Conservation Thread
- Thread starter sdcfish
- Start date
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
Gigantic Apes Coexisted with Early Humans, Study FindsBy Bjorn Carey
LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 07 November 2005
01:34 pm ET
A gigantic ape standing 10 feet tall and weighing up to 1,200 pounds lived alongside humans for over a million years, according to a new study.
Fortunately for the early humans, the huge primate's diet consisted mainly of bamboo.
Scientists have known about Gigantopithecus blackii since the accidental discovery of some of its teeth on sale in a Hong Kong pharmacy about 80 years ago. While the idea of a giant ape piqued the interest of scientists – and bigfoot hunters – around the world, it was unclear how long ago this beast went extinct.
Precise dating
Now Jack Rink, a geochronologist at McMaster University in Ontario, has used a high-precision absolute-dating method to determine that this ape – the largest primate ever – roamed Southeast Asia for nearly a million years before the species died out 100,000 years ago during the Pleistocene period. By this time, humans had existed for a million years.
"A missing piece of the puzzle has always focused on pin-pointing when Gigantopithecus existed," Rink said. "This is a primate that co-existed with humans at a time when humans were undergoing a major evolutionary change. Guangxhi province in southern China, where some of the Gigantopithecus fossils were found, is the same region where some believe the modern human race originated."
Since the original discovery, scientists have been able to piece together a description of Gigantopithecus using just a handful of teeth and a set of jawbones. It may not be much, but the unusually large size of these teeth indicates they belonged to one big ape.
"The size of these specimens – the crown of the molar, for instance, measures about an inch across – helped us understand the extraordinary size of the primate," Rink said.
What happened?
Humans may have helped destroy the ape.
Further studies of the teeth revealed that the ape was an herbivore, and bamboo was probably its favorite meal. Some scientists believe that an appetite focused on bamboo combined with increasing competition from more nimble humans eventually led to the extinction of Gigantopithecus.
While most scientists agree that Gigantopithecus died out long ago, some people – Bigfoot, Sasquatch, and Yeti enthusiasts in particular – believe that this ape is the source of tales of giant, hairy beasts roaming the woods. These claims are not considered credible by mainstream scientists. There have been cases in which creatures are first known first by their fossil remains and later found living, such as the coelacanth – a type of fish thought to have died out millions of years ago until it was discovered swimming off the coast of Africa in 1938.
Researchers do not have a full skeleton for Gigantopithecus. But they can fill in the gaps and estimate its size and shape by comparing it to other primates – those that came before it, coexisted with it, and also modern apes. Currently, scientists are debating over how Gigantopithecus got around – was it bipedal or did it use its arms to help it walk, like modern chimpanzees and orangutans? The only way to answer this is to collect more bones.
Kalk,
Peter was right about Gigantopithecus.
Its just that alledged recent sightings have muddied the issue...and made it a contemporary joke.
The scientific point is that he was very real....just like other things we scoff at.
Steve
LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 07 November 2005
01:34 pm ET
A gigantic ape standing 10 feet tall and weighing up to 1,200 pounds lived alongside humans for over a million years, according to a new study.
Fortunately for the early humans, the huge primate's diet consisted mainly of bamboo.
Scientists have known about Gigantopithecus blackii since the accidental discovery of some of its teeth on sale in a Hong Kong pharmacy about 80 years ago. While the idea of a giant ape piqued the interest of scientists – and bigfoot hunters – around the world, it was unclear how long ago this beast went extinct.
Precise dating
Now Jack Rink, a geochronologist at McMaster University in Ontario, has used a high-precision absolute-dating method to determine that this ape – the largest primate ever – roamed Southeast Asia for nearly a million years before the species died out 100,000 years ago during the Pleistocene period. By this time, humans had existed for a million years.
"A missing piece of the puzzle has always focused on pin-pointing when Gigantopithecus existed," Rink said. "This is a primate that co-existed with humans at a time when humans were undergoing a major evolutionary change. Guangxhi province in southern China, where some of the Gigantopithecus fossils were found, is the same region where some believe the modern human race originated."
Since the original discovery, scientists have been able to piece together a description of Gigantopithecus using just a handful of teeth and a set of jawbones. It may not be much, but the unusually large size of these teeth indicates they belonged to one big ape.
"The size of these specimens – the crown of the molar, for instance, measures about an inch across – helped us understand the extraordinary size of the primate," Rink said.
What happened?
Humans may have helped destroy the ape.
Further studies of the teeth revealed that the ape was an herbivore, and bamboo was probably its favorite meal. Some scientists believe that an appetite focused on bamboo combined with increasing competition from more nimble humans eventually led to the extinction of Gigantopithecus.
While most scientists agree that Gigantopithecus died out long ago, some people – Bigfoot, Sasquatch, and Yeti enthusiasts in particular – believe that this ape is the source of tales of giant, hairy beasts roaming the woods. These claims are not considered credible by mainstream scientists. There have been cases in which creatures are first known first by their fossil remains and later found living, such as the coelacanth – a type of fish thought to have died out millions of years ago until it was discovered swimming off the coast of Africa in 1938.
Researchers do not have a full skeleton for Gigantopithecus. But they can fill in the gaps and estimate its size and shape by comparing it to other primates – those that came before it, coexisted with it, and also modern apes. Currently, scientists are debating over how Gigantopithecus got around – was it bipedal or did it use its arms to help it walk, like modern chimpanzees and orangutans? The only way to answer this is to collect more bones.
Kalk,
Peter was right about Gigantopithecus.
Its just that alledged recent sightings have muddied the issue...and made it a contemporary joke.
The scientific point is that he was very real....just like other things we scoff at.
Steve
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
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.
Mature cyanided acroporas slough off pints of snot mucous as they die and turn white within 3-4 days.
I have witnessed and even caused these snot balls and seen the dead corals later.
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.
Kalk,
The fact that scientists have a hard time keeping up does not prove much more then their inability to keep up.
I could lead them to what you seek. But I would never be allowed on any gravy train using this issue to make money....thats for sure. Steve
If not for Dr Rubec and Dr Mcallisters work and field visits, we would still have much of this denied I'm sure.
Mature cyanided acroporas slough off pints of snot mucous as they die and turn white within 3-4 days.
I have witnessed and even caused these snot balls and seen the dead corals later.
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.
Kalk,
The fact that scientists have a hard time keeping up does not prove much more then their inability to keep up.
I could lead them to what you seek. But I would never be allowed on any gravy train using this issue to make money....thats for sure. Steve
I think that Kalk is right in stating that what we want to learn from Reefcheck is: What are the present status of Philippine and Indonesian coral reefs? There are a number of causes of reef destruction including siltation, coastal pollution, destructive fishing methods including cyanide fishing, blast fishing, muro-ami, kayakas, and illegal trawling nearshore. At least, I have not stated that it was all due to cyanide. For a peer-reviewed paper look up "The Need For Conservation and Management of Philippine Coral Reefs". This paper that I wrote was published in 1988 in the scientific journal Environmental Biology of Fishes. The paper covers all of the problems.
The IMA adopted net-training and formed a training team in 1986 as an alternative to cyanide fishing because we believed it was a manageable problem. At the time I estimated there were about 1500 aquarium fish collectors using cyanide. We did not state that cyanide was the sole cause of the destruction of coastal habitats (expecially coral reefs). I do believe it is a serious problem that at the time had been overlooked.
There are papers that have estimated that there were 800,000 small scale fishermen in the Philippines. We don't know exactly the proportion of these fisherman using explosives for blast fishing. Estimates range from 15 to 38%. So, blast fishing may be more widespread. However, cyanide kills everything, while blast fishing leaves broken corals that can still sustain marine aquarium fishes.
Gregor has not stated his case clearly. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are necessary to protect biodiversity, including both food fish and marine aquarium fishes. My concern is that he has not explained (yet) how he involves local communities including the MAF collectors and the small-scale food fishers. Without their involvement, we will end up with fish counts documenting a decline in these resources. But we already knew that was occurring.
My questions pertain to how the different components described by Dr. Hodgson, Dr. Ochavillo, and Rex tie together to achieve the goals stated in the MAMTI proposal.
Peter Rubec
The IMA adopted net-training and formed a training team in 1986 as an alternative to cyanide fishing because we believed it was a manageable problem. At the time I estimated there were about 1500 aquarium fish collectors using cyanide. We did not state that cyanide was the sole cause of the destruction of coastal habitats (expecially coral reefs). I do believe it is a serious problem that at the time had been overlooked.
There are papers that have estimated that there were 800,000 small scale fishermen in the Philippines. We don't know exactly the proportion of these fisherman using explosives for blast fishing. Estimates range from 15 to 38%. So, blast fishing may be more widespread. However, cyanide kills everything, while blast fishing leaves broken corals that can still sustain marine aquarium fishes.
Gregor has not stated his case clearly. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are necessary to protect biodiversity, including both food fish and marine aquarium fishes. My concern is that he has not explained (yet) how he involves local communities including the MAF collectors and the small-scale food fishers. Without their involvement, we will end up with fish counts documenting a decline in these resources. But we already knew that was occurring.
My questions pertain to how the different components described by Dr. Hodgson, Dr. Ochavillo, and Rex tie together to achieve the goals stated in the MAMTI proposal.
Peter Rubec
Well, we are in luck folks coz I found a cafe here in Margaritaville. I also apologize if some of my posts seem arrogant and that might be because between myself and my staff ... we have spent more time in the water surveying coral reefs and working directly with CN fishermen over the last 25 years than most. Some of the stuff that some people have posted on here is pretty funny ...sorry... especially from the so...called experts.... For example some folks have claimed that scientists cannot keep up with fishermen... that is pretty funny and just shows ignorance ... we keep up with them every day. Others have claimed that CN fishermen squirt CN all over the reef and that is pretty funny too because like anything else, CN costs money......so maybe some inexperienced guys squirt it in the wrong direction .. but most are trying to hit the target.
I wonder how many of these self'proclaimed experts speak Tagalog and Cebuano ..... like my staff and I do. How many fishermen do you know who actually trust someone who doesn´t speak their language....
Well it is a free society and you can believe what you want... but it is hard not to laugh sometimes..... sure some of these guys have spent some time out there, but just long enough to get sucked into thinking they are the experts....Like the post about muroami .. as if it was discovered in 1988... the BBC made a documentary on it in 1980...sorry... I helped.
Nakakatawa talaga. ¨¨Its funny.¨¨
If net training experts were so successful years ago ... then why is CN still a problem..sorry no question marks on Mex keyboard. WHat happened to all those heroic net fishermen .... didn´t the training stick...was their training a failure... or did they fail to provide economic incentives to fishermen to stick with net fishing. Something that MAC is trying to do.
Why don´t these supposed experts stop complaining about MAC and set up their own NGO and write their own grants and do it the ¨right¨¨ way... i.e. the way they think it should be done. Why dont they make positive suggestions on how they think ¨¨it¨¨ ought to be done rather then just complaining about what MAC is supposedly doing wrong.
Now lets talk money as that is one thing I see coming up again and again in complaints.The grant is $6.6 million OVER FIVE YEARS... and just doing some basic math, with three partners that would be just over $300,000 per year split by two countries leaving about $150,000 per year per partner per country to do an immense amount of training, science, MPA design, rehab work at dozens of sites etc. etc. This is not a lot of money to do the agreed work and it is relatively small compared to what most businesses profit.
Most of you have not had the experience of living in the villages and working with fishermen ... so you probably tend to believe what these guys have been telling you all these years.
I think that I have pretty clearly stated my position on CN .... yes it is a problem still .... and yes it is one reason put forward in the MAMTI proposal regarding damage to reefs, but no it is not killing large areas of reef. Maybe at best it is degrading some reefs in heavily fished areas...but I can see that this idea is creating some confusion because few outsiders have any idea what the MAMTI project is about and why agencies such as the World Bank or UN or private foundations would support this work.
Folks these agencies are interested in coral reef conservation, and like Reef Check, see the aquarium trade as a financial incentive to achieve this. They understand that the world´s reefs are in trouble and that these impacts are additive and that CN is just one of the problems affecting reefs.
One of the posters understood clearly what I was saying and said that if so much reef is getting killed by CN where are the pics. But pics alone are not enough as I said previously, we need before and after pics ON THE SCALE suggested by the ¨Sky is falling CN crowd¨ Just like I can take a pic of a frisbee and make it look like a UFO, I can say here is a pic of a dead coral and claim it was killed by CN.
By the way I am happy to admit my errors and here is one for you. I thought that BFAR had closed their labs but I checked with BFAR and there are still several labs open. By the way, I worked with BFAR for three years.
Two independent groups of scientists have tried to reproduce the CN methods and have failed to produce reliable results when using controls. This suggests that the CN tests may be less reliable than thought..... note I said suggests because the science is not yet there in terms of repeated trials and species... but it is worrisome.
More importantly, I note that everyone seems to enjoy the continued negativity and NO ONE responded to my call to suggest ideas on how the trade could work with academics and NGOs more effectively to share knowledge that might lead to maintaining corals reefs ....
BTW I would like to personally invite anyone on this list to visit the MAMTI sites and see for yourselves what Reef Check is doing in Indo and Philippines. We work in many areas where they still use CN nearby ... so happy to go on a CN research trip with you and see how all the reefs have died.....or not.
How about some positive suggestions.....
Greg
I wonder how many of these self'proclaimed experts speak Tagalog and Cebuano ..... like my staff and I do. How many fishermen do you know who actually trust someone who doesn´t speak their language....
Well it is a free society and you can believe what you want... but it is hard not to laugh sometimes..... sure some of these guys have spent some time out there, but just long enough to get sucked into thinking they are the experts....Like the post about muroami .. as if it was discovered in 1988... the BBC made a documentary on it in 1980...sorry... I helped.
Nakakatawa talaga. ¨¨Its funny.¨¨
If net training experts were so successful years ago ... then why is CN still a problem..sorry no question marks on Mex keyboard. WHat happened to all those heroic net fishermen .... didn´t the training stick...was their training a failure... or did they fail to provide economic incentives to fishermen to stick with net fishing. Something that MAC is trying to do.
Why don´t these supposed experts stop complaining about MAC and set up their own NGO and write their own grants and do it the ¨right¨¨ way... i.e. the way they think it should be done. Why dont they make positive suggestions on how they think ¨¨it¨¨ ought to be done rather then just complaining about what MAC is supposedly doing wrong.
Now lets talk money as that is one thing I see coming up again and again in complaints.The grant is $6.6 million OVER FIVE YEARS... and just doing some basic math, with three partners that would be just over $300,000 per year split by two countries leaving about $150,000 per year per partner per country to do an immense amount of training, science, MPA design, rehab work at dozens of sites etc. etc. This is not a lot of money to do the agreed work and it is relatively small compared to what most businesses profit.
Most of you have not had the experience of living in the villages and working with fishermen ... so you probably tend to believe what these guys have been telling you all these years.
I think that I have pretty clearly stated my position on CN .... yes it is a problem still .... and yes it is one reason put forward in the MAMTI proposal regarding damage to reefs, but no it is not killing large areas of reef. Maybe at best it is degrading some reefs in heavily fished areas...but I can see that this idea is creating some confusion because few outsiders have any idea what the MAMTI project is about and why agencies such as the World Bank or UN or private foundations would support this work.
Folks these agencies are interested in coral reef conservation, and like Reef Check, see the aquarium trade as a financial incentive to achieve this. They understand that the world´s reefs are in trouble and that these impacts are additive and that CN is just one of the problems affecting reefs.
One of the posters understood clearly what I was saying and said that if so much reef is getting killed by CN where are the pics. But pics alone are not enough as I said previously, we need before and after pics ON THE SCALE suggested by the ¨Sky is falling CN crowd¨ Just like I can take a pic of a frisbee and make it look like a UFO, I can say here is a pic of a dead coral and claim it was killed by CN.
By the way I am happy to admit my errors and here is one for you. I thought that BFAR had closed their labs but I checked with BFAR and there are still several labs open. By the way, I worked with BFAR for three years.
Two independent groups of scientists have tried to reproduce the CN methods and have failed to produce reliable results when using controls. This suggests that the CN tests may be less reliable than thought..... note I said suggests because the science is not yet there in terms of repeated trials and species... but it is worrisome.
More importantly, I note that everyone seems to enjoy the continued negativity and NO ONE responded to my call to suggest ideas on how the trade could work with academics and NGOs more effectively to share knowledge that might lead to maintaining corals reefs ....
BTW I would like to personally invite anyone on this list to visit the MAMTI sites and see for yourselves what Reef Check is doing in Indo and Philippines. We work in many areas where they still use CN nearby ... so happy to go on a CN research trip with you and see how all the reefs have died.....or not.
How about some positive suggestions.....
Greg
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
Gregor,
Hows Mexico?
Its full of internet cafes now so I'm glad you found one.
La Paz and Cabo have dozens and even Loreto has 5 or 6..
In response to your points made;
For example some folks have claimed that scientists cannot keep up with fishermen... that is pretty funny and just shows ignorance ... we keep up with them every day.
Most survey people cannot begin to keep up with commercial fisherfolks,...especially where you are now.
Others have claimed that CN fishermen squirt CN all over the reef and that is pretty funny too because like anything else, CN costs money......so maybe some inexperienced guys squirt it in the wrong direction .. but most are trying to hit the target.
:roll:
Sure wasn't me. Its too expensive and I have always known that.
I wonder how many of these self'proclaimed experts speak Tagalog and Cebuano ..... like my staff and I do. How many fishermen do you know who actually trust someone who doesn´t speak their language....
We conducted early trainings in Tagalog and with converted cyanide fisherman at the forefront.... but you were not there.
Well it is a free society and you can believe what you want... but it is hard not to laugh sometimes..... sure some of these guys have spent some time out there, but just long enough to get sucked into thinking they are the experts....Like the post about muroami .. as if it was discovered in 1988... the BBC made a documentary on it in 1980...sorry... I helped.
You helped what? Promote something for foreign consumption?
Marketing an issue is one thing. Lino and I got it banned in 86 by exposing it to the new gov't that knew nothing about it... a far, far more constructive thing to do. Your claim of assisting is false. Any documentary made amounted to zero points in getting Minister Mitra to ban Muro Ami. We tricked him by focusing on the childrens abuse issues and not the less popular environmental ones.
.¨
If net training experts were so successful years ago ... then why is CN still a problem...
Projects were converted to manila expenses by the groups hijacking the issues and the budgets.WHat happened to all those heroic net fishermen .... didn´t the training stick...was their training a failure...
They are all over the world working and training others. Still more are catching for non MAC purposes.
or did they fail to provide economic incentives to fishermen to stick with net fishing. Something that MAC is trying to do.
MAC has ruined the cause of economic justice for fisherman by promising them the moon and delivering nothing....creating dugo masama. [ bad blood] in the process and even getting kicked out of some barangays.
Why don´t these supposed experts stop complaining about MAC and set up their own NGO and write their own grants and do it the ¨right¨¨ way...
You guys have used up the available goodwill from Packard, Macarthur, US AID, etc and they are accustomed to funding failure with good accounting now.
i.e. the way they think it should be done. Why dont they make positive suggestions on how they think ¨¨it¨¨ ought to be done rather then just complaining about what MAC is supposedly doing wrong.
Thats been done here for years. MAC learns from it.
The issues hi-lighted here have been of great interest to them and their training ground.
Now lets talk money as that is one thing I see coming up again and again in complaints.The grant is $6.6 million OVER FIVE YEARS... and just doing some basic math, with three partners that would be just over $300,000 per year split by two countries leaving about $150,000 per year per partner per country to do an immense amount of training, science, MPA design, rehab work at dozens of sites etc. etc. This is not a lot of money to do the agreed work and it is relatively small compared to what most businesses profit.
and....it is being squandered to such little productivity and acclaim.
Most of you have not had the experience of living in the villages and working with fishermen ... so you probably tend to believe what these guys have been telling you all these years.
Some of us have a lot more then you actually.
I think that I have pretty clearly stated my position on CN .... yes it is a problem still .... and yes it is one reason put forward in the MAMTI proposal regarding damage to reefs, but no it is not killing large areas of reef. Maybe at best it is degrading some reefs in heavily fished areas...but I can see that this idea is creating some confusion because few outsiders have any idea what the MAMTI project is about and why agencies such as the World Bank or UN or private foundations would support this work.
None of you guys worked with real cyanide fisherman while they worked. You have no idea what it was like and what the damage was...because you depend on each others data to make your own. My experience and observations were from village life and water work.
Folks these agencies are interested in coral reef conservation, and like Reef Check, see the aquarium trade as a financial incentive to achieve this. They understand that the world´s reefs are in trouble and that these impacts are additive and that CN is just one of the problems affecting reefs.
They have run with the cyanide thing and hi-lighted it for their own reasons...mainly to make it sexy enough to sell regardless of the real impact on reefs.
More importantly, I note that everyone seems to enjoy the continued negativity and NO ONE responded to my call to suggest ideas on how the trade could work with academics and NGOs more effectively to share knowledge that might lead to maintaining corals reefs ....
Simply disagreeing with people is the new buzzword for negativity.
Agreement means you're positive. How convenient.
BTW I would like to personally invite anyone on this list to visit the MAMTI sites and see for yourselves what Reef Check is doing in Indo and Philippines. We work in many areas where they still use CN nearby ... so happy to go on a CN research trip with you and see how all the reefs have died.....or not.
You said what Reefcheck is doing...what of MAC?
AS AQUARIUM FOLKS WE ARE MORE INTERESTED IN HOW THEY ARE DOING AND WHAT THEY HAVE DONE. A FIELD AUDIT WOULD BE VERY INTERESTING ...BUT THEN AGAIN, AS THEY ADMIT THEIR FAILURES, THERE IS NO NEED.
How about some positive suggestions.....
You need to scroll back thru the years and see the hundreds of positive suggestions...this is the achive that has exposed so much more then you know and yet taught so much more then you know about the issue which is why you feel such a need to change the mission...and divert it to establishing MPAs and counting fishes.
I have already said it might be a better use for the money because you guys actually know how to do something and thats a lot more then can be said for your program partners.
Breaking the mission may be a way to salvage something from your doomed budget. The fisherman and the reefs will not be served thru the bookkeeping schemes that anchors this certification boondoggle.
The failure is in its 7th year now with out converting fisherman.
Beware that this does not tarnish your own groups reputation.
Steve
Hows Mexico?
Its full of internet cafes now so I'm glad you found one.
La Paz and Cabo have dozens and even Loreto has 5 or 6..
In response to your points made;
For example some folks have claimed that scientists cannot keep up with fishermen... that is pretty funny and just shows ignorance ... we keep up with them every day.
Most survey people cannot begin to keep up with commercial fisherfolks,...especially where you are now.
Others have claimed that CN fishermen squirt CN all over the reef and that is pretty funny too because like anything else, CN costs money......so maybe some inexperienced guys squirt it in the wrong direction .. but most are trying to hit the target.
:roll:
Sure wasn't me. Its too expensive and I have always known that.
I wonder how many of these self'proclaimed experts speak Tagalog and Cebuano ..... like my staff and I do. How many fishermen do you know who actually trust someone who doesn´t speak their language....
We conducted early trainings in Tagalog and with converted cyanide fisherman at the forefront.... but you were not there.
Well it is a free society and you can believe what you want... but it is hard not to laugh sometimes..... sure some of these guys have spent some time out there, but just long enough to get sucked into thinking they are the experts....Like the post about muroami .. as if it was discovered in 1988... the BBC made a documentary on it in 1980...sorry... I helped.
You helped what? Promote something for foreign consumption?
Marketing an issue is one thing. Lino and I got it banned in 86 by exposing it to the new gov't that knew nothing about it... a far, far more constructive thing to do. Your claim of assisting is false. Any documentary made amounted to zero points in getting Minister Mitra to ban Muro Ami. We tricked him by focusing on the childrens abuse issues and not the less popular environmental ones.
.¨
If net training experts were so successful years ago ... then why is CN still a problem...
Projects were converted to manila expenses by the groups hijacking the issues and the budgets.WHat happened to all those heroic net fishermen .... didn´t the training stick...was their training a failure...
They are all over the world working and training others. Still more are catching for non MAC purposes.
or did they fail to provide economic incentives to fishermen to stick with net fishing. Something that MAC is trying to do.
MAC has ruined the cause of economic justice for fisherman by promising them the moon and delivering nothing....creating dugo masama. [ bad blood] in the process and even getting kicked out of some barangays.
Why don´t these supposed experts stop complaining about MAC and set up their own NGO and write their own grants and do it the ¨right¨¨ way...
You guys have used up the available goodwill from Packard, Macarthur, US AID, etc and they are accustomed to funding failure with good accounting now.
i.e. the way they think it should be done. Why dont they make positive suggestions on how they think ¨¨it¨¨ ought to be done rather then just complaining about what MAC is supposedly doing wrong.
Thats been done here for years. MAC learns from it.
The issues hi-lighted here have been of great interest to them and their training ground.
Now lets talk money as that is one thing I see coming up again and again in complaints.The grant is $6.6 million OVER FIVE YEARS... and just doing some basic math, with three partners that would be just over $300,000 per year split by two countries leaving about $150,000 per year per partner per country to do an immense amount of training, science, MPA design, rehab work at dozens of sites etc. etc. This is not a lot of money to do the agreed work and it is relatively small compared to what most businesses profit.
and....it is being squandered to such little productivity and acclaim.
Most of you have not had the experience of living in the villages and working with fishermen ... so you probably tend to believe what these guys have been telling you all these years.
Some of us have a lot more then you actually.
I think that I have pretty clearly stated my position on CN .... yes it is a problem still .... and yes it is one reason put forward in the MAMTI proposal regarding damage to reefs, but no it is not killing large areas of reef. Maybe at best it is degrading some reefs in heavily fished areas...but I can see that this idea is creating some confusion because few outsiders have any idea what the MAMTI project is about and why agencies such as the World Bank or UN or private foundations would support this work.
None of you guys worked with real cyanide fisherman while they worked. You have no idea what it was like and what the damage was...because you depend on each others data to make your own. My experience and observations were from village life and water work.
Folks these agencies are interested in coral reef conservation, and like Reef Check, see the aquarium trade as a financial incentive to achieve this. They understand that the world´s reefs are in trouble and that these impacts are additive and that CN is just one of the problems affecting reefs.
They have run with the cyanide thing and hi-lighted it for their own reasons...mainly to make it sexy enough to sell regardless of the real impact on reefs.
More importantly, I note that everyone seems to enjoy the continued negativity and NO ONE responded to my call to suggest ideas on how the trade could work with academics and NGOs more effectively to share knowledge that might lead to maintaining corals reefs ....
Simply disagreeing with people is the new buzzword for negativity.
Agreement means you're positive. How convenient.
BTW I would like to personally invite anyone on this list to visit the MAMTI sites and see for yourselves what Reef Check is doing in Indo and Philippines. We work in many areas where they still use CN nearby ... so happy to go on a CN research trip with you and see how all the reefs have died.....or not.
You said what Reefcheck is doing...what of MAC?
AS AQUARIUM FOLKS WE ARE MORE INTERESTED IN HOW THEY ARE DOING AND WHAT THEY HAVE DONE. A FIELD AUDIT WOULD BE VERY INTERESTING ...BUT THEN AGAIN, AS THEY ADMIT THEIR FAILURES, THERE IS NO NEED.
How about some positive suggestions.....
You need to scroll back thru the years and see the hundreds of positive suggestions...this is the achive that has exposed so much more then you know and yet taught so much more then you know about the issue which is why you feel such a need to change the mission...and divert it to establishing MPAs and counting fishes.
I have already said it might be a better use for the money because you guys actually know how to do something and thats a lot more then can be said for your program partners.
Breaking the mission may be a way to salvage something from your doomed budget. The fisherman and the reefs will not be served thru the bookkeeping schemes that anchors this certification boondoggle.
The failure is in its 7th year now with out converting fisherman.
Beware that this does not tarnish your own groups reputation.
Steve
Greg,
The main reason for "failure" of net training programs is due to the fact that the industry as a whole has not been committed neither willing to provide the fisherfolks with an economic incentive to motivate them to stick to nets. It has been stated many times that fish collectors need to see that there is a difference ($) between collecting with nets vs cyanide.
Also agree with the fact that many of the "experts" in this forum are strong in rethoric but weak in what counts. Seems to me that they want people to believe that "this problem belongs to them and they are the only ones who know how to solve it" the fact is that they have been talking and talking about it for decades and the problem is still there. Those same experts are not part of the solution... in fact... they are part of the problem. Is possible they do have knowledge and ideas about how to contribute to solve the problem, what doesn't help is their lack of tact to address the issues. I have seen more negative than positive in those individuals.
The main reason for "failure" of net training programs is due to the fact that the industry as a whole has not been committed neither willing to provide the fisherfolks with an economic incentive to motivate them to stick to nets. It has been stated many times that fish collectors need to see that there is a difference ($) between collecting with nets vs cyanide.
Also agree with the fact that many of the "experts" in this forum are strong in rethoric but weak in what counts. Seems to me that they want people to believe that "this problem belongs to them and they are the only ones who know how to solve it" the fact is that they have been talking and talking about it for decades and the problem is still there. Those same experts are not part of the solution... in fact... they are part of the problem. Is possible they do have knowledge and ideas about how to contribute to solve the problem, what doesn't help is their lack of tact to address the issues. I have seen more negative than positive in those individuals.
Reef Check HQ":1unhs6nr said:
Guys I enjoy hearing both sides put forth in a civil manner. I won't be negative, but I do have a few questions about the funding. Just how did it come to be that all three partners get an equal split? It just seems logical that some parts might need more cash than other parts of the plan. I also seem to recall reading that some of the grants require matching funds. So that means that instead of $300K per year each, it might be more $600k if the terms of the grant are adhered to. Of course accepting the matching funds from green investor types comes with strings attached in the form of "expected return on investment" (ROI). IIRC it was in the area of 30-35% annually in the MAMTI business plan. And if you do a search and read up on the Tide's Center thread you will learn that these folks want a piece of the action too, once the money starts rolling in.
So Greg what we have is many different mouths all planing on feeding from the same teat. We have the fishers who have been promised, and who expect to get more for their properly handled fish. On the other end we have the retailers who have been promised, via the "Retailer Cost/Benefit study, that they will make substantially higher profits with the MAC certification system. In the middle we have MAC, Reef Check, and CCIF all planing on having the trade to pick up the tab for their "services". And all this can be done by reducing loses or only a meager increase in retail selling prices. And in addition to working on sustainable fisheries we can also eliminate the trade in plentiful reef fishes that may not live to a ripe old age in the aquarium. Everybody can make more money on less fishes harvested. This is a plan that only a Jim Bakker would love.
Well Greg I wish you all luck in making this all work because I do think much of what you're trying to do sounds wonderful. If overpopulation and global warming are the main stressors I don't think you will be able to slow things down much, but it a good cause to work on. So I wish you good luck. And our prays are with you.
Mitch
Attachments
Gregor, You are of the opinion that the CDT used by the IMA (the ASTM methods using Ion Selective Electrodes) was unreliable. I somehow doubt that you know much if anything about cyanide testing. I can prove what I have stated. There are two courts: a) public opinion, and b) legal measures.
Be careful what you say, or be prepared to deal with the consequences
Peter Rubec
Be careful what you say, or be prepared to deal with the consequences
Peter Rubec
Sorry, not to segue farther away here, but... -- I'm a fairly simple person with only simple reasoning abilities.
What I get from this thread so far is that a member of Reef Check (an organization I'm to understand is supposed to help the reefs / help provide healthy fish for the trade) is basically making statements to the effect that "a little CN is ok"...??? - Is that right? - I'm I understanding this correctly?
So.... - I guess only smoking a pack of cigarettes a month is alright then?
:?
What I get from this thread so far is that a member of Reef Check (an organization I'm to understand is supposed to help the reefs / help provide healthy fish for the trade) is basically making statements to the effect that "a little CN is ok"...??? - Is that right? - I'm I understanding this correctly?
So.... - I guess only smoking a pack of cigarettes a month is alright then?
:?
Dizzy,
Gregor had already mentioned previously that the money is not split evenly. I think he mentioned that RC got 25% fo the Mamti budget? Please look back over the previous posts for his statement. Thank you for your constructive posts.
Peter,
Be prepared to deal with the consequences? Is that your position? Why not just say, "Meet me at the flag pole after the bell rings"!
Steve,
You are arguing Greg's statements with statements of your own that are not true! Where you come up with this stuff is just beyond me. Why you think a surveyor or scientist can't swim like a collector is rediculous. I am a city boy and in my first weeks of diving with Fijians who live on the ocean and spend time daily working in the ocean, I could swim along side and with every stride without any trouble. I was always the last one in the boat at the end of the day, mainly just because I could not pull myself away from the spectacle of the reef. It's just one of the inaccurate points you are trying to make.
I discovered that a professional diver will pace themselves in a very melodic manner, not to burn themselves out. I always was amazed at their daily routine and how they move in such a trained motion in every aspect of their day.
Yes, divers have been working in other countries, and I have worked with groups in more than one country and although they know how to collect with nets, I would not say they were "experts" or any more experienced than anyone else still in the Philipines. They were just the lucky ones who were able to get the visa's and be selected to work abroad. There are many more of them still available to be trained or contracted out to other countries.
You continue to accuse everyone of not knowing what they are talking about and that they didn't do this, or that......but how can you be so sure....it's a very ignorant approach you are taking and I am sure you are offending those that read this and are laughing at your comments.
You keep saying that Mac has done nothing and accomplished nothing, but it's so untrue. So much has been done and I for one can see the progress and benefits that they have acheived so far. Today's efforts are much more organized, scientific, and unified than before., and their staff in all areas has been strengthened, not weakened. Change brings progress, we all should remember that from our history books.
Just because there are not many or a majority of "MAC Certified" fish on the market is not a reason for you to make false claims that they have done nothing and "squandered" all the money! It's not true and just makes me lessen the value of your comments. You are trying to make people believe something that is not true, so I am saying to everyone reading, DONT BELIEVE ALL THIS MUDSLINGING! The industry is moving and has been moving in the right direction contrary to what a few might say here. It doesn't happen overnight, and nobody (except one or two) believes that it should have or could have happened overnight. Get involved and be pro-active.
I think Jaime's comments in his second paragraph are pretty much on target with my thoughts as well.
Best regards
Eric
PS I am not trying to pick fights here....just a bit worried that this attempt to bring positive input to this forum is moving in the wrong direction due to a few people. I hope this opportunity is not wasted and I appreciate Gregor and his staff for keeping on with their mission regardless of what some of the comments and false accusations have been.
Gregor had already mentioned previously that the money is not split evenly. I think he mentioned that RC got 25% fo the Mamti budget? Please look back over the previous posts for his statement. Thank you for your constructive posts.
Peter,
Be prepared to deal with the consequences? Is that your position? Why not just say, "Meet me at the flag pole after the bell rings"!
Steve,
You are arguing Greg's statements with statements of your own that are not true! Where you come up with this stuff is just beyond me. Why you think a surveyor or scientist can't swim like a collector is rediculous. I am a city boy and in my first weeks of diving with Fijians who live on the ocean and spend time daily working in the ocean, I could swim along side and with every stride without any trouble. I was always the last one in the boat at the end of the day, mainly just because I could not pull myself away from the spectacle of the reef. It's just one of the inaccurate points you are trying to make.
I discovered that a professional diver will pace themselves in a very melodic manner, not to burn themselves out. I always was amazed at their daily routine and how they move in such a trained motion in every aspect of their day.
Yes, divers have been working in other countries, and I have worked with groups in more than one country and although they know how to collect with nets, I would not say they were "experts" or any more experienced than anyone else still in the Philipines. They were just the lucky ones who were able to get the visa's and be selected to work abroad. There are many more of them still available to be trained or contracted out to other countries.
You continue to accuse everyone of not knowing what they are talking about and that they didn't do this, or that......but how can you be so sure....it's a very ignorant approach you are taking and I am sure you are offending those that read this and are laughing at your comments.
You keep saying that Mac has done nothing and accomplished nothing, but it's so untrue. So much has been done and I for one can see the progress and benefits that they have acheived so far. Today's efforts are much more organized, scientific, and unified than before., and their staff in all areas has been strengthened, not weakened. Change brings progress, we all should remember that from our history books.
Just because there are not many or a majority of "MAC Certified" fish on the market is not a reason for you to make false claims that they have done nothing and "squandered" all the money! It's not true and just makes me lessen the value of your comments. You are trying to make people believe something that is not true, so I am saying to everyone reading, DONT BELIEVE ALL THIS MUDSLINGING! The industry is moving and has been moving in the right direction contrary to what a few might say here. It doesn't happen overnight, and nobody (except one or two) believes that it should have or could have happened overnight. Get involved and be pro-active.
I think Jaime's comments in his second paragraph are pretty much on target with my thoughts as well.
Best regards
Eric
PS I am not trying to pick fights here....just a bit worried that this attempt to bring positive input to this forum is moving in the wrong direction due to a few people. I hope this opportunity is not wasted and I appreciate Gregor and his staff for keeping on with their mission regardless of what some of the comments and false accusations have been.
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
Eric,
This is all very old stuff and Gregor is new to the aquarium part of his mission.
Gregor says many things that attack the record of people who have worked on this much longer then he.
His Muro Ami snipe, for example was way off and offensive and had to be corrected.
He has been a little arrogant and impolite himself.
I know you see that?
You cannot throw stones and expect not to be challenged.
Go back and read the tone of his letter and see how the defense I put up was in direct response to his attacks, points, jibes, barbs and false statements.
He is the new kid on the old block and yet...very welcome.
I think we are just starting to understand each other and hope to continue to do so.
I just hope you all develop a thicker skin to endure the creative process here. Disagreement among real gentleman can last beyond the little stuff and the issue is too important to surrender in the initial skirmish.
And Eric...
I have done survey work for years in Mexico and the survey monitors and biologists sent regularly by the government to run transects for the Loreto National Park in Baja held us back constantly with their ineptitude and fragility.
I have portrayed what was an accurate experience over the years here.
Steve
PS.
I am not anti-Reefcheck by any means.
I am against using the only credible group in the alliance to cover for the the certification of unsustainable methodologies and the whitewashing the cyanide trade.
Its very simple really...
This is all very old stuff and Gregor is new to the aquarium part of his mission.
Gregor says many things that attack the record of people who have worked on this much longer then he.
His Muro Ami snipe, for example was way off and offensive and had to be corrected.
He has been a little arrogant and impolite himself.
I know you see that?
You cannot throw stones and expect not to be challenged.
Go back and read the tone of his letter and see how the defense I put up was in direct response to his attacks, points, jibes, barbs and false statements.
He is the new kid on the old block and yet...very welcome.
I think we are just starting to understand each other and hope to continue to do so.
I just hope you all develop a thicker skin to endure the creative process here. Disagreement among real gentleman can last beyond the little stuff and the issue is too important to surrender in the initial skirmish.
And Eric...
I have done survey work for years in Mexico and the survey monitors and biologists sent regularly by the government to run transects for the Loreto National Park in Baja held us back constantly with their ineptitude and fragility.
I have portrayed what was an accurate experience over the years here.
Steve
PS.
I am not anti-Reefcheck by any means.
I am against using the only credible group in the alliance to cover for the the certification of unsustainable methodologies and the whitewashing the cyanide trade.
Its very simple really...
Eric, If ReefCheck wants to gain credability they need to stick to their mission and describe what they have been doing. They should be explaining how many reefs they surveyed and what they found. Cyanide testing is not what they are funded to do.
Having been involved with the issues for over 20 years, and met with the collectors that Steve trained, I can attest that what Steve is stating is the truth.
Peter Rubec
Having been involved with the issues for over 20 years, and met with the collectors that Steve trained, I can attest that what Steve is stating is the truth.
Peter Rubec
I think you guys are being way too harsh. I understand that after 20 years some of you may be frustrated, but if you are really interested in helping to change the industry, I would think a better way to go about it would be through education rather than beration.
Disagreement between 'real gentelmen' doesn't involve threats, and, would omit the 'little stuff' that is causing problems. There is no need for any of this discussion to be thought of as a 'skirmish', and coming into the discussion with that mindset will slow or stop discussion.
I encourage anyone who thinks that people should 'develop a thicker skin to endure the creative process here' to take responsibility for the discussion themselves and engender a discussion enviornment that is less adversarial. We all profess to want the same things, and it seems to me we don't need each other as enemies.
Disagreement between 'real gentelmen' doesn't involve threats, and, would omit the 'little stuff' that is causing problems. There is no need for any of this discussion to be thought of as a 'skirmish', and coming into the discussion with that mindset will slow or stop discussion.
I encourage anyone who thinks that people should 'develop a thicker skin to endure the creative process here' to take responsibility for the discussion themselves and engender a discussion enviornment that is less adversarial. We all profess to want the same things, and it seems to me we don't need each other as enemies.
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:
