Conservation Thread

[sdcfish]

Rex and Dr. Ochavillo,

I would also like to welcome you to this forum. I am Eric from Sea Dwelling Creatures, a Los Angeles based aquarium fish wholesaler.

As a company and personally, we are very interested to learn more about how we can become involved and contribute to the better of the aquarium industry.

I hope this forum will be informative, enjoyable and beneficial for all parties concerned.

Thanks again for your efforts and cooperation,

Eric

 

[PeterIMA]

Gregor stated,
"A lot of lab testing has been done and CN is sometimes detected in fish. OK that makes sense (although whether that testing is reproduceable and reliable is an open question. All testing has been stopped in the Philippines because of these questions.) "

Gregor, You are misinformed. As far as I know BFAR still maintains two laboratories where cyanide testing is conducted, Puerto Pricesa and Manila. To my knowledge they are still using the testing procedure and the equipment that they inherited from the IMA.

The MAC conducted a flawed review of IMA's Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). An unpublished report by Paul Holthus concluded the test was unreliable. IMA provided a rebuttal that showed that it was not the test but the incompetence of the consultant who tried to repeat the procedure. Likewise, Dr. Rennerberg's graduate student Karen Mak did not obtain the correct SOP and did not use the right equipment.

Several experts who were on the MAC panel have provided letters that affirm the reliability of the SOP (which is the standard method used by the American Society of Testing and Material, American Public Health Association, and the US-Environmental Protection Agency). Letters from Dr. George Gibson, Chairman of the Dept. of Biology, University of Waterloo, Dr. Ellen Gonter (formerly with USEPA and a member of the ASTM Committee, and Dr. Martin Frant (with ThermoOrion) confirm that the methods presently used by BFAR and previously used by the IMA are reliable. It should be noted that Drs. Gonter and Frant were on the MAC review committee and disagree with the conclusions reached by Paul Holthus. They were not given an opportunity to review the report before it was sent to IMA in 1999. Similarly Dr. Renneberg never contacted the IMA to obtain the correct SOP. I can send the SOPs, the letters, MAC review, and the IMA rebuttal to you if you wish to review them.

The MAC has had 5 years to come up with a better test and nothing has materialized. Even Dr. Renneberg's enzymatic test does not appear to be acceptable to the MAC. Why not?
Peter Rubec, Ph.D.

 

[clarionreef]

re-Posted: 24 Apr 2006 17:24 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric writes;
..."not ALL of us believe all the negativity that has been thrown around in these forums for too long now."


The GEF managing the MAMTI /MAC initiatives anchored in the issue of aquarium trade reform apparently believe there is enough negativity out on the reefs to warrant an 8 million dollar dispersal.
Are they overstating the cause?
Steve
Remember, the scope of the project is w/ aquarium fish...not miratory tuna management, sharks and finfish. Its not even w/in the scope of the live fish cyanide trade to Hong Kong.

 

[clarionreef]

Eric,
OK...its moved to here.
Gregor says;

Now lets use teh common sense approach. There are many reefs where CN fishing has been practiced by hundreds of fishermen for over 50 years now, and they do not appear to be any worse off than reefs where no CN fishing has been practiced.

I am just giving my personal experience/observations here, not trying to say that I have done the needed field experiments. So you can take my opinions and add a few dollars and buy a cup of coffee or ignore them.

To me, the problem with the CN issue is that it has diverted energy and resources away from solving the real problems which are how to come up with fiancial incentives to increase fish supply and reduce fishing pressure on wild caught fish. Hopefully, through our current work we can find a few answers.
Greg
______________________________________

Now...
He appears to infer that the damage has not been that bad...or its bad ...but habitat destruction from cyanide was not so bad .

So...if the habitat was not so compromised then aquarium trades effect has been merely one of extraction of the reefs faster growing fishes...and has therefore been given a bad rap...
Why then so much money granted to fix a lesser problem? Has the issue been overblown...cuz if it has been then the budget to fix it is as well.
I am confused.

Steve

 

[Reef Check HQ]

Peter,

Please give me the citation for a peer-reviewed journal article that demonstrates that CN kills reefs by the mile. There are literally tens of thousands of square miles of reefs in the Philippines let along Indonesia. Testing a fish in the lab is not evidence that coral reefs are being damaged on a signficant scale.

