You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Percentage of Fish That Are Juiced Currently?
- Thread starter Piero
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Naesco,
Thanks so much for your involvement in this thread. If you could do the readers of this thread a favor it would be greatly appreciated.
I see that you point to the attitude of "kalk" in your post. Note that he is involved in the trade and importation of marine ornamentals on a daily basis. It is his life and his livelihood and that is why many on this board read his posts with interest.
Please explain to those who are following this thread what your exact involvement is in the trade of marine ornamentals, past and present. This will help them further understand not only your opinions, but what drives them.
Many thanks in advance for your reply!
Thanks so much for your involvement in this thread. If you could do the readers of this thread a favor it would be greatly appreciated.
I see that you point to the attitude of "kalk" in your post. Note that he is involved in the trade and importation of marine ornamentals on a daily basis. It is his life and his livelihood and that is why many on this board read his posts with interest.
Please explain to those who are following this thread what your exact involvement is in the trade of marine ornamentals, past and present. This will help them further understand not only your opinions, but what drives them.
Many thanks in advance for your reply!
Its pretty silly that an entire reefform industry was launched from this single report. (what other data has ever confirmed this so called pet fish "problem"?)
Even with the hundreds of boardings by PI fish& Game officials and the CDT testing data ........it wasnt enough to convict but one or two Philippino divers of using cyanide. (Peter how many pet fish divers were convicted of cyanide fishing 1997 through 2001)
A ten percent positive finding by Peter (like in 1997 and 1998) is about 120 fish that year found to have cyanide present. (and Peter got to hand pick which fish were included in the report.)
120 fish were found with cyanide present in 1998 and some how cyanide is rampant in the Philippines.?
120 aquarium fish tested positive out of the 10,000 tested by the CDT that year.
120 fish out of 14,000,000 fish exported.
Again , what do we base the idea that trade cyanide is a problem ?
Even with the hundreds of boardings by PI fish& Game officials and the CDT testing data ........it wasnt enough to convict but one or two Philippino divers of using cyanide. (Peter how many pet fish divers were convicted of cyanide fishing 1997 through 2001)
A ten percent positive finding by Peter (like in 1997 and 1998) is about 120 fish that year found to have cyanide present. (and Peter got to hand pick which fish were included in the report.)
120 fish were found with cyanide present in 1998 and some how cyanide is rampant in the Philippines.?
120 aquarium fish tested positive out of the 10,000 tested by the CDT that year.
120 fish out of 14,000,000 fish exported.
Again , what do we base the idea that trade cyanide is a problem ?
The realy odd twist of fate , is that I dont import or sell PI fish .
But Peter does!
Its like me claiming that Fiji clams and SPS are cyanide collected , so you should by my clams and SPS because mine are net collected.
Where the research ends and the sales pitch begins can become confusing .
But Peter does!
Its like me claiming that Fiji clams and SPS are cyanide collected , so you should by my clams and SPS because mine are net collected.
Where the research ends and the sales pitch begins can become confusing .
Kalk-Its pretty silly that an entire reefform industry was launched from this single report. (what other data has ever confirmed this so called pet fish "problem"?)
REPLY-Reeform industry? I think there have been REEFOMISTS like Naesco, and there are reformists like myself, Steve Robinson, and Ferdinand. In the past there were NGOs like the IMA, Haribon, and now the MAC. They are mostly outside the trade. Hence, the apparent conflict between the industry that mostly buys and sells cyanide-caught marine aquarium fishes (MAF) and the NGOs that are against cyanide fishing and cyanide collecting (not against the import and export of MAF).
There are many reports about cyanide collecting. The CDT database came about rather late in the game. Steve Robinson's articles in FAMA from 1982 to 1987 are some of the most damming. They described first hand observations of someone in the industry directly observing collectors using cyanide. Hence, I disagree with your assertion that the CDT testing is the only report that ever confirmed this so called pet fish problem.
But, I agree that the CDT can (and did) put those responsible where they deserve to be (in jail).
