"Wow, then your claiming that MAC made things in PI worse. "
REPLY-I don't believe I mentioned MAC on this thread. But, I agree with your statement that the MAC has made things worse in PI.
But not so fast, why should we believe this newest report?
How about some data Peter? (or peer review of the data).
REPLY-Are you referring to the data from the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD)? I was not involved with this. Ferdinand Cruz presented it at the 2004 marine ornamentals conference. We discussed it previously on RDO, since tje results were posted on the PCSD website. I suggest that you contact PCSD, if you want more information.
(I remember FRANK) I better not see Frank in any of the CDT year book photos!
REPLY-I believe that Frank's data posted on RDO pertained to mortality rates, not cyanide testing.
You have never released the sample ratios even from 1990s (did the fish included in each years test results differ from year to year?). The collection areas? The Divers?
REPLY-I have the IMA CDT database and I discussed this in my published paper (published in a book resulting from the 2001 Marine Ornamental Conference). Random sampling was conducted from across the country at all levels including collectors, middlemen, shipment points (airports, cargo facilities) and export facilities. The fish species sampled were similar from year to year (although the numbers sampled increased as new CDT labs were created from 1993 to 2001).
Was the change in cyanide present year to year due to a changing fish species ratio. ( ie more blue tangs one year less another)
REPLY-I don't believe that a changing fish species ratio can account for the trends from year to year with both the aquarium fishes and the food fishes sampled. How would you explain the fact that the trends from both fisheries were similar?
Its hard to determine why the results changed without examining how the input chaged.
You did release the fish species data in the past and we learned some interesting facts about which fish types were tested overall , but not year to year.
REPLY- The paper presented did not have the space for presentation of an analysis by species. The results were summarized by families of fishes. I don't believe that I released the fish species data (other than possibly a list of species tested). The paper mentions that were over 600 aquarium fish species and over 300 food fish species tested.
Your last test results showed there were many fish species you only sampled one fish for the intire species.(that singel fish represented tens of thousands ) what made that particular fish so special?
REPLY-The paper indicated that in some cases there were only a limited number of species sampled within certain families. In some cases there may have been only a few individuals of a certain species. For example, there were over 300 species of damselfish. Some species were infrequent in the samples. This is to be expected where some species are common and others are rare. Summarizing the data by families increased the sample sizes to allow for more realistic estimates of Percent Cyanide Present and Percent Cyanide Absent by Family. Most of the common species in the aquarium trade were very adequately sampled.
How many fish were included in the 2003 sample/ ( hopefully more then 60 per month)
REPLY-I don't know since I was not involved with PCSD. There were over 300 fish tested. Other than that I suggest you contact the PCSD.
The 1996 to 2000 sampled only 700 fish per year. ( sixty fish per month)
REPLY-This statement is misleading. I suggest you reread the paper. Sample sizes varied from year to year (not always a constant 60 fish per month). Sampling increased in the later years when funding increased to allow for more staff. At one point the IMA had about 80 staff (chemists and biologists) employed associated with the Marine Inspection Sampling (MIS) Program and the six CDT laboratories. The MIS staff obtained the specimens fpr testing by the six CDT laboratories spread across the Philippines.
Who picked the 2003 location to sample? why only one area?
REPL-Who said it was one area? Palawan is a big Island. I believe that samples also came from the Calamian Islands situated off NE Palawan. The Calamians is a center for live food fish and also has aquarium fish collectors.
But most importantly, how many divers did you include in your data?
Who picked the divers to sample and did the divers change year to year ?
REPLY- The IMA MIS staff usually accompanied law enforcement officials from either the Philippine Constabulary or the Philippine Navy when diver's boats were boarded at sea. The law enforcement officials picked the divers to sample (for possible prosecution when unknown chemicals and fish were confiscated). The divers sampled randomly changed from year to year. The communities where they live were well known and were sampled each year.
See its not the fish which determine if cyanide is present. its the collector.
Its kinda like testing random automobiles for alcohol, not the individual drivers behind the wheel.
REPLY-You are correct in stating that the collectors' catches were randomly sampled. The IMA staff did not attempt to sample fish at random by catching themselves. I guess we will have to wait for more hybrid vehicles before your analogy will hold water (pun).
if a sizable portion of the data was from a single collector , then the data would represent that collector, not the 4000 collectors.
REPLY-This is not the case. It is ludicrous to suggest that over 7,000 samples came from a few collectors.
REPLY-I don't believe I mentioned MAC on this thread. But, I agree with your statement that the MAC has made things worse in PI.
But not so fast, why should we believe this newest report?
How about some data Peter? (or peer review of the data).
REPLY-Are you referring to the data from the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD)? I was not involved with this. Ferdinand Cruz presented it at the 2004 marine ornamentals conference. We discussed it previously on RDO, since tje results were posted on the PCSD website. I suggest that you contact PCSD, if you want more information.
(I remember FRANK) I better not see Frank in any of the CDT year book photos!
REPLY-I believe that Frank's data posted on RDO pertained to mortality rates, not cyanide testing.
You have never released the sample ratios even from 1990s (did the fish included in each years test results differ from year to year?). The collection areas? The Divers?
REPLY-I have the IMA CDT database and I discussed this in my published paper (published in a book resulting from the 2001 Marine Ornamental Conference). Random sampling was conducted from across the country at all levels including collectors, middlemen, shipment points (airports, cargo facilities) and export facilities. The fish species sampled were similar from year to year (although the numbers sampled increased as new CDT labs were created from 1993 to 2001).
Was the change in cyanide present year to year due to a changing fish species ratio. ( ie more blue tangs one year less another)
REPLY-I don't believe that a changing fish species ratio can account for the trends from year to year with both the aquarium fishes and the food fishes sampled. How would you explain the fact that the trends from both fisheries were similar?
Its hard to determine why the results changed without examining how the input chaged.
You did release the fish species data in the past and we learned some interesting facts about which fish types were tested overall , but not year to year.
REPLY- The paper presented did not have the space for presentation of an analysis by species. The results were summarized by families of fishes. I don't believe that I released the fish species data (other than possibly a list of species tested). The paper mentions that were over 600 aquarium fish species and over 300 food fish species tested.
Your last test results showed there were many fish species you only sampled one fish for the intire species.(that singel fish represented tens of thousands ) what made that particular fish so special?
REPLY-The paper indicated that in some cases there were only a limited number of species sampled within certain families. In some cases there may have been only a few individuals of a certain species. For example, there were over 300 species of damselfish. Some species were infrequent in the samples. This is to be expected where some species are common and others are rare. Summarizing the data by families increased the sample sizes to allow for more realistic estimates of Percent Cyanide Present and Percent Cyanide Absent by Family. Most of the common species in the aquarium trade were very adequately sampled.
How many fish were included in the 2003 sample/ ( hopefully more then 60 per month)
REPLY-I don't know since I was not involved with PCSD. There were over 300 fish tested. Other than that I suggest you contact the PCSD.
The 1996 to 2000 sampled only 700 fish per year. ( sixty fish per month)
REPLY-This statement is misleading. I suggest you reread the paper. Sample sizes varied from year to year (not always a constant 60 fish per month). Sampling increased in the later years when funding increased to allow for more staff. At one point the IMA had about 80 staff (chemists and biologists) employed associated with the Marine Inspection Sampling (MIS) Program and the six CDT laboratories. The MIS staff obtained the specimens fpr testing by the six CDT laboratories spread across the Philippines.
Who picked the 2003 location to sample? why only one area?
REPL-Who said it was one area? Palawan is a big Island. I believe that samples also came from the Calamian Islands situated off NE Palawan. The Calamians is a center for live food fish and also has aquarium fish collectors.
But most importantly, how many divers did you include in your data?
Who picked the divers to sample and did the divers change year to year ?
REPLY- The IMA MIS staff usually accompanied law enforcement officials from either the Philippine Constabulary or the Philippine Navy when diver's boats were boarded at sea. The law enforcement officials picked the divers to sample (for possible prosecution when unknown chemicals and fish were confiscated). The divers sampled randomly changed from year to year. The communities where they live were well known and were sampled each year.
See its not the fish which determine if cyanide is present. its the collector.
Its kinda like testing random automobiles for alcohol, not the individual drivers behind the wheel.
REPLY-You are correct in stating that the collectors' catches were randomly sampled. The IMA staff did not attempt to sample fish at random by catching themselves. I guess we will have to wait for more hybrid vehicles before your analogy will hold water (pun).
if a sizable portion of the data was from a single collector , then the data would represent that collector, not the 4000 collectors.
REPLY-This is not the case. It is ludicrous to suggest that over 7,000 samples came from a few collectors.
