Headline: Up to 90 percent of the tropical fish that enter the U.S. each year are caught illegally with cyanide.

[sen5241b]

90%? Really? And doesn't a lot of our fish come from Hawaii where they have rather strict laws on how much can be taken from the reefs?

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/160310-aquarium-saltwater-tropical-fish-cyanide-coral-reefs/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=link_fbex20160314news-tropicalfish&utm_campaign=Content&sf22425439=1

Edited March 15, 2016 by sen5241b

[zygote2k]

total misrepreentations of the truth in that article. look where they got the data- from a 19 year old study.

[Keraxis]

It was produced by eco warriors that have been trying to destroy the hobby for years.   No real fact checking went into the article.  If you read it they claim we cant breed fish.  Exposure to cyanide also does not mean caught with it.  You have to think of how they are held.  They are all put into the same holding tank.  If you get a fish from china that was caught using cyanide and its put into a holding tank with other fish... all those fish would test positive now.  The study never talks levels.  It would seem national geographic is on its death spiral.  It was bought by ruppurt murdoch. 

http://boingboing.net/2015/11/05/shortly-after-rupert-murdoch-b.html

 

The magazine can no longer be trusted for facts.  

[Origami]

The data is, indeed old. The article cites a NOAA report from 2008 that relied mostly on data collected between 1993 and 2001. The paper observes that there was a sharp reduction in fish testing positive for cyanide use between 1996-1999 when the testing program appears to have been in full swing, but that use seems to have increased afterwards. 

 

The paper specifically says (on page 11), "Over a period of roughly eight years, IMA tested 48,000 aquarium fish and food fish for the presence of cyanide. Cyanide was detected overall in about 25% of all aquarium fish and 44% of the food fish. The testing appeared to serve as a deterrent, at least in the initial years, as the proportion of aquarium fish testing positive declined from about 43% in 1996 to 8% in 1999. Unfortunately, the numbers of fish testing positive for cyanide has increased in recent years, and most CDT labs were closed in the mid 1990s." (Note: Page 153 of the NOAA report says that the figure increased to 29% in 2000, presumably as underfunded testing facilities were closed.)

 

Many of these tests seem to have been performed at or near the source of fishes - primarily in the Philippines & Indonesia. It's very hard to determine where the 90% figure for affected imports that was cited originated. There is a citation on page 7 (in the list of recommendations) that uses a 90% figure, but it is not specific to cyanide-affected aquarium fish but to fishes considered "illegal" under the Lacey Act.

 

Cyanide fishing techniques are abhorrent and we should do what we reasonably can to stop it - whether it includes more source-testing or buying captive-bred fish. However, the article seems to rely on outdated data or, if more recent data is available, fails to cite sources of that data. It also seems to inflate numbers and develop sensational conclusions. I would have expected better from National Geographic's editors.

[Origami]

And doesn't a lot of our fish come from Hawaii where they have rather strict laws on how much can be taken from the reefs?

A lot of our aquarium fishes come from Indonesia, the Philippines, and that region of the world known as the Coral Triangle. Some from Hawaii (but not many); some from the Red Sea; some from other global regions. But most from the Coral Triangle.