MAC Funding

[mkirda]

Mike, I think you're getting a little worked up over nothing.

Am I? Ya'll accuse MAC of fraud, then point out that A and B were funding MAC (and the fraud). It is called guilt by association, and looks like a witch hunt. Ya'll don't have to criticize them directly, and it will be inferred by the readers. If I was in organization A or B, I wouldn't fund ya'll or ya'll's little pet reform project. (God, this sounds dorky now that I edit it for clarity's sake...)

I am not at all a paranoid person, Mary, but this thread does little to help further anything, other than prove Steve's point that so much money was spent and so little concrete accomplished, at least from this side of the Pacific...

I work in academia, where we deal with grants all the time.
I am very aware how political it all is. Everyone here needs to be
very very careful how they tread, IMO.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[mkirda]

Mike,
Our own industry has a number of money pots and kingpins that could easily finance reform if they wanted to make more than the minimum contribution. Frankly, I'd rather see reform financed in -house with the aid of some major manufacturers and dealers.

Are they going to be able to cough up everything needed, Steve?
Personally, I don't think so. You want to really solve the problem, you need ten times the small amount Mitch quoted, and I do not see that being funded entirely from within, Steve.

Personally, I think you need to go for the big enchilada, Steve.
2000 collectors minimum.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[MaryHM]

So basically, if someone else had pointed out the names "Packard" and "MacArthur" you wouldn't have a problem?? Sounds like the same old "it's not the message it's the messenger" crap I've been getting.

I have never accused MAC of mismanaging their funds. I have accused them of saying fish are drug free without having a CDT in place and saying fish come from well-managed reefs when in actually there is no resource assessment in place. (And no one has proven me wrong yet on those two points. Why is that exactly?? No one wants me to say the F word, but they can't give me a reason why I shouldn't...) MAC has basically two funding agencies, Mike. I don't think that by posting these numbers I have just crushed any hope of reform funding in the future. That is being a tad "worked up" in my opinion.

If all this thread does is prove Steve's point, then YAHOO!! People keep telling him to not make accusations without any proof to back them up (apparently his involvement in said organizations over the years isn't proof enough).

PS- Mike Kirda, you know you're the wind beneath my wings. Don't take any of this personally!

 

[MaryHM]

Personally, I think you need to go for the big enchilada, Steve.
2000 collectors minimum.

Oh man, I'm disagreeing with Mike twice in one day. What has the world come to??

I think Steve needs to start small and work his way up to bigger things rather than jumping into trying to save the world with one fell swoop. Going for the "big enchilada" was one of MAC's biggest mistakes. They tried to do everything at once instead of doing one thing really well and building from there. And look where it's got them. Steve, go train 1000. Come back and tell of your success. Get more funding and go train another 1000. That's the way to do it. Baby steps. The cyanide trade wasn't created in a day and it won't be fixed in one either.

 

[mkirda]

Baby steps.

Not when going to the Packard or Pew. Go for it all, then scale back if required to.

And don't worry, I don't get offended easily...

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Len]

Mary,
I didn't mean to imply there is something wrong with questioning the finances of tax funded organizations. That's a matter of public record and is everyone's right. My concern is how some have posted anything but constructive suggestions that makes this thread look like a witch hunt to outside readers. I'm confident it's not your intention, but intentions can be often misinterpreted.

Since I'm chugging along on, I'd like to suggest that people concentrate more on what should/can be done instead of what shouldn't/can't be done. If you gleen over all the posts, you may find that there are more negative criticisms posted then there are positive suggestions for industry reform. Again, speaking as an outsider, this seems illogical .... excessive energy spent to deride and divide when we're all after the same goal (presumably).

JMO

 

[MaryHM]

You can't really post a "constructive suggestion" about financials. The numbers are what they are.

The things that need to be done are in this forum. They've been written over and over and over. It's when problems are ignored and the ideas given here or anywhere else never seem to get implemented that people turn bitter and negative.

 

[Anonymous]

And remember...don't shoot the messenger.



Peace,

Chip

 

[clarionreef]

Funding has been found many times.
Its not lost, its is right there with groups that to have to use it or lose it.
The missing formula has been to earn the funding...not just find it.
Mathematically, a number of millions have been raised on the basis of this issue by a number of groups that we in this issue had little to do with.
Earning it and showing quick and serious results from it make can make it easy to replicate. Failing at it makes it difficult...and thats why many have pointed out how difficult it is to find funding.
If the right group ever gets enough to begin, the results will be seen around the world and the funding problem will be over. We should do such good eco-socio development work that we can select from our sources.
I'm glad that after so much time, the point is accepted ie. how much has been spent for the production of so little in real terms. The production of paper theory and non implementable game plans was not worth all that money.
It could have been much better spent.
I can wait to show how.
Sincerely, Steve

 

[Len]

You can't really post a "constructive suggestion" about financials. The numbers are what they are.

Yup. It's some of the "post-commentaries" that people find questionable. Again Mary, it's not you per se.

The things that need to be done are in this forum. They've been written over and over and over. It's when problems are ignored and the ideas given here or anywhere else never seem to get implemented that people turn bitter and negative.

Honestly, I haven't seen very much ideas floating around in a while. They might have been there months ago, but this forum is impossible to search (due to ithe inherent nature of its discussion) and I don't have the time to read each post thread by thread. Perhaps refreshing our memories isn't such a bad idea Hard to ignore what you don't know exists

BTW, we all know how difficult reform is on a large scale. Bitterness and negativity, while natural consequences of failed attempts, serve no positive purpose IME/IMO.

 

[MaryHM]

Frankly, I don't have the energy to go back and pull out all of the suggestions from billions of posts over the past year and a half. There are some that have been made just recently in the "letter" thread. One thing to understand is that criticism doesn't necessarily equal bitterness and negatively. Sometimes criticism is just what it is...criticism. And bringing the problems and issues to light- whether it be industry or organizational ones- does serve a purpose. Even without the "constructive followup commentary" that everyone around here expects.

 

[mkirda]

So basically, if someone else had pointed out the names "Packard" and "MacArthur" you wouldn't have a problem?? Sounds like the same old "it's not the message it's the messenger" crap I've been getting.

Mary,

I actually was using the word 'you' in a collective sense. Funny thing about English grammar, we make fun of people when they say ya'll, but there is no other way to get the point across explicitly. 'You' can mean you individually singled out, or you as a group of people, and it has to be inferred from the context of the discussion... Other languages grammar usually have this plural 'you' construction as part of their language...

So, it is not all about you, but all about ya'll...

Thus ends the grammar lesson of the day.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[JennM]

Down here, "y'all" refers to one.

The plurals are either "all y'all" or "you'uns".

"You" is only spoken by foreigners and Yankees :lol: (I'm a foreigner, not a Yankee... )

Southernspeak 101 (I'm learning!)

Jenn <-- totally goofing off today and not getting much done....

 

[Len]

Jenn <-- totally goofing off today and not getting much done....

You too, eh? (Canadian speak 101)

 

[MaryHM]

I actually was using the word 'you' in a collective sense.

Well, let's see. I was the one who originally used the F word about MAC and I was the one who posted the funding agencies. So there really was no other possible way for me to interpret it.

 

[mkirda]

So there really was no other possible way for me to interpret it.

Go re-read it now after being edited... And maybe all Jenn's suggested 'all' before each of the "ya'll"'s...

Cripes, I speak Canadian now too, eh?

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[JennM]

Well now, y'all, all y'all and you'uns is Georgiaspeak (and I daresay other Southern environs...)

I speak English, French, Canadian and American


Jenn

 

[dizzy]

Well now, y'all, all y'all and you'uns is Georgiaspeak (and I daresay other Southern environs...)I speak English, French, Canadian and American
Jenn

Jenn when we want to be more formal we say "you all" instead of "all oh y'all" You still have a lot to learn.

 

[clarionreef]

Oi,
I was waltzing down memory lane and caught the thread that made Nancy Stewart of the Chicago Marine Aquarium Society famous.[ telling us about the GUIDESTAR SERVICE to track public records about funding our favorite charities]
I wonder how the updates on this stuff will look now that the last few years have been added to the tallies.
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Swart, Steve. The most recent year on file is FY 2003, last time I checked.