MAC Cyanide Detection Testing

[Anonymous]

I find James point of view refreshing. Thanks for having the courage to challenge some frequently stated views!

 

[MaryHM]

You're right Lee. The fact that MAC allows MAC certified facilities to contine to carry cyanide caught fish because MAC refused to get a supply of certified fish online is refreshing...refreshing to the company who can claim they are MAC certified yet continue business as usual. Oh wait, I guess it's not business as usual, because now they have three MAC certified species to add to their stocklists. :roll:

 

[jamesw]

Mary,

I'm not asking you to sell cyanide caught fish. Since you already sell 100% net caught fish, why can't you get certified?

If I understand this correctly, you need to get an 3rd party inspector to go inspect your collection area and your export facility. That would cover "MAC certified fish."

Then get another inspector to certify your import facility - that would make you a MAC certified wholesaler.

Then how could you complain that you don't have enough supply of MAC certified fish??? You already have a good supply of SOMETHING coming into your facility or you would be out of business.

Cheers
James

 

[Anonymous]

Of course there are net caught fish. EXTREMELY FREAKING LIMITED AMOUNTS COMING FROM ONLY TWO NET CAUGHT ONLY EXPORTERS.

According to the data I saw in some of Peter's papers there are a lot more fish coming from the P.I. that are cyanide free (or below test detection limits) than what you are representing. My recollection is that more than 50% of the fish contained nothing above detection limits. I realize that cyanide free doesn't necessarily equate to net caught, but the numbers compel me to believe that there are a lot more net caught fish out there than are represented.

This in no way detracts from the huge problem cyanide poses, but it does have a direct bearing on the possible number of fish that are already out there for certification.

 

[dizzy]

I thought certified fish had to come from areas that had approved CAMPs in place and not just be net caught.

 

[jamesw]

I'm sure Ed Lovell or someone at USP could certify the collection areas as CAMPS. They are certainly qualified.

Cheers
James

 

[mkirda]

According to the data I saw in some of Peter's papers there are a lot more fish coming from the P.I. that are cyanide free (or below test detection limits) than what you are representing. My recollection is that more than 50% of the fish contained nothing above detection limits. I realize that cyanide free doesn't necessarily equate to net caught, but the numbers compel me to believe that there are a lot more net caught fish out there than are represented.

Lee,

Talk to Peter sometime about the test, so you can understand where and how it is useful.

1) The test as implemented set an arbitrarily high number as a lower limit. Cyanide below this level was considered a 'pass'. Depending on the person you speak with, holding a fish for 48 hours will allow it to 'pass'. Note that others dispute this claim. AFAIK, no real scientific tests have been done to show how quickly the cyanide dissipates. Peter would probably know more on this than I...
2) Fish submitted for testing were predominately fish which were not cyanide targets to begin with. Meaning there would be an extremely low chance for it to have been cyanide hit to begin with...
3) Tests were not random. Net-caught collectors told me that they sold fish occasionally to known cyanide vendors, and that it was understood that those fish were to be submitted to BFAR for testing.

A 'pass' does not mean that the fish was not juiced. Nor does it imply random sampling. The test as was implemented was easily circumventible, Lee, and everyone knew this and used this to their advantage.

Implemented correctly, the CDT is an effective tool and a great deterrent.
Implemented incorrectly, the CDT just gives you a false sense of security, sort of like installing an anti-virus program on your machine, then never updating the DAT files...

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[MaryHM]

If I understand this correctly, you need to get an 3rd party inspector to go inspect your collection area and your export facility. That would cover "MAC certified fish."

Do you understand how the Philippines works? I don't have "my" collection area and "my" export facility. That comment was just dumb. Collection areas sell to lots of exporters, and few (if any) export facilities control a collection area. Now, if you mean Fiji, well the statement is still off. We aren't bringing any livestock out of Fiji. And it's not MY collection station or collection areas over there. They are the Fijians. Esaroma Ledua (our guy in Fiji) was the head of MAC South Pacific. You tell me why he doesn't give a darn about certifying his facility...

James, I realize that you are not in the industry and you can't possibly understand the way everything works. But I would hope that you have learned a little bit about the way it functions by reading this forum. My supply of net caught fish is coming from the Philippines. I don't give a darn whether they have a MAC sticker on them or not. I know what they are and I don't need MAC's stamp of approval (the same stamp that companies who mix fish can get).

Back in the day, when I was planning on getting certified, I told MAC that I would never carry MAC certified fish. And here's why. As the standards read with the mortality issue, it is in an importer's best interest to get fish in and out asap. In Sunday night, out Monday morning before any die on you and you have to deal with a paperwork certified/non-certified/re-certified nightmare. I am different than other wholesalers in that I don't do this. My fish get at least one full days rest, and depending on the species/country of origin up to four. I am more interested in shipping out strong, healthy, well rested fish than I am getting them in and out to make sure they remain certified. So even if I supported MAC 100%, I still wouldn't carry MAC certified fish.

 

[MaryHM]

I'm sure Ed Lovell or someone at USP could certify the collection areas as CAMPS

Certification can only be done by independent, third party official certifying companies. Read: Those who know nothing about the industry or the reefs.

 

[jamesw]

I'm talking about your fiji stuff Mary - so I don't think I was being dumb. Let's try to keep a positive tone in this thread.

Cheers
James

 

[mkirda]

I'm sure Ed Lovell or someone at USP could certify the collection areas as CAMPS. They are certainly qualified.

Cheers
James

James,

No offense, but methinks you do not understand the MAC certification process for the collection areas. Read the Standards and Best Practices on the web site, then the revisions called 'Interpretations'... Only about 10 pages of actual standards, with about 100-120 pages definitions and such...
I would encorage everyone here to read them.
Very, very enlightening documents.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[jamesw]

Certification can only be done by independent, third party official certifying companies. Read: Those who know nothing about the industry or the reefs.

Reefcheck is one of the accredited certifiers. Are you saying they don't know anything about the reefs????

Cheers
James

 

[jamesw]

My fish get at least one full days rest, and depending on the species/country of origin up to four. I am more interested in shipping out strong, healthy, well rested fish than I am getting them in and out to make sure they remain certified.

I think it's great that your fish get rest before you ship them out. But why would that prevent your fish from getting and staying MAC certified? Is it because too many of them will get sick or die before they get shipped out so they would lose certification?

Cheers
James

 

[MaryHM]

If you were talking about the Philippines, then it would have been a dumb comment. Just calling a spade a spade. And please, don't talk to me about positive after you're "loonie" statement yesterday.

ReefCheck cannot certify a collection area. They are not a certifying agency. Here are the certifying agencies:

http://www.aquariumcouncil.org/subpage.asp?page=125

Please do your research and save us all some time and frustration.

 

[mkirda]

Reefcheck is one of the accredited certifiers.

Really?

They are not listed by MAC as being one...

http://www.aquariumcouncil.org/subpage.asp?page=125

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[jamesw]

Reefcheck is one of the NGO's who is qualified and has done the surveys for some of the CAMPs. I'm talking about management plans.

What you two are referring to are the 3rd party certifiers - and yes, you would also need one of them to inspect your facilities. I said that in a previous thread - so no - I am not wrong.

And Mary - the "loonie comment" was not made directly at you.

Cheers
James

 

[MaryHM]

But why would that prevent your fish from getting and staying MAC certified? Is it because too many of them will get sick or die before they get shipped out so they would lose certification?

The way MAC has their mortality standards set up (you should go and read them sometime) means that if I lose a small number of fish my batch would become uncertified. And then I would have to hold them for several days to have them be recertified. Therefore, it's in a company's best interest to get them in and out before they lose any to prevent the batch from becoming uncertified. On the other hand, I like to observe my fish. I like to see that they are eating. But the longer I hold them, the better the chances are that some are going to die on me. Fish in a wholesale system are under a great deal of stress from shipping. It is best to let them rest. I absorb the mortalities, but the fish that live (the vast majority of them, but not always enough to meet MAC's guidelines) are stronger for it. I prefer healthy, well rested fish that are eating over MAC's certified fish any day.

 

[clarionreef]

James, Lee,
Mike Kirda laid it out quite patiently and accurately in the last post...eliminating ignorance as an excuse for your continued arguments for us to "sell out".
People who do not suffer the moral lapses required to buy cyanide caught clown triggerfish babies...[ being peddled everywhere now ] should be supported for the stand. Another season will pass and thousands of these triggers will serve as indicators of what little truth, progress and sincerity there has been in real life.
Since every certified dealer in the stable now carries them, it does not lend much lustre or credibility to being one of them.
Certified dealers carrying...knowingly carrying cyanide fish. Now theres a group I don't want to join.
If mixing, cloaking and whitewashing this issue is going to carry the day for MAC then I think I'd rather be "bonafide" than 'certified' .
The real test of integrity and commitment to the environment will be found in fishes NOT CARRIED by a dealer. If Mary and I [ how bout you Kyle?] are going to be the only dealers in America not carrying baby clown triggers is it because of our desire to cash in or what?
Not lowering our standards to behave like a MAC dealer is a lonely, principaled thing to do. Maybe we can lead better by example then by selling out as they have done. Pushing higher standards while at the same time supporting the cyanide trade is pretty hypocritical and aids and abets the worst of our industrys bad practices.
Sincerely, Steve
PS. Guys, MAC really wants to train in more areas...they just don't know how. They are not in the trade and do not understand it well. That could be adressed if you would behave more as a go between and a broker between sides rather then as ineffective apologists for failures of their million dollars budgets to convert fisherman.

 

[MaryHM]

Reefcheck is one of the accredited certifiers.

That is your statement James. And yes, it is WRONG. The certifying agencies don't just certify facilities, but collection areas as well.

Whether or not the loonie comment was directed at me doesn't matter. The fact is that you want to chide me for not being positive when you are guilty of the same tactics.

 

[jamesw]

I will rephrase, Reefcheck is one of the NGO's that performed the surveys. You can call it whatever you want to - but their surveys were used and will continue to be used to write management plans.

To say they don't know what they are talking about or know anything about the reefs (or even the industry) is wrong.

Cheers
James