cortez marine":jzz73mua said:
OH... that's why everybody was so intersted in my generator today...
I got in 7 battery powered air pumps, and sold them in 2 hours. Usually I stock 4 but sold them all last week...
I'm sick of this hurricane stuff... my friend in Grenada had his school flattened - St. George University...
But I digress....
Wayne - you're beginning to sound like Sir Kalkness....
So if you don't care what damage food fishing does, why care about MO industry? Either way the reef gets killed... why should you care which fishing sector does it?
Not that I'm expecting an answer, Wayne never answers a direct question.
Jenn <--- it's past my bedtime.
Like I posted before I care I care I care.
But I am going to see the cyanide MO thing right through to the end whatever that end might bring.
That is my goal; my focus;
When I have finished with cyanide in industry and the hobby that I love, I'm tackle something else.
But I am going to see the cyanide MO thing right through to the end whatever that end might bring.
That is my goal; my focus;
When I have finished with cyanide in industry and the hobby that I love, I'm tackle something else.
MaryHM":1b338s6g said:
Nope there is no chance that I need a back up. I got the whole Government of the good ole USA behind me.
Speaking of USA I was really disappointed to see the USA defeated by the Czeck Republic early n the early round of the World Hockey Cup semi finals.
I am sure that it comes as no surprise to anyone here that Canada won the cup in a spectacular game in Toronto last night.
Our whole country is celebrating the efforts and success of the greatest hockey team in the whole wide world.
God Bless North of America!!!
No question, foodfishing causes more damage, and more permanent damage at that.
Even if we set aside LIVE foodfish, for which NaCN sees widespread use, there is as-common blast fishing to consider. A cyanide event leaves a swath of dead and dying coral tissue, but leaves reef skeleta intact. Under most open reef conditions, this allows recruitment of coral larvae and continual shelter for fish species. In a blast fishing episode, coral tissue is initially left mostly-unharmed despite shattering of its skeleon, but in most situations, these living fragments die anyway, ground into fine rubble by water perturbation.
Let's not even get into the stealth reefkiller, which is the happily-waning business of fishpens --the sort where fish are confined and fed regularly.
The uneaten food accumulates on the surrounding seabottom, decomposing and turning it into a eutrophic dead zone.
Besides, there is simply no comparing the number of INCIDENTS of destructive foodfishing vs. that of destructive MO collection. There is further a massive local market for food fish, before we consider overseas demand from HK, Taiwan, the PROC, etc... Unlike MO exports, annual exports (not including contraband) and local consumption of LIVE food fish are measured in metric tons. That's still only a drop in the bucket compared to everyday errr, 'dead' food fish consumed.
As an aside: If you shut down the MO industry, you will be closing one of the only segments of the local fishing sector that actually ATTEMPTS self-reform.
Check this out:
Olango, Cebu can serve as a typical fishing town.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daily per capita catch (fishfood)
1950's ---------------- 20 kg
1960's ---------------- 20 kg
1970's ---------------- 10 kg (emergence of cyanide and blast fishing)
1980's ---------------- 5 kg (emergence of fine-mesh netting)
1990's ---------------- 2 kg
2000-2003 ----------- 2 kg*
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(source: CRMP 1998, *AgriBalita 2004)
Can you see the arrested fall?
Before you think self-correction, the number of fishermen and registered fishing vessels increased from 1998 to last year, and yet the fish catch held steady. What stopped the deterioration? Environmental laws came into being and in the late 80's LGU's were empowered to guard their own resources. A couple of fellas (one, then bearded, now balding) started preaching AND training MO collectors. Maybe it took time to take effact. It's a pity some of you want to give up just when results seem to be starting to show.
I feel that MO use of cyanide decreased dramatically and continues to hold. No disrespect to Peter (and his apparent chief source Dante), with his claim that cyanide use has exploded into massive proportions once more, but I'm not basing this on just Palawan or even just the Southern Tagalog. Go check PCG, SOLCOM and PNP records for MO-related arrests, and it's equally-easy to claim more cyanide abuse, or better policing and reportage.
The situation on the ground (or on the reef) is what ultimately counts. If you show me increases in reported incidents, that can be attributed to better reportage and detection, and really now: foodfish catch seems to have stopped declining, and my impression is a visible improvement in the health of reefs off Quezon, Zambales, Batangas, Mactan-Cebu. Palawan couldn't have changed except for the worse from the 'untouched late 70's, and again, foodfishing is the senior culprit. Did the squirters merely relocate, allowing recovery? Dunno. Steve has in the past pointed out increasing recourse to offshore reefs for MOs.
All I offer is that the reefs I visit look better than 10, 20 years ago.
Friends echo the assessment from elsewhere. Anecdotal as it is, I feel that sort of long term observation can be less removed from the fact than numbercrunching off of someones collation of yet someone else's survey.
Real progress will come in not just inceased tonnage of fish caught, but in the variety, size and quality that ought to accompany an incease in quantity. Same applies to MO.
You can care for the health of the reefs.
You can care for the health of the MO industry.
As one object feeds the other, it's ridiculous to concern one's self only with the culpability of the MO industry.
If one disregards the use of cyanide in food fish capture, one can't really be caring about the reefs welfare, nor about the MO industry that depends on healthy reefs. If so, what WOULD one be caring about?
I wonder if Her Excellency, The Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, Governor General of Canada, reads this board at all, or any of the bleeding hearts that help decide who gets the shiny medals? :lol:
If she did, or any of her staffers, Wayne would have about as much chance of winning the Order of Canada as a cardboard cat, chasing an asbestos mouse, through Hell.
Perhaps he'll make the "Cyanide Cartel's" Christmas card list... or at least he should get a thank-you note. Ditto from the food fish industry.... :roll:
Just food for thought
Jenn
If she did, or any of her staffers, Wayne would have about as much chance of winning the Order of Canada as a cardboard cat, chasing an asbestos mouse, through Hell.
Perhaps he'll make the "Cyanide Cartel's" Christmas card list... or at least he should get a thank-you note. Ditto from the food fish industry.... :roll:
Just food for thought
Jenn
Quote:
Food fishers also use dynamite. MO fishers don't. I'd like to hear Horge's opinion on this. Horge, which industry do you think does the most damage to PI reefs, or do they both do about the same?
No question, foodfishing causes more damage, and more permanent damage at that.
Even if we set aside LIVE foodfish, for which NaCN sees widespread use, there is as-common blast fishing to consider. A cyanide event leaves a swath of dead and dying coral tissue, but leaves reef skeleta intact. Under most open reef conditions, this allows recruitment of coral larvae and continual shelter for fish species. In a blast fishing episode, coral tissue is initially left mostly-unharmed despite shattering of its skeleon, but in most situations, these living fragments die anyway, ground into fine rubble by water perturbation.
REPLY to Horge: I agree that if you include dynamite fishing and other destructive fishing methods like cyanide fishing, then the food fishing is more destructive than the MO fishing (that uses cyanide and to a smaller extent nets). As far as which fishery uses more cyanide, this needs more study before an answer can be found.
Let's not even get into the stealth reefkiller, which is the happily-waning business of fishpens --the sort where fish are confined and fed regularly.
The uneaten food accumulates on the surrounding seabottom, decomposing and turning it into a eutrophic dead zone.
REPLY-Yes, see my recent posting on this. Again, I don't know how widespread the fish pens are. So, I can not say how widespread the problem is. It does seem strange that DA-BFAR is promoting fish pens, but cannot seem to develop strategies to stop destructive fishing?
Besides, there is simply no comparing the number of INCIDENTS of destructive foodfishing vs. that of destructive MO collection. There is further a massive local market for food fish, before we consider overseas demand from HK, Taiwan, the PROC, etc... Unlike MO exports, annual exports (not including contraband) and local consumption of LIVE food fish are measured in metric tons. That's still only a drop in the bucket compared to everyday errr, 'dead' food fish consumed.
REPLY-You are right that the dead fish trade in fishes caught using cyanide for local consumption in PI (and presumabley in other countries) is the big invisible problem. The CDT database needs to be further analyzed to help quantify this problem. But, it is very real.
As an aside: If you shut down the MO industry, you will be closing one of the only segments of the local fishing sector that actually ATTEMPTS self-reform.
REPLY-True and passing U.S. Legislation that does not influence the food fish trade, is not the total answer. But, it may help absolve the United States of contributing to a problem that needs to be dealt with by the exporting countries that seem incapable of protecting their marine resources (food and MO fishes, and the reefs themselves).
Check this out:
Olango, Cebu can serve as a typical fishing town.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daily per capita catch (fishfood)
1950's ---------------- 20 kg
1960's ---------------- 20 kg
1970's ---------------- 10 kg (emergence of cyanide and blast fishing)
1980's ---------------- 5 kg (emergence of fine-mesh netting)
1990's ---------------- 2 kg
2000-2003 ----------- 2 kg*
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(source: CRMP 1998, *AgriBalita 2004)
Can you see the arrested fall?
REPLY-No, where is it?
Before you think self-correction, the number of fishermen and registered fishing vessels increased from 1998 to last year, and yet the fish catch held steady. What stopped the deterioration?
REPLY-After a certain point the reefs are so degraded that there is no more decline (because very little is left).
Environmental laws came into being and in the late 80's LGU's were empowered to guard their own resources. A couple of fellas (one, then bearded, now balding) started preaching AND training MO collectors. Maybe it took time to take effect. It's a pity some of you want to give up just when results seem to be starting to show.
REPLY-I agree. It is a pity that the MO trade (importers, retailers, manufacturers) can't seem to dip into their pockets to support more net-training NOW.
I feel that MO use of cyanide decreased dramatically and continues to hold. No disrespect to Peter (and his apparent chief source Dante), with his claim that cyanide use has exploded into massive proportions once more, but I'm not basing this on just Palawan or even just the Southern Tagalog. Go check PCG, SOLCOM and PNP records for MO-related arrests, and it's equally-easy to claim more cyanide abuse, or better policing and reportage.
REPLY-Yes, the CDT database (see my published paper) indicated an increase in cyanide use in BOTH the MO and Food Fish (FF) trades from 1999 to 2000. After that there are other indicators (like the study by Dante Dalabajan, CDT data from BFAR, PNP reports etc.) that support the contention that cyanide use has increased.
The situation on the ground (or on the reef) is what ultimately counts. If you show me increases in reported incidents, that can be attributed to better reportage and detection, and really now: foodfish catch seems to have stopped declining, and my impression is a visible improvement in the health of reefs off Quezon, Zambales, Batangas, Mactan-Cebu.
REPLY-There are underwater surveys by the University of the Philippines nationwide done in the 1990s that provide evidence for the continued degredation of the reefs (admittedly not at the rate noted in the early 1980s). See the report done by Alan White (from which you pulled other numbers about the declining catch rates for the small scale-fisheries).
Palawan couldn't have changed except for the worse from the 'untouched late 70's, and again, foodfishing is the senior culprit. Did the squirters merely relocate, allowing recovery? Dunno. Steve has in the past pointed out increasing recourse to offshore reefs for MOs.
REPLY-Yes, the Palawan Reefs have become more degraded. The more recent reef surveys and fish counts from underwater surveys were posted on the web site for the Philippine Council for Sustainalble Development (PCSD). The only reef considered to be in the Excellent category was Tubbataha Reef (offshore in the Sulu Sea). However, even this has been degraded because of global warming (personal reports from Lynn Funkhouser and other published sources). Putting a guard on the reef by WWF may have helped stop cyanide fishing (until the grant ran out last year, and WWF cancelled the funding for the guard).
All I offer is that the reefs I visit look better than 10, 20 years ago.
Friends echo the assessment from elsewhere. Anecdotal as it is, I feel that sort of long term observation can be less removed from the fact than numbercrunching off of someones collation of yet someone else's survey.
REPLY-So, in your personnal (subjective) opinion there has been improvement that is not documented anywhere else?
Real progress will come in not just inceased tonnage of fish caught, but in the variety, size and quality that ought to accompany an incease in quantity. Same applies to MO.
REPLY-Can you document any of this?
You can care for the health of the reefs.
You can care for the health of the MO industry.
As one object feeds the other, it's ridiculous to concern one's self only with the culpability of the MO industry.
REPLY-Yes, but it is up to the PI government (municipal, regional, national) to enforce its existing laws to stop the degredation of the reefs. It it not the responsability of the US government (other than perhaps by providing foreign aid-like the present FISH program through USAID).
I think the PI government should explain how they wasted funding from the Asian Development Bank and the Japanese government (FSP and the more recent FRMP programs), not to mention all the funding previously provided for fisheries development programs like the Blue Revolution. What do you have to show for all the foreign assistance?
If one disregards the use of cyanide in food fish capture, one can't really be caring about the reefs welfare, nor about the MO industry that depends on healthy reefs. If so, what WOULD one be caring about?
REPLY-If the PI government and the MO trade cannot do anything, then the US is justified in imposing a ban on the MO trade by applying unattainable requirements on the MO trade (including both US and foreign interests). Is it fair? Probably not.
Peter Rubec
Food fishers also use dynamite. MO fishers don't. I'd like to hear Horge's opinion on this. Horge, which industry do you think does the most damage to PI reefs, or do they both do about the same?
No question, foodfishing causes more damage, and more permanent damage at that.
Even if we set aside LIVE foodfish, for which NaCN sees widespread use, there is as-common blast fishing to consider. A cyanide event leaves a swath of dead and dying coral tissue, but leaves reef skeleta intact. Under most open reef conditions, this allows recruitment of coral larvae and continual shelter for fish species. In a blast fishing episode, coral tissue is initially left mostly-unharmed despite shattering of its skeleon, but in most situations, these living fragments die anyway, ground into fine rubble by water perturbation.
REPLY to Horge: I agree that if you include dynamite fishing and other destructive fishing methods like cyanide fishing, then the food fishing is more destructive than the MO fishing (that uses cyanide and to a smaller extent nets). As far as which fishery uses more cyanide, this needs more study before an answer can be found.
Let's not even get into the stealth reefkiller, which is the happily-waning business of fishpens --the sort where fish are confined and fed regularly.
The uneaten food accumulates on the surrounding seabottom, decomposing and turning it into a eutrophic dead zone.
REPLY-Yes, see my recent posting on this. Again, I don't know how widespread the fish pens are. So, I can not say how widespread the problem is. It does seem strange that DA-BFAR is promoting fish pens, but cannot seem to develop strategies to stop destructive fishing?
Besides, there is simply no comparing the number of INCIDENTS of destructive foodfishing vs. that of destructive MO collection. There is further a massive local market for food fish, before we consider overseas demand from HK, Taiwan, the PROC, etc... Unlike MO exports, annual exports (not including contraband) and local consumption of LIVE food fish are measured in metric tons. That's still only a drop in the bucket compared to everyday errr, 'dead' food fish consumed.
REPLY-You are right that the dead fish trade in fishes caught using cyanide for local consumption in PI (and presumabley in other countries) is the big invisible problem. The CDT database needs to be further analyzed to help quantify this problem. But, it is very real.
As an aside: If you shut down the MO industry, you will be closing one of the only segments of the local fishing sector that actually ATTEMPTS self-reform.
REPLY-True and passing U.S. Legislation that does not influence the food fish trade, is not the total answer. But, it may help absolve the United States of contributing to a problem that needs to be dealt with by the exporting countries that seem incapable of protecting their marine resources (food and MO fishes, and the reefs themselves).
Check this out:
Olango, Cebu can serve as a typical fishing town.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daily per capita catch (fishfood)
1950's ---------------- 20 kg
1960's ---------------- 20 kg
1970's ---------------- 10 kg (emergence of cyanide and blast fishing)
1980's ---------------- 5 kg (emergence of fine-mesh netting)
1990's ---------------- 2 kg
2000-2003 ----------- 2 kg*
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(source: CRMP 1998, *AgriBalita 2004)
Can you see the arrested fall?
REPLY-No, where is it?
Before you think self-correction, the number of fishermen and registered fishing vessels increased from 1998 to last year, and yet the fish catch held steady. What stopped the deterioration?
REPLY-After a certain point the reefs are so degraded that there is no more decline (because very little is left).
Environmental laws came into being and in the late 80's LGU's were empowered to guard their own resources. A couple of fellas (one, then bearded, now balding) started preaching AND training MO collectors. Maybe it took time to take effect. It's a pity some of you want to give up just when results seem to be starting to show.
REPLY-I agree. It is a pity that the MO trade (importers, retailers, manufacturers) can't seem to dip into their pockets to support more net-training NOW.
I feel that MO use of cyanide decreased dramatically and continues to hold. No disrespect to Peter (and his apparent chief source Dante), with his claim that cyanide use has exploded into massive proportions once more, but I'm not basing this on just Palawan or even just the Southern Tagalog. Go check PCG, SOLCOM and PNP records for MO-related arrests, and it's equally-easy to claim more cyanide abuse, or better policing and reportage.
REPLY-Yes, the CDT database (see my published paper) indicated an increase in cyanide use in BOTH the MO and Food Fish (FF) trades from 1999 to 2000. After that there are other indicators (like the study by Dante Dalabajan, CDT data from BFAR, PNP reports etc.) that support the contention that cyanide use has increased.
The situation on the ground (or on the reef) is what ultimately counts. If you show me increases in reported incidents, that can be attributed to better reportage and detection, and really now: foodfish catch seems to have stopped declining, and my impression is a visible improvement in the health of reefs off Quezon, Zambales, Batangas, Mactan-Cebu.
REPLY-There are underwater surveys by the University of the Philippines nationwide done in the 1990s that provide evidence for the continued degredation of the reefs (admittedly not at the rate noted in the early 1980s). See the report done by Alan White (from which you pulled other numbers about the declining catch rates for the small scale-fisheries).
Palawan couldn't have changed except for the worse from the 'untouched late 70's, and again, foodfishing is the senior culprit. Did the squirters merely relocate, allowing recovery? Dunno. Steve has in the past pointed out increasing recourse to offshore reefs for MOs.
REPLY-Yes, the Palawan Reefs have become more degraded. The more recent reef surveys and fish counts from underwater surveys were posted on the web site for the Philippine Council for Sustainalble Development (PCSD). The only reef considered to be in the Excellent category was Tubbataha Reef (offshore in the Sulu Sea). However, even this has been degraded because of global warming (personal reports from Lynn Funkhouser and other published sources). Putting a guard on the reef by WWF may have helped stop cyanide fishing (until the grant ran out last year, and WWF cancelled the funding for the guard).
All I offer is that the reefs I visit look better than 10, 20 years ago.
Friends echo the assessment from elsewhere. Anecdotal as it is, I feel that sort of long term observation can be less removed from the fact than numbercrunching off of someones collation of yet someone else's survey.
REPLY-So, in your personnal (subjective) opinion there has been improvement that is not documented anywhere else?
Real progress will come in not just inceased tonnage of fish caught, but in the variety, size and quality that ought to accompany an incease in quantity. Same applies to MO.
REPLY-Can you document any of this?
You can care for the health of the reefs.
You can care for the health of the MO industry.
As one object feeds the other, it's ridiculous to concern one's self only with the culpability of the MO industry.
REPLY-Yes, but it is up to the PI government (municipal, regional, national) to enforce its existing laws to stop the degredation of the reefs. It it not the responsability of the US government (other than perhaps by providing foreign aid-like the present FISH program through USAID).
I think the PI government should explain how they wasted funding from the Asian Development Bank and the Japanese government (FSP and the more recent FRMP programs), not to mention all the funding previously provided for fisheries development programs like the Blue Revolution. What do you have to show for all the foreign assistance?
If one disregards the use of cyanide in food fish capture, one can't really be caring about the reefs welfare, nor about the MO industry that depends on healthy reefs. If so, what WOULD one be caring about?
REPLY-If the PI government and the MO trade cannot do anything, then the US is justified in imposing a ban on the MO trade by applying unattainable requirements on the MO trade (including both US and foreign interests). Is it fair? Probably not.
Peter Rubec
Peter,
Hi. My eyes are not as good as they used to be against a the grey-dark grey of RDO' template. Do you think you could go back to using the 'quote' function? You put {quote} in brackets before the quoted portion, and then an {/quote} immediately after, substituting real brackets, of course, repeating as necessary. Thanks!
Mary's question mentioned dynamite, hence my inclusion of the same, as well as other destructive means.
A sterling achievement, what?
I've seen comparable fishing communities where fishermen persisted in catching only 1.1 kilos per fisherman per day, and still other that have stopped fishing for lack of any catch. That per-capita catch didn't seem to drop further at Olango --and yes, the annual and semi-monthly data confirms this as well-- evidences alleviation of damage to fish stocks. Just graph it, and if the rate of decline and rate of acceleration of decline in catch has been maintained, then I'll submit to the non registry in you rods and cones
I'll phone-survey the reefs for a more reliable sampling, what?
There are times when I'm tempted to think, screw it all.
Ban MO collection here, and let 'em sell hamsters, or stuffed toys in the US.
You have your derivative papers to cite. I have other derivative papers and personal, long-term observation. The local marine environment is still SOL either way, because nobody wants to put real money into real solutions. All the money goes into surveys and bureaucracy, and precious little into training and enforcement. That is what I meant about data collection and analysis having less than primacy with the abuse/damae at hand: whatever the data is, net-training, detection and enforcement are going to have to be reinfoced anyway.
If there was a reduction in cyanide (and general) abuse against the reef, there would be a natural lag in any manifestation thereof with respect to reef health. I am not referring so much to a ecological lag, as to a lag in collation of any survey data. My past posts tell you when I think cyanide abuse peaked. You DO acknowledge above a dated UP survey that suggests decelerated degradation of reefs. What unfortunately can slip by me is the impact of more sophisticated use of sodium cyanide: I may be seeing an improvement in reefs where MO are collected simply because the collectors are juicing with calculation (so as not to hurt salability of merchandise), and rotating their sites better.
Ever since politics favoring Shemberg and later, other businesses came into play, the 'sanctuary' is more like a whorehouse. It's pretty infuriating how many tourists dive and pressure this place. I don't think it's a cyanide issue --the geographical location may reduce its attractiveness.
It thus seems a pretty straight indictment of the dated second- and third-hand papers you base your certainties on. Even the dated UP survey was of scattered, isolated localities around an archipelago of 7,000-plus islands. And yet, has there been anything as 'comprehensive' in the years since to compare against?
Or are you asking if I can document any improvements?
Fish type and tonnage are documened regularly at the private and eulatory level. The numbers aren't as clean as anyone wants, but they are a guide nonetheless, and can be obtained.
Whoa, nelly..
Where did I claim the RP (not PI, you silly lugworm) was blameless?
I was addressing the earlier position that one could simply address MO cyanide abuse, disregard foodfish cyanide abuse and be happy of a job well done. THAT is why I mentioned caring about the reefs and caring about the MO industry. Disregarding non-MO damage to the reefs doesn't hew anywhere near either.
Now, if acquitting the US of blame is the only object, then sh'yeah, 'oh happy day'. :roll:
You seem to have some serious angst against the country, hehe.
Seriously, if you think "the 'PI' should explain" its use of loans, then I'm sure the creditors will be grateful fo your innovative suggestion. :roll:
It is to the creditors that a borrower makes an accounting, so why don't you check if the ADB and the Japanese government (via ts assistance arms) are still offering credit towards similar programs?
Many funding programs are partly geared towards assessment for use in policymaking. If the assessments are properly done on the dme given, then there can be no misuse of funds. If effective policy does not come of these assessments, then that is a political failure. Funding programs are also there for implementation. IIRC, not a little foreign funding went into the fishponds debacle... and that brings me to
(drumroll)
Blue Revolution:
Talk about a blast from the past... mmmm.
Ah me, IIRC, that was addressed towards brackish/freshwater fishpond development, read: Tilapia and Milkfish (bangus) farms, and later on, brackish tiger-prawn farms. Result is a regular, weekly supply of milkfish and tilapia and yes, prawns in virtually all local freshfood markets, whereas up til the mid-70's, that was a rather seasonal phenomenon. Of course, it led to a number of estuarine, and coastal pollution problems, but neither the RP nor the ending institutions/AID agencies knew that it woud be so bad. In fact NOBODY really thought aquaculture carried that kind of pricetag.
While we're on accounting, why not ask IMA, OVI, MAC, and Haribon how they 'wasted' all that money, since you seem to deny any improvement in the reefs? Non sequitur. Sometimes, there simpy are other parties (nature included) at fault, or there isn't enough money, or the program simply isn't the solution. Look at aquaculture.
Nelly...
Fair shmair. Irrelevant either way:
My question was whether it would make any real difference to
whatever it is one cared about: reefs/MO industry/US culpability.
doot doot doot
Hi. My eyes are not as good as they used to be against a the grey-dark grey of RDO' template. Do you think you could go back to using the 'quote' function? You put {quote} in brackets before the quoted portion, and then an {/quote} immediately after, substituting real brackets, of course, repeating as necessary. Thanks!
Well, it is increasingly diffcult to obtain accurate numbers comparing cyanide abuse towards foodfish vis-a-vis MO fish. This is complicated by many outfits collecting both on the same trip, neh?
Mary's question mentioned dynamite, hence my inclusion of the same, as well as other destructive means.
That is where well-meaning 1980's-90's agricultural initiatives run into hard operational experience. The disaster at Pangasinan was severe enough for the government to finally listen to folks at MSI, particularly Dr. Gabby Trono, who were noting flaws in the program and field evidence of damage. Fishpens last longer in shelterd bays, which unfortunately provide insufficient flushing action to spare the local benthos. I do understand BFAR is spearheading the dismantling of fishpens in Lake Bai (Laguna de Bay) --sometimes erroneously and redundantly referred to as Laguna Lake, while atonishingly exerting far less effort against marine coastal fishpens.
Hmm. I'm not knocking quantification as the premise for policymaking, but quantification in this case has always been several steps behind a rather dynamic problem. The policy on illegal fishing is already set. It's not like we're regulating a legal pressure on the environment, and need to weigh how much the reefs can take. All cyanide fishing is illegal. In the end it comes down to enforcement, and decentralization has been key. One cannot expect the small-fleet PCG and PN to monitor the sea for illegal fishing. By shucking it off to LGU's, better local coverage is accomplished, and the big boats can refocus on their original mission: national defense.
Clearing the US name would indeed be accomplished.
A sterling achievement, what?
I've seen comparable fishing communities where fishermen persisted in catching only 1.1 kilos per fisherman per day, and still other that have stopped fishing for lack of any catch. That per-capita catch didn't seem to drop further at Olango --and yes, the annual and semi-monthly data confirms this as well-- evidences alleviation of damage to fish stocks. Just graph it, and if the rate of decline and rate of acceleration of decline in catch has been maintained, then I'll submit to the non registry in you rods and cones
I'll phone-survey the reefs for a more reliable sampling, what?
That point is usally where fishing becomes unprofitable, and pressure migrates elswhere. As I indicated, per capita catch can drop down to vitually 1 kilo or less per day before fishing communities give it up. Not so at Olango.
Way of the world, I'm afraid.
There are times when I'm tempted to think, screw it all.
Ban MO collection here, and let 'em sell hamsters, or stuffed toys in the US.
Peter, it won't be the first time two people come to different conclusions.
You have your derivative papers to cite. I have other derivative papers and personal, long-term observation. The local marine environment is still SOL either way, because nobody wants to put real money into real solutions. All the money goes into surveys and bureaucracy, and precious little into training and enforcement. That is what I meant about data collection and analysis having less than primacy with the abuse/damae at hand: whatever the data is, net-training, detection and enforcement are going to have to be reinfoced anyway.
1990's eh?
If there was a reduction in cyanide (and general) abuse against the reef, there would be a natural lag in any manifestation thereof with respect to reef health. I am not referring so much to a ecological lag, as to a lag in collation of any survey data. My past posts tell you when I think cyanide abuse peaked. You DO acknowledge above a dated UP survey that suggests decelerated degradation of reefs. What unfortunately can slip by me is the impact of more sophisticated use of sodium cyanide: I may be seeing an improvement in reefs where MO are collected simply because the collectors are juicing with calculation (so as not to hurt salability of merchandise), and rotating their sites better.
Actally Tubbataha is still a mess right now.
Ever since politics favoring Shemberg and later, other businesses came into play, the 'sanctuary' is more like a whorehouse. It's pretty infuriating how many tourists dive and pressure this place. I don't think it's a cyanide issue --the geographical location may reduce its attractiveness.
If it hasn't indeed been documented 'anywhere else', then yes.
It thus seems a pretty straight indictment of the dated second- and third-hand papers you base your certainties on. Even the dated UP survey was of scattered, isolated localities around an archipelago of 7,000-plus islands. And yet, has there been anything as 'comprehensive' in the years since to compare against?
I was stating my definiton of what real progress will/would be, and I have to cite documents to support it?
Or are you asking if I can document any improvements?
Fish type and tonnage are documened regularly at the private and eulatory level. The numbers aren't as clean as anyone wants, but they are a guide nonetheless, and can be obtained.
Whoa, nelly..
Where did I claim the RP (not PI, you silly lugworm) was blameless?
I was addressing the earlier position that one could simply address MO cyanide abuse, disregard foodfish cyanide abuse and be happy of a job well done. THAT is why I mentioned caring about the reefs and caring about the MO industry. Disregarding non-MO damage to the reefs doesn't hew anywhere near either.
Now, if acquitting the US of blame is the only object, then sh'yeah, 'oh happy day'. :roll:
You seem to have some serious angst against the country, hehe.
Seriously, if you think "the 'PI' should explain" its use of loans, then I'm sure the creditors will be grateful fo your innovative suggestion. :roll:
It is to the creditors that a borrower makes an accounting, so why don't you check if the ADB and the Japanese government (via ts assistance arms) are still offering credit towards similar programs?
Many funding programs are partly geared towards assessment for use in policymaking. If the assessments are properly done on the dme given, then there can be no misuse of funds. If effective policy does not come of these assessments, then that is a political failure. Funding programs are also there for implementation. IIRC, not a little foreign funding went into the fishponds debacle... and that brings me to
(drumroll)
Blue Revolution:
Talk about a blast from the past... mmmm.
Ah me, IIRC, that was addressed towards brackish/freshwater fishpond development, read: Tilapia and Milkfish (bangus) farms, and later on, brackish tiger-prawn farms. Result is a regular, weekly supply of milkfish and tilapia and yes, prawns in virtually all local freshfood markets, whereas up til the mid-70's, that was a rather seasonal phenomenon. Of course, it led to a number of estuarine, and coastal pollution problems, but neither the RP nor the ending institutions/AID agencies knew that it woud be so bad. In fact NOBODY really thought aquaculture carried that kind of pricetag.
While we're on accounting, why not ask IMA, OVI, MAC, and Haribon how they 'wasted' all that money, since you seem to deny any improvement in the reefs? Non sequitur. Sometimes, there simpy are other parties (nature included) at fault, or there isn't enough money, or the program simply isn't the solution. Look at aquaculture.
Nelly...
Fair shmair. Irrelevant either way:
My question was whether it would make any real difference to
whatever it is one cared about: reefs/MO industry/US culpability.
doot doot doot
Horge,
Thanks for the comments. I think our dialogue is informative (both for me and others).
My comments are not directed against you but against policymakers in both RP (that better?) and the USA.
Hopefully, they can learn from past mistakes and implement programs where the funding gets spent effectively, where it was intended.
It is too bad that the MO trade has become a political pawn.
Another example I recently heard about is the Bush administration withholding acquaculture funding from RP because your country withdrew 50 troops from Iraq to save a Filipino held hostage by terrorists.
Peter
Thanks for the comments. I think our dialogue is informative (both for me and others).
My comments are not directed against you but against policymakers in both RP (that better?) and the USA.
Hopefully, they can learn from past mistakes and implement programs where the funding gets spent effectively, where it was intended.
It is too bad that the MO trade has become a political pawn.
Another example I recently heard about is the Bush administration withholding acquaculture funding from RP because your country withdrew 50 troops from Iraq to save a Filipino held hostage by terrorists.
Peter
Wow. Now, that's something.
If I had an "ally" that would commit participation and then order its troops to turn tail (just because some jack*ss dollar-hungry Filipino got the wrong end of the odds he WILLINGLY played)... heck,
I'd be tempted to withhold a lot more than just aquaculture funding...
But then, if I were to use my brain, hehe, I'd find it more productive to punish the leadership, not the population.
Damn politics.
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
Guys,
This is the most informative and useful thread in a long time.
Keep it up.
Steve
This is the most informative and useful thread in a long time.
Keep it up.
Steve
I think...
I'll simply let BFAR show you.
CDT facilities notwithstanding, this door into the hallway doesn't sport a "Stop Cyanide Fishing" sticker.
Stickers are one thing. Good for eye candy.
However, maybe it's simply a matter of which is of greater magnitude. To my knowledge there are vastly more incidences of blast fishing, and the damage wrought is far greater.
Best to state the obvious though: This doesn't in any way excuse the abuse of "sodyum" (sodium cyanide) to capture food fish, and to a much, much lesser extent, MO fish. This furthermore in no way suggests that the damage caused by "sodyum" (sodium cyanide) in MO collection is minor ---it is quite considerable, and the solution is a great deal trickier than that against other illegal fishing practices.
What I'm suggesting is a sense of perspective:
BFAR will deal first and foremost with the biggest problem in its area of responsibility.
When it comes to illegal fishing ---that's blast fishing and illegal fishpens.
The MO industry ought to deal first and foremost with the biggest problem in ITS area of responsibility.
Now, what would that/those be, exactly?
Who are the MO industry anyway?
Who speaks for the MO industry?
You figure that out, you're halfway to a solution.
MAC understood that, but halfway dun'nt quite count now, does it?
...
I'll simply let BFAR show you.
CDT facilities notwithstanding, this door into the hallway doesn't sport a "Stop Cyanide Fishing" sticker.
Stickers are one thing. Good for eye candy.
However, maybe it's simply a matter of which is of greater magnitude. To my knowledge there are vastly more incidences of blast fishing, and the damage wrought is far greater.
Best to state the obvious though: This doesn't in any way excuse the abuse of "sodyum" (sodium cyanide) to capture food fish, and to a much, much lesser extent, MO fish. This furthermore in no way suggests that the damage caused by "sodyum" (sodium cyanide) in MO collection is minor ---it is quite considerable, and the solution is a great deal trickier than that against other illegal fishing practices.
What I'm suggesting is a sense of perspective:
BFAR will deal first and foremost with the biggest problem in its area of responsibility.
When it comes to illegal fishing ---that's blast fishing and illegal fishpens.
The MO industry ought to deal first and foremost with the biggest problem in ITS area of responsibility.
Now, what would that/those be, exactly?
Who are the MO industry anyway?
Who speaks for the MO industry?
You figure that out, you're halfway to a solution.
MAC understood that, but halfway dun'nt quite count now, does it?
...
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:
