Fuzzy numbers?

[hdtran]

OK, let me summarize my own conclusions from reading thru this thread, reading the IMA web powerpoint, Peter Rubec's preprint, exchange of questions and answers with Kalk, and the Mous et al. paper:

Kalk asserts that less than 20% of the aquarium fish imported from the Phillipines is Cyanide caught; even as little as 10%. I claim that these numbers cannot be supported from any data that I (a non-expert) have seen. Therefore, I cannot buy this assertion.

He asserts that the food fish industry may well be much more destructive of the reefs, at least, in terms of dynamite fishing, etc. than aquarium fish collection. I do not disagree with this assertion. The one paper (Mous et al.) cited here refers to blast fishing, but does not directly study the impact of blast fishing. This may well be common knowledge to experts in this field, but not to me.

He asserts that the best approach (I'm paraphrasing here; feel free to correct me if I'm not restating correctly) to reforming the aquarium fish collection industry is to grow the hobbyist base to the point where it is sufficiently large to impact not only the collection and transport, but also to impact food fishing from the reefs. (As an analogy, the way that airport noise is controlled by having people move next to the airport, then, you can cause air traffic controllers to change the take-off and landing approach protocols). This is an interesting opinion on how to change things. I think that the best approach is one decided upon by all of you, aquarium industry folks. I do agree that there needs to be more educated hobbyists. Educated, not only in how to care for what you have, but also where it came from, how it got here, are there more, etc.

As an aside--the mental image (prompted by Seamaiden) of a large diver, carrying a toothpick-sized speargun, chasing after a thumb-sized mandarin dragonet (I've never seen any of the above mentioned hardware, let alone a slurp gun? Sounds intriguing) brings to me images of the Abominable Snowman going after Bugs Bunny. I sure hope those mandarins give the divers a good chase!

 

[Anonymous]

kalk wrote:

Food fish are collected at a rate of two thousand pounds per square kilometer per year

kalk, do you think that's alot? (weight/area wise)

 

[Kalkbreath]

kalk wrote:

Food fish are collected at a rate of two thousand pounds per square kilometer per year

kalk, do you think that's alot? (weight/area wise)

It ranks PI as one of the largest in the world? and it equals about 64,000 hobby fish per square kilometer!

 

[mkirda]

and it equals about 64,000 hobby fish per square kilometer!

The reefs with the highest fish densities in the world are only at around 100,00 fish per square kilometer, Kalk. Those reefs are the creme de la creme, and represent approximately 1% of the remaining reefs in the world.

If you think the Philippines has 25,000 square kilometers of reefs with an average of 64,000 fish per square kilometer, you couldn't be more wrong.
There are nowhere near that pristine nor productive except in maybe 1% of the best reefs.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

hobbyists fund aquaculture?

seems to me the amount of aquaculture ops funded either directly, or indirectly, by hobbyists(if such a critter really exists) is a small (miniscule)fraction of aquaculture funded by private enterprise, or grants, both private, and governmental.


how do hobbyists fund aquaculture?

by 'fund' do you mean 'support through patronization'?

they aren't the same thing

On islands like Tonga and the Solomon's, MO aquaculture and collection is a big business......mostly because there is no big business! We as a hobby actually effect the way these islanders veiw their reefs ....... For instance, when the cold water bleachings {Yes...COLD WATER} happened last year......the islanders were very concerned that this would effect their ability to farm the reef. }Well actually they have other people actually work the reef }These islanders cant do anything to prevent mother nature from harming their livelihood .......but they sure can prevent other industries from harming it. And they have! Places like PI have a greater variety of industries working the reefs and our hobby is not very big compared to most of them. So we as an industry dont have much pull and it may be a lost cause in some locations ........But there are over 100 other island nations in the Pacific that have yet to decide what industries they are going to allow to exploit their reefs . Would you say the food fish industry is a better "partner" for these new developing islands then the MO trade? How bout the cement and limestone industry, which collects wet liverock to grind up ? How bout the tourism industry? The Maldives Islands made a new jumbo jet air strip totally out of live coral and live rock! More coral and live rock then this hobby will consume in 1000 years at present levels! See there are few choices for islanders to pick from and our industry is the least destructive if managed properly.....the reefs need more hobby influence not less.

The point is that there is very little evidence that our hobby is having an impact.Even what we have thought was evidence seems to be little more then sound bites

ittle evidence to you, i've seen more than i've ever cared to, including direct personal observation

you might wanna change that 'we' to 'i'

You most likely were observing another industries handy work .Thats the point of the Math . seafood fishermen squirt a thousand more times each year then our hobby collectors on the same reefs .......Out on the reefs, how can you tell the difference? Ninety-nine percent of the destroyed reef right now are not from our industry. Warm water bleaching are responsible for ninety percent of dead coral world wide and all the death in the Caribbean has little to do with our collection {maybe our excretion!] The math does not support the charges ?

 

[mkirda]

Jeez, Kalk...

Can't you come up with *something* new?

The same old arguments strike me as just more reheated week-old meatloaf.

 

[mkirda]

Oh, and that "NEW" airport in the Maldives...

Isn't it like 10 years old now?

 

[Kalkbreath]

and it equals about 64,000 hobby fish per square kilometer!

The reefs with the highest fish densities in the world are only at around 100,00 fish per square kilometer, Kalk. Those reefs are the creme de la creme, and represent approximately 1% of the remaining reefs in the world.

If you think the Philippines has 25,000 square kilometers of reefs with an average of 64,000 fish per square kilometer, you couldn't be more wrong.
There are nowhere near that pristine nor productive except in maybe 1% of the best reefs.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

I converted 2000 pounds of groupers and grunts to two tones of damsels and blennies ........I compared biomass.

 

[Kalkbreath]

Jeez, Kalk...

Can't you come up with *something* new?

The same old arguments strike me as just more reheated week-old meatloaf.

Unlike some people......I sea no need in re-inventing the truth!The truth is constant. :wink:

 

[mkirda]

I converted 2000 pounds of groupers and grunts to two tones of damsels and blennies ........I compared biomass.

You forgot to to take out all of the non-reef fish from the food fish.
There is no way that the reefs in the Philippines support that many fish.

 

[Kalkbreath]

Actually, now that you mention it I do have something new.............Do you still feel that Peters testing was reasonable?

 

[mkirda]

Actually, now that you mention it I do have something new.............Do you still feel that Peters testing was reasonable?

What did Peter test?

 

[mkirda]

Unlike some people......I sea no need in re-inventing the truth!The truth is constant. :wink:

Even when presented with proof that the "Truth" as you see it is not like reality. The "truth" as you see it is what I call blind and baseless faith.

Funny how you can never cite anything that supports your 'truth'.

 

[Kalkbreath]

I converted 2000 pounds of groupers and grunts to two tones of damsels and blennies ........I compared biomass.

You forgot to to take out all of the non-reef fish from the food fish.
There is no way that the reefs in the Philippines support that many fish.

Most of the damsels are not collected in the reef zone ................so I thought it might ballance it out ......but OK a little more then one third of the 30 kilos per year is from the municiple reefs ....and most of the self use {for dinner} collection is from the inshore reefs ......so about 20 kilos per year per person ? thats 41, 000 damsels.....?

 

[Kalkbreath]

Unlike some people......I sea no need in re-inventing the truth!The truth is constant. :wink:

Even when presented with proof that the "Truth" as you see it is not like reality. The "truth" as you see it is what I call blind and baseless faith.

Funny how you can never cite anything that supports your 'truth'.

Then have the guts to support your verson of the truth.......Was the method that Peter used sufficient to gauge the percent of cyanide collection?

 

[mkirda]

Then have the guts to support your verson of the truth.......Was the method that Peter used sufficient to gauge the percent of cyanide collection?

Start a new thread and restate the question in clearer form.

 

[PeterIMA]

Lets end this thread with the conclusion that the fuzzy ideas and numbers came from Jeff(Kalk). I see no need to debate baseless unsubstantiated claims. he shouuld stick to selling fish.

Peter

 

[Anonymous]

kalk wrote:

Food fish are collected at a rate of two thousand pounds per square kilometer per year

kalk, do you think that's alot? (weight/area wise)

It ranks PI as one of the largest in the world? and it equals about 64,000 hobby fish per square kilometer!

you didn't answer the question :?

 

[Anonymous]

Jeez, Kalk...

Can't you come up with *something* new?

The same old arguments strike me as just more reheated week-old meatloaf.

Unlike some people......I sea no need in re-inventing the truth!The truth is constant. :wink:

kalk, the only 'constant truth' i see here is your old fallback argument, that the existence of other problems in the way the oceans resources are treated, or the magnitude of 'our' collection screwups being smaller than a sister industry's, is justification for ignoring our own house's methods, and conditions

then when the fallacy of that reasoning is pointed out to you, you just can't admit that you're wrong, so you go back to throwin up the old smokescreens, even going so far as to misrepresent data, take it out of context, and even fail to apply known mathematics correctly



do you think you have any credibility left for other arguments/discussions here?

gotta say- i'd have far more respect for you as a person, if you were a big enough man to admit 'hey, i need the MO trade to continue anyway it can, and at nature's expense, if need be, because it's how i make a living'

at least then you'ld be an 'honest' fuzzy mathematician :?

 

[hdtran]

Kalk:

OK I gota know .....what does a laser interferometers......do?

You asked for it...

The heterodyne laser interferometer is the accepted standard for displacement metrology (measuring lengths and distances). It can be referred back to the iodine-stabilized Helium-Neon laser, whose frequency stability is on the order of 1 part in 10 billion or 1 part in 100 billion. This allows one to "realize" the meter (39.37+ inches, for those of you recidivist non-SI users) in terms of a physical constant, rather than an artifact. In fact, the only measurement which still is compared to an artifact is the kilogram, which is realized as a platinum/iridium block, sitting in an oil bath in Paris, France. All the other measurement units (temperature, length, time, electrical charge, etc.) are now realized by fundamental physical constants (length, for instance, based on the speed of light in a vacuum).

If you're interested in the compensation of lasers, go look up Edlen's work in "Metrologia." Jeremy Kasdin has an excellent review article on measurement noise, laser noise, and the spectrum of noise in IEEE Proceedings around 1995-1997.