My views on MAC- All in one place

[MaryHM]

After some thought, I decided to post a letter I sent to Paul Holthus (MAC exective director) back in March. It throughly explains my position on MAC. Having to explain it numerous times in numerous threads gets tiring, so hopefully this will make things easier. You can access it at http://www.reefsource.com/MSI%20Articles/mac.htm

Here are some points that weren't in the letter, but I have discussed throughly with MAC on other occasions:

1. I am a small wholesaler, and rarely do I order 100 individuals of any species. In fact, only snails, hermit crabs, and green chromis are ordered in those volumes. This definitely applies to retailers as well. Generally with fish I order 2-20, depending on what it is. Anyone care to guess what 1% of 20 is?? It's .2. This would mean that I could only lose .8 of a fish and still have that batch certified. Obviously, that's not possible, so I would have to have ZERO% DOA on 99% of my stock. Does anyone here think that's possible?? Basically, all retailers would also have to have ZERO% DOA on all of their stock. The only people that could lose fish and fall under 1% would be exporters and importers dealing in huge volumes. MAC has said that they may try to address this issue. I haven't heard anything from them yet.

2. Another issue is "stupid death". Things like fish jumping out of the tanks. Blue Spot Jawfish are a good example. Say I bring in 50 perfectly healthy blue spots from Steve and 1 jumps out (I usually bring in 6 and lose at least 1 to jumping no matter how careful I am). My other 49 perfectly healthy blue spot jaws are now uncertified. How dumb is that? MAC has also said they may make an exception for these things. Uh-huh.

3. How about cheating?? Why Mary, you say, this industry is so honest and committed to change they'd never cheat.... :roll: MAC Certified facilities can import both MAC certified animals and animals that are uncertified. Obviously only the MAC certified animals can be advertised, marketed, and labeled as such. Here's a perfect example of how MAC is going to fail because of tracking individual animals:

Wholesaler XYZ is MAC Certified. They import 100 MAC certified green chromis from Tonga and 100 uncertified green chromis from PI. Obviously the Tonga chromis are going to be more expensive, both because of the initial cost and the MAC certification. 2 of the Tonga green chromis die in the tank- causing them to now be uncertified. You tell me- is Wholesaler XYZ going to hesitate for 1 second to scoop out 2 uncertified chromis, put them in the MAC batch, and insure that his chromis are still certified?? Why Mary, you say, of course he will because he's a member of the upstanding marine ornamentals industry dedicated to MAC's worthy goals :roll:

MAC needs to get away from trying to track individual animals. It's going to prove to be impossible and it's setting the industry up for cheating and failure.

4. Space issues. MAC requires that each individual batch of species be separated out so you can "easily" track them. Does anyone have an idea of how impossible this is?? Say Wholesaler XYZ imports 50 MAC Certified Coral beauty angels a week from Fiji and 50 uncertifed PI ones. As things stand now, fish are grouped by species in the large wholesalers- at least they were 4 years ago when I was working for them. Need to pull a green chromis, go to the green chromis section where a mixture of PI, Indo, etc.. chromis are. Need a coral beauty, go to the coral beauty aisle. Now, back to Wholesaler XYZ's situation. He now has to separate out certified from uncertified. Ok, say he makes the room to do that. Now, he only sells 30 from the certified batch. So he imports 20 more for the following week. Now he has TWO SEPARATE BATCHS OF MAC CERTIFIED FISH TO KEEP SEPARATE!! Week 3, he only sells 15 from the MAC Batch. Of course, if he's organized enough, he pulls those from the first batch, but that still leaves him with 5 from the first batch, 20 from the second batch, and he imports a third batch of 25. Now he has THREE SEPARATE BATCHS OF MAC CERTIFIED FISH TO KEEP SEPARATE!! See how it gets ridiculous and confusing?? Why Mary, you say, can't he just wait until he sells out all of the first batch and then import more?? The answer is NO. No wholesaler wants to run out of fish to sell. That makes bad business sense. It's better to have more than less, except on Friday and the fish have to sit there and potentially die over the weekend!!

Well, those are my rantings for this morning. I wish I had access to all of my musings over on the AMDA board, but when I ceased to be a member I lost that access. Oh well, they weren't worth $50 anyway and that's all I'd be getting out of that money. I'll edit this post as time, energy, and motivation dictate until I have a complete compilation of "Mary's Concerns with MAC" post. Anyone ever read War & Peace??

 

[flameangel1]

Mary,,
Very glad you posted this.
And I know 100% that cheating will definately go on within the certified batches of fish-all along the chain.
Would I trust MAC certified labels on a box of fish-NO !!!!!

Just a note here- the last time I checked AMDA's member list (a few weeks ago),
they still have you listed as a member !!!!
Makes their list look bigger :roll:

 

[Kalkbreath]

Vary nicely told, Please do this again with ,say a ten percent factor?

