Is it time to blow the whistle on industry?

[naesco]

Reform is international. It is comprised of some of the brightest people both in industry and the hobby.

Reform is real. It is today. Every person who reads this thread must face that reality.
The best option for industry and for our hobby is to sit down and plan the end to the use of cyanide.
Without any disrespect to your opinions, those that disagree with reform should spend their energy being part of that plan.
.

 

[MaryHM]

Reform proposes a meeting with industry,

Reform is international. It is comprised of some of the brightest people both in industry and the hobby.

Ok. I'll bite. Who is "reform" that is proposing this meeting? Got a list of the people and their credentials?

 

[naesco]

Reform proposes a meeting with industry,

Reform is international. It is comprised of some of the brightest people both in industry and the hobby.

Ok. I'll bite. Who is "reform" that is proposing this meeting? Got a list of the people and their credentials?

All in due course, Mary. Some persons will never be mentioned because of their connexion with industry, but you can guess. :wink:

 

[John_Brandt]

Wayne, you are going to need a sponsor and a spokesperson. I have recommendations for both.

 

[MaryHM]

All in due course, Mary. Some persons will never be mentioned because of their connexion with industry, but you can guess.

So you want to have industry sit down at a meeting to discuss your issues, but you don't want to tell them who they will be discussing the issues with? If your "reform" people don't have enough conviction to allow themselves to be named, then I have a hard time taking you seriously. I for one am fed up with vague innuendos from "good intentioned" people/organzations. Either you have a list of reform people who are willing to sit down with industry or you don't. Which is it? And if you do, who are they? If you can't say, then it's impossible for anyone to take you seriously.

 

[dizzy]

All in due course, Mary. Some persons will never be mentioned because of their connexion with industry, but you can guess. :wink:

My first guess is Peter Rubec. Wayne just what kind of attorney are you anyway? Here in America we love freedom and hate Socialism and lawyers. :evil:

 

[devils advocate]

Mike,

You asked me (in another thread) if everyone is even going to the same place. Well...I think this thread answers your question. "Reform" is truly subjective and a matter of perspective with a smattering of what will I get out of it.

If people would define reform as they see it, they might be able to choose the appropriate map. I look at this as people saying they are going to Springfield. The question is which one?

 

[naesco]

All in due course, Mary. Some persons will never be mentioned because of their connexion with industry, but you can guess.

So you want to have industry sit down at a meeting to discuss your issues, but you don't want to tell them who they will be discussing the issues with? If your "reform" people don't have enough conviction to allow themselves to be named, then I have a hard time taking you seriously. I for one am fed up with vague innuendos from "good intentioned" people/organzations. Either you have a list of reform people who are willing to sit down with industry or you don't. Which is it? And if you do, who are they? If you can't say, then it's impossible for anyone to take you seriously.

I repeat what I already posted. "All in due course."
If someone or some corporation wishes their involvement in Reform to be a private matter, they can be guaranteed that their involvement will be private. Their wishes will be respected.

 

[clarionreef]

Pssst! Naesco,
Shhh! Count me in. Just don't tell anybody about it.
Although I agree in spirit with much of the manifesto...I have just got to wonder about the game plan.
I am glad to hear, however of industry players and leaders who want to be involved and make a difference. How on earth did you swing that? Who are these masked men?
I just can't wait to find out who the other Declaration of Independance signers are. Odd that they want to remain hidden. My experience is that anyone who gets two netcaught fish and an ORA clown claims to be an environmentalist these days...and want the whole word to know about it!
For all who want their reform to continue at a glacial pace, uninterrupted...whats the beef? Greenpeace sold out years ago. They sell calendars now and work for memberships, funding, brochures and funding and hire people to think of more funding ideas so they can pursue more funding initiatives.
Knee jerk fears about Greenpeace are from the days they had guts and passion and would actually position themselves between a whale and a harpoon. They sure don't do that kind of thing anymore!
If "radical factions" arise as a response to the non performance from the old school, so be it. Its how change works. The notion of reform is becoming institutional now. The Lebanonization of the reform movement will produce one spin off after another. It happens in everything else. Why not this.
Then theres the 'good cop, bad cop'. dividend...you know.....better work with us or you'll have to deal with the ANC, or the Sendero Luminoso or...or...
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

The social gentrification of Greenpeace is why there is an Earth First! today.

Oops, I didn't type that.

 

[Anonymous]

The social gentrification of Greenpeace is why there is an Earth First! today.

Oops, I didn't type that.

I happen to know a lot of Earth Firsters that operate out of Austin - This is not an issue they have taken much of an interest in to my knowledge - I' sure with some prompting I could stir a few people up but that's not my goal - I want a sustainable industry with as little damage caused by the MO trade as possible. I admire their ideals if not always their methods - factis if reform isn't at least addressed in some form the fringe groups will adress it for you and obviously not paint you in the best light.

 

[MaryHM]

factis if reform isn't at least addressed in some form the fringe groups will adress it for you and obviously not paint you in the best light.

It is being addressed in multiple forms. Maybe not as fast as all would like, but like I've said before- I'd rather have it done right than done fast.

 

[naesco]

factis if reform isn't at least addressed in some form the fringe groups will adress it for you and obviously not paint you in the best light.

It is being addressed in multiple forms. Maybe not as fast as all would like, but like I've said before- I'd rather have it done right than done fast.

Reform wants to see an end to the use of cyanide in our hobby.
Reform wants to see training funded by industry so that we can continue to enjoy net caught fish from the Philippines and Indonesia.
Reform wants to see the adoption of the USL by industry.
But, most of all, Reform wants to see it done. And it will be done.

 

[John_Brandt]

You know I support MAC but MAC certification has nothing to do with the cyanide import.

MAC Certification has everything to do with "the cyanide import". MAC Certified collectors and their collectors associations are trained to use nets to collect fish. When MAC Certified fish are imported, it is a cyanide-free import.

.........John you indicated that the companies on the list had executed a statement of committement.
There is nothing in the statement of committment about their agreeing to stopping the use of cyanide.
There is nothing in the statement of committment about adopting the USL.

Have these names on the list agree to meet with reform to discuss adoption of the Manifesto.

They have agreed to become MAC Certified. As far as I know they have not been informed of your "manifesto", and therefore have not agreed to meet to discuss it. Do you mind if I call your "manifesto" "Wayne's World" ?

.........This is the same list posted in March of 2002 with a few usdates is it not?
All of the signatorys on the list from the Philippines and Indonesia have been informed of this thread by Reform as have the members of the export associations in those countries.

This Manifesto might include the following
1. Incorporation of a CDT by industry and a timeline for its implementation.
2. An Unsuitable Species List (USL) and a timeline for its review and adoption by industry.
3. Training; a plan, people, a timeline and a budget funded by industry.

How could anyone possibly not support the above?

MAC Certification already covers, or will cover, these concerns. You will find information on the CDT and its projected timeline in the 2 MAC CDT memos that I posted in this forum.


......There is a role for MAC in Reform. MAC will be contacted. Unfortuneately none of the industry(as defined) are members am I correct?

MAC will address the issue of certifying "unsuitable species" in the future, no timeline has been announced yet. Signers of the commitment already know that there will be the creation of a MAC "USL".

..........There is nothing in the statement of committment about the USL John.

MAC net-training is occuring as we speak. It is slower than many would wish for, but circumstances combined with human resources dictate how quickly anything can be accomplished by any organization. It is critical to the mission of MAC that "backsliding" does not occur now, or anytime in the future. Training and certification of collecting areas cannot proceed faster than MAC's ability to control the adherence to the standards. Presently MAC's budget is funded by grants and some donations. In the future MAC will be funded by industry itself.

......And what has industry as defined done to assist MAC? How much has industry donated to MAC training. (Note this is part of Reforms manifesto).

In many ways you seem to be trying to reinvent the wheel with your "Wayne's World" manifesto.