WHile I realize that some individuals and groups have made a career out of this, the evidence is not there.

Steve,

I am not stating that CN is not a problem on some reefs that are heavily fished, what I am stating is that the problem has been blown way out of proportion, distracting from the more important problems causing damage
to Philippines reefs.

But of course all these types of damage are cumulative. The best course we can take is to try to get well managed MPAs set up and get the fishermen involved in management. We have some amazing success stories such as Gilutongan Island where in just two years, Reef Check working with other NGOs helped to set up an MPA that is a real oasis of coral and fish life. It recovered much faster than anyone expected and is now a prime tourism destination with some $50,000 profit this year. For the families of Gilutongan. This is a windfall and now they have built a new visitors center and a school is on the way!

The main tool used to protect this site was an enthusiastic manager named Nong Tuti, equipped with a flashlight, who was willing to stay up at night and chase away intruders. He deserves all the credit for an amazing success. Guns are not the answer. The participation of the fishermen early on in a Reef Check volunteer survey was one of the critical steps in gaining their support.


Greg

 

[Anonymous]

Care to cite a peer reviewed article that states it's been "blown out of proportion"?

If this truly is the case, then why was it cited so heavily in the reports that got the MAMTI funding in the first place. Seems to me, saying that is just a cop out for groups to glaze over the truth. The UN report sure thought it's a huge problem. Heck, they even cited trawling and bomb fishing as a destructive method of collecting MO.

 

[Reef Check HQ]

Hi Mark,

You continue to take up a lot of space to beat around the bush and I am not going to re-address questions that I have already answered. I guess some people have a lot of free time on their hands?

Since we are in a mood of "transparency and openess" I assume this works in both directions? I would like to start by asking some questions of my own.

1) Why are there a group of former MAC employees hiding behind fake names to try to undermine MAC instead of spending their energy to write their own proposals to get their own funds to create a certification program the way they want? If all the negative energy on this forum were turned into positive pursuits like writing grant proposals, you guys might have a few million $ of your own instead of constantly whining about what other well-intentioned groups are doing. There are dozens of Foundations, the World Bank and regional banks that would love to hear from you.

2) Why are you no longer working for MAC?

3) Why is it that when you were responsible for increasing supply and training fishermen how to improve quality that there was no success and that here in the US some importers did not even know which exporter was certified?

Now to your questions:


1. Does the MAMTI project pay for annual resource assessments to MAQTRAC for every MAMTI MAC Certified collection area throughout the life of the MAMTI program?”

<<That was the original plan but because of the addition of many new sites through co-financing, the funds may not cover all. In addition, while Reef Check has been working with MAC for four years, the MAMTI project is only 1 year old and many of the procedures including MAQQTRAC have changed during that time as we have learned from experience.>>

2. If so, what is the budget allocation for each site? <<Already answered this>>

3. If not, how is this cost to be covered? << See above>>

4. Are all the sites being worked on in the Philippines and Indonesia part of the MAMTI Project? << Yes>>

5. What is the appeal process if a group of collectors believes that the MAQTRAC survey undertaken is inaccurate? <<they can challenge the numbers, ask for a resurvey or provide any data they have to support their case>>

6. Who were the primary “reviewers” of the MAMTI proposal (say the top 6 reviewers)? You mentioned “dozens of reviewers” ?<< Already answered>>


New questions:

Is the “Reef Check fisheries management plan” the same thing as MAC’s “Collection Area Management Plan (CAMP)?”

<<No, it is what the title implies>>

How does MAMTI deal with the food fisheries?

<<We try to account for the level of food fishery and potential impacts on the aquarium fishery when considering allowable catch>>

None of the reviewers mentioned are from the industry, who in the industry reviewed the proposal?

<<No idea -- but woudl guess the MAC Board at the time and others did -- this is outside RC's area of responsiblity>>

Is one of the reviewers you mention i.e. Dr. Alan White, now a MAC Board member?
<<I don't know, why don't you ask him?>>

Cheers,
Greg

 

[Anonymous]

In addition to coral, the United States imports
nearly half (eight million) of the total worldwide trade
in aquarium fishes (15–20 million/year). Many of the
fish imported for the marine aquarium market in the
U.S. are captured with the use of cyanide and other
poisons, which kills non-target animals and the coral
reef itself.

http://www.aaas.org/international/afric ... _Reefs.pdf

From:Global Trade and Consumer
Choices:
Coral Reefs in Crisis

Editted by Barbara Best

This is just one case out of hundreds. I can cite more if you like. Why cites it as a problem, get funding, then say it's "over blown"?

I guess since your the new guy, I need to tell you my name? I have, my handle is my name

ps. please cite a peer reiviewed paper stating the CN problem is "over blown"?

 

[Anonymous]

http://www.unep.org/PDF/From_Ocean_To_A ... report.pdf

UNEP report:

From Ocean To Aquarium

[54 hits on cyanide in this report]

States it's a problem as well, and says nothing about it being "over blown". Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't UNEP have something to do with MAMTI?

 

[Anonymous]

I get 34,000+ hits when I google Marine Aquarium Council + cyanide. granted many may not be a full hit, but even it it's a thousand hits, that kind makes me think that MAC thinks the cyanide problem isn't overblown as well.

 

[Anonymous]

Tons of peer reviewed papers cited by this one, all basicly pointing to there being a large scale CN problem.

http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-12/eb/index.php

 

[Anonymous]

102 references in this MAMTI document:

http://www.gefweb.org/Documents/Work_Pr ... cument.pdf

 

[Anonymous]

322 hits for ReefCheck + cyanide when googled.

 

[Anonymous]

259 hits for CCIF + cyanide when googled.

Seems to me that all the stake holders in MAMTI have stated cyanide is a big problem, up until a few days ago.

 

[Reef Check HQ]

I think I made it clear in my previous posts that this was my opinion and all of you are free to disagree with it. But I am afraid that citing #s of hits on web sites is not the way science works.

The claim is being made that CN is damaging reefs on a large scale by many of those you cite. I am just raising the question of how realistic this claim is and I am not claiming I have any study to back this up -- but neither does anyone who is making the claim if you read my previous post carefully.

You know, Galileo was a young professor at Padua Univ. when he went against accepted opinion and that of his professors that two cannon balls of different weights would hit the ground at the same time when dropped from a height. If Google had existed at that time, all the "hits" would have supported the idea that the two balls would hit at different times.

So guess what, not only did Galileo not get tenure, but they put hiim under house arrest for several years. But eventually, science wins -- people kept trying this experiment in different parts of the world and they showed that he was right and such is the way of science. I am pointing out the lack of a good scientific, peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates the large impacts many people seem to believe are happening. Sorry to be unpopular.

Good science raises hypotheses such as we are discussing, then tests them, and then retests them again and again until they are accepted.

Some people still believe the earth is flat. Check out the flat earth society.
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublons ... ociety.htm

You are free to believe what you want but my 25 odd years of working on Philippine reefs with and without CN fishing suggests that there is more hype than reality to the CN destroying Phil reefs hypothesis and certainly no peer reviewed paper that demonstrates this. Sure, CN can kill fish and corals, but what is the extent of the impacts on a country scale?

By the way -- has anyone ever studied the impacts of fishermen mixing cyandide in little bottles in their houses with kids playing around. I tend to view the health impacts of cyanide use on fishermen's families as one of the most important and least studied impacts of this problem. While we are so worried about the fish, what about the little kids who get the CN dose from Dad's bottles?

CN is just one or many valid reasons for the MAMTI project -- the main rationale is to manage a fishery in a sustainable manner and include conservation planning as part of that process. This has not happened to date. These are simply my opinions and you are free to ignore them.

Greg

 

[Reef Check HQ]

Folks,

We seem to be getting into a lot of negative territory here. I must admit that it is fun. But the real reason I wanted Reef Check to get involved in this forum was to discuss positive ideas for collaboration between the trade, scientists and non-profits such as Reef Check.

I believe that there has been very little interaction between academic scientists and traders and hobbiests, and NGOs to the detriment of conservation.

What I would really like to focus on here would be suggestions for how to create positive synergies to help move conservation forward. Since no one makes much money in the aquarium trade most people seem involved because they enjoy it. Equally, no one runs an NGO unless they are passionate about it coz you sure don't make much money in this business.

Last year, at CIRCOP in Paris, the French companies and hobbiests got together and sold fragments to raise funds for conservation activities such as I described in Gilutongan Island in a previous post.

This is a concrete way for hobbiests and the trade to get directly involved and provide the funds to an NGO of your choice. There are dozens working on reef conservation.

Mike King has been planting reefs for quite a while now and I am not sure how that is going.

I would be interested in other ideas you may have about how the trade can directly be involved in reef conservation.

Reef Check has VOLUNTEER teams in about 80 countries. We would be happy to pick up your ideas and implement them in the field.

Sadly, I will be out of email range doing a workshop in Baja for the next few days. So I will look forward to responding when I return this weekend. In the meantime, Dr. Ochavillo and Rex may have their own ideas on conservation and even CN.

Greg

 

[naesco]

Gresh, wow, you certainly made the point as best as it possibly could be made.

My question than to Reefcheck is this.
Why have you decided to abandon your position of cyanide? Why the about face?

I can't speak with any authority on science (We have experts on this forum that can cover that), but let me tell you what I have learned on this forum over the years.

The fifthy ilk that use cyanide do so indecriminately. The suggestion that a cyanide user carefully squirts this deadly potion is laughable.

After the cyanide is squirted, the fish are 'stunned' ,the dirtbag (I refuse to use the word fisher out of respect for the others) removes the fish and puts them into his boat. By the time he reaches the shore 50% are dead or dying. 50% of those remaining will not make it past the exporter. 50% of those remaining will die in either the LFS or reefers tanks within several months for no apparent reason.
I learned that it has been alleged that many of those who use cyanide, receive it from the exporter and they deduct its cost against the sale price of the fish.
It has been alleged that many of the exporters are well aware that the fish they recieve are cyanide caught. Some are members of organization whose mandate oppose the use of cyanide.

So this is what I have learned from industry sources on this board.

My question to Gregor is: Have I been lied to. What knowledge does he have what I have just posted. What is true and what is not from is own experience?

Steve, Jaime, Mark and others
It is time for all of you who have been in the Philippines involved in training and are personally aware of cyanide use to post now.

Are the reefs left untouched by the use of cyanide as has been alleged?
How big is the problem today? I was told that the only time it diminished was when IMA were doing cyanide testing in the Philippines.

Did BFAR stop using the than accepted cyanide tests because they were inaccurate or did funding simply dry up?

Gregor please take this comment as a polite observation. I think it would be helpful to your position if you re-read your posts prior to posting as some them smack of a touch of arrogance.

Thank you

 

[clarionreef]

Steve, Jaime, Mark and others
It is time for all of you who have been in the Philippines involved in training and are personally aware of cyanide use to post now.
Oww..!

Wayne,
Although Gregor has seen it out his window...I lived and fished with cyanide fisherman daily for months before converting them on no money at all.... Then lived with them for years.
The stories and observations I have filled monthly reports in FAMA magazine and would fill pages and pages here.
I feel I should edit 99% of my potential contributions here to maintain a fair balance w/ our friends experience in the matter.
We have had a fair say...I have no problem with him having his.
Steve

 

[PeterIMA]

Greg, I am confused like Steve Robinson. The MAMTI program is stated in the GEF proposal to be about "reforming the aquarium trade". You seem to be about "saving the reefs", and "managing the fisheries (implies that you are also funded to deal with the food fisheries, which is not true.)". You only mentioned the collectors once. I get the idea that you see the collectors and the fishermen as "THE PROBLEM". Well maybe they are part of the problem, but you have not explained how you will deal with it. Like how do you get fishermen involved in protecting MPAs?

You seem to be advocating a different program from Dr. Ochavillo and Rex. Rex seems to have the right ideas. He noted that the problems of reef destruction are due to a variety of causes like sedimentation, detructive fishing (including use of cyanide and explosives) and also due to OVERFISHING. On the other hand you emphasized overfishng and deemphasized the use of cyanide. Rex also seemed to be the most concerned with the plight of the fishermen and sees the need for community-based alternative livelihood programs.

De. Ochavillo touted his degrees and feels that the answer is better fisheries management through stock assessment modeling. Who pays to collect and analyze the data? If BFAR can't afford to do it, how does ReefCheck expect to do stock assessemets (for all the fisheries) in both the Philippines and Indonesia?

So, I see three people from ReefCheck with three different programs. How is that possible? Shouldn't you be explaining how what you do supports a common approach?

MPAs are a form of spatial management. I even agree that they are needed. But, you need to explain how the fishermen have been involved in their creation and their protection. How does this benefit the local communities? Again, Gregor claims success (at least in one community). Dr. Ochavillo noted that many MPAs were paper parks and noted there were difficulties in their implementation. Tell us more about how ReefCheck deals with and involves the fishermen and the local communities to achieve "a sustainable aquarium trade".


Peter Rubec

 

[clarionreef]

Theres a problem when you try to remain positive and constructive;
It is suggested that now theres no constantly documented proof of cyanide damage because we have moved past it to the remedy phase....
Who wants to re-hash it all?
Oh...the people who missed it all the first 20 years or so and just joined us. I see.

Living with fisherfolk;
When you live with fisherman in their villages....what do you think we talk about 24-7?...and I mean, 24-7.
When you camp out on the islands and in bancas while fishing far away...what do you think we discuss?
On the 6 hour bus rides to market in Manila with divers bring their catch...whats on the intellectual menu do you think?
When you train fishers and they feel free and safe...you can talk to them til 3 in the morning about their history with cyanide fishing and their stories. When they graduate and learn netcatching, they spill the beans so to speak and will tell all who care to listen what happened all those years.

Living this full time and sleeping in the same huts as fish collectors makes them real...and in many cases, more real then can be imagined. My best friends are ex-cyanide fisherman and we still keep in touch.
They have worked for every group out there...and we kept in touch...and they work around he world...and we are still in touch.

What I know from real life experience about cyanide fishing, its prevalance, its effect and its aftermath has never been shared with the new groups now on stage. [ but it was shared at the Western Marine Conference on Saturday]
The divers know the effect far better then marine scientists who only now dally in it as its become en vogue and funded.
The divers know what happens to the fish and corals as they observed it as a daily routine. Thanks to them, I did as well.
Mature cyanided acroporas slough off pints of snot mucous as they die and turn white within 3-4 days. This is too obvious to point out, but a thousand guys doing this on a commercial level 200 days a year clean out a lot of coral tonnage and habitat.
Few ...[read none...] scientists dive all day with cyanide fishers in the normal commercial hunt for fishes....and see what happens.
Few, if any could even keep up with them as commercial fishers are much stronger divers and can last all day at sea.
The lack of physical ability has kept scientists away from truth on a huge level and they are left searching for it on their computer screens hoping to find info from other scientists who have also failed to work with the locals in any serious manner.
I have thousands of hours underwater in the Philippine alone and hundreds w/ cyanide fishers themselves.
I even have 3-4 hours using cyanide it to gain acceptance and favor with fisherman .

So many times we hoped to be joined by scientific reason and so many times we found the scientists of the time either ensconced in a culture of petty corruption and no missionary zeal or ignorant and dis-interested in the lives and workplaces of the fisherman.
If not for Dr Rubec and Dr Mcallisters work and field visits, we would still have much of this denied I'm sure.

Burning out critical coral habitat weighs heaviliy on specific aquarium species and eliminates blue tangs first on ever single reef.The blue tang is the classic indicator species of a reef too close to cyanide fishers. They range near and far to bring em home and delete the vital coral niche with each and every tang caught. Needless to say, this ruins the habitat for any other species as well and kills the larvae thereabouts as well.
Watching cyanide fisherman at work before interfering with them is truly thing to behold. Few will see it but the carnage is incredible, relentless, and ongoing for hours.
The by-catch is fully 50% of the fishes poisoned..and is left behind.
The spastic, spinning and crashing into coralheads by angelfishes is so sad to watch...they rocket around and then lie still. Half do not come out of the corals and stay inside. Then the corals may get crushed to reach the inert fishes.
No documented damage? :roll:
Puh-lease...
All that means is that no city boys were invited to come and dive on a cyanide boat...thats all. And why would a cyanide fisher want to bring out strangers to watch him break the law???
Pointing out the paucity of documentation on felony committing fisherman suggests merely that they prefer to break the law in private...... :roll:
I have denied writing a dozen posts like this...but this one got out.
Sorry.
Steve