One area where MAC has gone wrong...

[blue hula3]

G'day John

Blue Hula, I was wondering where you were.

Good to know I was missed :lol:

I saw good numbers of fish (how does one casually reference fish quantities?) in the collecting area at Batasan.

I will take that question literally. I think that, on a casual basis, saying that there are fish around is fine. Likewise, a casual reference that there are more inside the MPA than out also works if you are simply stating an opinion based on a short visit. However, as a basis for evaluating sustainability of exploitation, we need good numbers on densities, exploitation levels, and at a minimum, life history characteristics of the targetted species (size at maturity, longevity, mating patterns etc.). In Bohol, I'd also want to know how the species are handling habitat degradation - some will do better (e.g. coral beauties increased in abundance on the Great Barrier Reefs in areas that became overgrown with algae) - some will do worse (all of your obligate corallivores). Exploitation patterns AND scale need to reflect their new reality.

The other issue is the degree to which we hope degraded areas (from exploitation and habitat destruction) can recover. I reckon that, to the degree possible given the need for fishers to earn a living, these areas should be given a break. Frankly, citing a CAMP on a heavily degraded place, and identifying it as a good thing is bizarre. It only works if there are lots of management techniques in place to allow population recovery. And given MAC's focus has been on use of cyanide rather than levels of exploitation, I don't see how this will work.

In terms of "lots of fish" - I feel very fortunate that I dove in the Philippines in the 1980's. What now is "lots", including in Batasan, is a mere shadow of what was. The large degree to which our baselines shift in terms of what is "lots" is, to me, a scary thing. We can keep extracting resources because it's not so bad compared to yesterday and we forgot what it was last year.

Anyway, I don't have figures laying around here on the size of the collecting areas or the MPAs. One gets a relative sense of proportion when you are there but it's hard to attach numbers to open ocean space.

MAC obviously needs to invest in a GPS. That would allow you to very easily calculate the size of the collecting areas and manta tows (snorkler holding on to a board dragged behind a banca) could be used simply to assess the proportion of reef / seagrass / rubble / sand habitats within the CAMP.

How does MAC determine whether fish were caught inside or outside the CAMP if the boundaries / size are unclear and how does MAC assess sustainability if it does not know the relative size of CAMP to nonCAMP and Sanctuary to CAMP areas?

Do you know whether MAC placed the CAMP there because the MPA already existed or was that just fortuitous (and could you confirm whether MAC is pitching them as MAC MPAs or recognises the work of the communities to establish them prior to MACs arrival) ? Do you know what plans MAC has to include sanctuaries in other CAMPS and would this be a prerequisite to calling it a CAMP given that the establishment of community-based MPAs can be a lengthy process.

Look forward to your response,

Blue hula

 

[horge]

Mind if I comment?

I think that, on a casual basis, saying that there are fish around is fine. Likewise, a casual reference that there are more inside the MPA than out also works if you are simply stating an opinion based on a short visit.

I happen to agree with casual assessments, provided there is a valid frame of reference. My caution would be that virtually ANY outsider is making a 'short visit'. So... casual basis rules the field.

If John says there seemed to be a healthy density of fish, then I can accept that there was, at that particular time. Of course, this presumes John has a rough idea of what a 'healthy density' is for that particular location around that time of the year; that John has a valid frame of reference (a baseline) to use in rough assessment.

However, as a basis for evaluating sustainability of exploitation, we need good numbers on densities, exploitation levels, and at a minimum, life history characteristics of the targetted species (size at maturity, longevity, mating patterns etc.).

Like in John's case...
That presumes you have a valid frame of reference, otherwise all the collected data remains just data ---interpretation will be pretty much arbitrary, if not unfounded.

In Bohol, I'd also want to know how the species are handling habitat degradation - some will do better (e.g. coral beauties increased in abundance on the Great Barrier Reefs in areas that became overgrown with algae) - some will do worse (all of your obligate corallivores). Exploitation patterns AND scale need to reflect their new reality.

There, that's the frame of reference I'm talking about, and frankly, where's the data? Who's going to set the baselines for assessment? Given the cyclic, seasonal shift of most reef populations I feel any single assessment HAS to be based on at least 9-14 months of observation, compared to a valid baseline.

In terms of "lots of fish" - I feel very fortunate that I dove in the Philippines in the 1980's. What now is "lots", including in Batasan, is a mere shadow of what was. The large degree to which our baselines shift in terms of what is "lots" is, to me, a scary thing. We can keep extracting resources because it's not so bad compared to yesterday and we forgot what it was last year.

You're right, one can forget what it was like last year.
However, some of us who live here remember ---and have faded photos to refresh the memory-- of what it was like in 1968, 1974, 1982 et cetera, and as far as casual assessments go, that can be a pretty frickin' good frame of reference... or baseline if you will.

MAC obviously needs to invest in a GPS. That would allow you to very easily calculate the size of the collecting areas and manta tows could be used simply to assess the proportion of reef / seagrass / rubble / sand habitats within the CAMP.

Absolutely. You can use it to fix points topside, and use buoys to mark, and drop-kick the hapless surveyors over the side.

How does MAC determine whether fish were caught inside or outside the CAMP if the boundaries / size are unclear and how does MAC assess sustainability if it does not know the relative size of CAMP to nonCAMP and Sanctuary to CAMP areas? Do you know whether MAC placed the CAMP there because the MPA already existed or was that just fortuitous (and could you confirm whether MAC is pitching them as MAC MPAs or recognises the work of the communities to establish them prior to MACs arrival) ? Do you know what plans MAC has to include sanctuaries in other CAMPS and would this be a prerequisite to calling it a CAMP given that the establishment of community-based MPAs can be a lengthy process.

You know, you're a lot of fun, blue hula.


John, I know the thread title seems a little accusatory. I'm not.
I do value your casual impressions, and that's why I'm asking for them.



horge

 

[blue hula3]

Mind if I comment?

Not at all.

Casual references are fine and I think I stated this. They also make great PR (no offence intended John). Problem is that the limits of such casual statements are seldom included.

Also, they cannot form the basis of an assessment of whether exploitation levels are sustainable. The problem, as you so rightly point out Jorge, is that most of us don't have good reference points. Here in Western Australia, the best example is the loss of large wrasses from the coastal fish communities. Kids stare at photos from the 1940's and are dumb struck because in all the days they've been fishing with their dads, the biggest wrasse they saw was half the size. Pretty hard to miss what you don't know should be there. And we have no idea of the ecological implications of the loss of these big brooders.

However, as a basis for evaluating sustainability of exploitation, we need good numbers on densities, exploitation levels, and at a minimum, life history characteristics of the targetted species (size at maturity, longevity, mating patterns etc.).

That presumes you have a valid frame of reference, otherwise all the collected data remains just data ---interpretation will be pretty much arbitrary, if not unfounded.

I disagree in part. I think it is helpful to have historical time lines (e.g. valid frame of reference) so you can assess change over time. And in the absence of "fisheries data", there are techniques used to collect anecdotal data from fishers and other knowledgeable people on how populations have changed over time.

However, it is also possible to assess what level of exploitation can be sustained by a population given it's current abundance and life history characteristics. Recently, I published a paper on this very topic for overexploited forest mammals (bushmeat) in the Congo (Fa, Peres and Meeuwig. 2002. In Conservation Biology if any one is interested). Am in the midst of doing so for a range of fish species as well.

There, that's the frame of reference I'm talking about, and frankly, where's the data? Who's going to set the baselines for assessment? Given the cyclic, seasonal shift of most reef populations I feel any single assessment HAS to be based on at least 9-14 months of observation, compared to a valid baseline.

As long as we feel anecdotal assessments are sufficient we won't collect the data. There are a number of rapid assessment protocols that would provide a sufficient basis to make some assessment of whether exploitation is sustainable or not. Sample 3-4 times in one year and you'd have a decent go at making some preliminary assessments. Given how long it generally takes to get these things up, if assessing sustainability in terms of exploitation level were a key priority, it could be kickstarted and available for when the CAMP was established, no?

MAC obviously needs to invest in a GPS. That would allow you to very easily calculate the size of the collecting areas and manta tows could be used simply to assess the proportion of reef / seagrass / rubble / sand habitats within the CAMP.

Absolutely. You can use it to fix points topside, and use buoys to mark, and drop-kick the hapless surveyors over the side.

It is not the drop-kick over the side that I found problematic. It was the clambering back into the (&%*#)&#(@& banca and the times I was simply hauled unceremoniously in by our project boatman.

You know, you're a lot of fun, blue hula.

I'm glad But, that's the second time I've been labelled "fun" on this forum. While it's nice to be the party gal, I am somewhat bewildered that my ernest, sincere and reasonably technical outlook makes y'all chuckle :lol:

I can live with it if I can get two points out:

1. exploitation LEVELS matter. Eliminating cyanide alone won't make the trade sustainable thus CAMP locations must be evaluated in terms of both potential to get fishers off cyanide and fish population health.

2. it is possible to do simple and effective data collection to support management decisions so there is really no excuse to rely on anecdotal info, valuable as it can be, especially on well funded projects :wink:

I'm sure many of you know this but it seems to get lost in cyanide, swirling allegations, and power politics some times.

Cheers, Blue hula

 

[PeterIMA]

This email will not be popular with the MAC.

My understanding it that the entire process of creating a written CAMP for Batasan Island was accomplished in less than two months. Lino Alavarez led a MAC training team that visited the site in May-June 2002. Emails that I have received indicates that the MAC trainers never went into the water. So, it is difficult to believe that they did any type of resource survey (during 2002) that could have provided data to assess sustainability of the aquarium fish populations (e.g. underwater counts along line transects) or any assessment of the status (health) of the coral reefs.

I had a number of emails with Craig Shuman (a Ph.D. student at the University of California in Los Angeles) working with ReefCheck, who was involved in the creation of MAQTRAC. MAQTRAC was created by ReefCheck under contract to the MAC. MAQTRAC documents quantitiative underwater survey methods. Unfortunately, a DRAFT was not available until December 2002 and it was not released until March 2003 (at the ITMEMS Conference in Manila). Craig informed me this spring that he dove on the reefs at Batasan Island (sometime late in the summer of 2002). He did not do a quantitative assessment, just gathered some quick impressions by diving on the reefs near Batasan for 2 hours. So, no data was collected to assess sustainability prior to the MAC Certifier's visit and the area becoming MAC Certified (about October 2002).

About four months ago, I spoke with Peter Scott on the telephone. He explained that Batasan Island had received a Rapid Appraisal (RAP) sometime this spring (2003). Shuman acknowledged this to me in an email shortly thereafter. Meetings were held with the collectors in Batasan and Clarin to review the RAP (s?) sometime this year.

Peter Scott also explained at length that he believed that the Batasan area was sustainable because of the spillover effect of aquarium fishes coming out of numerous (number unspecified) nearby Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). Based on the fact that the MAC trainers never got into the water, I believe the MPAs were created by other organizations (e.g., Project Seahorse and the local community under the Coastal Resource Management Program-CRMP). I don't believe that the MAC created any MPAs near Batasan Island or Clarin.

One of the goals of the CAMP process should be the creation of Collection Areas. It is not clear whether any Collection Areas were created at these sites off the Island of Bohol. So far, the MAC has not supplied any information concerning where MPAs or Collection Areas are sited near Batasan Island or near Clarin. In the case of the MPAs, I believe this is because the MPAs were created by other organizations (hence the information was not readily available to the MAC). In the case of the Collection Areas, they have not provided any information, because they may not exist (were not created by the collectors or the MAC training team). While there is no doubt that CAMP documents were created (but not publicly available), I believe they do not contain information about population densities of the resource (aquarium fish), health of the reefs, or areas designated as Collection Areas. I doubt that the municipality approved Collection Areas as part of the CAMP by assigning use rights to these areas for the ornamental fish collectors. If they had, the MAC should have been able to produce information on the size and locations of the Collections Areas.

The MAC has been misleading the public by implying that the collectors working with the MAC trainers created MPAs and Collection Areas near Batasan Island and Clarin. If this information is incorrect, please prove it by making the CAMPs publicly available.

Sincerely,
Peter Rubec

 

[blue hula3]

Peter Scott also explained at length that he believed that the Batasan area was sustainable because of the spillover effect of aquarium fishes coming out of numerous (number unspecified) nearby Marine Protected Areas (MPAs).

It still matters what the rate of exploitation is relative to the spillover rate and what species are of interest. Seahorses for instance, don't spill over very well at all. It's that old swimming thing and the lack of an openwater dispersal phase as young 'uns. Someone needs to get under the water and someone else needs to collect some data on catch levels. Oh, and from where. Then you can start to discuss sustainability. Otherwise, a more precauationary view might be appropriate.

Blue hula

 

[horge]

Blue/Jessica

Three things:

1. I don't think anyone makes light of your work. I went to Chicago in 2000 partly to check out the display at the Shedd and report back if it was sympathetic, patronizing or even acusatory towards the Filipino people. Some of us were very concerned about that. So, anyway: yes, we've been pretty much aware of Proj Seahorse for some time.

You're fun because you ask the right questions without
a. insulting anyone
b. coming off as bragging about your creds

2. I'm not happy with anecdotes either. I mean no offense to the intellect of foreigners, but I'm just saying that for casual visitors --no matter how well trained in data collection and analysis-- disowning anecdote can be hypocritical. Sort of like a drowning man rejecting a lifesaver because it isn't properly registered as a nautical vehicle.

That doesn't mean I'm rejecting a boat in favor of a lifesaver, and if someone wants to start to build one, more power to them:
rapid asessments would, yes, be par for the present course.
I guess I'm asking MAC if any such were/are being made, as they should.

Back to anecdotes...
One can imagine how a disciplined, if non-empirical mode of observation becomes automatic ---even when you're getting wet (ostensibly) just for fun --so I've learned not to utterly discount it. From the Filipinos and foreigners I trust and respect, a 'casual observation' often beats the snot out of a lot of 'analysed data' from briefly-visiting researchers, Filipino or foreigner... because the 'casual observation' isn't casual at all. Much of it stands on data that merely isn't published. I'm not accountable in the way that funded researchers or industry organizations are, so I'm freer to utilize what hasn't been published towards what I do.


3. Certainly certain species, owing to their mode of reproduction as well as their athletic ability, pretty much stick to one place. But I don't have to tell anyone here that many ornamentals have a partly-pelagic life history, and many herbivores will exfil when their food source wanes seasonally (the rains pretty much nuke a lot of marine benthic macroalgae, which thenr reassert themselves next summer). Populations and pop. profiles will shift cyclically --so, who's got the hard pop. data to distinguish a multiennial cyclic wane from real depletion?

While the principle of creating an MPA is casually-sound, there's precious little hard data to back many of these MPA's up in terms of defining minimum stats for their creation. And yet we applaud the principle. Honestly Jessica, many MPA's were designated on best guesses (and heavily compromised by other concerns), and then we observed for effect, no?

Soooo.... If we can comfortably allow 'anecdote' or casual theory to translate into policy, (meaning you can 'in principle' support MPA's), it can seem a little unfair to turn on the MPA implementors and demand empirical accountability. Many an MPA was set up informally and not had to withstand so much online scrutiny, and this is what I tried to convey by my earlier "resembling a burning at the stake" comment. All these questions can seem a little unfair. But...

It DOES seem fair to ask MAC not to waste the opportunity for data collection. I think that's all I'm asking for: proper, sustained survey of a pilot area already under collection pressure and already with an "MPA surgically attached to its ass".

It DOES seem fair to ask MAC if it knows that merely having such a posterior adornment is NO GUARANTEE for sustainability, hence the need (as Mike initially pointed out) for observation and monitoring.

'Where MAC has gone wrong' is thus not an accusation, John --well, maybe it is, but not from enemies. It is much more a constructive exhortation.

As ar as observing the putative Tubigon(?) MPA for effect I think there are Cebuanos and even some taga-Bohol out of UP MSI, UP Visayas, or Silliman who might be deceived (hehe) into doing that sort of thankless, long-haul-if-periodic survey work, and I suppose funding can be solicited somewhere... but I don't want to sound like a placement/HRM agent..

Can the collectors be further enlisted as surveyors?
It all rests on whether we can trust them and the outfit in general.
THAT judgement call, John is perhaps in a supremely better position than any of us here to make.

MAC is already relying on them to tag and record things properly, under occasional check-up visits and friendly pressure by MAC reps, or am I misinterpreting how things are supposed to be running?

I too hope, John will continue discussing this with us.
This is dead serious, but I can find fun in it.
I'm Filipino: life is short and brutal, so I'll find fun wherever I can.
I'll also do what good I can with the little time I'm given.


Have fun,

Horge/Horge

 

[blue hula3]

Horge,

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

I'm not happy with anecdotes either. I mean no offense to the intellect of foreigners, but I'm just saying that for casual visitors --no matter how well trained in data collection and analysis-- disowning anecdote can be hypocritical. Sort of like a drowning man rejecting a lifesaver because it isn't properly registered as a nautical vehicle.

No offense taken. I don't disown anecdotes generally. When we established our research and monitoring project on 28 fishing grounds along Danajon Bank, we asked fishers to share their knowledge and anecdotal info about more than 70 locations in order to set up a study system. Additionally, the reported declines in seahorse populations on Danajon Bank that Project Seahorse uses are based on anecdotal information from the fishers. They have the right terms of reference. And familiarity with an area can go along way to replace data. The key issue I guess is to understand when an anecdote is "local knowledge" and when it is simply ... an anecdote.

Now I hate doing this because it might come off as bragging, but a proper frame of reference is the crux of this discussion --whether we're talking CAMPS or how we regard the opinions expressed here: I've been laying out quadrats for decades in the same parts of Batangas and Pangasinan; and for several years in a few other places. The data collected is for our personal use, and shared with colleagues or with friends of like interest. You can imagine how a disciplined, if non-empirical mode of observation becomes automatic ---even when you're getting wet (ostensibly) just for fun --so I've learned not to utterly discount it. From the Filipinos and foreigners I trust and respect, a 'casual observation' often beats the snot out of a lot of 'analysed data' from briefly-visiting researchers, Filipino or foreigner... because the 'casual observation' isn't casual at all. It stands on data that merely isn't published

That's not bragging at all ! That's wonderful. I think we agree on the role of anecdotal and qualitative information. My tirade was begun because I am uncomfortable with the snapshot from Batasan that was reported and the inference that because there were "lots" of fish, collecting (how many?) of them must be ok.

Certainly certain species, owing to their mode of reproduction as well as their athletic ability, pretty much stick to one place. But I don't have to tell anyone here how many ornamentals have a partly-pelagic life history, so while the principle of an MPA is casually-sound, there's really no hard data to back it up in terms of defining minimum required stats for its creation.

Halpern at UC San Diego I think has just looked at hard data from 80 no-take MPAs around the world, including the PHils, and demonstrated that across these 80 reserves, biomass, density, species diversity and size all go up. More interestingly, his analysis showed that size didn't matter: even small reserves had these effects.

But you're right, there is less evidence on how big should a MPA be in order to do their job including supporting fisheries via spillover- estimates range from 10% to 50% of the total area, with the high end being hard to imagine in Bohol in my opinion, given social pressures.

Soooo.... If you can allow 'anecdote' or casual theory to translate into policy, (meaning you can 'in principle' support MPA's), it can seem a little unfair to turn on the MPA implementors and demand empirical accountability.

And this is where perhaps I was unclear. I am happy to see MPAs established and left unmonitored due to resource constrainst etc. if all we're doing is saying "great, we have an MPA that MAY help and it is better than nothing".

What I am uncomfortable having is the statement that because there is an MPA there, all is right in the world and go fish. There must be some way of assessing (even qualitatively) whether the MPA is doing it's job in terms of fisheries enhancement. In the Scientific Consensus Statement from 160 international conservation / fisheries experts, they agree that MPAs are only one tool in the box and must occur in the context of complementary fisheries management. Now, this may not always be possible (and you take what you can get) BUT where a flag is being waved (vigorously) about sustainability, more needs to be done. I am requesting empirical accountability not because they've established a MPA, but because they are saying now all is right with the world. Gosh, I wish I was that confident.

In the absence of collecting hard data, the fishers may be able to provide that crucial frame of reference but I am unclear whether that has been done...

It DOES seem fair to ask MAC not to waste the opportunity for data collection. I think that's all I'm asking for: proper, sustained survey of a pilot area already under collection pressure and alrady with an "MPA surgically attached to its ass".

It DOES seem fair to ask MAC if it knows that merely having such a posterior adornment is NO GUARANTEE for sustainability, hence the need (as Mike initially pointed out) for observation and monitoring.

Ignoring the opportunity to measure the effect (if any) of say, the MPA 'cornucopia' that sustains 'Wall Street': that is probably 'where MAC has gone wrong'. It is thus not an accusation, John --well, maybe it is, but not from enemies. It is much more a constructive exhortation.

Agree, agree, agree

There has also been permanent transect monitoring in Bilang-bilangan and Batasan I believe since 1999. This might prove useful to someone.

Can the collectors be further enlisted as surveyors?
It all rests on whether we can trust them and the outfit in general.
THAT judgement call, John is in a supremely better position than any of us here to make.

We had over 200 collectors in Bohol filling out catch calendars so we could assess fishing pressure on 28 grounds. Worked a treat.

Horge, you're fun too and thank you for the posterior adornment image.
John, hope you can clarify some of these bits. I am also not intending to be hostile but think that it is key to work out who has been / is doing what ? Makes it alot easier to build on the work of previous groups and understand how and where to move forward.

Now, am off to my day job working with such posterior adornments here in Oz.

Blue hula[/i]

 

[horge]

Uhm, I'm just apologizing in advance and to all for any confusion... Jessica replied (with quotes) after I had begun re-editing my post. I had decided to drop the portion that felt uncomfortably like bragging.. though it's now up there in Jessica's post...haha.

Back to the thread topic:
Whenever you're ready, Mr. Brandt.

 

[blue hula3]

Oops - my apologies Horge.

But I do think it is wonderful that you have been watching places through time.

Blue hula

 

[mkirda]

Back to the thread topic:
Whenever you're ready, Mr. Brandt.

Horge and all,

I know John was with many of us down in MACNA this weekend, and he was leaving just this morning. I doubt he is back yet. Getting this info will probably take him a little while, if it is available at all.

Just so you all know why he has been very, very quiet- he hasn't been on-line and probably hasn't had the chance to read this thread yet.

Regards.
Mike Kirda
P.S. In talking to David V. yesterday afternoon, we discussed this topic for a few minutes. He agreed that MAC viewed this a constructive suggestion, and understood it to not be negative criticism. That, my friends, was a major change in mutual understanding. They intend to address these things in currently in-process updates to the Standards, although he was not sure they would be in the first or second revision(s).

 

[John_Brandt]

Hi,

MACNA was a great time last weekend.

I'm not ignoring you guys. I'm busy preparing for a lecture at the New York Aquarium this Saturday.

I fly tomorrow, September 11th into LaGuardia Airport (NYC). If you don't think I will be constantly looking at the passengers on my plane...think again 8O I'm not really nervous about it, but it does set the mind into motion.

I thought I would leave you with a photo of a MAC Certified Collector at work at Batasan Island, Bohol Philippines. Copyright by Uffe Wilken, taken while I was also there in the water. Notice the poor visibility because of the suspended sediment.

 

[mkirda]

I fly tomorrow, September 11th into LaGuardia Airport (NYC). If you don't think I will be constantly looking at the passengers on my plane...think again 8O

I'll wave if I see you, John.

Later.
Mike Kirda

 

[dizzy]

I thought I would leave you with a photo of a MAC Certified Collector at work at Batasan Island, Bohol Philippines.

The dude looks like he is getting ready to rob a bank. 8O If you see anyone dressed like that on the plane put your head between your legs and kiss you ass goodbye. Good luck.

 

[Anonymous]

Hey! He has nets? Both a barrier net and a hand net? I thought there weren't any nets in the PI?

BTW, the diver has covered his head so that the "MACAttackers" won't know his true identity. :lol:

 

[John_Brandt]

Of course he has nets. All of the MAC Certified Collectors have nets. Don't believe the Robinson hype about 'no nets'.

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry about editing my post while you were apparently posting, John.

For those that didn't see my original message, the only substantial change that I made was to add the head covering joke.

I've figured that MAC collectors have had access to appropriate netting material right along. It would be stupid for MAC not to address this for the collectors catching certified livestock. Why have the "anti-MAC'ers" been misrepresenting this?

-Lee

 

[John_Brandt]

Another MAC Certified Collector at Batasan Island...using nets. Copyright by Uffe Wilken.

 

[John_Brandt]

MAC Certified Collector at Batasan Island, about to transfer a Maroon clownfish from the barrier net to the perforated plastic jar. Copyright by Uffe Wilken.

 

[MaryHM]

Um guys- pay attention. Who here has said there are NO nets in the Philippines?? The gripe has been that there isn't enough PROPER netting. If MAC has addressed this issue and sent over nets, as is being implied, I would love to see a receipt. C'mon MAC- I know you're reading. I kept my net fund 100% transparent. All I'm asking from you is to provide a receipt showing that MAC has paid for PROPER netting.

 

[MaryHM]

And for John,

If the netting situation is under control by MAC, et al, then why did you publicly support my net fund?? Wouldn't it have just been redundant??