Why fish??

[Anonymous]

I understand the concept of getting the ball rolling to avoid losing momentum, hence their decision to go ahead with certification even though there isn't a cycnide test. My question is why can't we get the MAC ball rolling with inverts and step up to fish when the test is developed? Sell MAC certified corals and inverts, from MAC certified collectors and MAC certified exporters and MAC certified wholesalers blah blah blah. Then when the process and kinks are worked out in the custody chain AND a cyanide test is developed it should be a simple matter to include fish. This way the certificate is worth something.

??

 

[MaryHM]

If they wanted to get the ball rolling with easily certifiable animals they would have started in Fiji, Tonga, or the Solomons. These islands have NO drug use, collection areas are not scattered over thousands of square miles, and most of the collectors work directly for the exporters in some capacity. This would have MADE SENSE. And it was suggested to MAC on numerous occasions. But they chose to begin in one of the most complicated countries. Why? Who knows. Can't be because they were concerned about stopping cyanide fishing and making that a priority, otherwise development of a test would have been first on the list.

 

[dizzy]

Rover, Mary,

I think the problem is that simply certifying something like corals adds very little perceived value. An open brain is an open brain. No one will want to pay more for one that has a number attached. They will be judged on apperance. Actually I think MAC will create a thriving black market if they aren't careful. Certifying a fish makes much more sense. If a certain fish is net caught and better handled then it does have more value, and this fact can be used to sell the concept.

MAC started where the need was the greatest. They should be commended, not condemned for this.

Mitch

 

[Anonymous]

But supposedly the certfication thing is about more than just cyanide use. It's also about proper handling and sustainability and manitaining a healthy reef. And prices aren't suppose to go up :roll: so why not start with something that you can actually certify?

 

[dizzy]

Rover,

Nothing and I mean nothing is more important to insuring sustainability and a healthty reef than stopping destructive fishing practices. Cyanide use has got to stop. Putting energy into other areas is robbing Peter to pay Paul. (Not necessarily talking about robbing Peter Rubec to pay Paul Holthus)

Mitch

 

[Kalkbreath]

Cyanide is the ONLY issue, There is and never has been any "unsustainable" fish population anywhere.......{Wood report 1975 ..86 92 ..99}.Even Banggai Cards. estimates are that we have been taking HALF! the fish in the wild each year.......and the numbers return each spring? {TFH Nov 2002}
_________________
Honda Magna
_________________
Honda Superhawk

 

[kylen]

Kalk,

Ever heard of cod on the East coast of Canada or the wild Pacific salmon? Don't kid yourself.

 

[PeterIMA]

Reply, To Kalk: Where do you get off concluding that collecting bangaii cardinals is sustainable? I read the article in TFH and the authors of the article concluded that the present level of harvest was unsustainable. As a fisheries scientist who has done stock assessments, most populations might be sustainably harvested at 15-20% per year, not by 50%. Bangaii cardinals have a low fecundity as you know. So this adds to the concerns of potential overharvest.

Similarly, you keep claiming that the reports by Dr. Elizabeth Woods claim present marine ornamental fish harvesting (without cyanide) is sustainable. I obtained the summary of the Woods 2001 report (still unpublished as far as I know). It concludes that the present levels of harvest of marine ornamentals is cause for concern (e.g., unsustainable).

So where and how do you reach your conclusions? The problems are many. Cyanide is a big problem, but so is the fact that there are too many collectors (even if they use nets) in the Philippines, Indonesia, and Hawaii. I agree that we both need to start our discussions on this with good data (that in some cases does not exist). I would not start with the unsubstantiated claim that the "only problem is cyanide" or that marine collecting is "sustainable". Prove it if you can with direct quotes from reports that are publicly available.

Peter Rubec

 

[Kalkbreath]

Please read the report ............then show me where, in the twenty years of collection data....any of the data shows unsustainable collections? Yes in 1982 mrs. Wood expressed concern ...............again in 1992 she expressed concern ........then 2001 she expressed concern. But she is only being polite, Notice she states she has concern, but never Alarm? She also states that demand is down from even ten years ago, Why would less collection be cause for greater concern? Many people in this hobby have dedicated their lives to a cause which they never even substantiated?
_________________
Injury cover Forum
_________________
Powerlet

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, If you have the Woods report, please provide direct quotes to substantiate your claims. Ditto for the TFH article. I think your argument is something like this "If no one has done the studies to document overfishing or unsustainability, then I can conclude that the fishery is sustainable." Well I disagee. There have been a number of underwater surveys and other means of assessing sustainability in these cases.

Peter Rubec

 

[dizzy]

Peter,

Wouldn't it be great if Dr. Woods would respond to Kalk's statements. I'll bet someone out there reading this knows how to get in touch with her. I agree Bangaii cardinals are likely in deep trouble and we probably need to cease harvesting. I'm not ready to believe that collectors with nets are damaging species with widespread populations. I hope your wrong on that one. If we are over-collecting then we should set limits. It needs to be done based on sustainable numbers. I have heard that Dr. Woods is not a friend of the trade, but I believe she deals in facts not wishes. At least I hope so. I think the trade looks bad enough based on facts and there is no need to exaggerate the negatives.

Mitch Gibbs

 

[Kalkbreath]

Mrs. Wood has quite a long track record, And many people highly praise her work ......but yet most of these people have never actually read into the data.........further more , it really is the data that speaks volumes, even remarks by Mrs Wood that might contradict her report would support my idea that most people in the hobby simply "need to have a cause to believe in ...........even if it is simply not founded.......
_________________
Atheism Forum
_________________
gmac bailout

 

[Kalkbreath]

http://www.mcsuk.org/action/Aqua-MCS-report.pdf
_________________
Irish Forum
_________________
Ferrari 166 S

 

[SPC]

Posted by Peter:

Reply, To Kalk: Where do you get off concluding that collecting bangaii cardinals is sustainable? I read the article in TFH and the authors of the article concluded that the present level of harvest was unsustainable

-I read the article also and came to this same conclusion. Where in the world did you come up with your conclusions Kalk??? Please explain exactly where the article states what you have alleged.
Steve

 

[dizzy]

Kalk,
Thanks for posting that link. I just finished reading the first 36 pages, and will read the rest later. I assume this is the 2001 report that Peter mentioned as possibly not being published yet. Overall the report seems very fair although it does admit assumptions are used when hard data is lacking. ( Quite a bit I'm afraid)

I would be interested in learning a little more about the research that was conducted in Hawaii by Tissot & Hallacher in 1999. The fact that the reefs are not experiencing excessive algal growth does little to support the claims that the herbivor fish populations have been reduced by half. Tissot & Hallacher may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. It seems to me that the people who would have the best feel for population stability would be the actual collectors themselves. Especially the ones who have been collecting for a number of years. Has anyone thought to ask them?

Too often in dealing with these sort of problems, the people with the book sense don't listen to the people with the common sense.

I also have a question about the report on page 26. It states that in the 1990s pirate sport fishing boats were going to Revillagigedo Archipelago, Mexico and were collecting Clarion angels at the rate of 1000 per boat. The report claims the pirate collecting reduced local populations by 95%. I have serious doubts as to whether or not that is a factual account of events. If it's true the Clarions must have been there in very high numbers. I also wonder where they all went, because I don't rember seeing any for sale in the 90s.

MG

 

[Kalkbreath]

The last pages on the report have the many many sources, Mrs wood gave me the link via e-mail........
_________________
Katana
_________________
BMW 327

 

[clarionreef]

Hello Mitch,
I couldn't get the report but if it says that 1,000 clarions were regularly taken out on sport boats and the poulation was off by 95 % I'd like to know who printed that so that I could call em a liar in print.
I've been there more than a few times and each days census was in excess of 4,000 fish from a single anchorage.
Where does one get such an environmental or scientific job where one can lie for a living? I'm curious and at the same time jealous.
Dr. McAllister [ IMA co-founder and Ocean Voice founder] once told me not to expect any higher morality from scientists as I would any other profession and it was sage advice it appears.
But premeditatedly falsifying information smacks of tactics the bad guys use. When did the environmentally sincere people cross over the line to become as greedy, fraudulent and corrupt as the despoilers of the planet? When did they join the dark side? In increments I suppose, but its disconcerting to know something for 100 % absolute certainty and hear it perverted for some hidden intention...passed off as morality.
Hard to be smug when there are crooks and frauds in your own ranks. How many other things are twisted and perverted this way for environmentally pretentious reasons?
Its a new year and I need to rethink all perviously held, seldom examined assumptions. As possibly the new president of AMDA, theres a lot to re-consider.

Sincerely, Steve

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Kalk,

Good to see that someone is wondering what would be the fisherfolk's point of view regarding "abundance" of species. I can tell you that today fish collectors in the Philippines have to travel hours in their bancas, facing dangerous heavy seas, having to stay away from home for several days to find "the good value fish". Before they had those good value fish just in front of their houses, unfortunatelly they collected so many that nothing is left. This is a real sign that some species have been overcollected.

In Australia, where I think are only 150 fishers with license to collect marine ornamentals for the aquarium trade the revenue for this activity is close to US $10.000.000/year. In the Philippines where there are thousands of collectors the total is less than that amount. It is a sign that something is really wrong.

Jaime

Jaime

 

[Kalkbreath]

Yes, I beleive that there are missing fish in the Philippines. But why there are less fish can be difficult to pinpoint. The wide spread use of cyanide and blast fishing has perhaps damaged some of the multi use reefs ,to the point where those reefs are quite un-healthy. When the live coral reef itself has been harmed, there are less fish............ even when no collection tackes place.......
_________________
economic recession in us
_________________
Student Loans Forum

 

[clarionreef]

HELLO EVERYONE,
CLEARLY NO ONE DEFENDS THE CYANIDE TRADE AS IT IS QUITE ...ER...INDEFENSIBLE...HOWEVER, IT DOES ENJOY UNIVERSAL SUPPORT AND SUBSIDY FROM NEARLY ALL OF US.
IT IS THE BASIS OF OUR INDUSTRY AND BRINGS SHAME TO US ALL , ESPECIALLY IN POLITE COMPANY.
As an industry, a trade and a hobby, we have obviously and verifiably been ineffective in cleansing ourselves and have become pretty much...the bad guys now.
Logically, we are therefore responsible. We are accomplices, witting or unwitting in an unsustainable assault on other peoples reefs that appears to have a doomsday clock on it.
I don't know if we'll be successful in turning fake reform into real reform this year but its going to be an epic struggle to enlist a disinterested industry in a campaign to save itself. It may even be a greater struggle to redivert the momentum of wasted effort into productive effort among the so called good guys...ie reformers.
Its a new year and I'd like to ask people of conscience to stay tuned and participate in responsible efforts to clean a misbehaving trade.

It has only just begun to get real.
Steve