Percentage of Fish That Are Juiced Currently?
- Thread starter Piero
- Start date
- Status
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
"Your name was used in a paper is several times in the paper."
Used is different then writing a paper.
Thanks Gresham...
Steve
Used is different then writing a paper.
Thanks Gresham...
Steve
Perhaps this is where I got confused ?
How did your oranization the IMA report its findings.........Peters report?
http://www.spc.org.nc/coastfish/News/lrf/7/LRF7-08.htm
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
Kalk,
Thanks for digging it up and reminding us of the history of action and concern long before the non-fisherman oriented eco types came along.
Its good to be cited, referenced and spoken of. ..[ without permission
]
Thats different then writing papers but its still a positive.
I hope it helps todays knee-jerk critics understand the context of this struggle a little better.
Thanks again,
Steve
Thanks for digging it up and reminding us of the history of action and concern long before the non-fisherman oriented eco types came along.
Its good to be cited, referenced and spoken of. ..[ without permission
]Thats different then writing papers but its still a positive.
I hope it helps todays knee-jerk critics understand the context of this struggle a little better.
Thanks again,
Steve
Kalk, If you have concerns about the paper for which you provided the link, I think you need to address them to me (the author) rather than to Steve Robinson. It is true that Steve, myself and Dr. Vaughan Pratt founded the IMA in 1985. Steve subsequently quit being associated with the IMA. This was partly because of a personality conflict between himself and Dr. Pratt.
Steve played an important role in bringing the cyanide fishing problem to world attention and still is involved with advocating the need for net-training and reform within the aquarium trade. I believe that we agree that cyanide fishing is a problem that needs to be dealt with. Steve may not agree with all of the statements that I made in the paper. As the author of the paper, I am the one you need to deal with not Steve. The on-line version is now a bit dated (published in 2000). The final version of the paper published in Aquarium Sciences and Conservation in 2001 is a better source of the information about cyanide fishing, net-capture, and delayed mortality associated with shipping (caused by a variety of factors including stress, ammonia, cyanide, disease, and starvation).
Peter Rubec
PS-I did not need Steve's permission to cite information that he had already published previously. I have reviewed Steve's papers in earlier publications that were published in 1986 and 1987. The information provided in those papers was published with his knowledge.
Steve played an important role in bringing the cyanide fishing problem to world attention and still is involved with advocating the need for net-training and reform within the aquarium trade. I believe that we agree that cyanide fishing is a problem that needs to be dealt with. Steve may not agree with all of the statements that I made in the paper. As the author of the paper, I am the one you need to deal with not Steve. The on-line version is now a bit dated (published in 2000). The final version of the paper published in Aquarium Sciences and Conservation in 2001 is a better source of the information about cyanide fishing, net-capture, and delayed mortality associated with shipping (caused by a variety of factors including stress, ammonia, cyanide, disease, and starvation).
Peter Rubec
PS-I did not need Steve's permission to cite information that he had already published previously. I have reviewed Steve's papers in earlier publications that were published in 1986 and 1987. The information provided in those papers was published with his knowledge.
Im trying to understand who picked the 7000 fish from the 48,000.
Steve would be a better candidate to decide which set of fishes might represent the industry in PI.(being that he is and was a collector)
I was hoping he had a hand in this process.
What happened to the data on the remaining 41,000 fish that were tested for cyanide present, But excluded from your report?
Steve would be a better candidate to decide which set of fishes might represent the industry in PI.(being that he is and was a collector)
I was hoping he had a hand in this process.
What happened to the data on the remaining 41,000 fish that were tested for cyanide present, But excluded from your report?
Kalk, At the time I analyzed the data (2001) the entire CTD database was not available to me. So, I analyzed what had been entered into the computer database by IMA staff (about 22,000 food and aquarium fishes). Most of my paper dealt with aquarium fish, since it was presented at the Marine Ornamentals Conference.
Subsequently, the IMA lost its contract with BFAR and funding to IMA from other sources ended. While, I now have the database there is no funding available to pay for the analysis of the results on all 48,000+ specimens. This analysis is still needed for proper management of the fisheries. I am hopeful that funding to pay for analysis of the CTD database and the creation of a comprehensive report will become available.
Peter Rubec
Subsequently, the IMA lost its contract with BFAR and funding to IMA from other sources ended. While, I now have the database there is no funding available to pay for the analysis of the results on all 48,000+ specimens. This analysis is still needed for proper management of the fisheries. I am hopeful that funding to pay for analysis of the CTD database and the creation of a comprehensive report will become available.
Peter Rubec
The answer to your question concerning who picked what species were considered aquarium fishes, is that the database identified the specimens as being either aquarium fish or food fish. The MIS samplers identified the fish samples when they were collected as being either aquarium fish or food fish (based on when, where, and from whom the samples were obtained).
Peter Rubec
Peter Rubec
So you made the impression that 48,000 fish were used in your study when it wasn't and we have no idea what fish species were used in the 7000 portion..
How did you or the IMA come up with the test results for each year, if only a 1/4th portion of the data was entered?
Im mean , prior to you getting ahold of the data in 2001, why didn't the scientists compile the data as they went? Why couldn't these scientists come up with their own findings on the 100 or so fish they tested per month?
They spent year after year grinding up fish parts, testing for cyanide present..........and never once gave a rats a*** as to what their research was revealing?
That doesn't illustrate much passion on the part of the scientists or yours.
Lets wait six years to see what our work discovered. Why were these scientists testing at all?
It makes more sense that this "research data " was not research at all, it was mirley part of a case by case collection of evidence as part of the prosecution attempt on boat owners that were found to have cyanide on their vessel.
That there was no interest on the part of the researchers to determine the overall ststis of cyanide fishing in the region. These fish tests were on a case by case grouping. They needed to determin if this fisheremen's batch of fish had cyanide present to collect evidence to be used in individual prosecutions
Thats why the data you were handed was in a case by case briefing.
You made a determination of cyanide fishing in the country, based on court case histories!
Thats hardly a blind test.
The majority of the fish used in this data were from people caught with cyanide in their boat.
How did you or the IMA come up with the test results for each year, if only a 1/4th portion of the data was entered?
Im mean , prior to you getting ahold of the data in 2001, why didn't the scientists compile the data as they went? Why couldn't these scientists come up with their own findings on the 100 or so fish they tested per month?
They spent year after year grinding up fish parts, testing for cyanide present..........and never once gave a rats a*** as to what their research was revealing?
That doesn't illustrate much passion on the part of the scientists or yours.
Lets wait six years to see what our work discovered. Why were these scientists testing at all?
It makes more sense that this "research data " was not research at all, it was mirley part of a case by case collection of evidence as part of the prosecution attempt on boat owners that were found to have cyanide on their vessel.
That there was no interest on the part of the researchers to determine the overall ststis of cyanide fishing in the region. These fish tests were on a case by case grouping. They needed to determin if this fisheremen's batch of fish had cyanide present to collect evidence to be used in individual prosecutions
Thats why the data you were handed was in a case by case briefing.
You made a determination of cyanide fishing in the country, based on court case histories!
Thats hardly a blind test.
The majority of the fish used in this data were from people caught with cyanide in their boat.
Kalk, I am going to let this one go. The monitoring was done to asceratain the magnitude of the problem, not to serve your needs. The data was presented correctly and without bias. The data presented was not just the data used to support court cases. Much of the monitoring had nothing to do with court cases.
Peter
Peter
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
The truth is that the habit of using poison was general, widespread and everywhere in the 80's.
The rate of change and good news would be dependant on the situation being changed by training and netting supplies.
The lack of training and netting supplies made the good news difficult. Hence the internal controversy.
The real agents of change have never jived well with the reform inc groups.... and so they worked at a more modest pace then should have. The delay allowed much, much more coral to die.
Paperwork and false advertising raced around the world while divers still hoped for a shank of netting to work with.
The most exciting change has crept along slowly nonetheless at the rate of osmosis from the un-circumcized...I mean un-certified liberated zones.
The unauthorized, unsanctioned uncertified regions have been so effective that they now catch a big part of the worlds tropical fish in 7 other countries.
Steve
The rate of change and good news would be dependant on the situation being changed by training and netting supplies.
The lack of training and netting supplies made the good news difficult. Hence the internal controversy.
The real agents of change have never jived well with the reform inc groups.... and so they worked at a more modest pace then should have. The delay allowed much, much more coral to die.
Paperwork and false advertising raced around the world while divers still hoped for a shank of netting to work with.
The most exciting change has crept along slowly nonetheless at the rate of osmosis from the un-circumcized...I mean un-certified liberated zones.
The unauthorized, unsanctioned uncertified regions have been so effective that they now catch a big part of the worlds tropical fish in 7 other countries.
Steve
The truth of the matter is that the use of cyanide is still widespread in the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Papua New Guinea. Kalk's attitude and comments will hasten the day when USFWS agents or other law enforcement agents take action against people violating the Lacey Act.
Peter Rubec
Peter Rubec
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
Recent reports from Viet Nam are indeed disturbing.
Cyanide seems to be commonly used there for the live food trade as well as for junk tropical fish.
Junk because thats what they produce so far. The worst fish in Asia come from there and if not for the tridacna clams trade, no one would deal with them.
Their fisheries dept. is corrupt and has tolerated their entry into the cyanide club. They are therefore ready to sign the MAC letter of commitment
They can't COLLECT, HOLD OR PACK well or even learn from the constant mistakes in handling fishes.
This is a good venue for MAC. There they can instantly be the top experts in the place and perhaps do some good.
Steve
Cyanide seems to be commonly used there for the live food trade as well as for junk tropical fish.
Junk because thats what they produce so far. The worst fish in Asia come from there and if not for the tridacna clams trade, no one would deal with them.
Their fisheries dept. is corrupt and has tolerated their entry into the cyanide club. They are therefore ready to sign the MAC letter of commitment
They can't COLLECT, HOLD OR PACK well or even learn from the constant mistakes in handling fishes.
This is a good venue for MAC. There they can instantly be the top experts in the place and perhaps do some good.
Steve
PeterIMA":uhxci0rz said:
I agree but it is more than Kalk's attititude and comments because IMO he represents the attititude of industry.
I think the task force will come to that obvious conclusion with the only result being the immediate prohibition of imports of fish from the Philippines and Indonesia where the use of cyanide is rampant. (net caught fish excepted).
They meet shortly, undoubtedly know the complete disinterest in industry in dealing with the cyanide issue in any way, and will move in to stop the carnage. That is their mandate and their there only option.
I wish them Godspeed.
- Status
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:
