Terry's paper Advanced Aquarist
- Thread starter PeterIMA
- Start date
Why is it that there is this preoccupation with saving the relatively few fish that die during MO trade shipping? Humanitarian? More dogs and Cats die each year in animal shelters then marine fish die crossing the ocean to America.
Only about seven percent of the average shipment of fish .......come in DOA.
The idea that this number can be greatly reduced is silly.
Fish die from a vast number of reasons.
The idea that we must address each reason and that even if it only "saves one fish" mentality is a little child like.
People that have been shipping fish for twenty years fully understand the dynamics involved.
The number one factor in landing healthy fish has more to do with pre shipping events on the islands, then the actual shipping of the animals.
Breath bags have never been shown to work in real world shipping and even if they didn't tear or let the cold and other bad things in.........the number of fish in the 7% DOA group that could be "saved " with their use would be few.
The idea that Hyposalinity should be implemented world wide simply because fish and some sharks can survive the exposure and that hypo treatments may help heal sick fish , is forgetting that preventing the fish from getting ill to begin with is paramount.
The quality of the holding water is far more important then the salinity. Until the polar ice caps melt a tad bit more .....and reduce the salinity of natural sea water . Both Philippine fish collectors and The Wakkikki Aquarium will have to injure the limitations of current natural Sea water salinity's.
Risking the heath of the 93% percentage of transported fish which land alive, with abandoning open system filtration's is just not worth the saving of a percentage point or two.
Next week I expect that Reeformes will be pushing or mandatory implementation of the use of Magnets strapted to the outside of a PVC pipe......... because they [The Reeformers] heard somewhere that its use results in Zero fish losses ............just like the attached research papers state on the box!
:roll:
Only about seven percent of the average shipment of fish .......come in DOA.
The idea that this number can be greatly reduced is silly.
Fish die from a vast number of reasons.
The idea that we must address each reason and that even if it only "saves one fish" mentality is a little child like.
People that have been shipping fish for twenty years fully understand the dynamics involved.
The number one factor in landing healthy fish has more to do with pre shipping events on the islands, then the actual shipping of the animals.
Breath bags have never been shown to work in real world shipping and even if they didn't tear or let the cold and other bad things in.........the number of fish in the 7% DOA group that could be "saved " with their use would be few.
The idea that Hyposalinity should be implemented world wide simply because fish and some sharks can survive the exposure and that hypo treatments may help heal sick fish , is forgetting that preventing the fish from getting ill to begin with is paramount.
The quality of the holding water is far more important then the salinity. Until the polar ice caps melt a tad bit more .....and reduce the salinity of natural sea water . Both Philippine fish collectors and The Wakkikki Aquarium will have to injure the limitations of current natural Sea water salinity's.
Risking the heath of the 93% percentage of transported fish which land alive, with abandoning open system filtration's is just not worth the saving of a percentage point or two.
Next week I expect that Reeformes will be pushing or mandatory implementation of the use of Magnets strapted to the outside of a PVC pipe......... because they [The Reeformers] heard somewhere that its use results in Zero fish losses ............just like the attached research papers state on the box!
:roll:
Kalk, Even if one assumes that the DOA is 7%, you seem to forget (on purpose I assume) that the DAA may be twice as high as the DOA. So, if you assume 7% DOA you need to add 14% DAA. Hence, the total DOA+DAA is 20%. I have one major Canadian importer admitting that this is the case.
Secondly, I stated that I was discussing polyethylene bags (that do not exchange gases across the membrane) not breathing bags. So, the comments about breathing bags are irrelevant to the study we are conducting.
I agree that water quality prior to shipment is very important. So is water quality in the bags during shipment. I also tend to agree with your comments about hyposalinity, although I will look into its use as well as other options.
I am not clear what you mean with regard to open system filtration. Can you clarify what you intended to say?
Hey guys, I hear that Kalk has invented a magnet that reduces fish mortality! Where can I buy them?
Unless the trade intends to clean up its act and reduce mortality rates through the chain of custody, I think the REEFORMISTS are right. The U.S. government is justified in passing legislation to ban imports from countries with shoddy collection and shipping practices. What does the MAC intend to do about fish mortalities?
PeterIMA
Secondly, I stated that I was discussing polyethylene bags (that do not exchange gases across the membrane) not breathing bags. So, the comments about breathing bags are irrelevant to the study we are conducting.
I agree that water quality prior to shipment is very important. So is water quality in the bags during shipment. I also tend to agree with your comments about hyposalinity, although I will look into its use as well as other options.
I am not clear what you mean with regard to open system filtration. Can you clarify what you intended to say?
Hey guys, I hear that Kalk has invented a magnet that reduces fish mortality! Where can I buy them?
Unless the trade intends to clean up its act and reduce mortality rates through the chain of custody, I think the REEFORMISTS are right. The U.S. government is justified in passing legislation to ban imports from countries with shoddy collection and shipping practices. What does the MAC intend to do about fish mortalities?
PeterIMA
But what percent of the DOA DAA is improvable?
I fail to see how twenty percent DOA DAA is somehow out of bounds ?
Recreational fishermen kill more fish each day then our hobby
Shrimp industry kills many times more
Food fish industry
Bait industry
etc.
Why not waive your holly cross at these hobbies?
I fail to see how twenty percent DOA DAA is somehow out of bounds ?
Recreational fishermen kill more fish each day then our hobby
Shrimp industry kills many times more
Food fish industry
Bait industry
etc.
Why not waive your holly cross at these hobbies?
Kalkbreath":3n18xzxd said:
This is a typical industry response even at this late a stage in government intervention in our hobby.
Thank goodness the government will mandate something less than 2 percent.
Now all you will have to worry about Kalk is keeping them alive long enough to sell them.
The reef doesn't distinguish between fish that we eat or fish that we remove for pets.
Fish that are removed from the reef are gone as far as the reefs are concerned. The fact that one-third of MO hobby fish do make it into home aquariums has little impact on the reefs.
Yes, it does translate into us collecting one-third more fish. But does our collection have any impact even if we doubled collection totals?
Maybe in a few small locations ...but as a whole what we remove per year as the MO hobby is a tiny drop compared to the constant slaughter of baby fish mother nature carries out naturally each day.
Ninety-five percent of all baby fish are gone from the reef by seasons end. Even in places where nobody fishes, Baby triggers by the thousands are found swimming about each spring. By the following winter , there are no baby triggers to be found.......The same is true for most young reef fish every where in the world.
What we as an industry remove each year even in heavy collection locatons like PI is less fish per kilometer then two grouper fish eat living in the same area of reef . {if the groupers eat one fish a week]
We collect 120 fish per year per kilometer.
Yes, As pet fish collectors we walk an awkward ballance between whats right and wrong ......
Whats our proper position in the web of life on this planet?
I dont know that I have ever fully been able to answer that?
Have You ?
If so Please cast the first stone.............
Fish that are removed from the reef are gone as far as the reefs are concerned. The fact that one-third of MO hobby fish do make it into home aquariums has little impact on the reefs.
Yes, it does translate into us collecting one-third more fish. But does our collection have any impact even if we doubled collection totals?
Maybe in a few small locations ...but as a whole what we remove per year as the MO hobby is a tiny drop compared to the constant slaughter of baby fish mother nature carries out naturally each day.
Ninety-five percent of all baby fish are gone from the reef by seasons end. Even in places where nobody fishes, Baby triggers by the thousands are found swimming about each spring. By the following winter , there are no baby triggers to be found.......The same is true for most young reef fish every where in the world.
What we as an industry remove each year even in heavy collection locatons like PI is less fish per kilometer then two grouper fish eat living in the same area of reef . {if the groupers eat one fish a week]
We collect 120 fish per year per kilometer.
Yes, As pet fish collectors we walk an awkward ballance between whats right and wrong ......
Whats our proper position in the web of life on this planet?
I dont know that I have ever fully been able to answer that?
Have You ?
If so Please cast the first stone.............
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
Wow Kalk,
Your last post was impressive. So much so that the auto-pilot critics were stymied and left w/ the 'shoot the messenger' response.
I worked on shrimp boats in Mexico and one of my jobs was to shovel over the side the 98% biomass that we "didn't need".
Every time I found crushed tropical fish like cortez angels, wrasses, snappers, cardinal, jawfishes...etc.
The sheer tonage of small fishes and inverts I shoveled over the side all nite long w/ each raising of the heavy chain net dragged over the bottom had quite an effect on me and taught me how incredible small was the ornamental 'take' of marinelife removed each nite.
Ornamental ...a term not distinguished in the real marine environment.
Many food fish are so-called 'tropicals' in their younger life and
many so-called 'tropicals' grow way beyond what hobbyists imagine.
15 pound batfish, 9 pound miniatus groupers, 5 pound sweetlips, 2 foot naso tangs, 1 1/2 foot blue tangs, 2 1/2 foot across carpet anemones, 10 inch long butterflyfishes etc.
Value added into marinelife because they are pretty is a positive thing and gives cause to notice them. Remove that perceived value and watch how quickly they are tossed onto the heap of ordinary, cheap food fishes or shoveled over the side.
Ask any local fisherman what a dead clown triggers worth with no silly consumers wanting it or what a bicolor angel is worth in the local marketplace.
Ask the locals...the fisherman, the original owners of a newly caught fish what they want to do with it. Go ahead, ask!
Whats a matter? Don't know any? How do you resolve this sort of issue in your mind then if you remove the first and most relevant people in it?
Deciding that the poor fisherman should not touch certain species because they are 'pretty' and please a few detached and disconnected Westerners watching the Discovery channel is the very definition of arrogance.
Leaving the fisherman out of the equation condemns the issue to permanant non resolution and chaos unless you make hundreds of marine parks and armed camps to protect these 'pretty places' you have never seen...
Pretending to care about coral reefs starts with the people who live off them. Whatever keeps us from understanding this be it elitism, ivory-towerism, templated environmentalism, anti-social social development, racism, or what-not...the fact remains, you will never be effective thru remote control.
The fisherman are the key and the centerpiece.. ignoring this is a perennial, glaring and gaping error.
The millions spent on city people by city people on these issues continues...[ and continues to prove the point.]
Steve
Your last post was impressive. So much so that the auto-pilot critics were stymied and left w/ the 'shoot the messenger' response.
I worked on shrimp boats in Mexico and one of my jobs was to shovel over the side the 98% biomass that we "didn't need".
Every time I found crushed tropical fish like cortez angels, wrasses, snappers, cardinal, jawfishes...etc.
The sheer tonage of small fishes and inverts I shoveled over the side all nite long w/ each raising of the heavy chain net dragged over the bottom had quite an effect on me and taught me how incredible small was the ornamental 'take' of marinelife removed each nite.
Ornamental ...a term not distinguished in the real marine environment.
Many food fish are so-called 'tropicals' in their younger life and
many so-called 'tropicals' grow way beyond what hobbyists imagine.
15 pound batfish, 9 pound miniatus groupers, 5 pound sweetlips, 2 foot naso tangs, 1 1/2 foot blue tangs, 2 1/2 foot across carpet anemones, 10 inch long butterflyfishes etc.
Value added into marinelife because they are pretty is a positive thing and gives cause to notice them. Remove that perceived value and watch how quickly they are tossed onto the heap of ordinary, cheap food fishes or shoveled over the side.
Ask any local fisherman what a dead clown triggers worth with no silly consumers wanting it or what a bicolor angel is worth in the local marketplace.
Ask the locals...the fisherman, the original owners of a newly caught fish what they want to do with it. Go ahead, ask!
Whats a matter? Don't know any? How do you resolve this sort of issue in your mind then if you remove the first and most relevant people in it?
Deciding that the poor fisherman should not touch certain species because they are 'pretty' and please a few detached and disconnected Westerners watching the Discovery channel is the very definition of arrogance.
Leaving the fisherman out of the equation condemns the issue to permanant non resolution and chaos unless you make hundreds of marine parks and armed camps to protect these 'pretty places' you have never seen...
Pretending to care about coral reefs starts with the people who live off them. Whatever keeps us from understanding this be it elitism, ivory-towerism, templated environmentalism, anti-social social development, racism, or what-not...the fact remains, you will never be effective thru remote control.
The fisherman are the key and the centerpiece.. ignoring this is a perennial, glaring and gaping error.
The millions spent on city people by city people on these issues continues...[ and continues to prove the point.]
Steve
If so Please cast the first stone.............
This is not a fishing web site. This is a hobbyist website and this is an industry forum.
Don't blame the growing reeform movement set to stop the use of cyanide by those who profit by its use at the expense of the the poor fisher folk in the Philippines and Indonesia.
The reason they are poor and that they are a vanishing breed is that those in our industry and our hobby have sanctioned the use of cyanide which in turn has destroyed the reefs and deprived the fisher folk of the ability to care for themselves and their families.
Money from levys on each fish caught should go to these people so that they can be trained in alternative professions until such time as the reefs are rejuvenated. Until than.....nothing...nothing justifies the use of cyanide period.
This is not a fishing web site. This is a hobbyist website and this is an industry forum.
Don't blame the growing reeform movement set to stop the use of cyanide by those who profit by its use at the expense of the the poor fisher folk in the Philippines and Indonesia.
The reason they are poor and that they are a vanishing breed is that those in our industry and our hobby have sanctioned the use of cyanide which in turn has destroyed the reefs and deprived the fisher folk of the ability to care for themselves and their families.
Money from levys on each fish caught should go to these people so that they can be trained in alternative professions until such time as the reefs are rejuvenated. Until than.....nothing...nothing justifies the use of cyanide period.
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
Ohhh boy,
"A levy on each fish caught"...IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID?
That money-pot would be "re-worked", embezzled, pilfered, shrunken, re-worked, swiped, stolen, re-done and put into an 'administrative budget' or an office guys pocket.
Have you learned nothing here Wayne?
Decent little IMPULSES are not good works in themselves...decent WORKs are what gets you into heaven.
Trading in 'hobby chat ' and fuzzy notions that never even get a second glance from anyone involved in dealing fish is not a profitable use of time.
Why not focus on actual strategy, real remedies, bonafide organizing and fund raising for honest endeavors? If there really was a Reeform group, it could raise a budget and get real. People will 'even do the right thing' if they can get paid for it. If you control a budget of sorts, then perhaps you could enforce the purity of its disbursement.
The "we must generally...somehow...save the planet" schtick is so knee jerk now, so old, and so lame... Its for rank beginners and impresses no one except the Nemo demographic ...ages 10-13.
Reeform...put up and become real. The smoke and mirrors, bluff and fluff stuff fools no one anymore.
On the other hand...if you are real...theres a chance to do something noteworthy.
Steve
"A levy on each fish caught"...IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID?
That money-pot would be "re-worked", embezzled, pilfered, shrunken, re-worked, swiped, stolen, re-done and put into an 'administrative budget' or an office guys pocket.
Have you learned nothing here Wayne?
Decent little IMPULSES are not good works in themselves...decent WORKs are what gets you into heaven.
Trading in 'hobby chat ' and fuzzy notions that never even get a second glance from anyone involved in dealing fish is not a profitable use of time.
Why not focus on actual strategy, real remedies, bonafide organizing and fund raising for honest endeavors? If there really was a Reeform group, it could raise a budget and get real. People will 'even do the right thing' if they can get paid for it. If you control a budget of sorts, then perhaps you could enforce the purity of its disbursement.
The "we must generally...somehow...save the planet" schtick is so knee jerk now, so old, and so lame... Its for rank beginners and impresses no one except the Nemo demographic ...ages 10-13.
Reeform...put up and become real. The smoke and mirrors, bluff and fluff stuff fools no one anymore.
On the other hand...if you are real...theres a chance to do something noteworthy.
Steve
Let me clarify that Steve.
It will be an import tax with the proceeds being used to repair the reef and train fishers in either aquaculture or a new job until the reefs heal from the damage done to the reef by industry in supporting cyanide use.
That Steve will bring REAL money into the pockets of the fishers.
That will bring REAL money to fund retraining and restoration of the reefs.
That will stop the use of cyanide by and industry that worships the dollar and the expense of the reef environment and those who earn a meager living from the resources the reef provides.
Of course there will be those in the dated right wing faction who will bring up the usual anti tax dogma and and cry socialist slogans.
It will be an import tax with the proceeds being used to repair the reef and train fishers in either aquaculture or a new job until the reefs heal from the damage done to the reef by industry in supporting cyanide use.
That Steve will bring REAL money into the pockets of the fishers.
That will bring REAL money to fund retraining and restoration of the reefs.
That will stop the use of cyanide by and industry that worships the dollar and the expense of the reef environment and those who earn a meager living from the resources the reef provides.
Of course there will be those in the dated right wing faction who will bring up the usual anti tax dogma and and cry socialist slogans.
. . . .
Simply magnificent.
It's fascinating, sort of like watching early primates using tools for the first time.
The memories...
I remember when this cat would post nothing but stream-of-unconsciousness bursts of rah-rah enviromentaloony boilerplate,
devoid of any such attempts at 'practical' pseudo detail, and presenting himself as the head of some truly vast 'REFORM' organization.
Honestly, if this isn't a long-running gag, --I mean, this is RDO, cyberland of possibility, so I dunno-- and, like, this fella wants to start a ground-zero practicals debate with STEVE? Come on... gotta be a crank, right? ROFL!
Where was I? Oh right:
If this isn't a gag, someone say so now: so I can knock so many goddam holes in these shallow-draft broad-theory-only proposals that they'll beat the flimsiest plastic bags out there for breathability. Heck, they'd give air a run for the money. Of course, then they won't hold any water, but the comedic pretensions never did from the very start, either.
:lol:
horge
Who said anything about handing it over the the PI government? That would be as stupid as giving tax breaks to the middle class or God forbid providing health care for all who need it.GreshamH":1a0dm3nn said:Sounds great Wayne, why not start with a small pilot project like Canada? Shouldn't be much money changing hands, so it should go quite easy. Just have your government take in the tax, hand it over the the PI government and they'll <chuckle> dispurse it
Childish?naesco":2cuylmjk said:
LOL! Those of us who wetwork, and coordinate private sector, LGU and NGO programs, have practical, personal knowledge on what the problems are, and which purported solutions merely allow lucrative abuse. Your parroted slogans, and vague glossings-over are not merely childish --they are misleading and harmful to reform efforts
When will you actually come up with a "new idea"? I'll even settle for an old idea, if regurgitated with coherence and comprehension. You don't even know what's been tried before, and so think that your 'ideas' are new. Worse, it would follow that you think they haven't been tried and found wanting.
Let's see:
You want an import duty on marine ornamentals, collected and channeled into what exactly? Bureaucracy? Reef restoration/protection? Through what implementing agents? These are just surface questions, and I haven't even got to the issue of enabling legislation or whether the bureaucracy required to collect, hold and presumably disburse the money will cost more to operate than it can collect! This general idea of an import duty on MO has been trotted out so many times, as a casual generalization without any real meat in it, that it's sad that you think it's a 'new' idea.
Just look at all the past SRO- and JVC-model proposals for the marine aquarium trade. They ALL incorporate the sort of import duty you floated, but the math always came up badly, with no cash left for anything but central staff. An SRO has to have expensively-lobbied Congressional or Parliamentary validation, otherwise you're left with a potentially-toothless JVC model, where any importer can opt out and thus offer cheaper wholesale to LFS. The marine aquarium trade cannot hope to be like the original JVC, where the actual retail merchandise requires value-added and is based on already-precious raw material, with fewer players over on the raw-material side to coordinate a chokepoint control (import-wise), and thus give the JVC its revenues, power and authority.
You didn't know any of that, did you? But you don't even have to flip paper to find this information: they're on the bloody intenet if you want to study matter before you open your mouth. Research, even on the internet, may be a smidgen more difficult than obtaining boilerplate slogans from National Geographic or the Discovery Channel, but hey...
:lol: :lol: :lol:
You need to get your feet wet (or at least read more) before you generalize.
In this Forum, I can occasionally find plenty to disagree with, when Steve, Peter, and others post... but they have undeniable practical experience and trained knowledge on the subject to back up their positions. Even the newest hobbyists have valuable ideas, but unlike you, they generally don't misrepresent themselves as heading some (made-up) organization. Most importantly, they and we come here to discuss, to learn, and to find ways to help.
You?
You seem to just upchuck what's in pop publications, and older emissions by others on this Forum. You toss out your cut-and-paste generalizations... your apocalyptic soundbites, and for what? The hope that a newcomer to this forum mistakes you for what you pretend at? You evade offering specifics, seemingly hoping that someone else, posting under the illusion of a real discussion, will add to your cache of cut-and-paste.
But please, do start a fresh thread on your 'per-fish tax' if you can.
Provide more than the bare, cursory description of 'your idea' you've offered thus far. Let's see what you've got, and let this thread on Terry's paper can get back on-topic.
But please, do start a fresh thread on your 'per-fish tax' if you can.
Provide more than the bare, cursory description of 'your idea' you've offered thus far. Let's see what you've got, and let this thread on Terry's paper can get back on-topic.
I will. Soon. It is just that I have some pressing matters to attend to now.
Provide more than the bare, cursory description of 'your idea' you've offered thus far. Let's see what you've got, and let this thread on Terry's paper can get back on-topic.
I will. Soon. It is just that I have some pressing matters to attend to now.
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:
