Is MAC fraudulent?

[John_Brandt]

Dare I say the word again...FRAUD???

Mary,

You shouldn't use the word fraud. Fraud implies that there is intent to defraud. MAC has no intentions to defraud, nor are its policies or standards fraudulent. With all due respects, there are much better and more accurate words that you could choose to express your sentiments.

John Brandt

MASNA
MAC
CMAS-Chicago

 

[MaryHM]

Here's why I consider the use of the word "FRAUD" perfectly acceptable:

Quote from the MAC website directed at hobbyists:

MAC Certification allows you to identify marine ornamentals that have been collected, handled and cared for according to the only international standards for ensuring healthy, high quality animals that will live longer.

You have undoubtedly experienced the frustration of purchasing marine animals that do not manage to survive under your best care. At the same time, you have heard about the use of cyanide to capture fish as well as the improper handling and transport conditions that often stress fish, such as inadequate facilities, poor water quality, insufficient water changes, overcrowding, etc. Putting two and two together, you may wonder if your fish inexplicably die because of cyanide collection, unacceptable stress or both.

The frustration is often accompanied by a sense of helplessness. You want to do the right thing, you want to buy marine ornamentals from a reputable source that only deals in “clean” fish and quality practices—but how do you tell the difference from among all the suppliers out their and all their claims?

The MAC Certification Label now provides a simple, clear way to find those marine ornamentals that are based on standards for quality and health … from reef to retail. You can now use the hard-earned money you pay out for marine life to ensure the marine aquarium industry operates according to the internationally approved MAC Standards. By choosing to buy from responsible industry operators who provide healthy, high quality marine ornamentals from well-managed coral reefs, you can help transform the industry and secure the future of your hobby.

The average hobbyist reading this is going to assume that:
1. The MAC Certification label means cyanide free fish.
2. The MAC Certification label means animals were collected from well-managed coral reefs

NEITHER OF THESE STATEMENTS ARE TRUE. There is currently no cyanide test in place and a collection area can be certified without a resource assessment being done. How can I use a word other than fraud to describe this situation?? Do you have a better word? How about LIE? Maybe MAC prefers that one.

MAC should define what they mean when they say "certification". In the above passage, do they mean MAC Certified facilities or MAC certified animals?? They are two completely different things. A MAC Certified facility doesn't even have to have any MAC certified fish. Or they can sell both certified and uncertified fish. Seems like MAC should clear this up so there is no misunderstanding on the part of the hobbyist. For example, if a hobbyist reads the above statement, walks into a lfs and see "MAC Certified Retailer" on the door, I guarantee you they are going to assume that every fish in there is MAC certified- making them assume that all of the fish are cyanide free and collected from well-managed reefs. MAC is doing or saying nothing to prevent these assumptions. In fact, it seems like they are encouraging them. Sorry, but that sounds like fraud to me- or a lie- whichever MAC prefers. If it's not fraudulent or lying, then would someone please explain exactly what it is?? Maybe it's just a misunderstanding. In that case, I will assume that MAC will immediately reword their website to make the proper clarifications.

Do I seem unusually pissed off about all of this stuff lately? Damn right. I am sick and tired of rehashing the same issues over and over and over and never getting any straight answers to anything. MAC continues to stumble along claiming that the program is a lot more complicated than they originally thought. BULL. Elwyn Segrest and I talked to them about many of these problems until we were blue in the face and their response was that no one else seemed to think there was a problem. Of course it was only later that they admitted that no one else was even speaking out about the issues. Apparently silence by the masses overrules concerned input from a couple of people.

I import for a living. I handle thousands of animals every week. This is a big deal to me. Industry reform was a passion of mine before I ever heard about MAC. It's not a game to me. I have no agenda other than demanding honesty and true industry reform. I don't win by bashing MAC. I don't win if MAC disappears. I win if industry reform actually happens. Not some pseudo-reform, but TRUE reform. And that, my friends, depends more on attitude than paperwork being shuffled around in a third world country. I was on MAC's side at one point- supporting them blindly. Then I opened my eyes and slowly came to the realization that a disservice was being done by MAC and I wasn't going to play along like everyone else. Selling out my soul for a pretty validation sticker is not my style. Maybe they will eventually turn this train around before they crash. If so, then I'll jump on board. But frankly, in the past year and few months since I resigned from the MAC board, I haven't seen one thing to make me have any hope in them. Actually, I've seen more things that support my original decision to leave.

 

[mkirda]

With all due respects, there are much better and more accurate words that you could choose to express your sentiments.

Hmm...

fraud

n 1: intentional deception resulting in injury to another person 2: a person who makes deceitful pretenses [syn: imposter, impostor, pretender, fake, faker, sham, pseudo, pseud, role player] 3: deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage [syn: fraudulence, dupery, hoax, put-on]

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

fraud n.

1. A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
2. A piece of trickery; a trick.
3.
1. One that defrauds; a cheat.
2. One who assumes a false pose; an impostor.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Synonyms: artifice, bamboozlement, bamboozling, blackmail, cheat, chicane, chicanery, con, craft, deceit, double-dealing, dupery, duping, duplicity, extortion, fake, fast one, fast shuffle, flimflam, fourberie, fraudulence, graft, guile, hanky-panky, hoax, hocus-pocus, hoodwinking, hustle, imposture, line, misrepresentation, racket, scam, sell, shakedown, sham, sharp practice, skunk, smoke, song, spuriousness, sting, string, swindle, swindling, treachery, trickery, vanilla
Concept: lawlessness
Source: Roget's Interactive Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.0)
Copyright © 2003 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

Here's a whole bunch to choose from, Mary.

Personally, I like the last one... Vanilla. {grin}

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[JennM]

It's amazing -- I achieved the same goals at my little tiny retail level, without the benefit of a certification, MBA, PhD, endless statistics, a sticker or other top-heavy, suit-wearing, statistic quoting EXPENSE -- I simply hand-picked a very few suppliers who can fill my needs, and who think the same way I do, and who also deal with like-minded people, clean livestock and careful handling from the ocean to my customers' tanks. I implemented some major changes in recent months, since reading this forum and others, and opening my eyes to the boondoggle that regularly happens in this industry - what we are TOLD and what is REALITY are often two entirely different things. Once the rose coloured glasses came off, I began to change my buying habits, and as a result, I've seen superior quality, negligable mortality, significantly less disease (wasn't bad to begin with - now it's better still), and all by myself and the network of people along the chain of custody who believe in themselves, and what they do, and who believe that a job worth doing is worth doing right and well. Right now I've got a healthier and larger selection of fish, corals and inverts, than I have ever had.

Gee, could it be that reform has to happen from within? Rather than wait for some group to make us feel good about it all, should we as members of the trade, take it upon ourselves to fix the problems that we can fix? No I can't stop the buyer in PI or Indo from coercing his collector to buy his Cyanide - but I can opt not to buy that operation's fish. Instead I can choose the ones that are known to be net-caught, and when market pressure forces change, change will happen. Simple economics - supply and demand. Stop demanding the juiced animals, people will stop juicing them. Start demanding clean and healthy and well handled animals, people will start supplying them.

No PhD, MBA or BMF can make it happen unless WE make it happen, MAC or no MAC, or any other feel-good, warm and fuzzy group. Money talks and B. S. walks -- people in the industry simply need to let their dollars do the talking and reform will continue. Educate hobbyists and teach them to demand quality, retailers, demand quality and care from your wholesalers - wholesalers and importers, quit buying crap - yes it's perhaps a bit overly simplistic, but until the market is forced to change, it won't. No certification or sticker or group or greenwash will ever do this. We must.

Jenn

 

[clarionreef]

Mike,
Vanilla?
I myself prefer and have used "Bamboozled" a few times. Ever since reading the biography of Malcolm X in college, I've been impressed with the term. Then when Denzel Washington let loose with a stream of synonyms for the deed in the Movie, capped by "bamboozled", I was sold.
Its kind of a tropical sounding term I think, and fits the subject matter.
Steve

 

[PeterIMA]

My email sent last November called the MAC a "Fraud". It still looks that way to me.

