Do you even read what people say or do you just type to see your name in print? At the time I thought IMA did the study. I had no reason to doubt them. Since then the details have come to light and they're pretty ugly. You seem to want to participate in this thread, so why don't you tell me what your answers to the 2 questions I've posed to Peter are???
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
DOA/Shipping and Handling in the Trade
- Thread starter Kalkbreath
- Start date
Do you even read what people say or do you just type to see your name in print? At the time I thought IMA did the study. I had no reason to doubt them. Since then the details have come to light and they're pretty ugly. You seem to want to participate in this thread, so why don't you tell me what your answers to the 2 questions I've posed to Peter are???
MaryHM":2exjwa39 said:You were given an opportunity to comment on his study BEFORE anyone else read it and you made no comment.
Do you even read what people say or do you just type to see your name in print? At the time I thought IMA did the study. I had no reason to doubt them. Since then the details have come to light and they're pretty ugly. You seem to want to participate in this thread, so why don't you tell me what your answers to the 2 questions I've posed to Peter are???
Mary you had a chance than to act and you chose to remain silent.
You acquiesced to the facts presented then and are estopped from criticizing the writer of the paper now.
This stuff is basic stuff. By belabouring the point you lose any credibility you had.
Mary. I never found the DOA DAA data per species to be that far off todays rates . In Fact last year when we tallied the Data for all reported species, it was far less the 60% Peter claimed. Neither Peter or Frank could ever explain why or how they came up with 60% ? If you take a look at the DOA DAA per species its not that crazy and may actually have been accurate for the time. [1997] It was the incredibly high number of risky species that pulled the total DOA DAA way up {but still never close to 60%.} Peter, even today Continues to avoid the issue of why the data Frank posted never came close to 60% ? Or why so few of the most popular fish species were so limited in the data? It might do some good for everyone to go back and refresh our memories on the DOA per species that Frank posted last year . Its still all there on the board.
naesco":3stimfln said:Mary you had a chance than to act and you chose to remain silent.
You acquiesced to the facts presented then and are estopped from criticizing the writer of the paper now.
This stuff is basic stuff. By belabouring the point you lose any credibility you had.
Wayne,
I agree that criticizing a writer is inappropriate. However, it is always appropriate to discuss issues regarding the accuracy of a scientific study in light of new data or re-evaluated old data sets. Even if the person bringing up the issue might have reviewed a draft of a paper.
BTW, I like Mary's new avitar.
-Lee
MaryHM":3vwzrm5i said:Maybe you missed this, Wayne.
Why don't you tell me what your answers to the 2 questions I've posed to Peter are???
You constantly want to tell me what I should and shouldn't do and what is/isn't going to happen. Answer a question from me for a change.
I don't have the answers but let me say this.
Even if you heavily discount the numbers they are still completely unacceptable.
Total Fish Reported
West - 11965
Midwest - 6947
East - 12177
TOTAL - 31089
DOA's
West - 1192
Midwest - 746
East - 1723
TOTAL - 3661
DOA %
West - 10.0
Midwest - 10.7
East - 14.1
OVERALL Naesco , even with the abnormal number of risky fish. The DOAs in Franks study were not that grand. If we exclude the fish that had no business being counted in the data, like Blue ribbon eels [which were counted twice for some reason}and the box fish. The DOA rate on the rest of the fish were around 8% for the east coast and 6 percent in the west and 6% for the Midwest.......! Is that still too high!
West - 11965
Midwest - 6947
East - 12177
TOTAL - 31089
DOA's
West - 1192
Midwest - 746
East - 1723
TOTAL - 3661
DOA %
West - 10.0
Midwest - 10.7
East - 14.1
OVERALL Naesco , even with the abnormal number of risky fish. The DOAs in Franks study were not that grand. If we exclude the fish that had no business being counted in the data, like Blue ribbon eels [which were counted twice for some reason}and the box fish. The DOA rate on the rest of the fish were around 8% for the east coast and 6 percent in the west and 6% for the Midwest.......! Is that still too high!
Also , even when using Franks Data.......Of the top twenty imported fish species , like #1) Green chromis and #2) yellow tangs #3) #4) etc. ............ the DOA for the top twenty species was about 5% ! And keep in mind ....the top twenty fish species represent 50% or more of the total 12 million fish !
