Pretentiousness

[greenbean36191]

Alright Jay, A local example does not contradict my earlier statement. Hows the economy in those areas compared with parts of the world where inforcement is more effective. Similiar to Bill reading a statement about "the only legitamitate point of contention" as if the statement said the only point. Do you really think if I went to half dozen local stores bought fish and tested them for trace cyanide I would find much more than 10% positive.

Those local examples account for about 80% of the livestock in the trade. The economies in the those areas are **** poor, as they are in virtually all areas where collection occurs, which is why regulation does not work well. There's very little funding for enforcement and corruption is rampant with the few LEOs present. Discussing areas where enforcement if more effective isn't really discussing the reality of the hobby.

And no, if you tested the fish at the LFS for cyanide I wouldn't expect to find close to 10% positive. I'd expect to find virtually 0 because it's metabolized quickly. Even when the fish are tested at the source, the most optimistic data even shows rates of more than 10%.

 

[MM WI]

#$@ it Jay,

Try Marine Ornamental Species: Collection, Culture and Conservationm Rubic, 2008,or Marine Ornamental Species By James C. Cato, Christopher L. Brown they were able to detect cyanide weeks after collection and they discuss historical data. I have read several references on this subject over the last several decades, why I am taking the time to give you one is beyond me. The text above references several journal articles

- mark

 

[MM WI]

Greanbean,

Our equipment is very sensitive, I could detected it in fish that make it to my local store.

You are right these economies are terrible, I dont think it is as wide spread as it is being stated here if you consider the entire industry but it is a huge problem, where I am trying to take us is to a conversation of what will help and what will not.

- mark

 

[MM WI]

Jay, Please stop pretending my posts are about cyanide, others brought up this subject as a side note, I mentioned a few things I have read, this is only being discussed because you guys are trying to score points. - mar,

 

[Wolverine]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14066276#post14066276 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MM WI
Are you really suggesting that I am the one misreading posts?

I think that's a fair statement, though I'm not sure if Jay was suggesting it.

I want people to see the parallels between what is often done on this board and what the people who want to shut us all down do. These things are important to me because they interfere with conservation. You think what we are talking about here is controversial, try putting forth a management plan on a polarizing animal like the timber wolf or the humpback whale. Pretentiousness and posturing are a bigger part of the equation than science.

I agree with all of this. The problem in this thread, as I mentioned, is that you chose poor examples to make your point, and derailed your own thread. In doing so, you got several people (both posting and not) who would agree with your basic premise spending time arguing with your specifics.

why I am taking the time to give you one is beyond me

You seem awfully upset about that considering the fact that you were getting annoyed with others not giving any reference to back up their claims.
When I get a chance, I'll look at the reference you provided (though I don't intend to pay $150 for it), but I'll also have to look back (and recommend you look at also) the more recent findings from the Coral Reef Task Force, which had actually found an increasing prevalence of cyanide fishing, especially since the closure of the Cyanide detection labs in the Philippines (CDT labs). It's difficult to test for, since, as noted above, it's quickly broken down (I believe to thiocyanate, but I'd have to look it up to be sure).

Our equipment is very sensitive, I could detected it in fish that make it to my local store.

Unlikely. As mentioned before, it's difficult to test for, since, as noted above, it's quickly broken down (I believe to thiocyanate, but I'd have to look it up to be sure), and the the metabolites are broken down. Sure, from a pure chemistry standpoint, it's easy to detect cyanide, but it doesn't stay that way for very long. Those fish have been in captivity a long time before they make it to your LFS. Good detection is a problem in treating humans also.

 

[jenglish]

Mark,

I think that some of the minor things here are central building blocks to the argument here if were all on the same topic I believe the argument here is that aquaculture is not superior to wild collection in every aspect as long as the resource is not taken in an unsustainable manner.

There was an early argument on energy consumption. I can certainly see how with primarily coal driven electricity there is a very real ecological cost to aquaculture when light is provided by MH or fluorescents. How much of the power is provided through direct solar I am unfamiliar with and maybe some of those in the industry can add more on this. It would seem that as much solar usage as possible would be wanted to offset energy costs for a bussiness. THere are a great deal of energy inputs into wild collection as well in fuel and I wouldn't have the foggiest idea of how to begin to make a cost calculation there.

The cyanide issue is still a point here. There is debate over its prevelance with both sides claiming empirical data. I think this goes into looking at whether the fish are truly being harvested in a sustainable fashion.

Then there is simply establishing what is sustainable. I will give you that the popular press is largely out for ratings by sensationalizing any news and is not relaible. Peer reviewed journals are still susceptable to bias but likely better.

I think that there is disagreement on the pressures on the reef system. I think there are some fairly well supported ideas on acidification and sand encroachment at least. Even barring any global climate change we can look just at coral collection. Lets not even include what is collected for live specimens but even look at the amounts collected for the coffee table and curio type markets. This is obviously not in all reefs but likely concentrated on reefs in the most impoverished parts of the world. I think herein lies one of the problems with making legislation on our end, the consumer end. If we banned all import these countries would use the reef for something. I am digressing a bit here but my point is I don't know that we can make the assumption that the wild caught fish that you get are coming from a sustainable source or at least in a sustainable manner. Just to assume that we cannot be taxing such a large resource is a dangerous assumption and one that I believe we as humans have made before and been incorrect.

 

[jenglish]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14066323#post14066323 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MM WI
Hi Jeng,

Do you see any of this in the national dialog or in the US media? Do you any of this when we make judgemental statements about people paying ten dollars for wild caught clown when they could have bought a captive raised for just a little more. How about when we set one type of equipment above the other.

- Mark

1. I see sensationalizing for ratings but not pretension. I really don't believe media on the left or right actually has an agenda or a bias.... I think they have an audience. They cater to their niche for ratings.
2. Is there pretension in this? From some yes, from most I think it is good intent from the best of thier knowledge. In this specific example (clowns) I would still greatly favor captive bred because these little boogers can't be stopped from reproducing. There may be other species where the opposite is true but I think people have the best intentions MOST of the time.
3. On the equipment I'm not sure what you are getting at. DO you mean in relation to conservation or pretension? I don't see how this relates to the part on conservation but I know some people are very zealous in their particular husbandry practices.

-jeremy

 

[billsreef]

Mark,

With so many college educated people (several in the marine sciences) seeming to not follow what your trying to say, perhaps you should rethink how your saying things?

BTW, I'm not disagreeing with you about the disconnect between science and policy (set by politicians) that is seen in things like conservation planing and fisheries management. I've spent a fair amount of time in the field of fisheries

 

[MM WI]

Valid point Bill, but if I just put everything on the table, Instead of throwing a couple of things out and look for a partner in conversation I am not sure that would be more effective. In fact the people arguing often help demonstrate my points, this has been so far off topic that it obviously has not worked. I am contemplating detailing a more specific example to see if any lights come on.

- Mark

 

[Thales]

nevermind

 

[billsreef]

Mark,

It's always more effective to make short and concise points, as opposed the rambling you started with

 

[JHemdal]

Hi Mark,

You wrote:

"Try Marine Ornamental Species: Collection, Culture and Conservationm (sic) Rubic, 2008,or Marine Ornamental Species By James C. Cato, Christopher L. Brown "

I could not find the first reference, no matter how I tried to search; both searches showed up only as the second title, a $150 book - which I don't have in my library (I'm only a poor aquarium curator) I was aware of that text, but I don't have the funds to purchase it right now.
Could you post a quick quote from this text for me? I'd really like to hear their story about how they feel that the cyanide trade has decreased - but I can't buy that book right now just to check your assertions.

Funny thing; I did run a search of that book on Amazon.com and found that they referenced me at least four times - one being an article of mine from way back in 1984, "In defense of current marine fish prices". This was smack in my "youthful ideological period" - I no longer have a copy of that article, so I don't even know if what I wrote back then is even valid anymore.....yet they used it for their book....I can only hope that what I had to say back then was very profound!

Jay

 

[Thales]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14072237#post14072237 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by JHemdal
Hi Mark,

You wrote:

"Try Marine Ornamental Species: Collection, Culture and Conservationm (sic) Rubic, 2008,or Marine Ornamental Species By James C. Cato, Christopher L. Brown "

I could not find the first reference, no matter how I tried to search; both searches showed up only as the second title, a $150 book - which I don't have in my library (I'm only a poor aquarium curator) I was aware of that text, but I don't have the funds to purchase it right now.
Could you post a quick quote from this text for me? I'd really like to hear their story about how they feel that the cyanide trade has decreased - but I can't buy that book right now just to check your assertions.

Jay,

Peter Rubic just posted in a cyanide thread on another forum that almost all PI and Indo exporters export juiced fish and that cyanide detection testing has decreased since 2001, but not the actual use of cyanide.

 

[jenglish]

one can debate all the subpoints here and there of disparities between science and policy. I think that there is of course disparity. A scientist is a poor politician and vice versa. But to establish that as pretentiousness is ultimately impossible as it is a pretty subjective term. I think this is just an area where 2 people are going to look at the exact same data set (even if we alll agreed upon it ) and one person would say it was clear evidence of pretension and the other would say there was no evidence.

 

[MM WI]

My statement was a reference to trends over decades, it was only to percent positive of fish for the hobby. It is evidence of some progress but for the reef the growth in hobby even with a lower percent it may represent more cyanide on the reef. Like most issues there always complexities that go beyond a few numbers.

I will see what I can do.

 

[MM WI]

To be more specific on where i was trying to take us, we need to be more careful about making moral judgments and about being pretentious. It should be easy enough to see how ridiculous the AR radicals are when they pass disparagement on nature itself and on anyone that does not concur. When it happens on this board as with Jay’s tang police from past days, or more currently with statements about the supposed morality of what animals can be kept together or what equipment is required to keep some animals healthy we do the exact same thing. These positions become cliché, oppose the cliché position and you obviously don’t care or worse. A group of people form to jump on every post that says something different. The problem is the positions are often wrong and the debate is stifled by the cliché and the pretentiousness. I know from personal experience many of the clichés about what can’t or should not be done are wrong.

It is this type of pretentiousness that the media uses by design to demagogue conservation issues for their party of choice at the expensive of conservation. Whether it is mercury in coal or climate change, they turn small truths into large falsehoods repeat the story over and over and turn it into a cliché and use it to advance their agenda or finance their allies. The collateral damage done by this causes far more damage to conservation than any tiny good they accomplish if any. Real conservation is taken out of the public dialogue and is drawn out by people repeating what everybody knows as they have heard it a thousand times. We play into this when we sign on or do similar. I know if I were to attempt to explain these statements in more detail the noise will likely be deafening.

Far too much of this is on RC and in this board in particular. I have many times at various smaller reef clubs or events heard people joking about this type of stuff on RC. I think the large size of the club contributes to it. I often get the impression that some of the people arguing and posturing are doing nothing but repeating what they have read others write pulling from zero personal experience or original thought. I personally don’t mind bucking the trends and taking a little heat. I more likely hold my tongue if I agree with the consensus and will chose to post only when I think readers can benefit from decent. More people would be willing to do this if the discourse were different.

- Mark

 

[greenbean36191]

So to boil down two pages of rambling- Some people on RC are close-minded parrots.

...Yep.

 

[kaptken]

MM, it dont matter what your motives are as long as the means are sustainable. nothing wrong with ethical, sustainable coral farming IMO. I do a little myself as a result of being clumsy and knocking chunks of corals off all the time in my tanks. so i mount them and grow for sale. Most of my stock is salvage from things dying in LFS tanks at 5 bucks a pop. amazing how much you can actually save, and grow into mother colonies. not all , but a lot. i collect bio diversity. one rescued frag at a time.

the first order of priority is protecting the wild stock and its native habitat. because that is precicely where it has been genetically designed to live over the milenia. then we can look at sustainable plundering, and downstream farming to support our hobby. and perhaps build distributed genetic banks around the world in our tanks. but it should all be done with sustaining the native reef stock in place as first priority.

as for coal. one big thing absolutely nobody talks about is the huge amount of radioactive isotopes that are emmitted airborne by burning coal for power plants and industry. coal has a natural minute trace of various radio isotopes in its rock, of uranium, thorium, carbon, hydrogen, and several others. they are released when burned as compounds of CO2, H2O, and uranium oxides.

when TMI melted down, all those super sensitive site rad monitors that where going off after the accident were from radioactive uranium compounds in coal ash dust shaken loose from the stack precipitators every time they shook them down, from a coal plant 20 miles up wind. not from the reactor. coal, and oil and nat gas all have some small amounts of rad isotopes in them . and we burn a lot of them . so the amount of curies released into the air is significant, overall. like 74 pounds of U-235 per year per 1000MW coal fired plant. and more than twice that of thorium.
http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~aubrecht/coalvsnucMarcon.pdf
which is about 100 times the monitored emmissions of nuclear power plants.

so has anyone monitored that billion gallon fly ash sludge flood in Tennessee for radiation? I bet its higher than anyone thinks.

 

[MM WI]

Alright, but like mercury what is the baseline emission from natural sources compared to emission from coal? What is your measurable impact? Are you suggesting an expensive systems to reduce them or no coal at all, no coal then nuclear, you can't power the world with unicorns as unicorns do not yet exist. Any action would need to do less damage than what it addresses for it to be a good idea. It is always a complex equation. You can not just say, hey this cuts down on radio isotopes so it is good. To every extent it is more expensive a negative impact will be imparted on the environment. The proportions are difficult to discern but the relationship is absolute. We had people suggest that rearing fish in captivity which requires buildings, power, labor, land could be done more efficiently with less negative impact than a legal sustainable harvest. They obviously missed a few components. I would guess somewhere close to the point where you can raise them in captivity cheaper than you can catch them would be close to the breakeven point. Granted with people routinely breaking the rules they make a much stronger case.


Similiarly we have poeple suggesting we force the switch to unicorn power. Unicorn power is a reference to all of the technologies we have been pouring billions of dollars of venture capital, far too many of my own, into for decades but are still are not pracitcal. Wind and solar are just not there yet and require advancement in storage to be more than maybe a quarter of our grid. I know they tell you on tv that washington has somehow stopped these things from happening but in reality every exciting idea is explored by private dollars. The problem is a dozen exciting ideas fail for every one that achieves some success. Do any of you remember what happen to California when they tried to legislate unicorn power before it existed. Anything we force the country to do before the proper time will damage economies, increase deforestation and polution of our oceans to much greater extent than anything we are doing now. Just as it happen when Cali tried it.

- mark

 

[Thales]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14086553#post14086553 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MM WI
We had people suggest that rearing fish in captivity which requires buildings, power, labor, land could be done more efficiently with less negative impact than a legal sustainable harvest. They obviously missed a few components.

Do you feel a legal, sustainable harvest of fish would not require buildings, power, labor and land?