# ARTICLE: Catching fish with Cyanide



## twobytwo (Oct 25, 2014)

Hope I'm not violating rules by posting this:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...-saltwater-tropical-fish-cyanide-coral-reefs/

Not a super-long article, but pretty informative

_"An estimated 70 to 90 percent of the 12.5 million tropical fish that enter the U.S. each year are caught illegally with cyanide, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the United Nations."_

_Upon being squirted with cyanide, fish suffer "severe gasping, followed by loss of balance and a complete loss of all respiratory activity." _

_Each live fish caught with cyanide destroys about a square yard of coral, _


----------



## fury165 (Aug 21, 2010)

While the description of the method is true, the data NatGeo used is 19 years old. Seems like they didn't bother to vet this *recent* data and have already been called out on it.

https://www.reefs.com/blog/2016/03/11/national-geographic-checks-facts-door/


----------



## twobytwo (Oct 25, 2014)

Thanks Fury... I saw the first article on Nat Geo and didn't look into further sources. Especially since the other article was written so soon after. I was hoping the 90% stat was incorrect. I'll read yours tonight. Tip 'o the hat to you.  

Everybody - ready Fury's article instead!


----------



## fury165 (Aug 21, 2010)

twobytwo said:


> Thanks Fury... I saw the first article on Nat Geo and didn't look into further sources. Especially since the other article was written so soon after. I'll read yours tonight. Tip 'o the hat to you.
> 
> Everybody - ready Fury's article instead!


Better yet, read both so you can see what is being done here. It is important that we hobbyists become better informed on our "socially and environmentally destructive" pastimes [/s]

There are anti folks who are crusaders for whatever cause they represent and seem to have no qualms about bending the truth to suit their position. We need to pay attention and call them out at every opportunity. otherwise the garbage they put out there serves to win over public opinion to their side.


----------



## solarz (Aug 31, 2010)

While it's certainly good that the aquarium trade is not as horrendous to the environment as that National Geographic article suggests, we can't deny that it still does have an impact.

I don't believe there is anything wrong with catching some of the tens of thousands of damsels swimming around a reef and sending them to our fish tanks, provided that doing so does not harm anything else.

However, I am concerned about threatened species being exploited this way. The article mentioned Banggai Cardinals. Is it or is it not endangered? Even if it wasn't endangered, is the population declining due to the aquarium trade? I believe that if the latter is true, then we need to reassess our exploitation of this species.


----------



## altcharacter (Jan 10, 2011)

the population of the Bangaii is decreasing in the wild just like anything else in the ocean. Tuna will be extinct in the next 10-12 years. Sharks will be right behind them in 15-18 years and shrimp are about 15-20 years from extinction.

Reefing has a very small impact on the environment and at this point in our hobby most coral comes from aquaculture farms. We can also get tank raised livestock fairly easy from what i've seen and i'd rather have a tank raised fish than a wild one.

The reality is that the ocean is pretty much doomed due to overfishing and pollution. Do you still eat fish from the ocean? You probably shouldn't if you care.

On a brighter note, I heard Ryan talking about the fish that he gets tend to not be caught with cyanide. Most LFS have stopped buying those types of fish


----------



## TBemba (Jan 11, 2010)

Like the old saying goes, you can catch more fish with Cyanide than you can with Honey. Goes something like that


----------



## solarz (Aug 31, 2010)

altcharacter said:


> the population of the Bangaii is decreasing in the wild just like anything else in the ocean. Tuna will be extinct in the next 10-12 years. Sharks will be right behind them in 15-18 years and shrimp are about 15-20 years from extinction.


If you have any sources for those numbers, I'd like to see them. Otherwise, I'm rather skeptical of those claims.



> Reefing has a very small impact on the environment and at this point in our hobby most coral comes from aquaculture farms. We can also get tank raised livestock fairly easy from what i've seen and i'd rather have a tank raised fish than a wild one.
> 
> The reality is that the ocean is pretty much doomed due to overfishing and pollution. Do you still eat fish from the ocean? You probably shouldn't if you care.


I agree that the impact of the aquarium trade is likely very small compared to pollution and the fishing industry. However, that does not mean we are off the hook for any impact our hobby has on the environment.


----------



## fury165 (Aug 21, 2010)

While I agree that there is an negative impact to our hobby, I think it is important to note the positive side as well. Remember that coral propagation methods created by hobbyists are being used to repopulate areas of reefs that have been decimated. There are a number of scientific and conservation journals that make mention of this fact. 

It may not be a perfect balance, but I'm glad to see that we can contribute positively to the situation... Coral propagation, captive breeding and good stewardship of the oranisms we keep I. Our tanks. Jm2c


----------



## altcharacter (Jan 10, 2011)

Here is the list, you'll find bluefin tuna on there.

https://www.worldwildlife.org/species/directory?direction=desc&sort=extinction_status


----------



## solarz (Aug 31, 2010)

altcharacter said:


> Here is the list, you'll find bluefin tuna on there.
> 
> https://www.worldwildlife.org/species/directory?direction=desc&sort=extinction_status


Critically endangered doesn't mean they'll go extinct in 10-20 years. In any case, that's still a far cry from sharks and shrimps being gone in 20 years.

I mean, shrimps? Really?


----------



## wchen9 (Jan 23, 2014)

solarz said:


> Critically endangered doesn't mean they'll go extinct in 10-20 years. In any case, that's still a far cry from sharks and shrimps being gone in 20 years.
> 
> I mean, shrimps? Really?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critically_endangered

If you look at the criteria to be classified critically endangered, the estimate of 10-20 years for extinction may not be that far off on the bluefin tuna...


----------



## fury165 (Aug 21, 2010)

*One lie begets another...*



> Several major media outlets are all-of-a-sudden reporting about fish caught using cyanide for the aquarium trade. That's because this month the Center for Biological Diversity submitted a petition to NOAA and the National Fish and Wildlife Service to ban cyanide-caught fish.
> In a new petition, the CBD is advocating NOAA Fisheries, The US NFWS, and the US Customs and Borders Protection to prohibit the importation of fish that have been determined to be caught with cyanide. Their petition seeks a requirement for "testing and certification to ensure imported tropical fish have not been illegally captured using cyanide," rejecting fish that test positive to cyanide exposure in addition to revoking certification (and thus the right to import into the USA) collectors who fail the test.
> 
> In recent years, scientists have developed new, non-lethal cyanide testing methods, making the testing requirements lobbied in this petition more practical.
> ...


http://www.advancedaquarist.com/blog/cbd-petitions-to-prevent-import-of-cyanide-caught-fish


----------



## DennisZ (Feb 3, 2015)

I'd just like to chime in that collecting animals for the reefing hobby typically does not have a huge impact on healthy natural populations. The effect is minuscule in comparison to the real problem: pollution, environmental changes, and habitat destruction.


----------



## solarz (Aug 31, 2010)

fury165 said:


> http://www.advancedaquarist.com/blog/cbd-petitions-to-prevent-import-of-cyanide-caught-fish


I would support this ban. Instead of worrying about it being a backdoor attempt at ending the aquarium trade (which I think will never happen), we should instead see the benefit it would bring, namely less chance of buying cyanide poisoned fish.

Sure, it will likely mean higher average prices and less species, but are we really saving money by buying cyanide poisoned fish? I'm thinking of a certain store in Markham that offers low prices but get regular complaints of fish that die a few days after purchase.


----------



## fury165 (Aug 21, 2010)

I already boycott buying from stores who source from these type of suppliers. It's pretty easy to figure out after a while. 

I don't need a ban crafted by those who's long game is to really ban the hobby as a whole. We do ourselves little service to let these people craft and push laws into existence without having meaningful input into the process. Just look at the push to have trade in clownfish banned, which would not only include wild caught but captive bred as well. 

There are lots of individuals and organizations in our hobby that are doing meaningful work on conservation of the reefs, but sadly they don't get the support or the airtime like the antis.


----------



## Orangutran (Oct 16, 2012)

I skimmed thru the Nat Geo article from the OP, and there was a source from some society in Hawaii, and anything from Hawaii is looking to ban our hobby. Period. Not to mention the dated stats. Philippines is a lot better with the cyanide fishing...

Here's a podcast related to cyanide, Philippines, and our hobby:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/nature...n--nano-reef-hour--collecting-marine-life.mp3

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## fury165 (Aug 21, 2010)

solarz said:


> However, I am concerned about threatened species being exploited this way. The article mentioned Banggai Cardinals. Is it or is it not endangered? Even if it wasn't endangered, is the population declining due to the aquarium trade? I believe that if the latter is true, then we need to reassess our exploitation of this species.


I came across these two articles today while reading some other things. Full disclosure... I skimmed the articles with intention to reread at some point tonight. I thought you'd like to read them either way - good or bad as it addresses your concern.



> In 2012, a large-scale aquaculture facility based in Thailand began to breed Banggai cardinalfish in captivity for export, which may alleviate some of the pressure to collect fish from wild populations. In 2013, approximately 120,000 Banggai cardinalfish were imported into the United States from the Thailand facility. The volume represents a significant portion of overall United States imports of the cardinalfish and may even exceed the number of wild fish currently imported. Efforts to captive-breed the species in the United States are also ongoing, which may alleviate dependence on wild-caught cardinalfish. In-situ breeding by the fishing communities in the endemic area may also alleviate pressure on the natural population, but the concept requires further research before it can be implemented at a local community level.


https://rettalbot.wordpress.com/2016/01/20/wildearth-guardians-commends-banggai-cardinalfish-esa-listing/



> Available information indicates that the current conservation status of the species is markedly different due to improved awareness and handling practices in local fishing communities, Indonesian management initiatives, and development of significant aquaculture production. We note that the impact of these positive developments since 2007 seems to have been discounted in the proposed rule.


And



> The agency concludes that, *despite dramatic increase in aquaculture, "evidence shows that directed harvest for the live marine ornamental reef fish trade and harvest of microhabitat remain concerns." Additionally, NMFS acknowledges identifying an aquacultured Banggai cardinalfish from a wild banggai cardinalfish "would be difficult" and allowing trade in aquacultured fish, while banning wild ones, potentially opens the door to fraud and illegal activity*....


https://rettalbot.wordpress.com/2016/01/22/pijac-strongly-recommends-nmfs-not-prohibit-trade-in-banggai-cardinalfish/


----------



## solarz (Aug 31, 2010)

fury165 said:


> I came across these two articles today while reading some other things. Full disclosure... I skimmed the articles with intention to reread at some point tonight. I thought you'd like to read them either way - good or bad as it addresses your concern.
> 
> https://rettalbot.wordpress.com/2016/01/20/wildearth-guardians-commends-banggai-cardinalfish-esa-listing/
> 
> ...


Thanks for providing these articles.

First, it's good to know that most banggai cardinalfish going to the US (and I assume, Canada as well) is aquacultured.

However, it's worrying that PIJAC is arguing for continued collection from the wild despite the species' listing as endangered. The basis of their argument seems to be this:



> In public comment last winter, PIJAC said that "Based on the significant contribution of captive-reared fish to the U.S. and Europe, it is *likely *that demand for wild-caught BCF has declined well below the levels of the early 2000s. We *conclude *that threats to the species from overutilization by the aquarium trade have been significantly reduced, and largely eliminated."


Drawing a conclusion from a supposition does not seem an especially solid argument. Yes, the proportion of captive bred banggai cardinals in the trade have risen and overtaken wild-caught individuals, but they're only guessing that demand for wild-caught BCF has declined significantly, and more importantly, they're making a huge leap in then concluding that threats to the species from the aquarium trade have been "significantly reduced, and largely eliminated".

Where is the data supporting their conclusion? After all, demand could have fallen, but not enough to stop threatening the wild BCF population. Even if demand has indeed fallen below early 2000's levels, we are dealing with a much reduced population of wild BCF now, so obviously that population can only sustain a much more reduced harvest.

The PIJAC has presented no evidence that current harvesting levels of wild-caught BCF is sustainable, yet they still advocate for continued harvesting despite the species' endangered status?


----------



## fury165 (Aug 21, 2010)

From my skim of the article, that confused me too wrt to the continuation of wild harvest. If they are concerned that the ban on wild harvest would also see the end of aquaculture trade, then it makes sense. As usual, a single source of this kind of information is insufficient and requires further digging. 

Breadcrumbs, grasshopper, breadcrumbs..


----------



## solarz (Aug 31, 2010)

fury165 said:


> From my skim of the article, that confused me too wrt to the continuation of wild harvest. If they are concerned that the ban on wild harvest would also see the end of aquaculture trade, then it makes sense. As usual, a single source of this kind of information is insufficient and requires further digging.
> 
> Breadcrumbs, grasshopper, breadcrumbs..


If anything, wouldn't a ban on the wild harvest be a boon to the aquaculture trade?

They could be concerned with a global ban on the trade of BCF, wild-caught or captive bred, but then why not just state that? Why continue to advocate wild-caught?

I think their position would have been much stronger had they offered to support a ban on wild-caught BCF in exchange for allowing trade in captive bred.

Of course, then again, the PIJAC might not really be on the side of the hobbyists.


----------



## fury165 (Aug 21, 2010)

That is the underlying issue..from what I gather so far, the ban seeks to be all encompassing because, you know, People will use the aquaculture industry to hide illegal harvesting and trade in wild caught. Lol...


----------

