• Why not take a moment to introduce yourself to our members?

Kalkbreath

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
cortez marine":2suwcv36 said:
Kalk,
We can speak for ourselves with more certainty then others.
Obviously that much isn't coming in DOA. Only a child would think that for every 20 bottles of wine we order, 10 or more break before stocking them.
Its a bogus issue grabbed onto by people who can't think of other ways to contribute.
To take abberrant events and puport them to be the norm is irresponsible.
Steve
Yes, But thats the New Steve! It would have been advantagous to have convinced Peter last year . Instead of two weeks before his final workings :wink:
 

MaryHM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Actually I re-read some of the post from last year when we all discussed the Frank Study. And you did dispute the data quite loudly . But if next year every single Congressmen thinks Peter and Franks propaganda is true ................Then would you agree that you under estimated the scope of this poo poo ?

Then maybe you should re-read more often before claiming to know where I stand on issues. Other than Wayne, that is the singlemost aggravating thing about this forum- people making assumptions. You know what they say happens when you assume...

Underestimated the scope? I'm not sure what that means. If you're saying that I underestimated the power of those statistics, I guess I really didn't think about them that much. I just did what I always do- give my opinion on the subject. And as you stated I did it quite loudly. Even talked to Frank on the phone. Who knows what power they will ultimately have. Hopefully if it ever gets to that point I'll have my little cabin in the mountains and I won't really care. :)
 

Kalkbreath

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Kalkbreath":4cxbtye1 said:
Actually I like this quote.....
While my fellow retailers in your study were bringing in 805 ribbon eels in 1997 I brought in none. While they were bringing in 1390 box fish I might have brought in 2 or 3 in 1997. I probably brought in 50 or more royal grammas. BTW the number of O.Meleagris at 530 seems incredibly high for a fish that doesn't show up in high numbers on the availability lists, when compared to other common fish in the study. These bright retailers brought in 1243 hardy and plentiful Royal grammas and 1390 rare and touchy box and cube fish. They brought in 1061 yellow tangs and 917 purple tangs. I probably brought in 10 yellows to every purple. They brought in 680 difficult moorish idols and only 612 porcupine puffers which I find to be much hardier than the average dealer in the study. I also don't understand how the numbers on S. splendidus (green mandarin) and S. picturatus (psychedelic) ended up being so similar. S. splendidus is offered in much higher numbers and is more attractive. All things being equal I would sell about 7 splendidus to every one picturatus. The low number of green chromis compared to the other damsels doesn't jive with the numbers on the mostly commonly imported species John Brandt listed either.
I actually did the math with the most popular fishes DOA DAA results from Franks data........See, of the total fishes imported over half the fish are within the top ten group . Of that group {the majority of imported fish} my first go around came in at less then twenty percent. Peter did it ever cross your mind to determine what the DOA DAA rate for all the stores on the East coast might be? Yes perhaps the selected stores came in at 60%! But the remaining several thousand stores would have to import far fewer of the fish like Box fish and blue ribbon eels. Because not enough of those difficult species were imported that year for the remaining thousands of stores to get any in . The stores in your survey seemed to hoard more then half of the total number of those fish species for the year! Imagine the odds of Frank choosing the the few stores that imported difficult fish by the box loads ,Yet chose NOT to bring in the most popular fish and hearty fish in similar ratios that the average stores do! ! :wink:
 

Kalkbreath

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Peter, in order to make that nonsense into anything worthwhile, One would have to take a fish like green chromis {the number one import}or yellow tangs and give those species far more weight in the average then Blue ribbon eels or box fish. There are ten species in your data that collectivly are imported less then yellow tangs. Yet in your data, those ten fish carry ten times more weight in the outcome of the statistics. Garbage in in garbage out :wink:
 

MaryHM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I don't publish scientific papers (thank God), so I don't know whether or not a phone survey such as Frank conducted would hold up to scientific peer review. Peter?
 

dizzy

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Kalkbreath":3fi74wq2 said:
Actually I like this quote.....
While my fellow retailers in your study were bringing in 805 ribbon eels in 1997 I brought in none. While they were bringing in 1390 box fish I might have brought in 2 or 3 in 1997. I probably brought in 50 or more royal grammas. BTW the number of O.Meleagris at 530 seems incredibly high for a fish that doesn't show up in high numbers on the availability lists, when compared to other common fish in the study. These bright retailers brought in 1243 hardy and plentiful Royal grammas and 1390 rare and touchy box and cube fish. They brought in 1061 yellow tangs and 917 purple tangs. I probably brought in 10 yellows to every purple. They brought in 680 difficult moorish idols and only 612 porcupine puffers which I find to be much hardier than the average dealer in the study. I also don't understand how the numbers on S. splendidus (green mandarin) and S. picturatus (psychedelic) ended up being so similar. S. splendidus is offered in much higher numbers and is more attractive. All things being equal I would sell about 7 splendidus to every one picturatus. The low number of green chromis compared to the other damsels doesn't jive with the numbers on the mostly commonly imported species John Brandt listed either.

Whoever authored that quote is frickin brilliant. It's obviously someone with years of experience and a intimate knowledge of how the industry works, and how it should work from the inside out. We could sure use more people like him. :wink:
 

clarionreef

Advanced Reefer
Location
San Francisco
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Ooohhh,
Be careful about impugning "bogosity" [ pertaining to being bogus ].
These are serious accusations and may open you up for abuse of the overly litigious cuture of suing every one for anything.
Steve
No study should ever go to print without a rent paying brick and mortar dealer to check the absurdities.
The sad thing is...people who don't know a zebrasoma xanthurum from a z. flavescens will still insist on parity of numbers between the two among dealers.
Eco/tourist ...cough... researchers have done this stuff a lot in the Philippines and will claim that one old, jumbo blueface indicates resources present...helping to 'prove the area is available for harvest.'
 

MaryHM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Man, if I could find the frickin brilliant author of the above posted quote, I'd ask him where he found those numbers. They look mighty interesting and I'd like to get a look-see for myself. Mitch, any idea where I might find this genius?
 

MaryHM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Well, luckily I'm a part time genius and was able to find it myself. ;)

I tell ya what, I constantly read and re-read on here because there is always something I miss. Here are a few things I found in my trip back through time...

A quote from Frank:

The study itself is by no means scientific nor was it meant to be.

How, may I ask, does a study that is presented as by NO MEANS SCIENTIFIC end up getting published by a scientist as reliable information in a scientific journal? This is the kind of crap that absolutely infuriates me. Peter took a bunch of numbers that had no basis in anything even remotely scientific and used them to paint the industry in a bad light. What gives with that, Peter? What was the purpose for using those unscientifically obtained numbers in a scientific journal? Just so you'd have something to say? Cripes! In deference to Len, I'm really holding back here..... (Don't get used to it, Len. I save the good stuff for Wayne. ;) )

In another place, Frank stated that importers, exporters, and retailers were used. How in the hell can you do a thorough interview with 270-279 individual businesses over (as Peter stated) 25 shipments each and come up with only 1067 yellow tangs. Following is some real math (not KALKulus)

276 businesses over 25 shipments each brought in a total of 1067 yellow tangs. 276x25= 6900 total shipments. 1067tangs/6900shipments is an average of .15 yellow tangs per shipment. So I'm supposed to believe that each business (some of which are IMPORTERS which by definition deal in high volume) only brought in 1 yellow tang every 6 shipments?? You've got to be joking!!!!!!!!!!!

Another gem from Frank:

Here's one for you, A young kid that worked in a store in brooklyn many years back relayed this one to me. The owner routinely mark up his DOA's intentionally so he would get free fish. When the kid asked him why he did it his reply was, How the F*&&^% do they know how many fish died.... LMAO.

And Peter was asking earlier "Why in the world would an innocent little retailer who is only interested in the truth lie about DOAs???". Well, I told you Peter. And apparently your boy Frank agrees with me.

I can't even begin to explain my disgust with what Peter has done. At least Frank was honest about the scientific validity of his numbers. If there were licenses for scientists who publish papers, Peter's should be revoked. My 7th grader could conduct better science that that. You should really be ashamed, Peter. I hope using shoddy science to back up your personal feelings toward this industry makes you feel good. And to think I used to believe you really cared about this industry and trying to work on fixing the problems. Now I think you're only interested in problems- whether real or made up- so you can have something to publish. There are times in my life when I have been so freaking naive. Once was believing the MAC line. The other was believing yours.
 

MaryHM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Archiving this to prove the 25 shipments per store thing:

The study that Wayne (Naesco) is referring to was the telephone survey Frank Lallo conducted of 300 retailers in 1997. I referred to the main result in my paper titled "Net-caught cyanide-free fish for the marine aquarium trade." published in the scientific journal Aquarium Science and Conservation 3: 37-51 (2001).

Vitz seems to want to belittle Frank's efforts. That is unfortunate. Frank is a marine hobbyist. He put two years into the study and thousands of dollars of his own funds in telephone calls. He gained the trust of over 300 retailers (something most scientists like myself could not do). He tracked about 25 shipments per store. Hence, he obtained information on individual shipments and individual species per shipment. There is so much data that I am still analyzing it.

While Frank agrees that a more recent study is needed, lets not belittle Frank's efforts. It shows what one individual can do that cares about the future of our hobby. His intent and mine are a sustainable hobby. Hobbyists should be able to buy fish that don't die from their retail stores. Retailers also should expect that the fish they buy are properly handled and properly collected so that they don't die.

If the MAC can deliver fish that live, I will support them. So far, that is not the case. Hence, we must deal with the other Case (Ed Case and H.R. 4928).

So, while you guys bash Naesco, your hobby/business and the fish supply that supports it is threatened with closure because you failed to do something (anything will do). How about supporting the net-training fund with AMDA?

Peter
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
PeterIMA":nwtxrmwa said:
The study that Wayne (Naesco) is referring to was the telephone survey Frank Lallo conducted of 300 retailers in 1997. I referred to the main result in my paper titled "Net-caught cyanide-free fish for the marine aquarium trade." published in the scientific journal Aquarium Science and Conservation 3: 37-51 (2001).

Vitz seems to want to belittle Frank's efforts. That is unfortunate. Frank is a marine hobbyist. He put two years into the study and thousands of dollars of his own funds in telephone calls. He gained the trust of over 300 retailers (something most scientists like myself could not do). He tracked about 25 shipments per store. Hence, he obtained information on individual shipments and individual species per shipment. There is so much data that I am still analyzing it.

While Frank agrees that a more recent study is needed, lets not belittle Frank's efforts. It shows what one individual can do that cares about the future of our hobby. His intent and mine are a sustainable hobby. Hobbyists should be able to buy fish that don't die from their retail stores. Retailers also should expect that the fish they buy are properly handled and properly collected so that they don't die.

If the MAC can deliver fish that live, I will support them. So far, that is not the case. Hence, we must deal with the other Case (Ed Case and H.R. 4928).

So, while you guys bash Naesco, your hobby/business and the fish supply that supports it is threatened with closure because you failed to do something (anything will do). How about supporting the net-training fund with AMDA?

Peter

heh i missed that one

peter, nothing i've said either belittles frank's study, nor does it even go in that direction

the study was actually a fairly cool and noble effort to maybe try and get a feel for the biz, however non-concrete, and amateurish a method it may be

it's the presentation and misrepresentation of the study that i'm belittling, as deserved by the presentation and misrepresentation of the study, imo :wink:

someone somewhere should be told 'shame on you' :x

i think it seriously damages your credibility as a scientist-at least it does to me :(
 

MaryHM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
And yet more lies from Peter's paper. The link to the paper is here:

http://www.spc.int/coastfish/News/LRF/7/LRF7-08.htm

Check out this quote from the paper:

A telephone survey by IMA, during 1997, of over 300 US aquarium fish dealers, determined that mortality at the retail level of marine fish was on average: 60% on the east coast, 35% in the mid-west, and 30% on the west coast of the USA, during the first three days after their arrival at the stores.

Since when is Frank Lallo, self proclaimed hobbyist and possibly plumber by profession, a member of team IMA??? Did you just think that by saying IMA conducted the study that it would lend more credibility to the numbers?? And it wasn't over 300 dealers, it was 270-279, but in the grand scheme of deception I can overlook that one as a mistake. Yuck. I need to go take a shower after wading through this pile of crap.

To keep with the musical theme, in the immortal words of Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails...

TERRIBLE LIE
 

dizzy

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Honestly Mary I think you are being way to hard on Peter. Good honest data has been impossible to acquire. Peter won't know what type of volume makes sense or not. I blame Frank Lallo for misleading Peter. He knows if he really contacted 300 stores that fed him all that personal information or not. I think he might have spoken with one or two stores. Rick Oellers was having a lot of problems with getting his fish on time back then. Ask Rick if he was in the study.
Mitch
 

MaryHM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Putting on my tinfoil hat for a moment:

Maybe Peter did this to get funding for IMA??? We all know an NGO has to identify a problem before they can suck off the funding teat to fix it. It's well known that IMA's funding has been in the crapper for the past few years. Maybe this was a last ditch effort to try to scare up some more grants.
 

MaryHM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Honestly Mary I think you are being way to hard on Peter. Good honest data has been impossible to acquire. Peter won't know what type of volume makes sense or not. I blame Frank Lallo for misleading Peter.

Are you kidding me, Mitch?? As a scientist, it's Peter's DUTY to verify his sources of information. I do not think that Frank misled Peter in the least. And if he did, it's still Peter's fault because Peter is the one who published them without question. Peter knows proper science, I have no doubt about that. And I have no doubt that he knew this study was not proper science. I think Peter finally found some numbers and decided to jump on them no matter how unscientifically based (biased) they were. If Peter is going to be writing papers on this industry, it is his JOB to know what type of volume makes sense. And if for some reason he doesn't know, it's his RESPONSIBILITY to find someone who can help with the verification process.
 

MaryHM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Rick Oellers was having a lot of problems with getting his fish on time back then.

Funny thing about Rick. I ship to Portland, ME (Rick's airport) almost every week with rarely a problem. Chalk it up to one more thing that has changed in the past several years.
 

Len

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
No one minds you being very critical, Mary, but you are being very harsh and uncivil to Peter et al. I believe that's what Mitch is referring to.

Don't be civil because I ask you guys to. Be civil because it's the mature, responsible, constructive thing to do. I am honestly amazed I have to consistently remind you guys to play nice.
 

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:


Top