Is MAC fraudulent?
- Thread starter John_Brandt
- Start date
A net caught fish should be able to fetch a premium, and it will with some of the more educated hobbyists...however the point is that most hobbyists aren't educated and don't care about anything other than "how much is it" and "does it match the furniture in my living room" 
The cheapest fish wins- this is how business works in this industry.
The cheapest fish wins- this is how business works in this industry.Sorry about my Canadian accent and sarcasm. I meant that for the most part (the greater part at that), hobbyists will ignore quality in search of the cheapest fish available. I have seen postings on other BB's that people stated that they don't care that a fish is cyanide caught as long as it is cheap. Some wholesalers/LFS will charge a premium for MAC fish (beacuse that's how business works) but price is the driving factor for a great number of purchases. That's why I said people will ignore the MAC stickers.
Klen, I believe you run a store in Vancouver that is MAC Certied? Can you provide any perspective on what percentage of the fishes you have received from MAC Certifie exporters in the Philippines are MAC Certified? Please explain your experiences concerning MAC Certification.
Peter Rubec
Peter Rubec
That was a good "certified Angus" steak with my beer that strictly followed the Bavarian purity law (it was on the label) :wink: .
Peter to answer your questions;
1. Percentage of MAC fish.
Currently we are seeing about 2% of all our Philippine imports as MAC certified. Mortality is hovering about 1% DOA with no discernable difference in MAC fish versus non-MAC fish. The fish from Marivi are of high quality to begin with so I'm not concerned if it certified.
2. Our experience
The certification process was pretty painless for us as most of the standards were already being followed. Being a small company, we had to make minor changes and basically write down our day to day procedures.
We went into this with eyes wide open and expectations low. We agree with the goal but how to get there is where we encounter the great divide. We have witnessed the destruction of our east coast cod fishery and the ongoing collapse of our west coast salmon fishery. I can see the marine ornamental trade doing the exact same thing. Changes are necessary before we aren't afforded the opportunity to do them on our own.
Peter to answer your questions;
1. Percentage of MAC fish.
Currently we are seeing about 2% of all our Philippine imports as MAC certified. Mortality is hovering about 1% DOA with no discernable difference in MAC fish versus non-MAC fish. The fish from Marivi are of high quality to begin with so I'm not concerned if it certified.
2. Our experience
The certification process was pretty painless for us as most of the standards were already being followed. Being a small company, we had to make minor changes and basically write down our day to day procedures.
We went into this with eyes wide open and expectations low. We agree with the goal but how to get there is where we encounter the great divide. We have witnessed the destruction of our east coast cod fishery and the ongoing collapse of our west coast salmon fishery. I can see the marine ornamental trade doing the exact same thing. Changes are necessary before we aren't afforded the opportunity to do them on our own.
For MAC fish to be certified, it has to pass from a certified collection area and MAC certified collectors to MAC certified facilities all through the chain.
Since until very recently, only one collection area was certified, supply was very limited. Even though Marivi sells net caught fish not all (very few) fish are certified. She can sell both MAC certified fish and non-certified fish. As stated, about 2% of my fish from Marivi are MAC certified. The other 98% are not certified with no difference in DOA or overall quality.
Import DOA from other suppliers ran about 5% overall. I will also state that my prices haven't budged since becoming certified or switching to AH. I haven't forced the MAC issue on my customers and I try to the best of my ability to explain all aspects of MAC, both good and bad. My loyal customers aren't too concerned as long as they keep getting quality product.
Since until very recently, only one collection area was certified, supply was very limited. Even though Marivi sells net caught fish not all (very few) fish are certified. She can sell both MAC certified fish and non-certified fish. As stated, about 2% of my fish from Marivi are MAC certified. The other 98% are not certified with no difference in DOA or overall quality.
Import DOA from other suppliers ran about 5% overall. I will also state that my prices haven't budged since becoming certified or switching to AH. I haven't forced the MAC issue on my customers and I try to the best of my ability to explain all aspects of MAC, both good and bad. My loyal customers aren't too concerned as long as they keep getting quality product.
Kylen,
I assume you're saying the species problem will go away with MAC?? Two of the species we've had problems with from Marivi are- you guessed it- mandarin gobies and copperband butterflies- the MAC certified fish. Of course, there are others too. Green Chromis and firefish (which are always net caught). None of the angels, tangs, or triggers though. Those things are bullet proof!
I assume you're saying the species problem will go away with MAC?? Two of the species we've had problems with from Marivi are- you guessed it- mandarin gobies and copperband butterflies- the MAC certified fish. Of course, there are others too. Green Chromis and firefish (which are always net caught). None of the angels, tangs, or triggers though. Those things are bullet proof!
Kylen, Just to clarify for those reading this list. Marivi is by my judgement able to supply almost 100% net-caught fish, because she is buying her fish from collectors in sites like Palauig, Busuanga, Bagac and other sites where Ferdinand Cruz has trained ornamental fish collectors while associated either with the MAC or with IMA. So, comparing the mortality of aquarium fishes from MAC Certified sites (Batasan and Clarin) with the mortality from of these non-certified sites is not a comparison between net-caught and cyanide-caught fish.
My question to the MAC is still why have they not certified these other sites? Don't tell me it is because of bad weather. Pricing is still an issue. But, there are other issues like screening in some MAC Certified facilities (not Aquarium Habitat). If the MAC wants to certify these sites, they need to address the complaints of the collectors (especially Roger Hernandez). As stated previously, the collectors are forming an Association to ensure they are fairly dealt with. Right now they are being dealt wth fairly by Marivi Laurel of Aquarium Habitat and by two other companies that are not part of the Philippine Tropical Fish Exporters Association (PFTEA).
The ideal solution is that the MAC should support the companies that treat collectors fairly, that also meet the MAC Holding, Husbandry and Transort (HHT) standards. Another requirement is that the export company only deals in net-caught fish. The MAC's biggest mistake from my point of view is that the other MAC Certified companies are not 100% net-caught. If they are (as one of the two claims), they have not proven how their non-Certified fish are caught. Without a cyanide test and/or without the MAC Chain-of-Custody (paper trail) there is no way to verify claims by companies that their fish are net-caught.
The only way is to call every importer and get reports on their level of satisfaction with the fish and determine their DOA and DAA. However, I don't see that this as the long-term solution.
The long-term solution is for the MAC to tie MAC certification to both a Chain of Custody and to Cyanide Testing by an independent group. The exporters must be 100% net-caught to become certified. I don't agree with the MAC's strategy to allow exporters to gradually phase in net-caught fish (become Certified and later increase their proportion of net-caught fish). This last approach (phasing in net-caught fish) is not acceptable to reformists like myself and Ferdinand Cruz. The concerns of the non-certified net-collectors also must also be resolved quickly, if the MAC is to survive by "doing it right".
Peter Rubec
My question to the MAC is still why have they not certified these other sites? Don't tell me it is because of bad weather. Pricing is still an issue. But, there are other issues like screening in some MAC Certified facilities (not Aquarium Habitat). If the MAC wants to certify these sites, they need to address the complaints of the collectors (especially Roger Hernandez). As stated previously, the collectors are forming an Association to ensure they are fairly dealt with. Right now they are being dealt wth fairly by Marivi Laurel of Aquarium Habitat and by two other companies that are not part of the Philippine Tropical Fish Exporters Association (PFTEA).
The ideal solution is that the MAC should support the companies that treat collectors fairly, that also meet the MAC Holding, Husbandry and Transort (HHT) standards. Another requirement is that the export company only deals in net-caught fish. The MAC's biggest mistake from my point of view is that the other MAC Certified companies are not 100% net-caught. If they are (as one of the two claims), they have not proven how their non-Certified fish are caught. Without a cyanide test and/or without the MAC Chain-of-Custody (paper trail) there is no way to verify claims by companies that their fish are net-caught.
The only way is to call every importer and get reports on their level of satisfaction with the fish and determine their DOA and DAA. However, I don't see that this as the long-term solution.
The long-term solution is for the MAC to tie MAC certification to both a Chain of Custody and to Cyanide Testing by an independent group. The exporters must be 100% net-caught to become certified. I don't agree with the MAC's strategy to allow exporters to gradually phase in net-caught fish (become Certified and later increase their proportion of net-caught fish). This last approach (phasing in net-caught fish) is not acceptable to reformists like myself and Ferdinand Cruz. The concerns of the non-certified net-collectors also must also be resolved quickly, if the MAC is to survive by "doing it right".
Peter Rubec
Sorry Mary...It's getting late and one too many beer (certified mind you). I meant that MAC won't fix the species specific DOA's. I haven't seen the problems with copperbands or mandarin but with firefish, green chromis, and diadema dotties.
Peter, my comparison as far as DOA's for MAC and non-MAC were for fish from Marivi.
Peter, my comparison as far as DOA's for MAC and non-MAC were for fish from Marivi.
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
Gee whiz,
If most of the netcaught fish are not certified,
and yet these fish are still bonafide,
Whats the problem?
If the achievement has advanced beyond the capacity to recognize it, register it and take credit for it...wonderful.
Isn't change for the better and sustainable practice the main thing?
Certification of fishes, done right could be a tool for positive results..or if done wrong become a liscense to mix fish with cyanide stock and serve as a get out of jail free card for the guilty. It is also becoming a advertising device for anyone buying a mandarin goby; a fish never, ever caught with cyanide anyway.
Its a double edged sword and completely vulnerable to the manipulation of people.
Good deeds and achievements are their own rewards, wether they get tagged, labeled or certified by an industry in need of cleansing.
If the choice were between netcaught, uncertified fish or certified fish mixed in with cyanide fish...I'll just take the honest, unheralded fish.
Taking years to phase in legal, ethical livestock to suit the sensibilities of the cyanide trade taints the certification process from the outset and makes it difficult to endorse except for tactical reasons of self interest. This tolerance of the cyanide trade proceeds in ignorance of the crisis on the reefs, legal questions and the potential to train thousands of divers in a short period of time. Why such tolerance for the trades greatest shame? How does turning such a blind eye to the Manila and Indo cartels ruination of the hobby somehow become noble and wise?
" All netcaught" efforts are hurt by this preference for the worst of marinelife dealers over the more ethical ones.
Things will change, but not on a timetable written years ago by out of touch people.
Sincerely, Steve
.
If most of the netcaught fish are not certified,
and yet these fish are still bonafide,
Whats the problem?
If the achievement has advanced beyond the capacity to recognize it, register it and take credit for it...wonderful.
Isn't change for the better and sustainable practice the main thing?
Certification of fishes, done right could be a tool for positive results..or if done wrong become a liscense to mix fish with cyanide stock and serve as a get out of jail free card for the guilty. It is also becoming a advertising device for anyone buying a mandarin goby; a fish never, ever caught with cyanide anyway.
Its a double edged sword and completely vulnerable to the manipulation of people.
Good deeds and achievements are their own rewards, wether they get tagged, labeled or certified by an industry in need of cleansing.
If the choice were between netcaught, uncertified fish or certified fish mixed in with cyanide fish...I'll just take the honest, unheralded fish.
Taking years to phase in legal, ethical livestock to suit the sensibilities of the cyanide trade taints the certification process from the outset and makes it difficult to endorse except for tactical reasons of self interest. This tolerance of the cyanide trade proceeds in ignorance of the crisis on the reefs, legal questions and the potential to train thousands of divers in a short period of time. Why such tolerance for the trades greatest shame? How does turning such a blind eye to the Manila and Indo cartels ruination of the hobby somehow become noble and wise?
" All netcaught" efforts are hurt by this preference for the worst of marinelife dealers over the more ethical ones.
Things will change, but not on a timetable written years ago by out of touch people.
Sincerely, Steve
.
cortez marine":u46lrl9y said:
Amen, brother Steve - and that's what's working for me. No bells, no whistles, no stickers or certificates, just QUALITY.
Since I started ordering ALL my fish from those 5 suppliers (two in present company included), my DoA rate has dropped to the "occasional" specimen, and have received several shipments with NO DoA at all. DAA are incidental as well, some individuals just don't enjoy the ride. If a fish becomes ill after arrival, they are treated to the best of my ability in my hospital system, and were pretty good a rehabilitating. Mortalities have gone WAY down.
If nothing else, it's good business sense.
Jenn
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
