MAC Interim Director
- Thread starter PeterIMA
- Start date
Disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing is useless. Support your statement with sound reasoning and/ or examples or it carries no weight. [/quote]
If you have something meaningful to contribute, state it. All I see are insults and name calling from someone who believes he is above Philippine law and has made veiled threats about killing people.
[/quote]
If you have something meaningful to contribute, state it. All I see are insults and name calling from someone who believes he is above Philippine law and has made veiled threats about killing people.
[/quote]
The database includes data from 1993 to 2001. Where did I state 1991? Obviously, BFAR has more recent data and can use it to support law enforcement. There is more recent data publicly available that was published on the web site of the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development. It indicated that cyanide detected as being present in marine fishes in 2004 had risen to 49%. I am told the results came from the laboratory in Puerto Princesa funded by BFAR and the City of Puerto Princesa. The laboratory continues to use the ISE method for cyanide testing. So, there are more recent data obtained using the same method that I have been discussing.
Peter Rubec
Peter Rubec
PeterIMA":1iqbm93a said:
What good will it served if the parties involve will not even get the result of the ‘Blender Test”?
You can look at the data for as long as you want. And it’s not going to help anyone. Not unless there are some idiots out there who wants to buy a juiced fish.
I get this feeling, that you are only interested in promoting your method of testing. Are you the inventor?
1991 is a typo. Sorry my mistake. But it is still an old data considering how things are moving nowadays. And would say people who rely on old data are always behind the curve.
To anonymous exporter,
Some meaningful things you stated were the following:
1) You have no way of determining that the fish you buy (from middlemen or collectors) are caught with cyanide or not (unless you pay BFAR to do CDT testing).
2) You were upset that the BFAR samplers did not provide you with the test results.
At least, when the IMA conducted sampling of export facilities they supplied "certificates" of the results back to the exporters (for free). This was not intended to be a "certification" scheme. However, it did help the exporters identify which suppliers were using cyanide. Hence, it could help them make decisions with making purchases of MO fish.
3) The other question asked by Jaime Baquero was why exporters were not being prosecuted. I mostly answered that question already. Most of the sampling conducted by the IMA in Manila was considered to be "monitoring". Samples taken to support "prosecution" were generally done in conjunction with law enforcement officers (who rarely accompanied the IMA MIS officers in Manila, but did accompany them when collectors' fish were sampled). Hence, most sampling of export facilities was not intended to support prosecution of exporters.
I think that the exporters could do more to help stop cyanide fishing. When in 1997, the Philippines Congress had a bill pending to completely ban the MO trade, Lolita Ty the President of the Philippine Tropical Fish Exporters Association (PTFEA) asked for support from the IMA. The IMA supported the PFTEA and stated that the ban would be detrimental to the MO fish collectors and would not stop cyanide fishing (just shift it from MO fish to food fish).
The presence of cyanide found in MO fish declined from 43% in 1996 to 9% in 1999. I believe this was largely due to the fact that the exporters discouraged the use of cyanide by the fishermen. Unfortunately, the level rose to 29% in 2000 after the bill to ban the trade no longer was a threat.
So, I believe the exporters can do more to stop cyanide fishing. This would benefit them and help protect coral reefs, which ultimately would benefit the supply of MO fish and the village collectors and fishermen.
Peter Rubec
Some meaningful things you stated were the following:
1) You have no way of determining that the fish you buy (from middlemen or collectors) are caught with cyanide or not (unless you pay BFAR to do CDT testing).
2) You were upset that the BFAR samplers did not provide you with the test results.
At least, when the IMA conducted sampling of export facilities they supplied "certificates" of the results back to the exporters (for free). This was not intended to be a "certification" scheme. However, it did help the exporters identify which suppliers were using cyanide. Hence, it could help them make decisions with making purchases of MO fish.
3) The other question asked by Jaime Baquero was why exporters were not being prosecuted. I mostly answered that question already. Most of the sampling conducted by the IMA in Manila was considered to be "monitoring". Samples taken to support "prosecution" were generally done in conjunction with law enforcement officers (who rarely accompanied the IMA MIS officers in Manila, but did accompany them when collectors' fish were sampled). Hence, most sampling of export facilities was not intended to support prosecution of exporters.
I think that the exporters could do more to help stop cyanide fishing. When in 1997, the Philippines Congress had a bill pending to completely ban the MO trade, Lolita Ty the President of the Philippine Tropical Fish Exporters Association (PTFEA) asked for support from the IMA. The IMA supported the PFTEA and stated that the ban would be detrimental to the MO fish collectors and would not stop cyanide fishing (just shift it from MO fish to food fish).
The presence of cyanide found in MO fish declined from 43% in 1996 to 9% in 1999. I believe this was largely due to the fact that the exporters discouraged the use of cyanide by the fishermen. Unfortunately, the level rose to 29% in 2000 after the bill to ban the trade no longer was a threat.
So, I believe the exporters can do more to stop cyanide fishing. This would benefit them and help protect coral reefs, which ultimately would benefit the supply of MO fish and the village collectors and fishermen.
Peter Rubec
Peter,
If you have the names of the exporters in the Philippines showing positive results for CN why no to make those names public. That way fish buyers around the world won't deal with them? Seems you have all the evidence to make the move...right?
Jaime
If you have the names of the exporters in the Philippines showing positive results for CN why no to make those names public. That way fish buyers around the world won't deal with them? Seems you have all the evidence to make the move...right?
Jaime
I'm going to ask you to be a little nicer, less accusatory and less presumptive. Doesn't mean you can't disagree with someone but you must do so respectfully.N1N2EGT":qebx1yeh said:
Everyone else here has to play by those rules and so must you.
Thanks-Jim
bookfish":379mrj2x said:
Mr. Jim,
Sorry
But there are some posters here who in some ways throw their weight around too much. It is not my intention to be disrespectful. But I think I'm the one who's being accused as person who's above the law. I am not. The person who threatened to hurt people, I did not. But accept my apology, it's not going to happen anymore.
ciao!
N1N2EGT":18cvm3cw said:bookfish":18cvm3cw said:N1N2EGT":18cvm3cw said:
Mr. Jim,
Sorry
But there are some posters here who in some ways throw their weight around too much. It is not my intention to be disrespectful. But I think I'm the one who's being accused as person who's above the law. I am not. The person who threatened to hurt people, I did not. But accept my apology, it's not going to happen anymore.
ciao!
Thanks very much!
If you see something that you think is 'out of line' please drop me a pm and let me take care of it. The more you, or anyone, stays above mud slinging, the more what you are actually trying to say gets heard.
Oh - :welcome:
I was at MACNA this weekend and spent a good amount of time talking to David Mainenti and John Brandt. Actually, a bunch of people spent a good deal of time talking to them. David really seems to have the right attitude and I am very optimistic for the future.
Thales,
You still don't get it. The hobbyists are the ones being duped by the cyanide trade. They buy cyanide caught fish that die, and the trade sells them more fish that also die.
The MAC is perpetuating this. The reefs are disappearing due to destruction by cyanide. Soon there won't be any more cheap cyanide-caught fish.
You still don't get it. The hobbyists are the ones being duped by the cyanide trade. They buy cyanide caught fish that die, and the trade sells them more fish that also die.
The MAC is perpetuating this. The reefs are disappearing due to destruction by cyanide. Soon there won't be any more cheap cyanide-caught fish.
PeterIMA":gxmlub8h said:
The hobbyists have no control over what the trade sells them. This is a supply market, not a demand market.
I asked you, and others, a couple months back what hobbyists could do to generate change and the answer was a big old nothing. David and MAC have some interesting ideas and are looking at a new approach based on the mistakes MAC made in the past. Since they are willing to actually do something, and since nobody else is offering an alternative, if their new business plan seems reasonable I am going to support it.
If you can give me a practical alternative that seems reasonable to me, I would be happy to support it as well.
The MAC may have been doing all kinds of terrible things, but at this point I don't really care all that much because I am more interested in the future. Like I said before, I was very impressed by David, and his willingness to admit mistakes and his willingness to seek advice for the future.
Thales, I have supported the net-caught alternative for over 25 years. There are net-caught fish available that live that are available thanks to the training programs of the East Asian Seas and Terrestrial Initiatives (EASTI). The MACNA board should have invited Ferdinand Cruz to their conference to explain EASTI's programs.
Instead they invite someone who was a party to the failed programs run by the MAC. David Mainenti (as the chief financial officer of MAC) is partly responsible for its failures in the past and will be in the future.
Peter
Instead they invite someone who was a party to the failed programs run by the MAC. David Mainenti (as the chief financial officer of MAC) is partly responsible for its failures in the past and will be in the future.
Peter
PeterIMA":vd5cx6tx said:
Where do the hobbyists get these net caught fish? How are they to tell them from the juiced fish? How do hobbyists support this net caught alternative?
You should get in touch with them and tell them that instead of bemoaning that they didn't.
You misunderstand what David was doing at the show. MAC paid to have a booth at the show. David was not a speaker, but a paying vendor. I took time to seek him out and talk to him. By that token EASTI could have also paid to have a booth at the show - why didn't they?
We know. He knows. He wants to do things differently now. I think we would all be better served by looking to the future instead of fixated on the past. Find out what David wants to do and then get make a decision about its possibility instead of condemning MAC out of habit.
Furthermore, as I asked in my last post, what other organization can hobbyists support?
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:
