How are you going to match up the cyanide user in a third world country to the fish that tested positive in a Stateside test? ...........If an importer can be held responsible for the collectors use of cyanide, then can the retail store and the hobbyist as well? Second, if you fail at proving your case.......you will be counter sued for damages in the amount of lost revenue by falsely defaming the industry. If you win, the best you can hope for is jail time for the native island offender.{good luck getting a US jury to send a poor Native Philippine daddy earning pennys per fish to prison} .........But if you loose ......your going to be hit with a multi million dollar counter suit. Remember, Peters tests found that you will only have a one in four finding of cyanide in PI ........the best you might have stateside would be one in twenty after the DOA DAA.......and keep in mind that by the time the fish reach your tester here in the USA......that the levels of cyanide will have excreted away most of the evidence. Tests in PI by a government is the only way........
Run off...
- Thread starter Kalkbreath
- Start date
Kalk, I think CDT testing can be done in both the exporting countries (like IMA already did on 48,000 fish) and in the importing countries. However, the tests are different. The first measures cyanide ion, the second measures thiocyanate. Actually, two tests that might be applied in the USA already exist.
I still contest your 5% contention. Repeating it does not make it any more credible.
As far as lawyers working free to prosecute US importers. It has been considered. With a US test it can proceed. There still are US lawyers willing to do it.
I still contest your 5% contention. Repeating it does not make it any more credible.
As far as lawyers working free to prosecute US importers. It has been considered. With a US test it can proceed. There still are US lawyers willing to do it.
Kalkbreath":132e3kzz said:
Let's be candid here Kalk.
First everyone knows who the stateside cyanide cartel are and everyone knows they are guilty as hell.
Even if they got off on some technically which in a criminal trial is always possible, they won't have a cent left to pay attorney's fees for a civil lawsuit.
In any event, the burden of proof in a civil trial is much less than in a criminal one.
Peter , your test found 18 percent [of the last and most current three years}to have cyanide present {inPI} and your testimony stated that 80% die from collector to retail store. These were your words..........How many of that 18 percent do you feel reach consumers? Are you claiming cyanide fish are just as hardy ? Also , why did you test so many more food fish then MO fish? :wink:PeterIMA":3ogxxex0 said:
Kalk,
First you try to minimize the % of MO fish found with cyanide determined by the IMA using CDT in PI (by using a three year average of 18% from 1998 to 2000). At least you got that average right for the 1st time. I have published data indicating it had increased from 8% in 1999 to 29% in 2000. The overall average for MO fish from 1996 to 2000 was 25% (just so you don't forget, despite my repeated postings).
I already stated that because there is no longer enforcement of Philippine laws tied to a CDT, that I believe that cyanide use has increased (not decreased as you claim) since 2000.
We tested more food fish because the food fish trade became of international concern, and we obtained funding from BFAR, McArthur Foundation, Packard Foundation, and US-AID to monitor that trade. The overall percentage with food fish for the presence of cyanide from 1996 to 2000 was 44% in PI (supporting to some extent your argument that cyanide use in the food fish trade is higher than with the MO trade).
I have previously posted data that demonstrates that marine fish die from a variety of causes including cyanide exposure, stress, and ammonia etc. The papers by Hall and Bellwood (1995) and Hanawa et al. (1998) demonstrated that the delayed mortality was compounded by exposure to cyanide. Hence, fish exposed to cyanide are more likely to die from stress. Hall and Bellwood (1995) found that the factors in combination (e.g., cyanide+stress, cyanide+starvation, stress+starvation, cyanide+stress+starvation) resulted in higher mortality. That being said it is clear that fish can die from each of the factors alone listed above. Many factors can act as "stressors" that increase catecholamine and glucose levels to cause a stress response in fish (like changes in temperature, salinity, or pH, being netted, being bagged and shipped, lack of cover in tanks etc). It is difficult to separate the factors to account for the percent mortality at the retail level for each factor separately or in the various combinations listed above. By the time they reach the retailer we can safely conclude that the causes of the mortality are the factors in combination.
Basically, I believe that your theory that the cyanided fish deline in frequency over the transport chain of custody is incorrect. There is a large pool of cyanide-caught fish, the % of cyanide-exposed fish does not decline over time. Some fish just take longer to die from cyanide and/or the other factors alone or in combination with cyanide.
Instead of harping about cyanide mortality at the retail level, you should be supporting efforts (like net-training) to stop the use of cyanide by the fishermen. I have also pointed out that the trade needs to also take steps to reduce stress during shipping, to neutralize the ammonium in the shipping bags (by adding compounds like Amquel), and to control bacterial proliferation during shipping (e.g., by adding nitrofurazone).
The drop in pH in the shipping bags appears to be stressing the fish. The trade needs to develop means to buffer the shipping water to eliminate the accumulation of carbonic acid in the shipping bags (formed by excretion of carbon dioxide by the fish). These are concrete things that collectors, exporters, and importers can do to help reduce the high mortality of MO fish at each step of the chain of custody.
It is irrelevant to me whether the % of cyanide captured fish sold to marine hobbyists is 5% or 25%. The damage to the reefs does not decline until the use of cyanide by the fishermen stops. I want the use of cyanide by the MO collectors and the food fish fisheries stopped everywhere cyanide is being used.
Either the MO trade takes steps to eliminate the problems (high mortality during collection and transport, and cyanide fishing) or you can expect that governments will take steps to ban the export and/or import of MO fish. The US Coral Reef Task Force has not gone away and neither has the IMA. Eventually, steps will be taken to deal with these problems.
First you try to minimize the % of MO fish found with cyanide determined by the IMA using CDT in PI (by using a three year average of 18% from 1998 to 2000). At least you got that average right for the 1st time. I have published data indicating it had increased from 8% in 1999 to 29% in 2000. The overall average for MO fish from 1996 to 2000 was 25% (just so you don't forget, despite my repeated postings).
I already stated that because there is no longer enforcement of Philippine laws tied to a CDT, that I believe that cyanide use has increased (not decreased as you claim) since 2000.
We tested more food fish because the food fish trade became of international concern, and we obtained funding from BFAR, McArthur Foundation, Packard Foundation, and US-AID to monitor that trade. The overall percentage with food fish for the presence of cyanide from 1996 to 2000 was 44% in PI (supporting to some extent your argument that cyanide use in the food fish trade is higher than with the MO trade).
I have previously posted data that demonstrates that marine fish die from a variety of causes including cyanide exposure, stress, and ammonia etc. The papers by Hall and Bellwood (1995) and Hanawa et al. (1998) demonstrated that the delayed mortality was compounded by exposure to cyanide. Hence, fish exposed to cyanide are more likely to die from stress. Hall and Bellwood (1995) found that the factors in combination (e.g., cyanide+stress, cyanide+starvation, stress+starvation, cyanide+stress+starvation) resulted in higher mortality. That being said it is clear that fish can die from each of the factors alone listed above. Many factors can act as "stressors" that increase catecholamine and glucose levels to cause a stress response in fish (like changes in temperature, salinity, or pH, being netted, being bagged and shipped, lack of cover in tanks etc). It is difficult to separate the factors to account for the percent mortality at the retail level for each factor separately or in the various combinations listed above. By the time they reach the retailer we can safely conclude that the causes of the mortality are the factors in combination.
Basically, I believe that your theory that the cyanided fish deline in frequency over the transport chain of custody is incorrect. There is a large pool of cyanide-caught fish, the % of cyanide-exposed fish does not decline over time. Some fish just take longer to die from cyanide and/or the other factors alone or in combination with cyanide.
Instead of harping about cyanide mortality at the retail level, you should be supporting efforts (like net-training) to stop the use of cyanide by the fishermen. I have also pointed out that the trade needs to also take steps to reduce stress during shipping, to neutralize the ammonium in the shipping bags (by adding compounds like Amquel), and to control bacterial proliferation during shipping (e.g., by adding nitrofurazone).
The drop in pH in the shipping bags appears to be stressing the fish. The trade needs to develop means to buffer the shipping water to eliminate the accumulation of carbonic acid in the shipping bags (formed by excretion of carbon dioxide by the fish). These are concrete things that collectors, exporters, and importers can do to help reduce the high mortality of MO fish at each step of the chain of custody.
It is irrelevant to me whether the % of cyanide captured fish sold to marine hobbyists is 5% or 25%. The damage to the reefs does not decline until the use of cyanide by the fishermen stops. I want the use of cyanide by the MO collectors and the food fish fisheries stopped everywhere cyanide is being used.
Either the MO trade takes steps to eliminate the problems (high mortality during collection and transport, and cyanide fishing) or you can expect that governments will take steps to ban the export and/or import of MO fish. The US Coral Reef Task Force has not gone away and neither has the IMA. Eventually, steps will be taken to deal with these problems.
I used the three most current years, Which is likely far more accurate then averaging all the years of testing together. If I lump the last twenty years of PI fish collection numbers together .......I would not come up with an accurate measure for total fish imported today. Nor would an average of coral imports from 1995 to today........Nor the number of reef tanks in America starting in 1995 to present day. Old data is old data. The truth is that you have zero idea how many of Philippine fish today are collected with cyanide. It could very well be that levels are again around ten percent as in the late nineties. Today in 2004 PI is exporting half as many fish as they were in most of your old data , due to many other countries competing for fish sales. If PI could export 7 million fish in 1998 with less then twenty percent being collected with cyanide .....then why could they not collect three million today with little cyanide? I think they are.....and so do you, otherwise you would release the 2001 data. Unless you release the most current data, and include how many and of which fish tested positive....then you will be continuing the hold the intire industry hostage to the truth. In order to compare years, we need to know .... Did they test about the same number of fish in 1997 as in 1998 or 2000? were the fish from the same species groups ? Or did you test 500 more blueface angels in year 2000? In the data you did post I noticed only one puffer , one seahorse and several other fish with only one representative? The lest you could have done is test one puffer each year! :wink: Sea if you dont release enough of the detailed data, there is no way that we can be sure that in 1997 after a whole year of testing and only 80 fish tested positive for cyanide........that your testers did not decide to increase the number of more likely cyanide targeted fish like blue faces....in 2000. How many Mo fish tested positive in 1997 the year that only 8% were found to contain cyanide present? Less then 100 fish? Thats only two fish a week? Tell me that the testers did not have a motive to increase the volume of cyanide prone fish?
Peter":vb3s13nz said:
Then you are stating that cyanide fish survive and are just as hardy during transport.......as net collected? You and Steve wrote in your papers that 80% of cyanide fish die from collector to retail. Then that would also mean 80% of net collected fish die during transport because you are now stating that when it comes to transport deaths , both net collected and cyanide fish have equal deaths. But on top of that you are stating that cyanide fish remain healthy in the retailers aquariums the same as net collected. Because if consumers were to choose net collected over cyanide because net collected fish "look" better, then more net collected fish would reach the hobbyists tanks . and decrease the percent of cyanide fish actully being purchased.! Your also suggesting that customers cant visibly see a difference between cyanide collected and net caught! Thats the only way your idea that the ratio of cyanide to net collected does not change from the CDT testing to the tanks of consummers! That a mighty bold statement. Why do you think cyanide fish are so impossible to notice in the marketplace other then by your CDT testing equiptment? Maybe its because today in 2004 there are so few cyainde fish to begin with?
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
Kalk,
:roll:
:roll:
:roll:
:roll:
Sincerely, Steve
:roll:
:roll:
:roll:
:roll:
Sincerely, Steve
I thought so ........... See you cant have it both ways. Either cyanide fish are more prone to die or look sickly prior to being purchased or not. And if not then how is that possible? How can you claim that fish collected with nets are no more likely to survive transportation , retranshipping and retail dispay then fish collected with poison? Fish which have had a near death experience with cyanide out on the reefs {when they were collected .}........ Die at a rate of 80% just like you both have preached all these years! You just never thought about the fact that this would mean very few cyanide fish are actually sold to the public! I have blessed you both with my wisdom........you should thank me! :wink:
No cyanide MO fish might still be a problem out on the reefs,but we really have no way of telling unless more and greater detailed current tests are carried out. And I am sure that cyanide collected fish pose a problem for exporters and importers ......{After all you claimed in you books that 80% die in the custody of the trade} BUT ONE THING IS FOR CERTAIN , Very few cyanide fish reach the consumer......GreshamH":2yss2mtq said:
Kalkbreath":2je1i7nv said:I Am sorry .....I thought this was MY 5% thread.....The AMDA speaks out letter was well written and I actually liked it. {Sorry to take over this thread. }
Wow. The thread-hijacker extraordinare himself apologising for hijacking a thread? Call me cynical, but I don't believe it...
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
So before spoiling the tone of the thread Kalk wrote;
..."because there are so few cyanide fish to begin with".
So we as an importing company have been tying our own hands behind our backs and doing without bangaii cardinals, blue tangs, majestics and blueface and 12 other kinds of angels etc. for nothing?
Do you know how many sales we lose by not stocking those fish?
I've been listening to field people for too long. I guess I need to listen to Kalk more.
Steve
..."because there are so few cyanide fish to begin with".
So we as an importing company have been tying our own hands behind our backs and doing without bangaii cardinals, blue tangs, majestics and blueface and 12 other kinds of angels etc. for nothing?
Do you know how many sales we lose by not stocking those fish?
I've been listening to field people for too long. I guess I need to listen to Kalk more.
Steve
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