Peter Rubec

 

[mkirda]

Mike,
Vanilla?

Yeah, I know... I didn't get that one either...

I myself prefer and have used "Bamboozled" a few times. Ever since reading the biography of Malcolm X in college, I've been impressed with the term. Then when Denzel Washington let loose with a stream of synonyms for the deed in the Movie, capped by "bamboozled", I was sold.
Its kind of a tropical sounding term I think, and fits the subject matter.
Steve

Better than 'snow job' I guess. If you want to stay with the tropical theme, that is...

I'm not convinced it is fraud. It might be better explained by lack of focus... Or just by plain ol' general cluelessness...

E.G. The posting of the articles in the end of the MAC newsletter- Especially these two:

"Aquarium Fish Gets 'Warranty,'" by Linda B. Bolido, Philippine Daily Inquirer, 11 March 2003.

"Meanwhile: Collecting a clownfish without harm to coral," by Paul Spencer Sochaczewski, International Tribune Herald, 11 Feb. 2003.

How does MAC look good promoting their net-caught fish as 3-6 times more expensive than cyanide caught ones? And the International Tribune Herald article... I don't know what more I can say about it. The figures are fabrications, high by a order of magnitude. It sounds like a MAC spin piece, not something done by an objective journalist. Again, why promote an article when the figures are bogus? Or bogue, bum, bunk, dummy, fake, forgery, fraud, junk, pseudo, put-on, or a complete sham? (Choose your word, Mary.)

MAC promoting these two pieces of trash smacks of cluelessness, not fraud...

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[JennM]

You forgot hooey, horse-hockey, and a few others :rofl:

Jenn

 

[clarionreef]

Is semantics the problem?
Let us say for arguments sake that many people in a certain country like to eat whale meat. I DON'T and I think it is a bad thing to do. No matter how much the rest of society thinks its not so bad.
Hold on they say. You should be patient as we "phase in" the prohibition of whale meat.
Being narrow minded and firmly convinced that killing whales is wrong...I refuse and get more upset at the ones trying to make it OK to continue killing them albiet in reduced numbers, year by year.
NO COMPROMISE IN THE KILLING OF THE WHALES! "Say I, hyperbolic as usual. You're just not a team player, they say.
Believe it or not. There are those of us who see killing coral reef to collect fish with poison as something that is very, very bad and proof of our industry's smug and selfish nature. We find that an industry has arisen to spin the trades indescretions into gold, and that they are near equally to blame.
No whale meat, no cyanide and no bamboozling is acceptable to Mary nor is it to me. If we get one more member we can form an alliance.
Any one?
Now its the year 2003 and finally, we may have come to some agreements to employ solutions to the problem...ie. a national Philippine village training program administered by CORL to convert 1,000 cyanide fisherman in one year. This together w/ the already existing netcaught fisherman may attain the mass required to break the back of the cyanide trade.
But it is not by consensus of the business types that this will be solved. Indeed, they have slowed it down as much as irresponsibly possible.The reefs are not theirs nor do they belong " tourist type environmentalists" to play with much longer.
Net training and handling programs have been possible for 20 years now. Its just that enough people may have finally relized it was there all along AND THE TIME HAS COME.
Pardon some of us for being right the first time.
Sincerely, Steve Robinson

 

[Kalkbreath]

Is semantics the problem?
Let us say for arguments sake that many people in a certain country like to eat whale meat. I DON'T and I think it is a bad thing to do. No matter how much the rest of society thinks its not so bad.
Hold on they say. You should be patient as we "phase in" the prohibition of whale meat.
Being narrow minded and firmly convinced that killing whales is wrong...I refuse and get more upset at the ones trying to make it OK to continue killing them albiet in reduced numbers, year by year.
NO COMPROMISE IN THE KILLING OF THE WHALES! "Say I, hyperbolic as usual. You're just not a team player, they say.
Believe it or not. There are those of us who see killing coral reef to collect fish with poison as something that is very, very bad and proof of our industry's smug and selfish nature. We find that an industry has arisen to spin the trades indescretions into gold, and that they are near equally to blame.
No whale meat, no cyanide and no bamboozling is acceptable to Mary nor is it to me. If we get one more member we can form an alliance.
Any one?
Now its the year 2003 and finally, we may have come to some agreements to employ solutions to the problem...ie. a national Philippine village training program administered by CORL to convert 1,000 cyanide fisherman in one year. This together w/ the already existing netcaught fisherman may attain the mass required to break the back of the cyanide trade.
But it is not by consensus of the business types that this will be solved. Indeed, they have slowed it down as much as irresponsibly possible.The reefs are not theirs nor do they belong " tourist type environmentalists" to play with much longer.
Net training and handling programs have been possible for 20 years now. Its just that enough people may have finally relized it was there all along AND THE TIME HAS COME.
Pardon some of us for being right the first time.
Sincerely, Steve Robinson

Since you used "Save the Whales" as a comparison................Did you know that only an estimated ten {ten}whales were "poached" by illegal whale hunters last year.........millions of dollars were spent on patroling the worlds Oceans with the hope to "save the whales".................BUT during that same one year time span, about eight thousand {8,000} Known whale beachings occurred around the world...........? Most of the time the thought does NOT count..........If mankind is not going to eliminate the reasons why whales beach themselves and die ........What is the big deal with eating some of them?..............If the worlds reefs are going to die .........{and every report says they will} .lets save the coral and collect them? If this hobby removed every coral from the Maldives before the bleachings { which killed every last one for hundreds of square miles} The result would have been thousands of live corals in hobby tanks, because we did not collect these corals and save them................all those corals are dead...? Saving the whales involves much more then feel good approaches and catch phrases..........Do you think a beached whale really cares if you eat it?
_________________
Mercedes Benz 280

 

[clarionreef]

Dear Kalk,
"huh"?
Since all we are is dust in the wind eventually, then nothing matters?
Steve
PS. Whats next on the "OK to kill" it list? Bambis mother?

 

[mkirda]

Dear Kalk,
"huh"?

Don't argue with him, Steve.
I think he's a mole for the Japanese whaling industry...
Probably drives an SUV and has a 'Nuke the whales' bumpersticker too.

BTW, Whale meat is oily and not very tasty. Frankly, I can't understand why it is considered a delicacy. When in Osaka, ...

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

Like always .........you did not have the guts to answer the question .........."Do you think a dying whale that has beached itself ,cares if you eat it? .................If given the choice......If a pack of whales could speak, do you think they would choose to remain free from harm {by mankind's hunting} ? or to be in prime health???? Or better yet if you asked a whale ......what he or she would rather have you spend you time doing , to be looking over its back to protect him or be doing every thing possible to keep them from being so sick ,that it would rather DIE .then live another day? ................Last question; if a dying whale ...on its way to beach itself in the sun is intercepted by an asian whaling ship..........Does the whale feel a sense of relief as it is chopped to death........for going the week out of the water upon the sand in the hot sun} moaning?..............." Save the whales" means one thing to us humans and a totally different meaning to the whales. Much like "save the reefs"
_________________
Honda CBR125R

 

[JennM]

8O Holy crap, Kalk! Did the pharmacy forget to send you more Lithium?

Really, do you really believe this stuff you post, Kalk, or do you just troll? You remind me very much of my kids -- bust one for hitting the other, and the one will say, "but she did...." Nobody likes to own their own bad stuff, it's much easier to blame somebody else. "The hobby trade didn't kill the reefs (much), the food fishing did it more..." Two wrongs never add up to a right.

Kalk, if you are so sure that the hobby trade doesn't do significant damage, and that food fishing does all or most of the damage, why aren't you out there crusading for the cessation of cyanide use and blast fishing in the food fishing industry????? Why waste your time here, arguing with us, the "great unwashed" since you're so much more informed than we? Why not wave your banner at the food fishing industry and try to make a change there? Since (part of) your livelihood depends on the marine aquarium trade, why aren't you doing anything to IMPROVE it - since you don't think it's in danger of being shut down - but there is ALWAYS room for improvment in anything?! WHY SETTLE FOR MEDIOCRITY?

I can't commune with the whales like Kalk can, so I'm not going to presume what they would think - except that when a pod beaches, it's usually to either help one of their own that is already stuck or it's a navigational error - or so what's what I've learned from Animal Planet...but I'm not a marine mammal specialist, and I don't play one on TV...

And the bit about all the corals in the Maldives that *might* be alive today had they been harvested before the bleaching -- well, my crystal ball is in the shop right now, but could that have made a justifiable argument for ravaging a reef, "just in case"? And if you've ever noticed -- once a coral is harvested - it doesn't come back. Neither do the fish (or at least they shouldn't but that's a whole other post on a whole other subject..), so arguing that clearcutting the reef would have saved it is illogical to say the least. Again - go wave your banner in front of the menace that YOU see as real, and let us try to fix the hobby trade from within. Your lacadaisical attitude is more of an impediment to the ethical pursuit of a clean trade, than a help.

To answer the question, Is MAC Fraudulant...

In my opinion, as far as "certification" stands right now, I would have to say, YES. It is attempting to sell an incomplete bill of goods to the consumer - after all the consumer is the one who needs to be sold on MAC or it's all for nothing anyway, right? The casual consumer who doesn't ask questions will see that certificate or sticker or whatever and ASS/U/ME that all those high standards are in place and strictly monitored and maintained -- and right now MAC has no infrastucture in place to determine whether or not people all down the chain of custody are being honest. Lack of CDT aside, who's to say that somewhere along the chain, a "MAC" fish dies, and isn't replaced with a non-MAC fish?? Let's see -- decertify the whole batch, or toss one in -- "nobody will know" and for those who say it will catch up in the paperwork -- UMMM NO IT WON'T because even if it's hard to fudge MAC paperwork (and I'm not convinced of that...), the non-MAC stuff has no rigid audit trail, so where will any "proof" come from? That's just one more flaw in the system.

Why didn't MAC use "pilot certifications" (and tout them as such), AFTER certain safeguards were in place, to verify the steps along the chain of custody? Why are they already selling MAC as THE answer to all the industry's problems?

I too, thought initially that MAC was a good idea, that certifiied fish would give me confidence in buying, as a retailer, but the more I learn about what is NOT happening, the more it looks like a sham. I have no doubt that the intentions are good - the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, but unless there is ACCOUNTABILITY, it makes certification nothing more than a pricey sticker, and a false advertisement.

Again - true reform will only happen with the simple laws of economics - each individual in the hobby or the trade has the power to make changes by using their money. Economic pressure will force change. I'm already seeing it happen. The small suppliers I support are already increasing their selection and availability, and collectors and exporters who were previously unknown to me, and not widely known, such as Marivi Laurel, are already seeing increased demand for their superior catch - the suppliers I've left behind because of questionable quality are all calling me to ask why I left and why won't I come back? Two have each called me TWICE this week alone! I've told them why. I get much better quality and a lot less mortality and much more personal service with the suppliers I am dealing with now. I'm not their biggest buyer, nor will I ever be, BUT if all the little mom and pop shops (or at least more of them) put the same message out there, those wholesalers might have to take a look at how they are doing business and make necessary adjustments. I learned this in 8th grade Economics class -- The Law of Supply and Demand. When the buyer demands it, the supplier will supply it - but we have to take off the blinders and see things as they really are and insist on change. Lip service doesn't cut it. Lies don't cut it. Half-truths don't cut it.

Steve, I'll be #3 and join the alliance! We'll call it the ABC - Anti-Bamboozling Coalition!

Jenn

 

[mkirda]

Since you used "Save the Whales" as a comparison................Did you know that only an estimated ten {ten}whales were "poached" by illegal whale hunters last year.........millions of dollars were spent on patroling the worlds Oceans with the hope to "save the whales".................BUT during that same one year time span, about eight thousand {8,000} Known whale beachings occurred around the world...........?

Ok, since you said I did not have the guts to answer the questions, here are my answers.

No, I did not know this. You have sources for all of these figures?

Most of the time the thought does NOT count..........If mankind is not going to eliminate the reasons why whales beach themselves and die ........What is the big deal with eating some of them?

Name one post where I said it was a big deal.

..............If the worlds reefs are going to die .........{and every report says they will} .lets save the coral and collect them?

Where are your statistics proving that corals survive so well in our tanks, Kalk? If you could prove to me that 80 to 90% of all those collected would survive in our tanks long-term, then you might have a leg to stand on. At this point, your assumption (that all coral collected would survive) is one of the shakiest assumptions you've made so far...

If this hobby removed every coral from the Maldives before the bleachings { which killed every last one for hundreds of square miles} The result would have been thousands of live corals in hobby tanks, because we did not collect these corals and save them................all those corals are dead...?

Hmmm... Why not attack the actual problem instead of providing a goofy-a** solution? Wouldn't that be better?

Saving the whales involves much more then feel good approaches and catch phrases..........Do you think a beached whale really cares if you eat it?

I don't know that a whale thinks in the same way that you or I do.
All a beached whale would be thinking about is survival. All any animal does is think about its survival, Kalk. As such, if it was even cognizant of such a notion of being eatten versus other choices (such as, not being eatten), I'm sure being hauled onto a boat and chopped up while still alive would be pretty low on its list of fun things to do.

You could debate lots of things, Kalk, along these lines...
Should zoo meat be made available to people if the animal dies?
If a whale beaches itself, should we just end its life and sell the carcass to the Norwegians?
Should we use medical data gathered by the doctors in the Nazi death camps?

The problem here is, not a single bit of these are ON-TOPIC.

Steve used an analogy, and you latched onto the topic of the analogy rather than the topic at hand. Par for the course for you.

I would suggest that these topics are better suited for The Sump.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[clarionreef]

Thanks,
It was an analogy to illustrate the difference in people driven by passion in contrast to those driven by economic determinism and the compromises inherent in that philosophy of life.
As I try hard every day to understand that banal, slow motion mind set, the thought occurred to me to try and explain to them the mind set of their opposition. Being ridiculed for ones passion for things non economic has always bothered me.
Our problem in the Asian fish trade is possible to fix...for many years it has been possible to fix. It can be fixed quickly or it can be slowed down, watered down, muddied, time tabled, bureaucratized, phased in and packaged like a program that can be milked for many years.
So, the notion I wanted to put forth is this:
People of passion who know how to fix this thing vs. people devoid of passion who do not know how to fix it but want to phase it in slowly and get paid over a long time ...to give it a half-assed attempt.
Why not let the competent people of passion do their thing. ..but don't expect them to pretend ignorance, incompetence and think in slow motion.
OK Kalk, your turn,
...Turtle meat .. forget the "passion engendered by the save the whale analogy. ." Many people love sea turtles and want to save them. Such people would have a hard time accepting that 40 year old turtles must keep dying in alarming numbers so that solutions can be slowly developed by non turtle oriented groups.
. Asking these people to accept losing tutles while we slowly try to "educate" turtle killers and consumers [w/ a SLOW, well funded and off base program] " would not wash with them.
Not everything has the luxury of time to eventually get it right. Some solutions can be fast tracked if allowed to. These are the kind I mean and that will be publicly proposed shortly, before the IMAC conference in Chicago.
Steve , AMDA & CORL
now...Kalk, you may tell us of the super abundance of sea turtles, turtle beachings and how "save the turtle" sentiment is so off base...
Or has Rush Limbaugh not held forth against sea turtle yet to give inspiration?

 

[MaryHM]

Been out of town since Thursday evening- had to go pick up a very nifty RK2 skimmer. I feel like a real wholesaler now!!

Since John is the MAC rep and originally chastised me about using the word fraud, I would really like to see a response about the "indiscrepancies" I pointed out in my original post. Was it all just one big misunderstanding? Is MAC going to change their website to reflect the truth and insure no one is fooled into believing certified fish are something they aren't? Are they going to detail out the differences between certified animals and certified facilities??

 

[John_Brandt]

Been out of town since Thursday evening- had to go pick up a very nifty RK2 skimmer. I feel like a real wholesaler now!!

Since John is the MAC rep and originally chastised me about using the word fraud, I would really like to see a response about the "indiscrepancies" I pointed out in my original post. Was it all just one big misunderstanding? Is MAC going to change their website to reflect the truth and insure no one is fooled into believing certified fish are something they aren't? Are they going to detail out the differences between certified animals and certified facilities??

Mary and all,

MAC does not have, nor has it ever had, any intention to defraud anyone.

Poorly-worded, incomplete, out-of-date, or possibly misleading language and documents does not necessarily constitute fraud. Fraud requires intent to defraud, and that is entirely lacking with all of your accusations. If you switched your terminology to the accusation of misleading or vague, you would gain credibility with respect to your criticisms.

MAC has no interest in being misleading. Suggestions, as you have made, to improve the clarity and meaningfulness of MAC language and documents are always welcome. But when the suggestion is accompanied by the accusation of fraud, one wonders if the accuser has some axe to grind.

The following is taken from a MAC document titled "How to Find MAC Certified Organisms":

* Look for retail shops with the MAC Certified label in the window and then within the shop look for the tank(s) that are also labeled “Marine Aquarium Council Certified.”

* MAC Certified retailers may carry both MAC Certified organisms and those that are not MAC Certified. Only those tanks carrying the MAC Certified label contain MAC Certified organisms.

* Some retailers may have a MAC Certificate of Registration posted in their shop but do not have a MAC Certified label in their window. This means the facilities have been certified to handle organisms in a manner consistent with the MAC Standards but they have not yet had access to MAC Certified marine ornamentals from MAC Certified suppliers. When the retailer starts to provide MAC Certified marine ornamentals from a MAC Certified supplier they will be able to use the MAC Certified labels to identify the certified organisms.

This document can be found on the MAC website here: http://macweb.inets.com/subpage.asp?page=126&section=2

Another MAC document worth looking closely at is the "Information for Marine Aquarium Hobbyists" booklet. This booklet is provided for the aquarium industry and hobby to distribute, and it is located on the MAC website here: http://macweb.inets.com/docs/1/pdf/Hobbyist_Booklet.pdf

Efforts to improve the language found in other MAC documents are ongoing.

John Brandt

MASNA
MAC
CMAS-Chicago

 

[clarionreef]

Dear John,
I accept and understand the legal particulars and qualifiers that you have patiently illuminated with regards to labeling practice.
In other words , there is no shop in America with MAC certified fish labels on any tanks other than some chelmons, mandarins, tierra bats and panther groupers?
Clearly this three year old movement is in its infancy and is struggling to attain its first one percent MAC certified fish market level.
To reach a second percent and beyond, it appears to me that more sites need to be trained or completed, right?
It will be a lot easier to train those sites if there is a training team, a training program and cooperation and alliances with others who may be able to exceed one percent quicker than the past 3 year record.
The only sincere defense of the present situation is that "Its a start" ...and other efforts will be fast tracked. Thats the road to progress.
Sincerely, Steve Robinson, AMDA pres.

PS. You understand that public perception, being what it is, may already read into the situation that more than just a few fish are actually certified and the facilities and fish certifications are the same. False ads have already been run on this.

 

[MaryHM]

John,

You can argue the use of the specific word "fraud" all you want. I really could care less about semantics or the mindset of marine mammals. What I do care about is what MAC is actually doing- no matter what you want to call it. I see that you commented on the facility vs. animals scenario. Kudos to MAC for having that difference explained somewhere. However, I see that as far less important than the "MAC animals are cyanide free and from well managed reefs" issue. Care to comment on that one? How can MAC make these claims? Even for the so called certified animals?? Do you see this as misleading?