Knowing that many industry people read this forum ....

[Len]

.... what is the one key advice you have for them? I've been talking to some LA wholesalers and I'm pleasantly surprised how many people read this forum.

I know people who participate here have established and diverse visions of how the Industry should run, so what's your best advice to achieve that vision?

 

[naesco]

.... what is the one key advice you have for them? I've been talking to some LA wholesalers and I'm pleasantly surprised how many people read this forum.

I know people who participate here have established and diverse visions of how the Industry should run, so what's your best advice to achieve that vision?

The one key piece of advice that industry must follow is to immediately source fish, rock, coral and invertibrates from countries other than the Philippines and Indonesia where the use of cyanide is rampant.

It is a matter of months before the US and Canadian governments place a total embargo against the import of marine product from these two countries.

Industry has ignored all calls for reform. As a result, REEForm has decided to enlist the support of the general public in supporting the embargo including those organizations that have worldwide success in achieving needed changes. The damage to the reefs and its inhabitants must stop now.

REEForm

 

[mkirda]

.... what is the one key advice you have for them? I've been talking to some LA wholesalers and I'm pleasantly surprised how many people read this forum.

I know people who participate here have established and diverse visions of how the Industry should run, so what's your best advice to achieve that vision?

My advice would be to invest in some human capital and some barrier netting.

Seriously.

For reform to succeed, there needs to be two things:
1) Capacity
2) Market

Right now, there is not the kind of capacity that they need.
There is maybe one training team in the field. They need to find, train, and fund three more, and keep them going for a year or two. With that, over half the estimated MO fishermen will be trained in net-use.

If the fish coming into the exporters are all net-caught, the issue of cyanide use goes away, doesn't it? And as the trainings continue, cyanide use will continue to drop and drop.

The exporters also need to buy the fish, and really should pay a bit more for them to encourage the net-caught movement. 10% more should be enough. Importers will either absorb it or pass it along. Prices for the consumer should barely rise at all, if the handling issues and DOA/DAA rates fall as have been reported.

Trainings + nets + better handling = better fish.

Everybody wins this way.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Anonymous]

Question is: who pays for all of this? Ultimately, it will be the end purchaser, but who puts up the initial capital to get the whole thing going?

It is difficult to expect hobbyists who have been led to believe cyanide is no longer a problem to understand the importance of such programs. It is also difficult for informed hobbyists to have confidence in the success of yet another reform effort. If this forum does anything it creates a cynical attitude in the readers about reform, both past and present. Also, it is difficult to expect NGO's to give money to capital entities for what is in essence infrastructure building for their businesses.

As far as I'm concerned, Industry needs to lead with education, materials and money to seed reform efforts this time. Industry (present company excluded) has covered up this issue - they need to start the ball rolling. Maybe then others will listen.

-Lee

 

[Jaime Baquero]

There are only two options left.

1)Exporters, importers, wholesalers and retailers should join and work together with the Marine Aquarium Council to make sure that changes are including industry's concerns and needs in an unified effort. Industry must realize that MAC is the ONLY organization with the potential to make substantial changes that will benefit the industry itself. MAC needs stakeholders participation and constructive criticism.

2) The industry will face REEForm.

Jaime

 

[mkirda]

There are only two options left.

Oh, Puleeze...

Jaime, I can think of another one right off the bat.
Neither A nor B.

Or is it inconceivable to you that MAC might fail?

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[naesco]

Jaime I think you set the options out correctly.

The only other possible option is that industry would band together and set out a committment and timeline to the end to the use of cyanide.
The chances of that option happening are remote IMO.

 

[Anonymous]

.... what is the one key advice you have for them? I've been talking to some LA wholesalers and I'm pleasantly surprised how many people read this forum.

I know people who participate here have established and diverse visions of how the Industry should run, so what's your best advice to achieve that vision?

The one key piece of advice that industry must follow is to immediately source fish, rock, coral and invertibrates from countries other than the Philippines and Indonesia where the use of cyanide is rampant.

It is a matter of months before the US and Canadian governments place a total embargo against the import of marine product from these two countries.
Industry has ignored all calls for reform. As a result, REEForm has decided to enlist the support of the general public in supporting the embargo including those organizations that have worldwide success in achieving needed changes. The damage to the reefs and its inhabitants must stop now.

REEForm

a matter of months?

u.s. and canadian gov'ts?

total embargo?


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


and this is from the guy who insisted that the ctd was right around the corner :lol: :roll:

 

[Jaime Baquero]

There are only two options left.

Oh, Puleeze...

Jaime, I can think of another one right off the bat.
Neither A nor B.

Or is it inconceivable to you that MAC might fail?

Regards.
Mike Kirda

Mike,

The problem with the little group that you defend is that, "its leader", is in a situation of " conflict of interest". It can not be considered as a serious alternative, it doesn't represent the industry or a representative % of retailers and importers across the states. That "alternative" is not sincere. I must exclude Mary from this. The other individuals are just thinking about their personal benefit which is not synonymous of reform.

MAC is working on different issues that need to be addressed. They'll get support from different stakeholders (with economic power to turn things around). I see MAC as the ONLY group that can make a difference. Just let them work. I'll do my best to get people from the industry supporting MAC.

Be positive. Do you want MAC to fail?

Jaime

 

[Anonymous]

I think we all want MAC to "succeed". We just aren't sure we agree on what success is.

 

[mkirda]

Mike,

The problem with the little group that you defend is that, "its leader", is in a situation of " conflict of interest". It can not be considered as a serious alternative, it doesn't represent the industry or a representative % of retailers and importers across the states. That "alternative" is not sincere. I must exclude Mary from this. The other individuals are just thinking about their personal benefit which is not synonymous of reform.

You know, Jaime... This innuendo doesn't become you.
"The little group"... Whom exactly are you referring to?
Please name their names, then level the criticism at them directly.

Really, this hint of innuendo at "someone" doing "something" wrong is beneath you...

MAC is working on different issues that need to be addressed. They'll get support from different stakeholders (with economic power to turn things around). I see MAC as the ONLY group that can make a difference. Just let them work. I'll do my best to get people from the industry supporting MAC.

Be positive. Do you want MAC to fail?

Jaime

Do I want MAC to fail?
Jaime, by any reasonable measure I can conceive, they already have failed...
Five years and over $500,000 spent and they have about two collection areas certified, about 50-60 collectors (no one knows their numbers for sure because that is proprietary information...) trained, and small numbers of about 12 species of fish that are collected from an area that is severely degraded.

This is success to you? Man, I'd hate to know what failure is...

If there is one area where MAC excels, it is in knowing the right people, and being able to get funding. I have to give them that. If Peter is right, they just got enough funding for another five years. At this rate, we can expect 4-6 collection areas certified, maybe 150 collectors trained, and 25 species of fish coming in? Wow!

Why exactly did the US hobbyists have to support a net fund? For a measly $4000, we shipped over 2.5 MILES of netting. Why didn't MAC facilitate this five years ago??? Why is there still no suitable barrier netting available in the Philippines? Why do the fishermen have to make it by hand?

Why is it that was are still at the very beginning, five years later?

I wholeheartedly support the idea (and ideals) of MAC, with increased, tougher standards than currently exist, with a CDT in place, testing on ALL FISH a certified exporter handles, and with penalties on both the collector and exporter when fish test postitive for cyanide use. As written, the standards are so low as to be laughable, and they do not cover the real core issues at all.

The problem is all in the implementation of the stated ideals...

It also doesn't help when I e-mail MAC with questions, concerns, and/or constructive criticism and never get any sort of response, even when the questions are labelled second and third request. {shrug} Hence my ambivalence towards them.

And, Jaime, seriously, Good luck. I mean that without a hint of sarcasm, innuendo or hidden meaning.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[naesco]

The answers to the many questions you posed is obvious.

Firstly, industry is more interested in selling cyanide to fishers than netting.

Secondly, How much money do you suppose industry has donated to MAC for training, netting and materials. Nothing!

 

[Anonymous]

Firstly, industry is more interested in selling cyanide to fishers than netting.

You continue to use the term Industry very broadly. It might help your cuase if you were to make some distinctions about the different segments. You might even find some pleasant surprises about who the bad guys and who the good guys are.

Secondly, How much money do you suppose industry has donated to MAC for training, netting and materials. Nothing

Not true.

 

[naesco]

Firstly, industry is more interested in selling cyanide to fishers than netting.

You continue to use the term Industry very broadly. It might help your cuase if you were to make some distinctions about the different segments. You might even find some pleasant surprises about who the bad guys and who the good guys are.

Secondly, How much money do you suppose industry has donated to MAC for training, netting and materials. Nothing

Not true.

Industry was defined very early in the first REEForm thread as the exporters from the Philippines and Indonesia who deal in cyanide caught fish and the stateside importers and importers from these exporters.

How much have them donated to MAC? Nothing, Rover. Prove me wrong.

 

[MaryHM]

Careful Naesco...your blatant ignorance is showing again. There are industry people- yes, those who are involved in the cyanide trade- who have given money to MAC. It sure is hard to take someone serious who can't even research the most basic information before making a statement about it.

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Mike,

The problem with the little group that you defend is that, "its leader", is in a situation of " conflict of interest". It can not be considered as a serious alternative, it doesn't represent the industry or a representative % of retailers and importers across the states. That "alternative" is not sincere. I must exclude Mary from this. The other individuals are just thinking about their personal benefit which is not synonymous of reform.

You know, Jaime... This innuendo doesn't become you.
"The little group"... Whom exactly are you referring to?
Please name their names, then level the criticism at them directly.

Really, this hint of innuendo at "someone" doing "something" wrong is beneath you...

MAC is working on different issues that need to be addressed. They'll get support from different stakeholders (with economic power to turn things around). I see MAC as the ONLY group that can make a difference. Just let them work. I'll do my best to get people from the industry supporting MAC.

Be positive. Do you want MAC to fail?

Jaime

Do I want MAC to fail?
Jaime, by any reasonable measure I can conceive, they already have failed...
Five years and over $500,000 spent and they have about two collection areas certified, about 50-60 collectors (no one knows their numbers for sure because that is proprietary information...) trained, and small numbers of about 12 species of fish that are collected from an area that is severely degraded.

This is success to you? Man, I'd hate to know what failure is...

If there is one area where MAC excels, it is in knowing the right people, and being able to get funding. I have to give them that. If Peter is right, they just got enough funding for another five years. At this rate, we can expect 4-6 collection areas certified, maybe 150 collectors trained, and 25 species of fish coming in? Wow!

Why exactly did the US hobbyists have to support a net fund? For a measly $4000, we shipped over 2.5 MILES of netting. Why didn't MAC facilitate this five years ago??? Why is there still no suitable barrier netting available in the Philippines? Why do the fishermen have to make it by hand?

Why is it that was are still at the very beginning, five years later?

I wholeheartedly support the idea (and ideals) of MAC, with increased, tougher standards than currently exist, with a CDT in place, testing on ALL FISH a certified exporter handles, and with penalties on both the collector and exporter when fish test postitive for cyanide use. As written, the standards are so low as to be laughable, and they do not cover the real core issues at all.

The problem is all in the implementation of the stated ideals...

It also doesn't help when I e-mail MAC with questions, concerns, and/or constructive criticism and never get any sort of response, even when the questions are labelled second and third request. {shrug} Hence my ambivalence towards them.

And, Jaime, seriously, Good luck. I mean that without a hint of sarcasm, innuendo or hidden meaning.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

Mike,

The situation in the Philippines regarding the trade of marine ornamentals as you know is very complicated. You can not expect that change will occur very fast. It is a serious problem that will require time to be solved.

Around four decades (forthy years) of continuos exploitation by an industry that was not showing any signs of willingness and commitment to change. The status quo had prevailed. Between 1997-2002 a movement called MAC was created and began to work on the different issues this trade had neglected for decades. Today, August 2003, we have seen some positive signs from some members of the industry that have realized that the situation can not continue. They have realized that change is needed and are getting involved in the reform movement by supporting MAC. With MAC the status quo is not going to exist any longer. Things will change! Support from more members of the industry is needed

Changes will come. You'll see more collection areas certified, more collectors trained, less mistakes and more concrete positive results from MAC.

I hope the 2,5 miles of netting is of good quality and is going to last a while. I know of a case of bad quality netting that didn't last 2 fishing operations, it was cheap netting!

Whom I am referring to? Mike you know!

Regards


Jaime[/u][/i]

 

[clarionreef]

But Mary.
If defined like that...as just exporters of Indo and the Philippines...
. Then it does become an largely accurate statement... except for recent contributions by two new dealers. In fact a certain official of the PTFEA has recently asked me where they can get some netting material....[I am also asked frequently when will we finally start training.] If they ever donated or did anything...they would already know. The responsible behavior of an unrepresentative few exporters does not excuse the guilty majority. No more than you and I showing up for the LA importers meeting excused them all.
The MSI/Reefcentral net drive has created quite a buzz in Manila.
The netting that the association would never donate or even seek out themselves had arrived in quantity...but not for them! It is ment for the divers!


Some of the exporters are quite wealthy and could easily pay some one to secure netting if they ever really wanted to.
As for Indo exporters. This is the topic... no one , least of all MAC wants to discuss in public. They have a hard time defending and covering for an exporter cartel that is unabashedly PRO-CYANIDE. Yes, pro...complete with memorized arguments and justifications for its 'proper use'.
Those of us in the trade already know these fine people and are ashamed of them.. For this reason...my own company distains Indo fish and bring in zero. Of course no one else except one or two other importers will do this because they already know the market will not support them.
Steve @ Cortez Marine

 

[MaryHM]

If defined like that...as just exporters of Indo and the Philippines...
. Then it does become an largely accurate statement...

But Steve, that's not how Naesco defines it. Here's his definition:

Industry was defined very early in the first REEForm thread as the exporters from the Philippines and Indonesia who deal in cyanide caught fish and the stateside importers and importers from these exporters.

And that is why his statement that industry has contributed nothing is blatantly wrong.

 

[naesco]

Well Mary I could be wrong but not blatently, but why not ask them. We all know they read all the threads on cyanide and REEForm on this forum.

Would all stateside importers/wholesalers who purchased cyanide fish from either Philippine or Indonesian exporters who donated to MAC please identify yourself?

Would all Philippine and Indonesia exporters of cyanide fish who donated to MAC please identify yourself?

 

[clarionreef]

Mary,
I never thought that you were representative of the industries importers.
Have others ...especially the big ones done anything of note?
Steve