Fuzzy numbers?

[mkirda]

The dead food fish industry is the one whom kill fish out right. The live food fish collectors use a lower dose , one that stunns the fish but does not kill it ....The outer edges of the killer plume dead food fish collectors squirt ......will have concentrations low enough to only stunn fish {like hobby collectors}

Oh, so now you claim there are three different types of collectors?
Or, wait, there was... MO collectors vs. Food fish collectors...
Then they were one and the same...
Now there are two food fish collectors, those that use strong cyanide in order to kill the fish out-right and those that are using less-strong cyanide for the live reef fish trade? Which of these also collects Marine Ornamentals?

I cannot keep the lies straight any longer... :roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[mkirda]

Kalk,

I just want to know something.

You posted four false statements. Blatantly wrong, so far removed from reality that I know you cannot possibly back them up.

When you make a claim, you must have some evidence to back that claim up.

Or you must admit that your claim is merely your 'opinion'.

So which is it? Is this fact? Or is it your opinion?

Frankly, I'm getting tired of asking...

 

[mkirda]

As a respected scientist, Why would you release findings to the study before you finished the data?

This statement screams that you understand next to zero about statistics or statistical analysis.

Prove me wrong. Tell us the difference in standard deviation and standard error when N changes from 22,000 to 48,000.

If you cannot give us the difference, then explain to us what that difference means, then you, frankly, have absolutely no freakin' business even commenting on this subject, period.

 

[Kalkbreath]

In the LAST YEAR ,..The four most often quoted reports in the hobby have been gutted and their true contents revealed ......1}I brought out the truth behind Franks little joke..{quoted in five books that I know of }.. It was based on totally unrealistic species volume ratios and even then did not tally 68% and that the data has yet to be fully computed..... But he went ahead and offered a finding five years ago {wonder why he was in no hurry to find the truth}..................2} I was the only one ever to challenge and pointed out that The notion that Australia exports 12 million in fish from 280 divers and should be use as a role model for other countries..... is pure crap....only 175,000 fish are exported yearly.... 3}The idea of restricting unsuitable species only increases the pressure on the remaining species and would actually harm the reefs more.......and now 4}The industry "Bible" that states 25% of tested fish from PI were found to contain cyanide ........ is not only "Fuzzy" but not even fifty percent complete! And lastly 5} That there are only 500 fish per square mile left in the Philippines.......Yet some how 2 metric tons of food fish are collected each year from those five hundred fish !.............Every urban legend that this hobby believed only one year ago has been systematically disembowel by your truly........The sad part is that we as a hobby still have no idea whats what ..........because every single person that has ever embarked on the task of finding out what is the truth ..........has allowed his our her personal agenda to blind them ,thus manipulating the facts to create their own version of the "TRUTH" ................. You might find this "the funniest thing ever" ,,,,,,,,Perhaps thats because you to have no interest in the truth as well................I find no happiness in learning that people are manipulating others........This only distances our hobby furture from the truth and furture from any solutions....

 

[Kalkbreath]

As a respected scientist, Why would you release findings to the study before you finished the data?

This statement screams that you understand next to zero about statistics or statistical analysis.

Prove me wrong. Tell us the difference in standard deviation and standard error when N changes from 22,000 to 48,000.

If you cannot give us the difference, then explain to us what that difference means, then you, frankly, have absolutely no freakin' business even commenting on this subject, period.

Because what scientific process would allow the arbitrary removal of half the data? In order to come up with anything usefull.....each year would have to have simular recorded imput data.........When only eight out of 100 fish are testing positive {like in 1998 and 1999 } there must be the same number of fish recorded for each year .....if we are to compare years. Its part of any scientific process....hell he did not even use the rule of 1000s or ten percent .........Many fish like some families of gobies only had one or two representions? Two fish for a report with 48,000 fish and over five years?

 

[Kalkbreath]

The dead food fish industry is the one whom kill fish out right. The live food fish collectors use a lower dose , one that stunns the fish but does not kill it ....The outer edges of the killer plume dead food fish collectors squirt ......will have concentrations low enough to only stunn fish {like hobby collectors}

Oh, so now you claim there are three different types of collectors?
Or, wait, there was... MO collectors vs. Food fish collectors...
Then they were one and the same...
Now there are two food fish collectors, those that use strong cyanide in order to kill the fish out-right and those that are using less-strong cyanide for the live reef fish trade? Which of these also collects Marine Ornamentals?

I cannot keep the lies straight any longer... :roll: :roll: :roll:

Peter under oath testified that dead food fish collectors throw cyanide pellets over the side of boats to stun fish {thats one kind of collector} Second is the self employed collector, which makes up the vast majority of the fishermen in the region. These guys collect any thing that swims if they think they can sell it.......They collect with nets , tiny spears, squirt bottles and hand lines ......They cannot collect five pound groupers with the same concentration of cyanide as they collect copperband butterflies........because five pound grouper are not stunned with the levels of juice that are use to collect tiny butterflies and the higher levels that do stun larger fish, kill tiny fish outright. Thirdly ,we have blast fishermen, these guys are in a group all by themselves. Next we have the live food fish trade.......these guys are many times from another country fishing illegally ....They dont bring any thing to the boat that that they cant take home.{no hobby fish } There is a lot of second hand cyanide when these guys fish , because the plumes are quite wide when repeatedly squirting ito the mouths of large groupers and wrasses. Lastly we have hobby fishermen , whom are the victims of the four other fishing groups .......they rarely use cyanide and only 12 percent of tested fish came up as tainted the last three years testing was in place with seventy percent of exported fish testing less then ten percent. With all the other fishing industries using cyanide {As Steve testified "exclusively"}It may be impossible to have hobby fish test 100% cleann {due to second hand and bycatch cyanide exposer...........What is a reasonable goal ? Is ten pecent? :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

Peter under oath testified ----{As Steve testified "exclusively"}

Huh?

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk (Jeff), I did not testify "under oath" to anything. As far as cyanide fishermen spreading cyanide tablets over coral reefs, this was documented in a paper published by Del Norte et al. in 1989. The paper is cited in my Cyanide-free net caught paper published in 2001. Jeff received a copy in the mail.

As far as trend in the levels of cyanide found to be present in marine aquarium fishes. The trend was 43% cyanide present in 1996, 41% in 1997, 18% in 1998, 8% in 1999, and 29% in 2000. The average of 1998, 1999, and 2000 is 18.3% (not 12% or 8% that you stated in your previous postings).

Peter

 

[PeterIMA]

Jeff, The reason that my CDT paper presented results at the last MO conference for 20,555 specimens tested from 1996 to 2000 (rather than 48,000 specimens) is that at the time not all of the data had been entered into the MicoSoft Accesss CDT database. There has been no attempt to misrepresent the data. Since, the trade is not paying me or IMA to analyze these data, you do not have the right to demand information from the database (other than what is already published). Previously published information is all that I am willing to provide at this time.

Peter Rubec

 

[mkirda]

In the LAST YEAR ,..The four most often quoted reports in the hobby have been gutted and their true contents revealed

Really? This I gotta see.

......1}I brought out the truth behind Franks little joke..{quoted in five books that I know of }.. It was based on totally unrealistic species volume ratios and even then did not tally 68% and that the data has yet to be fully computed..... But he went ahead and offered a finding five years ago {wonder why he was in no hurry to find the truth}

Complete mischaracterization of Lallo's study, Kalk. He has publicly released 1) Preliminary findings (Averages) of all data, and 2) Less than one percent of the raw data averages.

It is absolutely impossible to be able to characterize the data when you know what less than one percent of it is. It's that lack of understanding of statistics thing again. This is not a joke: It is called "MATH". With two sets of data, and less than one percent of just one of the sets publicly available, it is absolutely impossible to draw any conclusions about the entire data set.

Ok, so we are O for five...

2} I was the only one ever to challenge and pointed out that The notion that Australia exports 12 million in fish from 280 divers and should be use as a role model for other countries..... is pure crap....only 175,000 fish are exported yearly....

Cite your source for your numbers. Until this is done, and the contents verified, this counts as a ? in the 'win' column...

3}The idea of restricting unsuitable species only increases the pressure on the remaining species and would actually harm the reefs more.......and now

So you've run a little mind game and come up with this opinion as a result.
However, this is hardly evidence that this predicted outcome is going to occur. Have you looked for evidence that this might occur in real life already? Cite the evidence. Otherwise, this is another opinion offered as proof.

Running mind games on a USL, this is one of a few possible outcomes. It is not clear to me which outcome would reflect reality though.

4}The industry "Bible" that states 25% of tested fish from PI were found to contain cyanide ........ is not only "Fuzzy" but not even fifty percent complete!

Here is the rational question to ask, Kalk.
Peter, How did the numbers change when you analyzed the two data sets?
Did the numbers change drastically in any case between 22,000 and 48,000?

Statistically speaking, the 48,000 set will be more accurate (N is greater), but N is already quite high to begin with. All the 48,000 dataset will mean is that the Standard Error is lower. I've pointed this out repeatedly, but you still keep clinging to the "fact" that the numbers have to be drastically different now. Peter, Are they?

And lastly 5} That there are only 500 fish per square mile left in the Philippines.

For the seventh or eighth time now... I really don't recall... You are making the same logic error here that we have repeatedly told you is incorrect. You are taking a number cited as the lowest in the Philippines, then using it as a baseline for every single reef area in the Philippines. I don't know what is more ridiculous: Your latching onto this low number as an 'average', or your trying to attach that number to everything anyone else says... Let me let you in on a little secret, Kalk: NO ONE BELIEVES THIS NUMBER IS AN AVERAGE FOR REEFS ACROSS THE PHILIPPINES!
No one!

Yet you persist on using it. You keep 'exposing' a 'lie' that you are espousing.

Every urban legend that this hobby believed only one year ago has been systematically disembowel by your truly........The sad part is that we as a hobby still have no idea whats what ..........because every single person that has ever embarked on the task of finding out what is the truth ..........has allowed his our her personal agenda to blind them ,thus manipulating the facts to create their own version of the "TRUTH" ................. You might find this "the funniest thing ever" ,,,,,,,,Perhaps thats because you to have no interest in the truth as well................I find no happiness in learning that people are manipulating others........This only distances our hobby furture from the truth and furture from any solutions....

Kalk, wow, that dirty pot calls the kettle black.

I have great interest in discovering the truth. Recall, that is why I personally went to the Philippines, and why I personally spent so much time with collectors. My truth has a basis in reality, that being that I have spent some time with the collectors, have seen them at work, have heard of their dreams, their goals, their aspirations: I have some idea of what makes them 'tick'. My only agenda is clear: To put a human face on collectors, and show you what makes them tick. You think that makes me manipulative, I call it something different. "Educational" is what I aim for.

You have done one thing this year: Gone from being cyanide apologist to actually understanding that it isn't good for corals and fish. What made you change your mind?

Regards.
Mike Kirda
P.S. Oh, I forgot to add... 0 for five, with two big ?

 

[PeterIMA]

Mike, The full CDT database (with about 48,000) records has not yet been analyzed. I doubt that the analyses will provide much new information about interannual trands for the earlier years (since most of that data has been analyzed). There may be some changes in the % present data for 2000 (since not all of that data was computerized in time for the previous analysis). The new information mostly pertains to 2001 (that has not been analyzed previously). A more comprehensive breakdown of the data will be made between years (by genera and by species).

This requires that I take off at least a week from my full time job. So, the analyses of the full CDT database will be done, when I can find the time.

Peter

 

[bobimport]

FYI
At this time no drugs are in use to collect fish in the Dominican Rep. ie Quin.
We (the exporters) Just decided not to go down that road 13 years ago when the stations were set up. It turns out that the Dominicans are more productive per boat than the Haitains who use Quin. My florida friends scoff at the idea that 2 Dominicans can collect over 500 jaw fish in one day without Quin. Here is how that do it. They take a length of reinforceing rod and flatten one end. They lie on the bottom and when a jaw fish pops out of his hole they slide the flat part under the fish and net him. Cha-Ching 20 peso's.

Big Bob

[email protected]

 

[Anonymous]

Bob, is DR a CITES country? Being that live rock is protected under CITES and ricordea from DR comes in on live rock, wouldn't DR have to be CITES in order for you to export to the US legally, or is my understanding of how CITES works wrong?

 

[bobimport]

Bob, is DR a CITES country? Being that live rock is protected under CITES and ricordea from DR comes in on live rock, wouldn't DR have to be CITES in order for you to export to the US legally, or is my understanding of how CITES works wrong?

No you are right. I import the rock from Haiti that is a non Cites country.

Fish only from the D.R.

 

[Anonymous]

OK, now I'm confused. You said I'm right, but you import LR from a non CITIES country into the US. Heres what I was asking is correct:
Do all imports have to fall under CITES protection if the destination country is a CITES country regardless of the origin being CITES or not?

 

[Kalkbreath]

Mike, The full CDT database (with about 48,000) records has not yet been analyzed. I doubt that the analyses will provide much new information about interannual trands for the earlier years (since most of that data has been analyzed). There may be some changes in the % present data for 2000 (since not all of that data was computerized in time for the previous analysis). The new information mostly pertains to 2001 (that has not been analyzed previously). A more comprehensive breakdown of the data will be made between years (by genera and by species).

This requires that I take off at least a week from my full time job. So, the analyses of the full CDT database will be done, when I can find the time.

Peter

Peter , you only included 79 gobies from thirty species? Thats less then three fish from each species? THREE FISH OVER FIVE YEARs? Thats less the one fish per year? Five blennies , three puffers?OONE seahorse!!! Not only is there not enough fish .........but who decided which of the 48,000 to include? in your findings?

 

[Kalkbreath]

OK, now I'm confused. You said I'm right, but you import LR from a non CITIES country into the US. Heres what I was asking is correct:
Do all imports have to fall under CITES protection if the destination country is a CITES country regardless of the origin being CITES or not?

No.... I get Tonga without Cites ........It comes with Austrailian fisheries paperwork.

 

[Kalkbreath]

I have great interest in discovering the truth.

Then tell me what "TRUTHS"you have discovered? Did you find out why Frank released findings with only 1% of the data examined?Did you find out why he had more blue ribbon eels the Mandarins in his study? Did you learn how ending collection of non suitable species would not result in the increased collection of suitable species .....to replace the unsuitable ones ? Did you ever actually look up how many fish are exported from Australia? Like on the Great Barrier Reef website? Or in the Woods report? Did you explain how one can test less then one single algae blenny a year and come up with the percentage of cyanide collected Algae blennies exported by the trade? Until you do, ........your still Creating your own truth ...... :wink:

 

[mkirda]

I'm not going to comment on the numbers given- Only Peter would know if they are correct as that sort of breakdown has never been given publicly to the best of my knowledge.

who decided which of the 48,000 to include? in your findings?

But this one screams out as... well... Dense.

How do fish get to a Cyanide detection lab?

There are any number of ways.
One could be that a collector was caught with cyanide, fish were bagged up and sent into the lab to be tested.
Another could be that an importer required the test.
A third could be that samples were chosen from exporters randomly.
A fourth could be that samples were sent in non-randomly (chosen by exporters).
I know that all of the above have been true at one time.
I believe that only the third is not true at this time.

If you don't like the numbers of any given fish species, Kalk, YOU YOURSELF CAN CHANGE THAT. All you need to do is put your money where your mouth is and arrange to have the number of fish of any given species you wanted tested paid for and sent to the CDT Lab to be tested.

Please, do something constructive rather than whining all the time. For a few hundred bucks, you can have all the blennies and gobies tested that you want.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[mkirda]

I have great interest in discovering the truth.

Then tell me what "TRUTHS"you have discovered? Did you find out why Frank released findings with only 1% of the data examined?Did you find out why he had more blue ribbon eels the Mandarins in his study?

Occam's razor, Kalk. The stores he surveyed gave him the numbers, he is only reporting them.

Why did he release only 1%? Pretty simple- He got tired of being pestered by idiots who couldn't get the data fast enough. He explained from the get-go that he has major back problems and couldn't sit for more than about 15 minutes before the pain got too intense. Hell, if you read his posts, he explained all this. If you read my posts, you would find that I've now also repeated this to you now for the THIRD TIME. Do you have ADD? Do you have problems with your memory? I'm serious here- This sort of stuff has been pointed out to you repeatedly, yet you STILL DON'T GET IT. I'm wondering what is wrong with you medically?

Did you learn how ending collection of non suitable species would not result in the increased collection of suitable species .....to replace the unsuitable ones ?

You didn't learn this one either- You expressed an opinion of what would happen, then did no research to find out if ANY scientific work might back you up. Opinion is opinion is opinion. You offer no compelling evidence that this outcome is necessary. But I covered this yesterday. Seriously, what is wrong with your memory?

Did you ever actually look up how many fish are exported from Australia? Like on the Great Barrier Reef website? Or in the Woods report?

Did you ever provide a citation? Did you ever quote that citation to make your point? Why would you ask me to do your work for you? Hell, Kalk, I'd like you to come here and wash my car too, Chicago winters and salt are hell on cars. I don't have the gall to ask you outright. Why would you ask me to do your research for you?

Did you explain how one can test less then one single algae blenny a year and come up with the percentage of cyanide collected Algae blennies exported by the trade?

This is designed not to be able to be answered.
How can you test less than one fish? This is utter nonsense.

If only one fish of a given species gets tested in a year, the data set returned is not very useful. You've ignored my earlier posts on statistical analysis. You really should look into it. Lump all the results from all the years, you have a little bit better data set, but SE will still be quite high.
Maybe usable, maybe not. Depends on what you get and how tolerant you are with regards to SD and SE. Personally, I'd like to see data sets with a high enough N where confidence is in the 90 to 95% range year to year. Is that possible? Well, depends probably on the species and what got sent into the labs year to year. And as neither BFAR nor MAC nor anyone else controls this centrally, we have no control over what gets sent in. That makes that statistical analysis with SD and SE even more important.

Regards.
Mike Kirda