Retailers: MAC Certification?

[dizzy]

John,
If memory serves me correctly the first mixing charge actually came from Marivi in her infamous letter to Paul Holthus. I believe that letter was posted on Fenner's WWM. It seems like the accusation was that the MAC field agent actually went around telling the MAC certified exporters to mix in cyanide caught fish to increase variety. While it may not have been the official MAC policy, it was one that was allegedly being encouraged by MAC employees. Are you saying Marivi was lying to Paul in that letter?

 

[MaryHM]

John,

On several occasions I have told you that if you treat me with respect I will give you the same courtesy. I should have known when you never bothered to say "Ok" to that that you were intent on trying to villify and discredit me at all costs. This is just another prime example. Your behavior is so pathetic and obvious that I will not bother to comment on it again, so there is no need to reply to this. You won't get an answer. I'm not going to spend my time fighting with someone as out of the loop as you. Someone who can't even be certified because he's a maintenance company, someone who won't even fly in MAC certified fish from a couple of states away (from A&M), yet someone who insists on defending the program at all costs against people the program actually affects. Sorry, but previous retail experience years ago and a trip to the Philippines does not an industry player make. I don't care how many boards you serve on or trips you make. I have more respect for the hobbyists that voice their opinions on MAC. At least they can support MAC if they choose. You don't. That's sad.

And now to the point of this post. When you post that one sentence about me saying MAC tells exporters they can mix fish, you fail to post my numerous clarifications further down that thread.

Oh please, John. I'm not lying and you know it. A MAC Certified Facility is allowed to continue doing business as normal- in fact they don't even have to bring in one single MAC Certified fish if they don't want to. Carrying MAC Certified Fish is not a stipulation of MAC Certification for facilities. Let me put it in simple terms. MAC knows there is a serious cyanide problem. MAC certifies companies in countries where cyanide use is prevalent. MAC does not require the companies that get certified to carry MAC certified fish. In fact, MAC tells them that since there aren't enough MAC fish on line right now that it is accepted and expected that they must bring in fish from other sources. MAC may not sit down and specifically vocalize the exact words "You may be MAC certified and still carry cyanide caught fish." But they don't have to. It's built into the program already.

I find it humorous, John, that your only thoughts on this subject are to defend MAC...
When I and others say mixing fishes, we mean carrying cyanide caught and net caught in the same facility- all under the good old MAC banner and with their full knowledge. Does some mixing in the way of substituting a non-certified fish for a MAC certified one happen because of mortality? I would bet you a buck that it does. But that's not even what I'm talking about. So now I can add liar to the list of other names you've called me- long list at this point!

John, you don't see it as odd that a facility can be MAC Certified, but that they don't have to change their business practices? They don't have to strive to carry net caught fish. They don't have to treat the collectors better. They just have to have the ability to shuffle paperwork and wa-la they're MAC certified, which in the general public's mind is a stamp of net-caught, reef saving approval. Anyway, if you want to discuss this, please start another thread. It's not the point of this one.

It's sad that instead of commenting on the implications of my clarifications, that you choose to dwell on one single word- tell. I'll admit, I should have used "imply" but is that really the issue? Semantics? If you are going to quote me, quote me in context. Otherwise leave me out of it.

 

[mkirda]

The criticism that MAC actually tells exporters to mix fish is false and malicious. MAC has zero patience for that sort of thing.

Interesting: That quote was attributed to a certain MAC country coordinator, John.

http://www.reefs.org/library/talklog/p_ ... 121502.htm
I cannot find the original letter posted anymore, but I have a copy printed as home. Not one of us made the accusation, but one of the MAC certified importers...

I will say it again: Unless MAC can certify EVERY SINGLE FISH THAT PASSES THROUGH A CERTIFIED EXPORTER'S FACILITY, especially if the exporter deals with collectors that use cyanide instead of nets, then the exporter is mixing fish. It is that plain, pure and simple...

Obviously, MAC cannot guarantee this, so the truth of the statement stands. It is neither false, nor malicious, but a statement of fact.

The question I have is why they (MAC) are still so hot and bothered about this now rather old statement? This is old news. Can't we do something beside re-hashing the same old crap over and over again, ad nauseum?
I'd like to move forward.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[clarionreef]

On this topic a few quotes.
"If you can't beat em. join em".
In a conversation that drove apart Marivi of Habitat and the MAC country coordinator.
" We never said you can't mix the fish until all get certified"
In a conversation between me and the MAC project coordinator for the Americas aqand the Pacific.

Failures in training led to the crisis of no fish supply for the certified stores. Hence the moral lapses and ethical gymnastics.
Just politics, strategy and survival. It has however, defined the players in a new light for me.
Steve

 

[MaryHM]

Here is the quote taken from Marivi's letter to Paul Holthus. This letter was an outline of her concerns that she sent directly to Paul and it was not originally intended for public viewing. I fail to see what she would gain by lying to Paul about her concerns:

You have created a situation where a MAC exporter is legitimized for willfully purchasing fishes that are not MAC fish. I brought this to the attention of your Country Coordinator, who to my surprise had encouraged me to do the same! I completely disagree with you here and it made me open my eyes to a lot of other things.

To be honest, I had forgotten about this when I posted my original "telling" statement. Thanks to those of you who reminded me of it.

 

[John_Brandt]

John,
If memory serves me correctly the first mixing charge actually came from Marivi in her infamous letter to Paul Holthus. I believe that letter was posted on Fenner's WWM. It seems like the accusation was that the MAC field agent actually went around telling the MAC certified exporters to mix in cyanide caught fish to increase variety. While it may not have been the official MAC policy, it was one that was allegedly being encouraged by MAC employees. Are you saying Marivi was lying to Paul in that letter?

Not at all Mitch. What Marivi apparently meant was that MAC Standards allow MAC Certified fish to be kept within the same brick & mortar as non-MAC Certified fish.

This is not mixing per se. Mixing would be something like taking 10 non-MAC Certified Copperband butterflyfish and putting them in a tank with 10 MAC Certified Copperband butterflyfish...and then proceeding to sell 20 MAC Certified Copperband butterflyfish.

MAC Standards strictly prohibit truly mixing fish as given in the example. No MAC Staff member has ever suggested verbally, or otherwise that this action is acceptable.

 

[Anonymous]

I agree with you Jeremy. It the classic capitalistic struggle between $$$ and environmental impact. The $$$ wins every time.
Unfortunately, sometimes the only way to protect the environment from business is regulation. I suppose that's pretty much where we got the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act.

Too bad it takes something like "Save the Whales" to bring that about though...

Cheers
James

jameso

your post here is fairly profound, and speaks volumes about ngo's like mac- whether intended or not :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

Many of you who frequent this forum who are retailers have been quite outspoken about your feelings regarding MAC and MAC certification.

What will it take from MAC in order for you to consider becoming certified?

i would consider a mac certification to be a downgrading of the quality level of the store i work in- my own personal standards are higher than macs ever were, or could ever be

Have they completely lost all chances as far as you are concerned (ie you wouldn't consider it ever under any circumstances, no matter what happens or changes)

in a word, yes-once a liar, always a liar-macs word isn't worth a fiat dollar, imo

Would you consider ordering from an LA wholesaler if they became MAC certified and the variety was there? Would you order from a wholesaler if they carried only MAC certified fish?


mac certification is irrelevant to me- completely- my only criteria are variety and quality-mac's certification is only relevant to mac, as far as i'm concerned- and if a wholesaler only carried mac certified fish- i'd try to go elsewhere- i.e.,a wholesaler that has a chance of NOT carrying cyanided fish umbrella'd under a false pretense 'banner' w/no guarantee of chain of custody

What needs to change in order for the MAC certification label to mean anything to you?

it can't, and it won't
:roll:
As a retailer, I don't see any reason to rush into getting certified for a few reasons. First, I don't see how it makes any business sense at this point for me to adopt an entirely different methodology as far as running my shop for the few amount of species that are currently MAC certified. Second, I don't see a reason to get certified as long as I can buy certified fish from a certified wholesaler and sell them as uncertified, because the MAC label doesn't mean anything to my customers. I'm simply looking for healthy fish to build my reputation on. Third, the quality of the MAC certified fish hasn't been high enough yet, to warrant the added cost of the certification and subsequent hoops to jump through. Fourth, without a actual CDT test put in place...........

What would need to happen for me to consider it? More variety coming from more locations, at a higher quality than I've currently seen, with a CDT put in place, and documentation to back up what they claim.

My gut feeling tells me that it would work better as a for profit company selling a "brand" of net caught fish. But that would only work through a few other for profits selling the same thing and keeping each other honest through Industry regulated testing, with each one striving to become the premier net caught "brand" with the highest quality and variety. It's going to take a lot of marketing to make any of thise important to the consumer, and I don't see how this can be accomplished with money being involved.

 

[dizzy]

[
Not at all Mitch. What Marivi apparently meant was that MAC Standards allow MAC Certified fish to be kept within the same brick & mortar as non-MAC Certified fish.
MAC Standards strictly prohibit truly mixing fish as given in the example. No MAC Staff member has ever suggested verbally, or otherwise that this action is acceptable.

John,
I have a copy of the letter like just like Mike and Mary have. Instead of splitting hairs on the definition of mixing, let's just say Marivi was concerned that the MAC system did not reward the dealers who were trying to stay away from cyanide caught fish. John I think what Marivi was trying to tell Paul, is that allowing the former members of the cyanide cartel to become certified, and then allow them to keep both MAC certified and non-MAC fish in the same facility, created unfair competition.
Others have suggested that this "soft mixing" is something akin to allowing a group of refomed child molesters to run a daycare center.

My thoughts on MAC: The road to MAC certification is paved with good intentions, the devil is in the details. No one really seems to know what kind of beast we are building. I tend to agree with Marivi that it looks like we are building a system in which the honest dealers will be punished, and the liars and cheats will be rewarded. I also have very serious concerns as to how the MAC fish can be fairly split amoung dealers if we get into a situation where demand exceeds supply. John man has a very long list of good intentions that didn't work out. Have you ever been to Jamaica and seen the chicken killing mongoose that were brought over to control the snake problem?

 

[Anonymous]

Just to clarify - I don't think being MAC certified will cause a degradation of your facility. Just because you already exceed MAC standards doesn't mean you need to atrophy your skills or care, certification would merely mean spending time documenting. Do the paperwork and cut a check essentially.

MAC's wost nightmare? Certification of a shop run by knuckleheads, when other respectable businesses are nearby. MAC certification won't mean squat if the shopkeepers are fools, people will seek out the other locations and shop there and MAC will lose all credibility.

 

[John_Brandt]

[
Not at all Mitch. What Marivi apparently meant was that MAC Standards allow MAC Certified fish to be kept within the same brick & mortar as non-MAC Certified fish.
MAC Standards strictly prohibit truly mixing fish as given in the example. No MAC Staff member has ever suggested verbally, or otherwise that this action is acceptable.

John,
I have a copy of the letter like just like Mike and Mary have. Instead of splitting hairs on the definition of mixing, let's just say Marivi was concerned that the MAC system did not reward the dealers who were trying to stay away from cyanide caught fish. John I think what Marivi was trying to tell Paul, is that allowing the former members of the cyanide cartel to become certified, and then allow them to keep both MAC certified and non-MAC fish in the same facility, created unfair competition.
Others have suggested that this "soft mixing" is something akin to allowing a group of refomed child molesters to run a daycare center.

My thoughts on MAC: The road to MAC certification is paved with good intentions, the devil is in the details. No one really seems to know what kind of beast we are building. I tend to agree with Marivi that it looks like we are building a system in which the honest dealers will be punished, and the liars and cheats will be rewarded. I also have very serious concerns as to how the MAC fish can be fairly split amoung dealers if we get into a situation where demand exceeds supply. John man has a very long list of good intentions that didn't work out. Have you ever been to Jamaica and seen the chicken killing mongoose that were brought over to control the snake problem?

Mitch,

MAC cannot discriminate based on suppositions or innuendos. MAC Standards strictly prohibit the true mixing of fish that has been defined by myself here in the forum.

Your suggestion of the designation "cyanide cartel" is unfortunate in that readers have no idea what you are talking about. Indeed, the use of cyanide for capturing fish is well-known from the Philippines, and certainly occurs there. But reform of this situation occurs on many levels and often it happens outside of MAC involvement. A common source of netting material for the fishers is from the exporters themselves.

Though neither of us should speak for Marivi Laurel, her concerns and suggestions are important to the MAC. Her letter of complaint dates from December 7, 2002 and much has occured since then. It is my understanding that disagreements and concerns relating to this letter have been addressed by MAC, and that Marivi and MAC have arrived at a satisfactory position. The occasion of the dinner and tour of Aquarium Habitat in late February 2003, attended by myself, Mike King, Peter Scott and Isabelle Cruz gave evidence of the renewed accord.

My insistence on "splitting hairs" in definitions and proclamations stems directly from knowing that many observers of this forum will take what they read literally. Words mean things.

I understand your use of the analogy of the situation in Jamaica with mongooses and chickens. Certainly not all of the things that people do result in perfect outcomes. But your analogy itself has a virtue hidden within it. The occurrence of domestic chickens in Jamaica in the very first place, is a human venture in itself. The irony of the built-in contradiction of your analogy shows that the record of human endeavor has no set pathway. Nobody can predict the future, but there are ways to improve the likelihood of some results. From my perspective, MAC is not releasing mongooses.

 

[Anonymous]

I agree with you Jeremy. It the classic capitalistic struggle between $$$ and environmental impact. The $$$ wins every time.
Unfortunately, sometimes the only way to protect the environment from business is regulation. I suppose that's pretty much where we got the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act.

Too bad it takes something like "Save the Whales" to bring that about though...

Cheers
James

jameso

your post here is fairly profound, and speaks volumes about ngo's like mac- whether intended or not :wink:

Gee, thanks a lot for noticing, Vitz. I've been saying that from the very first thread on this subject...

:roll:

Peace,

Chip, not really upset, just breaking Vitz's chops...

 

[clarionreef]

John,
Its like this.
A few MAC cerified dealers have a certificate on the wall.
25 % of their Asian saltwater inventory is from Marivi.
John Q public briefly scans the certificate...
and chooses his majestic angel caught with cyanide from Komodo Island...the fish shown in the main MAC poster at all the conferences...including the one coming to MACNA next month.
Without a legal analyist in tow to have a 'give and take' with the salesman and an audit of invoices from the wholesaler kept on file in the office, [ the wholesalers import invoices are not to be available to this guy of course] what do you think the aquarist believes about his majestic?
Marivi never has Majestics...but the pro cyanide Indonesian cartel does. They are signers to the letter of commitment to MAC standards and principals.
Ultimately, it pretty much depends upon the integrity of a chain of salesman doing what they do...sell. If the lines between netcaught and certified half black angels from Marivi and cyanide caught majestics from Komodo get a little blurred down river...well, whose to know?
Good intentions you say? Really? That guy "wants" his majestic to be Kosher and he is not going to scrutinize and seek to validate the paperwork to try and prove otherwise. Hes an aquarist not an internal affairs officer from the fish police.
Legally, on paper, the mixing may not occur. Perhaps. But it sure does in practice and real life.
Marivi no longer needs majestics to complete her inventory. She has become a new type of business. An exporter to provide cover and certification to importers and dealers who need a dose of her purity to mix with their 'other' variety. This is what she is used for.
Mitch shouldn't have said that MAC provides mongooses. "Cover" for mongooses would've been sufficient.
Steve

PS. By this tolerance of mixing in inventories... albiet not technically as you claim in 'filed away paperwork', you have removed the pressure to go straight and complete the reform of fish collectors. This predicted, ominous development and has given cause for relief among dealers of both cyanide tablets and fish. They are no longer worried.

 

[dizzy]

I keep hearing about zero mortality. I also keep hearing "We want more fish!" This is coming. There will be some exciting new variety coming from Camotes Island, as well as more of some of the same species coming from existing MAC Certified areas.

John,
Are you saying that none of the MAC fish have died? Last time I spoke with one of the MAC dealers I know, he told me some orders were much better than others. It has been long enough that MAC must surely have some early DOA/DAA information in the data bank. How about getting us a report. Are dealers holding the rest of the MAC fish from that order for three days if more than 1% die?(Actually 2% if you count 1% allowed for DOA and 1% for DAA.) Please explain how all that works now. Also can MAC and non-MAC fish be housed in the same central system? Have the dealers been reporting any problems or making any suggestions as to ways to improve the system? For what ever reason the MAC dealers seem very reluctant to report these type of problems to non-MAC dealers. I doubt everything is as perfect as you suggest. I can support a flawed system that admits there are problems, easier than I can one that claims perfection.

 

[Anonymous]

Um, ok John, thats one definition of mixing, now heres another:

ANY "certified" company selling BOTH cyanide and non cyanide (no John, not pushing cyanide caught as MAC, but just the fact they sell both). This gives TOTAL clearance for all to sell cyanide fish(or fish from questionable sources), and under the public impression that they're "going" clean. You(MAC) say they're(certified facilities) going to phase them (juiced fish/non certified) out, how long will that take? Or are they ever going to be MAC only facilities? So for that amount of time, its ok for MAC certified facilitys to still sell cyanide fish/non-certified, and support the very system MAC is "fighting"(man, sounds like the CIA supplying both sides with arms). Doesn't this make MAC a accomplice to the crime, uh no cuz theres no CDT in place to prove it :wink: . WHY IS MAC EVEN ALLOWING ONE NON CERTIFIED FISH TO BE SOLD AT A CERTIFIED FACILITY? Oh, because MAC didn't start with fish supply, they started with certifing first. Just now, MAC is finally realizing they NEED a fish supply to go with those certificates they SOLD, and are branching out to islands were cyanide isn't a problem (Fiji=easy fish supply). MAC shoulda started there, got a supply worthy of stamping an approval on(one that can actually meet the needs), then, and only then, certify the chain from reef to retail .

Mitch is right to, certified fish don't wlk on water, and still suffer the same shipping/hanlding problems like all other fish. I've seen so many starving fish out of two MAC certified exporters its not even funny. But man were they were certified. Well up until we got them (non certified company, but bonafide which is better IMO)

 

[JennM]

Yep I'm eager to hear about some DOA/DAA data too - and how many batches were de-certified due to those DOA/DAA, and were held and re-certified.

Last time I asked I was told that each individual facility had to keep their own records - but do they not have to report in? Who audits the stores? Where are the checks and balances?

I won't even entertain the notion that there have been no MAC-Certified fish deaths, because if that's what's reported, somebody(ies) is (are) LYING.

If the "certified" facilities are totally "on their honour" regarding DOA/DAA and certification and statistics, where is the accountability? There's nothing stopping a "certified" place buying, suppose, 3 certified copperbands and 2 non-certified -- one certified one dies.... it's easy to sub a non- one, who will know? Beats having to hold the other 2 "certified" ones for X days (particularly if you've got an eager customer dying to buy one....) until they pass again.....

Of course they could be sold off as non-certified, since a certified facility can carry both certified and non, but they wouldn't fetch such a higher price, AND that further dwindles the supply of certified fish, which is already as sparse as could be.....

Same could happen at any stage of the chain, assuming that the facility has certified and non certified fish. Sorry but human nature is what it is - if somebody has to hold a whole group because one or two died, and has a buyer for them, is he going to withhold sales? Not bleedin' likely.

There are just too many ways to circumvent the system.

When is MAC simply going to publically acknowledge that they bit off far more than they could chew, and take a step back an stop the insanity until such time as they can do it correctly?

Accountability, please!!!!

Jenn

 

[Anonymous]

JennM wrote:

If the "certified" facilities are totally "on their honour" regarding DOA/DAA and certification and statistics, where is the accountability? There's nothing stopping a "certified" place buying, suppose, 3 certified copperbands and 2 non-certified -- one certified one dies.... it's easy to sub a non- one, who will know? Beats having to hold the other 2 "certified" ones for X days (particularly if you've got an eager customer dying to buy one....) until they pass again.....

this is what i've been saying... :wink:

more holes than a fresh wedge of swiss cheese :wink: