• Why not take a moment to introduce yourself to our members?

A

Anonymous

Guest
There is an article in the latest issue of Pet Product News that discusses the steps being taken by MAC. I think a lot of people would be interested if someone could link to it or post it.

"DOA Standards Stir Objections in Fish Trade"
Kinney Littlefield
 

dizzy

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Rover,

I found the Pet Product News article to be a good read. Tony Nahacky (collector) and Walt Smith (importer) are identified as the two trade people who advised the MAC that the 1%DOA/1%DAA was feasible, from an industry perspective.

As an inland retailer I agree with those that think 1% is totally unrealistic. MAC needs trade support and the trade needs reform. The article makes it sound like a compromise is being negociated, and hopefully a remedy can be achieved. The alternative may be the almost unthinkable complete shutdown of the marine fish industry.
The article leaves one wondering just what would have already happened if Al Gore had been elected president.
 

dizzy

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Pet Product News is published by Fancy Publications. The editor is Marilyn Iturri. The phone number is 949-855-8822. Her e-mail is [email protected]

I don't believe the article is currently on any web sites. Perhaps Mary can get a copy and put it on hers, with the other industry articles already there, so people can read it. It might help to clear up some of the rumors and conspiracy theories Charles mentioned in his post another place. How about it Mary?
 

MaryHM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Because it's not on the web, I'd have to type the whole thing in. Unfortunately I don't have time to do that right now. Any of you with a copy can type it in here- just make sure you give credit to the right people for copyright purposes.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I'll try to post some snippets when I get to the store in the morning.
 

MaryHM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Here is the entire article from the May 2002 issue of Pet Product News:


DOA Standards
Stir Objections
In Fish Trade

By Kinney Littlefield
Special to Pet Product News

Ornamental fish retailers may be caught between a reef and a hard place.
Brewing scenarios include eventual government regulation-or compliance with the tough but evolving standards for fish mortality set by the nonprofit Marine Aquarium Council, an international network of conservation and industry groups.
According to its Web site, the council’s mission is to conserve coral reefs and other marine ecosystems by creating standards and certification for those engaged in the collection and care of ornamental marine life from reef to aquarium.
Its standards, launched last November, specify adherence to a 1 percent fish mortality rate in order to qualify for MAC certification, a combination quality-assurance seal and eco-label.
The standards can also be interpreted as 2 percent mortality-1 percent dead on arrival plus 1 percent dead after arrival. MAC intends its new certification system to promote sustainable harvesting and protect marine organisms and coral reefs.
But many experienced wholesalers and retailers find the standards unfeasible.
“The only thing we can do with 1 percent is fail,” says Bruce Davidson, owner of Sandy’s Pet Store in Louisville, Ky.
A charter member of the American Marinelife Dealers Association, which supports the MAC standards, Davidson also served on MAC’s standards advisory group.
Davidson says his shop’s mortality rate is “on average not more than 3 percent and I’m surprised if I have 7 percent.”
Some retailers cite 5 percent to 10 percent mortality as routine.
In fact, MAC derived the 1 percent rate not from actual trials but from conversations with one importer, Walt Smith of L.A.-based Walt Smith International, and one collector, Tony Nahacky of Fiji, MAC certification coordinator Dave Vosseler says.
Smith is a collector and importer who ships to himself, ensuring above average control of harvesting and handling.
“I’m in a unique situation,” Smith says. “I don’t believe the industry worldwide at this moment can achieve the 1 percent.”
MAC officials are more optimistic about the standards, based on a study conducted in the Philippines from April-November 2001. Held to determine if the MAC certification system was feasible in the field, the study included about 250 collectors at 18 collection sites and four exporters.
“In about 75 percent of the cases, from reef to export, they met the 1 percent [mortality] requirement for DOA and DAA,” MAC program officer Rezal Kusumaatmadja says.
Adds Vosseler, “I think the industry is a lot better than it thinks it is.”
Granted, MAC’s study did not track fish from export through import and distribution to retail stores.
And now, under attack from wholesalers and retailers-especially those who feel they were left out of the decision-making process-MAC is now backpedaling a bit. A small ad hoc group composed mostly of wholesalers is starting to revisit the 1 percent standard, Vosseler says, with possible reinterpretation or revision in mind.
“I’m part of a committee now that is looking at options, including changing the standards,” Vosseler says.
“There is a lot of misunderstanding and legitimate concern,” says Marshall Meyers, executive vice-president and general counsel of the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council, and MAC’s president/treasurer and chairman of its board of directors. “It’s something MAC will have to address.”
The mortality standard is not the only MAC-mandated item at issue. Also in play is development of an unsuitable species list that would prohibit sale of difficult-to-raise, venomous, poisonous and other animals.
MAC’s certification system also requires documentation of chain-of-custody for marine organisms, from collection in the Philippines, Fiji, Hawaii or elsewhere, through export and import to the animals’ final destination at the retail store.
Establishing compliance with the certification system could cost the average retail store “several hundred to $500” for certification by an independent company, MAC Executive Director Paul Holthus says. Retailers could form groups to cost-share, he adds.
Participation in MAC certification is voluntary. Retailers are free to carry both MAC-certified and non-certified fish.
The compliance carrot that MAC dangles is the MAC-certification logo itself, a sign to consumers that retailers are concerned about the care and quality of their animals as well as the environment-and a sign to the government that the ornamental fish trade is policing itself.
Still, “MAC’s standards have already been published and are on governmental agencies’ desks,” says importer Rob Miller of ERI International in El Segundo, Calif.
“How does one then go about retracting that?” Miller says. “We’re caught between a rock and a hard place. If we don’t put out a very low number, [the government] may crack down on us. The environmental groups have strong lobbies in Washington and they want to shut the industry down.”
MAC has presented its certification system and standards to the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force. Two years ago the task force drafted legislation that would regulate the ornamental fish trade. Although the legislation stalled after the November 2000 presidential election, its specter still looms.
Meanwhile MAC is defending its standards.
“We did a very thorough public review to begin with, but much of the industry chose not to take part,” Vosseler says.
Discussions were largely conducted by e-mail within the standards advisory group. Reportedly not all group members were involved. MAC also posted a call for public comment on its Web site, www.aquariumcouncil.org.
“No one wants to have the government involved,” Vosseler says. “What we need is calm so we have time to work with the industry and work these problems out so the industry doesn’t look bad.”
And MAC is open to input from retailers, Holthus says. “Call us up or send us an e-mail. It’s an open door.”
The Marine Aquarium Council is located at 923 Nu’uanu Ave., Honolulu, Hawaii 96817; telephone (808) 550-8217; fax, (808) 550-8317; e-mail [email protected].
Some industry operators feel MAC is focusing on the wrong end of the trade, burdening retailers with extra paperwork and vigilance when training and monitoring of divers and collectors at the source would ensure lower fish mortality.
There’s also the fear that the 1 percent mortality standard will force all parties, from collectors to retailers, to play hot potato, rapidly selling fish before they de-stress so they will die in someone else’s tank.
And the value of a prominently displayed MAC label is unknown at this point.
“Until MAC creates a commodity that the end consumer desires, it has no value to me,” retailer Davidson says.
“It needs to be MAC’s job to educate consumers. When they come to me and ask for a MAC-certified product, then it will be very important to me to offer it. If I think I can achieve long term success without MAC, then I will do that.”

Kinney Littlefield is a free-lance writer in Southern California.
 

MaryHM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Here's my main issue with all of this. MAC finally admitted publicly that it was Walt Smith and Tony Nahacky that gave them the idea for the 1% DOA. They have admitted in meetings and emails that Elwyn Segrest (of Segrest Farms- MAJOR importer/wholesaler) and myself were the only two voicing opposition to the 1% DOA. My question is how is it possible that two people who primarily deal with Fiji can cancel out the opinions of two people that import animals from various locations?? My guess is that no matter what context they said it in, they said what MAC wanted to hear.
 

naesco

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Mary
Why don't you go to MAC and raise the DOA to something more attainable, in exchange for industry adoption of the USL.
That is a win win for industry.
Every effort that is made in the improvement of industry ethics, will provide long term sustainability of our hobby.
The timing is perfect. The opportunity is now.
Please go for it!
Sorry for posting.
 

MaryHM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
The meeting we wholesalers had with MAC addressed the DOA issue. It's not as simple as going to them and saying change it, and I don't think it's wise (or practical) to offer an "exchange" for the USL. Both are issues, both need to be addressed, and both need to be dealt with realistically. Committees were formed at the meeting to discuss the proper way of dealing with the DOA issue, and hopefully we'll have some information back from them by the end of the year. Don't apologize for posting :)
 

Anemone

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
How does Walt Smith's backpedaling in the article figure into this? He's quoted in the article as admitting that most of the industry couldn't make the 1% figure - so what's his agenda in getting it adopted? I admit the industry should aim for a high standard, but not one that will immediately be branded "unreachable" and/or create a sizeable counter-current within the industry having any in-house regulation.

It just sounds to me like MAC has set itself (and the industry as a whole) up for failure.

Kevin
 

dizzy

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
MaryHM":1ynb3t1h said:
The meeting we wholesalers had with MAC addressed the DOA issue. It's not as simple as going to them and saying change it, and I don't think it's wise (or practical) to offer an "exchange" for the USL. Both are issues, both need to be addressed, and both need to be dealt with realistically. Committees were formed at the meeting to discuss the proper way of dealing with the DOA issue, and hopefully we'll have some information back from them by the end of the year. Don't apologize for posting :)

Mary do you think any progress has been made on compromising the DOA/DAA numbers?
 

MaryHM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Dizzy,

Since the MAC meeting back in March I don't think anyone has heard anything from MAC. At least not the real reformers (Steve and I). Maybe the psuedo-reformers have been given some information since their less rebellious ;)

If I had to guess, they've probably been too busy procuring more funding, hyping their program to anyone who will listen (and not question), and making it look like they are accomplishing something wonderful. Those things have always gotten in the way of actually DOING something within the MAC organization. Just took me a couple of years to figure it out. Email Paul and ask him if they've done anything.
 

clarionreef

Advanced Reefer
Location
San Francisco
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Hey,
I'm on the MAC workshop committe and we met for 5 hours, once in Mach after the conference. We went over the difference in securing 1% DOA/DAA from Hawaii and 1% DOA/DAA from Indo and the Philippines. Just the fact that they took the best case standard, Hawaii [ where fish are packed with so much water that it lowers the tides] and assumed it could then be replicated with the Phil. and Indo exports proves the lack of homework on the issue. It also proves a lot more. That such amazing errors could be made and woven into policy underscores the fact that the criticisms have profound basis.
Dave's [ a Mac daddy] final analysis was... why didn't you tell us this stuff 2 years ago? We already guaranteed to the USCRTF that the one % was deliverable!
Boggles the mind doesn't it?
How do you get paid well for not knowing the subject matter. I want that job. Since I already forgot more last nite in my sleep then the entire MAC board knows about the trade, I might get a good salary! Beats packin fish all day! [NGOs/mega funders inquire w/in!]
Sincerely, Steve
 

flameangel1

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Dave's [ a Mac daddy] final analysis was... why didn't you tell us this stuff 2 years ago? We already guaranteed to the USCRTF that the one % was deliverable!
Boggles the mind doesn't it?
How can these "people" set rules governing the hobby, if they didn't take the time and dedication to find out the "how/why/where etc of the hobby ???
(actually, I do know how they can and do, and is why many of us stopped supporting such "groups", and do our best on our own instead )
Yes, it does boggle the mind !!
And that is not the half of it, :(
 

dizzy

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
MAC didn't really need to ask any one about the DOA numbers. All they had to do was do actual test cases. Have divers collect fish and then send them throughout the chain of custody and record the results. They had divers, exporters, wholesalers, and retailers committed (signed on the dotted line) to the MAC pledge of honor. They had the time, the money, and all the pieces of the CoC. They also knew a lot of people were suggesting this industry had 40% mortality or higher. If it really is near 40% how do they come up with 1% as doable? I think the 1% must have come from someone who was trying to set the industry up for failure. There is just no other logical explanation. What is even more amazing is that they got Walt Smith to tell them it was possible.
 

flameangel1

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
What is even more amazing is that they got Walt Smith to tell them it was possible.
Vested interests say a lot !!
And one of the reasons it became clear ,that the real interests were elsewhere.
 

Sponsor Reefs

We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.

Click here to sponsor $10:


Top