List of MAC Certified Fishes

[John_Brandt]

Who knows what's going to happen? You keep talking about my list. When MAC gets around to dealing with unsuitables it will form a committee. My suggestion is that the list always be open to revision.

If you want to talk about my list it's actually divided into A & B. A is hardcore highly unsuitable species or genera. The Chaetodon ornatissimus is the poster child for the A group. B is for questionably unsuitable species or genera that need wide-ranging studies (or surveys) done to determine if they truly are suitable. The Centropyge nox is the poster child for B group.

My group A has less than 25 species on it. Elwyn would love it.

 

[MaryHM]

Category 4 is YOUR concept. Therefore, when I'm talking about it I'm talking about YOUR list. I'm saying that I don't think MAC will support this idea.

I'll give you another challenge, John. Email your list A to Elwyn and get his response. Will you do that, since you're so sure he'll love it?

 

[John_Brandt]

Category 4 is YOUR concept. Therefore, when I'm talking about it I'm talking about YOUR list. I'm saying that I don't think MAC will support this idea.

I'll give you another challenge, John. Email your list A to Elwyn and get his response. Will you do that, since you're so sure he'll love it?

Category 4 is my concept, and I'm proud of it. It's a needed category for fish that die quickly, but there seems to be no specific identifiable reason. A perfect category for a number of species. Regardless, the category is less important than the group I put them in.

My Group A (which is the list you want Elwyn to see) is almost exclusively composed of obligatory feeders (primarily corallivores from Category 3) and it is dominated by the Chaetodons. Does Elwyn Segrest really need to sell MAC Certified Hawaiian cleaner wrasses (Labroides phthirophagus)?

Your idea that an USL needs to be, or even could be, non-subjective is fanciful thinking. The hobbyist with a 10,000 gallon aquarium thinks your Category 1 is subjective.

 

[MaryHM]

Are you going to send the list to Elwyn, John?? If you don't want to, send it to me and I'll send it to him. I won't even tell him who made it if you don't want me to.

Hobbyists with 10000 gallon tanks?? Exactly how many of those exist in the US right now? John, we have got to start dealing in the realm of reality or we're never going to get anywhere.

 

[MaryHM]

Ah, how interesting that you say my Category 1. It's what MAC has listed as one of the categories it's interested in pursuing. In fact, what they put under the USL in the standards is word for word what I sent them in my comments. It was one of the two things I was extremely outspoken about during the standards process.

 

[John_Brandt]

Are you going to send the list to Elwyn, John?? If you don't want to, send it to me and I'll send it to him. I won't even tell him who made it if you don't want me to.

Hobbyists with 10000 gallon tanks?? Exactly how many of those exist in the US right now? John, we have got to start dealing in the realm of reality or we're never going to get anywhere.

Mary,

A universal USL has got to take all factors into account. There is no way to know how many truly large aquariums are owned by hobbyists, many are in commercial settings. If the question specifically concerns MAC Certification, I can tell you that public aquariums are (and will be) interested in MAC Certified fish.

There is no USL that will please everyone.

I'm not going to play your game and send my list to Elwyn. MAC Standards already mention the issue of unsuitables. If Elwyn supports MAC then he likely supports the inclusion of some list. It's a package deal.

Mary, why drag Mr. Segrest into this? He is not here to post his views.

 

[John_Brandt]

Ah, how interesting that you say my Category 1. It's what MAC has listed as one of the categories it's interested in pursuing. In fact, what they put under the USL in the standards is word for word what I sent them in my comments. It was one of the two things I was extremely outspoken about during the standards process.

Mary, is this conversation to be a pee-pee match?

I called it your Category 1, only because you declared Category 4 my category. The categories are created for universal use. I only began calling it my category, when you interjected a sense of proprietarity to the issue. Additionally, I have no problem with the idea that I might have invented a category that was not yet established and was needed.

I don't like the idea of "shoe-horning" fish into a category. If a fish is not an obligatory feeder, yet acclimates to captivity very poorly, it needs its own category. Category 4 fits that bill.

 

[MaryHM]

Hey, you're the one that said Elwyn would love your list. You're right though, he's not here to defend himself. Of course, you were the first one to bring him into the discussion back with the "Does anyone in the industry that is a reformist support MAC?" discussion. Tell ya what, I'll email him and get his views on a list. If he wants to see yours, would you be willing to send it?

 

[John_Brandt]

Hey, you're the one that said Elwyn would love your list. You're right though, he's not here to defend himself. Of course, you were the first one to bring him into the discussion back with the "Does anyone in the industry that is a reformist support MAC?" discussion. Tell ya what, I'll email him and get his views on a list. If he wants to see yours, would you be willing to send it?

I may accomodate your suggestions if your motives are not to squash me like a bug.

 

[MaryHM]

John, I'm getting tired. No, this doesn't have to be a pissing match about my or your list. We weren't talking about the USL in general, but the Category 4 you brought up in specific. The only reason I ever referred to it as YOUR list is because of something YOU said:

I know all about the USL, i've read every word. I developed my own list in 1989. It's nearly identical to any modern list.

You (as have many others) have left out a criteria.

4. Fish who commonly die very prematurely in captivity for no known reasons, and are not generally obligatory feeders.

 

[mkirda]

Jeez, this thread is headed for the sump...

 

[MaryHM]

JOHN! You said Elwyn would love it. If that's true, then the only person that would be "squashed like a bug" would be me. It's not about squashing anyone. It's about owning what you say. Something that is severely lacking in this forum.

 

[John_Brandt]

John, I'm getting tired. No, this doesn't have to be a pissing match about my or your list. We weren't talking about the USL in general, but the Category 4 you brought up in specific. The only reason I ever referred to it as YOUR list is because of something YOU said:

I know all about the USL, i've read every word. I developed my own list in 1989. It's nearly identical to any modern list.

You (as have many others) have left out a criteria.

4. Fish who commonly die very prematurely in captivity for no known reasons, and are not generally obligatory feeders.

Everybody has their own list of fish they know die too quickly in aquariums. Most people keep that list in their head. My 1989 list is a big list of fish that do poorly in captivity. I have made refinements to categorization since then, but the list remains mostly the same. Chaetodon meyeri was a strict coral-eater then, and it is a strict coral-eater now.

 

[mkirda]

What exactly is the big deal about the USL anyway?

If MAC decided to use any given USL, then the extremely limited MAC-certified fish would become even more limited. The collectors could still get them, the exporters could still buy them, then importers could still sell them, and hobbyists could still get them if they wanted. The fish just wouldn't be MAC Certified.

My own thoughts about the USL is that MAC is holding off implementation for a while until more fish species are coming into the pipeline regularly. Then they can stop certifying cleaner wrasses or whatever.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[MaryHM]

To break character and throw a wrench in the works ....

Rob Miller with ERI brought something interesting up at the MAC meeting in LA. The fish they are getting that are larval reared- many of them are those obligate feeders that have been raised on prepared foods.

 

[John_Brandt]

To break character and throw a wrench in the works ....

Rob Miller with ERI brought something interesting up at the MAC meeting in LA. The fish they are getting that are larval reared- many of them are those obligate feeders that have been raised on prepared foods.

Thank you. And that is exactly why any USL needs to be dynamic.

 

[MaryHM]

Of course it has to be dynamic. No one ever said it shouldn't. But the problem is that if MAC creates a list and changes need to be made, how quickly will it happen? MAC doesn't have a great track record of responding to and correcting problems quickly. This is what worries many in the industry. The two main concerns at the LA meeting were the 1% and the USL. Frankly, I think MAC keeps putting off creation of the USL because they know they are going to get a lot of backlash from the industry.

 

[dizzy]

This whole USL begs the question: Will MAC certified wholesalers and retailers be able to sell fish fish that are on the USL as non-MAC certifed? Or will MAC dealers be expected to refrain from offering these fish that do poorly, for sale to the general public?

 

[mkirda]

This whole USL begs the question: Will MAC certified wholesalers and retailers be able to sell fish fish that are on the USL as non-MAC certifed? Or will MAC dealers be expected to refrain from offering these fish that do poorly, for sale to the general public?

If MAC remains hands-off, they will make no effort to stop you from selling non-MAC certified fish, USL listed or not.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[clarionreef]

Mary,
MAC you say keeps putting off the USL issue and the 1% to avoid backlash from the industry?
Among other things put off, ie. training and net supply, it does suggest a lap dog behavior with regards to reform. It suggests of 'going for' what will be accepted and backing off of controvery at all costs.
Thank goodness they are not in charge of protecting old growth forest ie. redwoods in the Northwest. To avoid trouble with the loggers they would back peddle all the way to the beach.
Then again, there is a Forestry Council...and a Marine Stewardship Council! Those two groups are apologists for industrial, commercial interests and protect their clients at all costs... They are not public services, they are extentions of the industry! A part of it and guilty of covering for it. The similarities to even the name M.A.Council are disturbing. Council is a code word for "front group."
IF ONLY the fishermans interests and the reefs had a front group to represent them! ie. The Village Fishermans Council. It would make the equation a lot more fair.
Steve

Steve
PS. VFC whadda ya say?