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

naesco

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I had a chance to go through the powerpoint presentation.
With the exception that the Unsuitable Species List was not addressed, I thought the presentation would be supported by most of the reefing community.
It seems that it runs on the ISO (International Standards Organization) model. For those that are not familiar with ISO simply put it runs this way.
A proposed applicant is given a writttent method of operating his business. He than arranges things so that his business conforms with that written model. A certifier than attends his business and verifys that the procedures are in place and are being followed. His business is than certified.
The benefit is that anyone who buys from him knows that they are buying a quality product.
If he fails to continue with the procedures he is de-certified.

What is wrong with the MAC model?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I think the problem is it makes sense on paper but it's hard to regulate in reality. i.e. Company follows procedure and shows MAC what they want to see, then continue to what they did before only now with a fancy label with no real change.
 

naesco

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Thanks for your quick reply Rover.
When ISO9000 came to my industry when it was first introduced, I had the following impressions.
1. It was expensive time consuming to set up. I thought it was bureaucratic BS.
2. It was useless ( a name only thing) that might get us some jobs with the big buyers of our product.
Well, it is pretty well universally accepted by industry today.

IMO the reason for its success is that some of the larger players seriously bought in and had the clout to more or less force others to follow whether they wanted to or not.

Say, if a couple of the major fish and coral importers made it a policy that suppliers to them had 9 months to get MAC certified or they would be off the buyers list, MAC will succeed.
If a couple of major wholesalers......ditto
If several high profile retailers (LFS or online)........ditto.

If reefs.org, reefcentral, canreef and the hard cover mags made it a policy that without 9 months we would stop taking advertising from non certified
advertisers and it was adopted by these same forums that we will promote the idea to all that it is in the best interests of our hobby to buy certified fish and coral, IMO things would change.

If MAC has problems (and they do because I have read all your posts) than lets adopt MAC in pricipal and work within MAC to make the necessary changes that affect all of us. As a third party looking in, that is how I see it . Just MOO (my own opinion)
 

jamesw

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Naesco,

I think that most of the reefkeeping community WILL support the MAC - once they understand what MAC is doing.

MAC is a certification agency for the marine aquarium trade.

People seem to be expecting the MAC to save the world - and when they don't save it TOMORROW, people are getting upset.

But what MAC has is the backing of NATIONS behind them. They have spent years now building up the power base that they need to implement a certification program. Of course they have not been out training divers, or saving the world. Heck, they've got to start somewhere, and I for one thing they are off to the right start.

Read the Powerpoint presentation. Come to the talk and hear the presentation. I doubt very much you will have a "bone to pick" with the MAC after you understand them.

Cheers
James
 

jamesw

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Naesco,

I just read your other post. Ding ding ding, bells went off!

My company (Engineering) is undergoing the ISO9001 certification process right now and we are developing our Quality Management System. This is why I have a basic understanding of what certification is and how and why it works.

But not everyone understands how certification works...

Do you think perhaps you could develop a short (3 paragraph) explanation of how Certification works for US? I just talked to Frank Marini and he suggested I use the example of USDA certified beef. How we know where the cows come from, how we know that they have not been mixed with "mad cows" from England, how we know the cows have been inspected and stamped, etc.

Your help is greatly appreciated.

James
 

naesco

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Thanks JamesW for your comments.

Here are two of my concerns.
1. In reading the MAC threads in this forum, I am seriously concerned that there is a need for a 'broker' to patch up the mistakes of the past, the personalities and negativity and the perceived 'unfairness'. Notable contributors, Steve, Mary, Rover and others to this forum are not happy and MAC needs them on its side.

2. Where are our leaders Scott, Fenner, Moe, Sprung, and the others?
Why don't them stand up and be counted?
 

clarionreef

Advanced Reefer
Location
San Francisco
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Hello people,
All I've said for the last year is that the gap between concept [easy] and implementation [difficult] needs to narrow...a lot more than it has. I am hardly impressed or hopeful when I see the focus excessively on the novelty of ideas and not strategies for implementation, not to mention the talent to do it.
The BROKER you spoke of is already working between us and he is none other than Mike King of CORL. I defer to Mike on the negotiations between the sides and will from now on focus on the training plan, materials, budget etc.
There need be no fireworks between us so long as measureable progress is evident and the truce is respected. You may be surprised at how much progress was made this week.
You will hear of it Sunday nite.
Forgive me but this is now my 20th year with this struggle and I am anxious to see the end of it. When it appeared that the opportunity was being squandered once again, I occassionally revealed how much I really cared about this problem.
However...It has been agreed to promote field training more vigorously now and the cause for alarm has subsided.
There will be serious training now and that allows us to have peace.
Training allows for a bonafide product...which then enables a certified product...The cart will now follow the horse and for that I am really happy.
Sincerely, Steve Robinson
 

dizzy

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Good luck Steve. You have done much to restore the integrity to the process. I hope they make you the head trainer. You deserve it my friend.

Mitch
 

liquid

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Please bring any and all questions to the talk on Sunday. This should prove to be very informative. :)

BTW...there will be a short MAC presentation prior to the Q&A session starting but come prepared with your questions! :D

Shane
 

Bill2

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
jamesw":2w2car3h said:
People seem to be expecting the MAC to save the world - and when they don't save it TOMORROW, people are getting upset.

How many years has MAC been in existence?
 

clarionreef

Advanced Reefer
Location
San Francisco
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
James,
I agree with you that it takes time to save the world. Thanks to the IMA's lack of accomplishment in net training for the decade of the 90's and misleading MAC on how many people were really trained,[ much, much less!] MAC was left with a great deal more of a challenge than previously thought.
However, its not their several years on the job that has been in question, its the direction they decided to take. No matter how ernestly and carefully you walk down the road...if its the wrong road you're not going to get there! Hopefully, thanks to the deal brokered between CORL and MAC we're all finally walking down the right road and in the right direction together.
We all make mistakes...real courage is to admit them, adjust and keep trying.
Steve
 

MaryHM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
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:
<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:

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.
 

flameangel1

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0

BRAVO !!!!!!!!!!!
Mary--and Please keep telling it like it really is !!!!!!!
If-(and I do not believe that "IF" either)
MAC is now changing its so called "goals"-what happens to all the "already issued certifications" that mean nothing right now ??
Big presentations of NEW goals-mean no more than words as we have heard them for years now.
Facts mean far more-and where in the ever lovin hell, are the actual facts and how are we dealers ever supposed to follow MAC's proposed "rules" even IF that "certified" reality from the actual catching of the animals did exist ??
Having lived with this world for 60 years now- I KNOW there will be some who will take the easy way out-and how will we retailers ever know ??

Where is the money supposed to be coming from, to ensure all those divers and exporters and wholesalers and us retailers can follow MAC's rules. Yes- I am an honest dealer who tries the best way possible to buy and handle the animals I stock ethically-but it would be impossible for me to deal with the monumental amount of paperwork and extra tanks/space , just to become MAC legit certified.
And MAC is not even thinking about the shippers along this trail of DOA'S.
But, as a retailer- I have to !!!!!!

MAC NEEDS to be made up solely of those of involved ALL along the way, who actually are out in the field !!! Not sitting behind desks makeing up neat little reform rules for others to follow.

sorry about the rant--This is just so frustrating- and yet so many are willing to believe just anything MAC says !!!!
(ps- yes I read a real letter that was real documentation from a real source involved)[/b]
 

clarionreef

Advanced Reefer
Location
San Francisco
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Hey Jude,
Nothing wrong with a little straight talk...
If we really train the collectors...why such a need then for police actions and paper trails. When trained right theres not the big temptation to go back to cyanide!
When you actually solve the problem, there need not be an industry created to feed off its continuation. Do we paper trail Australia and Hawaiian fish? No. Why? Because there is no need to. There is no poison fishing problem.
Still, if you solve the problem and still want to monitor and verify paper and collate and sort and staple and file it all...go ahead.
I have a wholesale business here. First is selling the fish...then, the verification, invoice and filing etc. The fish put everything in motion. All the paper plays off consequent to the production of the fish first! How did this ever get turned around?
First comes good, clean and safe beef. Then...towards the end comes the certification of said beef. Accurate certification is totally dependant upon the initial integrity of the product...first and foremost. How is this not the right sequence???
Training enables certification...
Sincerely, Steve
 

MaryHM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Shane,

I've been asking MAC all of the hard questions for 2 years. Both in emails and face to face discussions. I have yet to get a straight answer to any of them. I don't expect anything new out of MAC during the #reefs presentation either. Same old vague, patent-pending statements. But for grins & giggles I'll be there Sunday night. I have dibs on the question of how can we have certification of fish from the Philippines without a cyanide detection test. :)
 

jamesw

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I'm still working on this analogy Steve so hang in there.

Let's go back about 100 years.

Let's just say that there is a lot of beef out there of both the "clean" and the "tainted" kind. As a consumer, none of us know if it is "clean" beef or if it is "tainted" beef that we see at the grocery store. You're with me, right?

Since we all know that the ranchers and butchers and meat packers aren't going to clean the beef up on their own ('cause that would be hard and cost money) - we need certification. We can't wait forever for this group to clean up their own act. We've tried before and we know they won't do it.

So we try certification. Any beef that comes to the grocery store that is certified - we know where it came from and we know it's safe to eat. Therefore as a consumer, we know which beef to buy. Beef that isn't certified may be clean or it may be tainted. So now we can TRULY let the market decide, right?

I got a hilarious PM telling me that the USDA isn't perfect about beef certification. People lie to the inspectors and tainted beef gets sold sometimes <gasp>! Well duh! It's gonna happen because this isn't a perfect world. But for the most part, the liars and cheats get caught eventually during a "spot check" or an unplanned inspection. Things work out.

Boy, you guys are going to shotgun blast me for oversimplifying this - but heck, this is a perfect example of how MAC certification SHOULD and will work - if we give it a chance.

Cheers
James
 

MaryHM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
James,

I don't think anyone is saying certification is bad. We're saying it has to be done RIGHT or it's useless. Worse than useless, it's actually harmful because it sets back the true reform movement by glossing over the problem. I don't know about beef certification, but let's say the USDA requires a bacterial analysis to be done on the beef before it can be considered certified. Would it make sense for the USDA to certify beef producers without that test being in place just to get certified beef in to the marketplace? Of course not, but this is exactly what MAC is doing. Certifying fish are cyanide free without a test in place to prove it.
 

dizzy

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
James,

How do they handle seafood that we eat? Can each fish that is sold at the grocery be traced back to the fisherman who caught? I hope you can understand why some of us are wary about the manner in which MAC has introduced themselves to the industry.

BTW did you know that it was actually Rick Horn of Petsmart that got the whole MAC idea going? naeso there's your large company with clout you were looking for.

MG
 

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