Another cyanide study
- Thread starter Humblefish
- Start date
- Tagged users None
eatbreakfast
Fish Nerd
^Agreed, but Umberger is pretty bad. She was involved in harassing fish collectors in Hawaii. And if the data was good, why wasn't it peer reviewd before presenting?
Humblefish
Dr. Fish
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2014
- Messages
- 22,424
- Reaction score
- 34,869
She's extreme, but I don't believe she would purposely falsify her findings. The study wasn't large enough to be peer reviewed. And honestly, you'll never see a large scale study done on cyanide poisoning because there's too much money to be lost if the findings mirrored these smaller studies.
Humblefish
Dr. Fish
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2014
- Messages
- 22,424
- Reaction score
- 34,869
Not as bad as the diver who assaulted her underwater: http://californiadiver.com/hawaiian-dive-assault-suspect-given-probation152/
eatbreakfast
Fish Nerd
She claims it will be peer reviewed this fall.
By all accounts of collectors that are familiar with cyanide collection, the data is false regarding chromis and firefish, because they are very sensitive to cyanide and they are easier to catch by net.
By all accounts of collectors that are familiar with cyanide collection, the data is false regarding chromis and firefish, because they are very sensitive to cyanide and they are easier to catch by net.
eatbreakfast
Fish Nerd
There is a reason why they were misdemeanor charges and not felony.
Having a legal background she is aware of how far she can go and is very good at getting right up to that line.
Humblefish
Dr. Fish
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2014
- Messages
- 22,424
- Reaction score
- 34,869
Sabellafella
7500 Club Member
Excellence Award
Reef Tank 365
Reef Of The Month
Reef Squad Emeritus
Reef Master
My Tank Thread
My Aquarium Showcase
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2015
- Messages
- 7,593
- Reaction score
- 12,048
Oh man very very sad
eatbreakfast
Fish Nerd
Much of the data that For the Fishes uses is outdated and presented as up to date, grabs an area of high statistics and tries to pass it as across the board, the way her organization does that seems quite manipulative to me.
Being involved with Sea Shepard at the time of the incident in Hawaii, on a Sea Shepherd boat, and following the collector with a group of 5 other Sea Shepherd members, having been quoted in personal interviews that she didn't know who the collector was but had threatened to "sic Sea Shepherd on them", an organization that has been involved in physical altercations, shows that yes, she is passionate, but also manipulative.
Humblefish
Dr. Fish
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2014
- Messages
- 22,424
- Reaction score
- 34,869
Every time another article or study comes out on the still present use of cyanide, its made to seem not credible by those in the industry with $$$ to lose. It kind of reminds me of the cigarette industry back in the 50s and 60s, and how they suppressed information warning people that smoking was harmful. The thing is the aquarium industry itself has the power/technology to get out in front of this thing, and solve the problem themselves without any govt. intervention. The wholesalers can show the govt. they are policing it by randomly testing for thiocyanate in the water, performing autopsies on specimens suspected on cyanide poisoning, and then only buying from collectors who have a proven track record of being reputable. Let the almighty dollar starve the unscrupulous collectors out of the business, so there is no need for the govt. to get involved.
I personally believe collecting via cyanide is still widespread in both the Philippines and Indonesia.
I personally believe collecting via cyanide is still widespread in both the Philippines and Indonesia.
Humblefish
Dr. Fish
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2014
- Messages
- 22,424
- Reaction score
- 34,869
One of my motivations for being so passionate about this is so we can get out in front of it before Big Brother gets involved. This is also a reason why I am so heavily involved in the fish disease aspect of our hobby. We all know we are being watched, and every mistake we make is being scrutinized by various environmental groups. They are collecting data/stats in an attempt to either shut the industry down or at the very least make it heavily regulated by the govt. Just ignoring our weaknesses isn't going to make them go away. We have to show that we are proactively trying to do things to fix the problems ourselves. Everyone can contribute. Whether its wholesalers testing for cyanide at their facilities or hobbyists QT'ing specimens before putting them into their DT. To their credit, some LFSs are trying to QT their fish before being placed up for sale and that is a HUGE STEP in the right direction. All these things give the other side the ammo they need to defend us (and the industry as a whole) from people like Umberger and Downs. 
I've been in this hobby all my life, since I was just 5 years old. My father passed it down to me. If I didn't have this in some form, I don't know what I'd do with myself.
But it's more than about just that. These animals we pull out of the ocean deserve better than this. I decided a long time ago that the only way I could sleep at night and remain in the hobby is if there were to be a trade off. I would continue to "imprison" these fish for my own selfish pleasure. However, I would cater to their every whim - see to it they lived in good conditions, always had an ample supply of food, wouldn't be killed by another fish, and I would do my very best to ensure they didn't have to battle disease on a daily basis thru proper QT. I'm not saying this makes everything "right", but I'm doing what I can. And if there's anything I can do to improve the circumstances in which these fish are collected under, I feel I have a responsibility to that as well.
I've been in this hobby all my life, since I was just 5 years old. My father passed it down to me. If I didn't have this in some form, I don't know what I'd do with myself.
But it's more than about just that. These animals we pull out of the ocean deserve better than this. I decided a long time ago that the only way I could sleep at night and remain in the hobby is if there were to be a trade off. I would continue to "imprison" these fish for my own selfish pleasure. However, I would cater to their every whim - see to it they lived in good conditions, always had an ample supply of food, wouldn't be killed by another fish, and I would do my very best to ensure they didn't have to battle disease on a daily basis thru proper QT. I'm not saying this makes everything "right", but I'm doing what I can. And if there's anything I can do to improve the circumstances in which these fish are collected under, I feel I have a responsibility to that as well.
eatbreakfast
Fish Nerd
My motivations for quetioning For the Fishes' data, is not out of aquarium industry interests, but rather protecting reefs in general, though I believe there is a lot of overlap between these two.
For the Fishes agenda is to end the collection of wild fish for the aquarium trade. They tried to get fish collecting banned in Hawaii, even though it is, by most accounts, responsibly fished.
They are also the organization that provided the overestimated data for the infamous National Geographic article, but also a slew of Wikipedia entries,which if you actually read those sources, doesn't paint the same picture. Rather the sources actually show a downward trend in cyanide use in the Philippines. For the Fishes is trying, and doing a really good job, of overwhelming actual truth with what they want people to believe.
If fault can be found with there data, it needs to be pointed out, rather than conceding ground to them. The Nat Geo article paints a picture of up to 90% of wild caught fish could be cyanide captured, though any actual data shows far less. Even in this new study they lead with over 80% of green chromis are caught with cyanide, though their total percentage on all fish was a lower number of just over 50%.
Any fish caught by cyanide is too many, but the way the story is being framed is being manipulated to fit their agenda, ignoring the facts that improvements are being documented.
If For the Fishes gets their way a ban on ornamental fish collecting would be detrimental to reefs. This is because those that are work as ornamental fish collectors are essentially poor fishermen. If they can no longer get work as ornamental fish collectors, they will just move to being commercial fishers, which is proven to be destructive on a greater scale of ornamental fish collection.
This scenario is even more tragic for the collectors in the Philippines that are collecting fish responsibly, but are being shunned by those that lump them togetherwith cyanide collectors just because they are from the Philippines. Data has shown systematic improvement in the Philippines but not recognizing this gives responsible collectors little 'real time' incentive to continue, (fortunately, despite this mind set by some, improvements are continuing).
Right now National Geographic is on site in the Philippines investigating this matter further than just regurgitating For the Fishes rhetoric.
Improvements need to continue, however, especially in Indonesia. All levels of the industry need to be involved, but especially on the wholesale level. Particularly if the biggest U.S. importers got serious about it. But hobbyists can investigate their sources too, and utilize these rather than opting only for captive bred, or even just Hawaii and Australia. Finding trustworthy collectors in trouble spots is vitally important too.
For the Fishes agenda is to end the collection of wild fish for the aquarium trade. They tried to get fish collecting banned in Hawaii, even though it is, by most accounts, responsibly fished.
They are also the organization that provided the overestimated data for the infamous National Geographic article, but also a slew of Wikipedia entries,which if you actually read those sources, doesn't paint the same picture. Rather the sources actually show a downward trend in cyanide use in the Philippines. For the Fishes is trying, and doing a really good job, of overwhelming actual truth with what they want people to believe.
If fault can be found with there data, it needs to be pointed out, rather than conceding ground to them. The Nat Geo article paints a picture of up to 90% of wild caught fish could be cyanide captured, though any actual data shows far less. Even in this new study they lead with over 80% of green chromis are caught with cyanide, though their total percentage on all fish was a lower number of just over 50%.
Any fish caught by cyanide is too many, but the way the story is being framed is being manipulated to fit their agenda, ignoring the facts that improvements are being documented.
If For the Fishes gets their way a ban on ornamental fish collecting would be detrimental to reefs. This is because those that are work as ornamental fish collectors are essentially poor fishermen. If they can no longer get work as ornamental fish collectors, they will just move to being commercial fishers, which is proven to be destructive on a greater scale of ornamental fish collection.
This scenario is even more tragic for the collectors in the Philippines that are collecting fish responsibly, but are being shunned by those that lump them togetherwith cyanide collectors just because they are from the Philippines. Data has shown systematic improvement in the Philippines but not recognizing this gives responsible collectors little 'real time' incentive to continue, (fortunately, despite this mind set by some, improvements are continuing).
Right now National Geographic is on site in the Philippines investigating this matter further than just regurgitating For the Fishes rhetoric.
Improvements need to continue, however, especially in Indonesia. All levels of the industry need to be involved, but especially on the wholesale level. Particularly if the biggest U.S. importers got serious about it. But hobbyists can investigate their sources too, and utilize these rather than opting only for captive bred, or even just Hawaii and Australia. Finding trustworthy collectors in trouble spots is vitally important too.
