If you were going to rewrite HR 4928....

[John_Brandt]

What would you change, omit or add if the bill had to pass in some form?

You must retain the two key issues of forbidding the importation of illegally caught animals and the requirements of ecosystem sustainability.

 

[Anonymous]

the first thing i would do is not mislead the public by using retail sales values to determine/illustrate the value of mo fish /kg compared to food fish, but use the value they represent to the very divers the mamti initiative claims to be fighting for, unlike mac


man what a sham, and it began on the first few pages(refering to the mamti doc)

 

[naesco]

There are two changes I would lobby for.

1, Double the fines and prison terms if allowed. The penalties are weak. Also ensure that the fines and prison terms are retroactive so that those who yard in tonnes of fish just befor the passage into law go to prison.

2. Pass immediately a bill barring the import of fish from the Philippines and Indonesia where the use of cyanide is rampant. There would than be sufficient time to deal with CDT, sustainability issues and the USL.

Good thread, John

 

[spawner]

Include food fishing with sustainability, lets start right here in the US. Ban all unsustainable fishing.

How about ban all imports of goods that are produced from countries that eat cyanide caught fish. Start with the major offenders first.

A better suggestion, lets take all the money that we have spent on this issue and spend that same amount on training and setting up a supply line for clean fish (new companies, new exports pay for it all), no overhead, no large fat cat pay rolls, just pay the fisherman twice what they get now for dirty fish. Give them a stipend to collect stuff right, not matter how much they can collect, maybe food credits or some way to feed the family. Here is an idea give them some nets, holding equipment, and real training. Most importantly don't have a bunch of US guys making 6 figures running the show from an office 1000s of miles away.

How many programs has the US set up in forgein lands that really work by pushing more paper work, more red tape? name one. I think we just like setting up new gov. programs to send money back home for votes.

 

[dizzy]

What would you change, omit or add if the bill had to pass in some form?

You must retain the two key issues of forbidding the importation of illegally caught animals and the requirements of ecosystem sustainability.

I'd start by not making everything illegal. This bill places impossible demands on the industry. In effect what this bill does is to change the law from innocent until proven guilty, to guilty until proven innocent. I would increase the penalties for people caught breaking the law, and treat each violation like it was a serious crime, using the existing laws. The Clarion angelfish scandal might be a good place to start. I would appropriate enough money to make sure that the cyanide detection tests are developed and implemented. I would recommend that Congress appropriate enough money to have meaningful sustainability accessments done, and I would allow enough time to have them done right. The bill needs to establish a model that can also be adapted to regulate the food fishing industry as well, which is by far the bigger problem. If this bill screws up our industry like I think it will, the government will never be able to get environmental laws passed to stop the well organized and well financed food fishing industry from continuing to rape the reefs. This bill may very well win the battle against the pet trade and lose the war against reef destruction. Congress needs to show that they have the good sense to draft legislation that does not destroy large segments of industries while creating monopolies that destroy free enterprise. Creating bureaucracy does not necessarily solve the problem.
Mitch

PS What is amazing about this bill is that it not only creates bureaucracy in this country, but in developing countries as well. Assuming that we can or should micro manage other countries laws is a foreign concept to me. The entire plan is spelled out in the MAMTI manifesto. It's no wonder we are hated by much of the world.

 

[PeterIMA]

Mitch, Your recent postings about H.R. 4928 and MAMTI are surprising to me. I tend to agree that the trade needs to be regulated and that H.R. 4928 might destroy the aquarium trade as we know it (if not properly implemented). The bill does not tell other countries how to manage their marine resources, just that the USA will not trade with them if they do not implement management plans etc.

You should not confuse what is proposed in the MAMTI proposal with the legislation. MAMTI is an attempt by a non-profit (MAC) to go into business with a venture capital firm (Core Resources International/CCIF) to monopolize the marine aquarium trade. They are a more serious threat to free enterprise than H.R. 4928.

While we may disagree about the details, I admire the fact that you care and have chosen to voice your opinions. Where are the others in the trade. Don't they care about the future of their industry?

Peter

 

[dizzy]

Peter,
I understand that it if hr4928 gets passed it will not be for the reasons I alluded too. If that is the effect however, it matters little to me what the intent was. It's just possible the Congressmen are being chumped. I'd be willing to bet it happens quit often. They put on their pants just like the rest of us. Or dresses as the case may be.
Mitch

 

[horge]

Peter, John, and all,

Just curious...
Let's say this turkey passes the House.
Let's say it actually winds up with teeth towards trade sanctions.
Just who whould be pressed into service for validating/evaluating the foreign trading-partner's EMP's?

MAC?





horge

 

[naesco]

Peter, John, and all,

Just curious...
Let's say this turkey passes the House.
Let's say it actually winds up with teeth towards trade sanctions.
Just who whould be pressed into service for validating/evaluating the foreign trading-partner's EMP's?

MAC?

Turkey. You call legislation aimed at stopping the destruction of reefs, turkey
You should be concerned about this. What will you tell your children?

The MAC thing is a red herring. The question posed was what improvements would you suggest to the current bill.




horge

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Mitch, Your recent postings about H.R. 4928 and MAMTI are surprising to me. I tend to agree that the trade needs to be regulated and that H.R. 4928 might destroy the aquarium trade as we know it (if not properly implemented). The bill does not tell other countries how to manage their marine resources, just that the USA will not trade with them if they do not implement management plans etc.

You should not confuse what is proposed in the MAMTI proposal with the legislation. MAMTI is an attempt by a non-profit (MAC) to go into business with a venture capital firm (Core Resources International/CCIF) to monopolize the marine aquarium trade. They are a more serious threat to free enterprise than H.R. 4928.

While we may disagree about the details, I admire the fact that you care and have chosen to voice your opinions. Where are the others in the trade. Don't they care about the future of their industry?

Peter,

You know more than anyone else that the "others in the trade" do not care. They have been absent since day one back in the late 80's when the first net training was implemented. They didn't, don't and won't care. It must be underlined that status quo is NOT an option for this industry. The "others in the trade" will learn the hard way, meaning H.R 4928. The industry as a whole didn't respond to the many calls made during the last 16 years or so. Calls made by NGO's, fisherfolks and the few ones in the industry who really care.

H.R. 4928 must be as tough as possible for the industry in the states and elsewhere. This bill must get everyone dealing with marine ornamentals. Everyone must have a license and staff must be fully qualified to trade marine life. Only the strong ones who care will survive. The rest, meaning the majority who do not care, will disappear.

Knowing all the facts we know about this trade-cide we can not tolerate that the ones from this industry contributing to the destruction of coral reefs keep doing business as if nothing is happening. They didn't want to listen and collaborate, now they have to face the consequences.

Coral reefs play an important ecological an global role. This trade is contributing to its destruction and must be stopped!


Peter

 

[PeterIMA]

Horge, I wrote a rather long reply that just got lost without making it onto Reef.org.

I suggest that you read my papers on TURFs. Please PM me a message and I will be happy to discuss these ideas further.

Peter Rubec

 

[horge]

naesco,
It's born in the USA.
It's looking pretty stuffed.
It's about to be put in the oven.
Well, okay... I have a jaded view of trade legislation tied in to environmentalism, or human rights violations, or possession of a nuclear weapons program.

BTDT, but if it puts you more at ease, I hereby withdraw the poultry reference

Back to the legitimate question: who will validate any EMP's that a foreign trading partner might offer up in fear of trade exclusions/sanctions?

MAC happens to be the freshest name in a long string of organizations that could be tapped to do EMP validation, and also seems to have gathered the most institutional endorsements. Where's the red herring? The front office is just where the responsibility comes to rest --the real wet work can thence be subcontracted to experienced local assets and highly-competent parallel organizations.

While the impact on Industry if all this passes into some form of law seems potentially severe, I can't really fault the clarity of the resrictions it seems to mandate.

I'm left with worrying over implementation.
Say you're the reef-ornamental exporting country.
If you can 'paper over' a non-existent or insufficient EMP, you dodge sanctions, the US end of the trade remains saddled with new impositions, without the new milieu proviing any real relief to the reefs:

gobble, gobble, gobble...

 

[PeterIMA]

Horge,

Here are some questions for you.

1. What management measures are presently in place in PI that can allow Philippine government agencies to assess marine aquarium fish population status by species?

2. What monitoring and or other measures have been taken to assess habitat conditions of coral reefs and associated benthic habitas (e.g. seagrass beds, mangroves etc)?

3. Does BFAR or anyone else use any of the stock assessment models developed by ICLARM (presently called the World Fisheries Center)?

4. What makes you think the MAC will subcontract anything? As far as I can see from the MAMTI proposal they intend to do it all themselves in conjunction with ReefCheck (Gregor Hodgson and his graduate students will do underwater surveys and net-training) and CCIF (the venture capitalists in San Francisco).

5. I think that Filipino government agencies (municipal to federal) and Filipinos should be involved in establishing EMPs. What is being done or what is planned with regard to municipal CRM, CB-CRM, FISH, FRMP etc?

Once the Philippines has done something, maybe the US will trade with your country. I don't think you should expect a foreign NGO (like MAC) to develop environmental management plans (EMPs). Perhaps they could do the underwater surveys to assess the status of fish populations and habitat conditions. However, I think there are Filipinos who are better qualified.

 

[Kalkbreath]

How will they separate the industry damage from the Seafood collection? As of today .... The pet fish hobby is blamed for all cyanide damage. Do we really think they will be able to distinguish between the two? If we compare the data from the 1990s.... only one in five hundred cyanide squirts are pet trade related. Furthermore crowbars are used world wide to extract reef animals for food . How do researchers determine hobby collection from the guys collecting seacucumbers and such to be sold to Asian markets? They cant . Even now few people take into account that our hobby cant be responsible for much of the damage. How many fish did we export from PI last year? Do you really think that even if a third of those fish are still being collected with poison [like in 1900s] Thats only about one million fish ! But the reported cyanide yearly destruction is far beyond the the capabilities of pet fish collectors collecting 500,000 damsels and another 500,000 assorted fish .Most of which are collected twenty or more at a time. There is only one way to separate the pet fish collectors from the others. That is another set of cyanide tests. Last time we tested we learned that even in years like 1997 when only 8% of the aquarium fish tested for cyanide .......there was no decrease in the reported occurrences of cyanide damage on the reefs. Thats because our collectors use such tiny amounts and collect so few fish that even if we stopped all collection .......there would be no noticeable change in the health of the reefs . ...........other then ex pet fish collectors now fishing for food fish.

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, As far as some group doing underwater surveys, I doubt that they will be able to distringuish reefs that have been doused with cyanide by food fishers from those doused with cyanide by aquarium fish collectors/suppliers. That will not stop the US government from banning the aquarium trade (which will be blamed as your stated).

You still seem to want to minimize the impacts from the aquarium trade. The USCRTF and Congress can only act to regulate the aquarium trade, since as far as we know only aquarium fishes caught with cyanide are imported to the USA (I am starting to doubt this).

Your statistics again seem suspect. How did you estimate that imports to the USA had fallen to 1 million fish per year (500,000 damsels and 500,000 other fish)? What about imports from Indonesia, don't they also count as imported aquarium fishes?

Despite my posting the trend in CDT results numerous times on this forum and sending you the paper, you continue to misquote the results. The percentage of aquarium fishes found with cyanide present in marine aquarium fish tested was 43% in 1996, 41% in 1997 (not 8%), 18% in 1998, 8% in 1999, and 29% during 2000. Cyanide use is widespread and is devastating reefs, despite your claims.

Peter Rubec

 

[horge]

Horge,
Here are some questions for you.
1. What management measures are presently in place in PI that can allow Philippine government agencies to assess marine aquarium fish population status by species?

Hello Peter,
There are too many monitoring initiatives for my familiarity, and the autonomy granted to LGU's in this matter makes it difficult to offer a stereotype. The vast majority of hese are food-security oriented, impelled by the various consequences of DA DAO 6 - Republic Act 8435, 1998 (Implementing Rules: Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act), but you know the overlap between food-fisheries management and reef conservation. When it comes to species-level monitoring, I recall a few out of Silliman, but again, these were focused on food-fish --not all were deck counts--there was surveying for non-pelagic juvies on the reef as well.

2. What monitoring and or other measures have been taken to assess habitat conditions of coral reefs and associated benthic habitas (e.g. seagrass beds, mangroves etc)?

Good Lord. Up until I decided to slow down, I knew of three ongoing marine benthic macroalgae surveys annually done and still going strong after years of running, In Lingayen, Balayan Bay, maybe still at Olango.... mind you, seaweed is among the least glamorous of subjects. I suppose one would have go to the various large academic institutions, and survey THEM for the surveys. Most of it is done to keep undergrads busy --dunno if any of it ever gets used for policymaking at BFAR, though I'd hope it was.

3. Does BFAR or anyone else use any of the stock assessment models developed by ICLARM (presently called the World Fisheries Center)?

They'll always be 'ICLARM' to me. Sounds cooler.
Can't answer for BFAR, but none of the NGO's I know of, nor any of the LGU monitoring programs I've looked at do. That doesn't mean their 'data' is invalid though.

4. What makes you think the MAC will subcontract anything?

Coz we ain't in Kansas no mo. Or rather, won't be.
But seriously, if MAC obtains potentially-lucrative deputy status from the US federal government towards EMP assessment, everyone --not just the usual critics-- is going to look for holes in its ops to cite, so that
a) any assessments detrimental to Philippine trade interests can be contested/invalidated.
b) their favorites have a chance to replace MAC

Easier for MAC (or anyone deputized) to spread the happiness and the potential blame around, to keep the new status quo -- If MAC or any deputy want to get any work done, they may NEED to keep an even keel via the politics of inclusion. If that means bringing in competent manpower, as it would, then why would I complain?

As far as I can see from the MAMTI proposal they intend to do it all themselves in conjunction with ReefCheck (Gregor Hodgson and his graduate students will do underwater surveys and net-training) and CCIF (the venture capitalists in San Francisco).

I honestly didn't come away with that strict an impression, but you've probably invested more time in reviewing it (and context-setting others), so I might defer to you.

5. I think that Filipino government agencies (municipal to federal) and Filipinos should be involved in establishing EMPs. What is being done or what is planned with regard to municipal CRM, CB-CRM, FISH, FRMP etc?

Yes. Blunt skippy: EMP's are already in place, and as to CRM, as interpreted individually by the various-LGU's ...that's a looooong discussion for more travelled folks than I.

Once the Philippines has done something, maybe the US will trade with your country. I don't think you should expect a foreign NGO (like MAC) to develop environmental management plans (EMPs). Perhaps they could do the underwater surveys to assess the status of fish populations and habitat conditions. However, I think there are Filipinos who are better qualified.

Hey Peter...
I never said MAC or some other deputy would have to develop the EMP's, only that they would have to validate/report on existing ones, towards greenlighting trade.

This of course all hinges on a putative deputization of a US NGO.
For all we know, the validation process could simply wind up being submission of claim papers by BFAR to the US government, and bam, trade greenlight.

Stay tuned, I guess 8O


.

 

[John_Brandt]

Kalk, there is nothing about HR 4928 that blames nor would hold the MO trade responsible for damages done by the food fishery. One could argue that sustainability management might be more complicated in areas that are intensively food fished, but it is still a separate issue. As long as MO fishers are not collecting destructively or unsustainably they are not in violation of HR 4928. There is the potential issue of a CDT revealing cyanide in the tissue of a fish that was not caught with cyanide, but this has to be worked out with further testing and evaluation of the ISE CDT.

Horge, it is not made clear who would be administering and enforcing the bill. Proposed appropriations are to (1) for the Secretary of the Interior, $5,000,000; (2) for the Secretary of Commerce, $3,000,000; and (3) for the Secretary of State, $500,000. It is no surprise that most would go to the Interior Dept. and Commerce (under which operates NOAA). But I don't understand the involvement of the State Dept. other than possibly for foreign government relations. Enforcement could be carried out by Dept of Fish & Wildlife, US Customs and NOAA. Obviously much more would be understandable if there had been definitions given to sustainability management and certification of non-destructive harvest. It could be that NOAA's Fisheries would establish their own set of standards for sustainability and certification. The government could create guidelines that are only somewhat like MAC's.

MAC has a growing group of staff and contractors in the Philippines, all of them are Filipino. The net trainers are all very experienced net collectors from Batangas, Leyte, Bohol and Cebu. There are field technicians, Country Director, Supply Development Manager, Business Development Specialist, Documentation Specialist, Compliance Monitoring Specialist and an Asian Director.

Reform progress is slow on all fronts in the Philippines. After years of operations MAC still only has 2 certified areas of collecting producing few (though good quality) fish. The MSI Fund delivered miles of netting of 2 types to the Philippines. It sits almost entirely unused because it lacked a distribution and management plan, and because it is a specialized kind of material used for a specific type of net.

I will say again that MAC had nothing to do with the writing of HR 4928. Any statements in this forum to the contrary are based solely on speculation, not on facts.

 

[naesco]

Horge

Thank you.

There is an opportunity for industry to assist the government in the implementation of HR4928 to make the transition from cyanide caught to the net cuaght only requirementments of the Bill.

Unfortuneatly, stateside industry is in denial feeling that as Americans they have the God given right to continue the devastation of your reefs to sustain their demand without any consideration for reeform whatsoever.

But, I have confidence in the strength and determination of the Philippine people and their love of their beautiful isles.
Renewed reefs will not only enhance the trade in healthy MO but will encourage an outstanding growth in ecotourism.

The demand for training, CDT experience, sustainability persons, marine biologists will hit the roof in the next few months in anticipation of the closure of the cyanide trade sinks in.
Prepare yourself and your country for those opportunities as, with it ,will be millions and millions of dolllars in international assistance.

If MAC is asked to be involved it cannot and will not do everything itself and must rely experiece and expertise in all areas.
Best unite in the interests of your country and this industry and hobby.

 

[horge]

John,
I'm aware that detailed implementing guidelines aren't there, and that's why I floated the question: Who?

I'm well aware of MAC's assets on the ground, and THAT is precisely why I asked if MAC would be the one.

horge

 

[Kalkbreath]

Kalk,

Your statistics again seem suspect. How did you estimate that imports to the USA had fallen to 1 million fish per year (500,000 damsels and 500,000 other fish)? What about imports from Indonesia, don't they also count as imported aquarium fishes?

Despite my posting the trend in CDT results numerous times on this Forum and sending you the paper, you continue to misquote the results. The percentage of aquarium fishes found with cyanide present in marine aquarium fish tested was 43% in 1996, 41% in 1997 (not 8%), 18% in 1998, 8% in 1999, and 29% during 2000. Cyanide use is widespread and is devastating reefs, despite your claims.

Peter Rubec

OK 1999 not 1997. My point is that your study found one third to be tainted over the seven year period {LAST DECADE}!. Lets use the most current test results[2000] to estimate todays percent of tainted fish . How many fish is 29% of the current 2004 imported stock totals[ 4.4 million] ? thats 1 million cyanide fish........ or lets use the second most current test results [1999]..when 8% of that years fish tested tainted ? If thats again the case [8%].....thats only 350,000 fish in 2004. Hardly rampent use of cyanide! Translates into about ONE fish per square kilometer PER YEAR! Do you really think anyone would notice one fist sized cyanide squirt a year per square mile? Testing clearly showed that our hobby cannot be responsible for 99% of the missing fish or cyanide damage........Yet , this failed to exculpate us and end the nonses .......Logic and truth have been outside the loop for too long .......