Wayne,

Those who have signed on to the MAC Statement of Commitment (SOC)have commited to the goals, missions and standards of MAC Certification. This entire effort is focused on stopping destructive fishing practices. MAC Certified collectors do not use cyanide, so by making a commitment to become MAC Certified these industry entities essentially commit to the cessation of cyanide use. They support MAC as a vehicle of reform efforts.

MAC will also engage a committee to make decisions about the issue of "unsuitable" species. The signers of the SOC essentially commit to the formation of an "unsuitable" species committee.

Industry is cooperating with the efforts of MAC and many other reform movements. You would do everyone related to the hobby and industry a great service by acknowledging that fact, supporting it and not trying to confound the good intentions of those who are actually doing something about the problem.

 

[naesco]

I have and continue to support MAC in its very worthwhile efforts.

Reform believes that MAC has a role to play in working with Reform and Industry in stopping the destruction of the reef and its inhabitants in the Philippines and Indonesia.

The best source of information on the effects of cyanide in the wholesale destruction of reefs is found at http://reefsource.com/MSI%20Articles/cyanide.htm starting at Cyanide. The aquarium industry's dirty little secret."

Mary if you at any time object to my referenceing the use of the exhaustive material on deadly effects of cyanide on the reefs and its inhabitants, PM and I will remove the link. Thank you

 

[MaryHM]

No objections to linking to the information. Serious objections to your refusal to acknowledge and cooperate with the reform that is currently in progress. Serious objections to you saying "Reform wants this and that" but refusing to reveal who reform is.

 

[John_Brandt]

Wayne,

You have been curiously using the word reform as a pronoun, not a verb, which is its normal usage.

How is MAC supposed to work with and support "Reform" when you are not being forthcoming with what exactly this thing is, and what exactly does it intend to do.

Is it an organization? Is it a formal membership? Is it something which issues real information to its members?

You will need to provide credible, professional public information for prospective supporters to give "Reform" any consideration at all.

 

[Anonymous]

Reform (Naesco) meet Mary, Mary meet Reform (Naesco). Mary you've now met the entire Reform, the lone person. Reform at this point is just a word, a single post and one Ted Kazinsky(sp) manifesto. OK, it could also include Jamie B. since Naesco mentioned having experts in cyanide, training and handling.

 

[naesco]

Wayne,

You have been curiously using the word reform as a pronoun, not a verb, which is its normal usage.

How is MAC supposed to work with and support "Reform" when you are not being forthcoming with what exactly this thing is, and what exactly does it intend to do.

Is it an organization? Is it a formal membership? Is it something which issues real information to its members?

You will need to provide credible, professional public information for prospective supporters to give "Reform" any consideration at all.

Your comments are valid but all in due course.
Reform is an international movement. We are discussing with professionals, the proper body corporate, situs of same, and taxation issues that allow for taxation deductibility.

 

[PeterIMA]

Who and or what does Naesco mean by "Reform"? I know that this forum could be a potent force for reform. Everyone who is concerned about the issues being raised on Reefs.org can be called "reformists". We all need to work together to reform the marine aquarium trade and hobby. I had nothing to do with creating the "Manifesto" recently posted by Wayne Ryan (Naesco) on this forum. However, I tend to agree with some of its goals/premises.

One solid suggestion posted several months back was that the "reformists" meet at the next MACNA Conference in a closed room to discuss the issues. Based on the differences of opinion voiced here, I suggest that the meeting be "Facilitated". I think that the NGOs should be invited, but encourage those inside the trade and concerned hobbyists to play a leading role. Everyone who is concerned should attend and provide input. I had hoped that the MAC would provide the "umbrella" needed and that the meeting I am discussing would not be necessary. However, I see the MAC as not being responsive to the trade and hobbyists' concerns. If the MAC wishes to attend and can play a positive role, they are also welcome.

Let's try one more time to work together to deal with the issues of destructive fishing, shipping and handling practices, to help protect/conserve coral reef resources in order to help create a sustainable marine aquarium trade. Whether or not you agree with Wayne is not the issue. We all have an interest in making something positive happen.

Peter Rubec