Peter Rubic and the study?

[MaryHM]

Sixty seven veiws and only one person has climbed aboard? Could it be that some of you simply wish the data to be true .......You will stand behind it .....but not next to it?Mary ,Steve, Horge? If you dont have this study to stand behind .....what do you base the need for reeform on?

I have never based my beliefs that cyanide use is a problem in the Philippines and Indonesia on any study. It's a known FACT that cyanide use is a problem in these countries. If you don't buy from importers and you're just friends with them, they will admit there's a problem as well. I choose not to respond to anything Kalk writes on the subject because he steadfastly refuses to back up any of his arguments with actual data, or he takes data and grossly misinterpretes it. There are some people that are too stubborn to ever see the truth, and I'm not going to waste my time going in circles day after day with them. I only have a couple of questions for you Kalk (not that I expect an answer since you rarely answer direct questions).
1. Why would members of the industry lie and say there is a cyanide problem if there isn't? What exactly is the benefit to doing that?
2. Have you ever been to the Philippines or Indonesia and observed the reefs first hand?

Just answer the two questions. I'm not going to bother to respond because I don't have the time to get into a run-around with you. But I'll be looking for your answer.

 

[mkirda]

Using your made up numbers: 14,000,000 fish exported.

How many fish do I need to randomly test in order to be 95% confident in the results, with a 5% margin of error?

How about 95% confidence with 3% margin of error?

How about 99% confidence with a 5% margin of error?

How about 99% confidence with a 3% margin of error?

The numbers might surprise you.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

So, let me sea if I have got this straight..........The test only includes about ten fish per year of the fish types that are most commonly exported and you all feel thats adequate? Ten blue damsels, ten green chromis, ten green mandarins, ten fire fish, ten domino damsels, ten false percula, ten clarkii , ten three stripe damsels.......etc. ................Thats about two hundred fish per year representing the most commonly exported fish types.........and you think that is a reasonable sized sample of the total 2 million fish involved? one thousand fish represent ten million?

 

[mkirda]

So, let me sea if I have got this straight..........The test only includes about ten fish per year of the fish types that are most commonly exported and you all feel thats adequate? Ten blue damsels, ten green chromis, ten green mandarins, ten fire fish, ten domino damsels, ten false percula, ten clarkii , ten three stripe damsels.......etc. ................Thats about two hundred fish per year representing the most commonly exported fish types.........and you think that is a reasonable sized sample of the total 2 million fish involved? one thousand fish represent ten million?

You didn't answer the question(s) I posed above.

Do you want me to post the answers?

 

[Kalkbreath]

So, let me sea if I have got this straight..........The test only includes about ten fish per year of the fish types that are most commonly exported and you all feel thats adequate? Ten blue damsels, ten green chromis, ten green mandarins, ten fire fish, ten domino damsels, ten false percula, ten clarkii , ten three stripe damsels.......etc. ................Thats about two hundred fish per year representing the most commonly exported fish types.........and you think that is a reasonable sized sample of the total 2 million fish involved? one thousand fish represent ten million?

You didn't answer the question(s) I posed above.

Do you want me to post the answers?

Oh, I am going to answer it ............and so are You ....Because this discussion is leading somewhere ..........I am just waiting for the proper time to illustrate the unbelievable hypocrisy within the reeform movement:wink:

 

[Kalkbreath]

Do you stiil feel its possible to test ten blue devil damsels a year to determine the rate of cyanide exposer of the other 400,000?

 

[mkirda]

I am just waiting for the proper time to illustrate the unbelievable hypocrisy within the reeform movement:wink:

Then do so. Or are you still waiting for that hour to pass from last night?

 

[mkirda]

Do you stiil feel its possible to test ten blue devil damsels a year to determine the rate of cyanide exposer of the other 400,000?

I said before that sample sizes below 30 are too small to really be able to say much of anything with reasonable confidence levels and reasonable margins of error.

This was the reason why we pointed out to you that examples where individual species counts were low were poor examples, and that the analysis would then best be grouped together into families instead.

You realize that you are arguing against standard statistical methods, right?

 

[Kalkbreath]

I have never based my beliefs that cyanide use is a problem in the Philippines and Indonesia on any study.

So what you are saying is that you do not beleive Peters study has any merit? And thats why you dont base your belief on data?

1. Why would members of the industry lie and say there is a cyanide problem if there isn't? What exactly is the benefit to doing that?
2. Have you ever been to the Philippines or Indonesia and observed the reefs first hand?

1.)You know very well that for smaller wholesalers to compete in the market ........they must aggrandize their product or down play the competitions...... :wink: 2.) No , But it has been proven that the majority of cyanide damage occurred many years ago {Decades}.......Visits in the past do not reflect present activies......Whats happening today and in the future is what counts .......also It seem most observers can not tell the difference between our industry damage and food fishing ..{or mothernatures'handy work }.... in order to understand what type of damage is possible when collecting MO and what is beyond the scope of our limited amount of collection ......a more in dept look at the dynamics within the collection industry is in order. Such as total fish collected, which types , how each types of fish are most commonly collected.....Why certain fish are plentiful /cheap .....etc.. Simply witnessing bleached reefs and having heard somewhere that natives collect fish with poison is not enough to convict an industry. I know that Philippine fishermen collect your fish in Tonga and there are some areas in Tonga that are bleached..........Does this mean they are not net collected? Sea, its not until I fully inform the reader that all the collectors in Tonga today are from PI and that the bleaching are from temperature {cold}..........that the reader is informed enough to understand the total picture.........all I am doing is in forming the industry of certain issues the may have over looked ....... :wink:

 

[Kalkbreath]

that the analysis would then best be grouped together into families instead.

But that would not be the real world. ninty percent of the species in the study are of fish types we as a hobby dont collect much of ?There are 110 damsels types ..........only five are collected in great numbers? Second you really think that 30 individuals would be sufficient to guage 100,000 or more?

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, I get annoyed when you use the work "sea" instead of "see"

I can see you in the deep blue sea. Get it? Lets not murder the english language, while you try to debunk everyone.

 

[Kalkbreath]

Kalk, I get annoyed when you use the work "sea" instead of "see"

I can see you in the deep blue sea. Get it? Lets not murder the english language, while you try to debunk everyone.

I am so poor at using the laguage .....that I might as well have fun at it?No ? But you are most likely correct that it dis serves me .....But you have "beared" with me thus far so to do so a little longer will reward you with my absence for a spell

 

[MaryHM]

1.)You know very well that for smaller wholesalers to compete in the market ........they must aggrandize their product or down play the competitions......

Actually, that's not true. There are many small wholesalers, and I only know of a scarce few that claim to carry net caught fish. I competed very well for almost 4 years carrying nothing but coral- that's head to head competition with the big boys. Can't claim corals are net caught.

No , But it has been proven that the majority of cyanide damage occurred many years ago

Please cite your sources that "prove" this. I want proof from both the Philippines and Indonesia (where the problem is much worse).

 

[mkirda]

But that would not be the real world. ninty percent of the species in the study are of fish types we as a hobby dont collect much of ?There are 110 damsels types ..........only five are collected in great numbers? Second you really think that 30 individuals would be sufficient to guage 100,000 or more?

How exactly is categorizing species into similar groups not reflective of "the real world"? You are really reaching here.

Answer my question, Kalk.
You do that, I'll answer yours.

Here they are again:

Using your made up numbers: 14,000,000 fish exported.

How many fish do I need to randomly test in order to be 95% confident in the results, with a 5% margin of error?

How about 95% confidence with 3% margin of error?

How about 99% confidence with a 5% margin of error?

How about 99% confidence with a 3% margin of error?

 

[Kalkbreath]

But that would not be the real world. ninty percent of the species in the study are of fish types we as a hobby dont collect much of ?There are 110 damsels types ..........only five are collected in great numbers? Second you really think that 30 individuals would be sufficient to guage 100,000 or more?

How exactly is categorizing species into similar groups not reflective of "the real world"? You are really reaching here.

Answer my question, Kalk.
You do that, I'll answer yours.

Here they are again:

Using your made up numbers: 14,000,000 fish exported.

How many fish do I need to randomly test in order to be 95% confident in the results, with a 5% margin of error?

How about 95% confidence with 3% margin of error?

How about 99% confidence with a 5% margin of error?

How about 99% confidence with a 3% margin of error?

Because not all the fish in a group of species will have the same collection variables .....Do you think solentary gem tangs are collected the same manor as huge schools of yellow tangs? How about single Jewel damsels compared to schools of blue damsels containing 200 fish ? Also some species of damsels hide in coral while other species make a run for it . Those species which are collected within the coral are more likely to be cyanided out ........but collectors of huge schools of blue damsels in a sandy lagoon have no reason to use cyanide.

 

[Kalkbreath]

1.)You know very well that for smaller wholesalers to compete in the market ........they must aggrandize their product or down play the competitions......

Actually, that's not true. There are many small wholesalers, and I only know of a scarce few that claim to carry net caught fish. I competed very well for almost 4 years carrying nothing but coral- that's head to head competition with the big boys. Can't claim corals are net caught.

No , But it has been proven that the majority of cyanide damage occurred many years ago

Please cite your sources that "prove" this. I want proof from both the Philippines and Indonesia (where the problem is much worse).

Here is one ..

....Destructive fishing techniques are thought to be the largest contributor to reef degradation in the Philippines.[4] Muro-ami, a technique that involved sending a line of divers to depths of 10-30 m with metal weights to knock on corals in order to drive fish out and into waiting nets was extremely damaging to reefs, leading to its ban in 1986. Rampant blast fishing and sedimentation from land-based sources have destroyed 70 percent of fisheries within 15 square kilometers of the shore in the Philippines, which were some of the most productive habitats in the world.[5] Although increased enforcement, larger penalties, and educational campaigns slowed the damage in the 1990s, many fishers have brought destructive practices to new areas. Reports indicate that many operations have shifted to more remote, pristine areas such as the Palawan group of islands, the Sulu Archipelago, parts of the Visayas, and western Mindanao.[6]

Coastal development, agriculture, aquaculture, and land-cover change threaten many Philippine coral reefs. Over 80 percent of original tropical forests and mangroves in the Philippines have been cleared, increasing sediment outflow onto reefs.[7] Mangroves continue to be cut and the areas converted to fish ponds, a change that allows more nutrients and sediment to reach reefs.[8] Domestic and industrial wastes are rarely treated in the Philippines and are often discharged into the sea.

The first ever mass-bleaching event in the Philippines was reported in 1998-99. It began at Batangas, off Luzon, in June 1998 and then proceeded nearly clockwise around the Philippines, correlating with anomalous sea-surface temperatures.[9] Most reefs of northern Luzon, west Palawan, the Visayas, and parts of Mindanao were affected. Subsequent mortalities were highly variable, with decreases in live coral cover ranging from 0.7 to 46 percent and up to 80 percent in Bolinao. [10]

In the late 1970s, the most extensive survey of coral reefs conducted in the Philippines showed widespread human impact on the reefs. The Inventory of the Coral Resources of the Philippines (ICRP) found only about 5 percent of reefs to be in excellent condition, with over 75 percent coral cover (both hard and soft).[11]

There was some collection for the trade in the seventies but hardley enough to have effected much..........

More recent surveys in 1997 found a slightly lower percentage of reefs to be in excellent condition. They found only 4 percent of Philippine reefs in excellent condition (i.e., over 75 percent hard or soft coral cover), 28 percent in good condition (50-75 percent coral cover), 42 percent in fair condition (25-50 percent coral cover), and 27 percent in poor condition (less than 25 percent coral cover). The Visayas have experienced the most significant decline in coral cover, exhibiting an average of only 11 percent hard coral cover. Coral status information for Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago is limited.[12]

Sure seems that if the rate of destruction prior to 1970s continued into the late ninties ......there would have been even less live coral and fish remaining . Thats not to say the ninties were not destructive........they were ......But becuase of all the anti cyanide pressures within our industry the rate of cyanide use is down . Even Peters data supports the idea that when collectors are pressued to stop using juice ......they did so {1998 and 1999} ..What evidence do you have to the contrary?That cyanide use is not once again that of 1999 levels?{ About 8%}

 

[MaryHM]

Um, Kalk...neither of those citations state that the majority of cyanide damage occurred many years ago. Maybe I'm just reading it wrong. Try pasting it again, and put the part where it says that cyanide damage has decreased in recent years in bold print. That way I'll be sure to see it. Also, those citations only deal with the Philippines. Where is your data on Indonesia?

 

[mkirda]

Because not all the fish in a group of species will have the same collection variables .....Do you think solentary gem tangs are collected the same manor as huge schools of yellow tangs? How about single Jewel damsels compared to schools of blue damsels containing 200 fish ? Also some species of damsels hide in coral while other species make a run for it . Those species which are collected within the coral are more likely to be cyanided out ........but collectors of huge schools of blue damsels in a sandy lagoon have no reason to use cyanide.

Kalk, this does not matter.

 

[hdtran]

I'm not sure that anyone cares, but this has gone way off-topic. Kalkbreath originally wanted to know who supported the results published in Rubec et al. (2003), but said he didn't want to debate the responders. Then, he started questioning (I think Naesco) and others as to why they believed the published results.

I'd like to make a few comments (again, not sure anyone cares 8) ):

To Kalk: I'm sure you know how to spell properly, and I'm positive that you can construct sentences that can be parsed by someone without a PhD in English. Please do so. Maybe others can interpret what you're trying to say, but I have a real hard time when you use homonyms (sea:see; seashell:C shell; etc.), or when you omit conjunctions. I have a truly miserable time trying to parse some of your posts (hence my request that you....not.....use.....ellipses....)

To Mike Kirda: I don't think your statistics question was properly posed. Depending on what measurement you're trying to obtain from the sample (what fraction of the fish population is blue, versus what is the mean weight and variance of the fish population, assuming a Gaussian distribution), I think the answer to your question would be different.

To Blue Hula: Hey, I didn't know you spoke (or wrote) Vietnamese! I can't do accents, but a belated "chuc mung nam moi." (Put those accents where they belong, please!) And I bet you're the only one here who knows how to pronounce my name correctly!

To Kalkbreath again: I'm going to put words in your mouth (actually, in the keyboard) because I really want to see this debate in structured sentences. Here goes:

Kalkbreath believes that the results of Rubec et al. (2003) are irrelevant to today's (2004) environment, because the published results are for 1996-2000 data, and aquarium fishing practices have changed since 2000.

Is that a correct statement of your views? If so, why can't you just write like that, please? Pretty please? Then, you all can debate an opinion which has exactly one sentence, 33 words, and fits in less than two lines. And I'll butt out.

G*&)(#$, Captain, I'm an engineer, not a Universal Translator!

Hy

 

[PeterIMA]

Hy, Somewhere earlier in the Fuzzy Numbers thread I rebutted Kalks assertion that cyanide use had gone down by noting it had gone up from 1999 to 2000 (my results previously discussed) and was even higher in fall 2003 (49%) as reported by the Philippine Council For Sustainable Development (PCSD) web site. So, yes there was a change. Cyanide use has gone up (not down). You were correct in your extrapolation, except it was not a simple linear (straight line) increase.

Peter

Peter