Peter's statement earlier in this thread:
Peter's statement in the paper:
As an olive leaf extension to Len, I'll assume the general public reading this doesn't need me to spell out the flaw to them.[/quote]
When I wrote the paper in 2001, I wished to do a study of mortality in conjunction with AMDA members.
Peter's statement in the paper:
AMDA members are being surveyed to assess whether the net-caught fish are more cost competitive compared to cyanide-caught fish for the marine ornamental fish trade because of reduced mortality through the chain from reef to retailer.
As an olive leaf extension to Len, I'll assume the general public reading this doesn't need me to spell out the flaw to them.[/quote]
[/quote]MaryHM":2k2fj3np said:Peter's statement earlier in this thread:
When I wrote the paper in 2001, I wished to do a study of mortality in conjunction with AMDA members.
Peter's statement in the paper:
AMDA members are being surveyed to assess whether the net-caught fish are more cost competitive compared to cyanide-caught fish for the marine ornamental fish trade because of reduced mortality through the chain from reef to retailer.
As an olive leaf extension to Len, I'll assume the general public reading this doesn't need me to spell out the flaw to them.
Mary I really don't think you should draw too many conclusions until you speak with Rick Oellers and see what his role was in all of this. I do remember a survery, but I thought it was MAC trying to get retailers to say they would pay more for MAC certified fish. I believe they were looking for material for the business plan to sell the MAMTI scheme to GEF.
This was around 2000-2001. Rick O. should know a lot. Lance or Mikki Ichinotsubo now of Living Color may also be able to shed some light on this issue.
Mitch
Nevermind, I found the link. It was Kyle who compiled all of the data.
Want to know something funny? The only thread in the history of this forum where myself, Kalk, Steve, Mitch AND John Brandt have actually agreed on is the thread where we're all telling Frank that his numerous are ridiculous. Interesting. Yet Peter still defends them.
I have a hard time believing that Frank followed 6900 shipments over the course of a year. That's means he would be talking to 19 stores every day, never taking a day off. The logistics of that alone are practically impossible, especially if you have a job. I have a hard time believing that some guy calls up 270ish stores and just with his charm and personality convinces them to turn over all of this sensitive business information. Information that he himself admits retailers lie about on a regular basis. And I have a hard time understanding how Peter fell for this. Peter is not stupid by any stretch of the imagination. This whole thing stinks like a bad batch of turbo snails.
Want to know something funny? The only thread in the history of this forum where myself, Kalk, Steve, Mitch AND John Brandt have actually agreed on is the thread where we're all telling Frank that his numerous are ridiculous. Interesting. Yet Peter still defends them.
I have a hard time believing that Frank followed 6900 shipments over the course of a year. That's means he would be talking to 19 stores every day, never taking a day off. The logistics of that alone are practically impossible, especially if you have a job. I have a hard time believing that some guy calls up 270ish stores and just with his charm and personality convinces them to turn over all of this sensitive business information. Information that he himself admits retailers lie about on a regular basis. And I have a hard time understanding how Peter fell for this. Peter is not stupid by any stretch of the imagination. This whole thing stinks like a bad batch of turbo snails.
Mary I really don't think you should draw too many conclusions until you speak with Rick Oellers and see what his role was in all of this.
I was on the board then as well, Mitch. If I'm wrong and a survey was conducted, then I'll apologize. All of this did happen a few years back and a lot has happened since then. If there was a survey, then I would bet that it was MAC- not the IMA. If the IMA had done it, Peter wouldn't have said he "wished to".
Is Rick still an AMDA member? Is he in your region? I don't even have his contact information anymore.
Mary,
Seems like Rick did not renew according to Liz. I think he was in Randy's jurisdiction. I know at the AMDA meeting last year he was real upset that we had been working on the net fund. Rick Pruess too. The strongest MAC supporters were the ones most openly opposed to the net fund dirction. Go figure that one.
Mitch
Seems like Rick did not renew according to Liz. I think he was in Randy's jurisdiction. I know at the AMDA meeting last year he was real upset that we had been working on the net fund. Rick Pruess too. The strongest MAC supporters were the ones most openly opposed to the net fund dirction. Go figure that one.
Mitch
dizzy":323k4iue said:Mary,
Seems like Rick did not renew according to Liz. I think he was in Randy's jurisdiction. I know at the AMDA meeting last year he was real upset that we had been working on the net fund. Rick Pruess too. The strongest MAC supporters were the ones most openly opposed to the net fund dirction. Go figure that one.
Mitch
no surprise there, hehe
remember where mac is located, and where the net source in hawaii is located :wink: (just down the street from mac's offices)
mac has been anti true net , and anti net fund, from day one
it's a cash cow blocker for mac :wink:
Just for the record,
I was trying to conduct a survey with AMDA members on behalf of the IMA. I suggest you consult past issues of your bulletin to see where I proposed this. Rick Oellers and I planned to collaborate. It was not related in any way with the MACs' programs.
I also knew Frank Lallo (since about 1994) from email postings about mortality and other issues on CompuServe. We both attended a MACNA meeting where the MAC was first discussed in 1997.
Sometime after that meeting, Frank Lallo told me he had been conducting a telephone survey. I asked for the data repeatedly. Then, my wife ended up in the hospital and I dropped efforts to get the data from Frank. What I published in 2001 was based on information provided by Frank. So, part of the reason for the lack of more detailed analyses of these data (by myself) was the delay in getting it from Frank.
Frank's survey was not an IMA survey, although it was understood that he would share the data with the IMA.
Peter
I was trying to conduct a survey with AMDA members on behalf of the IMA. I suggest you consult past issues of your bulletin to see where I proposed this. Rick Oellers and I planned to collaborate. It was not related in any way with the MACs' programs.
I also knew Frank Lallo (since about 1994) from email postings about mortality and other issues on CompuServe. We both attended a MACNA meeting where the MAC was first discussed in 1997.
Sometime after that meeting, Frank Lallo told me he had been conducting a telephone survey. I asked for the data repeatedly. Then, my wife ended up in the hospital and I dropped efforts to get the data from Frank. What I published in 2001 was based on information provided by Frank. So, part of the reason for the lack of more detailed analyses of these data (by myself) was the delay in getting it from Frank.
Frank's survey was not an IMA survey, although it was understood that he would share the data with the IMA.
Peter
Peter, can you please answer these questions:
1. Do you think that Frank's survey was scientifically conducted? If no, then how is it responsible science to publish them without indicating that fact?
2. Concerning my yellow tang mathematics. Do you see how flawed the data must be if that is the math that comes out of it? Can you see the reality of the inconsistencies?
1. Do you think that Frank's survey was scientifically conducted? If no, then how is it responsible science to publish them without indicating that fact?
2. Concerning my yellow tang mathematics. Do you see how flawed the data must be if that is the math that comes out of it? Can you see the reality of the inconsistencies?
Mary,
From what I have seen, Frank's survey was conducted in an unbiased fashion. With the proper analyses, I believe it can make a good scientific paper. It certainly beats some of the surveys conducted by Ph.Ds who support the MAC (e.g., telephone/web-based surveys concerning what would you be willing to pay for a Queen angelfish if it was net-caught?). From a scientific perspective I believe that Frank gathered useful data.
From a political perspective, I sympathize with your concerns. The proposed legislation and its ramifications did not exist when Frank collected his data. It will make it more difficult to collect unbiased data associated with any future study.
I think you have some legitimate concerns about the data posted by Frank on Reefs.org (e.g., yellow tang data). I plan to take a closer look at this.
Peter
From what I have seen, Frank's survey was conducted in an unbiased fashion. With the proper analyses, I believe it can make a good scientific paper. It certainly beats some of the surveys conducted by Ph.Ds who support the MAC (e.g., telephone/web-based surveys concerning what would you be willing to pay for a Queen angelfish if it was net-caught?). From a scientific perspective I believe that Frank gathered useful data.
From a political perspective, I sympathize with your concerns. The proposed legislation and its ramifications did not exist when Frank collected his data. It will make it more difficult to collect unbiased data associated with any future study.
I think you have some legitimate concerns about the data posted by Frank on Reefs.org (e.g., yellow tang data). I plan to take a closer look at this.
Peter
From what I have seen, Frank's survey was conducted in an unbiased fashion
i would think that you would have had to have been present and listening to each call to make any determination of bias-at the least, if lallo is your only source, you have to consider HIS own bias, no ? :wink:
From a scientific perspective I believe that Frank gathered useful data.
:?:
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:
