House Bill HR 4928

[clarionreef]

Wayne,
If you really do hate and loath the trade...why not just leave? And leave it to people who still care enough about other people to save it?
By constantly insinuating your templated, dogmatic Cassandra rhetoric over remedy, you steal and ruin most threads.
If you have support...then it would be different.
[Your observation that only industry people support the industry was a classic.] I immediately wondered if I should "support" woodcarving in Patagonia. I'm not part of that industry...so why not save the trees of the pampas and just shut it down!
Perhaps you could request RDO for your own shutdown section and leave the Industry behind the hobby to people in and behind the hobby.
Steve

 

[John_Brandt]

This bill doesn't even target PI and Indo.

Mitch, HR 4928 seems to directly target the Philippines and Indonesia (Southeast Asia).

In the Findings one finds this:

(9) As many as 1/3 to 1/2 of the aquarium fish imported from Southeast Asia die shortly after arriving in the United States due to stress associated with handling and transport and the use of cyanide during capture, and such high mortality rates lead to continued pressure for extraction from the wild to maintain public and private collections.

The use of a CDT and certifying against destructive fishing are tools against the wrong traditional ways to collect animals in SE Asia.

 

[dizzy]

I wasn't aware of any approved CDT. In the absence of a reliable test, it will all be totally dependent on sustainability issues. If fish are coming out of such areas I doubt a test is really needed.
Mitch

PS John where did they get the DOA information?

 

[naesco]

I wasn't aware of any approved CDT. In the absence of a reliable test, it will all be totally dependent on sustainability issues. If fish are coming out of such areas I doubt a test is really needed.
Mitch

PS John where did they get the DOA information?

Dr. Rubec has a reliable test and has had one for some time.

 

[naesco]

Wayne,
If you really do hate and loath the trade...why not just leave? And leave it to people who still care enough about other people to save it?
By constantly insinuating your templated, dogmatic Cassandra rhetoric over remedy, you steal and ruin most threads.
If you have support...then it would be different.
[Your observation that only industry people support the industry was a classic.] I immediately wondered if I should "support" woodcarving in Patagonia. I'm not part of that industry...so why not save the trees of the pampas and just shut it down!
Perhaps you could request RDO for your own shutdown section and leave the Industry behind the hobby to people in and behind the hobby.
Steve

Steve I have some news for you that will make your day.

Firstly, this forum was not set up as a chat line for industry types. It was set up as a forum where hobbyists could learn the ins and outs of industry and add their voice. And boy have I learned the ins and outs.
Hobbyists like myself have made a contribution to efforts like the USL (hundreds of hours) before you were even on the scene.

Secondly, you are wrong when you say I do not have support.
The fact is I do have a lot of support and encouragement for what I am doing. Rarely a day goes by when I do not receive a phone call, email or PM. Surprised, eh!
But, think about it. Do you think I would stick around and take the kind of crap that is dished out here without any support.

Where did I quote "Only industry people support the industry"?

 

[John_Brandt]

PS John where did they get the DOA information?

I don't know, I was hoping you could tell me. Last week I asked if anyone could look through the reports I posted (USCRTF on the trade, and UNEP-WCMC 'From Ocean to Aquarium) to see if those mortality figures are used. Peter mentioned that they came from a Scientific American Magazine article. Here is a bit from it:

Fishy Business

Scientific American Magazine
By Sarah Simpson
July 2001

Cyanide is one of the fastest-acting poisons known to science. Once ingested, it cripples the body's ability to transport oxygen and begins asphyxiating tissues almost instantly. At higher dosages it slows the heart and even stops electrical activity in the brain. Given cyanide's lethal nature, it is difficult to imagine that squirting the substance at coralreef fish is a good way to catch them alive. And yet that's common practice in the Philippines and Indonesia, whose collectors supply some 85 percent of the tropical fish that enliven the world's saltwater aquariums.

Disabling agile fish with cyanide makes it easier for divers to capture them before they hide among branches or crevices in the coral, but the consequences are severe. Some experts estimate that half of the poisoned fish die on the reef, and 40 percent of those that survive the initial blast are dead before they reach an aquarium. This startling mortality rate doesn't encompass the devastation to the living corals, invertebrates and nontarget fish in the path of the toxic plume.

 

[dizzy]

Dr. Rubec has a reliable test and has had one for some time.

I won't argue that point, but the sticking point is that it must be reliable and approved. MAC has said Peter's test sucks. If his test wins approval they lose face.
Mitch

 

[Anonymous]

iirc, mac's professed problem w/the cdt was it's inability to properly correlate levels and time of exposure relative to testing, w/ consistent results

i.e.- two fish juiced w/the same dose may show different test results, or results that were too far off to be called repeatedly accurate

at least that's how i understood mac's position

whether true or not, i don't know, and shouldn't even be an issue, if the data is there, the data will show who's right or wrong-it's not a matter of opinion :wink:

peter, your thoughts would be appreciated here

 

[John_Brandt]

MAC has said Peter's test sucks. If his test wins approval they lose face.

I think you have scandal fluid in your veins.

The problems with the CDT were reported by Merck, Inc. Philippines http://www.merck.ph . As I said previously, the problems aren't so much with the test itself detecting cyanide in fish tissues. The problems come in corellating controlled exposure to cyanide to test findings. There were detections of cyanide in fish that had not been exposed, there were also occasions of no cyanide found in tissue after exposure.

There has to be an ability to draw real-world conclusions about the history of a test fish for a CDT to be meaningful as a tool of law enforcement. The test results need to somehow directly corellate to whether a fish was captured with cyanide. If a recognized body of testing evaluation scientists cannot agree that the test reliably reveals exposure to sodium cyanide then it can't be used well as evidence in court.

I don't see anyone losing face no matter what comes of any CDT. It's about finding something that works consistently, not creating Emperors on the sidelines.

 

[John_Brandt]

at least that's how i understood mac's position

It was MAC reporting the findings of Merck, Inc. (the mfg of the test). Merck performed two series of controlled testings in conjunction with BFAR at their lab, and then produced a report for MAC on their findings.

 

[dizzy]

MAC has said Peter's test sucks. If his test wins approval they lose face.

I think you have scandal fluid in your veins.

John I simply read what Peter said. Seems like there was a threat of a possible lawsuit in there somewhere, if memory serves. Surely you remember that. Does Ed Case have a test in mind?
Mitch

 

[Anonymous]

at least that's how i understood mac's position

It was MAC reporting the findings of Merck, Inc. (the mfg of the test). Merck performed two series of controlled testings in conjunction with BFAR at their lab, and then produced a report for MAC on their findings.

john, do you know if they published the data and experiment procedure/ setup anywhere for peer review?

 

[MaryHM]

The fact is I do have a lot of support and encouragement for what I am doing. Rarely a day goes by when I do not receive a phone call, email or PM. Surprised, eh!

How embarrassing when not even one of your legions of supporters have the courage of their convictions to publicly support you.

There has to be an ability to draw real-world conclusions about the history of a test fish for a CDT to be meaningful as a tool of law enforcement. The test results need to somehow directly corellate to whether a fish was captured with cyanide. If a recognized body of testing evaluation scientists cannot agree that the test reliably reveals exposure to sodium cyanide then it can't be used well as evidence in court.

Amen to that.

 

[John_Brandt]

It's a confidential report given to BFAR and MAC. I don't know what the fate of the report will be (that is if it will be publicly distributed). The test project has been passed on to a university to see what their findings might be. I don't have any information on that.

I though Peter might provide the status of the development of a thianocyanate detection test. He has been talking about it.

 

[MaryHM]

It's a confidential report given to BFAR and MAC.

Confidential because MAC paid for it?

 

[Anonymous]

so there's no way to objectively examine merck's contention on the cdt ?


how do we even know for sure they ever did an evaluation?

if the test isn't published so it can stand up to the basic test of repeatability, just sounds like a junk science smokescreen to me

may reflect badly on merck, as well

is congress in the habit of accepting someone's say-so as scientifically repeatable data ?

i think merck should be challenged before congress to provide the data and the study, or at least via the freedom of information act

 

[naesco]

The fact is I do have a lot of support and encouragement for what I am doing. Rarely a day goes by when I do not receive a phone call, email or PM. Surprised, eh!

How embarrassing when not even one of your legions of supporters have the courage of their convictions to publicly support you.

It is not embarassing at all. I am so proud to be a part of reeform.
They do not need to publicly support me. What is important is that unlike you they support reeform.
And they will go public.......soon.........in Washington........giving evidence!

 

[MaryHM]

Uh, huh. :roll: I think you're proud to just be a part of ANYTHING.

 

[naesco]

Uh, huh. :roll: I think you're proud to just be a part of ANYTHING.

Oh yes I forgot to mention. You will be there too, Mary!

 

[MaryHM]

I have no evidence to give about anything, so I won't be going anywhere. Thanks for the invite though.