 

[MaryHM]

What's wrong with MAC?? I'll lay it out again for everyone who doesn't want to sort through all of the info on this board (or doesn't want to believe it). Where do I begin....

1. Lack of a cyanide test- How in the world can you certify a fish as net caught in an already corrupt country if you don't have testing in place? Well, MAC is just sending in a certifier to check paperwork (I highly doubt many companies list Cyanide as an expenditure!) and then taking the companies word for it. With that vague knowledge of what is going on in companies that have been using cyanide for 20+ years with no moral issues, MAC will then hand them a pretty little sticker. You MUST have a cyanide test in place to monitor exports on a daily/weekly basis if you are going to claim certification. Without it, the divers will put away their cyanide bottles when the certifier in the suit shows up once every 1-3 years and then pull it back out as soon as they are gone.

2. DOA standards are just ridiculous.

3. The fact of trying to keep a paperwork trail for EVERY SINGLE ANIMAL imported into the states is IMPOSSIBLE.

4. Too much room for cheating. This is already a corrupt industry. Just because someone has a MAC sticker doesn't mean they respect it. If all of these companies really respected MAC's goals they would have been acheiving them long before MAC came along. Companies want a sticker from MAC to prove to their customers that they are "doing the right thing". Just like how wholesalers have been telling retailers for 20 years "Yeah, our fish our net caught". Anything to make a buck. Tell the customer what they want to hear, show the customer the sticker they want to see.

5. MAC has done an immense amout of straight out lying. They have proven over and over again that they do not want help of true reformers because we have the knowledge and scruples to expose them for what they are. And it's not just industry types- in fact, most of MAC's detractors aren't involved in handling livestock for the trade. They are authors, scientists, etc. Isn't that interesting??

Someone asked where Fenner, etc... stand. Well Fenner absolutely detests MAC. He has an even stronger anti-MAC stance than I do. You can read some of his comments at the following links:

http://www.wetwebmedia.com/WWMAdminSubW ... attack.htm
http://www.wetwebmedia.com/WWMAdminSubW ... ttack2.htm

If you don't feel like sifting through all of that text, here's a direct quote from Bob that pretty much sums it up:
Quote:
<Paul Holthus is a liar and a front for other peoples interests. Anyone who listens to MAC's false statements and partial facts is an idiot. Bob Fenner>


Without her explicit permission, I refused to post a letter recently received from the first Philippine certified exporter who has been working with MAC for a very long time. However, Bob Fenner has posted it on his website. You can read her letter at that second link above, the 5th headline down the page (The Real Mac). Those are words STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH ABOUT HOW MAC HAS DECEIVED HER AND IS PERPETRATING CERTIFICATION FRAUD.

Eric Borneman doesn't trust them either. Here's a direct quote from him from a previous posting on this board:

Quote:
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?




Peter Rubec of the International Marinelife Alliance (who has no ties to the trade) sees the fraud that is being perpetrated and speaks openly about it on here. Peter is now being "silenced" by the IMA. Could the IMA want him to shut up because they receive funding from MAC??? Hey, don't look a gift horse in the mouth.


Howard Latin, an environmental lawyer, is against MAC. You can read his comments here http://reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=19518&start=0 (6th post down)

Dr. Thomas Goreau, president of the Global Coral Reef Alliance, has nominated MAC for the annual international greenwash award. Read more about this award at http://www.earthsummit.biz/ and other information can be found at http://www.betterworldlinks.org/book90g.htm

All of you are not privy to much of the "behind the scenes" MAC information that is traded back and forth. Most of this information is confidential right now, but will be coming out soon. If all of you only knew the whole picture you'd understand where Steve, Peter, and I are coming from. Is MAC's goal a worthy one? Of course it is!! Who doesn't want to save the reefs and the industry in one fell swoop?? Gee, it would be a "win-win situation" (to quote one of MAC's favorite statements). Guess what? MAC is very good at putting out very general, vague, feel good statements about saving the reefs and improving the trade. However, you never see the nuts and bolts of ANYTHING. You can't say MAC is going to protect the reefs without qualifying that statement somehow and proving that it is being done PRIOR to certification. You can't say that MAC is going to end the cyanide trade if there is no test PRIOR to certification. But guess what? Certifications are being issued as we speak. So although their public ramblings are very attention grabbing and feel-good, they have no teeth. There is nothing to support it. But hey, it generates funding and nice fat salaries for executive directors. People who understand the industry and demand real industry reform (like the above mentioned people) can see through the farce and are sickened at the thought of a certified trade that continues to do business as usual. There are 2 types of people that fall into MAC's trap: those who don't understand how the trade operates and those that want to maintain their funding.

 

[MaryHM]

I have locked this thread not because I don't want to discuss my views (as is evident by my 500 MAC postings!) but because I am trying to keep all of my personal views organized in one place- so if someone wants to access them they don't have to wade through a pile of other posts.