Town Hall meeting "report"

[mkirda]

Well, it can be summed up as mostly positive.

The biggest 'development' is that the parties are now talking together in a constructive and positive manner.

Parts of AMDA are questioning whether AMDA should undertake their net initiative, or whether they could leave it to MAC.

I did start things off with a rather hurried selection of slides from Coron and Palauig to sort of 'set the stage', showing them the reality of the collector's lives, with images of their homes, bancas, children and fishing gear. This may have had the greatest effect, bringing it all home for them.

There is more, probably a lot more, that I'm not thinking of at the moment. I hope that others who attended will chime in and give their impressions, thoughts, observations and feelings.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Anonymous]

My overall impresison of the meetings was this. (Keeping in mind that this is the first time I had ever met any of these people, or been involved in a meeting of this type.)

MAC as an organization, if carried through to a successful completion, will be much more equipped to effect signifigant long term change in the Phillipines. IMHO, I don't think they have been given enough time to do this as of yet. The learning curve for establishing "true reform" from the bottom up, is rather steep I am sure. Not saying that they don't have their problems that need to be addressed, I'm just willing to give them a bit more time.

AMDA as an organization of US marine dealers, is much more equipped to police and regulate the independent LFS's in the country. If the "AMDA Member" sticker actually meant something, that would be a start. I don't really see why it is the role of a US based association of retailers to try to fund or bring about reform in a country on the other side of the planet, when it can't even police and regulate it's own members.

It seems to me that both are completely different groups with completely different scopes of operations. AMDA is simply not equipped to deal with individual villages on a holistic basis, while MAC (if they do what they say they're gonna) can. MAC would have more muscle to bring about complete village wide change, that would go much further than "Here's a net, here's how you use it, here's my address to send the fish." MAC seems more aimed at humanitarian social reform, on a macro level, than simple industry let's get a better product to sell reform.

Not that I am jumping on any bandwagons just yet, I am however willing to give a little more time to see how things play out.

It would seem to me, that an Industry Reform movement consisting of MAC operating in the individual villages, monitoring the collection of the fish, the transport, ensuring the collectors are treated fairly at the export level, ensuring the exporters follow the rules, then regulating at the US wholesale level (again to ensure that the collectors and chain of custody go according to plan), in conjunction with the AMDA regulating and policing it's members and also regulating to some extent at the US wholesale level as a protection for the LFS against the wholesaler, would be the best of all worlds. Putting individuals and organizations in a position to play to their strengths is always a good idea.


FWIW, I applied for membership into AMDA about six months ago. I sent in my application along with my $50 membership fee. So far I have recieved a nice cardboard certificate and a window decal. That's it. No phone call, no emails, I have no real clue as to what is going on with this organization, other than the fact that I now own a $50 piece of cardboard.

Why AMDA is insistent on a second net fund, while ignoring the practices and activities of it's members, or the general non-member independent shops it's was set up to affect in the first place is still somewhat fuzzy to me.

Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed the meeting, MACNA itself, and being able to finally put faces with names.

 

[jamesw]

I wasn't there for the whole thing. I was at an AAOLM meeting so I missed Mike's presentation :-(

My impression is that all the significant parties that usually post here were at the town hall meeting save perhaps a couple.

The parties were very civil and respectful of one another and everyone got to say what they wanted to say.

If everyone can keep that up NOW and in this forum, I think we can get a lot accomplished.

Sincerely,
James Wiseman

 

[dizzy]

AMDA as an organization of US marine dealers, is much more equipped to police and regulate the independent LFS's in the country. If the "AMDA Member" sticker actually meant something, that would be a start.

It seems to me that both are completely different groups with FWIW, I applied for membership into AMDA about six months ago. I sent in my application along with my $50 membership fee. So far I have recieved a nice cardboard certificate and a window decal. That's it. No phone call, no emails, I have no real clue as to what is going on with this organization, other than the fact that I now own a $50 piece of cardboard.

Why AMDA is insistent on a second net fund, while ignoring the practices and activities of it's members, or the general non-member independent shops it's was set up to affect in the first place is still somewhat fuzzy to me.

Rover,
The first thing I'd like to say is that was nice meeting you. I sent you an e-mail welcoming you to AMDA after Liz sent me your information. If you expected more I'm sorry. I'm a retailer not a cop. I don't want to be a cop. If I did I would have pursued a career in law enforcement instead of a career in the pet industry. Just how do you propose that a small organization such as ours goes around the country spying on the membership with our limited funds? If you have the money to pay for your own travel, and you want the job, you welcome to it as far as I'm concerned.

