Era of MAC certification begins.
- Thread starter dizzy
- Start date
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
The WWF, like many environmental groups, tend to focus on the more marketable charismatic wildlife issues, the ones that serve as bait to garner more memberships and support. Tropical marine fish are now popular consumer items to many people. A ready made market exists of people who want to do the right thing with regards to this topic. Its kinda like the save the whale movement. Whos against it? Whos against saving coral reefs?
The venture into this industry began with the idea of employing one of its credible spokepersons, John Tullock, to develop strategies and plan the campaign. Since John however was a real, bonafide fish expert and his own man, he was passed over for someone who would play ball and get with the program.
I believe they came to it too lightly and assumed that with a little organizational skill, P.R. savy and ability to see the big picture , they could and unite the trade behind the MAC banner and clean up our little problems according to a corporate style timetable.
Ironically, the cyanide industry signed letters of commitments early... [the first red flag for me.] Knowing many of them like I do, I heard a common reason for doing so. 'It makes us look good and we all need some better P.R."
Since the IMA already had years of experience putting out paperwork on the issue, MAC assumed it to be viable and the ready made, turn-key answer to the basic field issues....This inadvertantly exposed the IMA as not being all that accomplished in the field as the track record looked a lot better on paper than in reality.
The WWF, committed to walk down the wrong road with erroneous research and the wrong team. The rest is 'a lack of history'. A lack of profound achievement and a resultant lack of support from the industry.
The WWF/MAC "professionals" ended up more like amatuers just trying to figure out the industry they assumed could be cleaned up as easily as putting it all down on paper like a business plan.
To be sure, the industry needs to ensure more social and economic justice to poor village collectors and it needs to become scientifically sustainable. The issues were not revealed and documented by carpetbaggers from the outside. Our dirty laundry was exposed from within the more responsible ranks of our own industry. Excluding the industrys bonafide reformers and glossing over their concerns was a terrible tactical error has left the WWF/MAC movement with more support from the cyanide trade than anywhere else!
This may not be a premeditated attempt to deodorize and whitewash the issue [or greenwash as Tullock puts it], but it may have just evolved that way from years of past errors and the more recent disposition to maintain those errors.
Give them room to save face and readjust? Absolutely! But readjust they must as the issue is not theirs to squander. Everyone in the WWF/MAC/IMA eco-business cartel on salary owes a days work for it and so they'd better get real and get on track to saving some coral reef habitat thru hard, sweaty, unglamourous village work. There is no other way around it.
In a way, they all depend on one poor Ferdie Cruz, their token field person[ who still has no handnet material ] to fix all those embarrassing field issues among 3-4,000 cyanide fisherman thruout INDO and the Philippines.
If I was Ferdie, I'd ask for ;
A. A reversal of the ratio of one field person to 10 office people in the promulgation of this issue and...
B. A salary increase...to continue to provide cover and justification for their salaries, perks, plane fares, hotel fares, conference fees, office supplies, etc...
The WWF can do better than this. They need to rethink this thing, admit mistakes like gentlemen and revamp the approach. Then, they could ally with the reform wing against the cyanide problem and not with the cyanide trade against the reformers.
Sincerely, Steve Robinson
The venture into this industry began with the idea of employing one of its credible spokepersons, John Tullock, to develop strategies and plan the campaign. Since John however was a real, bonafide fish expert and his own man, he was passed over for someone who would play ball and get with the program.
I believe they came to it too lightly and assumed that with a little organizational skill, P.R. savy and ability to see the big picture , they could and unite the trade behind the MAC banner and clean up our little problems according to a corporate style timetable.
Ironically, the cyanide industry signed letters of commitments early... [the first red flag for me.] Knowing many of them like I do, I heard a common reason for doing so. 'It makes us look good and we all need some better P.R."
Since the IMA already had years of experience putting out paperwork on the issue, MAC assumed it to be viable and the ready made, turn-key answer to the basic field issues....This inadvertantly exposed the IMA as not being all that accomplished in the field as the track record looked a lot better on paper than in reality.
The WWF, committed to walk down the wrong road with erroneous research and the wrong team. The rest is 'a lack of history'. A lack of profound achievement and a resultant lack of support from the industry.
The WWF/MAC "professionals" ended up more like amatuers just trying to figure out the industry they assumed could be cleaned up as easily as putting it all down on paper like a business plan.
To be sure, the industry needs to ensure more social and economic justice to poor village collectors and it needs to become scientifically sustainable. The issues were not revealed and documented by carpetbaggers from the outside. Our dirty laundry was exposed from within the more responsible ranks of our own industry. Excluding the industrys bonafide reformers and glossing over their concerns was a terrible tactical error has left the WWF/MAC movement with more support from the cyanide trade than anywhere else!
This may not be a premeditated attempt to deodorize and whitewash the issue [or greenwash as Tullock puts it], but it may have just evolved that way from years of past errors and the more recent disposition to maintain those errors.
Give them room to save face and readjust? Absolutely! But readjust they must as the issue is not theirs to squander. Everyone in the WWF/MAC/IMA eco-business cartel on salary owes a days work for it and so they'd better get real and get on track to saving some coral reef habitat thru hard, sweaty, unglamourous village work. There is no other way around it.
In a way, they all depend on one poor Ferdie Cruz, their token field person[ who still has no handnet material ] to fix all those embarrassing field issues among 3-4,000 cyanide fisherman thruout INDO and the Philippines.
If I was Ferdie, I'd ask for ;
A. A reversal of the ratio of one field person to 10 office people in the promulgation of this issue and...
B. A salary increase...to continue to provide cover and justification for their salaries, perks, plane fares, hotel fares, conference fees, office supplies, etc...
The WWF can do better than this. They need to rethink this thing, admit mistakes like gentlemen and revamp the approach. Then, they could ally with the reform wing against the cyanide problem and not with the cyanide trade against the reformers.
Sincerely, Steve Robinson
Steve,
BRAVO !!
Very glad to hear you telling it like it really is and has been !!
John T. would have gotten a LOT more accomplished , but he needed the support. Not many (if any) actually get real support, where it counts.
They just got their hands tied with the PR crap
BRAVO !!
Very glad to hear you telling it like it really is and has been !!
John T. would have gotten a LOT more accomplished , but he needed the support. Not many (if any) actually get real support, where it counts.
They just got their hands tied with the PR crap
One more thing...
I know that MAC and AMDA are completely aware of this forum and it wouldn't surprise me in the least to know that they read it regularly. Sure would be nice to see some posts from them. Mind you, not the all encompassing vague "save the world" speeches I'm used to seeing, but some real "get in the trenches with us and sort this thing out" information.
The main reason I respect Steve so much is because he's a tell it like it is kind of guy- no pulling punches, no sugarcoating, no kissing organizational a$$. He, I, and one other wholesaler are the only ones I've ever seen use this approach. Frankly, it's quite refreshing and the only thing that motivates me to continue to be public with my industry reform convictions anymore.
I know that MAC and AMDA are completely aware of this forum and it wouldn't surprise me in the least to know that they read it regularly. Sure would be nice to see some posts from them. Mind you, not the all encompassing vague "save the world" speeches I'm used to seeing, but some real "get in the trenches with us and sort this thing out" information.
The main reason I respect Steve so much is because he's a tell it like it is kind of guy- no pulling punches, no sugarcoating, no kissing organizational a$$. He, I, and one other wholesaler are the only ones I've ever seen use this approach. Frankly, it's quite refreshing and the only thing that motivates me to continue to be public with my industry reform convictions anymore.
............................................ WOW...! Eric ,if you keep speaking truth like this, I will not only take back all the ill things I have said about you .....but I will also gladly hold the light on you as well............This industry needs honest true leadership to Fully explain the complex issues facing the reefs.Eric Borneman":1pk5bm7r said:
_________________
recession causes
_________________
Ferrari 512BB
SPC and all:
Why is WWF backing? My take on it goes something like this: First of all, I agree with Steve's interpretation of their general role as a consrevation group. I have been a WWF member on and off for many years...same with Greenpeace. I haven't been a member for quite a while because when organizations get that big, they lose the efficiency of grass roots organizations. Still, large groups like this more easily put issues in the widespread public eye. Steve mentions the whale issue. Good point. I'd remind us all that whale meat and oil and ambergris were pretty valuable and desirable commodities worldwide, and it took massive public advertisement of the wrong that was occurring and how important and wonderful whales were - and how thretened - to reverse public opinion and get a Sea Change - as Sylvia Earle would put it.
The thing is, right now, and to a somewhat lesser though more personal degree, we are seen as the whalers, not the whales, as evidenced by lay articles, campaigns, etc, for right or wrong, better or worse, accurate or not. There is now massive public knowledge (though still not nearly enough) about the state of the world's coral reefs. Thus, anything that harms them will be construed among those who care as "whalers" or the industries associated with whalers - like the perfume industry, etc. Same thing happened with the fur industry, the animal testing for cosmetics industry, etc.
So, we have two problems - the first is how to show and prove we are not an industry associated with "reef whaling"; the second, to not actually not be that very thing. This thread concerns mostly the former, Marillion asks something closer to the latter.
To that end, I adopt a somewhat Buddhist view and agree with Steve. Frustrating as it may be, we can't change other people, but can act as an example and allow them to the tools to change themselves. And, we can change our own behaviors. Making the unwilling change requires force, and that is something we as individuals cannot do, or do with repurcussions. So, I say continue lighting your candle, or your metal halide, and you'll be surprised at the downstream effect, even if it doesn't seem as obvious as you may like. By the way, that was Steve's quote you used, not mine
Back to the main point on WWf and others comments...
Years ago, when MAC was first forming, many people were writing to me and saying "Eric, you've got to get in with MAC - you and they are trying to do the same thing." I wrote to Paul, introduced myself, and told him what I did, how I felt, what my goals were, asked him how I could help." The response was the first of what became the modus operandi: "You can help by simply getting behind MAC and giving us the thumbs up and not actually doing a thing." I wrote back and said that's really not how I work, but that I would be glad to take on tasks or duties that needed to be done. The response: "You can help by simply getting behind MAC and giving us the thumbs up and not actually doing a thing."" My response was basically kiss my ass. Good luck tou you, wish you the best, hope it makes a difference, and I'll be going my own way, thanks. Of course, Paul thinks I'm too radical now. Oh well. I can live with that, too.
What I didn't realize at the time was that this was to become a very effective tactic for them - or so it appears to me. Here was a "reform group" that was supposed to represent the industry and the hobby, and saying all the right things, but doing nothing for a long long time. Instead, the result of their time was notice after notice of groups that were now backing or supporting MAC (and, I imagine, giving them the thumbs up without actually doing anything). Soon, massive public advertisement was out and bearing the names of NGO's governments, organizations, etc., and all by a group that "represented the industry." Oddly, I found very few hobbyists knew much, if anything, about MAC, their plans, or what they were actually doing. At this point, though, it really didn't matter anymore, for the vague mission statements and feel good words backed by such support were too appealing to say no to by the majority.
Over time, it seemed because they were the only game in town, all these other trade and conservation issues came up and fell squarely onto them for solution, and soon what began as a paper radio collar for fish was portrayed and promised to be the savior of virtually all aquarium trade conservation issues, and MAC seemed all too willing to flex and offer their expertise,using "existing guidleines and standards" - though no actual result had yet even arise from their organization. Sure they existed....on paper. Along the way, it seemed a casual appearance would take place electronically or in person at a conference to actually speak to the people they were supposed to represent - i.e. the stores and aquarists. The rest seemed to take place without that need. But, with the sponsorpship and support of so many groups, who needs the pawns to raise their meager hands?
This thread, and the general feeling and state of support of MAC, gives that answer. Such an oversight will play out. It may play out that at the end of the day, you can't ignore the single candles being lit and the individual voices that seem to not make a difference. Unfortunately, I also agree with Steve that the result may, if failure is that result, that the ultimate vicitims will be either the reefs (not properly monitored, managed, or addressed by MAC standards) or the hobby/trade (either remaining largely unchanged or, perhaps worse, that MAC was seen as the last chance for a bad industry of reef whalers that is now going to be legislated against). I hope for the best, but am very cautiously optimisitic.
As a final point, perhaps unrelated, the notion and image of collectors as just poor starving villagers with no other options is not quite correct. They are, or might be, but its important for people to realize these are not, by and large, desperate, stupid, or unusually poor people with no other choices, doing whatever they are told by a big company. They are often fisherman, fishing for a commodity that pays more than fish for the local food stands. They know their reefs in a way that borders on mystical - they may not know them in the same way as we do, but perhaps akin to the way sport fisherman know the weather and their favorite spots. They are generally no poorer or richer than the other people in town or the village, and in many cases, are quite a bit better off. They also do other things as the opportunity or desire arises. The way of life in these countries is so different than it is here, that it is hard for words to adequately describe it, and for those who have not been around it, something like the image of our illegal Mexican labor force or Asian child labor factories probably comes to mind. Its not like that. And, just as there are ethical and unethical people in law and business, so there are those who know right and wrong when collecting. They are not just ignorant and desperate, but make choices like everyone else. And some will curse their neighbors and others for dropping bombs to collect fish, and those who do won't care so long as they can get a new cell phone. Yes, I truly mean cell phone. These are not stone-age villagers. They may make their own boats and goggles, and fix their boats with parts not even made for boats, but right down the street is an internet cafe, and stores with digital cameras, just like here.
Why is WWF backing? My take on it goes something like this: First of all, I agree with Steve's interpretation of their general role as a consrevation group. I have been a WWF member on and off for many years...same with Greenpeace. I haven't been a member for quite a while because when organizations get that big, they lose the efficiency of grass roots organizations. Still, large groups like this more easily put issues in the widespread public eye. Steve mentions the whale issue. Good point. I'd remind us all that whale meat and oil and ambergris were pretty valuable and desirable commodities worldwide, and it took massive public advertisement of the wrong that was occurring and how important and wonderful whales were - and how thretened - to reverse public opinion and get a Sea Change - as Sylvia Earle would put it.
The thing is, right now, and to a somewhat lesser though more personal degree, we are seen as the whalers, not the whales, as evidenced by lay articles, campaigns, etc, for right or wrong, better or worse, accurate or not. There is now massive public knowledge (though still not nearly enough) about the state of the world's coral reefs. Thus, anything that harms them will be construed among those who care as "whalers" or the industries associated with whalers - like the perfume industry, etc. Same thing happened with the fur industry, the animal testing for cosmetics industry, etc.
So, we have two problems - the first is how to show and prove we are not an industry associated with "reef whaling"; the second, to not actually not be that very thing. This thread concerns mostly the former, Marillion asks something closer to the latter.
To that end, I adopt a somewhat Buddhist view and agree with Steve. Frustrating as it may be, we can't change other people, but can act as an example and allow them to the tools to change themselves. And, we can change our own behaviors. Making the unwilling change requires force, and that is something we as individuals cannot do, or do with repurcussions. So, I say continue lighting your candle, or your metal halide, and you'll be surprised at the downstream effect, even if it doesn't seem as obvious as you may like. By the way, that was Steve's quote you used, not mine
Back to the main point on WWf and others comments...
Years ago, when MAC was first forming, many people were writing to me and saying "Eric, you've got to get in with MAC - you and they are trying to do the same thing." I wrote to Paul, introduced myself, and told him what I did, how I felt, what my goals were, asked him how I could help." The response was the first of what became the modus operandi: "You can help by simply getting behind MAC and giving us the thumbs up and not actually doing a thing." I wrote back and said that's really not how I work, but that I would be glad to take on tasks or duties that needed to be done. The response: "You can help by simply getting behind MAC and giving us the thumbs up and not actually doing a thing."" My response was basically kiss my ass. Good luck tou you, wish you the best, hope it makes a difference, and I'll be going my own way, thanks. Of course, Paul thinks I'm too radical now. Oh well. I can live with that, too.
What I didn't realize at the time was that this was to become a very effective tactic for them - or so it appears to me. Here was a "reform group" that was supposed to represent the industry and the hobby, and saying all the right things, but doing nothing for a long long time. Instead, the result of their time was notice after notice of groups that were now backing or supporting MAC (and, I imagine, giving them the thumbs up without actually doing anything). Soon, massive public advertisement was out and bearing the names of NGO's governments, organizations, etc., and all by a group that "represented the industry." Oddly, I found very few hobbyists knew much, if anything, about MAC, their plans, or what they were actually doing. At this point, though, it really didn't matter anymore, for the vague mission statements and feel good words backed by such support were too appealing to say no to by the majority.
Over time, it seemed because they were the only game in town, all these other trade and conservation issues came up and fell squarely onto them for solution, and soon what began as a paper radio collar for fish was portrayed and promised to be the savior of virtually all aquarium trade conservation issues, and MAC seemed all too willing to flex and offer their expertise,using "existing guidleines and standards" - though no actual result had yet even arise from their organization. Sure they existed....on paper. Along the way, it seemed a casual appearance would take place electronically or in person at a conference to actually speak to the people they were supposed to represent - i.e. the stores and aquarists. The rest seemed to take place without that need. But, with the sponsorpship and support of so many groups, who needs the pawns to raise their meager hands?
This thread, and the general feeling and state of support of MAC, gives that answer. Such an oversight will play out. It may play out that at the end of the day, you can't ignore the single candles being lit and the individual voices that seem to not make a difference. Unfortunately, I also agree with Steve that the result may, if failure is that result, that the ultimate vicitims will be either the reefs (not properly monitored, managed, or addressed by MAC standards) or the hobby/trade (either remaining largely unchanged or, perhaps worse, that MAC was seen as the last chance for a bad industry of reef whalers that is now going to be legislated against). I hope for the best, but am very cautiously optimisitic.
As a final point, perhaps unrelated, the notion and image of collectors as just poor starving villagers with no other options is not quite correct. They are, or might be, but its important for people to realize these are not, by and large, desperate, stupid, or unusually poor people with no other choices, doing whatever they are told by a big company. They are often fisherman, fishing for a commodity that pays more than fish for the local food stands. They know their reefs in a way that borders on mystical - they may not know them in the same way as we do, but perhaps akin to the way sport fisherman know the weather and their favorite spots. They are generally no poorer or richer than the other people in town or the village, and in many cases, are quite a bit better off. They also do other things as the opportunity or desire arises. The way of life in these countries is so different than it is here, that it is hard for words to adequately describe it, and for those who have not been around it, something like the image of our illegal Mexican labor force or Asian child labor factories probably comes to mind. Its not like that. And, just as there are ethical and unethical people in law and business, so there are those who know right and wrong when collecting. They are not just ignorant and desperate, but make choices like everyone else. And some will curse their neighbors and others for dropping bombs to collect fish, and those who do won't care so long as they can get a new cell phone. Yes, I truly mean cell phone. These are not stone-age villagers. They may make their own boats and goggles, and fix their boats with parts not even made for boats, but right down the street is an internet cafe, and stores with digital cameras, just like here.
Wow,
I just returned from the AZA show in Ft. Worth and discovered that this thread has really gotten informative. Its great to see the people who relate to the little boy in the Emporer's Robe tale participating. I especially appreciate the straight talk from Eric, Steve, and Mary.
This whole reform issue is really quite a quandary. I have it on good authority that MAC probably represents the best opportunity we have to save the industry. After all I have learned from this thread and the AMDA forum I would say if that truly is the case, then we are in big trouble. I personally feel completely left out of the process. Neither MAC nor AMDA have actively been seeking input from the people who make up this industry, despite claims to the contrary. This industry forum that Mary started probably represents one of the few attempts to bring the whole process into the light. If MAC fails, it will fail because of supreme arrogance.
I look forward to this year's MACNA. I look forward to attending Eric's lecture. I am also very interested in attending the AMDA meeting, and I have a few questions for Walt Smith as well.
I just returned from the AZA show in Ft. Worth and discovered that this thread has really gotten informative. Its great to see the people who relate to the little boy in the Emporer's Robe tale participating. I especially appreciate the straight talk from Eric, Steve, and Mary.
This whole reform issue is really quite a quandary. I have it on good authority that MAC probably represents the best opportunity we have to save the industry. After all I have learned from this thread and the AMDA forum I would say if that truly is the case, then we are in big trouble. I personally feel completely left out of the process. Neither MAC nor AMDA have actively been seeking input from the people who make up this industry, despite claims to the contrary. This industry forum that Mary started probably represents one of the few attempts to bring the whole process into the light. If MAC fails, it will fail because of supreme arrogance.
I look forward to this year's MACNA. I look forward to attending Eric's lecture. I am also very interested in attending the AMDA meeting, and I have a few questions for Walt Smith as well.
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
Mitch,
If MAC represents the best chance to save the dark, unsustainable side of the trade and specifically the cyanide trade, then it has become a front group for the worst of us.
If it is sincere beyond about the easy to write mission statement and platitudes vis a vis sustainability, village training, conservation thru death control, better handling etc. then that must be converted into real life. Real life more than tokenism and small events purported to be large events by the time they get to the US.
MAC will have to get born again with reference to all it has learned this past year. Several times in a MAC workshop after resetting the terms and information I was asked, "Where were you when we started all this?
[ I was in Mexico a lot and whereever non consulted people are, thats where.]
I call upon them to 'reconfigure', re-consult and re-staff.
If your driving down the wrong road, no matter how well and how ernestly...its still down the wrong road.
If knowingly going along with a fatally flawed remedy is the price we're repetedly told for "saving the industry", I better start looking in the want ads now.
I want real medicine, not a placebo.
P.S. How about a massive letter writing campaign to the WWF to draft John Tullock?
Steve
If MAC represents the best chance to save the dark, unsustainable side of the trade and specifically the cyanide trade, then it has become a front group for the worst of us.
If it is sincere beyond about the easy to write mission statement and platitudes vis a vis sustainability, village training, conservation thru death control, better handling etc. then that must be converted into real life. Real life more than tokenism and small events purported to be large events by the time they get to the US.
MAC will have to get born again with reference to all it has learned this past year. Several times in a MAC workshop after resetting the terms and information I was asked, "Where were you when we started all this?
[ I was in Mexico a lot and whereever non consulted people are, thats where.]
I call upon them to 'reconfigure', re-consult and re-staff.
If your driving down the wrong road, no matter how well and how ernestly...its still down the wrong road.
If knowingly going along with a fatally flawed remedy is the price we're repetedly told for "saving the industry", I better start looking in the want ads now.
I want real medicine, not a placebo.
P.S. How about a massive letter writing campaign to the WWF to draft John Tullock?
Steve
I don't want to come across like MAC is all bad, either. In theory, and with what they want to do, it's fine. Seriously flawed, could be a lot better, doubt it will come through the way it could, have personal issues, and most of all its a step - one single step - not THE solution. Part of the solution.
Steve, I think the problem with John is he's just not really into aquarium things anymore. Cooking and orchids and life, from what he tells me.
Steve, John was (and in some of our memories, still is) AMDA.
Steve, I think the problem with John is he's just not really into aquarium things anymore. Cooking and orchids and life, from what he tells me.
Steve, John was (and in some of our memories, still is) AMDA.
Steve (spc steve, that is)
John Tullock was one of the really Honest and caring "reformists" in this industry, in my point of view.
He was the founder of AMDA, and was simply "burned out " (like many others have gotten)trying to get support for a change in this industry.
One can only bang their head against a brick wall for so long.
He tried very hard for a long time and in my opinion, will always stand for what AMDA SHOULD have been and could have done for this industry!!!!!
Before anyone reading this, thinks he should not have given up-- You do not know what all he went through for this industry !!!
John Tullock was one of the really Honest and caring "reformists" in this industry, in my point of view.
He was the founder of AMDA, and was simply "burned out " (like many others have gotten)trying to get support for a change in this industry.
One can only bang their head against a brick wall for so long.
He tried very hard for a long time and in my opinion, will always stand for what AMDA SHOULD have been and could have done for this industry!!!!!
Before anyone reading this, thinks he should not have given up-- You do not know what all he went through for this industry !!!
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
Good Morning,
John T. is just one of those I had in mind A few days ago when I wrote..."years go by and it exhausts the idealists among us"...
Imagine how much wisdom we lost when he moved on. I guess thats whats in store for all who don't sell out. That is why I want a significant change before I to have to change professions myself.
If such a significant change can be engineered in AMDA, theres something to build upon. If, however, AMDA is to be a rubberstamp in the service of past error then it will be seen that we cannot even reform ourselves...much less a huge, irresponsible industry that feeds off of coral reefs like a death star...oops, I mean that overfishes with non-sustainable methodologies and a market driven demand that respects no boundaries, legal, ethical, etc....Hey, whats the difference?
If I hadn't seen what I've seen and lived over there for so many years, I wonder how differently I'd regard things. I almost wish that I didn't live in collecting villages and know what I was talking about. A defense of plausible deniability would be convenient at times. The truth of the matter is so hard to market and the limited variety of netcaught fish just as hard. This is why I'm so pissed off at phoney trainings, the lack of training, the empty platitudes ment for placating us and the canned environmental blather for beginners.. .. I want to buy the netcaught fish that the Haribon Foundation and the IMA didn't and MAC won't train the divers to collect!
20 years ago I was challenged to put up or shut up and go train them myself. I did and we proved it so well that it gave birth to the slow motion reform industry. An industry Decades later we still can't get netcaught blue tangs from the Philippines and Indonesia.
John Tullock certainly understood that the lack of classic fishes in the netcaught category would ruin the movement and so do I. This is the crux of the problem. It needs to be adressed and we can perhaps make some progress in Dallas with AMDA and MACNA meetings.
I hope so...count me in.
Sincerely, Steve
John T. is just one of those I had in mind A few days ago when I wrote..."years go by and it exhausts the idealists among us"...
Imagine how much wisdom we lost when he moved on. I guess thats whats in store for all who don't sell out. That is why I want a significant change before I to have to change professions myself.
If such a significant change can be engineered in AMDA, theres something to build upon. If, however, AMDA is to be a rubberstamp in the service of past error then it will be seen that we cannot even reform ourselves...much less a huge, irresponsible industry that feeds off of coral reefs like a death star...oops, I mean that overfishes with non-sustainable methodologies and a market driven demand that respects no boundaries, legal, ethical, etc....Hey, whats the difference?
If I hadn't seen what I've seen and lived over there for so many years, I wonder how differently I'd regard things. I almost wish that I didn't live in collecting villages and know what I was talking about. A defense of plausible deniability would be convenient at times. The truth of the matter is so hard to market and the limited variety of netcaught fish just as hard. This is why I'm so pissed off at phoney trainings, the lack of training, the empty platitudes ment for placating us and the canned environmental blather for beginners.. .. I want to buy the netcaught fish that the Haribon Foundation and the IMA didn't and MAC won't train the divers to collect!
20 years ago I was challenged to put up or shut up and go train them myself. I did and we proved it so well that it gave birth to the slow motion reform industry. An industry Decades later we still can't get netcaught blue tangs from the Philippines and Indonesia.
John Tullock certainly understood that the lack of classic fishes in the netcaught category would ruin the movement and so do I. This is the crux of the problem. It needs to be adressed and we can perhaps make some progress in Dallas with AMDA and MACNA meetings.
I hope so...count me in.
Sincerely, Steve
cortez marine Steve,,
It is too bad we couldn't just have a grass roots movement , where anyone involved with saltwater, could just chip in , so we could PAY to hire a trainer !!! ( and get the proper netting materials ,etc !!)
I am not willing to pay $300.00 for a sticker on my door and a button to wear, but I would donate that in a heartbeat , if it would actually do something worthwhile !!
That is just sick about a "trainer not even having the proper nets" !!!
All the money that has been wasted for PR crap and committee meetings et al- and all the time spent on "maybe we shoulds" and "lets table that until next months meeting", et al- could have gone to where it was really needed.
Red tape, vested interests and don't step on anyones toes, have created a lot of talk (arguements) and very little action.
Except to make those of us who are "idealists" (good word there) very disillusioned with AMDA - MAC - IMA etc.
It is too bad we couldn't just have a grass roots movement , where anyone involved with saltwater, could just chip in , so we could PAY to hire a trainer !!! ( and get the proper netting materials ,etc !!)
I am not willing to pay $300.00 for a sticker on my door and a button to wear, but I would donate that in a heartbeat , if it would actually do something worthwhile !!
That is just sick about a "trainer not even having the proper nets" !!!
All the money that has been wasted for PR crap and committee meetings et al- and all the time spent on "maybe we shoulds" and "lets table that until next months meeting", et al- could have gone to where it was really needed.
Red tape, vested interests and don't step on anyones toes, have created a lot of talk (arguements) and very little action.
Except to make those of us who are "idealists" (good word there) very disillusioned with AMDA - MAC - IMA etc.
You know, I agree 100% with all of what you all have said. Eric and Steve (Cortez) have really hit it on the head.
I have offered the support and even web resources here at reefs.org to MAC on at least 3 separate occasions only to be told that they would call us if they needed help. Now, after 2 years of asking I have just received my educational packet from MAC, so I have something to put up on the web. Sigh.
On the other hand, I don't think it's fair to complain about MAC's bureaucratic approach. I am involved in a industry (Offshore Engineering and Rigs-to-Reefs) where "industry" interacts with environmental groups before making literally EVERY decision. I know how the "peer assist" and "peer review" and "stakeholder buy-in" process works - and so apparently does MAC. I've also worked with the BIGGEST certification agencies in the world such as Lloyds and the American Bureau of Shipping, so I know how that works as well.
Now after 2 years of agressive support building and funding push, MAC has the proverbial "big stick" that is needed to bring about change. The sad fact is that I don't think it's possible for the marine aquarium industry to change without an external driver such as the threat of legislation. If MAC is the organization that is selected and funded by the legislature and NGO's that are pushing this legislature - then MAC is who the industry is going to have to work with - period.
Don't get me wrong, I think grassroots change is also essential. I have seen scuba divers and fishermen work to "design" a rigs-to-reefs program here in the Gulf of Mexico with big oil companies. So it IS possible - but not easy. But the problem with grass roots organizations is that they won't and CAN'T work together - each has its own little agenda. I went to last years AMDA meeting at the Baltimore and heck, I had to leave the room! Their board couldn't agree on the TINIEST of little details, such as what should be on an informational packet to post in fish stores! Each person could only see their little issue or their small agenda, and they couldn't or wouldn't see "the big picture."
That's why I think its actually GOOD that MAC has a solid administrative structure and they built that FIRST. Give them a chance to actually start implementing some of what they say they will do. You can't put the cart before the horse with this one, or you'll end up burning out like the rest - to use Eric's analogy, your own little candle will only burn for so long.
(The preceding editorial message does not reflect the views of this station, our management, or the democratic party.)
Cheers
James Wiseman
I have offered the support and even web resources here at reefs.org to MAC on at least 3 separate occasions only to be told that they would call us if they needed help. Now, after 2 years of asking I have just received my educational packet from MAC, so I have something to put up on the web. Sigh.
On the other hand, I don't think it's fair to complain about MAC's bureaucratic approach. I am involved in a industry (Offshore Engineering and Rigs-to-Reefs) where "industry" interacts with environmental groups before making literally EVERY decision. I know how the "peer assist" and "peer review" and "stakeholder buy-in" process works - and so apparently does MAC. I've also worked with the BIGGEST certification agencies in the world such as Lloyds and the American Bureau of Shipping, so I know how that works as well.
Now after 2 years of agressive support building and funding push, MAC has the proverbial "big stick" that is needed to bring about change. The sad fact is that I don't think it's possible for the marine aquarium industry to change without an external driver such as the threat of legislation. If MAC is the organization that is selected and funded by the legislature and NGO's that are pushing this legislature - then MAC is who the industry is going to have to work with - period.
Don't get me wrong, I think grassroots change is also essential. I have seen scuba divers and fishermen work to "design" a rigs-to-reefs program here in the Gulf of Mexico with big oil companies. So it IS possible - but not easy. But the problem with grass roots organizations is that they won't and CAN'T work together - each has its own little agenda. I went to last years AMDA meeting at the Baltimore and heck, I had to leave the room! Their board couldn't agree on the TINIEST of little details, such as what should be on an informational packet to post in fish stores! Each person could only see their little issue or their small agenda, and they couldn't or wouldn't see "the big picture."
That's why I think its actually GOOD that MAC has a solid administrative structure and they built that FIRST. Give them a chance to actually start implementing some of what they say they will do. You can't put the cart before the horse with this one, or you'll end up burning out like the rest - to use Eric's analogy, your own little candle will only burn for so long.
(The preceding editorial message does not reflect the views of this station, our management, or the democratic party.)
Cheers
James Wiseman
Steve, Judy, MAC, etc.
I honestly didn't start this thread because I wanted to bash MAC, and I'm not pecking away now because I want to defend them. It is my hope that MAC will learn to listen to the people who want to help them. If much needed reform is to be achieved I think we will have to somehow learn to compromise and work together. MAC is not perfect and neither is the industry. The problem is serious and the solution is not simple. I agree that MAC spent most of their money on the wrong end. We need reform in the villages like Steve said. My wife and I work very long and very hard at earning an honest living from this industry and despite its faults, it remains the profession I love. Running all the people who actually give a damn out of the industry is not the answer.
I honestly didn't start this thread because I wanted to bash MAC, and I'm not pecking away now because I want to defend them. It is my hope that MAC will learn to listen to the people who want to help them. If much needed reform is to be achieved I think we will have to somehow learn to compromise and work together. MAC is not perfect and neither is the industry. The problem is serious and the solution is not simple. I agree that MAC spent most of their money on the wrong end. We need reform in the villages like Steve said. My wife and I work very long and very hard at earning an honest living from this industry and despite its faults, it remains the profession I love. Running all the people who actually give a damn out of the industry is not the answer.
jamesw":3j8rzeti said:
James,
I made my last post about the same time you were posting this, and I now have a couple of comments to add. If MAC's bureaucratic approach is acceptable to you then God help us all. MAC has been dishonest, plain and simple. Research the AMDA forum and the try and decipher the way in which the truth about the feasibility test cases became public knowledge.
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
James,
To be sure a group needs to have a good administrative structure to handle money and satisfy the funding agencies who require it...above all it would seem. Such a solid administrative structure can be used for good or evil or worse. What could be worse than evil? The institutionalization of mediocre, numbing, endless, slow, routine non-events thats what. 'Shining on" and excluding the true believers suggests insincere motives and moving at such a needlessly glacial pace would suggest incompetence or worse.
MACs best defense is that they are just a certifying agency with scant little to certify. They are not a training agency and have no idea what kind of nets are even required to train divers. Nor do they know where to get them. I know this as I got their field guy his first and only batch of handnetting material 8 months ago. Divers clamored for it and told the field guy they haven't had that netting since 1992! Thats not a typo. Just 8 months ago! This netting is the key to collecting damsels, clowns, lionfishes, triggers and so many fishes that don't 'run' into barrier nets. The lack of it explains so much of the backsliding seen for so many years.
How much news have you heard on this issue over the years? What did they train with all this time?
So if they are indeed a certifying agency they are way ahead of the trainings that would create a possibility of certification. What is to be certified if the training is not first an issue? If it is to become an issue carried by some other group...what group would that be? When? If theres a certifying movement on, then there must be a training movement first, to , er, have something to certify,no? Am I missing something here?
I'm sorry to be so dogged about this but these 'small' points suggest that there is something very much askew about this movement of reform. Was it and is it still a policy to exclude expertise in the promulgation of this thing? Is it possible to slip some reform into the movement of reform? Would they be receptive to it? These fundamental errors are the predictable result of a school of social development that has long been out of favor. The 'top down' approach is not the way to effect change in villages far from the Intercontinental Hotel in Manila. The 'village up' approach has been the trend since the 80's.
Certifying is the easy part. Solving the problem is the real issue and one that has been waylaid by this premature certifying movement concocted largely to satisfy the mindsets of other high end, high level Western thinkers like those that constitute the USCRTF, the Packard Foundation, the McArthur Foundation, etc. They like the idea of certification as it fits into our way of assuring ourselves of the quality of used cars, fruits and vegetables and construction projects. If this is indeed a sound way to proceed in the Philippines and Indonesia , a great deal of field work needs to be done first so that there will be something to then certify. Making such a fundamental mistake is understandable from out of touch outsiders. Or is it that they were already assured that the fish producers were already trained and ready for inspection? If they were assured this and believed this, it would explain a lot. The truth is that the producers were not already trained and in the case of Indonesia, not even touched.
Was the MAC mislead? Stay tuned....
Sincerely, Steve Robinson
To be sure a group needs to have a good administrative structure to handle money and satisfy the funding agencies who require it...above all it would seem. Such a solid administrative structure can be used for good or evil or worse. What could be worse than evil? The institutionalization of mediocre, numbing, endless, slow, routine non-events thats what. 'Shining on" and excluding the true believers suggests insincere motives and moving at such a needlessly glacial pace would suggest incompetence or worse.
MACs best defense is that they are just a certifying agency with scant little to certify. They are not a training agency and have no idea what kind of nets are even required to train divers. Nor do they know where to get them. I know this as I got their field guy his first and only batch of handnetting material 8 months ago. Divers clamored for it and told the field guy they haven't had that netting since 1992! Thats not a typo. Just 8 months ago! This netting is the key to collecting damsels, clowns, lionfishes, triggers and so many fishes that don't 'run' into barrier nets. The lack of it explains so much of the backsliding seen for so many years.
How much news have you heard on this issue over the years? What did they train with all this time?
So if they are indeed a certifying agency they are way ahead of the trainings that would create a possibility of certification. What is to be certified if the training is not first an issue? If it is to become an issue carried by some other group...what group would that be? When? If theres a certifying movement on, then there must be a training movement first, to , er, have something to certify,no? Am I missing something here?
I'm sorry to be so dogged about this but these 'small' points suggest that there is something very much askew about this movement of reform. Was it and is it still a policy to exclude expertise in the promulgation of this thing? Is it possible to slip some reform into the movement of reform? Would they be receptive to it? These fundamental errors are the predictable result of a school of social development that has long been out of favor. The 'top down' approach is not the way to effect change in villages far from the Intercontinental Hotel in Manila. The 'village up' approach has been the trend since the 80's.
Certifying is the easy part. Solving the problem is the real issue and one that has been waylaid by this premature certifying movement concocted largely to satisfy the mindsets of other high end, high level Western thinkers like those that constitute the USCRTF, the Packard Foundation, the McArthur Foundation, etc. They like the idea of certification as it fits into our way of assuring ourselves of the quality of used cars, fruits and vegetables and construction projects. If this is indeed a sound way to proceed in the Philippines and Indonesia , a great deal of field work needs to be done first so that there will be something to then certify. Making such a fundamental mistake is understandable from out of touch outsiders. Or is it that they were already assured that the fish producers were already trained and ready for inspection? If they were assured this and believed this, it would explain a lot. The truth is that the producers were not already trained and in the case of Indonesia, not even touched.
Was the MAC mislead? Stay tuned....
Sincerely, Steve Robinson
I think it would be great if someone would actually, for the record state what it is we hope to change......? Other then The Philippines .....where else are the reefs being harmed by this industry? The Woods report showed very little effects on fish populations.....anywhere after 20 years! I understand the cyanide issue, but I also understand that the juice is used to stun food fish at a greater rate then pet fish collection and usually to collect both at the same time...........I think the only way to stop cyanide use, is to link it to health problems in food fish for human consumption. This will scare the seafood industry into demanding better......then we offer a new enviro -friendly juice to replace cyanide> .........Also I think the main reason Philippine fish are so popular is that the packing they do is so tight, that the cost per fish is much lower. They are able to pack tighter then say, Fiji or Tonga because the time needed to get the fish to the airport is much quicker being a larger airport and more flights...........I f other locations could pack tighter then there would not be this push to buy the cheaper Philippine fish.
_________________
CCI Phantom
_________________
Mercedes Sprinter
_________________
CCI Phantom
_________________
Mercedes Sprinter
To address the world's reefs vs. the industry...
If you are ONLY considering the health of the reefs, then cyanide needs to be stopped in Phillippines and Indo. Not just for this industry, but for food fish also. Steve could probably address this better than I, but I would think that even if you stopped cyanide in the industry, that the food fish people would still continue to destroy reefs and the "positive" impact from the industry would be completely negated. There are reports of cyanide in Sri Lanka and the Red Sea- this needs to be stopped also. In countries where cyanide isn't a problem (Fiji, Tonga, Solomons, etc...) the focus should be on sustainability issues and collateral damage (crowbarring reefs).
Cyanide is not the only problem facing the industry. And frankly, as far as fish mortalities within the industry are concerned, handling is much more of a problem than cynanide. Tight pack is one of the big problems. Tonga and Fiji actually have better flights than PI or Indo- less of them, but airtime is less. Fiji is a 10 hour direct flight. I would rather have my animals packed loose and get here alive than packed tight and save a few pennies on frieght- just to end up losing the fish. Case in point: Tonga. I received a shipment of wrasses that were packed in 4" bags. They had mucused up and I lost a lot of them. I contacted the supplier, requested size 6" bags for the wrasses in the future and he almost fainted. He said everyone else tries to get him to pack tighter- he's never heard someone requesting more water with a fish. I pay a heck of a lot more for freight from Tonga & Fiji because of all of the "excess" water. But I'd rather pay for water than dead or over stressed fish anyday.
If you are ONLY considering the health of the reefs, then cyanide needs to be stopped in Phillippines and Indo. Not just for this industry, but for food fish also. Steve could probably address this better than I, but I would think that even if you stopped cyanide in the industry, that the food fish people would still continue to destroy reefs and the "positive" impact from the industry would be completely negated. There are reports of cyanide in Sri Lanka and the Red Sea- this needs to be stopped also. In countries where cyanide isn't a problem (Fiji, Tonga, Solomons, etc...) the focus should be on sustainability issues and collateral damage (crowbarring reefs).
Cyanide is not the only problem facing the industry. And frankly, as far as fish mortalities within the industry are concerned, handling is much more of a problem than cynanide. Tight pack is one of the big problems. Tonga and Fiji actually have better flights than PI or Indo- less of them, but airtime is less. Fiji is a 10 hour direct flight. I would rather have my animals packed loose and get here alive than packed tight and save a few pennies on frieght- just to end up losing the fish. Case in point: Tonga. I received a shipment of wrasses that were packed in 4" bags. They had mucused up and I lost a lot of them. I contacted the supplier, requested size 6" bags for the wrasses in the future and he almost fainted. He said everyone else tries to get him to pack tighter- he's never heard someone requesting more water with a fish. I pay a heck of a lot more for freight from Tonga & Fiji because of all of the "excess" water. But I'd rather pay for water than dead or over stressed fish anyday.
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:
