US Coral Reef Task Force Cyanide Enforcement & Detection

[PeterIMA]

Jaime, I think Steve already commented on Mie Mie (the same person as MeMe=Romulo Purgatorio). Steve trained him and others from Santiago Island in 1983-84. They were well trained and are still committed to using nets.

Don McAllister and myself incorporated IMA-Canada in 1987. In 1989, I flew to the Philippines and met with the Haribon Foundation to establish the Net-training program funded through IDRC (a Canadian funding agency like USAID). The divers from Santiago Island trained by Steve comprised the core trainers provided to the program by IMA-Canada that worked with Haribon. Later, IMA-Canada became Ocean Voice International (OVI).

Both Jaime and Steve have made good points. The Haribon trainings were not perfect. I can sympathize with Steve in being critical of the way that Haribon managed the Net-Training program during 1990-1992. But, I think it is time to bury the animosity and try to get the best people involved with doing net-trainings the right way (possibly with help from Steve). I don't think that blaming the trade or blaming NGOs for past actions is productive. Can't you guys accept that you both have tried to help solve the problems associated with cyanide fishing and that you both have made valuable contributions? The past was not perfect, but you both tried to do the right things (protect coral reefs by promoting net trainings and marine conservation).

Even I would support the MAC, if it was restructured to effectively support community-based programs, trainings, and alternative livelihoods that protect/conserve coral reefs, while promoting a sustainable marine aquarium trade. Isn't that what everyone wants?

Peter Rubec

 

[clarionreef]

Isn't that what everyone wants?

Peter,
Agreeing on the need for success and victory is easy.

The disagreement is in the strategies employed.
A far better mousetrap is built with competition, not with uni-thinking on the same ol, same ol page of failure. Top down approaches have not work...
The brightest lights in the history of this thing are from the first batch trainings 23 years ago in Bolinao and they were pre-NGOs of today.
That era shows the way to do it again.
Continued, predictable failure strategies produce another year of damage, loss, suffering and time left to get it right". How can anyone sincere embrace them?
If ...the MAC approach could win from the village up...who could be against it?
If the Haribon approach could win...from the villagers benefit first...and then onward...who could be against it?

If a new organization could evolve with leadership that was inclusive and curious and open minded....the field would be wide open for them.
The time has come for competition. You know, like we commercial people live in.
W/ 1/10 of the MAC budget to work with we could blow them out of the water in all sectors of performance.
They are so lucky that the funding monopoly engineered for them has so far been their only success.
None of us believe in monopolies and in absolute power...and yet we seem to think it uncontestable. Why is that?
Since when have we become so burnt out and jaded that accepting failure has become a given?
Just how cowardly are we reformers anyway?
Steve

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Peter,

Who should be more interested in solving the cyanide problem in the Philippines?

 

[PeterIMA]

Jaime, I don't understand your question.

Peter

 

[naesco]

This was the only use of the word urgent I could find in the decision Wayne posted:

Issue Statement: There is an urgent need for fast, reliable and convenient detection tests for determining
whether cyanide and other poisons have been used in the collection of live coral reef fish entering into
international trade. Many Task Force member agencies have expertise in toxicology, biomarkers and
forensics that could be applied to this issue. Field-based cyanide detection tests would be extremely
useful for local management and enforcement authorities in source countries. Tests that could be reliably
used several weeks after exposure would also allow the U.S. to apply the Lacey Act to suspected illegal
imports.

It just looks like they stated their intent to form a group to look into the possibilities of these things. Its a long way off if anything is even done.

Really? or is that wishful thinking leading the continued industry inaction and continue destruction of the reefs and the critters that live thereon by the use of cyanide.
Why do they reference the Lacey Act if they don't intend to prosecute those that continue to deal in cyanide?
Why are they looking for the best test NOW?

Wayne Ryan

 

[Anonymous]

This was the only use of the word urgent I could find in the decision Wayne posted:

Issue Statement: There is an urgent need for fast, reliable and convenient detection tests for determining
whether cyanide and other poisons have been used in the collection of live coral reef fish entering into
international trade. Many Task Force member agencies have expertise in toxicology, biomarkers and
forensics that could be applied to this issue. Field-based cyanide detection tests would be extremely
useful for local management and enforcement authorities in source countries. Tests that could be reliably
used several weeks after exposure would also allow the U.S. to apply the Lacey Act to suspected illegal
imports.

It just looks like they stated their intent to form a group to look into the possibilities of these things. Its a long way off if anything is even done.

Really? or is that wishful thinking leading the continued industry inaction and continue destruction of the reefs and the critters that live thereon by the use of cyanide.
Why do they reference the Lacey Act if they don't intend to prosecute those that continue to deal in cyanide?
Why are they looking for the best test NOW?
Wayne Ryan

i certainly hope you hold only car salesman responsible for pollution :lol:

you still haven't read ANYTHING posted here explaining to you the lacey act, and you still do not know what an 'act' is, nor have you read anything here that explained it to you.

how do you know which test they are looking for, if they are truly even looking for it, and whether or not they've looked for it previously?

Many Task Force member agencies have expertise in toxicology, biomarkers and
forensics that could be applied to this issue

reeeaaallyyy?

s'pose YOU explain how ? especially given that a juiced fish might not even show positive after 24 hours, and that a non-juiced fish MAY show compounds very similiar to juice breakdown.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

silly little troll

 

[PeterIMA]

Vitz, The IMA was able to detect cyanide ion in MAF 2-3 weeks after they were collected. There are published studies with rainbow trout (cited in my CDT paper) that indicates that cyanide ion is present up to 15 days after uptake, and that thiocyanate is detectable 15-20 days after uptake. Hence, we do know something about uptake and release rates on freshwater fish. The uptake and realease rates in marine fish are longer because of the way they osmoregulate. So, it should be possible to detect either cyanide ion or thiocyanate ion with the proper testing procedures.

Peter

 

[WayneSallee]

I wish some people would learn how to quote

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets
[email protected]

 

[mark@mac]

Dear Dr Rubec

Having spent some time now in the Philippines it is obvious to me that that use of cyanide is still on going in both the MO and LRFF trades. One of the problems that MAC has is that most cyanide seems to enter the MO trade through the live reef food fish trade. In many cases the MO fishers also collect live food fish. So, we have the "possibility" of "certified MO fishers" still using cyanide at least for collecting food fish.....

The peer reviewed testing project that Dr. Mak and Professor Renneberg undertook seemed to show the need for a ‘portable’ cdt test that could be used very close to the areas where fishing takes place. This would enable fish to be tested within 24 hours of collection, or so....

In the MAMTI project there is over $300,000 USD of RESTRICTED funding allocated to cyanide detection. When I was forced out of MAC a few months ago, none of the money had been spent.

I would have thought that you are the ideal person to apply to MAMTI as a subcontractor/partner to undertake this cdt within MAMTI?

Possibly the $300K could be used as seed money to attract even more funding to conquer this cyanide problem once and for all? What are your thoughts on this? After all there is no-one within MAMTI/MAC that has any experience at all with this CDT issue.

MAC won’t be able to deliver this aspect of MAMTI unless they retain an expert such as yourself.

Best regards,

Mark

 

[PeterIMA]

Mark, The MAC asked me to be on a CDT review committee with Dr. Rennerberg in 2004. Nothing happened after that. I was not aware of the funding you mentioned associated with the MAMTI Grant. If asked, I would be willing to assist.

Recent information that I received leads me to believe that the SeaWeb is conducting a review of cyanide testing methods. They appear to be interested in the enzyme-based cyanide testing method refined by Drs. Mak and Renneberg.

I have a new cyanide testing procedure that could be applied. If anyone with funding is interested, they can contact me.

Peter Rubec