Kalk-Even with the hundreds of boardings by PI fish& Game officials and the CDT testing data ........it wasnt enough to convict but one or two Philippino divers of using cyanide. (Peter how many pet fish divers were convicted of cyanide fishing 1997 through 2001)
REPLY-Lets not get confused. I work as a research scientist for Florida Fish & Wildlife (formerly Florida Fish & Game). The agency that sponsored the CDT testing by the IMA and now does it itself is the Philippine Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR). The agencies helping the IMA collect samples from fishermen and collectors at sea by boarding their boats was the Philippine Navy, and the Philippine Constabulary. Local officials representing the municipalities and the local barangays (the Bantay Dagat) also were involved. I do not believe that BFAR has law enforcement officials in the same sense as Florida Fish & Wildlife (e.g., the Marine Patrol in Florida).
As far as the number of convictions, I do not have the exact number. I know it was over 100. In one case, the captain and 30 crew members of a Hong Kong-based vessel caught fishing illegally in Philippme waters were convicted for cyanide fishing and each crew member given 8 years in jail. One crew member died in jail before President Ramos authorized their release and deportation.
Kalk - A ten percent positive finding by Peter (like in 1997 and 1998) is about 120 fish that year found to have cyanide present. (and Peter got to hand pick which fish were included in the report.). 120 fish were found with cyanide present in 1998 and some how cyanide is rampant in the Philippines?
REPLY-First, I did not hand pick anything. I already told you I used the available data in the CDT database (available in 2001) that had already been designated which fish were either Aquarium Fish or Food Fish. I already explained this in a previous posting on RDO on this thread. It is also mentioned in the paper.
Secondly. The number of MAF tested was much greater than you allege. The number of MAF tested with cyanide Present was 454 and 601 Absent in 1996, 329 Present and 570 Absent in 1997, 728 Present and 3167 Absent in 1998, 285 Present and 2128 Absent in 1999, 1080 Present and 2681 Absent in 2000.
Kalk-120 aquarium fish tested positive out of the 10,000 tested by the CDT that year. 120 fish out of 14,000,000 fish exported.
REPLY-Where did these numbers come from? Did you pull them out of a hat? They are total fabrications (lies). My paper reports 3895 aquarium fish tested and 6101 food fish tested for cyanide in 1998. The total number of MAF exported in 1998 was less than 5 million.
Kalk-Again , what do we base the idea that trade cyanide is a problem?
REPLY-There are numerous reports by reliable witnesses. The most damming are the testimony of the former cyanide collectors who have spilled the beans directly to Steve Robinson, to myself, and to others who have interviewed them (including MAC workers like Mark Scheffler). The cyanide trade has a problem. The problem is it is illegal to use cyanide for fishing or MAF collecting in the host countries and it is illegal to import cyanide-caught fish into the USA and other countries.
KALK-The realy odd twist of fate , is that I dont import or sell PI fish . But Peter does! Its like me claiming that Fiji clams and SPS are cyanide collected , so you should by my clams and SPS because mine are net collected. Where the research ends and the sales pitch begins can become confusing,
REPLY-And I suppose you are going to claim you also do not import MAF from Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam (where you perhaps purchase clams?) or from Papua New Guinea? Assuming that you do there is a good chance you buy and sell cyanide-caught MAF.
It is true that I am presently importing net-caught MAF from the Philippines as part of the mortality study and the work being done by Ferdinand Cruz associated with his NGO the East Asian Seas and Terrestrial Initiatives (EASTI). I don?t see this as a conflict of interest. It is a free world and I have a license to import MAF. So, now you cannot attack me for not being in the trade and not knowing about the trade's problems concerning delayed mortality first-hand.
The CDT testing and papers were written and published long before I got an import permit. I was not directly involved in the sampling done by the IMA or its CDT testing at the time it was done (from 1993 to 2001). The most I did was offer advice concerning testing procedures. However if the hammer falls because of implementation of a US-based CDT or another Philippine CDT, the fish I import will be legal.
Peter Rubec, Ph.D.
REPLY-Reeform industry? I think there have been REEFOMISTS like Naesco, and there are reformists like myself, Steve Robinson, and Ferdinand. In the past there were NGOs like the IMA, Haribon, and now the MAC. They are mostly outside the trade. Hence, the apparent conflict between the industry that mostly buys and sells cyanide-caught marine aquarium fishes (MAF) and the NGOs that are against cyanide fishing and cyanide collecting (not against the import and export of MAF).
There are many reports about cyanide collecting. The CDT database came about rather late in the game. Steve Robinson's articles in FAMA from 1982 to 1987 are some of the most damming. They described first hand observations of someone in the industry directly observing collectors using cyanide. Hence, I disagree with your assertion that the CDT testing is the only report that ever confirmed this so called pet fish problem.
But, I agree that the CDT can (and did) put those responsible where they deserve to be (in jail).
Kalk-Even with the hundreds of boardings by PI fish& Game officials and the CDT testing data ........it wasnt enough to convict but one or two Philippino divers of using cyanide. (Peter how many pet fish divers were convicted of cyanide fishing 1997 through 2001)
REPLY-Lets not get confused. I work as a research scientist for Florida Fish & Wildlife (formerly Florida Fish & Game). The agency that sponsored the CDT testing by the IMA and now does it itself is the Philippine Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR). The agencies helping the IMA collect samples from fishermen and collectors at sea by boarding their boats was the Philippine Navy, and the Philippine Constabulary. Local officials representing the municipalities and the local barangays (the Bantay Dagat) also were involved. I do not believe that BFAR has law enforcement officials in the same sense as Florida Fish & Wildlife (e.g., the Marine Patrol in Florida).
As far as the number of convictions, I do not have the exact number. I know it was over 100. In one case, the captain and 30 crew members of a Hong Kong-based vessel caught fishing illegally in Philippme waters were convicted for cyanide fishing and each crew member given 8 years in jail. One crew member died in jail before President Ramos authorized their release and deportation.
Kalk - A ten percent positive finding by Peter (like in 1997 and 1998) is about 120 fish that year found to have cyanide present. (and Peter got to hand pick which fish were included in the report.). 120 fish were found with cyanide present in 1998 and some how cyanide is rampant in the Philippines?
REPLY-First, I did not hand pick anything. I already told you I used the available data in the CDT database (available in 2001) that had already been designated which fish were either Aquarium Fish or Food Fish. I already explained this in a previous posting on RDO on this thread. It is also mentioned in the paper.
Secondly. The number of MAF tested was much greater than you allege. The number of MAF tested with cyanide Present was 454 and 601 Absent in 1996, 329 Present and 570 Absent in 1997, 728 Present and 3167 Absent in 1998, 285 Present and 2128 Absent in 1999, 1080 Present and 2681 Absent in 2000.
Kalk-120 aquarium fish tested positive out of the 10,000 tested by the CDT that year. 120 fish out of 14,000,000 fish exported.
REPLY-Where did these numbers come from? Did you pull them out of a hat? They are total fabrications (lies). My paper reports 3895 aquarium fish tested and 6101 food fish tested for cyanide in 1998. The total number of MAF exported in 1998 was less than 5 million.
Kalk-Again , what do we base the idea that trade cyanide is a problem?
REPLY-There are numerous reports by reliable witnesses. The most damming are the testimony of the former cyanide collectors who have spilled the beans directly to Steve Robinson, to myself, and to others who have interviewed them (including MAC workers like Mark Scheffler). The cyanide trade has a problem. The problem is it is illegal to use cyanide for fishing or MAF collecting in the host countries and it is illegal to import cyanide-caught fish into the USA and other countries.
KALK-The realy odd twist of fate , is that I dont import or sell PI fish . But Peter does! Its like me claiming that Fiji clams and SPS are cyanide collected , so you should by my clams and SPS because mine are net collected. Where the research ends and the sales pitch begins can become confusing,
REPLY-And I suppose you are going to claim you also do not import MAF from Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam (where you perhaps purchase clams?) or from Papua New Guinea? Assuming that you do there is a good chance you buy and sell cyanide-caught MAF.
It is true that I am presently importing net-caught MAF from the Philippines as part of the mortality study and the work being done by Ferdinand Cruz associated with his NGO the East Asian Seas and Terrestrial Initiatives (EASTI). I don?t see this as a conflict of interest. It is a free world and I have a license to import MAF. So, now you cannot attack me for not being in the trade and not knowing about the trade's problems concerning delayed mortality first-hand.
The CDT testing and papers were written and published long before I got an import permit. I was not directly involved in the sampling done by the IMA or its CDT testing at the time it was done (from 1993 to 2001). The most I did was offer advice concerning testing procedures. However if the hammer falls because of implementation of a US-based CDT or another Philippine CDT, the fish I import will be legal.
Peter Rubec, Ph.D.
You said that 7,703 aqaurium fish were included in your report,
why did the total number of fish again change from 7,703 just a few posts ago to 11,973?
And what happened to the remaining 30,000 fish?
You also said
Ten fish per each of the 600 species would be 6,000 fish.(oe two fish per year.
but then you claim"About 48,689 specimens of food fish and aquarium fish were tested. I reported on the results of testing 7,703 aquarium fish and 12,854 food fish from 1996 to 2000.
THATS 11,973 fish?The number of MAF tested was much greater than you allege. The number of MAF tested with cyanide Present was 454 and 601 Absent in 1996, 329 Present and 520 Absent in 1997, 728 Present and 3167 Absent in 1998, 285 Present and 2128 Absent in 1999, 1080 Present and 2681 Absent in 2000.
why did the total number of fish again change from 7,703 just a few posts ago to 11,973?
And what happened to the remaining 30,000 fish?
You also said
Again how can 7,703 fish represent 600 species? When 300 of the species were damsels?REPLY-The paper mentions that were over 600 aquarium fish species and over 300 food fish species tested.
Ten fish per each of the 600 species would be 6,000 fish.(oe two fish per year.
Peter, be a big boy and face the music.
(i dont think you purposely tainted the data.)
(You would have found more then 10% of the fish to have cyanide !)
But there is a lot of unexplained or missing data in your paper.
Why one year there are 500 fish tested and the next almost 5000.
Was this due to less boats boarded that year ? Less boats found with cyanide ? Or was the same number of fish tested every year .....but some one along the line decided only 500 fish (from 1997)would be included in the study?
If this was a study about global warming and 3/4th of the data was absent from the study .....people would rightly ask to see the ballance.
You wanted the job of studying the data. Either do it or let people who want to.
Why dont we hand over the Data on the entire 48,000 fish and let some nice Florida college boys and girls work the data?
(Your holding the industry hostage.)
It could be entirely possible that if we analized the other 30,000 fish we might come up with an opposite perspective.
whats to say that the 7000 fish you reported on mirror the 48,000 tested? let alone the nearly
60,000,000 fish exported during the sample period.
(i dont think you purposely tainted the data.)
(You would have found more then 10% of the fish to have cyanide !)
But there is a lot of unexplained or missing data in your paper.
Why one year there are 500 fish tested and the next almost 5000.
Was this due to less boats boarded that year ? Less boats found with cyanide ? Or was the same number of fish tested every year .....but some one along the line decided only 500 fish (from 1997)would be included in the study?
If this was a study about global warming and 3/4th of the data was absent from the study .....people would rightly ask to see the ballance.
You wanted the job of studying the data. Either do it or let people who want to.
Why dont we hand over the Data on the entire 48,000 fish and let some nice Florida college boys and girls work the data?
(Your holding the industry hostage.)
It could be entirely possible that if we analized the other 30,000 fish we might come up with an opposite perspective.
whats to say that the 7000 fish you reported on mirror the 48,000 tested? let alone the nearly
60,000,000 fish exported during the sample period.
The number of MAF tested was much greater than you allege. The number of MAF tested with cyanide Present was 454 and 601 Absent in 1996, 329 Present and 570 Absent in 1997, 728 Present and 3167 Absent in 1998, 285 Present and 2128 Absent in 1999, 1080 Present and 2681 Absent in 2000.
