Kalkbreath":2eipslch said:
This topic seems to be "Destructive fishing in the Indo Pacific. "
And I limited my discussion point to the "Live Reef Food Fish" trade, which is a sub-section of the entire topic. I stated that explicitly now several times, and it is apparently still a point you don't get.
If you want to have a real thoughtful discussion, you need to keep on-topic. The way to do this is by focusing on what the person is saying, noting the bounds or limits to their point, then keeping within them.
For instance, when talking about destructive fishing practices, the three most common are going to be blast fishing, cyanide or other poison fishing, then probably muro-ami. Given that blast fishing is utterly indefensible, a point you appear to agree on, there doesn't seem to be much room for discussion. Likewise, Muro-ami has never come up, so I don't think there is much room for discussion there either.
When we get to cyanide, there are three reported uses that I am aware of.
1) Broadcast spreading of cyanide pellets to kill fish.
2) Use of cyanide in the MO trade.
3) Use of cyanide in the LRFF trade.
Given the expense of cyanide, and the fact that this has been reported only one time that I am aware of, I don't think #1 happens very much.
Heaving fertilizer bombs would seem to be far easier and much less costly.
When you get to #2 and #3, there are differences in points of view between marine scientists. Either one is bad, the question is which one is worse?
Peter has presented his own points of view earlier in this thread. I presented the other point of view, voiced most arduously by the likes of Mark Erdmann and Pet-Soude. Review the thread to see these.
The ancillary point should probably be dubbed #4, and would include fish that are targetted for the LRFF trade, but are over-dosed and end up in the local wet market.
Given all of this discussion in context of the original stated topic, where you go astray is in the erroneous assumption that 100% of all food fish are taken by destructive means. Given the fact that cage farming and salt water ponds exist, and produce fish for the local market as well as the export market, it is a fairly simple matter to prove your statements false.
Where the 60% figure came from is not clear. If I assume that it is true, I would need to see the way the data was collected to see if it is even remotely possible to extrapolate the numbers out in the way you did. My best guess is that it is not. Why is this? If the numbers come from the Philippines and from IMA, then the numbers are probably not from a population that is entirely random.
What does this mean?
That there is a bias in the numbers, and that the bias is introduced by the samples sent in. Why is this? Because they are looking for cyanided fish.
Think of it this way... If you were to take the number of people who tested positive for drunk driving, then extrapolate it out, the number of drunk people on the road would be extremely high. But the number would be false because cops don't pull over people and test them randomly for blood alcohol percentage. They tend to pull over people who are weaving all over the road. This is the introduction of bias, and it means that the numbers cannot be extrapolated to the population at large because the numbers would be hugely inflated.
Does this make IMA's and BFAR's numbers wrong? No, absolutely not. My assumption is that the testing is somewhere between truly random and truly targeted. Until you figure out how to cull out the targetted testing and use only the truly random figures, then the extrapolation figures you are producing will never be all that accurate.
Regards.
Mike Kirda
