US Coral Reef Task Force Cyanide Enforcement & Detection

[Anonymous]

what about the uptake and clearance rate issue ?

how do you know that a fish not showing positive WASN'T juiced ?

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Peter,

According to IMA's CDT when a sample is positive and when is negative?
Thanks in advance for answering this question.

 

[Anonymous]

For

The uptake and clearance rates for cyanide in marine fishes are unknown. I disagree with some who have stated that cyanide is converted to thiocyanate in the fish in a matter of hours. It has been incorrectly alleged that because the conversion is so rapid it is impossible to detect cyanide ion shortly after the fish were collected. The IMA was able to detect cyanide ion in marine fishes in its laboratories in PI 2 to 3 weeks after they were collected. But, the concentrations were fairly low.
.

That's part of the problem with the legal trouble this test could get in, in the US. It may be a very reliable test, but, just look at how DNA was contested at first, and how many got off in the initial use of it. It's an uphill battle USF&WS is going to be faced with, when the confiscated the first shipment due to a test positive. I forsee the first few cases getting off, and the government loosing the counter suits that will definitly follow.

 

[Anonymous]

heh it's very simple legalese logicstix

if a negative test could be a positive instance, than the reverse must also apply

 

[naesco]

For

The uptake and clearance rates for cyanide in marine fishes are unknown. I disagree with some who have stated that cyanide is converted to thiocyanate in the fish in a matter of hours. It has been incorrectly alleged that because the conversion is so rapid it is impossible to detect cyanide ion shortly after the fish were collected. The IMA was able to detect cyanide ion in marine fishes in its laboratories in PI 2 to 3 weeks after they were collected. But, the concentrations were fairly low.
.

That's part of the problem with the legal trouble this test could get in, in the US. It may be a very reliable test, but, just look at how DNA was contested at first, and how many got off in the initial use of it. It's an uphill battle USF&WS is going to be faced with, when the confiscated the first shipment due to a test positive. I forsee the first few cases getting off, and the government loosing the counter suits that will definitly follow.

I think that is wishful thinking on your and industry's part.

The IMA test results can be augmented by another type of test which as Dr. Rubec has already posted is being actively sought after by the US Coral Reef Task Force.

In other words that is like having two independent types of DNA tests confirming the same thing.

Faced with two different tests confirming cyanide in the possession of the industry person charges under the Lacey Act, a conviction is guaranteed.

Of course I believe the point of Dr. Rubec's post is that the USCRTF is actively moving ahead in its expressed committment to:
1. certify a cyanide test.
2. prosecute those who continue to deal with cyanide fish under the Lacey Act.

Govern yourselves accordingly.

Wayne Ryan

 

[Anonymous]

For

The uptake and clearance rates for cyanide in marine fishes are unknown. I disagree with some who have stated that cyanide is converted to thiocyanate in the fish in a matter of hours. It has been incorrectly alleged that because the conversion is so rapid it is impossible to detect cyanide ion shortly after the fish were collected. The IMA was able to detect cyanide ion in marine fishes in its laboratories in PI 2 to 3 weeks after they were collected. But, the concentrations were fairly low.
.

That's part of the problem with the legal trouble this test could get in, in the US. It may be a very reliable test, but, just look at how DNA was contested at first, and how many got off in the initial use of it. It's an uphill battle USF&WS is going to be faced with, when the confiscated the first shipment due to a test positive. I forsee the first few cases getting off, and the government loosing the counter suits that will definitly follow.

I think that is wishful thinking on your and industry's part.

The IMA test results can be augmented by another type of test which as Dr. Rubec has already posted is being actively sought after by the US Coral Reef Task Force.

In other words that is like having two independent types of DNA tests confirming the same thing.

Faced with two different tests confirming cyanide in the possession of the industry person charges under the Lacey Act, a conviction is guaranteed.

Of course I believe the point of Dr. Rubec's post is that the USCRTF is actively moving ahead in its expressed committment to:
1. certify a cyanide test.
2. prosecute those who continue to deal with cyanide fish under the Lacey Act.

Govern yourselves accordingly.

Wayne Ryan

how's about you govern your snotty little mouth accordingly?

WHAT PART OF THIS DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND???!!!

The uptake and clearance rates for cyanide in marine fishes are unknown

 

[Anonymous]

THAT BY ITSELF BLOWS ANY TEST ENFORCEMENT OUTTA DA H2O!!!!

 

[Anonymous]

For

The uptake and clearance rates for cyanide in marine fishes are unknown. I disagree with some who have stated that cyanide is converted to thiocyanate in the fish in a matter of hours. It has been incorrectly alleged that because the conversion is so rapid it is impossible to detect cyanide ion shortly after the fish were collected. The IMA was able to detect cyanide ion in marine fishes in its laboratories in PI 2 to 3 weeks after they were collected. But, the concentrations were fairly low.
.

That's part of the problem with the legal trouble this test could get in, in the US. It may be a very reliable test, but, just look at how DNA was contested at first, and how many got off in the initial use of it. It's an uphill battle USF&WS is going to be faced with, when the confiscated the first shipment due to a test positive. I forsee the first few cases getting off, and the government loosing the counter suits that will definitly follow.

I think that is wishful thinking on your and industry's part.

The IMA test results can be augmented by another type of test which as Dr. Rubec has already posted is being actively sought after by the US Coral Reef Task Force.

In other words that is like having two independent types of DNA tests confirming the same thing.

Faced with two different tests confirming cyanide in the possession of the industry person charges under the Lacey Act, a conviction is guaranteed.

Of course I believe the point of Dr. Rubec's post is that the USCRTF is actively moving ahead in its expressed committment to:
1. certify a cyanide test.
2. prosecute those who continue to deal with cyanide fish under the Lacey Act.

Govern yourselves accordingly.

Wayne Ryan

Two words....


Go Home


Do you understand US law? Sorry, stupid question, don't answer, your PRIOR POSTINGS speak for themselves.

Can't you go back to being gone?

FWIW< I have no connection to MO livestock wholesaling or retailing, so this doesn't effect me really Wanye :lol: I'm pointing out the obvious, but iot's entirelly lost on you :lol:

 

[PeterIMA]

Hey guys be civil.

I think I already explained that the USCRTF will need a test for thiocyanate if the testing is to be conducted on MAF entering the USA. The IMA test is a test for cyanide ion. Hence, it probably will not be applied in the USA.

Whether or not uptake and clearance rates are known is not the issue. A test that can detect the presence of cyanide or thiocyanante can still be applied provided it works to detect the presence of the chemical of interest.

I would be more concerned that if the MAC or ReefCheck comes up with a workable test (like the one by Drs. Mak and Renneberg) they may force everyone in the trade to become Certified. Those that are not Certified may find they cannot either export to the USA or cannot import from countries where cyanide is known to be used to capture MAF or Food fish.

It really is not a question of the IMA test procedure, it is who controls the test and what the USCRTF plans to do. I don't know what will happen. But, I am very concerned about the evolving situation concerning CDT that appears to involve SeaWeb, ReefCheck, and MAC working with the USCRTF.

Peter

 

[Anonymous]

Hey guys be civil.

I think I already explained that the USCRTF will need a test for thiocyanate if the testing is to be conducted on MAF entering the USA. The IMA test is a test for cyanide ion. Hence, it probably will not be applied in the USA.

Whether or not uptake and clearance rates are known is not the issue. A test that can detect the presence of cyanide or thiocyanante can still be applied provided it works to detect the presence of the chemical of interest.

I would be more concerned that if the MAC or ReefCheck comes up with a workable test (like the one by Drs. Mak and Renneberg) they may force everyone in the trade to become Certified. Those that are not Certified may find they cannot either export to the USA or cannot import from countries where cyanide is known to be used to capture MAF or Food fish.
It really is not a question of the IMA test procedure, it is who controls the test and what the USCRTF plans to do. I don't know what will happen. But, I am very concerned about the evolving situation concerning CDT that appears to involve SeaWeb, ReefCheck, and MAC working with the USCRTF.

Peter

of course it is - you may not see that, but it is

it's a fundamental of determining reliability, and the ability to challenge accuracy of results-any high school law student would see that

the uscrtf isn't god-and reefcheck/mac and their associate cronies are certainly no angels-just because they 'certify' anything won't make it holy, applicable, or non-challenge-able

we all know what the word 'certification' in and of itself means and implies, don't we ? (methinks some here don't-all it means is that a standard of convention has been agreed upon to legitimize a claim of meeting a certain level of quality-whether it be a UL listing, or an iso 9000 or whatever tech tolerance standard for preciseness, blah blah blah).

(psssst-not all 'dolphin safe' tuna is really 'dolphin safe' )

just to be clear, i want a reliable cdt-shoulda been around 30 years ago, imo-juice really pisses me offmostly because i do know what it does, and the scale at which it's doing it, unlike our wannabe governor lecturer :lol:

would be nice if the ignorami telling us we'd better govern ourselves would also shut their pieholes-that was as uncivil remark as any made here on this forum to date-especially since it came from a clueless troll

we'd BETTER govern ourselves?

or what naesco, YOU're gonna pop us one in the kisser ?

who the HELL are YOU ? :lol:

not being able to bring in anything under an ASSUMPTION that cyanide is being used simply because food fish are caught that way in the export country will also hold no water-you cannot ban or convict due to 'guilt by association' unless you're aiding and abetting knowingly.The worst that could happen to an honest exporter who isn't using juice is nothing at all, regardless of where the stock is coming from.would get settled in a court right quick

you think a cop can arrest me for paying rent because my landlord is a criminal ? :lol:


more food for thought-wait'll the hobbyists start yelling bloody murder to their congressman/lobbyists if the trade is shut down, or slowed to a crawl leading to much higher prices

in the 'good ol' usa' money talks, and b.s. walks-trade and commerce ALWAYS have the upper and more powerful hand-look at polluters and the epa standards and their 'certification' policies-and who gets to walk right around them

it's why all of the threats first made to the biz (see the mac threads on wwm) were such a crock-the stores were just so naive at the time, they didn't realize that all of those 'industry will get shut down' hyperboles were just that-scare tactics and hyperbole

stores are far more edjumacated nowadays

 

[naesco]

Hey guys be civil.

I think I already explained that the USCRTF will need a test for thiocyanate if the testing is to be conducted on MAF entering the USA. The IMA test is a test for cyanide ion. Hence, it probably will not be applied in the USA.

Whether or not uptake and clearance rates are known is not the issue. A test that can detect the presence of cyanide or thiocyanante can still be applied provided it works to detect the presence of the chemical of interest.

I would be more concerned that if the MAC or ReefCheck comes up with a workable test (like the one by Drs. Mak and Renneberg) they may force everyone in the trade to become Certified. Those that are not Certified may find they cannot either export to the USA or cannot import from countries where cyanide is known to be used to capture MAF or Food fish.

It really is not a question of the IMA test procedure, it is who controls the test and what the USCRTF plans to do. I don't know what will happen. But, I am very concerned about the evolving situation concerning CDT that appears to involve SeaWeb, ReefCheck, and MAC working with the USCRTF.

Peter[/quote

Clearly there will be certification required.
IMO all importers will either have to certify that the fish they are purchasing are net caught(through their own due dilegence) or have a 'certifyable body' like MAC do the certification for them.

A USCRTF cyanide detection test(s) will be implemented to deal with those that ignore the law on purpose or through lack of substantive due dilegence on their part.

The USCRTF has already stated that it will pursue with indictments under the Lacey Act those that break the law. The test results and experts who comment on it in court will be part of the evidence necessary to convict the industry felon.

Industry had the opportunity to become part of the solution to the cyanide problem but they chose to ignore and to continue to ignore the problem.

 

[Anonymous]

:roll:

you don't listen

you cannot read

and you have absolutely no clue about anything you speak about/on

:?

 

[Caterham]

Naesco,

Thanks so much for your comments today. Unfortunately, with no past or present involvement in the trade of marine ornamentals it can be difficult for a hobbyist such as yourself to have an impact.

Warmest regards

 

[clarionreef]

"I would be more concerned that if the MAC or ReefCheck comes up with a workable test (like the one by Drs. Mak and Renneberg) they may force everyone in the trade to become Certified."

Egads...
Then who would force MAC to learn how to train divers to produce the certified fish supply?
They have not a clue how to do this and have convinced themselves and many listeners that its very difficult....very time consuming and of course very expensive.
To prove this... they have no fish supply after a huge amount of time and money lost.
Goodness...this must mean that the trade was ...er...un-co-operative!

So...its straight to the punitive and the law enforcement card is it?
' What weanies. Threatening a trade that they could not convert thru their own light, token and unskilled effort.
The truth is, that many were ready to switch and MAC convinced them to give it up. The lack of a simple field ability and netting supply that counted for so much to the divers sent so many collectors back to cyanide.
What a crime and a dis-service to the fisherfolk and the Philippines.

Of course in different hands and w/ different leadership this could all turn on a dime... but the MAC BOD is afraid. Afraid to vote in new leadership.

This is why I have been able to be so conclusive and absolute about MACs predictable failures with the fisherman all these years.
People have asked me ...won't I will look silly when the fish start coming in....?
Fish? What fish supply is possible with people of so little relevant skill? In the wrong hands failure is a certified certainty.
I know this easily as I do it for a living...and always have.

The lack of Democracy within he organization has disallowed change to occur and results to evolve.
The last years failures have been the worst in MACs history. They are going backwards...not forwards and the small gains made in a half a dozen villages have all been lost.
They are desperately scrambling to win over new people who do not know them yet.
Sad...really sad actually.
Their job is getting harder w/ each years as their credibility has sunk to new lows in the Philippines.
Peters warning has merit.
MAC will increasingly blame the girls who refuse to date them...
You will see...and will increasingly opt for more detached , 'corporate /scientific' fixes like MPAS and CDTs instead of simple and cheap trainings to clean up the dopers that remain.
Its a social problem that requires a local, social approach...not a scientific problem that can be driven from the top down....from an office.
Steve

 

[naesco]

Steve posted"

So...its straight to the punitive and the law enforcement card is it?
' What weanies. Threatening a trade that they could not convert thru their own light, token and unskilled effort.

Yes, Steve the only card left to play is the enforcement card.
IMO you grossly underestimate the committment of the USCRTF. It is not a threat it is reality.
THEY WILL PROSECUTE THOSE THAT CONTINUE TO DEAL IN CYANIDE.

Industry had plenty of opportunities to police itself but chose to do nothing.

Wayne Ryan

 

[clarionreef]

Yes, Steve the only card left to play is the enforcement card.
IMO you grossly underestimate the committment of the USCRTF. It is not a threat it is reality.

Wayne,
I can tell you now that the USCRTF is not the Spanish inquisition...and has few members who know much about tropical fish and the trade....much less be fueled by the passion you suggest.
There are few bureaucrats who will not accept more turf and budget if offered and thats how they are driven.
Besides Andy Bruckner you would be hard pressed to name anyone else w/ real world experience.
Barbra Best has a bigger collection of papers, links and published stuff then anyone else....and... and.... these two comprise the large majority of what policy comes out of them.
Niether of them believe in MAC and nothing conclusive is coming for quite some time.
If a test ever really materializes that works, then begins the process of weaving it into the US FWS protocols which they say is not happening any time soon.
We could easily train the offenders before this stuff could kick in [ if it ever does] and that would be far, far cheaper.
In other words, its cheaper to solve the problem then the ultimate, cumbersome, federal, expensive, punitive "solution"under consideration.

Millions could be spent on this thing and yet so little on the poor fish collectors themselves.
It seems to be a way for far flung, turf oriented people to drive and control an issue, make hay out of it and perpetuate themselves with it.

The grant money spent by the reform groups who said they had the answers was supposed to have achieved something. Is this meat axe approach a federal acceptance that it all failed?
Steve
PS. I will forward this thread to Andy Bruckner now.

 

[Jaime Baquero]

"I would be more concerned that if the MAC or ReefCheck comes up with a workable test (like the one by Drs. Mak and Renneberg) they may force everyone in the trade to become Certified."

Egads...
Then who would force MAC to learn how to train divers to produce the certified fish supply?
They have not a clue how to do this and have convinced themselves and many listeners that its very difficult....very time consuming and of course very expensive.
To prove this... they have no fish supply after a huge amount of time and money lost.
Goodness...this must mean that the trade was ...er...un-co-operative!

So...its straight to the punitive and the law enforcement card is it?
' What weanies. Threatening a trade that they could not convert thru their own light, token and unskilled effort.
The truth is, that many were ready to switch and MAC convinced them to give it up. The lack of a simple field ability and netting supply that counted for so much to the divers sent so many collectors back to cyanide.
What a crime and a dis-service to the fisherfolk and the Philippines.

Of course in different hands and w/ different leadership this could all turn on a dime... but the MAC BOD is afraid. Afraid to vote in new leadership.

This is why I have been able to be so conclusive and absolute about MACs predictable failures with the fisherman all these years.
People have asked me ...won't I will look silly when the fish start coming in....?
Fish? What fish supply is possible with people of so little relevant skill? In the wrong hands failure is a certified certainty.
I know this easily as I do it for a living...and always have.

The lack of Democracy within he organization has disallowed change to occur and results to evolve.
The last years failures have been the worst in MACs history. They are going backwards...not forwards and the small gains made in a half a dozen villages have all been lost.
They are desperately scrambling to win over new people who do not know them yet.
Sad...really sad actually.
Their job is getting harder w/ each years as their credibility has sunk to new lows in the Philippines.
Peters warning has merit.
MAC will increasingly blame the girls who refuse to date them...
You will see...and will increasingly opt for more detached , 'corporate /scientific' fixes like MPAS and CDTs instead of simple and cheap trainings to clean up the dopers that remain.
Its a social problem that requires a local, social approach...not a scientific problem that can be driven from the top down....from an office.
Steve

It is a problem that requires the social, technical and economical approach. The scientific component is also required to manage properly the resources. Is more than nets and training.

The industry has failed to understand and support initiatives put in place during the last two decades to tackle the problem. If the industry has to learn the hard way....so be it. No excuses.

 

[naesco]

Steve I agree with Jaime that the time for talk etc. is done.

I also disagree with you when you suggest that the USCRTF is not fixed on solving the problem (stopping the use of cyanide) in a timely basis.

On reading the minutes of the meeting in detail, I suggest to you that the USCRTF is sick and tired of the lack of action on the part of industry in stopping the use of cyanide and will itself on an URGENT (their words) basis deal with this cancer and those that promote it once and for all.

It is also apparent to me that they will take whatever steps are necessary to prosecute those who continue dealing in cyanide fish.

Dr. Rubec has posted that the USCRTF is already looking for sources of cyanide detection testing along with those, like the IMA test which has already been proven to be effective.

Sorry Steve no more delays to fight over turf, training or all that kind of stuff. Be assured, however, that the demands for training will skyrocket once net caught fish is the only game in town.

Wayne

 

[clarionreef]

I AGREE AS WELL;
But lets change a word or two;

The "money grubbing lightweight NGOs" have failed to understand and support initiatives put in place during the last two decades to tackle the problem.
The industry has to learn the hard way....and never rely on them again. No excuses.

 

[Anonymous]

Steve I agree with Jaime that the time for talk etc. is done.

I also disagree with you when you suggest that the USCRTF is not fixed on solving the problem (stopping the use of cyanide) in a timely basis.

On reading the minutes of the meeting in detail, I suggest to you that the USCRTF is sick and tired of the lack of action on the part of industry in stopping the use of cyanide and will itself on an URGENT (their words) basis deal with this cancer and those that promote it once and for all.

It is also apparent to me that they will take whatever steps are necessary to prosecute those who continue dealing in cyanide fish.

Dr. Rubec has posted that the USCRTF is already looking for sources of cyanide detection testing along with those, like the IMA test which has already been proven to be effective.

Sorry Steve no more delays to fight over turf, training or all that kind of stuff. Be assured, however, that the demands for training will skyrocket once net caught fish is the only game in town.

Wayne

time for you to either 'fish, or cut bait'

what parts, specifically, of those minutes lead you to believe what you posted above?

please provide them in quotes