Practicing what he preaches

[dizzy]

This a picture of Steve Robinson when he was still a believer in staying in shape. From the new Anglefishes by Debelius, Tanaka, and Kuiter.

 

[Anonymous]

edit: No longer relevant as Dizzy has changed his post to look as if I was attacking the innocent.

 

[dizzy]

Gresh,
You need to take a Valium and try and relax. Read the title of this thread and then use your head.

 

[Anonymous]

Nice editting Mitch, guess I shoulda quoted the whole thing as not to give you an out.

 

[clarionreef]

Goodness me,
That is an old one. It was a training in the Marcos era circa 1982.
Three years before IMA was founded, 10 before Haribon...and 18 before MAC showed up.
In that training the real netting was allowed to be deployed and there was no interference from above.
There are divers from that group working today in Belize, Red Sea and Vanuatu collecting with nets as a normal routine.
Training is easy if you know how and if allowed to do it right..
Steve

 

[dizzy]

Steve,
I think the photo is interesting for a couple of reasons. I think it clearly shows that at least some of the fishers were interested in doing it right back in 1982 if that's the date. It also shows that you were proactive and well able to communicate at their level. It's really great that some of those divers are still collecting with nets.

This book actually does devote a page or so to methods of collecting angelfish, and mentions the use of cyanide back as early as the 70s. This copy which was apparently written by Helmut Debelius, talks of damage to the liver and short aquarium life as a result of cyanide collection. It says a complete ban was threatened back then. The collecting section ends with: " Also US-organizations like the "Internationsl Marine Alliance" settled in Manila to stop the ornamental fish collectors using cyanide."

In fairness this book may have been many years in the works and some of the information is dated. This section does have a tendency to leave the reader with the impression that the cyanide problem was taken care of some time ago. Good book btw and I would recommend getting a copy. In fact the entire "The Marine Fish Familes Series" is excellent.

 

[clarionreef]

Mitch,
There were a lot more than just some fishers that wanted to be trained. Everywhere we went, I found everyone wanted to get in on it and especially with the new netting material they had heard about.
In the trainings I did, we covered about 500 divers before it all came to a halt.
The host organizations like to keep money earmarked for training in the city and allow as little as possible to trickle to the field. Same ol story w/ every group I ever worked for. Simple as that.
So, you either sell out to the city people or resign in protest.
Too bad,. We could've trained a few thousand in a few years and the critical mass of support it would have generated would've finished off the cyanide experiment and hooked the divers onto nets.
The divers took to it. Ruining the chance to continue it was all done by the "money grubbing environmentalists" at the heads of the NGOs in question.
The divers were the least of the problems involved in field training!
Steve

 

[clarionreef]

Excuse me...
"Money grubbing environmentalists?"
I'm sorry. That was perhaps a tad rash.
I ment "pseudo environmentally themed consultants, that exploit [and perpetuate ] the problem while creating their own mission."
Kinda like mimick blennies that emulate cleaner wrasses to get close enough to the 'problem' to loot it. Trusting fishes even open their gills willingly.
Enlisting the host organism to support his own injury is the genius of the mimick wrasse.
The host organism has been told that first he must be certified, then perhaps have fish tested. This 'action agenda' then somehow propells fisherman into sustainable collecting practice without us having to deal with them...How silly. How backward.

We have to first work with fishing villages and convert them as we would cohorts and allies. Failing this...there are no futher areas we can suceed in. Not reform thru testing nor certifying. Admitting failure to deal in the field condemns us to failure.
Accepting failure, we content ourselves with 'mimick environmentalism' to earn salary and get thru the day.
Bonafide marinelife dealers on the other hand, must deal in fish every day and order every week. These issues, ie the fish quality and variety development field issues are the ones that need front loading. Not just the issues our non aquarium oriented, self appointed consultants feel comfortable with.
Redefining reform of the aquarium trade as an accounting or laboratory problem is a false analysis.
It will squander precious time to get it right. It will bleed us as time goes by and reefs are lost.
It will serve only the mimick organism, not the host organism.
22 years ago the way was shown. Direct field training with fellow fisherman. One village after another. That needs to go forth again.
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Hey Mitch, kinda looks like this photo by Ramon Binamira, Jr. from FAMA article July 84 (photo on page 18) entitled Collecting Tropical Marines : Return to Reason and Common Sense by Steve Robinson.

 

[clarionreef]

Kalk,
The trainees in the training pictured 20 years ago testified about their experiences with cyanide collecting.
They said it killed the corals and made the fish vanish.
They even spoke of fishes staying away...something that drove them futher afield all the time.
In this time back then, there was NO LIVE FISH TRADE in Bolinao, Pangasinan.
I believe the collectors of thousands of hours underwater and my own eyes a lot more then your need for blame free existance.
Steve

 

[Kalkbreath]

Yes, and the collectors have had twenty years to perfect their craft. Back in 1982 the fish these collectors were targeting were large fish. Adult fish {like angels}. Also these guys were all former food fish collectors or new to collecting all together.{ps if you think those guy did not collect seafood for self use your wrong. } If your question is ,That I agree , in the past if MO collectors torched the reefs ....My answer is YES. ..........But today, every collector knows there are far less fish , the fish for the most part are ten times smaller {remember the palm sized clownfish?} compared to thumbnail size clownfish today. The fish these collectors collected then were not much different then the fish food fish collectors collect today. Twenty years have passed and the amateurs are now professionals. Professionals dont kill their target fish.

 

[clarionreef]

Kalck,
Many of the divers in those days had a decade and more experience at that time.
I lived with em for a couple of years. We always ate fish caught with cyanide at first...but w/in a month they all converted over. Its easy actually...to show them the benefits of switching.[ IF you already know how to catch fish like Aussies and Hawaiians].
They were skilled then and had a very light touch with the juice.
Trying to figure this out from afar must be frustrating I imagaine.
Steve

 

[Kalkbreath]

I am not disputing what you have accomplished or that more netters is a better thing. The question is how much of the current damage is from our collectors? And is it correct to blame our industry today? A lot has changed in twenty years. Even during the nineties We went from 70 percent cyanide to 8 percent in three short years.......... then back to twenty plus percentage. How many fish are being collected today 2004 and what percentage of todays catch is with cyanide? If I take 3 million fish and then take 25 percent of 3 million I get about 780,000 fish . Then if I consider that many of the 780,000 fish are collected as a group. {cyanide seems to yield multiple fish per event} I get 78,000 squirts. The question is can 78,000 squirts over the intire region of 25,000 square kilometers have a regional effect? Thats three squirts per year per every 120 foot ball fields worth of reef. You all have suggested that we as a hobby collect from all over the Philippines. Lets assume we only collect from half of the region. That would mean six squirts per year per square kilometer. Still not much . How then would it be if we as ahobby only collected from 25 percent of the reefs in the Philippines? that would mean nine squirts ? Still not very much squirting. Even if we only collect from 25 % of the reefs in Pi we as an industry would only be removing 90 fish each year with poison from each of 7,000 square kilometers? thats still far short of what would be required to effect the reefs . Not to mention that not every squirt harms the coral and larger squirts can yeild more the ninty fish !. Wanting to clean up our industry so that the hobbyists can enjoy a better product and a clean mind set about the hobby and its effects on the reefs is one thing .{and a great thing} But this silly notion that its possible to effect the reefs with our limited collection is just not fare . And is with out any merit what so ever.

 

[mkirda]

But this silly notion that its possible to effect the reefs with our limited collection is just not fare . And is with out any merit what so ever.

Kalk,

Just imagine a common murderer using this argument and you can see that the argument has no merit whatsoever.

"Jeffery Dalmer killed many people. I only killed one. So our crimes are not at all comparable... " Uh, huh.

"Fare" or not, you still gotta pay the piper, Kalk.
As long as this industry is still using cyanide regularly for collection, we as a hobby are ALL DIRTY. Is that such a silly notion?

 

[Kalkbreath]

For the first time in a while I agree with you. I have never stated that any cyanide fishing is all right .......nor is a single murder.......But,Since you made the analogy, Do you realize how many times mass murderers like Bundy and Casey have been accused of a certain murder........only years latter find out that it was impossible for either one them to have been in that state or city at the time of the murder.........That means the REAL killer continued to get away with his killing or killings. If the police had not ended the search for the real killer when the falsely blamed Bundy ..........might the other multiple murderer have been stopped before she killed again? :wink: No cyanide is good cyanide............Test , convict............BUT dont exaggerate the crime to make the crack down seem worthwhile.

 

[mkirda]

Do you realize how many times mass murderers like Bundy and Casey have been accused of a certain murder........only years latter find out that it was impossible for either one them to have been in that state or city at the time of the murder.

No, how many times?
I expect an answer with sources to back this up.

Do you realize how many times murderers lie about not having murdered people?
A recent story on CNN had the murderer denying he was even around, however when the DNA test was run, it was his DNA found inside the woman murdered.
Oops.

But the fact that you even hear about these cases shows that the justice system is working, albeit agonizingly slowly at times.

Your point only addresses half the true question anyway: Do you have any sort of numbers to compare those who were wrongly accused vs. those lied about not being guilty then proven that they were? Unless you do some sort of comparison like this, your point is relatively meaningless.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, Your attempts to minimize the numbers of fishes exposed to cyanide (780,000 figure cited above) ignores the fact that 50% of the exposed fish die on the reef and only about 10% are fishes of interest to the trade (hence the others even if they survive are not collected). You still have not come up with a reasonable explanation why 80 million fishes are killed so that 3 million are exported and continue to die through the chain-of-custody from collector, to exporter, to importer, to retailer. Until you or someone like Elwyn Seagrest (he claimed that I must be wrong at MO 04) provides hard numbers to refute my claims, I continue to assert that the cumulative mortality from reefs to retailers is over 90%.

Peter Rubec

 

[Kalkbreath]

What happened to your 9 out of ten die on the reef mantra? Now its fifty percent? That s quite an improvement in such a short time {the MO Meeting and speech was last week} We importers know how many fish die in transit.......its about 5 to ten percent. Then 5 to ten percent again in the next five days . Twenty percent is a bad shipment. Many exporters will give credits if its over 20% . Credits hurt the exporters bottom line. So they do everything possible to keep DOAs limited. What you fail to consider is that everyone involved is trying to make money. The collectors, the exporters and the importer to the LFS. You silly notion of 90% DOA cannot work when the resources are limited.. Even you state that there are not that many fish to collect. The days when no one cared if most of the fish died was twenty years ago , back when the fish supply seemed inexhaustible. Today A blue tang collector knows if he is lucky enough to find a school of regals ....that he had better calibrate the cyanide to "STUN" not kill. You cant have it both ways, either the fish supply is still huge and the collectors can afford to waste fish .....or the collectors realize that they have limited fish supplies and killing most of the target fish will surely leed to little profits to feed his family with . Your data is far out dated as is your understanding of the fish import business. As far as how many fish die at the holding facilities on the islands? I have know idea. other then what they tell us . But keep this in mind. Of the fish that are in high demand......there is a shortage. If you think the exporters are going to knowingly let fish they are sure to sell ....die before they ship them .....you are underestimating their desire to make a profit. The only fish that die in large numbers being held are the fish nobody wants. .......fish that sit week after week like brown tangs and brown groupers the exporters dont care about because they are worth very little . Kinda like the live coral in PI . If the coral was worth something to the islanders they would take better care of it. .........Whose idea was it to ban the export of coral from PI?

 

[Anonymous]

What happened to your 9 out of ten die on the reef mantra? Now its fifty percent? That s quite an improvement in such a short time {the MO Meeting and speech was last week} We importers know how many fish die in transit.......its about 5 to ten percent. Then 5 to ten percent again in the next five days . Twenty percent is a bad shipment. Many exporters will give credits if its over 20% . Credits hurt the exporters bottom line. So they do everything possible to keep DOAs limited. What you fail to consider is that everyone involved is trying to make money. The collectors, the exporters and the importer to the LFS. You silly notion of 90% DOA cannot work when the resources are limited.. Even you state that there are not that many fish to collect. The days when no one cared if most of the fish died was twenty years ago , back when the fish supply seemed inexhaustible. Today A blue tang collector knows if he is lucky enough to find a school of regals ....that he had better calibrate the cyanide to "STUN" not kill. You cant have it both ways, either the fish supply is still huge and the collectors can afford to waste fish .....or the collectors realize that they have limited fish supplies and killing most of the target fish will surely leed to little profits to feed his family with . Your data is far out dated as is your understanding of the fish import business. As far as how many fish die at the holding facilities on the islands? I have know idea. other then what they tell us . But keep this in mind. Of the fish that are in high demand......there is a shortage. If you think the exporters are going to knowingly let fish they are sure to sell ....die before they ship them .....you are underestimating their desire to make a profit. The only fish that die in large numbers being held are the fish nobody wants. .......fish that sit week after week like brown tangs and brown groupers the exporters dont care about because they are worth very little . Kinda like the live coral in PI . If the coral was worth something to the islanders they would take better care of it. .........Whose idea was it to ban the export of coral from PI?

i think you made that mantra up kalk- i've never seen anything quoted here from peter that would lead anyone to think he claimed that the 90% came from the collection point of the chain-it was always a cumulative figure from origin to end user


why do you keep on trying to make the same stuff up? :?

abit time consuming, no? and not very productive at all

 

[Kalkbreath]

Kalk, Your attempts to minimize the numbers of fishes exposed to cyanide (780,000 figure cited above) ignores the fact that 50% of the exposed fish die on the reef and only about 10% are fishes of interest to the trade (hence the others even if they survive are not collected). You still have not come up with a reasonable explanation why 80 million fishes are killed so that 3 million are exported and continue to die through the chain-of-custody from collector, to exporter, to importer, to retailer. Until you or someone like Elwyn Seagrest (he claimed that I must be wrong at MO 04) provides hard numbers to refute my claims, I continue to assert that the cumulative mortality from reefs to retailers is over 90%.

Peter Rubec

How do you come up with 80 million this time ? That would mean 28 to one ratio? If fifty percent of the fish die either at collection or before being exported,that would be 6 million fish not 80 million. 1,560,00 to collect 780,000 {50% DOA}and of the 780,000 twenty percent more for DOA in holding. So 156,000 plus 1,560,00 = 1,720,000. for the cyanide fish and we still have the 2,340,00 remaining non cyanide collected fish plus twenty percent DOA during holding for export ...........totals 4.528 million fish. NOT 80 million! See even if the fish arrive DOA in America, those dead fish are still part of the three million total fish exported. They are listed on the Fish and wild life permits whether they are dead or not . .............4.528 million fish per year and I used your numbers ....... :wink: