Thoughts on the #reefs MAC presentation
- Thread starter MaryHM
- Start date
No. (I would have liked to have seen answers like that one!)
I would have liked to have seen DIRECT answers to the questions. What I read was mostly spin and rhetoric.
What I surmised is that entities are being certified, in spite of the fact that the infrastructure to oversee and monitor these entities is not in place. That tells me that MAC certification is just a piece of paper with no substance.
IMO that really removes most if not all of the credibility of MAC's mission. What good is a certification? What is the benefit? Right now there is none as I perceive it.
As a retailer I don't see any reason to participate in MAC.
JMHO
Jenn
I would have liked to have seen DIRECT answers to the questions. What I read was mostly spin and rhetoric.
What I surmised is that entities are being certified, in spite of the fact that the infrastructure to oversee and monitor these entities is not in place. That tells me that MAC certification is just a piece of paper with no substance.
IMO that really removes most if not all of the credibility of MAC's mission. What good is a certification? What is the benefit? Right now there is none as I perceive it.
As a retailer I don't see any reason to participate in MAC.
JMHO
Jenn
I did not sense any fraud or deceit or lies.
I thought the answers though vague, were honest.
IMO Paul would have preferred to have a cyanide test before certifying the first group of MAC certificate holders.
IMO Paul underestimated the necessity for training sufficient fishers to cope with early demand.
IMO Paul underestimated the time it would take to establish the Fish Catchment Areas.
TO his credit, he admitted to all of the above.
So what are we to do.
Stop everything until cyanide all of the above is in place?
Or on the other hand, use the established infrastructure to 'get things going' and get the bugs out of the system.
Obviously, MAC has chosen the latter.
The risk of course is that MAC loses credibility with the fishers, collectors, exporters, importers, wholesalers etc.
Now that the truth is out, if we all accept the fact that MAC has these weaknesses and MAC lays out a timetable for the above, IMO we should make a concerted effort to get things back on track the way we wanted it.
I thought the answers though vague, were honest.
IMO Paul would have preferred to have a cyanide test before certifying the first group of MAC certificate holders.
IMO Paul underestimated the necessity for training sufficient fishers to cope with early demand.
IMO Paul underestimated the time it would take to establish the Fish Catchment Areas.
TO his credit, he admitted to all of the above.
So what are we to do.
Stop everything until cyanide all of the above is in place?
Or on the other hand, use the established infrastructure to 'get things going' and get the bugs out of the system.
Obviously, MAC has chosen the latter.
The risk of course is that MAC loses credibility with the fishers, collectors, exporters, importers, wholesalers etc.
Now that the truth is out, if we all accept the fact that MAC has these weaknesses and MAC lays out a timetable for the above, IMO we should make a concerted effort to get things back on track the way we wanted it.
Naesco,
I still think it is fradulent to certify fish without having a test in place. It's wrong and it is LYING to consumers. Is the sticker going to say "MAC Certified, but we're still working out the kinks and this fish may be cyanide caught"? Of course not. Just "MAC Certifed". And with that comes the assumption of a better product. A product that MAC can not guarantee at this time. Development of a test should have been a priority. MAC has been around for over 3 years- plenty of time to get a test in place. But their main concern is obviously getting MAC stickers on companies and animals. That in my opinion is wrong, and until it is corrected they will not have my support. I believe in REAL industry reform, not pseudo-feel good reform.
I still think it is fradulent to certify fish without having a test in place. It's wrong and it is LYING to consumers. Is the sticker going to say "MAC Certified, but we're still working out the kinks and this fish may be cyanide caught"? Of course not. Just "MAC Certifed". And with that comes the assumption of a better product. A product that MAC can not guarantee at this time. Development of a test should have been a priority. MAC has been around for over 3 years- plenty of time to get a test in place. But their main concern is obviously getting MAC stickers on companies and animals. That in my opinion is wrong, and until it is corrected they will not have my support. I believe in REAL industry reform, not pseudo-feel good reform.
naesco":2rwzlvcd said:
Perception is EVERYTHING. All of this bad publicity is going to do irreparable damage to MAC (has it already?) so it might undermine any good the organization can do later.
You cannot leave the mice in charge of the cheese. You cannot expect people to buy into certification when there is no forensic means to assure that the certification means what it claims.
I'm not defeatist, and I'm not against reform within the industry, quite the contrary, I am a retailer so it's in my best interest to see this industry reformed so that collection can be done ethically and sustainably. However, what I'm seeing from MAC is making a mockery out of any serious efforts to effect change. Buying a certificate really has no meaning at this point. I believe if the certification process can take place without forensic safeguards in place, there will be NO incentive to achieve those safeguards. It becomes just another piece of expensive paper, not worth the ink to print it.
Disappointed.
Jenn
Unfortunately I missed the talk and it's not in the library yet. I'm itching to hear some of his answers to certain questions like:
Why isn't there a reliable cyanide detection test being used?
Why do they allow MAC certified exporters to purchase fish from non-certified collectors?(at cheaper rates)
Why do they continue to certify new exporters (and are their any in the works) when there aren't enough net-caught fish to go around, or enough collection areas?
Why did Ferdie Cruz resign? (I know the reason, but not in any detail)
Since MAC is supposed to be representing the aquarium industry, why have they not addressed the concerns brought up by many folks in this industry?
Like I said, I wasn't around to attend the talk, so can anyone answer some of these questions for me?
Why isn't there a reliable cyanide detection test being used?
Why do they allow MAC certified exporters to purchase fish from non-certified collectors?(at cheaper rates)
Why do they continue to certify new exporters (and are their any in the works) when there aren't enough net-caught fish to go around, or enough collection areas?
Why did Ferdie Cruz resign? (I know the reason, but not in any detail)
Since MAC is supposed to be representing the aquarium industry, why have they not addressed the concerns brought up by many folks in this industry?
Like I said, I wasn't around to attend the talk, so can anyone answer some of these questions for me?
Doug,
Paul got asked some tough questions. He did manage to provide some answers, while he danced around a few others. I have always found that is often much harder to go back and fix something when it is done wrong than to do it right the first time. I believe the first wave of people certified here in the US were sincere in their beliefs. I think the next wave will include a bunch that want to cash in on the greenwash. This group will include the true hypocrites. Sounds like this has already happened in PI. It will be very easy for a wholesaler to bill him/herself as MAC certified while only carrying maybe 10% or less MAC fish in the house. The biggest cheaters and deceivers (bait & switch) will do the best under the MAC system.
Mr. Howard Latin was right about much of this. The bad guys in PI have got to be pleased with MAC. Clearly MAC had the funding to do more to clean up the fish supply, but spent it on the wrong priorities. Paul is still unwilling to come clean about the origins of the 1%. It had to come from those who want to shut down the trade, it could not possibly have come from this industry. It will be very interesting to see who is on the committee that revised the figures. MAC needs to become much more transparent, but that is very unlikely to happen.
Mitch
Paul got asked some tough questions. He did manage to provide some answers, while he danced around a few others. I have always found that is often much harder to go back and fix something when it is done wrong than to do it right the first time. I believe the first wave of people certified here in the US were sincere in their beliefs. I think the next wave will include a bunch that want to cash in on the greenwash. This group will include the true hypocrites. Sounds like this has already happened in PI. It will be very easy for a wholesaler to bill him/herself as MAC certified while only carrying maybe 10% or less MAC fish in the house. The biggest cheaters and deceivers (bait & switch) will do the best under the MAC system.
Mr. Howard Latin was right about much of this. The bad guys in PI have got to be pleased with MAC. Clearly MAC had the funding to do more to clean up the fish supply, but spent it on the wrong priorities. Paul is still unwilling to come clean about the origins of the 1%. It had to come from those who want to shut down the trade, it could not possibly have come from this industry. It will be very interesting to see who is on the committee that revised the figures. MAC needs to become much more transparent, but that is very unlikely to happen.
Mitch
I thank Paul for taking his Sunday afternoon to come give a chat in #reefs to present information about MAC. I think he did the best job he could to answer everyone's questions, but as we could see, Paul had to type in all of his answers - not the fastest method on earth.
All of your questions have been posted on the #reefs speakers forum for Paul and MAC to answer.
I admire Paul very much for his frank and earnest answers during the #reefs talk. I also admire him very much for "showing up" when he knew there were industry businessfolks present with axes to grind. That's like accepting an invitation to dinner at "grandma's house" when you know that it's really a bunch of wolves - and they are all sitting around sharpening their knives so that they can eat YOU for dinner.
Cheers
James
All of your questions have been posted on the #reefs speakers forum for Paul and MAC to answer.
I admire Paul very much for his frank and earnest answers during the #reefs talk. I also admire him very much for "showing up" when he knew there were industry businessfolks present with axes to grind. That's like accepting an invitation to dinner at "grandma's house" when you know that it's really a bunch of wolves - and they are all sitting around sharpening their knives so that they can eat YOU for dinner.
Cheers
James
-I understand what you are saying James, but I still am a bit confused on why he (or any other MAC representative) does not interact more with us on these boards. Am I missing something here, aren't the hobbyist the reason for MAC to even exist in the first place?
Steve
jamesw":80cok8aa said:
I too am appreciative that Mr. Holthus took time to address us, however I did NOT detect ANY "frank and earnest" answers. Unless I was at a different chat, what *I* heard was rhetoric and double talk and being told to buy it now, and we'll make it the way it should be.
I think it's only reasonable to expect these people who expect us all to pay up, to talk to us directly. We are their (potential) CUSTOMERS. And, if we were all behaving like the wolves at Grandma's house, that's ONLY because MAC has provoked it.
I don't know anybody in the industry who doesn't want things done "better" but MAC has yet to prove that it's building a better mousetrap. In fact, just by going ahead and certifying entities, despite the absense of forensic testing to enforce standards, they have juiced any and all creditbility they had.
Reform needs to happen but it's not going to be MAC that does it.
JMHO
Jenn
jamesw":3585ubwd said:
Geez I had to re-activate my account in order to log in and reply -- and it took 4 tries. If I was paranoid I'd smell a conspiracy
As I signed off in my post, JMHO. Just my humble opinion. I think too much damage has been done to MAC at this point, for it to be the entity to cause real reform. I have no secret information, no agenda, just my gut feeling based on what I've been reading in recent months, and capped off by last night's presentation.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Jenn
Mary you asked for my first impressions and I listed them.
I was disappointed too. It has been one year since IMO excellent recommendations came forward from our group on the Unsuitable Species List and nothing has been done. It did not require money or anything that could cause a delay. It simply was not done.
Put another way MAC could not decide that it was not OK to put whales and blue ring octopus in our tanks.
Your comments that it would be fraud to put forward that cyanide free fish would be part of the MAC certification. I agree.
The best MAC can say is those guarantees are on the way. Most of everything else is on the way.
So I say to you all let us give MAC one more chance. If I can forgive the lack of action on the USL please also consider forgiveness (its Christmastime
So MAC's inaction on the USL (I know and agree there are other more important priorites) WILL BE MY ACTION.
I am writing Paul offering to Chair the USL Committee and meet somewhere in the West Coast around the 20th or so of January 2003.
Who here would like to help me?
Paul needs help and should accept my offer. I want to set a goal of 10 of the listed fish on the USL as the goal for the meeting.
Mary will you or can you nominate someone to chair a cyanide test fast track committee? There are many professional people on our board who would be hounoured to asked to help.
We do not have to be in love with MAC in its present form, we just need to love our industry/hobby enough
MAC is in dire need of assistance with the training aspect which is key to a successful beginning. Steve I know it is a lot to ask but will you help just one more time?
Who here can phone/write/email the PI exporter and ask her to hang in there?
Paul if you are reading this post, please understand that this is an offer to help you and your organization be successful. I have not a Masters in Biology but I have been around the block long enough to know and can guarantee to get the unanimous agreement of ten fish for a USL.
Respectfully posted
Wayne Ryan
I was disappointed too. It has been one year since IMO excellent recommendations came forward from our group on the Unsuitable Species List and nothing has been done. It did not require money or anything that could cause a delay. It simply was not done.
Put another way MAC could not decide that it was not OK to put whales and blue ring octopus in our tanks.
Your comments that it would be fraud to put forward that cyanide free fish would be part of the MAC certification. I agree.
The best MAC can say is those guarantees are on the way. Most of everything else is on the way.
So I say to you all let us give MAC one more chance. If I can forgive the lack of action on the USL please also consider forgiveness (its Christmastime
So MAC's inaction on the USL (I know and agree there are other more important priorites) WILL BE MY ACTION.
I am writing Paul offering to Chair the USL Committee and meet somewhere in the West Coast around the 20th or so of January 2003.
Who here would like to help me?
Paul needs help and should accept my offer. I want to set a goal of 10 of the listed fish on the USL as the goal for the meeting.
Mary will you or can you nominate someone to chair a cyanide test fast track committee? There are many professional people on our board who would be hounoured to asked to help.
We do not have to be in love with MAC in its present form, we just need to love our industry/hobby enough
MAC is in dire need of assistance with the training aspect which is key to a successful beginning. Steve I know it is a lot to ask but will you help just one more time?
Who here can phone/write/email the PI exporter and ask her to hang in there?
Paul if you are reading this post, please understand that this is an offer to help you and your organization be successful. I have not a Masters in Biology but I have been around the block long enough to know and can guarantee to get the unanimous agreement of ten fish for a USL.
Respectfully posted
Wayne Ryan
Naesco,
I will bet you $100 that if you offer help you will get one of two things:
1. "We appreciate your offer of assistance and will get back to you about it". Read: They don't want to piss you off, but piss off
2. "No thank you"
The latter is rather direct, so I'd be surprised if you got that. Wayne, when I first met Paul at Marine Ornamentals in Hawaii and heard him speak about the MAC program I went up and introduced myself. This is an exact quote of what I said "Paul, I will stuff and lick envelopes- anything to help you out". They don't want help. And when you give it anyway they ignore it. Please Paul, if you're reading this prove me wrong.
I will bet you $100 that if you offer help you will get one of two things:
1. "We appreciate your offer of assistance and will get back to you about it". Read: They don't want to piss you off, but piss off
2. "No thank you"
The latter is rather direct, so I'd be surprised if you got that. Wayne, when I first met Paul at Marine Ornamentals in Hawaii and heard him speak about the MAC program I went up and introduced myself. This is an exact quote of what I said "Paul, I will stuff and lick envelopes- anything to help you out". They don't want help. And when you give it anyway they ignore it. Please Paul, if you're reading this prove me wrong.
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:
