A
Anonymous
Guest
GreshamH":1rwoojxp said:Eric mods his own forum, and deletes as he wishes, or so the RC staff/mods have told me. I guess he wished
Nice of them to move a thread critical of erics piece into a forum he mods.
Borneman's Reefkeeping Magazine article
- Thread starter dizzy
- Start date
Nice of them to move a thread critical of erics piece into a forum he mods.
A
Anonymous
Guest
It was posted in his forum by Steven Pro
A
Anonymous
Guest
GreshamH":okgy7o5y said:It was posted in his forum by Steven Pro
It was orginially posted in the Reefkeeping magazine Borneman thread.
GreshamH":23m92dus said:It was posted in his forum by Steven Pro
Which as Mike Kirda suggested was the proper place for the discussion to take place. I thought it was a really revealing thread. I'm not sure making it disappear doesn't do him more harm than good. How's that for some double negatives. :wink:
Mitch
It is interesting to note that the article itself (Coralmania) did not disappear. Only the criticism of it.
I saved my last post (misspellings and all) if it was a thread killer I'd like to know why. (Actually the original post was slightly edited and I mentioned something about our favorite NGO.) The inference is that MAC got funded by precisely the same people who fund Sea Web, PETA, Humane Society of North America, etc. That doesn't mean they are bad because they accept this funding, but it does explain some of the secrecy. I was watching the thread pretty closely this morning and I feel certain this was the last post:
"If anyone wants to learn more about how many grant administering foundations are abusing and circumventing the ture of some of the people who donate to them, I suggest going to www.activistcash.com and reading some of the articles. I posted a article about Sea Web and Humane Sociity of North American over on reefs.org. It is fascinating reading possibly helps unpeel some of the layers of secrecy surronding the origins of certification schemes. Here is a lit bit from www.activistcash.com About us section:
"ActivistCash.com, a project of the Center for Consumer Freedom, provides the public and media with in-depth profiles of anti-consumer activist groups, along with information about the sources of their exorbitant funding.
Despite their innocent-sounding names, many of these organizations are financial Goliaths that use junk science, intimidation tactics, and even threats of violence to push their radical agendas. We've analyzed over 500,000 pages of IRS records to bring you a comprehensive snapshot of where their money comes from, tracking more than $800 million to date.
We also offer valuable information about hundreds of deep-pocketed foundations, activist celebrities, and other key players in the movement to control what you eat and drink. To stay in the loop, bookmark ActivistCash.com today and join our e-mail list."
I saved my last post (misspellings and all) if it was a thread killer I'd like to know why. (Actually the original post was slightly edited and I mentioned something about our favorite NGO.) The inference is that MAC got funded by precisely the same people who fund Sea Web, PETA, Humane Society of North America, etc. That doesn't mean they are bad because they accept this funding, but it does explain some of the secrecy. I was watching the thread pretty closely this morning and I feel certain this was the last post:
"If anyone wants to learn more about how many grant administering foundations are abusing and circumventing the ture of some of the people who donate to them, I suggest going to www.activistcash.com and reading some of the articles. I posted a article about Sea Web and Humane Sociity of North American over on reefs.org. It is fascinating reading possibly helps unpeel some of the layers of secrecy surronding the origins of certification schemes. Here is a lit bit from www.activistcash.com About us section:
"ActivistCash.com, a project of the Center for Consumer Freedom, provides the public and media with in-depth profiles of anti-consumer activist groups, along with information about the sources of their exorbitant funding.
Despite their innocent-sounding names, many of these organizations are financial Goliaths that use junk science, intimidation tactics, and even threats of violence to push their radical agendas. We've analyzed over 500,000 pages of IRS records to bring you a comprehensive snapshot of where their money comes from, tracking more than $800 million to date.
We also offer valuable information about hundreds of deep-pocketed foundations, activist celebrities, and other key players in the movement to control what you eat and drink. To stay in the loop, bookmark ActivistCash.com today and join our e-mail list."
