Hurting more than helping

[MaryHM]

Naesco, I am stunned to hear you say that you will no longer participate here because everything you wanted did not happen exactly as you wanted it to. 24 hours ago the industry was in favor of NO LIST. They have comprised and are willing to accept a list now, and part of that is because of what has gone on here. As I posted in my "meeting report", the committee hasn't even been set up yet. I told you before I went to the meeting that NO SPECIES would be determined Friday. There is still a possibility that some obligate feeders could get on the list once the committee gets ahold of it. Like I said, both industry and conservation groups will be participating in the creation of the USL, so the industry doesn't have a 100% say in what happens with it. It's just plain silly to "pack up your marbles and go home" because things didn't go precisely your way. Things are moving in your direction and for that you should have been pleased and even more motivated to continue working on this subject since there has been some REAL progress made.

There are so many factors and variables involved in these issues, and they are not as black and white as many of you would like them to be. Running to Greenpeace and telling the WWF they should withdraw their support of MAC is both irresponsible and dangerous. Especially since THE LIST HASN'T EVEN BEEN DECIDED ON YET. I am seriously concerned about the idea of hobbyists running to some of the major organizations and causing an uproar over something that is still in the process of being worked on. Three years ago no one was even interested in industry reform. We are now progressing in that direction, but things don't happen overnight. This is a huge industry with many different variables and it will take a while to get it where it needs to be. There are many, many, many things that go on behind the scenes that you guys aren't aware of. I've tried to make some of those available to you both to educate you and involve you in the process.

I have dedicated the past few years of my life to industry reform issues, and feel that we have come a long way. The thought that my trying to involve the hobbyists in this process is starting to lead to the detriment of the process makes me really sad. By asking WWF to withdraw their support from MAC, you would cause a SEVERE blow to the process of industry reform. Reform goes much deeper than banning 30 species. There are many levels to it. If you are willing to destroy the entire process over one tiny aspect, then you have forced me to make a decision. I will no longer be able to actively involve hobbyists in industry reform via this forum. I will continue to answer questions about the industry and participate in discussions about industry reform issues. However, I will no longer directly involve the hobbyists in any specific action. It's too potentially dangerous to the issues I and many others have been working on for so many years. I regret that it has to come to this, because I think this forum could have been used in a positive way to acheive the goal we all want. However, I won't open myself up to the possibility of being responsible for people using their emotions instead of common sense when dealing with these issues- and in the process ruining all chance of true reform.

 

[StirCrazy]

I understan your position Mary but it is realy to bad that because of the threats of one or two people that this progress info won't be able to be read as freely. as a person just starting out in the Reef hobby I have learned a great deal from lerking and reading that I would have never knowen had this forum been here.

I will also say to Naesco that employing the aid of greenpeace would not only be foolish but stupid as there international reputation is not the best and sometime there actions are far from legal.

I also would like to see the list implamented but also knowing how big corperations and organizations work, it is simply amazing that Mary got as much forward as she did.. especialy sence the meating was not spicificaly to discuss the list. So I would only hope you would take a day or two to look at this again, calm down and try thing of ways to help instead of going off headstrong and posably hurting what has been acomplished so far.

well back to lerking

Steve

 

[danmhippo]

Time line:
Naesco posted going to green peace: 03/09 3:45pm
Naesco thanked Mary for the endeavor: 3/09 4:08pm

Hmmm.....Is there some kind of confusion here?

 

[jamesw]

Hi Mary, I want to thank you for at least giving it a try at the meeting.

I for one understand naesco's position completely.

24 hrs ago, we had THREE criteria for the list, NOT including suitability. Now we're down to just two.

What happens at the next meeting? Which criteria are we going to remove next in the name of "compromise?"

Just because a COUPLE of guys (and I mean a couple...literally) are importing a few butterflies that eat prepared foods. I say, let those guys get an exemption if they can demonstrate that they deserve one.

We here in this forum support the list that WE developed. Not some two thirds list. I'm comfortable with you saying that you "worked with us" Mary, but please don't give MAC or the industry the impression that this 2/3 list was developed by the hobbyists.

Cheers
James

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: jamesw ]</p>

 

[naesco]

Thanks James and Mary
I am out for the evening but will get back tomorrow.
Mary, after reading your report I came to the conclusion everything was over. Please clarify where MAC stands on the USL as soon as you can

 

[MaryHM]

Naesco,

I'm not sure how to further clarify it. At the meeting the USL was ONE of the issues (it was an 8 hour meeting and the USL was discussed for about an hour). The purpose of the meeting was for MAC to get a feel of where the industry currently stands on many of the MAC standards. The industry came to the conclusion that it is willing to go for a deadly/too large list. A committee is going to be set up before the end of the year consisting of industry and conservation groups (because that is how MAC is constructed) to begin work on the list. There is currently no list, there is currently no official work being done on the list, and nothing is finalized.

James,

I swear, everyone can sit back for 30 years and do nothing and then expect me to change the world in the 3 months we've even thought about constructing a valid list for presentation. I am SURPRISED AS HECK that the industry went for even 2 criteria. If all of you had intimate knowledge of the industry and it's feelings on lists, you'd be amazed too. Just for the record, I did not create this list for the hobbyists. I created it so when I started work on the USL in the MAC committee that I would have something valid to start with. I never stated in the meeting or anywhere else that I "represent" the hobbyists. Please recall that not only hobbyists participated in the creation of this list.

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: MaryHM ]

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: MaryHM ]</p>

 

[SPC]

Posted by Mary:
I created it so when I started work on the USL in the MAC committee that I would have something valid to start with.

- In fact Mary stated this when we first began the list, and like everything else on this board she probably stated this repeatedly.
Steve

 

[SPC]

Posted by James:
I for one understand naesco's position completely.

I want to make sure I understand your position on this issue for discussion sake. Are you saying that you agree with naesco's decision to contact the WWF and Greenpeace?
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Mary-

I for one greatly appreciate the hard work you have done. Both on the list and in your other business endeavors. PLease understand that many of us with more personal experience of how the industry really works understand the incredible challenge you are faced with. While I can certainly understand why you wouldn't want to hang around here and take the brunt of a lot of ignorance, please don't let that stop your work elsewhere.

Glenn

 

[MaryHM]

I want to thank everyone for their support and encouragement, and clarify that I will continue to work on industry reform issues, via the proper channels, to insure that reform becomes a reality and not a bunch of words. When major decisions are made, I will make sure I let all of you know.

 

[jamesw]

No no no. I don't agree with naesco's actions, but I can certainly understand his frustration and exasperation.

Cheers
James

 

[naesco]

Good Morning!
The reefing community feels that it is no longer acceptable to import impossible to keep fish and coral and, that industry should voluntarily restrict the import of those species that formed part of a list (USL) debated in this forum by both industry and hobbyists.
This concept was presented by the moderator of this forum, Mary Middlebrook, to MAC.
It was the express desire of the reefing community that MAC take steps to adopt a list containing obligate feeders comprised mostly of butterflyfish. These obligate feeders cannot survive in our reeftanks
It was the express desire that a mechanism be put in place to allow expert reefers, industry and research persons, the approval to import species on this list for the purpose of research so that one day the key to their survival in aquariums would be found.
On the 8th day of March, 2002, MAC refused to consider obligate feeders leaving only, the deadly blue ringed octopus, and very large fish on the USL list for future discussion in the fall of this year.
As a result of this failure, I will have no part in this forum any longer but I am even more determined to see a USL adopted whether it be voluntarily through industry (my choice) or by government legislation.
I want to share with you my plan of action.
1. I am going to write MAC and ask them to reconsider their decision at a meeting called for that purpose.
2. If MAC is not prepared to call a meeting or does not reconsider its decision, I will contact the WWF setting out the reasons why the WWF ought to pull their support of MAC.
3. I am still considering the Greenpeace option. I received a few emails and private messages from board members expressing their concern that the involvement of Greenpeace may be detrimental to the hobby. That Greenpeace will not stop at a USL but will lobby govenment and the public for a complete ban on the import of all ornamental fish and coral.
I am going to see what pressure we the hobbyist and the WWF can put on MAC before I proceed with Greenpeace.
I have been a member of this board for some time and have seen the increase in a more ethical approach to reefkeeping. Even newbies find present industry practices intolerable.
Industry needs to know that the reef keeping community will no longer allow the slaughter of fish and coral that have no economic impact on the industry and are impossible to keep in our reefs.
We as hobbyists have the right to demand an ethical and sustainable hobby. Our voice will be heard.

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: naesco ]</p>

 

[MaryHM]

Honest to God, Naesco. Do you purposefully ignore the facts presented to you just so you can pursue your own agenda??

Posted by Naesco:

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>On the 8th day of March, 2002, MAC refused to consider obligate feeders leaving only, the deadly blue ringed octopus, and very large fish on the USL list for future discussion in the fall of this year.
<hr></blockquote>

<sigh>
Did I not just respond to you asking me to clarify the situation by saying that THE INDUSTRY has told MAC where it stands, but NOTHING has been decided yet and won't be until the committee is in place???

For one thing, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say "The reefing community has decided...", because less than 20 people even bothered to work on the list, and 20 people can not possibly say they represent the wishes of the entire reefing community. If you go through with your "plan of action" and call MAC and ask them to reconsider their "decision", to be honest, you'll look like an idiot. LET ME SAY IT ONE MORE TIME, AND PUT IT IN BOLD, CAPITAL LETTERS SO MAYBE YOU WILL UNDERSTAND. NO DECISION HAS BEEN MADE. NO DECISION HAS BEEN MADE. NO DECISION HAS BEEN MADE. . This is precisely why I will no longer directly involve hobbyists in industry issues- all emotion, no common sense, and an absolute refusal to listen to the facts even after they've been pointed out several times. Can you just not understand that there are even bigger issues than this list that we are facing?? Honestly, I think issues like diver training should take precedence over any formation of a list, and it was THE INDUSTRY that put pressure on MAC at this meeting to work toward that goal. The industry is even willing to help fund diver training and is going to work on a program to do that (a committee was formed at the meeting). But you go ahead and tell the WWF to withdraw their support from MAC if it will make you feel better. We'll take 10 steps forward and you can try to drag us 12 steps back. I really hate to have to get blunt with you, because I do like you, but you need to get a grip and see the bigger picture. Like I've said before (I seem to have to say everything at least 3 times around here), there are far greater issues under debate right now- ones that will have a much greater impact than a USL. The USL is going to be worked on, but is on the backburner right now because we (industry/MAC) feel that getting divers trained is more of a priority. That getting certification of facilities in place is more of a priority. That there are much bigger "fish to fry" (really bad pun

) and we need to deal with those things that will have a greater positive impact on the reefs/hobby FIRST.

If you decide to go on with your plan of action, let me give you a piece of advice. Before you start talking about the "needless slaughter", get some statistics behind you. Remember how when we were making the list there were many fish I and other industry professionals said are never even seen in the hobby?? If you are going to do this, do it right. Get the importation numbers of these fish. I think you'll be surprised to see that it's far less than what you think. I also know you'll need some kind of facts to back up any claims you make and to support any actions you want taken. Decisions such as these must be based in fact, not emotion. Another thing you should realize is that it is practically impossible for the US government to adopt any list that doesn't concern public health issues. This was brought up at the meeting. The government could ban blue rings because they present a clear danger to public health. However, once you get beyond that you start violating free trade laws. MAC is in a much better position to deal with this list than the government is. So again, there are many layers to this issue naesco, and I highly recommend that you educate yourself on all of them prior to going out and demanding action.

 

[SPC]

Posted by naesco:
The reefing community feels that it is no longer acceptable to import impossible to keep fish and coral and, that industry should voluntarily restrict the import of those species that formed part of a list (USL) debated in this forum by both industry and hobbyists.

Wayne, I think your first paragraph is very misleading. The actual # of people who helped to develope this list on reefs.org is somewhere under 20 people with much less than that taking a very active roll. In order to say that "the reefing community feels that it is no longer acceptable" I find to be more than a stretch from the truth. In fact, we may be suprised if we were to actually poll the reefing community what the response might be. It is my opinion that it is possible that we who worked on this list are in the minority, the point is we just don't know for sure. If you look at the months that this forum has been in existence you will notice that very few people even bothered (cared enough?) to post their thoughts. With this sort of apathy on a reef board one can only imagine what it must be like in the rest of the hobby.
As you know I am in full agreement with the list we developed. I still feel however that the future of the reefs depends on a sustainable harvest in order for the native peoples to protect them. If the WWF was to pull their support from this effort a great injustice will be done to reef conservation.
Steve

 

[JeremyR]

Steve,

You are absolutely right. I think the # of customers who care something dies is less than 10%, most are only concerned about the $$'s it cost them. That is why freshwater fishkeepers especially can go through entire tanks of fish and not really be bothered by it.. well, it only cost 99 cents... the goldfish died.. well it lived a month.. that's good right? Let's get sally another. Funny, you can spend 5 minutes explaining to someone why you don't sell certain fish because they come from cyanide central or that it is a species that doesn't survive in captivity.. and then you can watch them buy the same fish from X store 5 times and kill it 5 times and not be too concerned about it if it lives a month or 3.. as long as it's "pretty" and not too expensive. What's my point? I don't know. Obviously going to greenpeace isn't the answer. Fanaticism never accomplishes anything.

 

[BCReefer]

Mary,

Can you explain when do you see something coming out of the industry, that will stop the importing of certain species of fish and coral?

I understand your situation and what naseco is saying but I am wondering if there has been any timeline developed yet? Will it takes months to implement or years?


Thanks
Patrick

 

[MaryHM]

As stated earlier, the committee will be set up later this year. My best GUESS (please people, do not hold me to this!!) is that after the committee gets a hold of it that it will take about 3 months to complete the list. Once the list is completed, MAC will probably implement it immediately. So I'd say that we should have something in place by this time next year.

 

[Fredfish]

So I'd say that we should have something in place by this time next year

Damn, thats pretty good considering all the levels and layers involved.

I can remember arguing about the color of membership cards for six hours at a student housing coop and that was one coop, one item, and 8 people.

Mary, if this comes to pass, you will have made a major contribution to the success and survival of this industry, and will have done it in a very short period of time. My thanks.

Fred.