Simple Questions for MAC

[mkirda]

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

Jaime,

You've been out of touch there for how many years now?

MAC is not the only game in town.

Rational economic analysis of the fish trade would provide you with some answers as to why industry would prefer the status quo. It will not be until there are enough net-caught fish coming in, and the quality is high enough that they can visibly see a difference that industry would be compelled to jump on the bandwagon, Jaime. Barring any government legislation with teeth and funding, nothing else is going to change the current system.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Jeremy,

During the last two decades many isolated initiatives have been developed to tackle the problem in the Philippines. Today, we can see that some progress has been made. Unnecessary mortality at community level is getting lower and cyanide is being used less by the collectors. But these results are not good enough. The lack of participation of the industry to help tackling the cyanide problem has been without doubt a limitant factor. The industry didn't and doesn't want to understand that coral reefs are their "fish farms" and that the collectors are the most important link of the trade.

I am saying that MAC is the industry's last chance because that NGO as a non-profit organization is interacting with representatives of the aquarium industry, hobbyists, conservation organizations, government agencies,and public aquariums. All these with a shared interest in the future of the marine aquarium industry, the marine organisms it is based on, and the habitat that support them.

Before MAC no one organization had been successfull in gathering all the interested parties to talk and act in the development of standards for "best practices"and many other issues the industry has been ignoring for decades.

Important to say that MAC is the only game in town without a hidden agenda.


Mike,

Do you mean that in order to do something productive you have to be in the Philippines? You are wrong! In the last six months I had the opportunity to address members of the aquarium club in Ottawa and Québec city to talk about the marine ornamentals trade and the work that is underway to correct the situation . As a result more aquarium hobbyists are aware of the situation and are better prepared to ask for information when visiting their pet shop. Also, I am in contact with local stores encouraging them to support fish importers that are dealing with net caught fish. I feel really good when doing it.

I am in constant contact with partners in the Philippines. I communicate regularly by phone or e-mail with people we worked with. Last phone call to the Philippines was 2 weeks ago. I spoke to Meme Purgatorio, one of the best trainers in the Philippines, I got from him very good information. Meme and others are in contact with key players, sometimes I get information that really surprise me, but I said to myself that's the Philippines and this is the fish business. Sometimes, it smells really bad.

Jaime

 

[MaryHM]

Important to say that MAC is the only game in town without a hidden agenda.

Jaime,
The topic of this thread was not "Bash the NGO's" or "Why is there a problem if the NGO's are so wonderful". The topic was SIMPLE QUESTIONS FOR MAC. If there is no hidden agenda, why can they never answer questions in a straightforward manner? All of this garbage about "It's not the questions, it's the questioner" is so ridiculous it would make me laugh if it wasn't so sad. Believe me, if they could publicly answer my questions and prove me wrong, then I'd be forced to shut up. However, they never have any answers. Their only answer is "We don't like you, so we don't have to answer." Please. If there was ever an organization with a hidden agenda it's this one. If they were up front about things I wouldn't have to start threads with such obvious questions such as the ones I've recently posed. And again, if they had acceptable answers they'd be firing them at me non-stop to prove that I'm just a hostile, malicious tyrant.

 

[naesco]

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

Excellent comment Jaime.

 

[jamesw]

In all of my dealings w/ MAC (I have talked w/ them on the phone, at MACNA, etc) I have found them to be very polite and nice, they answered all of my questions, and they seemed very reasonable.

I have a feeling that this is a matter of the Golden Rule which goes:

Treat Others as You Wish to be Treated

I think that may be the reason that MAC has decided not to discuss this w/ you anymore.

Remember the golden rule and perhaps we can all turn this around.

Cheers
James

 

[MaryHM]

Um, James...do you forget that I used to be a MAC friend? That I used to go to them directly with my concerns. That we all had many conversations about them privately. And that the reason I ended my support was that my questions were never given proper answers. They never answered the hard questions with straightforward answers when I was on their side. So again, this "it's the messenger" argument is stupid and a really pathetic excuse to dogde questions. It's the same old thing from them, except now I speak out publicly about it instead of keeping it within the MAC camp. I don't doubt for a second that they hate my guts. And frankly, I could care less. I haven't been friendly with any of them for a long time now. But that is no excuse for them to ignore the questions. Especially now that others have asked them as well. I don't care if an answer comes back addressed to Mary Middlebrook or not. I just want an answer. Don't you think that if they had a good one they would have posted it by now to shut me up??????????

 

[naesco]

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

Excellent comment Jaime.

 

[JeremyR]

James,

Remember when mac had the chat? He sidestepped direct questions from people, including mine. Whether they like mary or not, I can't see how you can support this kind of PR. It's absolutely rediculous.

 

[Jaime Baquero]

To all,

My personal point of view regarding MAC silence is that they have realized that some individuals, participating in this forum, are undermining MAC and do not want to share vital information that could interfere with MAC's plans . By reading all the threats most of which include lots of misinformation and misleading activities I do not blame MAC for its silence.

They have a difficult and complex job to do and can not waste their time trying to convince individuals that will always find the way to discredit their work . I do believe that MAC continues to be open to those ready to collaborate and contribute to a constructive dialogue.

Sincerely

Jaime

 

[MaryHM]

By reading all the threats

Threats? Who has threatened MAC? And with what? There's been a lot of questioning, but I don't see any threats.

I do believe that MAC continues to be open to those ready to collaborate and contribute to a constructive dialogue.

They'll "collaborate" as long as you don't say anything against them. As long as you don't question anything they want to do. I've "collaborated" with them Jaime on many, many occasions. While they may be open to listening to concerns, they aren't really interested in addressing them.

 

[Anonymous]

To all,

My personal point of view regarding MAC silence is that they have realized that some individuals, participating in this forum, are undermining MAC and do not want to share vital information that could interfere with MAC's plans . By reading all the threats most of which include lots of misinformation and misleading activities I do not blame MAC for its silence.

They have a difficult and complex job to do and can not waste their time trying to convince individuals that will always find the way to discredit their work . I do believe that MAC continues to be open to those ready to collaborate and contribute to a constructive dialogue.

Sincerely

Jaime

Thanks, Jaime. That's exactly the same impression that I have.

-Lee

 

[Anonymous]

While they may be open to listening to concerns, they aren't really interested in addressing them.

Maybe they are interested in addressing your concerns. Maybe they simply order their priorities in a different way than you would.

Sincerely,
Lee

 

[MaryHM]

Jaime and Lee,

If your observations are correct, please explain to me why MAC was so evasive about serious questions when I was on their Board of Directors. During the time when I was supporting them 100%, doing talks for them, etc... When I was NEVER antagonistic in approaching them. If I didn't have the past history of evasiveness to fall back on, then I might go along with your line of thinking. However, this type of behavior has been occurring since day 1. Please explain.

 

[clarionreef]

Mary,
It can be explained like this:
We're not in the same industry.
We're share little in common.
We read the issue very differently.
We are not on the same page
...and we do not share the same priorities, goals and strategies.
For them to bend to ours would mean a capitulation and a repudiation of several years going down the wrong road..
WE SELL FISH..MAC SELLS CERTIFICATION.
Our friends that compromise the MAC are just people...[ not exalted NGOs] but people. Its just that they are people into something quite different then what we are into.
They studied us...like students... so that they could then prescribe remedy for us. It must be frustrating to find that a few years of interviews have still not elevated them to our level of understanding of the issues.
They could've involved commercials and professionals beyond the tokenism that there was. This was a mistake.
They could've listened to people who knew what they were talking about...not just people who were social and 'nice to them'.
[ I wonder if thats a criteria the Oakland Raiders or the San Francisco Giants use to select players to try and win the pennant]
They could've shared responsibility for training divers [ with CORL] and shortcircuited much of the trouble they have run into as was the original concept...but they didn't.
They could've done so much better than this...but they chose to stick with the leaders of the staus quo in the trade and not the reform movement...alienating reformers....
They could've enlisted real life marine dealers who handle lots of fish to serve as spokesman and persuade other serious dealers...but they didn't. They chose a service guy instead.
Their logic is clearly not ours.

I resent the implication that the inequity of our communication stems from us. Perhaps MACs backers [ the ones who really pull the strings] should consider a change in leadership. One who will not make so many mistakes in dealing with reform minded people. People who are villified, ostracized and cut-off for simply refusing to sell out to the worst side of our troubled industry.
Perhaps we can be reformed from inside the trade, with and by people from the inside...but from the outside by non aquarium people who can hardly stay awake during the speakers presentations at MACNA?
How very, very different things might have turned out if the first candidate to lead MAC was approved...John Tullock...
He was considered first...and like many, many mistakes to follow, was not chosen.
Such a shame... Steve

 

[JennM]

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.

AMEN.

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Jaime and Lee,

If your observations are correct, please explain to me why MAC was so evasive about serious questions when I was on their Board of Directors. During the time when I was supporting them 100%, doing talks for them, etc... When I was NEVER antagonistic in approaching them. If I didn't have the past history of evasiveness to fall back on, then I might go along with your line of thinking. However, this type of behavior has been occurring since day 1. Please explain.

Mary,

I haven't met you and don't know anything about your personality. The only thing I can say is that since I read your first post I had the impression you were an antagonistic person. Probably you didn't realize that when dealing with MAC. Only you and the MAC people know that.

Honestly

Jaime Baquero

 

[Jaime Baquero]

By reading all the threats

Threats? Who has threatened MAC? And with what? There's been a lot of questioning, but I don't see any threats.

I do believe that MAC continues to be open to those ready to collaborate and contribute to a constructive dialogue.

They'll "collaborate" as long as you don't say anything against them. As long as you don't question anything they want to do. I've "collaborated" with them Jaime on many, many occasions. While they may be open to listening to concerns, they aren't really interested in addressing them.

Mary,

Ooops...

Sorry, I meant threads.

I have had a complete different experience with the MAC people when I had the opportunity to address a concern.

jaime

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Mary,
It can be explained like this:
We're not in the same industry.
We're share little in common.
We read the issue very differently.
We are not on the same page
...and we do not share the same priorities, goals and strategies.
For them to bend to ours would mean a capitulation and a repudiation of several years going down the wrong road..
WE SELL FISH..MAC SELLS CERTIFICATION.
Our friends that compromise the MAC are just people...[ not exalted NGOs] but people. Its just that they are people into something quite different then what we are into.
They studied us...like students... so that they could then prescribe remedy for us. It must be frustrating to find that a few years of interviews have still not elevated them to our level of understanding of the issues.
They could've involved commercials and professionals beyond the tokenism that there was. This was a mistake.
They could've listened to people who knew what they were talking about...not just people who were social and 'nice to them'.
[ I wonder if thats a criteria the Oakland Raiders or the San Francisco Giants use to select players to try and win the pennant]
They could've shared responsibility for training divers [ with CORL] and shortcircuited much of the trouble they have run into as was the original concept...but they didn't.
They could've done so much better than this...but they chose to stick with the leaders of the staus quo in the trade and not the reform movement...alienating reformers....
They could've enlisted real life marine dealers who handle lots of fish to serve as spokesman and persuade other serious dealers...but they didn't. They chose a service guy instead.
Their logic is clearly not ours.

I resent the implication that the inequity of our communication stems from us. Perhaps MACs backers [ the ones who really pull the strings] should consider a change in leadership. One who will not make so many mistakes in dealing with reform minded people. People who are villified, ostracized and cut-off for simply refusing to sell out to the worst side of our troubled industry.
Perhaps we can be reformed from inside the trade, with and by people from the inside...but from the outside by non aquarium people who can hardly stay awake during the speakers presentations at MACNA?
How very, very different things might have turned out if the first candidate to lead MAC was approved...John Tullock...
He was considered first...and like many, many mistakes to follow, was not chosen.
Such a shame... Steve

Steve,

You are strong on rhetoric and weak on what counts. How very, very different things might have turned out if you hadn't disappear for almost a decade.

Jaime

 

[clarionreef]

Mr. B.
To back up the rhetoric, I import and deal in netcaught fish every week of my life.
As I explained a number of times already, I could no longer work with your favorite NGO in question as at that time they refused to deploy the funds and program and netting as intended. To continue with this knowingly would've made me an accomplice to both the 'shrinkage' of the funds and a 'planned failure' of training.
I spent ten years of struggling to get to that point and they just "absorbed" our budget into their general fund of activity and ruined the net training project developed by Dr. Don McAllister and I. Can you imagine the feeling of losing the decade of the 80's to such a thing?
As this group abandoned our project, there was no point in remaining with them and trying to train trainers or divers without nets...
What would a program be that did that?
Please save this response to refer to the next time you ask me why I resigned from the organization in question.
Steve
Head Field Trainer, Haribon 1992

 

[MaryHM]

The only thing I can say is that since I read your first post I had the impression you were an antagonistic person.

Good grief, Jaime. You came in on this whole thing on the tail end of it. Why don't you do a little research. Go back to the very beginnings of this forum and see what I was saying about MAC. Go find my #reefs talk and see what I was saying about MAC. Then ask yourself what happened to cause me to change my opinions so drastically. Again, I'm not going to be dragged into some alternate argument that isn't about the issues. With all of this distracting conversation we're never going to get anywhere.