cyanide fishing in the Phillipines

[clarionreef]

Jaime,
What role is playing the mexican government? Is there any reglamentation in Mexico to control this fishery?
_________________
Why yes....and they over regulate and over charge for the regulation to the point that they kill or stop the trade for years at a time.
The relevance to the thread is the ease of training divers when everyones sincere and in possession of 'in house' competence.
Mexicans, Indonesians and Filipinos etc. all train equally well of course and its the lessons I learned from training Mexicans that I took to the Philippines to try and stop cyanide fishing.
We stopped it where we were allowed to...and the success so excited outsiders that they co opted the program for their own benefit...and the rest is a lack of history and progress.
I posted about the Mexican experience to remind myself how easy it would be to actually solve the problem instead of making a business out of failing to solve it...and the endless debate that this profitless history has caused.
Mexico has over regulated the fisherman so much as to ruin them time and again. I`m here to interact again with the authorities to try and find a middle ground between them nmaking all the money from regulation, monitoring and evaluating...and the allowance of divers to give them something to base it on.
There is a parrallel industry developing that holds the regulatory function equal or more important then the fishery...in fact it has surpassed the fishery in money generated down here!
A new 70,000 dollar grant was just given to a new group to control the fishery on top of the government authorities that control the fishery that our 8 divers represent.

The question of wether there is regulation here brought a chorus of jokes from the room . The consensus is that the regulation has become so big that this new industry needs a few divers to justify it!
Steve
Our embedded biologist Javier noted that the tick has become bigger than the dog. The question is wether the tick will kill the dog in the mission to regulate it. The last thing in danger here is the reefs.

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Steve, thank you for your answer.

We see the two extremes here:

a) a country where regulation is in place. Coral reefs and their inhabitants are protected, fisherfolks who want to exploit these natural resources have to pay for it. This is a country that is giving a real economic value to coral reefs.

b) a country as the Philippines where regulations don't exist and as consequence coral reefs are being destroyed. Hundreds of ornamental fish collectors collecting fish without any control from the government or regulatory agencies.

Frankly, I do prefer a).

 

[naesco]

There seems to be a chandge in the direction many are taking in this discussion.

The demand for a total and absolute ban on the import of fish from the Philippines and Indonesia where the use of cyanide is rampant was viewed as being somewhat extreme.

It appears that many of you (except Kalk) have come to understand that nothing will happen until industry is forced to change.
Am i correct?
Thank you

 

[Kalkbreath]

There seems to be a chandge in the direction many are taking in this discussion.

The demand for a total and absolute ban on the import of fish from the Philippines and Indonesia where the use of cyanide is rampant was viewed as being somewhat extreme.

It appears that many of you (except Kalk) have come to understand that nothing will happen until industry is forced to change.
Am i correct?
Thank you

back in 1997 and 98 the test results showed only ten percent of the MO fish had cyanide present coming out of the Philippines. Fish prices did not increase and the supply was great. There were very few divers using cyanide and the ten percent was coming from perhaps less then one percent of the individual collectors. This event showed that its possible to supply the USA with net collected fish from the Philippines. The demand for fish was not forcing collectors to use extreme measures.........the fishermen were choosing to use nets or not to.
Would it have been fair in 1997 to shut down the PI MO fish industry and penalize the majority of non cyanide using fishermen?
What would you say to a Philippine if he turned the issue around and asked you {" How many auto accidents here in the USA [or Canada]are caused by people breaking the speed limit each day! People are dying and if the law breaking cant be stopped all drivers should be taken off the road."} :wink:
Its easy to foist yourself into another countries social problems. Rather then deal with your own.
Baby seals screaming in pain, Children bleeding in horrific traffic deaths......dying reef sanctuaries .......hell we have that here in the great USA!

Nice to hear your at it again STeve, Were behind you all the way ! {well, Im off to the side and not directly behind.......I know how that Mexican food can affect ones down wind backdraft.} 8O

 

[clarionreef]

a) a country where regulation is in place. Coral reefs and their inhabitants are protected, fisherfolks who want to exploit these natural resources have to pay for it. This is a country that is giving a real economic value to coral reefs...

There are no coral reefs here where the collecting is....
Only poor peple who are being forced to pay for endless, bureaucratic, incompetent, overlapping nonsense that is then used for private purposes.
The last 4 years of fisheries sanctioned reseach was `taken`by the departing government biologist in charge of the project to make a master thesis so now the poor fisherman are commanded to pay again and start all over again.
There is little pretense of conservation practiced in this, its all about turf, territory, personal benefit , money and eco corruption among competing authorities and NGOs.
This is normal here but I have never heard anyone defend it actually.`
The use of environmental keywords hides the true intent very effectively.
Steve
.

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Artisanal fisherfolks in developing countries are all neglected by governments. Their voices will be heard only if they get organize and create alliances with other groups looking for the same benefits.

 

[Anonymous]

er- the only folks that have the same interest as fisherfolk are other fisherfolk, and no one else

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Fisherfolks from other communities, those are the ones looking for the same benefits.

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Wayne,

Nothing new has been discussed in the last 4 years, we are in the same vicious circle.

It is evident that the marine ornamentals industry, as a whole, won't pay any attention to the cyanide problem. Personally, I am re-evaluating the situation and soon I'll make a move to get out of that vicious circle.

 

[horge]

I'd thought we finally were past this kind of disappointing ebak, Kalk.

From denying that significant cyanide-fishing exists,
to denying that significant reef damage from cyanide exists,
to denying culpability for the damage...

Folks can go on trying to pin the tail on a fleeing donkey,
but if all it serves is the donkey, maybe they need to re-evaluate
how their valuable time is spent.


h.

Blaming the westerners for a social problem in PI serves your countrymen nil.

LOL, I don't recall ever crediting 'westerners' with creation of a cyanide trade.
If you can find such an asertion, then show me.
That is the only aspect of any 'social problem' that concerns this forum,
or your thread, neh? If you can't show me crediting cyanide abuse to
some imagined Western orchestration, you're just fleeing to yet another topic of obfuscation
which you will speedily abandon when cornered, no doubt?

Cyanide fishing has become so inbreeded in Philippines that some wonder if its from eating so much cyanide seafood

Venturing into diversionary insult, now? Try harder.

Fishermen willing to feed their children cyanide poisoned fish do so not because of western influence, but because the society they live in has chosen not to condemn it.

You apparently are uninformed what species of fish are commonly consumed by fisherfolk, or you wouldn't generalize that their diet is cyanide laced.

Westerners dont ask for cyanide fish , we are willing to except a few dirty fish mixed in with the batch.

Except or accept? Clarify, because that changes the whole tenor of your statement.

The USA can only do so much, testing of fish here in the states would simply cause exporters in PI to hold the fish long enough for the traces of cyanide to decrease below detectable level. Holding the fish for weeks in crowded Philippine systems would double the death rate of waiting fish . Twice as much cyanide use would be needed to replace the fish that die in holding. I doubt that doubling the use of cyanide out on the reefs would help the situation. Testing and enforcement can only come from the local Philippine government.
Were still waiting on your nation to step up to the plate.

Feel free to wait longer, then... progress obtained was never attempted to please you or anyone on this forum, except for one person: myself. The Philippine government, down through DENR to BFAR and out to PNP, PCG, PN, and LGU's are answerable to Filipinos first.

I am disappointed by the results, but I'm not blind to the progress.
I go by what I and trustworthy others observe firsthand, to gauge whether
cyanide abuse is increasing or abating.

While we are at it, I am perhaps one of the worst persons here to try fooling
with made-up data on ornamentals. It's doubly worse when it comes to foodfish issues.
Our issue is really NOT a marine ornamental trade issue:
thinking that it is, is not seeing the forest for the trunk moss.

AFAICT, save for three people, no one on this forum really has directly-obtained info
on reef conditions, year to year, up to date, for even limited areas of reef...
and yet people freely parrot third-hand, blanket assessments of
Philippine reef conditions as a launchpad for self-promoting
non-discussion.

AFAICT, save for four people here, no one here has veritable familiarity
with Philippine MO trade conditions, year to year, up to date...
and yet people freely hurl erroneous generalizations of PTFEA and non-PTFEA
trade (mal)practice as a launchpad for self-promoting non-discusion.
IIRC, you were, all of you, uncertain/outdated about CDT status (something
you don't even have to stay wet in different places over an archipelago,
long term, to find out), until I casually posted on it some time back.
Guess what? Things changed within two months after the post,
and things have changed a lot since THEN.

But here's the real problem, the real disability to discussion:
Aside from general unfamiliarity with most topics you abuse, Kalk, you will not stick
to one topic, but will flee to another once a demand for supporting fact
or even citations arises. Just read through this thread to see.

Jaime's assessment of these 'discussions' on cyanide is close enough to dead-on.


I wish I could say I have to get back to work,
but I'm merely hanging out in Oahu.
It's real nice on the greener, wetter sides of this island...
I feel like auditioning for LOST,
hehe





h

 

[Kalkbreath]

Its disappointing that all the so called experts never want to share the expertise they claim to possess. ........If you have such a vivid grasp of the current conditions of the reefs in the Philippines, Why keep it such a secrete?
Show the readers where during the last five years you enlightened the discussion data? Reflection and braggadocio not withstanding.

If you know so much then speak in numbers and equations ..........not empty fluff like

Quote:

Venturing into diversionary insult, now? Try harder.

Quote:

You apparently are uninformed what species of fish are commonly consumed by fisherfolk, or you wouldn't generalize that their diet is cyanide laced.

Quote:

Except or accept? Clarify, because that changes the whole tenor of your statement.

"Accept" We're not the reason cyanide fishing might still takes place in PI. A willingness to still buy fish without a hundred percent guarantee of cleanliness is not a demand or request for poisoned fish.
2.] Many of the fish tested during Peter"s piper .....i mean
"Paper" were headed for local consumption. The poorest islanders dont buy aquacultured fish . They dont buy anything ,{no money]they themselves fish the public waters and eat anything they catch using the cheapest fishing tool they can obtain..

 

[mkirda]

"Accept" We're not the reason cyanide fishing might still takes place in PI. A willingness to still buy fish without a hundred percent guarantee of cleanliness is not a demand or request for poisoned fish.

This is probably the most flat-out, dead-wrong statement I've read here in the last six months.

OF COURSE YOU ARE THE REASON!!!

This is such simple economics, the stuff you learn in the first day of class.
If the demand wasn't there (or more specifically, HERE), then there would be no supply. We, specifically, the HOBBY and the INDUSTRY, are absolutely to blame as we represent THE DEMAND.

Don't even tell me that you are going to try to refute Adam Smith now.

 

[Kalkbreath]

If some of my customers speed while driving to my store , am I responsible? I created the demand to drive here..{and there is a huge demand :wink: ]....If Im responsible for checking how my fish got here and to see if any laws were broken .......should I also be responsible for knowing how my customers got here? Both events happen so i can make a profit.
Explain the difference? Or better yet let Adam.

 

[Anonymous]

<cough>some of us failed analogy in high school<cough>

 

[mkirda]

Explain the difference? Or better yet let Adam.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...104-8750405-1120769?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

That ought to help.

 

[Kalkbreath]

I am the "Industry"
I create the demand for fish from PI.
I am the sole reason for the fish being collected. {however that may be}
Without me the specific event would not take place



I am the retail store.
I am the attraction.
I am the destination.
I am the sole reason they are coming to the store{however that may be}
Without me the specific event would not take place.

I therefore I am responsible for any laws that are broken in route to the situation I created......... fishing or speeding.

 

[bookfish]

Kalk, I understand you don't accept someone elses version of your responsibility in this situation. Now, are you interested in any discussion of how to address the problem of continued cyanide fishing?
And yes, implicit in my question is the assumption that it is still going on and we as individuals and a community will be able to address it, at least in discussion.-Jim

 

[Kalkbreath]

Thats the point, bad fishing more then likely is still going on . But so are trafic deaths due to speeding , babies dying in kiddie pools , and many other activities we partake in every day to which some harm is mixed in with the fun. Name one human activity that leaves the world pure and untainted? What is the accepted level of bad we are willing to put up with in order to continue to benifit from all the good.
This dream of a perfect system in which we can prevent bad people from doing what they will ..........has never been acheived in the history of man. People are people.
What is the reasonable level of good and bad in the collection of fish. And where are we at this point?
The only data we have to go on, is the word of a few angry net salemen and those 700 fish Peter tested during the 1990s?

 

[Anonymous]

ah, so because bad people, or unfortunate incidents occur-one should do nothing!



thank you for clarifying your position

 

[bookfish]

Thats the point, bad fishing more then likely is still going on . But so are trafic deaths due to speeding , babies dying in kiddie pools , and many other activities we partake in every day to which some harm is mixed in with the fun. Name one human activity that leaves the world pure and untainted? What is the accepted level of bad we are willing to put up with in order to continue to benifit from all the good.
This dream of a perfect system in which we can prevent bad people from doing what they will ..........has never been acheived in the history of man. People are people.
What is the reasonable level of good and bad in the collection of fish. And where are we at this point?
The only data we have to go on, is the word of a few angry net salemen and those 700 fish Peter tested during the 1990s?

That sounds like a "no, not interested" to me.
Since you're not interested in moving the discussion beyond "we aren't THAT responsible" I request that you stop posting that argument.
We have all accepted that you don't feel personally responsible for the problem and that's fine.
Now, please allow those of us who want to talk about proposed solutions to carry this forward.
Thanks-Jim