Clove Oil
- Thread starter Tropic
- Start date
Sorry to butt in here, but how many of you guys actually collect fish?
As a casual/hobbyist fish collector, I can't see any point to the whole clove oil argument. Nets work perfectly well if you know how to use them; probably better than anaesthetics in most cases. I can see how clove oil or quinaldine would be useful for valuable species that tend to hole up, but for most fish it seems like a waste of time. Squirting fish and waiting for them to get sluggish surely can't be any faster than just surrounding them with fence. And for fish that swim in the open - tangs, wrasses, etc. clove oil is nearly impossible to use, while barrier nets are very efficient.
I've seen clove oil used for collecting scientific specimens (mostly small cryptic fish). Half the time, the fish are dead by the time they're on the boat, which is fine since they're meant to be pickled anyhow. I have a hard time believing that clove oil is completely harmless. Plus it smells awful.
And what's up with this whole "nets damage the reef" rubbish? Any diver can break coral if they want to. The tourist dive industry does a tremendous amount of damage to reefs every year, just because many "take only pictures and leave only bubbles" recreational divers are clumsy and prone to kicking stuff. Getting your net stuck on the reef is bad, because it rips holes in it. When I am diving, I put much effort into not getting my net snagged, because I will lose fish and have to spend hours patching it.
And those are my 2c. By all accounts, clove oil is more expensive than cyanide, and less effective. Would impoverished, unskilled divers even bother with it? Why waste time teaching them a collecting method that's not only inferior to nets, but also to cyanide?
As a casual/hobbyist fish collector, I can't see any point to the whole clove oil argument. Nets work perfectly well if you know how to use them; probably better than anaesthetics in most cases. I can see how clove oil or quinaldine would be useful for valuable species that tend to hole up, but for most fish it seems like a waste of time. Squirting fish and waiting for them to get sluggish surely can't be any faster than just surrounding them with fence. And for fish that swim in the open - tangs, wrasses, etc. clove oil is nearly impossible to use, while barrier nets are very efficient.
I've seen clove oil used for collecting scientific specimens (mostly small cryptic fish). Half the time, the fish are dead by the time they're on the boat, which is fine since they're meant to be pickled anyhow. I have a hard time believing that clove oil is completely harmless. Plus it smells awful.
And what's up with this whole "nets damage the reef" rubbish? Any diver can break coral if they want to. The tourist dive industry does a tremendous amount of damage to reefs every year, just because many "take only pictures and leave only bubbles" recreational divers are clumsy and prone to kicking stuff. Getting your net stuck on the reef is bad, because it rips holes in it. When I am diving, I put much effort into not getting my net snagged, because I will lose fish and have to spend hours patching it.
And those are my 2c. By all accounts, clove oil is more expensive than cyanide, and less effective. Would impoverished, unskilled divers even bother with it? Why waste time teaching them a collecting method that's not only inferior to nets, but also to cyanide?
Thanks for your input...to answer your questions,
First, you are in the "industry behind the hobby" forum....many people here collect fish or have collected them. I have collected fish with nets on a few occasions but i would not say i am a expert netsman like Steve.
Obviously open water fish like tangs and wrasses have been caught with barrier nets and always will be. I seriously doubt that fishermen chase down wrasse with a spray bottle.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned the fish that hole up or are cryptic. Many species of fish do this, especially ones targeted for reef aquaria. These fish would be the ones that clove oil may be(key word...still needs to be tested) used for.
Your experience with clove oil is not on course with what i witnessed or from feedback that i have received from some exporters/collectors. When i witnessed it in use i saw NO death while collecting or when they were held, or even on the recieving end(i imported them and still have them, they are doing great) Based on his account( he has been doing this daily for many years....in the trade,not a hobbyist) clove oil is totally harmless and the fish suffer less damage then they do with nets(yes its true based on what i have seen and experienced). I am not criticizing nets, but lets get something straight, they are not perfect. Fish can get roughed up very easily from the extra handling. With the clove oil, you can gently grab the fish with your hand and put him in the bucket. With nets, fish get snared and must be carefully removed without damaging them. Furthermore, most fishermen are trying to maximize their yeild since you only have so much bottom time per day. Have you ever noticed the difficulties of removing a fish that is all jumbled up in a net?I have. Generally the outcome is a couple busted scales, maybe some abbrasions....this would not be a big deal if the fish were allowed to recover once they are at the middlemans place or the exporter, unfortunately their systems are generally not conducive for healing fish! Most of these exporters in Indo do not even feed, much less practice ethical husbandry on their systems.
What leads you to believe that clove oil is not harmless? Maybe you have seen something that i havent. I am not just a hobbyist and am very familiar with coral being that i handle it every day along with fish. Personally i do not want to see anything used that damages the reef.I did not notice any damage so far, i brought the topic up to hear other experienced peoples opinions, and was curious to see if there were any studies done. Apparently, if you read the thread carefully, a scientist by the name of Mark Erdmenn did do some feild work and thinks this chemical is very useful and should be studied further. That is where we are at right now.
This topic is not to get all fishermen worldwide to start using it, this topic is about understanding the chemical, its effects, and the possibility of coming up with a useful, non destructive alternative to cyanide.The net issue has been beat to death and hasnt spread like wildfire through problematic areas.Meanwhile, cyanide is being used and reefs are being damaged.
You say by all accounts clove oil is more expensive....i think you are wrong on this and have not seen all of these so-called accounts.
Also, how do you know this is less effective then cyanide? your post leads me to believe that you are so seasoned on this topic, that you can make a solid comparison against the two...have you used cyanide?
For a hobbyist, you sure seem to know everything, even Peter(Phd) agrees that this needs to be looked into and he is both a scientist and someone with alot of experience in this discussion.
Steve,
dont bite my head off,please! I am not against you or what you believe....i think we share the same belief= "Stop damaging the reefs", we might just disagree on the discussion of a different approach
First, you are in the "industry behind the hobby" forum....many people here collect fish or have collected them. I have collected fish with nets on a few occasions but i would not say i am a expert netsman like Steve.
Obviously open water fish like tangs and wrasses have been caught with barrier nets and always will be. I seriously doubt that fishermen chase down wrasse with a spray bottle.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned the fish that hole up or are cryptic. Many species of fish do this, especially ones targeted for reef aquaria. These fish would be the ones that clove oil may be(key word...still needs to be tested) used for.
Your experience with clove oil is not on course with what i witnessed or from feedback that i have received from some exporters/collectors. When i witnessed it in use i saw NO death while collecting or when they were held, or even on the recieving end(i imported them and still have them, they are doing great) Based on his account( he has been doing this daily for many years....in the trade,not a hobbyist) clove oil is totally harmless and the fish suffer less damage then they do with nets(yes its true based on what i have seen and experienced). I am not criticizing nets, but lets get something straight, they are not perfect. Fish can get roughed up very easily from the extra handling. With the clove oil, you can gently grab the fish with your hand and put him in the bucket. With nets, fish get snared and must be carefully removed without damaging them. Furthermore, most fishermen are trying to maximize their yeild since you only have so much bottom time per day. Have you ever noticed the difficulties of removing a fish that is all jumbled up in a net?I have. Generally the outcome is a couple busted scales, maybe some abbrasions....this would not be a big deal if the fish were allowed to recover once they are at the middlemans place or the exporter, unfortunately their systems are generally not conducive for healing fish! Most of these exporters in Indo do not even feed, much less practice ethical husbandry on their systems.
What leads you to believe that clove oil is not harmless? Maybe you have seen something that i havent. I am not just a hobbyist and am very familiar with coral being that i handle it every day along with fish. Personally i do not want to see anything used that damages the reef.I did not notice any damage so far, i brought the topic up to hear other experienced peoples opinions, and was curious to see if there were any studies done. Apparently, if you read the thread carefully, a scientist by the name of Mark Erdmenn did do some feild work and thinks this chemical is very useful and should be studied further. That is where we are at right now.
This topic is not to get all fishermen worldwide to start using it, this topic is about understanding the chemical, its effects, and the possibility of coming up with a useful, non destructive alternative to cyanide.The net issue has been beat to death and hasnt spread like wildfire through problematic areas.Meanwhile, cyanide is being used and reefs are being damaged.
You say by all accounts clove oil is more expensive....i think you are wrong on this and have not seen all of these so-called accounts.
Also, how do you know this is less effective then cyanide? your post leads me to believe that you are so seasoned on this topic, that you can make a solid comparison against the two...have you used cyanide?
