Conservation Thread
- Thread starter sdcfish
- Start date
Hi folks,
Sorry to be so quiet and we do appreciate the supportive comments about our communications here. As noted previously, we all have "day" jobs and many of the staff are regularly out of email range for field work so cannot participate as regularly as we would like to. But we are still here and happy to answer questions -- but there will be gaps.
FYI I have also encouraged both MAC and CCIF to participate in this forum because I do feel that if more reefs.org folks knew what they were actually doing that MAC in particular would get a lot more support.
What has been amazing to me reading this forum is the sometimes wild assumptions that have been made about the work we are doing. To be fair, I think the MAMTI partners have been so busy just getting our work done that we have not done a good job of communicating what we are doing. We are now trying to address this problem as quickly as we can by setting up a new website with new information. By the way, I would be very happy to discuss any significant issues with concerned reefs.org folks directly at any time. Our office number is 310-230-2371.
I have noted the comments regarding certain individuals dominating this forum with a high ratio of negative to postive comments. I also note the question asking whether other NGOs are going to join here to discuss ideas.
If you look back over the last few years of posts, a number of folks from MAC and other organizationshave attempted to participate on reefs.org. A couple of individuals have personally attacked those people repeatedly. On the one hand, I think that a number of "lurkers" have probably enjoyed the bizarre diatribes just like we rubberneck when we pass accidents on the freeway.....
On the other hand, these repeated personal attacks have eventually led those individuals and NGOs to not want to invest their time on this forum. This poor behavior by a few has also given reefs.org a poor reputation as a place of legit discussions.
So -- bottom line is that if reefs.org wants to be taken seriously and wants other NGOs/scientists to participate, then the forum will have to exercise more restraint in what it allows and may indeed need to censor or even ban people who do not follow the rules.
The reason I decided to join here is that my guess was that there are a lot of people out there who really do care about coral reef conservation and a sustainable trade and that 98% of these people are willing to discuss these issues like professional adults.
So far, I think the moderators have done a good job.
I also happen to believe that the threat of a US government shut down of the marine aquarium trade is a lot more likely than most people in the trade seem to believe. With that in mind, the only serious attempt being made right now to create a sustainable trade is the MAC attempt.
What I would like to see with respect to MAC is a respectful, open discussion about how they can improve any aspect of their work, just as I am open to the same discussion about how Reef Check does its work.
I sincerely believe that if MAC fails, that the US Congress will shut down or severely restrict the aquarium trade.
The issues raised below by another poster are also excellent focal points -- and deserve careful discussion. Greg
************
I would like to discuss CITES, how it is formulated, how it is enforced, and why this system is unrealistic and a abismal failure unfairly persecuting importers and exporters alike!
I would like to discuss exporters holding systems, how can this be improved to minimize death after capture, where could the money and technology come from, and why hasnt it happened yet?
I would like to discuss Animal transport, standards, new break throughs that minimize DOA
I would like to discuss MAC
Sorry to be so quiet and we do appreciate the supportive comments about our communications here. As noted previously, we all have "day" jobs and many of the staff are regularly out of email range for field work so cannot participate as regularly as we would like to. But we are still here and happy to answer questions -- but there will be gaps.
FYI I have also encouraged both MAC and CCIF to participate in this forum because I do feel that if more reefs.org folks knew what they were actually doing that MAC in particular would get a lot more support.
What has been amazing to me reading this forum is the sometimes wild assumptions that have been made about the work we are doing. To be fair, I think the MAMTI partners have been so busy just getting our work done that we have not done a good job of communicating what we are doing. We are now trying to address this problem as quickly as we can by setting up a new website with new information. By the way, I would be very happy to discuss any significant issues with concerned reefs.org folks directly at any time. Our office number is 310-230-2371.
I have noted the comments regarding certain individuals dominating this forum with a high ratio of negative to postive comments. I also note the question asking whether other NGOs are going to join here to discuss ideas.
If you look back over the last few years of posts, a number of folks from MAC and other organizationshave attempted to participate on reefs.org. A couple of individuals have personally attacked those people repeatedly. On the one hand, I think that a number of "lurkers" have probably enjoyed the bizarre diatribes just like we rubberneck when we pass accidents on the freeway.....
On the other hand, these repeated personal attacks have eventually led those individuals and NGOs to not want to invest their time on this forum. This poor behavior by a few has also given reefs.org a poor reputation as a place of legit discussions.
So -- bottom line is that if reefs.org wants to be taken seriously and wants other NGOs/scientists to participate, then the forum will have to exercise more restraint in what it allows and may indeed need to censor or even ban people who do not follow the rules.
The reason I decided to join here is that my guess was that there are a lot of people out there who really do care about coral reef conservation and a sustainable trade and that 98% of these people are willing to discuss these issues like professional adults.
So far, I think the moderators have done a good job.
I also happen to believe that the threat of a US government shut down of the marine aquarium trade is a lot more likely than most people in the trade seem to believe. With that in mind, the only serious attempt being made right now to create a sustainable trade is the MAC attempt.
What I would like to see with respect to MAC is a respectful, open discussion about how they can improve any aspect of their work, just as I am open to the same discussion about how Reef Check does its work.
I sincerely believe that if MAC fails, that the US Congress will shut down or severely restrict the aquarium trade.
The issues raised below by another poster are also excellent focal points -- and deserve careful discussion. Greg
************
I would like to discuss CITES, how it is formulated, how it is enforced, and why this system is unrealistic and a abismal failure unfairly persecuting importers and exporters alike!
I would like to discuss exporters holding systems, how can this be improved to minimize death after capture, where could the money and technology come from, and why hasnt it happened yet?
I would like to discuss Animal transport, standards, new break throughs that minimize DOA
I would like to discuss MAC
Tropic posted:
I would like to discuss exporters holding systems, how can this be improved to minimize death after capture, where could the money and technology come from, and why hasnt it happened yet?
I would like to give my 2 cents:
Re exporters: IMHO and from my experience here in Phils and Indo, many exporters have poor facilities, some have very good ones. Some of these poor facilities are making improvements (some slowly, some doing major upgrades) due the increased competition. The best importers of course deal with the best of the exporters and therefore get the best fish available. Still there can be improvements made, but not without economic incentive.
I feel a significant portion of the fish exported are no where near "in great condition". Part of the reason is because of the poor facilities, but the major problem here is how the fish are held before the exporters get them. Most fish are held in bags in a hut or other building. And remember, it's darn hot here. Temperature and ammonia poisoning are the main factors affecting fish health at this point in the chain of custody. These holding/handling problems have been addressed by at least one ngo but with inconsistent and mixed results.
Many have said and I agree that the quality of fish in general coming out of Asia has improved over recent years, but I feel there is room for much more improvement. This howver will take more field training and once again, economic incentive.
Mark
I would like to discuss exporters holding systems, how can this be improved to minimize death after capture, where could the money and technology come from, and why hasnt it happened yet?
I would like to give my 2 cents:
Re exporters: IMHO and from my experience here in Phils and Indo, many exporters have poor facilities, some have very good ones. Some of these poor facilities are making improvements (some slowly, some doing major upgrades) due the increased competition. The best importers of course deal with the best of the exporters and therefore get the best fish available. Still there can be improvements made, but not without economic incentive.
I feel a significant portion of the fish exported are no where near "in great condition". Part of the reason is because of the poor facilities, but the major problem here is how the fish are held before the exporters get them. Most fish are held in bags in a hut or other building. And remember, it's darn hot here. Temperature and ammonia poisoning are the main factors affecting fish health at this point in the chain of custody. These holding/handling problems have been addressed by at least one ngo but with inconsistent and mixed results.
Many have said and I agree that the quality of fish in general coming out of Asia has improved over recent years, but I feel there is room for much more improvement. This howver will take more field training and once again, economic incentive.
Mark
I was just going back and reading a little of the Reef Product Alliance document that was the predecessor to the MAMTI. http://www.cciforum.org/pdfs/RPA_plan_sumary.pdf And I noticed the following which would seem relevant to our discussion. I wonder who provided this false and misleading information?
"In the case of cyanide-based aquarium fishing, collectors use the poison to stun reef fish that have
taken refuge in a coral. In many cases, the coral is then broken apart to get to the stunned fish. The
sodium cyanide solution settles on neighboring coral and kills the great majority of polyps. This
type of fishing is a very significant contributor to the destruction of the unique Indonesian and
Philippine reefs. The harvested fish typically move through a complicated chain of middlemen,
exporter, consolidators, and importers to arrive at the hobbyist’s tanks. Mortality rates throughout
the chain for cyanide-caught fish range from 30 to 80%.4"
"In the case of cyanide-based aquarium fishing, collectors use the poison to stun reef fish that have
taken refuge in a coral. In many cases, the coral is then broken apart to get to the stunned fish. The
sodium cyanide solution settles on neighboring coral and kills the great majority of polyps. This
type of fishing is a very significant contributor to the destruction of the unique Indonesian and
Philippine reefs. The harvested fish typically move through a complicated chain of middlemen,
exporter, consolidators, and importers to arrive at the hobbyist’s tanks. Mortality rates throughout
the chain for cyanide-caught fish range from 30 to 80%.4"
Thanks guys,
We will be attempting to enforce the requests in the stickies at the top of the industry forum. Please help us by letting me or one of the Industry Moderators know when you see a post that contains what you feel is a personal attack (or violates the UA) while at the same time not attacking back in kind. If you do attack back in kind, you will also be open to the same admin actions as the original poster.
Two things everyone here should read:
http://www.reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=82933
http://www.reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=69606
Thanks for your understanding and help, and I look forward to this forum becoming even better!
We will be attempting to enforce the requests in the stickies at the top of the industry forum. Please help us by letting me or one of the Industry Moderators know when you see a post that contains what you feel is a personal attack (or violates the UA) while at the same time not attacking back in kind. If you do attack back in kind, you will also be open to the same admin actions as the original poster.
Two things everyone here should read:
http://www.reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=82933
http://www.reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=69606
Thanks for your understanding and help, and I look forward to this forum becoming even better!
dizzy":3p0i37g9 said:
Dizzy,
Footnote 4 reads: Field interviews with Fisherman, middleman, exporters, and importers, CCIF, August 2000-June 2001.
I guess the question now is...who were the fishermen, middlemen, exporters, importers, and the CCIF staff at that time?
Dizzy stated the following:
"I was just going back and reading a little of the Reef Product Alliance document that was the predecessor to the MAMTI. http://www.cciforum.org/pdfs/RPA_plan_sumary.pdf And I noticed the following which would seem relevant to our discussion. I wonder who provided this false and misleading information? "
"In the case of cyanide-based aquarium fishing, collectors use the poison to stun reef fish that have
taken refuge in a coral. In many cases, the coral is then broken apart to get to the stunned fish. The
sodium cyanide solution settles on neighboring coral and kills the great majority of polyps. This type of fishing is a very significant contributor to the destruction of the unique Indonesian and Philippine reefs."
Question to Dizzy. What do you consider about the statement highlighted in bold to be false and misleading? I consider this to be a true statement.
Peter Rubec[/b]
"I was just going back and reading a little of the Reef Product Alliance document that was the predecessor to the MAMTI. http://www.cciforum.org/pdfs/RPA_plan_sumary.pdf And I noticed the following which would seem relevant to our discussion. I wonder who provided this false and misleading information? "
"In the case of cyanide-based aquarium fishing, collectors use the poison to stun reef fish that have
taken refuge in a coral. In many cases, the coral is then broken apart to get to the stunned fish. The
sodium cyanide solution settles on neighboring coral and kills the great majority of polyps. This type of fishing is a very significant contributor to the destruction of the unique Indonesian and Philippine reefs."
Question to Dizzy. What do you consider about the statement highlighted in bold to be false and misleading? I consider this to be a true statement.
Peter Rubec[/b]
Peter,
I'm just going by what Greg posted: "But what about real fishermen using CN under real collection conditions where the water currents are rapidly mixing and diluting the highly water soluble CN?
As far as I know, there is no paper that has looked at a coral reef as a whole -- say a kilometer reef front by 100 m wide where cyanide fishing is regularly practiced and then introduced CN fishing to a new reef where it has never been practiced and compared the results. To make a valid argument that CN is damaging coral reefs on a large scale in a country the size of the Philippines (7000 islands most with reefs) then I think it is fair to ask the scientist to be able to demonstrate the large scale impacts claimed. As far as I know, this has not been done."
To claim that when you squirt cyanide on one coral that it will settle out on the neighboring corals and kill the majority of the polyps defies all logic. If anything it would damage the actual coral it was squirted on and then begin to dilute rapidly. If Greg is to be believed at all, then the RPA statements appear to be false. If simply can't be both ways.
I'm just going by what Greg posted: "But what about real fishermen using CN under real collection conditions where the water currents are rapidly mixing and diluting the highly water soluble CN?
As far as I know, there is no paper that has looked at a coral reef as a whole -- say a kilometer reef front by 100 m wide where cyanide fishing is regularly practiced and then introduced CN fishing to a new reef where it has never been practiced and compared the results. To make a valid argument that CN is damaging coral reefs on a large scale in a country the size of the Philippines (7000 islands most with reefs) then I think it is fair to ask the scientist to be able to demonstrate the large scale impacts claimed. As far as I know, this has not been done."
To claim that when you squirt cyanide on one coral that it will settle out on the neighboring corals and kill the majority of the polyps defies all logic. If anything it would damage the actual coral it was squirted on and then begin to dilute rapidly. If Greg is to be believed at all, then the RPA statements appear to be false. If simply can't be both ways.
Dizzy, There is nothing about Greg's statement that is related to any study that he has conducted. So, what makes him an expert?
Actually, he was correct in stating earlier that it is often difficult to determine what caused reef destruction because various activiites (dyanamite fishing, cyanide fishing, muro-ami, siltation etc) occur over the same areas. If that is the case, how would one be able to do a "peer-reviewed paper" showing widespread devastation of reefs solely due to cyanide? Dr. Hodgeson's statement was misleading for that reason.
Actually, the statement in the RPA document does not go that far. It merely stated that cyanide drifts from the point of application (the plume spreads). Hence, more corals in the surrounding area are affected by the cyanide. This is not unreasonable considering that the fishers use from 1 to 7 sodium cyanide tablets. Each tablet weighs on average 20 grams. That is 20,000 mg/L of sodium cyanide or about 11,000 mg/L (ppm) of cyanide ion PER TABLET. So, if the fisher used say 3 tablets in a squirt bottle the concentration coming from the bottle could be as much as 33,000 mg/L. This is highly concentrated and can be expected to disperse over a wide area. Since, Dr. Cervino showed that 8 genera or corals were adversely affected by concentrations as low as 50 mg/L one would need to determine over how big an area the cloud would disperse and still exceed this concentration. This will depend on water currents etc. However, many coral reefs occur in areas which have low currents, that would allow the cyanide to disperse and dilute slowly.
Another factor to consider is that not all the cyanide dissolves immediately and the cyanide in the squirt bottle is serially diluted. We need more study of this, but we know that the whitish cloud is due to the undissolved sodium cyanide particles that are sprayed onto the corals and settle to the bottom (since cyanide ion in seawater is colorless).
We also have to consider that what started as a relatively small problem involving about 1500 aquarium fish collectors in 1980 has grown because cyanide fishing is now also conducted by food fishers collecting live reef fish (groupers for export to Hong Kong and mainland China) and dead reef fish (other marine fish and invertebrate species for local consumption). So, the problem is now bigger and more widespread (in the Philippines) and has spread to other countries including Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, and to other countries to a smaller extent in SE Asia.
I think the US Coral Reef Task Force is right in initiating the review of the cyanide problem and cyanide testing procedures that it just announced at the last Coral Reef Task Force meeting held last week. I consider the statement from the RPA Report summary document that you cited to be a true statement.
Peter Rubec
Actually, he was correct in stating earlier that it is often difficult to determine what caused reef destruction because various activiites (dyanamite fishing, cyanide fishing, muro-ami, siltation etc) occur over the same areas. If that is the case, how would one be able to do a "peer-reviewed paper" showing widespread devastation of reefs solely due to cyanide? Dr. Hodgeson's statement was misleading for that reason.
Actually, the statement in the RPA document does not go that far. It merely stated that cyanide drifts from the point of application (the plume spreads). Hence, more corals in the surrounding area are affected by the cyanide. This is not unreasonable considering that the fishers use from 1 to 7 sodium cyanide tablets. Each tablet weighs on average 20 grams. That is 20,000 mg/L of sodium cyanide or about 11,000 mg/L (ppm) of cyanide ion PER TABLET. So, if the fisher used say 3 tablets in a squirt bottle the concentration coming from the bottle could be as much as 33,000 mg/L. This is highly concentrated and can be expected to disperse over a wide area. Since, Dr. Cervino showed that 8 genera or corals were adversely affected by concentrations as low as 50 mg/L one would need to determine over how big an area the cloud would disperse and still exceed this concentration. This will depend on water currents etc. However, many coral reefs occur in areas which have low currents, that would allow the cyanide to disperse and dilute slowly.
Another factor to consider is that not all the cyanide dissolves immediately and the cyanide in the squirt bottle is serially diluted. We need more study of this, but we know that the whitish cloud is due to the undissolved sodium cyanide particles that are sprayed onto the corals and settle to the bottom (since cyanide ion in seawater is colorless).
We also have to consider that what started as a relatively small problem involving about 1500 aquarium fish collectors in 1980 has grown because cyanide fishing is now also conducted by food fishers collecting live reef fish (groupers for export to Hong Kong and mainland China) and dead reef fish (other marine fish and invertebrate species for local consumption). So, the problem is now bigger and more widespread (in the Philippines) and has spread to other countries including Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, and to other countries to a smaller extent in SE Asia.
I think the US Coral Reef Task Force is right in initiating the review of the cyanide problem and cyanide testing procedures that it just announced at the last Coral Reef Task Force meeting held last week. I consider the statement from the RPA Report summary document that you cited to be a true statement.
Peter Rubec
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
Clausen of the CCIF wrote;
"The sodium cyanide solution settles on neighboring coral and kills the great majority of polyps. This type of fishing is a very significant contributor to the destruction of the unique Indonesian and Philippine reefs."
Wow!
What a heavy indictment against the trade and against the minimalization of cyanides effect/impact by their other partner...ReefCheck...when they say, as Mitch pointed out'
But what about real fishermen using CN under real collection conditions where the water currents are rapidly mixing and diluting the highly water soluble CN?"
No wonder its confusing to so many...even the partners in the CCIF/RC/MAC/GEF deal can't agree on it.
Steve
"The sodium cyanide solution settles on neighboring coral and kills the great majority of polyps. This type of fishing is a very significant contributor to the destruction of the unique Indonesian and Philippine reefs."
Wow!
What a heavy indictment against the trade and against the minimalization of cyanides effect/impact by their other partner...ReefCheck...when they say, as Mitch pointed out'
But what about real fishermen using CN under real collection conditions where the water currents are rapidly mixing and diluting the highly water soluble CN?"
No wonder its confusing to so many...even the partners in the CCIF/RC/MAC/GEF deal can't agree on it.
Steve
I have a story.
Last summer I toured several of the Polilio Islands in Quezon Province Philippines. Leaving the islands bound for the city of Real, on the mainland, we became "2nd rate" cargo to a boatload of live grouper bound for Hong Kong. I watched and took photos while the fish were being screened and sized. Many fish were lethargic and easy to handle.
Nearly the entire deck of this 50 foot banca was filled with 30 gallon bags of fish.
The handlers even bumped and pushed us out of the way as they rolled the bags around the boat packing them tightly together.
ON the 5 hour boat ride back we talked with the fish broker and his partner....
They told us all the fish were collected with cyanide, as if it was "no big deal".... He said he has been dealing in fish like this for 20 YEARS.
We talked to him about alternative fishing methods and he asked: " how do you catch fish without cyanide?"
We explained there are alternatives that are not so destructive to the reefs.
He admitted that his fishers now have to travel much further for the fish and the local fishing areas had been depleted long ago and the reefs did not look the same.
Many of these people don't even realize that corals are living animals and part of a most vital ecosystem.
The good news is I believe this fish broker wants to change. He is a perfect candidate for converting. If only there were such a program....
Last summer I toured several of the Polilio Islands in Quezon Province Philippines. Leaving the islands bound for the city of Real, on the mainland, we became "2nd rate" cargo to a boatload of live grouper bound for Hong Kong. I watched and took photos while the fish were being screened and sized. Many fish were lethargic and easy to handle.
Nearly the entire deck of this 50 foot banca was filled with 30 gallon bags of fish.
The handlers even bumped and pushed us out of the way as they rolled the bags around the boat packing them tightly together.
ON the 5 hour boat ride back we talked with the fish broker and his partner....
They told us all the fish were collected with cyanide, as if it was "no big deal".... He said he has been dealing in fish like this for 20 YEARS.
We talked to him about alternative fishing methods and he asked: " how do you catch fish without cyanide?"
We explained there are alternatives that are not so destructive to the reefs.
He admitted that his fishers now have to travel much further for the fish and the local fishing areas had been depleted long ago and the reefs did not look the same.
Many of these people don't even realize that corals are living animals and part of a most vital ecosystem.
The good news is I believe this fish broker wants to change. He is a perfect candidate for converting. If only there were such a program....
round and round we go.......
Twenty years and still no real tests to determin what the cyanide threshold of a two ounce blue tang really is.
(can our collectors collect fish alive if they use concentrations above what the fish can survive?)
Or how a plume at this workable concentration dilutes as it spreads out from the point of discharge.
A cyanide plume dilutes at a rate of about ten times within twenty four inches of the original 12 inch radius.
That is the first square foot disperses into the next eight adjacent square feet as the cyanide plume expands an additional foot from the original..
Twenty years and still no real tests to determin what the cyanide threshold of a two ounce blue tang really is.
(can our collectors collect fish alive if they use concentrations above what the fish can survive?)
Or how a plume at this workable concentration dilutes as it spreads out from the point of discharge.
A cyanide plume dilutes at a rate of about ten times within twenty four inches of the original 12 inch radius.
That is the first square foot disperses into the next eight adjacent square feet as the cyanide plume expands an additional foot from the original..
Attachments
What is the typical level of cyanide collectors squirt at a tiny trade size reef fish without killing it? These fishermen do realize that they make no money killing fish all day and that there as so few fish like blue tangs that over stunning fish translates into cyanide and time wasted.
Once we determin that real world threshold is, then we can determin what effects this might have on the reef as a whole.
Establish the basis point using fish.( not how many tablets can fit into ones pocket)
Our industry doesnt fish for table size groupers or wrasses. Stop blending the trades so you can make blanket statement. "all cyanide fishing is the same." Its not.
For the same reasons a large grouper can withstand high copper concentrations in an aquarium and tiny copperbands , angels and gobies cannot.... Its silly to pretend that food fishermen and MO trade collectors use the same concentrations when fishing. Tiny fish simply cant withstand high levels of poison.
Even testing never supported the anti trade position.
Only about twenty percent of the PI trade fish were found to have cyanide present and two out of the four last years testing took place it was less less then twenty percent.
Its time we demand proof that our industrys few cyanide fishermen cause anything beyond a few random spoting of the corals in heavily fish areas.
The science doesnt support it and the math envolved with such a large area of reefs doesnt explain how so few collectors could be so many places in a 7000 island 2.2 million square kilometer fishing grounds.
Once we determin that real world threshold is, then we can determin what effects this might have on the reef as a whole.
Establish the basis point using fish.( not how many tablets can fit into ones pocket)
Our industry doesnt fish for table size groupers or wrasses. Stop blending the trades so you can make blanket statement. "all cyanide fishing is the same." Its not.
For the same reasons a large grouper can withstand high copper concentrations in an aquarium and tiny copperbands , angels and gobies cannot.... Its silly to pretend that food fishermen and MO trade collectors use the same concentrations when fishing. Tiny fish simply cant withstand high levels of poison.
Even testing never supported the anti trade position.
Only about twenty percent of the PI trade fish were found to have cyanide present and two out of the four last years testing took place it was less less then twenty percent.
Its time we demand proof that our industrys few cyanide fishermen cause anything beyond a few random spoting of the corals in heavily fish areas.
The science doesnt support it and the math envolved with such a large area of reefs doesnt explain how so few collectors could be so many places in a 7000 island 2.2 million square kilometer fishing grounds.
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:
