Anyone have an update about EASI?

[Anonymous]

Peter, I'm confused:

The are other alternatives than what Naesco has suggested.

Peter Rubec
a small "r" reformist

Neasco says shut it down theres no hope, so are you saying that?

Small is beautiful. I hope that when the reeformists meet at MO 04 that they will reach consensus to work together to solve these problems. I agree that net-training is a good place to start, but that a more holistic approach is needed. I believe that funding can be found to allow this to happen.

If the threat to ban is real, then efforts will be made to convince the PI governement that the alternatives are economically viable. That will necessitate the industry getting behind reform because it is in their economic interests. The tragedy is that this could have been done much sooner. We really are running out of time to implement the changes needed for a "sustainable" aquarium trade.

Now that sounds like your saying there is hope, and let's try to work it out prior to the ban, that's not what Neasco is saying. BTW the words I put in bold, are almost the same the were used with the making of the CRTF boogie man.

 

[clarionreef]

Fact:
EASI believes in reform of the trade... or a closure of it.
They have real connections beyond fisheries.
They did not just wander into that meeting.

The best way to calm EASI down is to;

A] Let there be measureable progress in the field where it counts. As a more village friendly bunch, they can verify progress far better then bookeepers paid to make things fit.

B] Let them hold 'the ring' for awhile and see if they stay true. The lure of the gross that this trade generates is as intoxicating as is grant money to those not steeled for it and conditioned for the responsibility.

If we ever get a training movement going again...we need a hobbit to hold the money.

Steve

PS. But Mitch....koi and pond sales just help in the spring and summer, no?

 

[Anonymous]

EASI believes in reform of the trade... or a closure of it.

Finally. We've found someone with some political pull that has the guts to publicly say "fix it or close it down". My hat is off to EASI if they hold true to that attitude. Now with that said I certainly hope they are able to fix things!

 

[naesco]

"If the threat to ban is real, then efforts will be made to convince the PI governement that the alternatives are economically viable. That will necessitate the industry getting behind reform because it is in their economic interests. The tragedy is that this could have been done much sooner. We really are running out of time to implement the changes needed for a "sustainable" aquarium trade.""

Mike read the above statement and the post from Ferdinand. I guess you simply don't see that a ban on the export of Philippine fish is imminent. A ban on the export of Indonesian fish will follow.

But there is a small window of opportunity to convince the Philippine people that a ban is not necessary at this time and it involves the following.

1. Industry must get together now a choose a leader. Someone concerned and knowledgeable about the cyanide problem.
2. At this meeting which would include the loser wholesaler/transhipper/importers who are responsible for the cyanide problem, it must be resolved that they all accept mandatory cyanide testing.
3. These REEFORM (small r) representatives along with Dr. Rubec meet with the concerned parties in the Philippines and lay out a plan within a timeline for stateside mandatory testing.

Comments: If anyone here thinks they can talk their way out of the problem or walk away with false promises they can kiss industry goodbye.
There are new masters in the Philippines whose interest is the best interest of their country and nothing will stop them.

Ferdinand, read carefully the replies to this and my first post. Let the comments of the reformers in industry, the posters to this forum, guide you on whether you support stateside efforts at REEFORM(small r) or shut her down

 

[MaryHM]

Wayne, since you seem to think you have the answers to everything, I want detailed answers to my questions. Not just vague, all encompassing replies.

1. Industry must get together now a choose a leader. Someone concerned and knowledgeable about the cyanide problem.

And who should this be? Frankly, I only know of one industry person who is concerned AND knowledgable in a direct way about the cyanide problem. Sorry, but there's no way "industry" is going to support him to be their savior in the Philippines. If the industry was so concerned and knowledgable about the situation, we wouldn't have a problem.

2. At this meeting which would include the loser wholesaler/transhipper/importers who are responsible for the cyanide problem, it must be resolved that they all accept mandatory cyanide testing.

Ok! We all vote to accept mandatory cyanide testing! We've saved the world! Oh wait, there are a few details here....let's see....Who is going to conduct this mandatory testing? Who is going to pay for it? Who is going to enforce it? Since it's being done in the Philippines, who's going to make sure it's not corrupted by bribery?

3. These reeform (small r) representatives along with Dr. Rubec meet with the concerned parties in the Philippines and lay out a plan within a timeline for stateside mandatory testing.

Here we go again with details...pesky, aren't they? How can you lay out a timeline when there isn't even a reliable test that can be used stateside? What agency is going to enforce this? Fish and Wildlife has basically said they don't have the money, manpower, or labs to do it. So c'mon, Wayne...tell me who is going to do it? Have you already convinced a department of the Canadian government to implement mandatory testing (even though there isn't a test)?

I've basically given up at this point. No one cares, no one wants to actually do anything other than talk, and frankly I'm tired of going round and round for the past 5 years. I can't even imagine how Steve feels. I know other reform minded people who are sick of the whole mess as well and are on the verge of giving up. Sad, isn't it?

 

[naesco]

Wayne, since you seem to think you have the answers to everything, I want detailed answers to my questions. Not just vague, all encompassing replies.

1. Industry must get together now a choose a leader. Someone concerned and knowledgeable about the cyanide problem.

And who should this be? Frankly, I only know of one industry person who is concerned AND knowledgable in a direct way about the cyanide problem. Sorry, but there's no way "industry" is going to support him to be their savior in the Philippines. If the industry was so concerned and knowledgable about the situation, we wouldn't have a problem.

2. At this meeting which would include the loser wholesaler/transhipper/importers who are responsible for the cyanide problem, it must be resolved that they all accept mandatory cyanide testing.

Ok! We all vote to accept mandatory cyanide testing! We've saved the world! Oh wait, there are a few details here....let's see....Who is going to conduct this mandatory testing? Who is going to pay for it? Who is going to enforce it? Since it's being done in the Philippines, who's going to make sure it's not corrupted by bribery?

3. These reeform (small r) representatives along with Dr. Rubec meet with the concerned parties in the Philippines and lay out a plan within a timeline for stateside mandatory testing.

Here we go again with details...pesky, aren't they? How can you lay out a timeline when there isn't even a reliable test that can be used stateside? What agency is going to enforce this? Fish and Wildlife has basically said they don't have the money, manpower, or labs to do it. So c'mon, Wayne...tell me who is going to do it? Have you already convinced a department of the Canadian government to implement mandatory testing (even though there isn't a test)?

I've basically given up at this point. No one cares, no one wants to actually do anything other than talk, and frankly I'm tired of going round and round for the past 5 years. I can't even imagine how Steve feels. I know other reform minded people who are sick of the whole mess as well and are on the verge of giving up. Sad, isn't it?

Mary, actually and sincerely I was hoping that you would lead this industry group. I was even going to suggest they, industry, use the name reeform as it tells it all in one word. I have no dibs on the name.
They, the bad industry people, may not like you but you have the guts to tell it like it is and they need to hear that from someone in industry.

 

[Anonymous]

You have plenty of spare time to head up an all-encompassing government agency, right Mary?

 

[clarionreef]

OK MARY,
Heres your chance to make some real money.
I say we put in Mary, give her 80K salary a year and enjoy the show!
Seriously!
My second choice will be Jaime.
He has so much experience, is an excellent diver, speaks Tagalog and is a calm and rational leader of men.
He worked wonders with Ocean Voice International!
Steve

 

[naesco]

Ferdinand, read carefully the replies to this and my first post. Let the comments of the reformers in industry, the posters to this forum, guide you on whether you support stateside efforts at REEFORM(small r) or shut her down

 

[MaryHM]

Sorry, but it would take more than 80K a year for me to do anything. Like I said, I've basically given up. Plus, I don't have any direct experience in the Philippines. Until I see some serious concern from anyone outside of this industry forum, I'm going to be under the impression that reform is just a fantasy. I feel as though I've wasted the last 5 years (and thousands of dollars) chasing some pipe dream. My husband is very glad that I'm finally waking up to reality.

 

[mkirda]

Mike read the above statement and the post from Ferdinand. I guess you simply don't see that a ban on the export of Philippine fish is imminent. A ban on the export of Indonesian fish will follow.

Naesco,

You are absolutely correct. I don't see it as imminent. I see it as a proposal on the table. I see it as on the horizon, but I don't see it as just around the corner. Maybe I haven't talked enough to Ferdinand about this topic, but I have never gotten the sense that it was going to happen next week or next month or tomorrow.

As for Indonesia, I'll believe it when I see it.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[clarionreef]

Right Mike,
It was a notion and not a new one.
EASI is not an aquarium reform group and has never pretended to be.
As objective and uninvolved with the trade as they are, talk of shutdown comes easier to them...as it does with any less relevant concerns.
If the industry doesnt clean up AND if its reform groups don't get the job done either...then the talk of shutdown comes about. As you know, the distance between talk and implementation of a policy is a light year apart sometimes.
What one may be left to wonder about however, is that if the good works of Haribon, IMA and MAC were as good as we are told...why the talk of a shutdown at all?
Is it 'treason' to ask that?
Steve

 

[mkirda]

Is it 'treason' to ask that?
Steve

No, Steve, it isn't treason, but it doesn't help matters either.

If all of the above groups came forth and said yes, steve, you are right- we didn't accomplish all of the goals we set out to do, money was spent towards things that didn't help us accomplish our goals, and things did not turn out the way we wanted them too, would that be enough?
You know the way these things work- The funding agencies moved on because the NGOs didn't deliver the goods as promised. It is the way these things work. They have all been left behind. Why does bringing up all the old stuff matter other than as a matter of knowing the history?

I'll tell you one thing: Reading about the failures will only turn off the casually reform-minded hobbyist.
You want to get people behind any reform movement, you need to stop dwelling on the past and start presenting a reasonable and effective method of addressing attainable goals. You are quite the polarizing force, Steve. You may revel in this fact, but many will not support you simply because of the fact that you are you. I support your efforts because I believe you have positive contributions you can still make. I do hope that you can focus and bring these things to the table at MO'04. My support will mean nothing if you cannot get the casually reform-minded hobbyists behind the banner of positive and attainable goals, with actual leadership to be determined later.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[clarionreef]

Agreed Mike,
We will endeavor to reform the future without reference to the past then...at least for the sake of 'good strategy and social harmony.'
But it sure would be nice to have new issue oriented [ not just turf & money oriented] partners to deal with.
The next million dollars spent without securing netting material will go without comment.... Mums the word. Deal?


Steve
PS. Thank goodness the nuclear power industry had a few people who would stand up against all odds though. Since 99% of them were scared to we were just one percent away from the non reform of that industry.

 

[mkirda]

Agreed Mike,
We will endeavor to reform the future without reference to the past then...at least for the sake of 'good strategy and social harmony.'
But it sure would be nice to have new issue oriented [ not just turf & money oriented] partners to deal with.
The next million dollars spent without securing netting material will go without comment.... Mums the word. Deal?

Steve,

There is no need to twist what I say into something I didn't.
I'm not arguing for social harmony just for the sake of social harmony- You know better than that.

I know from private e-mails that you understand my point, so there is no need to tweak me publicly.

All of the NGOs have done some good. All have failed on other points.
Understanding both things is quite important, yes, but to talk about the negative always just turns EVERYONE off, including myself.
Stop emphasizing the negative- That is my point. Not ignore it.

Focus on the lessons of the past THAT WORKED.
Accentuate the positive rather than the negative.
You will find that the pill goes down easier, and the message will be received rather than dismissed out of hand.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[clarionreef]

"all have done some good"?

You might see it differently if I shipped you 100 fish and 80% died.
When you call to report the failure...I could just say..."some were good!"
Thats what you just said Mike.
Its 2004, the gloom and doom shut down talk and global warming scenarios are approaching. The only thing slower then 'glacier creep' is the pace of the 'some good' we're referring to here.
Coaches get sacked for non performance.
CEOs get fired for it.
Employees get written up 3 times in Calif...and then fired for not delivering.
Standards of performance are important everywhere....but here you seem to suggest.
Insisting on sticking with the 'dog that don't hunt' and the lemon car that wont ever work is a tough sell.
We really need new players, fresh faces and better quality leadership is any of this is important.
Stick to the social harmony argument. It has the most merit.
Steve

 

[mkirda]

"all have done some good"?

You might see it differently if I shipped you 100 fish and 80% died.
When you call to report the failure...I could just say..."some were good!"
Thats what you just said Mike.
Its 2004, the gloom and doom shut down talk and global warming scenarios are approaching. The only thing slower then 'glacier creep' is the pace of the 'some good' we're referring to here.
Coaches get sacked for non performance.
CEOs get fired for it.
Employees get written up 3 times in Calif...and then fired for not delivering.
Standards of performance are important everywhere....but here you seem to suggest.
Insisting on sticking with the 'dog that don't hunt' and the lemon car that wont ever work is a tough sell.
We really need new players, fresh faces and better quality leadership is any of this is important.
Stick to the social harmony argument. It has the most merit.
Steve

So what NGOs have shipped you fish recently, Steve?

Yes, any NGO that offered net training, especially when you were still involved, did some good, did they not? Or are you criticizing your own efforts now too? IMA, strictly by creating and running CDT labs, did something noteworthy as well.

Nowhere did I say that we should stick with a given NGO.
What I said was that you should be familiar with each of their approaches.
You should be familiar with whatever successes they had as well as their failures. Better if you know the reasons for those failures.

Knowing this, you can work though what strategies worked and why.
And what failed and why.
Knowing both, you can attempt to map out goals and strategies for the future.

Nowhere in this am I arguing that we stick with a dog that doesn't fish.
I am arguing that you should create a strategy where the dog can't help but fish and fish well. I see you personally, Steve, as being an important link in this.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Anonymous]

mike kirda wrote:

IMA, strictly by creating and running CDT labs, did something noteworthy as well.

Nowhere did I say that we should stick with a given NGO.
What I said was that you should be familiar with each of their approaches.
You should be familiar with whatever successes they had as well as their failures. Better if you know the reasons for those failures.

Knowing this, you can work though what strategies worked and why.
And what failed and why.
Knowing both, you can attempt to map out goals and strategies for the future.

Nowhere in this am I arguing that we stick with a dog that doesn't fish.
I am arguing that you should create a strategy where the dog can't help but fish and fish well. I see you personally, Steve, as being an important link in this.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[clarionreef]

CORL...REMEMBER THE CORL INITIATIVE?
It sounds like the positive approach that the CORL initiative offered doesn't it? I remember it well.
It was already done and proposed properly and politely. There was a cease fire and it sure wasn't broken by me. I remember it well. I lost 6 months on it, as did Mike, and AMDA.
The undermininmg of the pro-active and positive CORL initiative and things like that help burn out our best allies. [ Good strategy actually]
Mary and Mike King spring to mind as recent history. There were dozens more in the years gone by.
Mike has reconfigured however and will not be so trusting the next time around.
Mary...we'll miss you.
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

steve

for the record, I posted that, not CORL

(methinks i need to put my disclaimer back on me sig line)

please though, don't address my posts as CORL, unless i'm posting as CORL, i afford you the same courtesy

even though i'm not as familiar yet as i'd like to be w/all the history and it's political/soap opera play involved, (i'm researching it these days)...


re:your answer - i think you may see it as a 'realist', not 'pessimist' view. it comes across to me as highly pessimist/negative, and discounting the possible/potential positive, imo.