cyanide fishing in the Phillipines

[PeterIMA]

Kalk is incorrect in stating that Steve Robinson testified before Congress. I was the one who testified on May 6, 1997 about cyanide fishing to the Congressional subcommittee on Wildlife, Fisheries, and Oceans. The testimony is posted at the URL given below.


http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/arc ... /rubec.htm


Peter Rubec

 

[Kalkbreath]

Yes, your were quoting Steve.
In the chapter "The Effects of Cyanide Fishing" The second line states

Steve observed the widespread use of sodium cyanide for capturing marine ornamental fish for the marine aquarium trade

Then three lines later

With declining harvest of both food and aquarium fishes, they could barely feed their families. There was no longer much excess food fish to sell,

You point out that its three years later when Steve learns of the live food trade.
The lack of excess food fish in 1982 you spoke about was interesting because it points out that food fish was the main income for the fishermen. Not pet fish.
If the fish levels out on the reefs were already low in 1982 it could hardly been from pet fish or live food fish collectors because both were just beginning as trades.
The fishermen had already been cyanide fishing for their own dinner tables ten years before the live fish or pet fish trades even began. Thats why as you stated

There was no longer much excess food fish to sell,

in 1982.
The industry which has caused the most harm is the local fishermen fishing to feed their families. Thats why the Philippine government has always been slow to respond ....it would mean people starving.

 

[clarionreef]

The Philippine govt was never slow to respond out of pity for the poor fisherman...
It was slow to respond out of respect for the bribe paying exporters cartel. They always shared the bounty with fisheries.

The aquarium trade had been burning coral to catch tropical fish for decades before I got there.
Steve

 

[Kalkbreath]

You claim it took 4,000 collectors to collect 12 million fish a year back then.
:lol: did not...

how many squirt bottles does it take to collect fish for 90,000,000. people whom eat mostly free fish as their weekly meat.?
90,000,000 million eating wild caught reef fish a week?
:roll:
No wonder you drive real academics nutz.
This Kalk-math is more a sign of dyslexia then anything else.

The trade we're in ruins critical habitat and hence fish populations of the fish we're most interested in.
Food fish people ruin critical habitat and hence fish populations of fish their most interested in.
And we all come together to produce a poorer fish producing reef system for all concerned.

In terms of sheer mass destruction...the food fish trade is surely greater.
In terms of damage to habitat specific aquarium fish populations and produce for our industry ...we do a great deal of the damage. Wheres the glory and comfort in that?
Steve

The four thousand collectors nonsense has been used many times by the reeform movement you all came up with it not me.
Poor people eat free meat........You claimed they had no money , what did they eat?

 

[Kalkbreath]

Yes, the industry played their part, but its hard to find a scenario in which our part could have been more then 1 percent of the problem.

I want to see you put this argument in front of a judge.
I only killed one person, Mr. Judge. Hitler killed 6 million.
Pol Pot killed 3 or 4 million. I only killed one! I'm not responsible!
They are!

Do you have any idea how your argument makes you sound, Kalk?
Guilty is guilty, regardless of the percentage.


Regards.
Mike Kirda

Would this apply to fish as well?
Ban the trade because someone killed a fish during collection back in 1982?

I only killed one!

Guilty is guilty, regardless of the percentage.

 

[Kalkbreath]

The Philippine govt was never slow to respond out of pity for the poor fisherman...
It was slow to respond out of respect for the bribe paying exporters cartel. They always shared the bounty with fisheries.

The aquarium trade had been burning coral to catch tropical fish for decades before I got there.
Steve

And who was buying all these fish ?
It wasnt the USA, not in the 1970s!

 

[Anonymous]

i'm feeling deja vu

 

[mkirda]

Would this apply to fish as well?
Ban the trade because someone killed a fish during collection back in 1982?

Who said "Ban the trade"? Let me look back.... Oh, it was Kalk!

Let me spell it out for you, Kalk.
I was pointing out an serious logic error you made.
One cannot justify an act by pointing out that others have also done the act.
One cannot justify the act also by pointing out that others have done it more.

To bring it home, if someone were to go kill your mother or wife or child, they would be guilty of murder. Murder is illegal, period. They cannot stand in front of a judge and argue that Pol Pot murdered 3 or 4 million Cambodians, so my measly little murder of a single individual is meaningless and should therefore be forgiven and forgotten. Guilty is guilty. That they should be given a harsher sentence if they murdered all three versus one should be a given. In other words, you can give harsher penalties given the number of times you break the law.

To argue that the trade is guiltless is absolutely wrong. To point out the the food fishing trade might have harmed the reefs more than the aquarium trade is fine. But to use that as a 'Get out of jail free' card (as you have so many times) is wrong. Killing one person vs. killing 100 means a harsher sentence - Either way, you are guilty.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[clarionreef]

Like some of the emperors of Rome,
The "trade" parades beasts of every color and shape from the far corners of the empire for the mob to enjoy.

A small % of the mob wonders if this may not be prudent...Their numbers however are far less then the faction that gazes in wonder at the colt coral ...dripping with red dye and the mighty majesticus taken at great cost by felling the trees of its forest home.

Reform!... say the reform faction way back in the coloseums nose-bleed section. If they are far enough back...they are tolerated...
Their inaudible cries not at all interfering with the show.


But once there was a faction in the front of the mob...and they were tarred and feathered and threatened with death .
Steve

 

[Jaime Baquero]

The following information has been taken from " Primer on Anti-illegal Fishing" Conserve and Protect our Fisheries Resources. Republic of the Philippines. Department of Agriculture. Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic resources.

The constitution of the republic of the Philippines recognizes the responsibility of the State not only to manage, develop and conserve the fishery/aquatic resources but also to protect the rights of its citizens in proper utilization of the same as follows:

Article XII, section 2 - " The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and employment exclusively to Filipino citizens"

Article XIII, Section 7 - " The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially of local communities, to the preferential use of the communal marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide support to such fishermen through appropriate technology and research, adequate financial production and marketing assistance and other services. The State shall also protect, develop and conserve such resources. The protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds to subsistence and other fishermen against foreign intrusion. Fisherworkers shall receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine and fishing resources.

From the same document

Question number 11- What is fishing with the use of obnoxious or poisonous substances?

A- It means catching fish with the use of any substance, plants, extracts or juice thereof, chemicals, whether raw or processed form, harmful or harmless to human beings, which kill, stupefy, disable or render unconscious fish or fishery/aquatic products.

Question number 12 - What are the adverse effects of the use of poisonous or obnoxious substance in fishing?

A- Destruction of the habitat of fish and death, supefaction, disabling or rendering unconscious fish and other aquatic living animals.

Question 13 - What is the penality for fishing with the use of obnoxious or poisonous substances?

A- Imprisonment ranging from 8 to 10 years, provided that if the use of susbtance result in:

1) Physical injury to any person, the penality shall be imprisonment from 10 to 12 years; or

2) in the loss of human life, the penalty shall be imprisonment from 20 years to life, or death.

Filipino citizens should know by now that nothing of the above is happening the Filipino government has failed in protecting its natural resources.

The government has failed in the implementation of the Presidential Decree No 1219 and 1698, providing for the exploration, exploitation, utilization and conservation of coral resources. Also failed in the implementation of the Fisheries Administration Orders (FAO) implementing the provisions of P.D 704.

Where is the Filipino scientific community and other individuals interested in protecting their natural resources?

 

[clarionreef]

" The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially of local communities, to the preferential use of the communal marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide support to such fishermen through appropriate technology and research, adequate financial production and marketing assistance and other services.
The State shall also protect, develop and conserve such resources. The protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds to subsistence and other fishermen against foreign intrusion. Fisherworkers shall receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine and fishing resources.

The words were beautiful and I couldn't agree more with Jaimes post.
Where indeed are they?

If the government was more forthright and pro-active....and pro-Filipino, an ' industry' to service that which it does not would never have sprung up...to service itself.
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks for posting that Jaime, I had not seen that one yet. Got a link to it for us?

 

[clarionreef]

Nice words are a dime a dozen...
The crime is that they are often taken for actual achievement.
Its the implementation that counts for the other 99.99 % or the equation.
Even under Marco's regime there were nice words in Fisheries doctrines. They sure didn't mean it...but they were there.
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Sure, but I hadn't seen those words yet, so I liked what I saw. I know it's all in the implementation That doesn't stop me from wanting to see the document though.

 

[clarionreef]

to see the document through...see the document through....
Exellent!
Steve

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Greshamh,


The article XIII, Section 7 and Article XII, Section 2 are in the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. I do not know if the Department of Agriculture of the Philippines has a web page to get access to the document " Primer on Anti-illegal fishing" Conserve and Protect our Fishery Resources. That document was produced in 2000.

In the preface of the document is stated that "This Primer is intended specifically to provide general information on illegal fishing practices in the hope that it shall serve to enlighten the citizenry on the advrese effects of illegal fishing in our fishery/aquatic resources and as a ready reference for law enforcement officers" end of quotation.

The foreword is by Dennis Araullo. Is a small booklet 23 pages in English and Tagalog.

 

[clarionreef]

12) MOST FISHERMEN POOR AND UNHEALTHY, SAYS WORLD FISH CENTRE DIRECTOR
Ninety per cent of the world's fishermen are poor and vulnerable to
diseases and accidents, so it is difficult for them to participate in
activities that would improve fish production, says Pew Fellow Stephen
Hall, director general of World Fish Centre. Speaking recently in
Chennai (India), Hall pointed out that the gap between demand and
supply of fish in the global market has been growing as fish reserves
have declined considerably during the last few years. "By improving
fisheries and aquaculture, we can reduce poverty and hunger," he said,
pointing out that this goal can only be achieved through partnership
between NGOs and the government sector.
SOURCE: News Today, cited in SAMUDRA News Alert, June 27, 2005;
http://newstodaynet.com/25jun/rf13.htm

***For more about Hall, go to:
http://www.pewmarine.org/pewFellowsDire ... erialInt=7
090

 

[PeterIMA]

Jaime Baquero has posted information from a document concerning illegal fishing and the penalties under Philippine law. Philippine legislation is embedded in the new Fisheries Act issued in 1998. This is available on the web. I will check my copy that I downloaded from the web and post the URL.

It should be noted that the intent of the 1998 legislation is derived from several Presidential Degrees (eg. PD 704) and Fisheries Administrative Orders (FAO 155) that go back to the 1970s. The new Fisheries Act retains the intent (destructive fishing is illegal and have severe penalties for offenders if convicted). The duration of time in jail has changed somewhat, but the penalties are still severe.

The problem as Steve and Jaime have pointed out is that the Philippine government does not adequately enforce its laws. Hence, coral reefs are destroyed, fisheries resources have declined markedly and the aquarium trade suffers from its own activities (use of cyanide) as well as from the destructive capacity of the other fisheries (eg. food fish) that also use cyanide.

To argue that the aquarium trade is not responsible for contributing to the destruction of Philippine coral reefs is pointless. This has been proven through the BFAR/IMA monitoring and CDT testing. The research by James Cervino and Dr. Ross Jones is conclusive. If the Philippine government ever decides to enforce its laws, there will not be a marine aquarium fish export trade.

There is a need for other countries to enforce their laws against cyanide fishing. Cyanide testing is necessary in every country where cyanide is currently widespread. It is not just PI that needs to take action. Both the exporting countries and the importing countries need to take action against those responsible for promoting cyanide fishing. Tests exist to detect cyanide and its metabolites (eg, thiocyanate). Importers and retailers in Canada and the U.S.A. should not think that they can avoid being prosecuted from selling fish captured illegally using cyanide.

Peter Rubec

 

[PeterIMA]

One can access Philippines fisheries legislation through the web site for the Philippine Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) at the following URL.

http://www.bfar.da.gov.ph/legislation/legislation.htm

On the BFAR web site is the following link to Republic Act 8850 which is the Fisheries Act passed in 1998.

http://www.bfar.da.gov.ph/legislation/i ... ra8550.htm

Sincerely,
Peter Rubec

 

[Kalkbreath]

Article XIII, Section 7 - " The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially of local communities, to the preferential use of the communal marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide support to such fishermen through appropriate technology and research, adequate financial production and marketing assistance and other services. The State shall also protect, develop and conserve such resources. The protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds to subsistence and other fishermen against foreign intrusion. Fisherworkers shall receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine and fishing resources.

Ever heard of a local Philipino being arrested for poison fishing to feed his family? This article XIII is the Gov stating how it holds the ability of local natives to feed themselves above all else.
Most fishermen who use poison, fish for all three types of fish. Collecting fish to feed thier families as well as to sell for seafood trade and aquarium trade. The Philippine government understands that the vast majority of poison fishing comes from self use fishing and they cant stop it or the people will starve.
Why is it so hard for westerners to grasp the idea?