Kalk-The number of fishes tested in 1997 in the year to year trends was 899 not 500.
Table 24.3 parts A&B summarizes results from 1996 to 1999. The table summarizes results for 7,703 MAF. The interannual trend summarize results from MAF tested from 1996 to 2000. The extra fish tested in 2000 explains most of the so-called discrepancy you mentioned (the difference between 7,703 and 11,973).
You have mistakenly assumed that most MAF were sampled from boats. This is incorrect. Fishes were sampled nationwide as I previously mentioned. Hence, the sampling from boats from year to year did not influence the percentages Cyanide Present and Absent between years.
Most of the so-called fish that are missing were sampled and tested in 2000 and 2001. Hence, reanalyses of the data including the missing fish is unlikely to change the interannual trends presented from 1996 to 1999. It certainly would not vindicate the trade by having the Percentages of Cyanide Present decline significantly or to disappear. The data are real and the trade is GUILTY.
When I can find the time (at least a month of free time) I will analyze the data and prepare a report. A grant to pay me for my efforts would help. Do I see the MAC or PIJAC offering money? I think not.
When the US Coral Reef Task Force or some other official government body requests the data, I will provide it. I am not holding the industry hostage. The industry is holding itself hostage by continuing to buy and sell cyanide-caught fish.
Peter Rubec, Ph.D.
Kalk-The number of fishes tested in 1997 in the year to year trends was 899 not 500.
Table 24.3 parts A&B summarizes results from 1996 to 1999. The table summarizes results for 7,703 MAF. The interannual trend summarize results from MAF tested from 1996 to 2000. The extra fish tested in 2000 explains most of the so-called discrepancy you mentioned (the difference between 7,703 and 11,973).
You have mistakenly assumed that most MAF were sampled from boats. This is incorrect. Fishes were sampled nationwide as I previously mentioned. Hence, the sampling from boats from year to year did not influence the percentages Cyanide Present and Absent between years.
Most of the so-called fish that are missing were sampled and tested in 2000 and 2001. Hence, reanalyses of the data including the missing fish is unlikely to change the interannual trends presented from 1996 to 1999. It certainly would not vindicate the trade by having the Percentages of Cyanide Present decline significantly or to disappear. The data are real and the trade is GUILTY.
When I can find the time (at least a month of free time) I will analyze the data and prepare a report. A grant to pay me for my efforts would help. Do I see the MAC or PIJAC offering money? I think not.
When the US Coral Reef Task Force or some other official government body requests the data, I will provide it. I am not holding the industry hostage. The industry is holding itself hostage by continuing to buy and sell cyanide-caught fish.
Peter Rubec, Ph.D.
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
Peter writes;
The industry is holding itself hostage by continuing to buy and sell cyanide-caught fish. Well thats certainly true.
The trade is mostly importers, retailers and hobbyists who care about the sea like Walmart customers care abut the sea.
The fact that the subject matter suggests they should care more and care enough to change their behavior is no more compelling as the people who eat cheap shrimp.
Eating shrimp connects you to the ocean....but does not a mangrove crusader make.
Aquacultured shrimp may ruin most of the coastal mangroves in the 3rd world and cause as much eventual damage as the wild shrimp trade w/ its heavy chain leading the nets on the ocean floor.
You might say that shrimp consumers are holding their trade hostage as well.
To which they remark ...huh :?:
They have passion....but its in a different direction.
Hoping that the beauty of the subject matter would rub off on the consumer and awaken him is something I have hoped for for many years.
John Tullock...after pushing a net caught ethic for years assured me it would not. When the consumable becomes a mass consumable, the caring edge dilutes too much and becomes ineffectual.
He was right.
Therefore;
You should not peg the survival of the oceans, your business or your NGO to the awakening of the population of consumers of reeflife. They do not like to be awoken anyway and will resent you for it.
The work for solutions must renew abroad....and the victory, if it comes will also remain unnoticed by consumers.
The industry is holding itself hostage by continuing to buy and sell cyanide-caught fish. Well thats certainly true.
The trade is mostly importers, retailers and hobbyists who care about the sea like Walmart customers care abut the sea.
The fact that the subject matter suggests they should care more and care enough to change their behavior is no more compelling as the people who eat cheap shrimp.
Eating shrimp connects you to the ocean....but does not a mangrove crusader make.
Aquacultured shrimp may ruin most of the coastal mangroves in the 3rd world and cause as much eventual damage as the wild shrimp trade w/ its heavy chain leading the nets on the ocean floor.
You might say that shrimp consumers are holding their trade hostage as well.
To which they remark ...huh :?:
They have passion....but its in a different direction.
Hoping that the beauty of the subject matter would rub off on the consumer and awaken him is something I have hoped for for many years.
John Tullock...after pushing a net caught ethic for years assured me it would not. When the consumable becomes a mass consumable, the caring edge dilutes too much and becomes ineffectual.
He was right.
Therefore;
You should not peg the survival of the oceans, your business or your NGO to the awakening of the population of consumers of reeflife. They do not like to be awoken anyway and will resent you for it.
The work for solutions must renew abroad....and the victory, if it comes will also remain unnoticed by consumers.
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
When the consumable becomes a mass consumable, the caring edge dilutes too much and becomes ineffectual.
,,,,and the effectiveness of that small caring edge has been brunted by a series of cash and carry reform orgs. pushing a feel good message with a less then good agenda.
These groups did not involve the caring edge but enlisted a few tokens w/ no track record on the issue instead. Then, they blame the trade for not joining them.
Steve
would you blame the public for the cocaine trade? Sure...why not?
But that won't get it off the street. If you really care...you must engage the source.
,,,,and the effectiveness of that small caring edge has been brunted by a series of cash and carry reform orgs. pushing a feel good message with a less then good agenda.
These groups did not involve the caring edge but enlisted a few tokens w/ no track record on the issue instead. Then, they blame the trade for not joining them.
Steve
would you blame the public for the cocaine trade? Sure...why not?
But that won't get it off the street. If you really care...you must engage the source.
This CDT issue is more complicated than we can think. Because I was working directly with collectors in the Philippines and knew the modus operandi of the different stakeholders in that country I can say that we didn't, we don't and we won't know the real magnitud of the problem. Cyanide to collect MO is being used for decades in the Philippines. Stakeholders know how to go around it. Poverty, corruption and lack of law enforcement in the PI contribute to make the problem worse.
I visited all the exporters based in Manila, PI, they told me they were the ones selecting the fish to be tested for CN, they were submitting clean fish for testing, of course they knew which ones were collected with CN. Meaning that positive readings for CN reported could be far from reality.
I visited all the exporters based in Manila, PI, they told me they were the ones selecting the fish to be tested for CN, they were submitting clean fish for testing, of course they knew which ones were collected with CN. Meaning that positive readings for CN reported could be far from reality.
Gresham, You are right that there were quite a few postives. Even, when I excluded all the other locations where samples were taken and just examined the percentages of fishes which had cyanide present for Manila-based exporters, the percentages were high. Higher even than the overall average in many cases. If the exporters tried to lower the results by substituting clean fish, they failed.
Peter Rubec
Peter Rubec
PeterIMA":ipmsm24r said:Gresham, You are right that there were quite a few postives. Even, when I excluded all the other locations where samples were taken and just examined the percentages of fishes which had cyanide present for Manila-based exporters, the percentages were high. Higher even than the overall average in many cases. If the exporters tried to lower the results by substituting clean fish, they failed.
Peter Rubec
Summary of samples tested in all CDT laboratories January-May 16 1996
Manila
Total samples 424
Negative for CN 396
Positive for CN 28
Puerto Princesa
Total samples 476
Negative for CN 421
Positive 55
Zamboanga
Total samples 314
Negative 305
Positive 9
Coron
Total samples 62
Negative 58
Positive 4
When a sample was considered positive or negative?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
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:
