Reading on Cyanide

[Kalkbreath]

Does anyone have any references for where cyanide is currently being used? The Philippines is the obvious big one. I have also read on various places one the internet of its usage spreading to Indonesia, Vietnam, Papau New Guinea, Malaysia, and Fiji. But, I am not sure how much I trust what I read on the web.

The most current data in PI was 2001 in which 21% of the tested fish were found to have Cyanide present. Half of the twenty-one percent most likely die during transport to the USA as a direct result of having been exposed to cyanide during collection. That means a hobbyist has only a one in ten chance that even if the fish was from PI it was collected with juice.[using that study] Take into account that of the twenty-one percent found to have cyanide present, the 21% was from all the fish tested . The ratio of fish in the test did not match the ratio of fish exported to the trade. That means the twenty-one percent finding does not directly translate into a 21% present in the actual fish exported.
Half the PI fish exported are Damsels, yet damsels did not make up half the fish in the tested group of fish.
Simply stating that there is cyanide being used in a region does not quantify the scope and scale of its use.
Currently there is looting in the USA, but it does not represent America as a whole.
Even with all the reading on cyanide fishing, I have still yet to find any data out there which fully explains the real issues regarding our trade. How much of the cyanide damage is the food fish industry? What is the threshold {amount of cyanide} exposure that a three ounce fish can survive and how does this effect the surrounding coral? What if the threshold of the fish is below that of the coral? If the cyanide level is low enough not to harm the fish , is it also low enough not to harm the coral? If so, then very little of the dead reefs are from this trade.
None of the published works of cyanide effects on coral{ lab tests} have included fish in the same test tanks as the coral. If the fish cant survive the test exposure [like when collectors squirt them in the wild], then the cyanide level in the test tank was too high and not a real world comparison.
The only real way to solve the problem, is to understand what is really happening out on the reefs.
Few seem interested in finding that truth.

 

[Anonymous]

This thread is now stickied, let's use it for information only and leave o/t and other comments for other threads.
Thx-Jim

Sorry Jim, but I do have to counter Kalks post. Maybe you could split the thread and close this one. We can PM you with any updated reading for it. I for one would edit out all my comments, except the actual reading ones.

***********

Back to that again, huh Kalk

With all the reading on the black market, drug smuggling and hacking, I have yet to see real numbers on those either. Guess what, you won't What criminal org is going to allow the total of what they're doing to be told? I keep looking for what the US black budget is spent on, but, it's in print no place

How about La Famalia Nuestra, does anyone have a total figure on just how much pot they are growing in California or how much control they atually have?

How about Osama, whith billions being spent on researching that, have we yet to come up with actual real data on his full org and where he is?


Yes, info trickles out on criminal activities, but it doesn't flood.

 

[Kalkbreath]

Again, its almost impossible to kill coral without killing the fish hiding in the coral,when the fish are tiny trade sized.
Almost every body agreed with this ten years ago .....now that its politically incorrect to question the science behind any reeform movement, nobody wants to examine the little data that exists on the subsect of what realy happens when MO fish collectors squirt. We want to expunge the accounts of people test juicing fish and taking them back to live out long lives in an aquarium. We want to forget that long ago MANY big time authorities in the hobby agreed with me that most trade cyanide fishing is done with ultra low doses and has little impact on the coral. Sprung was one such voice. Today the idea of testing that logic {that tiny fish require tiny doses of poison or the fish die}and that dead fish are of no use to trade collectors is poo pooed away. like its absurd want to establish whats possible and whats not. The fish cant fake it, thats why every test establishing the threshold on to what level cyanide harms corals has excluded the fish in the tests. Both in the field and in the lab. Oh they have done the tests , the results were not what they wanted. Do you really think Im the first person to wonder what the cyanide threshold is for fish is? and how that might compare with what harms coral?
Secondly, Peters tests showed that during the last four years of his testing the present rate for cyanide ranged from less the ten percent to twenty. Thats hardly "RAMPANT" like some reeformers would like us to believe.
I could not care less if the trade was banned in PI tommorrow.In fact I wish it were banned rather then allow this continual circle jerk of misinformation and daily whitewash about the trade being showered upon the public.
This current attitude, that any second hand account of trade misgivings like cyanide in Fiji or Rampant cyanide use are somehow scientific fact is beyond my comprehension. We have set the standards so low that even absurd claims like dredging and blast fishing for MO fish somehow are now public/Congressional record!
You all allowed this kinda crap to find its way into Congress ...

I thought Steven might want a crash course in how we arrived at such a point in time ........ a US Senator introducing a house bill to which there is little science to back up any of his claims, yet we as an industry have no voice to counter his nonsense.

 

[Anonymous]

Again, its almost impossible to kill coral without killing the fish hiding in the coral,when the fish are tiny trade sized.
Almost every body agreed with this ten years ago .....now that its politically incorrect to question the science behind any reeform movement, nobody wants to examine the little data that exists on the subsect of what realy happens when MO fish collectors squirt. We want to expunge the accounts of people test juicing fish and taking them back to live out long lives in an aquarium. We want to forget that long ago MANY big time authorities in the hobby agreed with me that most trade cyanide fishing is done with ultra low doses and has little impact on the coral. Sprung was one such voice. Today the idea of testing that logic {that tiny fish require tiny doses of poison or the fish die}and that dead fish are of no use to trade collectors is poo pooed away. like its absurd want to establish whats possible and whats not. The fish cant fake it, thats why every test establishing the threshold on to what level cyanide harms corals has excluded the fish in the tests. Both in the field and in the lab. Oh they have done the tests , the results were not what they wanted. Do you really think Im the first person to wonder what the cyanide threshold is for fish is? and how that might compare with what harms coral?
Secondly, Peters tests showed that during the last four years of his testing the present rate for cyanide ranged from less the ten percent to twenty. Thats hardly "RAMPANT" like some reeformers would like us to believe.
I could not care less if the trade was banned in PI tommorrow.In fact I wish it were banned rather then allow this continual circle jerk of misinformation and daily whitewash about the trade being showered upon the public.
This current attitude, that any second hand account of trade misgivings like cyanide in Fiji or Rampant cyanide use are somehow scientific fact is beyond my comprehension. We have set the standards so low that even absurd claims like dredging and blast fishing for MO fish somehow are now public/Congressional record!
You all allowed this kinda crap to find its way into Congress ...

I thought Steven might want a crash course in how we arrived at such a point in time ........ a US Senator introducing a house bill to which there is little science to back up any of his claims, yet we as an industry have no voice to counter his nonsense.

and what, we'd use your misinformation? :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

Well then Kalk, can't I come out there and give some low level cyanide squirts into your SPS tank? It'll only stun your fish, the coral will be fine, according to you.

 

[Kalkbreath]

Well then Kalk, can't I come out there and give some low level cyanide squirts into your SPS tank? It'll only stun your fish, the coral will be fine, according to you.

Okey, but in order to make the test somewhat in the scope of the real world situation........you will need to use the five million gallon Georgia aquarium. and then do an five million gallon water change minutes after.
just like out on the reef. :wink:

 

[Kalkbreath]

Its not that cyanide doesnt kill coral, food fishermen have been tourching the reefs for decades. Its that the levels most often used to collect tiny reef fish are very low. Today there are so few fish to collect in most areas that each fish is a valued comodity. The days of killing fifty blue tangs to collect six alive have long passed. Thats why the blue tangs arriving into the usa today look so diffrent from the 1990s fish. How many big reef fish even come out of PI today? Sure, the level of poison needed to knock a fifteen inch majestic angel or a even an eight inch Huma trigger out of the coral would harm the coral. But how often does that happen today in the PI MO trade?
No amount of poison fishing is proper, its like the how often do you beat your wife question. Beating your wife every so often is not the same as doing so thousands of times a day. :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

This post has been deleted (after asking vitz to edit it) because I feel it violated the UA of RDO. The ideas in the post were fine, but the way they were expressed leaves much to be desired. I understand the frustration that some discussions in the forum have generated, but personal attacks and mud slinging only serve to drive people away from this forum - not to mention removing credibility from ones points.
Righty

 

[Anonymous]

Well then Kalk, can't I come out there and give some low level cyanide squirts into your SPS tank? It'll only stun your fish, the coral will be fine, according to you.

Okey, but in order to make the test somewhat in the scope of the real world situation........you will need to use the five million gallon Georgia aquarium. and then do an five million gallon water change minutes after.
just like out on the reef. :wink:

er-wrong again-the damage is done upon CONTACT change water all you like- it won't matter

 

[Kalkbreath]

oy vey :roll:



hard to think you actually own a store, and god help the hobbyists that believe your drivel and incompetence

Actually what I tell the customers is that fish are the main reason people end up leaving the hobby. Hair algae/cyno from over feeding fish/over stocking is the number one reason most exit the hobby within a year or so. Fish fight, fish pick at coral and fish require that the care taker input daily nutrience [food]. Fish are the last thing I suggest a reeftank includes. Like I have said many times ........"my hobby is quite different from your hobby."
Your hobby is based on placing too many animals in an inclosed environment {fish only tanks} having the animals swim in their own feces until the nitrate builds up and hope that the owner does a water change to lessen the poison. Your hobby uses medication to treat a host of fish diseases. Fish sickness and parasites cant be much fun for the fish. Just think if I placed you in a jail cell and then released a swarm of blood sucking African bees in with you.Attatching to your eyes and gills. My hobby recommends a healthy balanced ecosystem with few or even without fish. "Nothing in and nothing out" in the way of food.
Its almost impossible to keep a fish themed tank and not experience a situation in which the fish find themselves in pain. Pain from an abusive tanks mate, pain from confinement related disease, pain from just not wanting to be there.
Fish are the last thing I suggest to an aquarium owner. I have hundreds of clams in my store and less then fifty fish as I type.
Suggesting that more fact based cyanide data be included in a cyanide witch hunt, has little to do with my coral and clam based business.
Especially since I personally have almost an anti pet fish stance.

 

[dizzy]

Sorry Steven, for what some have done to his thread. I appreciate the work you are trying to do.
Mitch

 

[Kalkbreath]

Hopefully his is trying to find out the truth, He might be surprised to learn that there is so little data out there. and that whats out there is so shallow.
Plenty of opinions, but little field data. Do you think he will be shocked to learn that less then 800 fish were tested over seven years?Many fish species with only one individual included in the test. When Steven was in my store, It seemed he was very different from the usual reeform types. More like a concerned hobbyist.
He might be the first to take a real look at the issues......... 8O

 

[Anonymous]

Steven Pro has been involved in this for YEARS Kalk Being he was AMDA BOD durig the active AMDA list years, he's quite informed, and yes, apart of the reform crowd Just browse the first Mac Attack file and you'll see

 

[mkirda]

Hopefully his is trying to find out the truth, He might be surprised to learn that there is so little data out there. and that whats out there is so shallow.
Plenty of opinions, but little field data. Do you think he will be shocked to learn that less then 800 fish were tested over seven years?Many fish species with only one individual included in the test. When Steven was in my store, It seemed he was very different from the usual reeform types. More like a concerned hobbyist.
He might be the first to take a real look at the issues......... 8O

Don't you ever get tired listening to the same old worn-out record over and over and over again? Still attempting to cite the same arguments that were soundly refuted two years ago I see....

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, I agree with Mike. You are a broken record. My objection is that you continue to present numbers that are incorrect. As you know, I published the paper with the trend in the percentages of fishes with cyanide present. You stated that the percentage in 2001 was 21%. While the IMA has data for 2001, we only presented data in the paper from 1996 to 2000. The percentage of cyanide present in marine aquarium fishes declined from 43%
in 1996, to 41% in 1997, 18% in 1998, 8% in 1999, then increased to 29% in 2000. So, where did you come up with the 21% in 2001? As far as I know there is no published data for 2001. Please stop blowing smoke.

Peter Rubec

 

[StevenPro]

When Steven was in my store

Could you remind me which store was yours? I visit so many each year, it is hard to keep track. If you have to PM me, that is ok too.

 

[StevenPro]

Kalk, I agree with Mike. You are a broken record. My objection is that you continue to present numbers that are incorrect. As you know, I published the paper with the trend in the percentages of fishes with cyanide present. You stated that the percentage in 2001 was 21%. While the IMA has data for 2001, we only presented data in the paper from 1996 to 2000. The percentage of cyanide present in marine aquarium fishes declined from 43%
in 1996, to 41% in 1997, 18% in 1998, 8% in 1999, then increased to 29% in 2000. So, where did you come up with the 21% in 2001? As far as I know there is no published data for 2001. Please stop blowing smoke.

Peter Rubec

Is this the reference with the above data in it?

Rubec, P.J., V.R. Pratt, B. McCullough, B. Manipula, J. Alban, T. Espero, and E.R. Suplido. 2003b. Trends determined by cyanide testing on marine aquarium fish in the Philippines. Pages 327-340, In: J.C. Cato and C.L. Brown (eds.), Marine Ornamental Species: Collection, Culture & Cultivation, Iowa State Press, Ames, Iowa.

 

[PeterIMA]

Yes, that is the paper to which I am referring. I can email you a PDF file of it if you wish. Send me your email address. I would post it on-line but I believe it its too large a file.

Peter Rubec

 

[Anonymous]

You need a website Peter, honestly

 

[StevenPro]

Yes, that is the paper to which I am referring. I can email you a PDF file of it if you wish. Send me your email address. I would post it on-line but I believe it its too large a file.

Peter Rubec

Thank you very much! I sent you a PM with my email address.