For a hobbyist, you sure seem to know everything, even Peter(Phd) agrees that this needs to be looked into and he is both a scientist and someone with alot of experience in this discussion.
Steve,
dont bite my head off,please! I am not against you or what you believe....i think we share the same belief= "Stop damaging the reefs", we might just disagree on the discussion of a different approach
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
:roll:
Hey,
RGBMATT isn't me...but hes sure sounds smart!
Or...hes just testifying to what all Australian divers already know!
[ but, I'm not saying hes Australian]
Aussies work the Indo/Philippnes style reefs w/ even more coral cover!
The Aussie experience is on point here as they do collect so called cryptics of similar species.
If you're talking about Sulawesi basslets and odd pseudos, you should see the Aussies collect tiny harlequin tusks upside down in caves, assessors, rainfordis, pseudos and dragon gobies w/ just 1/6th inch mesh nets.
Once you see it done...it gets demystified.
The only reason it hasn't caught on is because certain groups representing the trade have held back the tide by diverting reform momentum down the wrong road.
In different hands...it would play out differently.
Whats needed are competing agencies like the dive certification companies. Then, those that produce the best results would attract the customers instead of thru force of monopoly.
Welcome to the forum RGBMatt.....its great to have more folks who been there aboard. Then the truth doesn't sound so exotic.
Sincerely,
Steve
Hey,
RGBMATT isn't me...but hes sure sounds smart!
Or...hes just testifying to what all Australian divers already know!
[ but, I'm not saying hes Australian]
Aussies work the Indo/Philippnes style reefs w/ even more coral cover!
The Aussie experience is on point here as they do collect so called cryptics of similar species.
If you're talking about Sulawesi basslets and odd pseudos, you should see the Aussies collect tiny harlequin tusks upside down in caves, assessors, rainfordis, pseudos and dragon gobies w/ just 1/6th inch mesh nets.
Once you see it done...it gets demystified.
The only reason it hasn't caught on is because certain groups representing the trade have held back the tide by diverting reform momentum down the wrong road.
In different hands...it would play out differently.
Whats needed are competing agencies like the dive certification companies. Then, those that produce the best results would attract the customers instead of thru force of monopoly.
Welcome to the forum RGBMatt.....its great to have more folks who been there aboard. Then the truth doesn't sound so exotic.
Sincerely,
Steve
Tropic":2li6jrfz said:
nets are indeed perfect-you just seem to refuse to accept the possibility :? :?:
it's the netsman that aren't perfect-(or not practicing proper technique)and what the equivalent of a 'non-perfect' quinaldine user (even asuming that there IS a 'perfect' dose amount) would then cause/accomplish is what you don't seem to be considering-ANY type of drug should first be looked at as something to be replaced from the get go, by nets-rather than vice sersa
i mean, after all, trout can literally be 'tickled' by hand for catching in a stream-a reef fish can't be all that more difficult to get w/a net
Steve,
harlequin tusk?. My friend is Australian.Hate to burst your bubble, but MANY australians use clove oil...that is a fact that i have seen and you apparently have not.Harlequin tusk are caught by smashing up a urchin and netted while they are feeding! :roll: Nothing you say sounds exotic, i have been to Australia, Indo,Fiji, and many other places several times....i wouldnt exactly say i am green there pal. Australia has more coral coverage? depends on where you go.As far as diversity is concerned Indo trumps Australia hands down....so does PNG and coral coverage can be at a 100% in any of these regions. You always manage to blame everyone else for the net issue even though you were instrumently involved in the whole process throughout the years. It is sad that your pride will close your ears and your mind to something that has not been looked into and could possibly do something that you, yourself were not capable of executing.
harlequin tusk?. My friend is Australian.Hate to burst your bubble, but MANY australians use clove oil...that is a fact that i have seen and you apparently have not.Harlequin tusk are caught by smashing up a urchin and netted while they are feeding! :roll: Nothing you say sounds exotic, i have been to Australia, Indo,Fiji, and many other places several times....i wouldnt exactly say i am green there pal. Australia has more coral coverage? depends on where you go.As far as diversity is concerned Indo trumps Australia hands down....so does PNG and coral coverage can be at a 100% in any of these regions. You always manage to blame everyone else for the net issue even though you were instrumently involved in the whole process throughout the years. It is sad that your pride will close your ears and your mind to something that has not been looked into and could possibly do something that you, yourself were not capable of executing.
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
Trops,
My friendly message was to reveal things to you...certainly not antagonize.
One inch harlequins were caught in gramma like holes and considered very difficult to collect....until the small plastic netting that holds steady against the current got into the picture.
The great coverage of reefs I dove for 6 months commercially off Cairns was beautiful and exciting to behold and it challenged divers to come up with tricks and techniques for all occassions.
If some new Australians have taken to the juice, thats news and newsworthy. How is it regarded legally?
Theres also some reports of bubbas using cyanide in the Florida Keys!
Its the Australian experience that I took to the Philippines to start with all-net collectors there and continues to this day.
If the scientific use of a sophoric can be justified in use for cryptics...its not to us but to the countries where all drugs are banned.
The guiltiest ones have the most law banning them!
If you yourself want the netsman to start using squirt bottles again when nets are winning in diver opinion where offered, then you'd have to convince them as well.
Offering clove oil as an exchange for poison like the Berkeley needle exchange heroin project....its worth thinking on. :roll:
OK...I thought about it.
Good luck in the movement to legitamize clove oil. You certainly don't need my support for it as I have a different mission.
If you want to catch something on your own...don't ask, don't tell.
The squirt bottle has a very bad image....and shouldn't be a point taken lightly.
Les village doesn't need it either. Ask Ruwi.
In fact....what needs clove oil to collect it that can't be taken w/ nets?
Species please?
Steve
My friendly message was to reveal things to you...certainly not antagonize.
One inch harlequins were caught in gramma like holes and considered very difficult to collect....until the small plastic netting that holds steady against the current got into the picture.
The great coverage of reefs I dove for 6 months commercially off Cairns was beautiful and exciting to behold and it challenged divers to come up with tricks and techniques for all occassions.
If some new Australians have taken to the juice, thats news and newsworthy. How is it regarded legally?
Theres also some reports of bubbas using cyanide in the Florida Keys!
Its the Australian experience that I took to the Philippines to start with all-net collectors there and continues to this day.
If the scientific use of a sophoric can be justified in use for cryptics...its not to us but to the countries where all drugs are banned.
The guiltiest ones have the most law banning them!
If you yourself want the netsman to start using squirt bottles again when nets are winning in diver opinion where offered, then you'd have to convince them as well.
Offering clove oil as an exchange for poison like the Berkeley needle exchange heroin project....its worth thinking on. :roll:
OK...I thought about it.
Good luck in the movement to legitamize clove oil. You certainly don't need my support for it as I have a different mission.
If you want to catch something on your own...don't ask, don't tell.
The squirt bottle has a very bad image....and shouldn't be a point taken lightly.
Les village doesn't need it either. Ask Ruwi.
In fact....what needs clove oil to collect it that can't be taken w/ nets?
Species please?
Steve
I don't want to take sides on whether clove oil is acceptable or not. I would like those with access to university libraries or to fisheries journals to read the following paper published in the March 2006 issue of Fisheries. The paper is titled "Zero Withdrawl Anesthetic For All Finfish and Shellfish: Need And Candidates" by Rosalie Schnick.
The paper discussed various anesthetics used for aquaculture and fisheries applications and the need for a legally approved anesthetic with a zero withdrawl time for use in tagging, measuring, sexing fish etc for both aquaculture production and fisheries applications. It discussed the lengthy process needed to get an anesthetic approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Right now the only approved anesthetic for aquaculture applications is MS-222. Several anesthetics have been evaluated including carbon dioxide, benzocaine, and quinaldine. However, these anesthetics do not meet the criteria needed for the ideal anesthetic (zero withdrawl time and other criteria I don't have time to discuss). The paper then gets to clove oil, eugonol, and isoeugonol.
It then states: " Some individuals and groups involved with using fishery anesthetics have the misconception that clove oil or eugonol are legal for use as anesthetics on fishfish because these drugs are considered "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS) when used as direct human food or animal feed additives. However the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) has declared that clove oil and eugonol are unapproved drugs when used as anesthetics and, thus, are illegal (at least in the USA) to use on finfish and shellfish...."
The paper then discussed the process needed to gain FDA and INAD approvals. Under the discussion it states" It may be difficult to obtain investigational new animal drug (INAD) exemptions/authorizations because eugonol is considered by FDA to be an equivocal CARCINOGEN. Because of this factor, it is probably impossible to establish a safe concentration for any residue in finfish with no chance to deplete either drug and thus, there would be no chance to have a zero withdrawl time established for either clove oil or eugonol (CVS 2005)."
The paper goes on to discuss AquiS (that contains isoeugonol). AquiS has strong support from both the private sector and government regulatory agencies and may get approval from the FDA for use in aquaculture and fisheries applications. The paper states "Other preliminary data generated by the sponsors (AQUIS-New Zealand Ltd and other agencies) indicate that AQUI-S is safe to humans, fishfish, and the environment and is efficaceous as an anesthetic on a broad range of finfish species. Thus a zero withdrawl time is very achievable with AQUI-S".
While the concerns about human consumption of fish exposed to clove oil do not apply to collection of marine ornamental (aquarium) fishes, I think that research on use of these agents should focus on isoeugonol to avoid future regulatory hassles. The posting by Dr. Kreiberg already stated that isoeugonol is a more potent anesthetic/sedative. Whether or not isoeugonol is harmless to fishes and especially to corals remains to be determined.
Peter Rubec
The paper discussed various anesthetics used for aquaculture and fisheries applications and the need for a legally approved anesthetic with a zero withdrawl time for use in tagging, measuring, sexing fish etc for both aquaculture production and fisheries applications. It discussed the lengthy process needed to get an anesthetic approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Right now the only approved anesthetic for aquaculture applications is MS-222. Several anesthetics have been evaluated including carbon dioxide, benzocaine, and quinaldine. However, these anesthetics do not meet the criteria needed for the ideal anesthetic (zero withdrawl time and other criteria I don't have time to discuss). The paper then gets to clove oil, eugonol, and isoeugonol.
It then states: " Some individuals and groups involved with using fishery anesthetics have the misconception that clove oil or eugonol are legal for use as anesthetics on fishfish because these drugs are considered "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS) when used as direct human food or animal feed additives. However the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) has declared that clove oil and eugonol are unapproved drugs when used as anesthetics and, thus, are illegal (at least in the USA) to use on finfish and shellfish...."
The paper then discussed the process needed to gain FDA and INAD approvals. Under the discussion it states" It may be difficult to obtain investigational new animal drug (INAD) exemptions/authorizations because eugonol is considered by FDA to be an equivocal CARCINOGEN. Because of this factor, it is probably impossible to establish a safe concentration for any residue in finfish with no chance to deplete either drug and thus, there would be no chance to have a zero withdrawl time established for either clove oil or eugonol (CVS 2005)."
The paper goes on to discuss AquiS (that contains isoeugonol). AquiS has strong support from both the private sector and government regulatory agencies and may get approval from the FDA for use in aquaculture and fisheries applications. The paper states "Other preliminary data generated by the sponsors (AQUIS-New Zealand Ltd and other agencies) indicate that AQUI-S is safe to humans, fishfish, and the environment and is efficaceous as an anesthetic on a broad range of finfish species. Thus a zero withdrawl time is very achievable with AQUI-S".
While the concerns about human consumption of fish exposed to clove oil do not apply to collection of marine ornamental (aquarium) fishes, I think that research on use of these agents should focus on isoeugonol to avoid future regulatory hassles. The posting by Dr. Kreiberg already stated that isoeugonol is a more potent anesthetic/sedative. Whether or not isoeugonol is harmless to fishes and especially to corals remains to be determined.
Peter Rubec
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
Fenton;
Fenton would say that only "wankas" use juice to catch fish with.
He took his talent to Cebu and together with another Australian, taught local divers to collect the tiny trimma, eviota, tiny panda and gressingeri gobies.
They also taught them to handnet tailspot blennies, blue/gold blennies, bimaculatus blennies and starry blennies....in volume.
Proof is only proof to people who respect and understand evidence, details and facts.
The commercial Australian old school collectors were the prototypes for the new netsman trainings in the Philippines and Bali....still bearing fruit and being broadcast all over the world today....without going thru outside groups.
Fenton would say that only "wankas" use juice to catch fish with.
He took his talent to Cebu and together with another Australian, taught local divers to collect the tiny trimma, eviota, tiny panda and gressingeri gobies.
They also taught them to handnet tailspot blennies, blue/gold blennies, bimaculatus blennies and starry blennies....in volume.
Proof is only proof to people who respect and understand evidence, details and facts.
The commercial Australian old school collectors were the prototypes for the new netsman trainings in the Philippines and Bali....still bearing fruit and being broadcast all over the world today....without going thru outside groups.
Tropic,
Sorry to have sounded so combative in my first post - having just re-read it it looks rather snappy!
Anyhow, I'm not Australian - I'm a college student in Hawaii. I catch fish mostly to support my own hobby, and sometimes for research specimens (there is a lot of demand for this from the faculty). I don't have the time or resources to do it commercially for the time being, but it's an option for when I graduate.
As most of you surely know, fishing with chemicals is prohibited by law here, so all collecting is done with nets, as it has been since the '60s. Although enforcement is pretty lax and I could probably get away with it, I'd prefer to respect the law and as such have not tried using clove oil or any other anaesthetics. However, I know divers who collect fish in other areas of the Pacific and do use quinaldine and clove oil. Nobody I know uses it as a general practice - as I mentioned earlier it's only good for specialized applications, especially on very deep dives for very valuable fish where bottom time is limited. Generally, the fish recover fully and show no noticeable long-term effects, but they can be killed if the dose is too high.
You are right that nets are not perfect - the fish can struggle and injure themselves. However, it's not as bad as you make out. First off, nets properly used do not entangle fish. Barrier nets are meant to be exactly that - a barrier to the fishes' movement, not a snare. They do not trap fish, and if I don't scoop them fast enough they'll swim right out. Likewise, a properly designed hand net will be deep enough to hold the fish, but shallow enough to prevent it from twisting around the fish as it struggles (the "jumbled up in net" situation that you describe). An experienced net collector will injure almost no fish, although granted this is something that only comes with practice. Given the equal possibility of collectors overdosing their specimens with drugs, I don't think it's easy to make a solid case either way.
Why do I believe clove oil isn't harmless? Because I have seen it kill fish firsthand. One researcher whom I have worked with uses it for specimen collecting (you can get permits to use anaesthetics scientifically) and many of his fish die from it. You could be killed too if you were given too much anaesthetic - hence the need for trained anaesthesiologists in medicine. I'm sure it can be relatively safe if used properly but it's certainly not less harmful than net collecting.
I haven't seen how it affects corals, but I've heard anecdotal evidence suggesting that it will kill them with enough exposure (I doubt fish collectors would ever use enough to seriously hurt coral, though).
You are right - I have not used cyanide and so cannot say with authority how it compares with clove oil. However, ichthyologists I've worked with rate clove oil poorly compared with quinaldine and rotenone as a collecting chemical (but they are forced to use it as it is the only ichthycide that the state will allow). Based on this, I am making an educated guess that it is less effective. It is therefore difficult for me to envision a cyanide fisherman, already earning little enough as is, switching to something worse.
I do not pretend to know everything. However, I like to think that I'm fairly good at catching fish with nets, which ought to count for something and is more than a lot of people in the "industry" (and most PhDs) can say.
Sorry to have sounded so combative in my first post - having just re-read it it looks rather snappy!
Anyhow, I'm not Australian - I'm a college student in Hawaii. I catch fish mostly to support my own hobby, and sometimes for research specimens (there is a lot of demand for this from the faculty). I don't have the time or resources to do it commercially for the time being, but it's an option for when I graduate.
As most of you surely know, fishing with chemicals is prohibited by law here, so all collecting is done with nets, as it has been since the '60s. Although enforcement is pretty lax and I could probably get away with it, I'd prefer to respect the law and as such have not tried using clove oil or any other anaesthetics. However, I know divers who collect fish in other areas of the Pacific and do use quinaldine and clove oil. Nobody I know uses it as a general practice - as I mentioned earlier it's only good for specialized applications, especially on very deep dives for very valuable fish where bottom time is limited. Generally, the fish recover fully and show no noticeable long-term effects, but they can be killed if the dose is too high.
You are right that nets are not perfect - the fish can struggle and injure themselves. However, it's not as bad as you make out. First off, nets properly used do not entangle fish. Barrier nets are meant to be exactly that - a barrier to the fishes' movement, not a snare. They do not trap fish, and if I don't scoop them fast enough they'll swim right out. Likewise, a properly designed hand net will be deep enough to hold the fish, but shallow enough to prevent it from twisting around the fish as it struggles (the "jumbled up in net" situation that you describe). An experienced net collector will injure almost no fish, although granted this is something that only comes with practice. Given the equal possibility of collectors overdosing their specimens with drugs, I don't think it's easy to make a solid case either way.
Why do I believe clove oil isn't harmless? Because I have seen it kill fish firsthand. One researcher whom I have worked with uses it for specimen collecting (you can get permits to use anaesthetics scientifically) and many of his fish die from it. You could be killed too if you were given too much anaesthetic - hence the need for trained anaesthesiologists in medicine. I'm sure it can be relatively safe if used properly but it's certainly not less harmful than net collecting.
I haven't seen how it affects corals, but I've heard anecdotal evidence suggesting that it will kill them with enough exposure (I doubt fish collectors would ever use enough to seriously hurt coral, though).
You are right - I have not used cyanide and so cannot say with authority how it compares with clove oil. However, ichthyologists I've worked with rate clove oil poorly compared with quinaldine and rotenone as a collecting chemical (but they are forced to use it as it is the only ichthycide that the state will allow). Based on this, I am making an educated guess that it is less effective. It is therefore difficult for me to envision a cyanide fisherman, already earning little enough as is, switching to something worse.
I do not pretend to know everything. However, I like to think that I'm fairly good at catching fish with nets, which ought to count for something and is more than a lot of people in the "industry" (and most PhDs) can say.
Your opinion is well taken.
Sorry to have sounded so combative in my first post - having just re-read it it looks rather snappy!
No worries, it happens to everyone
Anyhow, I'm not Australian - I'm a college student in Hawaii. I catch fish mostly to support my own hobby, and sometimes for research specimens (there is a lot of demand for this from the faculty). I don't have the time or resources to do it commercially for the time being, but it's an option for when I graduate.
Hopefully you will pursue this, the hobby/trade would benefit from someone like you.
As most of you surely know, fishing with chemicals is prohibited by law here, so all collecting is done with nets, as it has been since the '60s. Although enforcement is pretty lax and I could probably get away with it, I'd prefer to respect the law and as such have not tried using clove oil or any other anaesthetics. However, I know divers who collect fish in other areas of the Pacific and do use quinaldine and clove oil. Nobody I know uses it as a general practice - as I mentioned earlier it's only good for specialized applications, especially on very deep dives for very valuable fish where bottom time is limited. Generally, the fish recover fully and show no noticeable long-term effects, but they can be killed if the dose is too high.
I agree with you
You are right that nets are not perfect - the fish can struggle and injure themselves. However, it's not as bad as you make out. First off, nets properly used do not entangle fish. Barrier nets are meant to be exactly that - a barrier to the fishes' movement, not a snare. They do not trap fish, and if I don't scoop them fast enough they'll swim right out. Likewise, a properly designed hand net will be deep enough to hold the fish, but shallow enough to prevent it from twisting around the fish as it struggles (the "jumbled up in net" situation that you describe). An experienced net collector will injure almost no fish, although granted this is something that only comes with practice. Given the equal possibility of collectors overdosing their specimens with drugs, I don't think it's easy to make a solid case either way.
It sounds like you are a skilled collector.
Why do I believe clove oil isn't harmless? Because I have seen it kill fish firsthand. One researcher whom I have worked with uses it for specimen collecting (you can get permits to use anaesthetics scientifically) and many of his fish die from it. You could be killed too if you were given too much anaesthetic - hence the need for trained anaesthesiologists in medicine. I'm sure it can be relatively safe if used properly but it's certainly not less harmful than net collecting.
Maybe you are right, this is yet to be tested fully, nets are the best and what everyone should use. My main point of this discussion was not to replace net collectors with clove oil, quite the opposite; i was implying that it my be a suitable alternative for cyanide until the bureacratic idiots (and their NGO minions)in Indonesia let nets become the norm. From what i understand, the people in charge are not all that interested in actually solving the cyanide problem....Steve, you would agree with this
I haven't seen how it affects corals, but I've heard anecdotal evidence suggesting that it will kill them with enough exposure (I doubt fish collectors would ever use enough to seriously hurt coral, though).
From what i have seen it doesnt appear to hurt the corals at the proper dosage because of almost instantaneous dilution. This would be something else that needs to be explored. If it was proven to damage reefs then i would never give it the time of day.
I do not pretend to know everything. However, I like to think that I'm fairly good at catching fish with nets, which ought to count for something and is more than a lot of people in the "industry" (and most PhDs) can say.
I really appreciate your opinion and experiences, good luck with your future. :wink:
Sorry to have sounded so combative in my first post - having just re-read it it looks rather snappy!
No worries, it happens to everyone
Anyhow, I'm not Australian - I'm a college student in Hawaii. I catch fish mostly to support my own hobby, and sometimes for research specimens (there is a lot of demand for this from the faculty). I don't have the time or resources to do it commercially for the time being, but it's an option for when I graduate.
Hopefully you will pursue this, the hobby/trade would benefit from someone like you.
As most of you surely know, fishing with chemicals is prohibited by law here, so all collecting is done with nets, as it has been since the '60s. Although enforcement is pretty lax and I could probably get away with it, I'd prefer to respect the law and as such have not tried using clove oil or any other anaesthetics. However, I know divers who collect fish in other areas of the Pacific and do use quinaldine and clove oil. Nobody I know uses it as a general practice - as I mentioned earlier it's only good for specialized applications, especially on very deep dives for very valuable fish where bottom time is limited. Generally, the fish recover fully and show no noticeable long-term effects, but they can be killed if the dose is too high.
I agree with you
You are right that nets are not perfect - the fish can struggle and injure themselves. However, it's not as bad as you make out. First off, nets properly used do not entangle fish. Barrier nets are meant to be exactly that - a barrier to the fishes' movement, not a snare. They do not trap fish, and if I don't scoop them fast enough they'll swim right out. Likewise, a properly designed hand net will be deep enough to hold the fish, but shallow enough to prevent it from twisting around the fish as it struggles (the "jumbled up in net" situation that you describe). An experienced net collector will injure almost no fish, although granted this is something that only comes with practice. Given the equal possibility of collectors overdosing their specimens with drugs, I don't think it's easy to make a solid case either way.
It sounds like you are a skilled collector.
Why do I believe clove oil isn't harmless? Because I have seen it kill fish firsthand. One researcher whom I have worked with uses it for specimen collecting (you can get permits to use anaesthetics scientifically) and many of his fish die from it. You could be killed too if you were given too much anaesthetic - hence the need for trained anaesthesiologists in medicine. I'm sure it can be relatively safe if used properly but it's certainly not less harmful than net collecting.
Maybe you are right, this is yet to be tested fully, nets are the best and what everyone should use. My main point of this discussion was not to replace net collectors with clove oil, quite the opposite; i was implying that it my be a suitable alternative for cyanide until the bureacratic idiots (and their NGO minions)in Indonesia let nets become the norm. From what i understand, the people in charge are not all that interested in actually solving the cyanide problem....Steve, you would agree with this
I haven't seen how it affects corals, but I've heard anecdotal evidence suggesting that it will kill them with enough exposure (I doubt fish collectors would ever use enough to seriously hurt coral, though).
From what i have seen it doesnt appear to hurt the corals at the proper dosage because of almost instantaneous dilution. This would be something else that needs to be explored. If it was proven to damage reefs then i would never give it the time of day.
I do not pretend to know everything. However, I like to think that I'm fairly good at catching fish with nets, which ought to count for something and is more than a lot of people in the "industry" (and most PhDs) can say.
I really appreciate your opinion and experiences, good luck with your future. :wink:
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
Rgbmatt,
Clearly you know more then most and your opinion carries weight.
If 10 collectors would take over this forum for a while....I think some real progress and understanding could be made to advance the cause and demystify things that have vexed aquarium groups for many years.
Steve
PS. The closest thing I've ever seen to a collectors forum was in a bar in Cairns, Australia
Clearly you know more then most and your opinion carries weight.
If 10 collectors would take over this forum for a while....I think some real progress and understanding could be made to advance the cause and demystify things that have vexed aquarium groups for many years.
Steve
PS. The closest thing I've ever seen to a collectors forum was in a bar in Cairns, Australia
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
:lol:
and Tropic,
I think you make more sense with each posting!
and Tropic,
I think you make more sense with each posting!
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
We used to have to drive by and pick up one noted diver at his bar in the morning .
Steve
Steve
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:
