thats assuming each of the 2 million damsels is collected one at a time mind you! Even with a silly scenario like one fish per squirt .......What will you say when hobby collection in PI is stopped altogether ......and yet the corals there continue to die even at a greater rate of decline? I dont like cyanidefishing any more then you. But I cant help but understand that something else bigger and vaster must be at work there .......

please don't tell me what i agree or disagree with- i'm more than capable of making those decisions on my own

you agree that plenty of fish and inverts arrive in this contry d.o.a.

given that most of the cyanide (if not all) is INTERNAL, and not obvious to the naked eye, how can you make the assertion "blue face angels hardly ever show any signs of having been poisoned"? i've seen plenty come in not eating, or eating that waste away and don't show signs of any disease/ parasite infestation

But further more your not following my point. There is not enough hobby fishing taking place.

dear kalk

you almost NEVER really have a point :wink:

in the first place,you have really no idea how much 'fishing' relative to any area is taking place.

you have no idea as to what happens to a cyanide 'squirt' in ocean currents - it can cover quite a wider area than you seem to think - it spreads out after release! one small squirt may hit a yards wide patch of coral, killing it INSTANTLY-only to show its visual deterioration after a day or so

here's a question

where do you get the idea that only one squirt per fish is used? i doubt you can claim anything about the actual practice or technique-seeing as you not only have never seen the practice 1st hand- you don't acknowledge pictorial data pertaining to squirt amounts, and area spread of a cyanide

Once the level of concentration is high enough to kill the coral the fish also die

pure bs

utter kaka

ridiculous

sorry kalk, but you, as usual, really are clueless, when it comes to cyanide, how it works, what and how it affects

the idea of an lfs owner coming to the defense of an environmental POISON, a toxic substance, is disgusting

cyanide becomes instantly absorbable through skin when it's in dissolved in salt water

i guess you're ok w/all the people who are slowly killing themselves via cyanide absorption? what about their children who play with the stuff in their own backyard

you're backing of such a practice for any reason is disgusting, and morally irreprehensible

 

[Kalkbreath]

Blaming the Aquarium industry has gone on for too long. All attempts at proving the guilt have failed. When testing did happen, results like 8% and 18% seemed not to faze the anti industry types. Yet even though twice as many fish were imported during those years as today. How were twice as many fish imported with only 8% being done so with juice? It showed that it is possible to collect with very little cyanide use . Why are we so sure the use of cyanide by our industry is today a problem? Laboratory testing By People like Peter has never shown it possible to kill the coral by exposing it to cyanide and not kill the the fish in the test as well.......period. Sure it quite easy to kill coral with cyanide .......gasoline and ever warm water will do it. Show me a test that causes the coral to bleach and yet the fish to live on for months ........and you would have a real world comparison........As for fish dying during transport because they were collected with cyanide ...THE DOA rates experienced by importers is about 7%! Then another 7% DAA .... Hardly what you would expect from poisoned fish that have been kept in plastic bags for better part of seven days . Even fish from Hawaii and ORA come in with some DOA . Is that from cyanide as well? And why do Prone cyanide fish seem to favor the best in transport? How often do Blue tangs or Blue faces come in DOA? 2%? Lastly , Why is it so hard to understand that .... There are not enough fish collected for our hobby from PI to be responsible for the wide spread cyanide like damage in the region. ...Plain and simple. People fishing for food and not caring if the fish die during capture tend to use extremely high levels of cyanide {remember the tale of fishermen dumping overboard handfuls of cyanide pellets? Trust me , those fishermen were not out collecting Baggii Cardinals....... Food fishing ....thats 82 million potential fishermen by the way............seems to make more sense that people whom eat fish as 50% of their protein diet would demand quite a bit of fish . Whats 82 million times two fish a week? 160 million food fish? Add the reported 36 kilos per person exported each year and what you have is THREE TRILLION KILOS of food fish !

 

[clarionreef]

Kalk,
Now you've done it.
You've removed the reason for MAC.
No real issue...no need for remedy, deodorant or what have you!
Your vision of a guiltless trade might not set well with them though...cause it would mean that they got all dressed up for nothing.

You also deny cause for the Cassandras to cry and bewail the eco-armeggadon.
Lastly you suggest that the use of cyanide to collect is a red herring and rather benign if and when it is used.
I don't know why your ideas are not more popular because they are exactly what most dealers and hobbyist want to hear.
I think that in the right hands with the right plan, a good case could be constructed to proclaim that the issue has been solved and that people can get back to peddlin without worry.
Converting the invested eco-people though to a 'peacetime economy' will be a challenge. They may need the 'calamity' to justify themselves.
In fact, if not for the divers testimony and my own experience, I can see a great benefit in deciding to agree with you.
Steve

 

[Kalkbreath]

Now now.....There is plenty still to due......and any hobby cyanide is too much . You know that ending reeform is not what Im about. We as a hobby need to do all we can to collect nicely.............But stop blending the food fish industry with ours........ There may come a time with which we will need to find out just who's doing what in order to exculpate our selves. If I was a government official and I saw all the cyanide destruction the food fish industry is inflicting on the reefs, but I though it was the pet industries work ......I would shut us down ASAP. ........ Thats the kind of situation your heading us into . Even if we end cyanide use in our industry ......they are going to blame us any and all cyanide damage. Its time to separate our selves and determine whats our part and whats the food fish industrys part .......otherwise were going to be left being blamed for both!

 

[clarionreef]

REGARDING FOOD FISHING;
THERE ARE SO MANY TROPICAL FISH DEPOTS WHERE THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CYANIDE FOOD FISHING AT ALL.
THE NAPOLEON WRASSE AND PANTHER GROUPERS HAVE DISAPPEARED FROM MOST OF THE PHILIPPINES LONG AGO.

You make the food fish argument as if it were universal. The target cyanide live food fish for the H.K. market is mainly in the outlying areas and areas where there is no law enforcement.
There is no competition between cyanide food fish and aquarium fish in most places now as they work differently...and in different places.
Palawan is the main live food fish area yet is not the main aquarium fish area.
Many activities ruin the reefs and OURS is the one WE pay for. Hiding our crime behind that of others gives an inaccurate picture of whats going on. There are many villages that see aquarium fish as a last resort BECAUSE of the lack of food fish in the area...and especially live food fish.

The aquarium trade is at an end game in many places as there are so few classic corals left to provide cover.
No coral, few fish. No one makes profit off dead reefs.
Blaming another trade doesn't help us nor exonerate us from our own complicity in the destruction of the peoples coral reefs thruout S.E.Asia.
Steve