The purpose of the second net fund is to help provide barrier netting that has been missing from the field. Even David Vosseler seemed to feel that this could done without conflicting with the MAC goals. The amount of money required to buy the netting is not all that great. If you don't want the fisherfolk to have the proper barrier netting then don't donate to the fund. If you want your $50 back I will be willing to personally send it to you. I don't really think the organization needs members that complain in public instead of taking it up with the BOD first. IMO this should have been a last resort and not your first choice.

The problem with AMDA is that some of the members want AMDA to become a rubber stamp for MAC and others don't. IMO if that's all AMDA is going to be then what is the purpose of even continuing as an organization.
Mitch Gibbs

 

[mkirda]

The purpose of the second net fund is to help provide barrier netting that has been missing from the field. Even David Vosseler seemed to feel that this could done without conflicting with the MAC goals. The amount of money required to buy the netting is not all that great. If you don't want the fisherfolk to have the proper barrier netting then don't donate to the fund. If you want your $50 back I will be willing to personally send it to you. I don't really think the organization needs members that complain in public instead of taking it up with the BOD first. IMO this should have been a last resort and not your first choice.

The problem with AMDA is that some of the members want AMDA to become a rubber stamp for MAC and others don't. IMO if that's all AMDA is going to be then what is the purpose of even continuing as an organization.

Hey Mitch and all.

{cringe} This is not the place for AMDA members to discuss things that should best be discussed internally. I was in the AMDA board meeting in order to show the slides, but the discussion was so heated that it never occurred. I had literally nothing to contribute, as I am not an AMDA member so it was not my place. What was said is private and it will not be made public by myself. That people have differing ideas of what the organization should do and where it should focus its energies is about all I can say...

What I said about AMDA were things that were discussed openly in the town hall meeting.

A quick comparison of netting material, both the display net at the MAC booth and the proper netting from Taiwan, would reveal the major differences between the two. The Chinese netting at the MAC booth was weak, with a rather light pressure tearing a hole in the netting material. The Taiwanese stuff was much, much stronger- I tried exerting quite a bit more pressure than I used with the Chinese stuff, but that couldn't make a hole in it. I'm sure I could have done it, but suffice it to say that it would require considerably more force. The material quality is far superior.

I had also purchased two samples of netting from Memphis Net and Twine.
Neither was as fine a mesh as the Taiwanese stuff. It will also make a very nice barrier net, but only for some larger species. Since many (most?) of the fish are smaller, the netting may be unsuitable for them. For larger tangs, etc., it should be fine... Both of those samples were passed around for people to see and feel and get aquainted with.

David of MAC expressed a genuine thanks to everyone who helped in getting the hand netting material over. He acknowledged that having the proper barrier netting there would be a real help. I am hoping that AMDA will continue to support and promote the fund, and that some bundles can be purchased and sent over.

If it fails, I did not get the sense from David that MAC would step in, take up the slack, and make sure that it got done. If not AMDA, I'm left wondering whom else would take the lead... Maybe I'm wrong??? {shrug}

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Anonymous]

I did not mean any offense whatsoever. I enjoyed the meeting, and got a little better picture of how things work (in both groups) during it. Maybe I am somewhat confused as to the goals of AMDA. After talking with several people at MACNA, I am a little bit clearer on their goals, so now my attention turns from an organization I might consider joining to one I have already joined. It wasn't intended as a complaint, but to illustrate that poor organization and poor communication run in both camps. Which is something that should be kept in mind whilst one is "constructively criticising" the other. I suppose that I did expect to find a little more involvement with an organization that has over 50 members listed on the web site. I did send a few emails out to the group but never really got much of a repsonse other than a confirmation that I had joined. I haven't seen any other communication or traffic through there that I am aware of. And no, I don't want my money back, as I wish to remain a member.

I'm a retailer not a cop. I don't want to be a cop. If I did I would have pursued a career in law enforcement instead of a career in the pet industry. Just how do you propose that a small organization such as ours goes around the country spying on the membership with our limited funds?

No one expects you to be a cop, you have a shop to run. But if there is no regulation or follow-up what is the point of joining in the first place? And no one expects any one to go "spying" but it seems like some type of feedback system would be crucial. I think I would rather have a $500 sticker that meant something, than a $50 one that meant nothing.

The purpose of the second net fund is to help provide barrier netting that has been missing from the field. Even David Vosseler seemed to feel that this could done without conflicting with the MAC goals. The amount of money required to buy the netting is not all that great. If you don't want the fisherfolk to have the proper barrier netting then don't donate to the fund.

I don't have a problem with AMDA donating nets. But as was brought up at the meeting, it seems like it should be a sidebar or committee type thing rather than the entirety of what AMDA is currently.

I don't really think the organization needs members that complain in public instead of taking it up with the BOD first. IMO this should have been a last resort and not your first choice.

It wasn't intended so much as a complaint, than as a comparison contrast between the two organizations. As an honest opinion, if it weren't for this board, and the opportunity to meet both you and Steve, as well as others in the organization, it would seem to me that all this organization needed was retailers willing to pay $50. Take it as constructive criticism, because I know that most retailers don't neccessarily read this board. How do they know about the net fund? If I had known that my comments would have ellicited the type of response you gave, I would have sent an email first. MAC appears to be free game here so maybe it may have been a stretch to assume that AMDA could be discussed with the same candor.

The problem with AMDA is that some of the members want AMDA to become a rubber stamp for MAC and others don't. IMO if that's all AMDA is going to be then what is the purpose of even continuing as an organization.

I agree. I certainly don't want to see MAC swallow AMDA. I think having two industry organizations infinitely better than having one. But I also think it important that each organization have clearly defined, clearly communicated goals.

From the AMDA website:

Our goals

Establish a network of retail stores who conduct business by AMDA Standards of Practice;

Raise public awareness of the industry¹s role in marine conservation;

Provide up-to-date information on proper animal husbandry;

Ensure the health and quality of marinelife through responsible handling and husbandry practices;

Encourage responsible husbandry through education and training;

Support supply of captive bred marine organisms as an alternate source of marinelife for aquariums.


As a member of AMDA, I am unclear as to how the organization is achieving these goals.

 

[Anonymous]

FWIW: I was not present at the AMDA BOD meeting. I was tied up in another conversation, wasn't sure what time or in what room it took place. If all of my questions would have been answered in the meeting then I apologize. I don't think I'm asking any questions that are too difficult. And I have never been a big fan of keeping things in closed rooms.

 

[liquid]

You know what would be neat would be to writeup a summary of the open town discussion and publish it in AAOLM. Dunno if Terry'd be interested or not, but it would be interesting none the less.

Shane

 

[jamesw]

FWIW, I don't believe that AMDA actually "certifies" stores. To become an AMDA member, you have to agree to abide by their principles, and pay your membership fee.

There is no enforcement of the AMDA principles - and that is where a lot of the frustration comes from I think.

What MAC is doing is actually CERTIFYING (sp?) retailers. To me, that means that the MAC certification is more "legit" because they actually send someone to the store to inspect it.

The bottom line folks:

There can be no certification without enforcement. Without inspections and enforcement, any "stamp of approval" means nothing.

I had a long talk w/ the ex-AMDA president about this last year. I suggested that we at reefs.org put together a "mystery shopper" program where members would do clandestine "audits" of their local shops. But that was decided against for a number of reasons. Liability was one. The fact that auditors should be trained professionals was another.

In any case, I know this topic is drifting off. Sorry. Now let's get back to discussing the town hall meeting and perhaps open another thread for this stuff.

Cheers
James

 

[MaryHM]

David of MAC expressed a genuine thanks to everyone who helped in getting the hand netting material over. He acknowledged that having the proper barrier netting there would be a real help. I am hoping that AMDA will continue to support and promote the fund, and that some bundles can be purchased and sent over.

If it fails, I did not get the sense from David that MAC would step in, take up the slack, and make sure that it got done. If not AMDA, I'm left wondering whom else would take the lead... Maybe I'm wrong???

I have had an idea in place about how to get funding for the barrier netting. However, there was no way I was going to step on AMDA's toes to do it. If AMDA is going to cease their fund, someone please let me know so I can pursue my other option. Or, with AMDA's permission, I would be willing to go ahead and do it even if AMDA continues their fund. They would be completely separate however. It's AMDA's fund, so it's their call. Let me know.

 

[clarionreef]

Mary,
There are those in AMDA that want to abandon the field concerns and forget the very reason AMDA was formed. Ethical sustainable collecting practices are the first step...the very first step in producing fish for an industry that we can be prouder of.
If retailers want a 'chamber of commerce' type organization to just pursue business advantages they can do that. There have been a number of such organizations.
If you recall, not to long ago...this industry was scrambling for an eco-defense, an image make-over, a doctrine to defend itself against shut-down boogiemen and the USCRTF. In that atmosphere, I was elected.
If the membership wants to abandon the mission to search for a sustainable future...the mission that John Tullock wrote in the genesis of AMDA then they give the industry less defense against the loonies and the BARBARIANS AT THE GATES.
We will have a poll and see if the members still have the stomach for the good fight. If the coral reefs are saved and secured, Thats great news.
Steve Robinson, AMDA

 

[clarionreef]

At the end I said...
"if the coral reefs are secured and saved thats good news."..I ment to say it differently ie...
If you think that the coral reefs are already secured and saved and that we can all go back to business as usual and aggressive selling with a clear conscience...then thats ridiculous.
This trade can do a lot better...

'Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
Margaret Meade

 

[Anonymous]

Rover, 1st off, I didn't win the tank for your friend, as a matter of fact, I didn't win anything other then the expereince of meeting you'all. It was great to put faces to pixels, if only Neasco woulda went . Sure would've liked to meet him, honestly, not being sarcastic.

Sorry Mike, I have one more thing to say off topic then I'll get back on topic, er :? uh, actually I think this is on topic.

Why AMDA is insistent on a second net fund

I thought that one was pretty clear. One fund supplied 2+ miles of hand netting, and the other it for "missing" barrier netting. With out barrier nets, hand nets are of little good.


I wrote a much better response, but I just got in a few hours ago from my days travel beck from MACNA, and in all my hazyness, I deleted it trying to cut and paste. Arrg. To top it off, the TSA (transportation securtiy administration) searched my bag after skycap and I'm now missing a can of cyclop-eeze (thanks A&M Aquatics for the samples, good show, to bad some screener has it now!!).

 

[Anonymous]

I understand. And I have no problem with the fund in and of itself. And I would probably donate if I knew when and where to send it. I was just surprised to find out that currently AMDA is the Net Fund, and the Net Fund is AMDA. I guess I was mistaken as to what AMDA was.

 

[dizzy]

I feel we owe the readers a little clearer picture of what really happened at the meetings. The AMDA goal prior to the meeting was to use MACNA XV as the official kickoff to the net fund drive. For the record I want to make it clear that AMDA had met just prior to this MACNA and everyone appeared to be on board with the plan. At the AMDA meeting Steve had samples of the hand netting that had been previously sent over by Mike Kirda, AMDA, and finally Mary's fund. He also had samples of the barrier netting that was still needed. Steve never got to make any proposals. From the start the net fund was attacked by a former AMDA president (not Randy G) and also by the current Vice President. Neither of the two had contacted anyone on the board that I know of to express concerns about AMDA's direction. This was an ambush, plain and simple.

The reasons for the ambush are pretty clear if one knows a little about the behind scenes events that are going on. There is a Filipino NGO called EASI that is working to train the fishers to use nets instead of cyanide. Some of the people involved in EASI are former MAC associates including Ferdie Cruz. IMO MAC feels that any effort to train the fishers that doesn't go directly through them is viewed as competetion. If net caught fish are made available from other sources, then the MAC fish will look less attractive. Dave V. made the legitimate point that these other net fish could not be proven to be cyanide free. I feel the reason for the ambush was that the MAC-backers who led it are trying to win the hearts and favor of the MAC brass. This blind loyalty exhibited by some is disturbing to behold. When they bought in to the MAC concept they appear to have lost all ability to question anything MAC does. If this is what MAC expects out of the MAC certified dealers they are wasting their time trying to recruit people like me into the fold. I think MAC has a lot to offer to the industry and to the island people of the tropics, but they will never get to the promise land if they continue to surrond themselves with yes men. I believe the constructive criticism that MAC receives from this forum, as painful as it may be at times, is infintely more valuable than the incessant boot licking.

There is no doubt that MAC has a much better long term plan for keeping the fishers from backsliding. Nets and net training alone are not the answer to the problems. The problem is that it takes a very long time to implement the types of needed solutions that MAC is working on. CAMPs and MPAs that are not done properly may not yield the same positive results that they are intended for. What is needed is a quick solution to get as many fishers off cyanide as possible while some of the good programs MAC is working on have time to be developed. I believe that putting the proper nets in the hands of previously trained divers is the right first step. I find it incredulous that anyone who wants a better industry would try to sabotage this effort. Training more fishers to use nets is the second important step that should be done ASAP.

After reading the wonderful postings by Jessica it is very obvious to me that MAC is trying to set itself up as an all powerful monopoly. (Actually Jessica just confirmed what I already knew from my perspective.) Perhaps we just need one NGO just like we only needed one telephone company for so long. AMDA has some internal issues to deal with, but it is my hope that the net fund will go forward and that the MAC will realize that the end of cyanide use to catch our tropical marine fish needs to "happen sooner rather than later". If MAC is successful in their worthy goals we can have a bright future in which the catch from some of the depleted areas in the Philippines will become "more rather than less."
Mitch Gibbs

 

[JT]

There are those in AMDA that want to abandon the field concerns and forget the very reason AMDA was formed. Ethical sustainable collecting practices are the first step...the very first step in producing fish for an industry that we can be prouder of.

Umm, not really.

I talk with at least 20 different retailers a day, some AMDA members and some not. Here is what I see when I talk with them:

They applaud the work AMDA is doing with the nets in the field. However, the members see only this being done.. nothing else. While this is a worthwhile endeavor there is more that needs to be done on the domestic side as well. AMDA can be a "chamber of commerce" for retailers in the US and still fight reform battles over seas. If not, I urge the BOD to rewrite their mission statement and goals.

At the town hall meeting, Burton kept stressing that training the villagers to use nets is the major step in reducing mortality through the chain of custody. But, how is AMDA going to work out the infrastructure logistical issues in PI and Indonesia once they are all caught using nets? It's been mentioned by several people that net caught fish in PI can still have high mortality because of how long it takes to get fish to market.

The current BOD needs to realize that AMDA as a whole has been getting a bad rap for a number of years for not accomplishing goals and not demonstrating value to being a member of AMDA. Naturally, AMDA is now being held to higher standards.

 

[Nancy Swart]

That people have differing ideas of what the organization should do and where it should focus its energies is about all I can say...

If AMDA's own BOD can't agree on what their goals and mission should be then please tell me why they deserve our continued support and donations?

All I heard this weekend when asking how the meetings went was that AMDA's sole purpose this year has been the Net Fund. Other topics are even forbidden to be raised at BOD meetings and elsewhere.

This is not meant as criticism but relaying the perception of the general public toward AMDA. MASNA has faced similar problems in the past. This normally means it's time for new blood on the BOD with progressive, diverse ideas with a person at the helm receptive to these ideas.

Nancy

 

[clarionreef]

Hello Nancy,
So nice to finally meet you at MACNA. I wish you could have come over to the Reform roundtable discussion and seen it for yourself. Perhaps you were busy with more important matters.
I sure don't relate to what you've been told but we have open, informal board meetings and anyones agenda can be heard and proposed at any time.
Often I have called for people to submit their ideas or even bring them up at the last minute if they want. At the MACNA BOD meeting, the agenda was not even able to go forth because it was commandeered and diverted by a band of two or three people. As is our usual style, we tolerate any and all discussion and the monopolization of the agenda was proof but once again of that.
The notion of forbidding topics, any topics is a blatant lie and only serves to define the person telling it to you. Instead of spreading innuendo and lies however, you might want to talk to some more of our board members before giving credibility to this nonsense. If you bothered to show up at any of the meetings, you would have seen for yourself what the truth was.
We vote on agenda items and determine policy in this fashion.

Sincerely, Steve

 

[dizzy]

All I heard this weekend when asking how the meetings went was that AMDA's sole purpose this year has been the Net Fund. Other topics are even forbidden to be raised at BOD meetings and elsewhere.
Nancy

Nancy the above statement is totally erroneous. The one thing we don't do for sure is to forbid topics to be discussed. Who in the hell told you that? :?

 

[Nancy Swart]

Steve & Mitch,

If what I was hearing is totally untrue then I'm glad I brought it up here and gave you the opportunity to set us all straight.

I apologize for not being able to attend the Industry Meeting. I had really intended to and wanted to be there. However, my non-hobbyist better half had other plans and we got back to the hotel too late.

Nancy