MAC has saved the reefs.....now lets go have some sushi!

[Kalkbreath]

I came across this 1996 article in Ocean Realm magazine. The author was Helmut Debelius.............

.At 15,ooo tons a year, Hong Kong is the largest market for live reef fish in southeast Asia. Taiwan currently imports about 7,ooo thousand tons, Singapore,around 1,000 tons. Nearly two thirds of all living coral reef fish offered in the restaurants of th e region are captured with sodium cyanide: in 1995 this amounted to approximately 25,000 tons valued at one billion dollars.For a single Neopoleon wrasse weighing as much as twenty kilos, Chinese are currently willing to pay $100 per kilo. Dr Johannes has made a video which graphically shows how the Nepoleon wrasse and the surrounding reef suffer from the use of cyanide by divers. After being chased into a corner, the stunned fish seeks shelter in the nooks and crannies of the coral reef and squeezes itself into the deepest recesses. Two divers break up several meters of coral just to get at the grouper.Now that the fish is totally defenseless, a stong shot of cyanide is aimed at its face, entering its mouth and gill openings. It is then pulled from the reef like a recalcitrant dog, trying to flee again as it begins to regain consciousness.A number of years ago , I was able to determine the the dose of cyanide appropriate for small fish. Naturally the amount needed to anesthetize a full grown five foot fish is much greater. Meanwhile, sodium cyanide fishing continues all over Southeast Asia region. In a sad way it is under-standable, since a seventeen year old cyanide diver can earn as much as $400 a month- three times as much as a university-educated civil servant makes.[end Quote} since 1991 ,the IMA under Dr. Peter Rubec, has installed four cyanide detection stations on various islands in the Philippines. these stations test captured fish for cyanide levels. In 1994 these testing efforts led to fifty criminal proceedings.............Perhaps Peter can offer some insight or rather HIND sight as to WHY this report never once even mentioned the live pet fish trade? This time period[1995] was the greatest year for the import of live hobby pet fish .and yet even then the pet collection was so small that it was too small to even include in the study...........the total number of fish imported for our trade has decreased ever since........perhaps the powers that be at that time had not as of yet thought up the scapegoat that this hobby is painted today? Tweny five thousand tons of fish from the reefs...........compared to fifty tons of pet fish per year? By the way , in the magazine there are photos of squirt bottle holding fishermen and behind them is this large barrier net ......... in their hands are high quality hand nets {not hand made} so maybe having the proper nets at hand is not going to stop them from using the other hand to hold a squirt bottle.? Do you really think this hobby is whats killing the reefs ? Even without the least bit of proof?
_________________
gremlin plants

 

[mkirda]

Do you really think this hobby is whats killing the reefs ? Even without the least bit of proof?

Kalk,

I can say, Yes, unequivocably, yes, the hobby is a factor in what is killing the reefs. My proof? Seeing the evidence of coral death with my own eyes where cyanide collection of aquarium fish has gone on. Well, that and a stack of scientific papers thick enough to stop a .22.

Why do you insist on closing your eyes to the evidence, and spouting half-truths, misdirections and obfuscations? Once again, am left wondering what your point is? Or what agenda you have to put forth, and for whom?

Regards.
Mike Kirda
BTW, you can keep your sushi. I'd rather have chicken.
And I'm still wondering how MAC saved the reefs...

 

[PeterIMA]

Reply to Kalk,

I disagree that the aquarium trade has not had any significant effect on coral reefs through cyanide fishing. It definitely has. So has the live food fish trade (the main focus of the Ocean Realm article by Helmut Debelius). At the time (1995) the live food fish trade was just being exposed by the TNC report written by Johannes and Riepen. So, I guess that was more "news" than the aquarium trade, that Steve Robinson, myself, and others have written about since the early 1980s.

As far as "proof" I just want everyone to know that there is a paper that I have written "In Press" with Iowa State University Press about the CDT testing done by IMA from 1993 to 2001.

Cyanide testing needs to be resumed. The problem is funding. For my part, I am in the process of analyzing the entire a CDT database (over 46000 fish tested) in my possession. I intend to publish the results. I intend to break it down by year, by species, by region, and by export company. I will be naming the export companies involved. The analysis will "prove" which exporters of aquarium fishes and which exporters of food fishes sell cyanide-caught fish. The true situation will be revealed.

Peter Rubec

 

[Kalkbreath]

Do you really think this hobby is whats killing the reefs ? Even without the least bit of proof?

Kalk,

I can say, Yes, unequivocably, yes, the hobby is a factor in what is killing the reefs. My proof? Seeing the evidence of coral death with my own eyes where cyanide collection of aquarium fish has gone on. Well, that and a stack of scientific papers thick enough to stop a .22.

Why do you insist on closing your eyes to the evidence, and spouting half-truths, misdirections and obfuscations? Once again, am left wondering what your point is? Or what agenda you have to put forth, and for whom?

Regards.
Mike Kirda
BTW, you can keep your sushi. I'd rather have chicken.
And I'm still wondering how MAC saved the reefs...

one country and you have a tenfold chance that you were looking at a seafood fishermans work.......like I said , None of the studies in the eighties and early ninties by green peace type organizations included this hobby in the findings because they felt this hobbies impact was tooo small.......?
_________________
u.s. recession

 

[mkirda]

one country and you have a tenfold chance that you were looking at a seafood fishermans work.......

Really? How do you suppose that nice big fat grouper fit in that hole the size of my thumb?

Kalkbreath, accusing me of misrepresenting the truth is really trying my patience. The article with the photos will be out shortly in Reefkeeping- I suggest you look at the photos dealing with cyanide damage to corals and look at the holes where it was applied, then do the math. Unless the fish markets are teeming with gobies for food (they are not), then your argument does not hold true.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

.......Im sure ,Finding one location that hobby fisherman harmed and taking a photo of it is all TOO easy...... The grouper fishermen hit the whole reef. All the fish in the Philippines have learned to avoid the divers........dashing into the giant coral heads at first sight.... The collection has been going on for so long there ,that its kind of like evolution {survival of the smartest fish } Groupers dont hide in caves, they hide in huge coral heads. The fishermen squirt then start snapping off live coral branches to get deep into the coral where the fish are.........Why dont you ask Peter if he can get you one of the videos . [Dr Johannes] I mentioned in the beginning post? Or better yet go collecting groupers and learn just how hard it is with nets.....and how deep into the corals they hide?
_________________
global recession 2008

 

[mkirda]

.......Im sure ,Finding one location that hobby fisherman harmed and taking a photo of it is all TOO easy......

Kalkbreath,

Again, you show the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Please, go to the Philippines sometime and go diving with some collectors, then come back and enlighten us. Until then, you are just blowing smoke.

Later.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

Are you stating that you disagree with '........................................... 1.] 98% of all giant clams taken from the wild are for the food trade. {even 90% of aquacultured clams are for food}..................................................................................................2.] that the food fish trade collects twenty to fifty times more fish ,from WITHIN the same reefs as this hobby. ...............................................................................................3.] That the total amount of live hard coral collected per year can fit inside two cargo box [like a Walmart tractor trailer rig hauls on our interstated] ..... .............................................................................. 4.] 99,998 % 0f all seahorses collected are NOt for this trade?.................................................................................................5.]That the collection of soft corals is soo insignificant that CITES has no interest in their collection numbers ? {only the rock} ............................................................................................................. and speaking of rock.....the Male Airport in the Maldives use more live coral and live rock as fill dirt to build that jumbo Airstrip [ for tourism}then this hobby would consume [at present levels ] in onehundred years of live rock collection? ....................................... AND lastly ; do you disagree that nothing proposed by the reform bodys within this hobby will have any effect on these greater issues?
_________________
Mercedes W114

 

[JennM]

Are you stating that you disagree with '........................................... 1.] 98% of all giant clams taken from the wild are for the food trade. {even 90% of aquacultured clams are for food}..................................................................................................2.] that the food fish trade collects twenty to fifty times more fish ,from WITHIN the same reefs as this hobby. ...............................................................................................3.] That the total amount of live hard coral collected per year can fit inside two cargo box [like a Walmart tractor trailer rig hauls on our interstated] ..... .............................................................................. 4.] 99,998 % 0f all seahorses collected are NOt for this trade?.................................................................................................5.]That the collection of soft corals is soo insignificant that CITES has no interest in their collection numbers ? {only the rock} ............................................................................................................. and speaking of rock.....the Male Airport in the Maldives use more live coral and live rock as fill dirt to build that jumbo Airstrip [ for tourism}then this hobby would consume [at present levels ] in onehundred years of live rock collection? ....................................... AND lastly ; do you disagree that nothing proposed by the reform bodys within this hobby will have any effect on these greater issues?

So what are you saying? That the damage that IS done by the hobby trade is OK? Just because somebody else is doing "more" damage, our "little" damage is alright?

Two wrongs never make a right that I'm aware of.

As long as somebody else can be blamed for more damage, anything goes, right?

::::::shaking my head::::

Jenn

 

[Kalkbreath]

No. What I am saying is that even if this hobby ended it would have little effect on the 100,000+ reefs in the world {99% of which this hobby does not collect}...
_________________
Polio Forum

 

[Anonymous]

No. What I am saying is that even if this hobby ended it would have little effect on the 100,000+ reefs in the world {99% of which this hobby does not collect}...

ah

but you wouldn't have a hand in the evil, now, would you? 8O

right now, you do :idea:

 

[JennM]

No. What I am saying is that even if this hobby ended it would have little effect on the 100,000+ reefs in the world {99% of which this hobby does not collect}...

Old Chinese Proverb:

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Kalk, stop running backwards.

Jenn

 

[mkirda]

Are you stating that you disagree with '........................................... 1.] 98% of all giant clams taken from the wild are for the food trade. {even 90% of aquacultured clams are for food}..................................................................................................2.] that the food fish trade collects twenty to fifty times more fish ,from WITHIN the same reefs as this hobby. ...............................................................................................3.] That the total amount of live hard coral collected per year can fit inside two cargo box [like a Walmart tractor trailer rig hauls on our interstated] ..... .............................................................................. 4.] 99,998 % 0f all seahorses collected are NOt for this trade?.................................................................................................5.]That the collection of soft corals is soo insignificant that CITES has no interest in their collection numbers ? {only the rock} ............................................................................................................. and speaking of rock.....the Male Airport in the Maldives use more live coral and live rock as fill dirt to build that jumbo Airstrip [ for tourism}then this hobby would consume [at present levels ] in onehundred years of live rock collection? ....................................... AND lastly ; do you disagree that nothing proposed by the reform bodys within this hobby will have any effect on these greater issues?

Ok, then Kalkbreath, are you then saying that:

1) Cyanide use is not a problem?
2) Coral death from cyanide use is not a problem?
3) Localized overcollection of live rock is not a problem, even in that area?
4) Overcollection of fish, essentially eliminating certain species from the reef, is not a problem?

The point you consistently fail to get, Kalkbreath, is that this hobby does have an impact. You can deny this all you want, but it does have an impact. And because it has an impact, it is a target.

In the greater scheme of things, the point I have raised consistently is that the amount of impact is very small when we compare it to, say, blast fishing for food fish. However, it is impossible to argue that there is NO IMPACT. Any argument to the contrary is to be blind to the facts. And to point to an airport and say, gee, they used more live rock in the making of that airport than the hobby will ever use, is, while right on one level, is an argument against the tourism and globalization trends going on everywhere, and has absolutely nothing to do with the hobby. You are redirecting the focus to include irrelevant topics- deliberate obfuscation.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

Yes this hobby has an impact...........but it is very small. We are piosoning the minds of the public and our fellow hobbyists with the notion that we willl, with reform help save the reefs. Cyanide fishing is the only black eye this hobby has........there are no fish in short supply due to overcollection, Except where habitat distruction is is also taking place.
_________________
the global economy

 

[kylen]

Kalk,

You seem to fail to grasp the concept that this hobby can and should uphold itself to higher standards with respect to collection methods. Yes we will all agree that the aquarium trade has a significantly lower impact on the environment than do other things such as the food fishery, pollution, etc. It still does not mean that because we have a lower impact that we should carry on in the manner that has been practiced for the last 20+ years.

I don't think that we are poisoning the minds of the public when much of what is being stated is the truth about this industry. Sometimes the truth hurts. This industry should do it's part to protect the collection areas and maybe some focus can be put on other destructive practices.

 

[Kalkbreath]

Our hobby has the highest standard of any industry farming the reefs.{ cement mining, curio trade and seafood are they others}When the public and newbies entering the hobby hear all the concerns about this hobby and its collection practices, the public blames us for the reefs dying and many new potential hobbyists are turned off by the idea of becoming a part of the reef decline. Coral collection has never been shown to have any lasting ill effects on any healthy reef . In fact every country that we collect corals from , remains the most looked after and healthy in the world.The problem with trying to fix our collection practices of reef fishes....is that it most likley wont happen. This means that everyone riding the "net only" bandwagon is going to be very disappointed. During the Twenty years of trying to fix the cyanide collection problem has led nowhere .{even when we had testing in place} Just imagine what we as a hobby might have achieved with all that energy and effort,if the focus had been on public awareness and actually saving the reefs? ,. instead of saving the hobbies' good name. ? If what you are arguing is that , no one has the right to imprison a poor little fish ,to be a pet? a Then I respect that perspective. If what you are saying is that because one or two island countries (out of a possible 200 }partake in distructive fishing practices and thus the intire industry must be shut down . I disagree, think of those islands as the sacrificial lamb . By harming a few reefs, we protect the thousands of other reefs...................... Much like farming .We cant produce enough food for mankind in the native forests and our native woods. By plowing down a few forests to make farmland in Idaho, having one area destroyed, is the only way we can spare the areas yet unspoiled! .We need more hobbyists, The reefs need more hobbyists....... {more lovers} If this hobby continues to create a false public perception that we are a major part of the destruction of the worlds reefs, then we will have lost the respect and the interest of those very people that must learn to protect what they love. What better way to fall in love with the reefs then to have one of your own? ...................................................
_________________
Honda Superhawk

 

[kylen]

Kalk,

Again you seem to be defending cyanide use as acceptable for collection of aquarium fish. The standards that are used in our industry are still not good enough, even though they may be better than other industries. I can't speak for them.

I am not advocating the shutting down of the industry, in fact far from it as I make my living from this at the moment. What I am advocating is the proper collection practice of the two island countries of which you speak. They should not be considered environmental sacrificial lambs as you say. Why do we need to harm a few reefs anyway? This is the whole point. Why is cyanide use on a few reefs acceptable to you?

To use your forestry analogy, here in British Columbia our forestry practices have come under worldwide scrutiny. Would it still be alright to clearcut entire second generation forests just so we can save the old growth forest? Of course not. Logging practices have changed in order to get the wood that is required, yet minimizing impact on the environment. Why can't we use nets to collect fish while minimizing the impact on the reef, even in the two island nations?

Just as a side. Having spoken with Canadian CITES officials last week, the coral and rock collection practices of Fiji are of great concern with CITES.

 

[Anonymous]

kylen

you don't seem to understand that kalk just has a very simple problem:

he can't deal with responsibility, even for the things he makes a living from :wink:

maybe, one day, he'll mature, -but if i were you, i wouldn't hold my breath
:wink:

 

[kylen]

I think what is happening is that I keep banging my head against my keyboard when I read Kalk's posts and stuff gets typed :lol: .

 

[mkirda]

Our hobby has the highest standard of any industry farming the reefs.

Oh, Puleeze.

Fishing is an extractive industry. For the most part, it is similar to logging- collect all the fish (cut down all the trees), then move on to another area.
Any history lesson that talks about fishing in a place like the Philippines will tell you this, Kalkbreath. People do not value what they do not own, and when it is owned collectively, it is not valued. Simple concept, called tragedy of the commons. Whole areas of the Philippines where cyanide collection took place have been degraded to a point where many fish no longer recruit there.
Luzon and the Visayan regions were especially hard-hit.

Go diving there, then go diving in an area that is still pristine, an area where extractive fishing, using cyanide, has taken place, then compare and contrast. Any rational human being could not but come to the conclusion that extractive fishing using cyanide damages the reefs. Why can you not concede this?

Deny it all you want. You'd still be wrong.

Again, I ask, what (or whose?) agenda is it that you are trying so hard to put forth?
Sure seems to be pro-status quo, therefore pro-cyanide for fish collection, environmental consequences be damned.

Why are you so against those who would like to see the cycle of cyanide use be broken?
Why are you so against the net-caught movement?

Regards.
Mike Kirda