Cyanide: What it does to the reefs
- Thread starter naesco
- Start date
vitz":28skrn39 said:
Done by a plumber at that. You only gotta know three things to be a plumber: 1. The boss is an SOB. 2. Payday's on Friday 3. Sh:t runs downhill. :lol: Our hobby is going to be nearly shut down as a result of this survey.
Those figures are widely accepted as accurate by the scienticfic community. 8O The gentleman from the other group I mentioned as competing with the MAC for funding, was throwing those figures around in our phone conversation. :roll: Heaven help us.PS Let me just add that I don't blame Peter for the data. Good data was not available and this is what we end up with.
Dizzy, It is too bad you never met Frank, you would like him. You both talk the same. You both want whats best for the hobby and trade, and don't put up with hypocricy and lies.
Actually, I don't believe that the trade is about to be shut down because of Frank's survey. The numbers quoted in Scientific American seem to carry more weight (since they got used in the draft bill) even though they have no basis in fact.
The reality is that more recent studies have and are being done. While the figures (for exporters and importers) are somewhat lower than the averages provided in my 1986 paper (30% at each step of the chain-of-custody) they are still way too high.
Instead of attacking Frank's study, the industry should be trying to rectify the situation (through better collection, handling and transport practices). If mortalities were lower and the trade could prove it, then there might not be a need for some of the provisions in the proposed legislation.
Peter
Actually, I don't believe that the trade is about to be shut down because of Frank's survey. The numbers quoted in Scientific American seem to carry more weight (since they got used in the draft bill) even though they have no basis in fact.
The reality is that more recent studies have and are being done. While the figures (for exporters and importers) are somewhat lower than the averages provided in my 1986 paper (30% at each step of the chain-of-custody) they are still way too high.
Instead of attacking Frank's study, the industry should be trying to rectify the situation (through better collection, handling and transport practices). If mortalities were lower and the trade could prove it, then there might not be a need for some of the provisions in the proposed legislation.
Peter
Herein lies the problem, Peter. The current statistics have no basis in fact. They play upon the emotions of the public, and unfortunately legislators as well. Even if the industry were to put out lower statistics, they wouldn't carry near as much weight as the gloom and doom scenarios that people so enjoy bantering about. Take Wayne (please) for example. When I posted my statistics that are based in fact, he told me they were BS and that I was just advertising. Unfortunately, Wayne represents the uneducated public who knows nothing about the trade. And his reaction is more likely than "Oh! The industry mortalities aren't as bad as we thought, let's find another problem to fix." People like a cause to get all worked up about- especially if it's one that doesn't affect them personally.
But Peter, Neither you nor Frank ever showed any of us the data that tallies 68% . The data Frank posted last year on this board did not come close to 68% . Next you claim that the data still has yet to be fully studied ! Now almost ten years later You tell us that your going to use this data as the final word on import current DOA DAA. The data may have well been correct ten years ago . A lot has changed since then , not only are the ratios of fish species vastly different in 2004 {like the blue ribbons which out numbered mandarins in your data ] But the fact that Air freight has tripled since then and now the cost of getting the fish over the ocean , costs ten times more then the cost of the fish ! Also he biggest obstacle facing exporters in 2004 has been finding airspace at all . Places like Tonga could ship ten times more rock , corals and fish if there were more planes leaving to load.But there are actually less planes out of Tonga and Fiji now then in 1997! Even Airspace out of LAX to the East is about at full Capacity. No importer or LFS can handle even 30% DOA DAA under toadys costs of shipping. Your going to be laughed out of the meeting if you tell the industry that you think your data is a fact in 2004 :wink:
Peter,
Maybe re-read Wayne's post. He stated he was going to get DOA numbers from one or more local fish stores in Vancouver. That is what I was referring to. I would be very interested to see those numbers as I know where the vast majority of the fish are coming from in this market, for obvious reasons.
Again though...I would be very surprised they give him this info. Still, DAA numbers will not reflect cyanide use in capture.
Maybe re-read Wayne's post. He stated he was going to get DOA numbers from one or more local fish stores in Vancouver. That is what I was referring to. I would be very interested to see those numbers as I know where the vast majority of the fish are coming from in this market, for obvious reasons.
Again though...I would be very surprised they give him this info. Still, DAA numbers will not reflect cyanide use in capture.
kylen":3iwm1udx said:
Why do you say that?
Surely a fish can be damaged by cyanide to teh point that it dies much quicker thanotherwise, but not after getting to the hobbyist's tank.
Am I wsaying a cyanide caught fish can't be healthy? No. But it certainly does do damage with affects beyond the inital capture and shipping. Or did I mis-interpret what you wrote (always a possibility)?
Keetrax,
Any mortality numbers, be they DOA or DAA can not be linked to cyanide use- at least by the time they reach the import level. There is no proof that the dead animals being reported were captured with cyanide. We know the cyanide target species, and we also know that some of them, like triggers, are extremely hardy and long lived in captivity. Most of my net caught fish toward the end of me importing them died. It doesn't mean they were caught with cyanide. It means they were handled poorly by the exporter.
Any mortality numbers, be they DOA or DAA can not be linked to cyanide use- at least by the time they reach the import level. There is no proof that the dead animals being reported were captured with cyanide. We know the cyanide target species, and we also know that some of them, like triggers, are extremely hardy and long lived in captivity. Most of my net caught fish toward the end of me importing them died. It doesn't mean they were caught with cyanide. It means they were handled poorly by the exporter.
MaryHM":1m5j9glp said:
Right. But the fact that the chain is too complicated to make a direct link (ie there are lots of other factors) does not mean that that factor does not contriibute. I realize you can't say the cyanide *did* cause it. I'm just saying it's potentially just as difficult to say it *didn't* cause the problem. It's just one of a number of factors which could be a problem. As the problems with poorly handled net caught specimines so sadly demonstrates. I suppose if you could ensure identical handling shipping, with a large enough sample size and such you could do some statistical crunching on it, but with the large number of real world variables that would be pretty difficult to get any useful data.
Well, I don't think anyone here is saying that cyanide cannot be a factor. I think some of us just get tired of everyone assuming that mortalities must be linked to cyanide. Stop the cyanide, stop the mortalities. That's just not the case.
Actually, it's easier to say when cyanide is not a problem. There are certain species and certain areas that are not exposed to cyanide.
Precisely. And that is why some of us tire of people tacking their own personal agendas to the issue and parading out their pet cause to explain problems in the trade. [/quote]
Mary, I am getting tired of you defending the cyanide cartel.
YOU demand statistics and you get them and deny their validity. Statistics from the expert in the field of cyanide.
YOU condemn the study as being the vehicle that brings industry
Farhenheit 4928 when as Dr. Rubec points out it is your (industry's) lack of action on the cyanide issue that will likely result in major changes in my hobby and cause irrepairable harm to the Mom and Dad shops that you pretend to represent.
Just because Mary says that there is no direct link ( :roll: ) between the shockingly high mortality rates and cyanide you think others believe you.
YOU might as well come to the realization now that the cyanide days are over. YOU used to be a part of the solution but now like so many indsutry types YOU are the problem. When it comes to the fight against cyanide Mary, Sorry to say, you have nothing more to add on the cyanide issue. You are history. Go build a greenhouse.
Leave the fight against cyanide to those who care.
YOU demand statistics and you get them and deny their validity. Statistics from the expert in the field of cyanide.
YOU condemn the study as being the vehicle that brings industry
Farhenheit 4928 when as Dr. Rubec points out it is your (industry's) lack of action on the cyanide issue that will likely result in major changes in my hobby and cause irrepairable harm to the Mom and Dad shops that you pretend to represent.
Just because Mary says that there is no direct link ( :roll: ) between the shockingly high mortality rates and cyanide you think others believe you.
YOU might as well come to the realization now that the cyanide days are over. YOU used to be a part of the solution but now like so many indsutry types YOU are the problem. When it comes to the fight against cyanide Mary, Sorry to say, you have nothing more to add on the cyanide issue. You are history. Go build a greenhouse.
Leave the fight against cyanide to those who care.
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:
