Simple Questions for MAC

[Anonymous]

Jenn,

How do you know that the MAC lady and the program she represents is condesending to local peoples? How is a community help program any more demeaning than handing out free net donated by people in the "Land of the free and the home of the brave" or "The True North proud and free"? I would hope that both of these programs help and protect the dignity of the local peoples that we are trying to embrace. I see that a Filipino lady is employed doing the MAC community work presumably to help protect dignity. I haven't heard anything that would suggest that the local people are anything but happy for the help.

I guess you don't like the "Feed the Hungry" NGO either, LOL.

Forgive me, but it appears that anything MAC might do is judged to be flawed and sarcastically received even without details here. Admit it - anything that MAC tries to do is going to be critically received and bashed by someone here.

I also take exception to the assumption that the industry people ONLY want a "cheap supply of net caught fish"....

You may take exception because you are one of the few exceptions.

But honestly, I never said that all "industry people ONLY want a cheap supply of net caught fish".

I said "the primary concern for the importers on the board is getting an abundant supply of cheap net-caught fish...Helping the fisherfolk might be viewed as a waste by the industry. " I stand by my comment. The importers that frequent this board have very vocally stated that a very primary concern of theirs is getting a variety and a large supply of competitively priced, healthy net-caught fish. There is nothing wrong with that - they are in business, and it should be a side product of any successful reform program. I still believe that a comprehensive socio-economic program leading to ecological reform is largely NOT perceived as being directly valuable by most "industry types".

I understand that you are trying to do your part, Jenn. I think that is great.

-Lee

 

[Anonymous]

Steve,

I didn't see your post while I was writing the above. I'm glad you see the value in comprehensive reform. It is just often lost in the many variety/supply posts, I guess.

Sincerely,
-Lee

 

[clarionreef]

Ahh Mike,
You nailed it!
The difference between being team oriented and problem solving oriented is that solving the problem without credit to the team is seen as 'competition' by that team.
Those of us who just want to solve the problem... find it held hostage to paying homage, tribute, respect and service to the certification team.
Their non aquarium agenda is fine with me. It has however, made them less well recieved by village fisherman. The fisherman want training and net supply to take care of their families with. Why ignore this request. It is the key to adressing all the rest of this foreign agenda.
By not delivering on this, and instead focusing on the Western worlds penchant for certification in commerce, the fisherman have been left untrained...or poorly trained as the high incidence of backsliding has proven.
Groups that fail to produce where it counts, especially where it counts first ie. in the villages, become irrelevant as something more relevant takes their place.
Steve Robinson
'in defense of the village fisherman'

 

[mkirda]

I said "the primary concern for the importers on the board is getting an abundant supply of cheap net-caught fish...Helping the fisherfolk might be viewed as a waste by the industry. " I stand by my comment. The importers that frequent this board have very vocally stated that a very primary concern of theirs is getting a variety and a large supply of competitively priced, healthy net-caught fish. There is nothing wrong with that - they are in business, and it should be a side product of any successful reform program. I still believe that a comprehensive socio-economic program leading to ecological reform is largely NOT perceived as being directly valuable by most "industry types".

-Lee

Lee,

You make a great point: You are unwittingly pointing out the differences between what an NGO wants to do and what the Industry is willing to do.

Case in point: Witness the meat in the exchanges between Steve and Jaime over the past couple of months. Not the personal BS, but the actual ideas, the theoretical underpinnings of their thoughts, and how they are so similar, yet antagonistic.

Jaime tends towards the holistic approach, while Steve tends towards the simple economics approach.

Industry will support going in, doing the trainings, increasing handling skills, and putting more money into the hands of the collectors. They will even support getting netting to the collectors for free. This is a sort of startup cost, and will provide benefits for the industry and for the collectors. For every dollar spent, they will get a return all around. However, it is up to the fishermen to spend their additional money as they see fit.

NGOs are much more touchy-feelie in their approach. They will try to do many things, introducing the village to seaweed farming, pushing alternative livelihoods, etc. At the end of the agenda is net training: It fits only a small slice of the overall picture. Based on evidence I have seen and heard, these trainings (as they have occured in the past) were not as successful as they could have been for various reasons. The touchy-feelie economic approach usually doesn't produce great results, and as a result, the money spent does not return as much.

Now, the two sides here are fighting, but the real question is why? Industry sees the entire amount spent and considers it a failure because of poor results on one single measure of performance: Number and variety of net-caught fish coming out of areas trained.

NGOs and Industry need to work together so that industry can go in and do real net trainings that produce real income for the villagers. The NGOs can then tack on additional trainings, switching some to alternative livelihoods, teaching seaweed farming, or whatever. This dual approach solves one of the biggest problems for the NGOs (that the monetary return was not there) and solves the problems for the industry (lack of fish), and most importantly puts more money in the hands of the collectors.

Industry funded net trainings are not enough. But they are the necessary first step. And they could easily be built upon by any number of good NGOs.

C'mon, Jaime and Steve... A little bit of Kum-ba-ya would be a good thing here. If the both of you would focus on the positive aspects of working together, you could realize some great things could be accomplished.
And MAC could be an important part of this, if they would learn to harness the positive things that would come from mutual respect and collaboration.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[jamesw]

Mike,

You said it friend! Your post is a concise and excellent summation of this whole thing. I salute you.

Sincerely,
James Wiseman

 

[JennM]

Jenn,

How do you know that the MAC lady and the program she represents is condesending to local peoples?
-Lee

It wasn't Monica's attitude I was referring to.

 

[Anonymous]

Overall an excellent line of thought, Mike.

But, I have to question the validity of this:

Industry will support going in, doing the trainings, increasing handling skills, and putting more money into the hands of the collectors. They will even support getting netting to the collectors for free.

So why haven't they done this in the last 20 or so years? Why was there ever a need for netting? Why did hobbyists have to pay into a netting fund when industry is so supportive of the collectors needs?

The status quo industry is already making their money, why would they spend some of their profit on this? Status quo industry has most of the money and doesn't even publically acknowledge that a problem exists. Acknowleding that a problem exists is the first step to recovery isn't it? That's why I keep talking about implementing even a grossly imperfect stateside CDT. It could drag the dirty little secret out of the closet. Get the big-box-boys to acknowledge the problem and then P.R. nightmare them into doing something about it.

Cheers,
Lee

 

[mkirda]

Overall an excellent line of thought, Mike.

But, I have to question the validity of this:

Industry will support going in, doing the trainings, increasing handling skills, and putting more money into the hands of the collectors. They will even support getting netting to the collectors for free.

So why haven't they done this in the last 20 or so years? Why was there ever a need for netting? Why did hobbyists have to pay into a netting fund when industry is so supportive of the collectors needs?

The status quo industry is already making their money, why would they spend some of their profit on this? Status quo industry has most of the money and doesn't even publically acknowledge that a problem exists. Acknowleding that a problem exists is the first step to recovery isn't it? That's why I keep talking about implementing even a grossly imperfect stateside CDT. It could drag the dirty little secret out of the closet. Get the big-box-boys to acknowledge the problem and then P.R. nightmare them into doing something about it.

Cheers,
Lee

Lee,

Compare the support levels you will get to:
1) Implement net training, or
2) Train the collector's wives how to farm seaweed.

Which one do you think industry would support?

Industry will support net training, because they gain something out of it, Lee. They could care less about seaweed prices...

Notice also the difference in wording I used between what industry and NGOs would support. Industry will support net trainings, especially once they realize that they probably wouldn't be paying for all of it directly, and the fact that it would be a great marketing ploy. The amount it will eat into their profits is negligable, Lee. If you could just get the DOA/DAA rate down in the collection to arrival in US segments, without damaging the reefs, where do you think the profits will land, Lee?

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Anonymous]

20 yrs and status quo industry hasn't done anything significant, Mike. Why should we think they are suddenly going to change?

Why did Mary have to come to the hobbyist community for netting money? Why isn't AMDA rolling in industry money from the big-box-boys if they are wanting so badly to help foster change?

-Lee

 

[Anemone]

Status quo industry has most of the money and doesn't even publically acknowledge that a problem exists. Acknowleding that a problem exists is the first step to recovery isn't it?

Hmmm, you mean like the mixing of "certified" and "non-certified" fish at wholesalers all receiving the designation "certified" if the wholesaler is "certified?" Or manufactured DOA numbers to keep certification? Or perhaps producing net training programs that would possibly produce the numbers of "certifiable" fish that are already (somehow) being certified....

I agree that acknowledging the existence of a problem is the first step in addressing the problem, but "industry" types aren't the only ones with this problem......

Kevin

 

[mkirda]

20 yrs and status quo industry hasn't done anything significant, Mike. Why should we think they are suddenly going to change?

Why did Mary have to come to the hobbyist community for netting money? Why isn't AMDA rolling in industry money from the big-box-boys if they are wanting so badly to help foster change?

-Lee

Lee,

Who ever said they are wanting badly to foster change? LOL. I never said that...

If anything, the industry will begrudgingly accept the change. A few will be willing allies. A few will probably not support any changes. But if an NGO were to step into the fray and support real net trainings, and better quality fish start coming into the pipeline, you don't think that the industry wouldn't jump all over that?

I can tell you what the industry would never jump on...
Eco-tourism.
Seaweed farms.
Microgrants for basket weavers.
And all other sorts of stuff that eco-NGOs would like to try to foster sustainable growth and alternative livelihoods...

As for Mary's net fund: She struck a cord, and it was sold right. Hobbyists can easily see the issue, easily understand it, and it cost them very little. Mary harvested a great deal of good will on the part of people who could see and understand the plight, and understand the goals quite clearly. It was also a very small amount of money, Lee...

The industry is very short-sighted. This can be both a good and a bad thing. I predict that the industry would move quite quickly to support net trainings once they start to see the benefits. It will be a cheap marketing move, really. But there is no harm in that! I could sit here and type tome after tome and convince none of them that there is a better way of doing business. Without startup money to do the trainings, I would be pushing vapor-fish. But when real fish start flying in and the industry sees the value in the better quality, net-caught fish, you can be sure that they will support you.

I guess what it boils down to, Lee, is that you are expecting the industry to open their wallets and put down the cash up-front. I don't. I expect that the trainings will need to be funded from grants. I also suspect that industry would begin to kick in some money as the positive results begin to become evident to all.

If the funding never happens, the change will just take a longer time to occur. And I never expect this industry to put up the money up front.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Nancy Swart]

If the funding never happens, the change will just take a longer time to occur. And I never expect this industry to put up the money up front.

I hope this doesn't mean we're going to go to the hobbyists again, Mike. Have you made any progress with the "big boyz" you were going to pursue in your fundraising efforts?

NS

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Overall an excellent line of thought, Mike.

But, I have to question the validity of this:

Industry will support going in, doing the trainings, increasing handling skills, and putting more money into the hands of the collectors. They will even support getting netting to the collectors for free.

So why haven't they done this in the last 20 or so years? Why was there ever a need for netting? Why did hobbyists have to pay into a netting fund when industry is so supportive of the collectors needs?

The status quo industry is already making their money, why would they spend some of their profit on this? Status quo industry has most of the money and doesn't even publically acknowledge that a problem exists. Acknowleding that a problem exists is the first step to recovery isn't it? That's why I keep talking about implementing even a grossly imperfect stateside CDT. It could drag the dirty little secret out of the closet. Get the big-box-boys to acknowledge the problem and then P.R. nightmare them into doing something about it.

Cheers,
Lee

Lee,

Compare the support levels you will get to:
1) Implement net training, or
2) Train the collector's wives how to farm seaweed.

Which one do you think industry would support?

Industry will support net training, because they gain something out of it, Lee. They could care less about seaweed prices...

Notice also the difference in wording I used between what industry and NGOs would support. Industry will support net trainings, especially once they realize that they probably wouldn't be paying for all of it directly, and the fact that it would be a great marketing ploy. The amount it will eat into their profits is negligable, Lee. If you could just get the DOA/DAA rate down in the collection to arrival in US segments, without damaging the reefs, where do you think the profits will land, Lee?

Regards.
Mike Kirda

Mike,

Very good and positive comments in your previous posts. However, I'd like to clarify an important aspect. When trying to get support from the marine aquarium industry for our programs in the Philippines we NEVER asked for economical support to implement the alternative livelihoods component of the programs. We asked only for support for the net training program, we knew it wasn't the industry's interest to support other initiatives from which they wouldn't get any benefit. The industry didn't respond. 95% of funds for OVI's net training program in the Philippines came from government agencies

Over two decades and the industry hasn't react to find solutions to the problem it has created. I understand that only 75-80 retailers in the US (from 2,800) are members of AMDA. How many of those DO support the training initiative? This response can give an idea of how things have evolved. Is the industry responding?

Jaime

 

[naesco]

Industry has done nothing and will continue to do nothing.
Their only interest is to rape the Philippines of its natural ocean treasures and provide cheap fish for the American hobbyist.

They do not care one iota whether it is cyanide or net caught.

They do not care one iota whether the reef and its critters are mortally damaged by cyanide use.

They do not care whether tonnes of Impossible to Keep species are cuaght with cyanide and sold to unsuspecting reefers only to have them perish in their tanks.

They do not care whether the live rock which they mine is sustainable.

They care about MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When the US government restricts their ability to import than they will care.

When the Philippine government says they are not going to allow their reefs to be destroyed and stop the sale of marine, than they will care.

Philippinos are much too polite to state what I have stated but we all know it is the truth.

 

[mkirda]

Mike,

Very good and positive comments in your previous posts. However, I'd like to clarify an important aspect. When trying to get support from the marine aquarium industry for our programs in the Philippines we NEVER asked for economical support to implement the alternative livelihoods component of the programs. We asked only for support for the net training program, we knew it wasn't the industry's interest to support other initiatives from which they wouldn't get any benefit. The industry didn't respond. 95% of funds for OVI's net training program in the Philippines came from government agencies

My point exactly, Jaime. Why would you expect to see them donate anything? Show them the results, get them excited, you will see some money come in. Won't happen before the achievement, just afterwards.
Even then, I would not expect the amounts to be all that high, and I certainly doubt that they would cover all the costs.

Over two decades and the industry hasn't react to find solutions to the problem it has created. I understand that only 75-80 retailers in the US (from 2,800) are members of AMDA. How many of those DO support the training initiative? This response can give an idea of how things have evolved. Is the industry responding?

Someone from AMDA is going to have to respond to this. I have an idea that some 10% are probably involved and would be willing to actively support it. (Call it an impression. Or call it a wild-a** crazy guess... Only AMDA would know...) I'm not sure how many will walk the walk instead of talking the talk though... Time will tell.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Anonymous]

Mike Kirda wrote:

The industry is very short-sighted

another nail hit on the head, mike, and i would like to expound on it just abit further :wink:

the industry is short sighted because people, in general, are short sighted.

i have run into the same thing where i work-i'm slowly trying to improve our husbandry methods towards a more holistic, environmentally sound approach towards fostering the initial health of the fish, as opposed to neglecting their proper care/feeding, and then medicating them in the hopes of curing the diseases they then come down with as a result of their weakened condition, and the environmental stress they then undergo.

we now have rainbows spawning in one of our systems, and they're lit up like roman candles all day long-species of fish we used to lose daily are now 0% daa

the total change isn't evident everywhere, yet-we still lose some fish-sometimes a whole batch of a certain species-yet i refuse to compromise the gestalt health of the systems- i know what the end result will yeild :wink:

some only see, and focus/obsess on, the few remaining problems, and lose the bigger picture of what i'm trying, and know i can, do (i've accomplished the end result i'm looking to achieve before :wink: )

it's a daily headache :wink:

but our overall mortality is way down-even in our feeder systems-and i still get resistance to the changes i 'demand'-even with the results already apparent :wink:

the issue of the shortsightedness of the industry will remain, as long as people are people :?

 

[mkirda]

the issue of the shortsightedness of the industry will remain, as long as people are people :?

Yup, yup, yup... Couldn't agree more.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[mkirda]

Forgive me, but it appears that anything MAC might do is judged to be flawed and sarcastically received even without details here. Admit it - anything that MAC tries to do is going to be critically received and bashed by someone here.

Lee,

Untrue. Some things they have done make sense.
I understood and publicly supported their attending the Finding Nemo premiere. Made good sense from a variety of viewpoints.
Granted, they could have done some things a little bit better (i.e. pushed the Don't flush your fish message...), but this was a minor point... It showed people that someone does care about how the industry is going.

Yes, other things they have done or proposed have been critically reviewed. Some of those reviews have been quite harsh. If they paid attention to the message and took the offered suggestions to heart, they would get a great number of wonderful ways to improve their 'product'.
It is a shame that we do not get any feedback whatsoever from MAC.
I ultimately believe that one of the main reasons why MAC gets whacked so often is due to their lack of response to ANY suggestions made.
If they were to take a couple of the suggestions made, incorporate them, then tell us about it, I believe that life for MAC would be so much easier.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Mike,

The industry must contribute because they are the direct beneficiaries of the collection of marine ornamental fish. No fish= no aquariums=no filters=no lights=no medications= no books = no junk..etc

If the industry doesn't react right now, it will provide with more ammunitions radical groups as Green Peace to take over and find a real solution to the problem. This industry is under the microscopy. MAC is its last chance.

Jaime

 

[JeremyR]

MAC is its last chance.

Why do you keep saying that? They aren't the only game in town, they don't answer any questions, they are rude and obnoxious on the boards... and the only people defending them are people in OTHER NGO's such as yourself. I'm not anti-NGO.. I just believe they should have some accountability.. and I don't understand the way MAC has always conducted business. They don't take input, and they don't offer output.