Simple Questions for MAC

[Anonymous]

Excellent post, Steve.

I wish the distinct voices within the reform movement would find common ground and move forward. I find it disapointing that many of the best people with the most innovative ideas have been so adversarial to MAC that little opporunity for developing a working relationship remains.

-Lee

 

[npaden]

As a fairly infrequent visitor of this forum I'm shocked at the comments made by Mr. Brandt toward Mary. I realize that this is an area of intense debate but the personal attack seemed completely unwarranted.

To a casual observer who was starting to feel that MAC might have a chance of making a difference, those posts by Mr. Brandt have really changed my mind. With attitudes like that I can't imagine any progress could be made toward improving the hobby.

FWIW, Nathan

 

[Jaime Baquero]

To the readers

One of the problems here is that the anti-NGO movement doesn't want to be fair and recognize that some productive work has been done in the Philippines in the last decade. A simple proof of it is that there are more net caught fish getting into the system than before. I agree no enough, but this could change if all the interested parts work together and stop discrediting, misinforming and misleading people.

From the sustainability point of view, the net training programs implemented by different NGOs have produced positive results, excellent trainees have became excellent trainers, meaning that there are good individuals conducting training in the Philippines. These trainers have been doing this for years. Some of these guys were hired by fish exporters in the US to go overseas and teach the technique to other collectors.

There are good human resources in the Philippines that can do an excellent job. Just let them work , support them and contribute with constructive criticism.

Jaime

 

[John_Brandt]

As a fairly infrequent visitor of this forum I'm shocked at the comments made by Mr. Brandt toward Mary. I realize that this is an area of intense debate but the personal attack seemed completely unwarranted.

To a casual observer who was starting to feel that MAC might have a chance of making a difference, those posts by Mr. Brandt have really changed my mind. With attitudes like that I can't imagine any progress could be made toward improving the hobby.

FWIW, Nathan

Nathan,

Sorry about that. My interactions with Mary are mostly independent of MAC staff.

My postings here have no relation whatsoever to what MAC itself is doing. IOW, my spat with Mary is unrelated to MAC's mission or progress. Please think of them as two different things.

 

[Anonymous]

Jaime,

Good job of reminding us that there has been progress made, largely because of the efforts of the much maligned NGOs.

In a draft paper from 2002 provided by Peter of the IMA it was stated:

"Overall cyanide was found to be present in 25% of the aquarium specimens tested from 1996 to 1999 [in the Philippines]. Cyanide was found to be present in 44% of the food fish specimens tested"*

Bravo to all the NGOs and others that worked so hard to get the number down to 25% for the ornamentals and 44% for the food fish. Just imagine what the percentage would be without the work of the NGOs!

I realize there is much that till needs to be done, but let's give thanks to all those who have toiled in the field to help get rid of destructive capture techniques.

Sincerely,
Lee Morey


Reference:
* Rubec, Peter J., et al; 2002 (draft); "Trends Determined By Cyanide Testing On Marine Aquarium Fish In the Philippines"

 

[JennM]

Jaime, I think perhaps you misconstrue *some* opinions expressed. Speaking for myself, I'm not "Anti-NGO", but rather, against NGOs that are ineffective. Nobody will dispute that over the years lots of good has been done, but also, lots of waste has occurred, and lots of programs have fallen short of goal, or didn't work out as intended. Most recently, MAC's approach has come under fire by those of us who criticize, because of their blatent mistakes - mistakes that they themselves have admitted, but are taking painfully long to correct, all the while promoting new "certifications" and moving quickly forward, and not fixing what's still wrong. Why is that? Why can't MAC fix existing issues before rushing forward? In the business world, some of those mistakes would have been fatal, and the business would have failed by now. So in the NGO world, do the same rules not apply? Those criticisms are VALID, however some have decided to divert attention from the real issues, by discrediting those who keep bringing those issues up. Regardless of WHO points them out, the issues are the issues. Burying them in personal differences does not address the problems, fix the problems or even make them go away - and it doesn't make us forget they are there while we argue about something else. It just brings everybody down.

As for npaden's comments, I think he/she made a fair assessment of what they see. As I stated above, since John Brandt is a MAC BOD member, it is easy to assume that his comments are "official MAC party line", and/or the opinions of the MAC entity, and since his own signature line does not bear a disclaimer (such as mine and others' have), one can only assume that his statements are made with the full knowledge and support of the rest of the MAC BOD. Since no other MAC personnel has posted (and we know that you read...), one can only presume that they are in agreement, as there is nothing posted to the contrary. If this is an incorrect assumption, then I invite another MAC BOD member to please set the record straight. Silence to me, says that it's all OK.

It really is a shame that John Brandt, OR a designated MAC spokesperson cannot see past personal differences, to address valid questions. Regardless of personal feelings regarding anyone here, I think we can all agree that the questions are valid, are they not?

Jenn

 

[clarionreef]

Lee,
If a doctor is misdiagnosing and mistreating a sick patient...at what point do you react? What if his wasting of critical time insured the patients getting worse? Would your respect for doctors in general cause you to do and say nothing over the inadequate one before you? What if you yourself were a doctor and you knew exactly what the mistakes were?
Singing the praises of doctors in general is fine but it has its place...and not during emergency procedures.
Sincerely, Steve

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Jenn,

Do you want a concrete example? I'll ask Steve Robinson his comment about your statement, I quote" Nobody will dispute that over the years lots of good has been done" end of quote. I appreciate that you mention this real fact. However, the idea that many readers are getting and because of comments of anti-NGO people is that nothing has been done.

I just want to underline the fact that you didn't mention the lack of participation/ or support of the industry itself. No doubt in my mind that things would be much better today if the Industry (mainly overseas) had participated. Over two decades and the industry (mainly overseas) did nothing.

It was only because of the work of the NGOs that things have improved. Thanks to that work, you, and the anti NGO people are offering to your customers good quality net caught fish. For us, this is a great achievement, and we are happy because less cyanide is being used, coral reefs are healthier( securing more fish for the future), and fisherfloks are getting a better reward because of their dangerous job.

I hate to mention it but I'll do. Did you know that OVI's President Don McAllister mortgaged his house, not only once but twice, to keep the program in the Philippines going?

I hope you understand why I can not tolerate misinformation and misleading actions made by anti-NGO people.

The worse is that the anti-NGO people have much to offer.... only if they changed their approach. This is really sad! Lots of energy and time wasted because of arrogance and I do not know what else.

Sincerely,

Jaime

 

[mkirda]

...MAC regards her as overtly hostile and is not interested in communicating with her.

Well, that pretty much sums it up right there for me.
Can't make it any clearer than that.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[mkirda]

As I stated above, since John Brandt is a MAC BOD member, it is easy to assume that his comments are "official MAC party line"

I think it *is* the official MAC party line. Read John's comment I highlighted above.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[mkirda]

The worse is that the anti-NGO people have much to offer.... only if they changed their approach. This is really sad! Lots of energy and time wasted because of arrogance and I do not know what else.

Jaime,

Those you keep pointing to as being 'Anti-NGO' are not anti-NGO in general. They may be against a specific NGO and may have specific reasons for being against said NGO, but they are not against ALL NGOs.

That you happen to be involved with one of the targeted NGOs makes you overly sensitive, seemingly unable to make this subtle distinction. :wink:

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[JennM]

I hate to mention it but I'll do. Did you know that OVI's President Don McAllister mortgaged his house, not only once but twice, to keep the program in the Philippines going?

Jaime

So there was one guy who thought it was worth putting it all on the line, while others in the group farted the money away? Come on Jaime -- yeah there are good apples in every bunch but we all know it only takes one bad one to spoil the lot.

I haven't seen one of the "anti-NGO" gang that you refer to, accuse every NGO of doing nothing - quite the contrary - they have pointed out all the flaws and warts, but many that were involved speak of the activities they themselves participated in.

After all the NGOs that have come, squandered and gone over the years, why is there still a problem, if they all did such a great job?

Also, I don't think the reefs are in better shape because *I* buy net caughts, or "he" buys net-caughts -- because the vast majority are still being juiced, any "good" I'm doing doesn't necessarily mean one less juiced fish or coral. If anything, I'm having a non-impact on the reef, but it doesn't cancel out the damage that is still being done on a large scale. I'm not deluding myself here.

And Mike Kirda - I concur - since nobody else from MAC has stepped forward to either refute or deny that what John Brandt said regarding the MAC "position" regarding communication with Mary, I'll just have to assume due to those comments and recent history regarding non-communication from Paul Holthus and David Vosseler, that what John says IS INDEED MAC OFFICIAL POLICY.

Until the PEOPLE involved stop with the p*ssing contest already, no positive change can be affected.

Jenn

 

[Anonymous]

After all the NGOs that have come, squandered and gone over the years, why is there still a problem, if they all did such a great job?

If this isn't a blanket anti-NGO statement what is?

Several have taken offense at being described as "anti-NGO". Let me ask you "not-really-anti-NGO" folks what NGO, working with marine conservation issues in the P.I., has done an adequate job? Is it safe to say that while you folks are not "anti-NGO" in general you are opposed to every NGO that has dared to address this issue in the P.I.?

The inferred logic in the quote is flawed. The problem does not remain because NGOs have failed.

There is still a problem because of all the complex issues involved in its solution. It looks more and more to me that the NGOs have done a good job in their pursuits but have been hampered by non-performance of: the industry (both Stateside and in the P.I.); the P.I. government; and the collectors themselves. The non-performance (and hampering) by the Industry, P.I. government and collectors have resulted often times in lost economies of scale in reform programs, unnecessary delays, extra travel expenses by NGO staff, reduced efficiency of programs, having to redo things that were previously done, etc.

-Lee

 

[Anonymous]

Lee,
If a doctor is misdiagnosing and mistreating a sick patient...at what point do you react? What if his wasting of critical time insured the patients getting worse? Would your respect for doctors in general cause you to do and say nothing over the inadequate one before you? What if you yourself were a doctor and you knew exactly what the mistakes were?
Singing the praises of doctors in general is fine but it has its place...and not during emergency procedures.
Sincerely, Steve

If only one of those doctors were in a position to actually treat me I'd have to trust that doctor and hope for the best. I'd also be thankful that at least that one doctor stepped to the plate to try and help me. I'd also be disgusted at the 10 doctors that didn't raise a hand to help me but said discouraging words about the one that helped me.

Switching to NGOs, could a large part of the bashing be due to the fact that the NGO's agenda might not be the same as that of the industry folks? For instance, the primary concern for the importers on the board is getting an abundant supply of cheap net-caught fish. What if the primary concern of the NGO was educating fisherfolk about ecological concerns and helping them to set up sustainable collection programs? I'm specifically thinking of the industry person that mocked a MAC field person as being part of a "feed the children" commercial. Helping the fisherfolk might be viewed as a waste by the industry. Helping the fisherfolk might be what the NGO perceives as being central to lasting ecological reform - even more important than purchasing netting materials.

-Lee

 

[jamesw]

Lee: you nailed it!

The AMDA is an industry NGO with a primary goal of ensuring a steady supply of animals for the industry to sell. They can say whatever they want, but in the final analysis, that is it: steady supply of animals for the industry to sell. Secondary to that can be many other goals, if they support the primary one - meaning that if getting more netting material and training to the PI will help them get more of a supply of animals for the industry to sell then AMDA will support it.

This is pretty evident based on what I have read here from the AMDA president and other retailers that participate here. I'm sure they will jump up here and say that their primary goal is to "protect the reefs and put food in the mouths of the collectors" but let's be realistic here - AMDA is an industry funded trade NGO.

It appears to me that MAC's primary goal is NOT the same as AMDA's. It appears to me that one of their goals is a steady supply of MAC certified fish - but this will only come after management plans have been written, importers and exporters have been inspected and certified, etc. Their primary goal is more geared toward protection of reef resources.

My opinion only.

Cheers
James

 

[JennM]

Respectfully, Lee, I think you might be reading us "industry types" all wrong.

First off, (and I'm sure Scott will jump in here), the "Feed the Hungry" reference was because of the condescending attitude offered toward the PI fisherfolk and surrounding communities. "We the smart and wealthy white men, must come in and help these poor, helpless, uneducated masses".... whatever. There's a heck of a difference between a hand up, and a hand-out. I'd like to see any organization, be it NGO, or industry, offer a hand UP (such as with the netting fund) versus a "hand-out" Industry reform can be accomplished without robbing people of their dignity.

I also take exception to the assumption that the industry people ONLY want a "cheap supply of net caught fish".... Cheap is a relative term - and most people (cheapskates notwithstanding) will pay more for quality, so price is not really at issue, at least as far as I'm concerned, however I'll qualify that with saying that the market needs to be somewhat competitive. However, I feel much better about going about my day to day affairs if I can also know that the fish I got have a good chance at surviving in the long term, therefore my customer is happy, the fish were caught humanely, and didn't leave a trail of destruction in their wake, and a diver got a fair price for his catch. Doing business ethically encompasses a lot more than what the bottom line is.

Fish tanks raise LOTS of awareness about the marine ecology. Most people who keep these tanks care (on some level) about the marine world - of course that varies with the interest and education of the hobbyist, but if one didn't care, one wouldn't keep a tank.

Jenn

 

[mkirda]

Lee: you nailed it!

The AMDA is an industry NGO with a primary goal of ensuring a steady supply of animals for the industry to sell. They can say whatever they want, but in the final analysis, that is it: steady supply of animals for the industry to sell. Secondary to that can be many other goals, if they support the primary one -

James,

You need to revisit MAC's business plan. They plan to be self-funded in five years. Where exactly do you think that money is going to come from?

Um, selling of fish.

The goals are exactly the same. MAC, however, is going to be a leech, sucking off the blood of the industry. It cannot be any other way IF they are to be self-funding...

The MacArthur Foundation grant will not last forever, especially at the salary that Paul Holthus is pulling down. Jeez, I wish *I* made that much.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[jamesw]

Mike,

That's how every certification agency is funded. You might as well call ASTM, ISO, and FDA, etc leaches. Those buggers are sucking the blood out of legitimate businesses!

A lot of this confusion comes from the fact that most hobbyists and even most aquarium businesses have absolutely no idea what certification is/means.

Cheers
James

 

[clarionreef]

James, Lee ,
How else will we in the aquarium trade help if not by buying fish that don't destroy the fishermans nearby coral reefs?
Enlightened empowerment of the fisherman by getting them a fair trade for their efforts is as responsible as anything ever proposed by this trade. For me this is not recreational, theraputic chat on the net 'filler' for a slow day. Its what I do for a living.
When I used to write for FAMA magazine, I was admonished once for weaving the plight of the fisherman into the articles too often.
My interest in sustainable social development back in the early 80's was two ahead of its time and not well understood.
I wrote an article published in several magazines and journals entitled, " In defense of the Village fisherman". I think aquarium people didn't understand what all that "social, empowering village women, fair trade, people power, 'economics w/ a human face'... talk was all about though. My mentor and strongest supporter Don McAllister of the then IMA Canada did though. We worked on these themes for years. From 85 til 92 I believe.
In 85' I wrote one called "Collecting tropical marines as if people really mattered". For the now defunct, Marine Fish Monthly.
In Mexico I serve now as technical consultant to three village cooperatives to develop fishery alternatives for 30 families...ie the 'new' aquarium trade. My Mexican F-M3 status passport indicates this.
The point I want to make here is that with reference to having a heart for the fisherman... beyond my own personal interest...and to the chagrin of my wife... I cannot accept dictation on the subject from people with a fraction of the resume.

If you find fault for people that conduct business with a heart...I can only imagine your distain for those who do not.
Steve Robinson
AMDA semi socialist president

 

[mkirda]

Mike,

That's how every certification agency is funded. You might as well call ASTM, ISO, and FDA, etc leaches. Those buggers are sucking the blood out of legitimate businesses!

A lot of this confusion comes from the fact that most hobbyists and even most aquarium businesses have absolutely no idea what certification is/means.

Cheers
James

James,

I am aware of that. If you work in any manufacturing industry, or deal with them long enough, you would find yourself in a position where certification becomes a requirement.

I used provocative language not so much to accuse MAC of anything, but to get people to understand where everything is leading. Higher prices. It remains to be seen how far prices will rise for certified fish...
It also remains to be seen whether or not certification is actually required to get the same quality, non-juiced fish for the price as now or slightly more, but still less than certified fish.

There is no doubt that MAC sees uncertified net-caught fish as unwanted competition. If villagers upgrade their skills and handling to that of MAC standards or higher (not at all difficult), it will be a win-win situation for everyone involved, even if they elect not to pursue MAC certification.

Yet, somehow I don't think MAC would agree with that last sentence.

Regards.
Mike Kirda