Fuzzy numbers?

[Kalkbreath]

Steve and Peter.......What would you state as the percentage of damsels chromis , Mandarins and clownfish that are collected with cyanide in PI? These fish types represent 70% of the total exports. Peter what did the tests show? And Steve, repeat what you stated a few months back ? The notion that ninty percent die before retail even if true .......is to be applied only to those fish collected with cyanide..........thats about 20 Percent with your own numbers PETER! .......{so ninty five percent of the twenty percent is 19 percent}So Peter less then 20 percent of hobby fish from PI that end up in hobbiests tanks ven by YOUR number!! Second , a lot has changed since the 1980s and 1990s. the fish demand has changed .......the fish in high demand today are still plentifull and easy to collect[. Clownfish and damsels are so abundant anfd easy to capture aswell as not even living around the coral reefs. damsels dwell in the rubble zones and clownfish around the anemones on hard bottom ........

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, Since you don't appear to have my paper on the CDT results, I suggest you go to the IMA website at http://www.marine.org

The numbers you need are there. You are free to use them (hopefully not twist and distort) as you wish.

While, I believe a lot of the mortality that has been reported is cyanide related, I have already acknowledged that other factors can cause mortality. Most of the other factors are compounded (higher) if the fish was cyanide caught. So, I did not say that all of the 30% mortality at each step of the chain was due to cyanide. The 20% figure you throw out should be 25% if you read the previous thread (it represents the average for cyanide detected as being present from 1996 to 2000) on aquarium fish tested in PI.

PS The last time I went to the Philippines I observed damselfish hiding between the arms of coral heads.

Peter

 

[mkirda]

The notion that ninty percent die before retail even if true .......is to be applied only to those fish collected with cyanide..........thats about 20 Percent with your own numbers PETER! .......{so ninty five percent of the twenty percent is 19 percent}So Peter less then 20 percent of hobby fish from PI that end up in hobbiests tanks ven by YOUR number!!

Kalk,

Again, horrible assumptions on your part. You assume zero mortality on fish that are not caught with cyanide?

You also assume that the testing is truly random and that the fish are not help long enough to excrete the cyanide from their system.

You assume too much.

Clownfish and damsels are so abundant anfd easy to capture aswell as not even living around the coral reefs. damsels dwell in the rubble zones and clownfish around the anemones on hard bottom ........

Kalk, it is readily apparent to me that you have:

1) Never dove on a coral reef.
2) No idea about the life history of most damsels or anemones.

Most damsels you will see that are common in the hobby tend to aggregate and hide in amongst the branches of large table Acropora.
Clownfish tend to keep by their anemones, which typically anchor either in reef zones, or in cemented together reef rubble right at the bottom of reef flats, in amongst many, many newly settled coral colonies.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[clarionreef]

Kalk,
Repeat what I said a few months back?
There were a hundred or so posts. Repeat what?
Steve
PS. No damsels in coral reef areas and hard bottom clowns? And here I was thinking that another heaven and earth had to pass before we could enjoy new species.
Kalk had discovered some new ones lately it appears.!

 

[Kalkbreath]

Kalk, Since you don't appear to have my paper on the CDT results, I suggest you go to the IMA website at http://www.marine.org

The numbers you need are there. You are free to use them (hopefully not twist and distort) as you wish.

While, I believe a lot of the mortality that has been reported is cyanide related, I have already acknowledged that other factors can cause mortality. Most of the other factors are compounded (higher) if the fish was cyanide caught. So, I did not say that all of the 30% mortality at each step of the chain was due to cyanide. The 20% figure you throw out should be 25% if you read the previous thread (it represents the average for cyanide detected as being present from 1996 to 2000) on aquarium fish tested in PI.

PS The last time I went to the Philippines I observed damselfish hiding between the arms of coral heads.

Peter

Judging by the tone of the Vanuatu article on the site.............It would seem you are stretching things a bit. There are no Nemos coming out of that island{Nice Dorys and Gills though}........and so few fish are being exported each month from that island ........to title the headline the way you did is tabloid at its best. Second , you seem to have not included in the cyanide piece on the site , the results of the last two years on Food fishing? If total cyanide aquarium fish results were only 8% for 1998 and 1999.....what were the food fish results during the most recent years? You stated that a decrease in 1998 and 1999 were due to increased pressures from anti cyanide activists. Did the seafood industry also bow to this pressure and what similar pressures do you feel are in place today with even greater cyanide publicity? MAC was not breathing down the collectors backs ..... back in 1998. Do you feel the huge increase in cyanide awareness today has once again suppressed cyanide usage?

 

[Kalkbreath]

The notion that ninty percent die before retail even if true .......is to be applied only to those fish collected with cyanide..........thats about 20 Percent with your own numbers PETER! .......{so ninty five percent of the twenty percent is 19 percent}So Peter less then 20 percent of hobby fish from PI that end up in hobbiests tanks ven by YOUR number!!

Kalk,

Again, horrible assumptions on your part. You assume zero mortality on fish that are not caught with cyanide?

You also assume that the testing is truly random and that the fish are not help long enough to excrete the cyanide from their system.

You assume too much.

Clownfish and damsels are so abundant anfd easy to capture aswell as not even living around the coral reefs. damsels dwell in the rubble zones and clownfish around the anemones on hard bottom ........

Kalk, it is readily apparent to me that you have:

1) Never dove on a coral reef.
2) No idea about the life history of most damsels or anemones.

Most damsels you will see that are common in the hobby tend to aggregate and hide in amongst the branches of large table Acropora.
Clownfish tend to keep by their anemones, which typically anchor either in reef zones, or in cemented together reef rubble right at the bottom of reef flats, in amongst many, many newly settled coral colonies.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

There is a reason why damsels and green chromis only cost 20 cents ..But a blue tang fetches 5 bucks........Either damsels are so easy to collect that the supply exceeds the demand ........ or there is low demand..{but damsels are the most popular fish and demand has never been higher} If what Peter suggests , that 90 damsels die to sell one ........that would mean each damsel is actually worth to the collectors 2/10ths of a penny ! If this were true collectors would not bother collecting damsels . With Nemos , they run about 60 cents each ..........Do you really think collectors/exporters capture 100 nemos to sell five? The seawater in the Philippines would need to be slap full of clownfish and damsels for collectors/exporters to continue fishing as a living if they only recieve 6 cents for every ten clownfish . Peters tests showed 18 percent and I bet the years 1998 and 1999 damsel test results were around three percent . So while thre might be damsels in the live coral.......they are hardly worth collecting there.............and the data supports this notion.

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, The article about CDT results was published in a book Marine Ornamental Species, Collection, Culture, and Conservation. Hence, the results presented are about aquarium fish primarily. However, I did present the trend for food fish from 1996 to 2000 (the same years I also presented the trend for aquarium fish).

I am not clear about your question on food fish trends. If IMA lost their contract to do CDT analyses in 2001, how do you expect me to present information on more recent years?

Peter Rubec

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, I don't feel that increased attention to the cyanide issue on Reefs.org means much. The regulatory capability of BFAR and the USCRTF has diminished for a variety of reasons. This is partly due to a reduction in funding for the CDT laboratories (in the Philippines) and the efforts of the MAC and several industry representatives. So, there is less regulation both at the Philippines end and the US end. The retailers and the hobbyists are the losers as much as the fishermen trying to eek out a living from denuded coral reefs. The fact that people like yourself continue to "wink" at the problem frosts me to no end. I hope you are happy.

 

[mkirda]

they are hardly worth collecting there.............and the data supports this notion.

What data? What data? You have never presented one bit of "DATA", Kalk.

Reality supports the fact that they are worth collecting.
I can walk into just about any local store and find blue or green chromis.
None of what you claim makes any sense whatsoever.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm a bit confused here, I thought mandarins weren't caught with cyanide at all. I've been under the impression that it used to be tiny little spearsTM and has now progressed to slurp guns for their collection. :|

Also, since the other thread was locked, and I lost my copy of the paper Peter was so kind to send me last year (computer crash) I would like some clarification (if it can be done here succinctly). What I am curious about is how a level of cyanide present is determined to be "enough" for a fish to be considered positive.

Thanks!

 

[PeterIMA]

SeaMaiden,
Most mandarin gobies are caught by being impaled through the fins using a stick with a pin attached (capranda). But, the CDT database does indicate some had cyanide present (and hence were most probably caught with cyanide). As to the exact % with cyanide present, I suggest you do a search on my Reefs.org postings (we covered this about 3-4 months ago).

I am not sure how your question about mandarins fits into a thread discussing damselfish.

I used the readings in the CDT database to score fish as having cyanide present (>0 mg/kg) and absent (0 mg/kg). This is different from fish being scored Cyanide Positive (>= 0.2 mg/kg) or Negative (<0.2 mg/kg). One mg/kg is equivalent to one part per million (1 ppm) wet weight. BFAR apparently is still scoring fish Positive or Negative and using that to support prosecution of collectors. This has some merit in terms of limiting the number of prosecutions of collectors and for letting exporters off the hook. I disagree with the Positive/Negative scoring system. A review of these criteria with respect to the enforcement of Philippine law against cyanide fishing is needed.

For more information, I suggest you search my previous postings on this subject (which were quite numerous during the past year)

 

[Anonymous]

SeaMaiden,
Most mandarin gobies are caught by being impaled through the fins using a stick with a pin attached (capranda).

I knew that this method (tiny little spearsTM) was being used when I first started working the trade (asked my employer how it was that all these mandarins had these perfect little holes in their fins). However, I was recently informed that this has switched primarily to slurp guns. The person making this assertion also said that they are easy enough to capture in this manner, therefore no cyanide was necessary. It was postulated that if there were any mandarins showing any detectable levels, it was likely via consequential exposure (being in the wrong place at the wrong time). I cannot vouch for nor disprove the veracity of this source of information, so, I thought I'd ask here.

But, the CDT database does indicate some had cyanide present (and hence were most probably caught with cyanide). As to the exact % with cyanide present, I suggest you do a search on my Reefs.org postings (we covered this about 3-4 months ago).

That is not my question, Peter. I want to know why the levels you speak of in the following are the points at which a fish is considered "clean". Is its only purpose to limit prosecutable incidences? Or is there a level at which any given fish can survive exposure? (Rather like radiation.) In my mind, logic would dictate that there are two scenarios in which, logically, a fish could be considered clean. One; there are NO detectable levels of cyanide. Two; levels that are detected are so low as to be neglible (i.e. having no effect on the animal whatsoever). I hope my question makes more sense put this way. Please forgive if it is entirely illogical/ignorant, but there is indeed a vast amount of information, some of it not so easily interpreted.

I used the readings in the CDT database to score fish as having cyanide present (>0 mg/kg) and absent (0 mg/kg). This is different from fish being scored Cyanide Positive (>= 0.2 mg/kg) or Negative (<0.2 mg/kg). One mg/kg is equivalent to one part per million (1 ppm) wet weight. BFAR apparently is still scoring fish Positive or Negative and using that to support prosecution of collectors. This has some merit in terms of limiting the number of prosecutions of collectors and for letting exporters off the hook. I disagree with the Positive/Negative scoring system. A review of these criteria with respect to the enforcement of Philippine law against cyanide fishing is needed.

Ah.. yes, this is the beginnings to the answer I'm seeking.

I am not sure how your question about mandarins fits into a thread discussing damselfish.

The opening statement of this thread, here...

Steve and Peter.......What would you state as the percentage of damsels chromis, Mandarins and clownfish that are collected with cyanide in PI?

I understand that this is a different question, but I haven't yet run across in my perusings of these discussions. However, it did spark this question about the mandarins in my mind, again, I thought I'd ask.

For more information, I suggest you search my previous postings on this subject (which were quite numerous during the past year)

Indeed, quite a bit to get through.

 

[dizzy]

.{so ninty five percent of the twenty percent is 19 percent}....

Anyone have a clue what he is talking about? I'm having a hard time following his logic.

 

[PeterIMA]

Dizzy, We agree, I don't follow Kalk's math.

Peter

 

[PeterIMA]

Seamainden,

For the purpose of knowing how widely cyanide is being used by cyanide fishermen, a test for Presence or Absence of cyanide makes good sense. Any level of cyanide indicates that the fish was exposed to cyanide.

For the purpose of prosecution and to be sure that the cyanide was used in a purposeful manner (blitz the fish to capture it with cyanide) a higher level makes for a strong case in court. Hence, a cut-off level (0.2 ppm) was adopted for prosecution purposes (mostly in ignorance of what level would be most appropriate from a scientific point of view).

The last question. Any level of cyanide is harmful to the fish. There is no safe level. Cyanide is BAD at any concentration.

The questions about levels of cyanide is damsels, chromis, and mandarins will have to wait.

Peter

 

[Kalkbreath]

Kalk, I don't feel that increased attention to the cyanide issue on Reefs.org means much. The regulatory capability of BFAR and the USCRTF has diminished for a variety of reasons. This is partly due to a reduction in funding for the CDT laboratories (in the Philippines) and the efforts of the MAC and several industry representatives. So, there is less regulation both at the Philippines end and the US end. The retailers and the hobbyists are the losers as much as the fishermen trying to eek out a living from denuded coral reefs. The fact that people like yourself continue to "wink" at the problem frosts me to no end. I hope you are happy.

There is quite a bit more attention currently being given to the issue of cyanide today in 2004 then back in 1996. Almost every online news paper coming out of PI contains many artical concerning cyande fishing .{Mostly that of Chinese food fishermen but attention no less} With all the hoopla MAC is causing in the region, one would think that just like in 1999 , there is far less cyanide being used .

 

[PeterIMA]

Seamaiden, The argumentation about mandarins took place 3-4 months ago. Kalk quoted Steve Robinson as the authority that stated "all" mandarins are captured by impaling them through the fins (spear with pin). I disagreed stating that according to the CDT database 18% of mandarines tested by IMA were found to have cyanide present. To me that indicates that cyanide fishermen were capturing some mandarins using cyanide. Others disagreed and felt that it might be due to the reef being blitzed with cyanide while collectors were targeting other species. I have to admit it might have happened, but I doubt it. It is just wishful thinking by Kalk and others trying to twist the truth (its not us its someone else type of argument).

 

[Kalkbreath]

they are hardly worth collecting there.............and the data supports this notion.

What data? What data? You have never presented one bit of "DATA", Kalk.

Reality supports the fact that they are worth collecting.
I can walk into just about any local store and find blue or green chromis.
None of what you claim makes any sense whatsoever.

The data is hidden in the report. The percent of damsels and clownfish with cyanide presnt in 1998 1999 and 2000 was around 6%......

 

[Kalkbreath]

The trick to understanding the truth is how one asks the question .........................The average fish coming out of PI for the last three years that testing occured was around 7% testing for cyanide present. See Peter,just like Frank likes to phrase the question so the truth is obscured . Seventy percent of the fish that are exported from PI.........are either Damsels , Chromis,Clownfish , Lionfish , mandarins ..........of which these five fish types only had test results of around 5% during the most recent years of testing data. These fish are not ollected with juice vary often ........there is no need to ,these fish are easy to collect and plentiful. the remaining fish species that are collected have a higher rate of cyanide collection BUT ............but we import so few of these fish that the impact on the reefs is tiny. Ending the little bit of cyanide fishing that remains by the hobby is fine and needed. But lets be fair about whats eally happening out there....... :wink:

 

[Kalkbreath]

Seamaiden, The argumentation about mandarins took place 3-4 months ago. Kalk quoted Steve Robinson as the authority that stated "all" mandarins are captured by impaling them through the fins (spear with pin). I disagreed stating that according to the CDT database 18% of mandarines tested by IMA were found to have cyanide present. To me that indicates that cyanide fishermen were capturing some mandarins using cyanide. Others disagreed and felt that it might be due to the reef being blitzed with cyanide while collectors were targeting other species. I have to admit it might have happened, but I doubt it. It is just wishful thinking by Kalk and others trying to twist the truth (its not us its someone else type of argument).

Peter , what if 18 percent of the mandarins in your test .......were collected by food fishermen? Almost half the collectors of ornamental fish , also collect fish for the live fish market and or the deadfish food industry. Just like in Most of the island Nations, many collectors are collecting both seafood and pet fish during the same outing. Thats why it is impossible to separate the two industries or the use of cyanide to collect seafood. When seafood collectors juice a reef they collect whatever they think they can sell! Like wise when Tang fishermen are collecting pet fish .if they spot a nice wrasse or red grouperthat they think they can sell to the seafood industry....... they go after it ..........there is little separation between the two trades