Back in 1999 I participated in one of the talks here in reefs.org and provided information about a project that OVI was conducting in the Philippines. Regarding the number of collectors in that country I said "I quote" It has been estimated that in the Philippines are between 3,500 and 4,000 fish collectors operating across the country". Period. That number was an estimated .
I couldn't reply in reef central.
S. Robinson provides wrong information (4,500) in reef central. Also Robinson wanted to lessen my reputation by identifying me as " an aquarium service guy'. I guess he feels good doing that. Nothing to do with this rude man.
I couldn't reply in reef central.
S. Robinson provides wrong information (4,500) in reef central. Also Robinson wanted to lessen my reputation by identifying me as " an aquarium service guy'. I guess he feels good doing that. Nothing to do with this rude man.
Here is the quote from Coralmania: "Today, there are between 3,500 and 4,000 collectors in the Philippines, up from 1,500 in 1995, with some 60-75% of them illegally using approximately 150,000 kg of sodium cyanide per year to catch fish (Baquero, 1999).
Which begs the question: How many are there today considering the 30% per year growth?
Which begs the question: How many are there today considering the 30% per year growth?
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
Mitch,
It was just admited by the source [ Baquero] that the numbers were estimated by another anonymous source....of the previous decade.
At 30% growth a year, these numbers would now be multiplying exponentially. My goodness if these numbers were real we'd have over 10,000 fish collectors in P.I. by now!
.
Steve
In truth....It was just the ol routine creation of alarm to justify the importance of a project....and its funding.
It was just admited by the source [ Baquero] that the numbers were estimated by another anonymous source....of the previous decade.
At 30% growth a year, these numbers would now be multiplying exponentially. My goodness if these numbers were real we'd have over 10,000 fish collectors in P.I. by now!
.
Steve
In truth....It was just the ol routine creation of alarm to justify the importance of a project....and its funding.
Well Borneman(Reef Central frozen thread) claims that the person he attributes the quotes to is responsible for it and not Eric himself. So I would like to ask Jaime Basquero how he reached the 3500-4000 figure and if he still sticks with it? The following Borneman quote sums up part of the problem with Coralmania:
"The information presented here was obtained from many sources, including published scientific literature, popular literature, various surveys and studies done by organizations monitoring the flow of live organism trade, economic trade reports, governmental agencies, phone interviews, surveys and long-term personal involvement and experience in the industry. Much of this work was jointly presented by Jonathan Lowrie and me at the 1999 meeting of the National Coral Reef Initiative in Ft. Lauderdale. Unfortunately, we missed the deadline for submission of this work. I have chosen to revisit and update the information for this article. It is important to keep in mind that the aquarium trade has grown by approximately 30% each year since much of this material was first written and the implied numbers resulting from this growth today should be taken into account."
"Unfortunately we missed the deadline for submission of this work." They rushed it way back in 1999 because (IMO) this type of negative outlook on the trade was "needed". This is the type of stuff Walter Starck was referring to in the quote Walt posted. Eric Borneman claims he revisited and updated the information for this article. Well I don't see how that is possible if he is still using some of the same sources. I don't know a great deal about PI field work, but I do know who has been working on the issues in the years since 1999. Ferdinan Cruz has for one. Eric could have contacted him instead of sticking to the Basquero quote if was interested in doing really good work. He could have also contacted Mark Scheffler of MAC. Mark has been living in the Philippines working with the collectors and their communities. What would have been wrong with contacting Mark? I would have if I was going to stick my name on an article published in December 2005. Why is it on the reader to do the research. Does anyone out there have a more recent estimate of the current number of collectors in the Phillipines? If so we can use the 30% per year growth figure and work backwards to 1999 and check Jaime's figures that way I guess. I'm going to contact Mark and see if he has an estimate. Peter can you see if Ferdie has a more current estimate? We need to stop the spread of the urban legends when they don't make sense. I hope the researchers feel the same way.
Mitch
PS
Be carefully relying on phone interviews. Lest we forget the Lallo files.
"The information presented here was obtained from many sources, including published scientific literature, popular literature, various surveys and studies done by organizations monitoring the flow of live organism trade, economic trade reports, governmental agencies, phone interviews, surveys and long-term personal involvement and experience in the industry. Much of this work was jointly presented by Jonathan Lowrie and me at the 1999 meeting of the National Coral Reef Initiative in Ft. Lauderdale. Unfortunately, we missed the deadline for submission of this work. I have chosen to revisit and update the information for this article. It is important to keep in mind that the aquarium trade has grown by approximately 30% each year since much of this material was first written and the implied numbers resulting from this growth today should be taken into account."
"Unfortunately we missed the deadline for submission of this work." They rushed it way back in 1999 because (IMO) this type of negative outlook on the trade was "needed". This is the type of stuff Walter Starck was referring to in the quote Walt posted. Eric Borneman claims he revisited and updated the information for this article. Well I don't see how that is possible if he is still using some of the same sources. I don't know a great deal about PI field work, but I do know who has been working on the issues in the years since 1999. Ferdinan Cruz has for one. Eric could have contacted him instead of sticking to the Basquero quote if was interested in doing really good work. He could have also contacted Mark Scheffler of MAC. Mark has been living in the Philippines working with the collectors and their communities. What would have been wrong with contacting Mark? I would have if I was going to stick my name on an article published in December 2005. Why is it on the reader to do the research. Does anyone out there have a more recent estimate of the current number of collectors in the Phillipines? If so we can use the 30% per year growth figure and work backwards to 1999 and check Jaime's figures that way I guess. I'm going to contact Mark and see if he has an estimate. Peter can you see if Ferdie has a more current estimate? We need to stop the spread of the urban legends when they don't make sense. I hope the researchers feel the same way.
Mitch
PS
Be carefully relying on phone interviews. Lest we forget the Lallo files.
dizzy":2qnptg99 said:
Hmmm, I'm going to write and article with lots of citations that looks and sounds to be scientific. However, I'm using bad outdated information so JUST IN CASE THAT MY INFORMATION IS PROVEN TO BE WRONG-----AT LEAST I WARNED YOU IN THE ARTICLE.
From Eric in the Reef Central thread:
"You know, I'm not going to debate this anymore unless they relate to statements I made or numbers I used from personal data or my own cited work. Anyone else's work is cited, and if you have issues with those citations, I'd suggest contacting the authors. I am not sitting at home with the master list that doesn't exist. I did what I think is a pretty complete survey of the available literature, did my own survey work, have conducted field surveys, and am pretty tight with some people who probably know more facts about the trade than anyone else around. If you don't like the portryal of the trade, I'm sorry. If you think my facts are wrong and you are right, by all means, write up an article and submit it for publication."
Jaime I agree that Steve should not have made the post like he did. It serves little to further an important debate. However if Eric is going to take the above stance then it is your obligation to explain those numbers he credited you with. I have no way of knowing if they are accurate or not, but I would like to see how they were arrived at.
Thanks Mitch
PS
I loved this Eric quote; "and am pretty tight with some people who probably know more facts about the trade than anyone else around" Isn't that something akin to the WMDs argument the Bush Administration used in justifying the decision to attack Iraq? The fact is the government ain't always right about everything. They are mistake making humans like the rest of us.
"You know, I'm not going to debate this anymore unless they relate to statements I made or numbers I used from personal data or my own cited work. Anyone else's work is cited, and if you have issues with those citations, I'd suggest contacting the authors. I am not sitting at home with the master list that doesn't exist. I did what I think is a pretty complete survey of the available literature, did my own survey work, have conducted field surveys, and am pretty tight with some people who probably know more facts about the trade than anyone else around. If you don't like the portryal of the trade, I'm sorry. If you think my facts are wrong and you are right, by all means, write up an article and submit it for publication."
Jaime I agree that Steve should not have made the post like he did. It serves little to further an important debate. However if Eric is going to take the above stance then it is your obligation to explain those numbers he credited you with. I have no way of knowing if they are accurate or not, but I would like to see how they were arrived at.
Thanks Mitch
PS
I loved this Eric quote; "and am pretty tight with some people who probably know more facts about the trade than anyone else around" Isn't that something akin to the WMDs argument the Bush Administration used in justifying the decision to attack Iraq? The fact is the government ain't always right about everything. They are mistake making humans like the rest of us.
Mitch,
To answer to that question we have to go back to the early 90's. By that time no one knew exactly how many ornamental fish collectors were in the Philippines. In 1992, Marivic Pajaro from the Haribon Foundation (OVI's Partner) conducted a research " Alternatives to sodium cyanide use in aquarium fish collection: A community-based approach" in her study she states " About 2,500 full time and part time aquarium fish gatheres are scattered throughout even the farthest-flung reefs of the country".
Later in 1997-1998 and 1999 I had the opportunity to travel to the Philippines and met with people from the industry and other individuals representing organizations that were tackling the cyanide problem. No one knew exactly the number of collectors, and I think no one knows it today. The estimated number came from the representatives of the organizations working in the field. Seems that the number today is less than the estimated given in 1999 or the 2,500 given by Marivic in 1992.
The rest of the quote I don't know where is coming from. Please visit reefs.org library to see the content of my talk.
I found an study by Dr. Don McAllister " Environmental, economic and social costs of coral reef destruction in the Philippines". there is a paragraph that can explain the 150.000 kg of cyanide. I quote " Much coral has been destroyed through use of explosives and cyanide for catching fishes(fig 1) . These practices are illegal, but only a few lawbrakers are arrested, and less than 1% of those arrested are convicted ( Joya, in press). Because use of explosives and cyanide for fishing is illegal, it is difficult to obtain figures on the amounts used. However if we take Steve Robinson's (in Rubec, 1988) estimated of 75 kg of sodium cyanide per annum per marine aquarium fish collector and a reasonable estimate of 1,000 full time collectors then at least 75,000 kg or 1,500 drums of cyanide are being used each year in the aquarium trade. Calculations suggest that roughly the same weight of cyanide was being used in the inlapu lapu and mameng live food fish trade. This means 150.000 kg of sodium cyanide is being sprayed onto Philippine coral reefs each year" end of quote. That information is coming from other estimated this one from Robinson.
I do agree that Robinson's behavior doesn't help. The man has been "dealing' with this issue for over 2 decades but no one wants to listen to him. He lacks of tact and manners.
Happy New Year. [/i]
To answer to that question we have to go back to the early 90's. By that time no one knew exactly how many ornamental fish collectors were in the Philippines. In 1992, Marivic Pajaro from the Haribon Foundation (OVI's Partner) conducted a research " Alternatives to sodium cyanide use in aquarium fish collection: A community-based approach" in her study she states " About 2,500 full time and part time aquarium fish gatheres are scattered throughout even the farthest-flung reefs of the country".
Later in 1997-1998 and 1999 I had the opportunity to travel to the Philippines and met with people from the industry and other individuals representing organizations that were tackling the cyanide problem. No one knew exactly the number of collectors, and I think no one knows it today. The estimated number came from the representatives of the organizations working in the field. Seems that the number today is less than the estimated given in 1999 or the 2,500 given by Marivic in 1992.
The rest of the quote I don't know where is coming from. Please visit reefs.org library to see the content of my talk.
I found an study by Dr. Don McAllister " Environmental, economic and social costs of coral reef destruction in the Philippines". there is a paragraph that can explain the 150.000 kg of cyanide. I quote " Much coral has been destroyed through use of explosives and cyanide for catching fishes(fig 1) . These practices are illegal, but only a few lawbrakers are arrested, and less than 1% of those arrested are convicted ( Joya, in press). Because use of explosives and cyanide for fishing is illegal, it is difficult to obtain figures on the amounts used. However if we take Steve Robinson's (in Rubec, 1988) estimated of 75 kg of sodium cyanide per annum per marine aquarium fish collector and a reasonable estimate of 1,000 full time collectors then at least 75,000 kg or 1,500 drums of cyanide are being used each year in the aquarium trade. Calculations suggest that roughly the same weight of cyanide was being used in the inlapu lapu and mameng live food fish trade. This means 150.000 kg of sodium cyanide is being sprayed onto Philippine coral reefs each year" end of quote. That information is coming from other estimated this one from Robinson.
I do agree that Robinson's behavior doesn't help. The man has been "dealing' with this issue for over 2 decades but no one wants to listen to him. He lacks of tact and manners.
Happy New Year. [/i]
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
No one listens?
Then where did the IMA, Haribon, IMA Canada, Ocean Voice and MAC come from?
As the first trainer ever to convert cyanide fishers to netsmanship [ 1983] and the primary founder of the IMA and its mission statement writer I was not only listened to but mimicked. The mimicks have evolved...not to convert fisherman but to make carreers out of.
I am your father Luke...
.
Then where did the IMA, Haribon, IMA Canada, Ocean Voice and MAC come from?
As the first trainer ever to convert cyanide fishers to netsmanship [ 1983] and the primary founder of the IMA and its mission statement writer I was not only listened to but mimicked. The mimicks have evolved...not to convert fisherman but to make carreers out of.
I am your father Luke...
.
Yes, no one listens to you. You didn't and do not get along with many people working for the organization you mentioned. People prefer to stay away from you.
I have never, nobody has, denied that you are a good trainer. If you had had tact and manners is very possible that things would be better today. You must feel terrible by knowing that your talent can not be used ....only because of your personality problems. That is very sad.
I hope you are a good father in real life.
I have never, nobody has, denied that you are a good trainer. If you had had tact and manners is very possible that things would be better today. You must feel terrible by knowing that your talent can not be used ....only because of your personality problems. That is very sad.
I hope you are a good father in real life.
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
Jaime,
To get along with embezzlers of funds ment for poor peoples projects is not a very good definition of getting along with people. Getting along with such folks means you may be of like kind. Besides, NOT selling out for social acceptance to the likes of money grubbing parasites looking to cash in on the trade at the expense of the reefs and the fisherman is something to be proud of...not ashamed of.
Most people sell out given the opportunity. Most...and they sure aren't fit to judge those with higher sense of moral purpose and self esteem.
Aside from that, your post is personal , vindictive and out of line.
You don't know me and are simply upset with my expose of Haribons sad history of failure here.
95% of your posts on RDO play off of me because of that. ..and you know it. Check it out. 95%!!
Why not contribute something independant and unrelated to what I say?
Dont' you ever have anything else to say??
ONCE AGAIN YOU HAVE AVOIDED THE SUBJECT AND MADE THIS STRICTLY PERSONAL..
Steve
To get along with embezzlers of funds ment for poor peoples projects is not a very good definition of getting along with people. Getting along with such folks means you may be of like kind. Besides, NOT selling out for social acceptance to the likes of money grubbing parasites looking to cash in on the trade at the expense of the reefs and the fisherman is something to be proud of...not ashamed of.
Most people sell out given the opportunity. Most...and they sure aren't fit to judge those with higher sense of moral purpose and self esteem.
Aside from that, your post is personal , vindictive and out of line.
You don't know me and are simply upset with my expose of Haribons sad history of failure here.
95% of your posts on RDO play off of me because of that. ..and you know it. Check it out. 95%!!
Why not contribute something independant and unrelated to what I say?
Dont' you ever have anything else to say??
ONCE AGAIN YOU HAVE AVOIDED THE SUBJECT AND MADE THIS STRICTLY PERSONAL..
Steve
Steve,
For many years you have been portraiting many honest people working with NGOs as "embezzlers of funds". You have been doing it without showing evidences. I challenge you to provide in this forum the names of the people you have identified as "embezzlers of funds".
Mitch, I apologize for bringing this matter to this forum, but it is very important to clarify it.
For many years you have been portraiting many honest people working with NGOs as "embezzlers of funds". You have been doing it without showing evidences. I challenge you to provide in this forum the names of the people you have identified as "embezzlers of funds".
Mitch, I apologize for bringing this matter to this forum, but it is very important to clarify 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:
