MAC's full page ad in FAMA

[blue hula]

Yes, it appears that reeform is finally over ... .......good thing too. ........................No need to worry that the fish you are purchasing are 100 %true to their labeling....Years from now I will be telling my grand children how three ordinary Americans single handedly silenced and ended the evil and dishonest reeform movement known as MAC.......Thank you Mary , Steve and Blue hula......Without your constant efforts none of this would have been possible........"Now where did I put my squirt bottle"? :wink:

Thank you for the compliment Kalk ... given how long Steve and Mary have been pushing the reform barrow, I'm honoured to be included with them.

As usual however, you have your facts wrong. I'm Canadian not American and living in Australia - remember?

Truly however, I don't think you can hold Mary, Steve or myself responsible for the fact that fish don't reflect their labelling. That is entirely MAC's accomplishment and reflects the fact that they rushed to certify companies and areas without meeting their own standards (i.e. having a cyanide test available, doing resource assessments, and establishing MPAs that constitute 20% of the fishing grounds).

Cheers, Blue Hula

 

[mkirda]

He seems, however to have missed the latest where MAC certified exporter Tomas Heeger was just deported from the Philippines.

Steve,

Is the company still operating without Tomas? Any idea?

If not, I have no idea how MAC can expect *any* fish to be forthcoming.
All Bohol shipments went through Cebu, through Tomas's company. Marivi and Guia only got what he would send them...

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

Yes, it appears that reeform is finally over ... .......good thing too. ........................No need to worry that the fish you are purchasing are 100 %true to their labeling....Years from now I will be telling my grand children how three ordinary Americans single handedly silenced and ended the evil and dishonest reeform movement known as MAC.......Thank you Mary , Steve and Blue hula......Without your constant efforts none of this would have been possible........"Now where did I put my squirt bottle"? :wink:

Thank you for the compliment Kalk ... given how long Steve and Mary have been pushing the reform barrow, I'm honoured to be included with them.

As usual however, you have your facts wrong. I'm Canadian not American and living in Australia - remember?

Truly however, I don't think you can hold Mary, Steve or myself responsible for the fact that fish don't reflect their labelling. That is entirely MAC's accomplishment and reflects the fact that they rushed to certify companies and areas without meeting their own standards (i.e. having a cyanide test available, doing resource assessments, and establishing MPAs that constitute 20% of the fishing grounds).

Cheers, Blue Hula

Sorry about the incorrect citizenship thing.....But do you really feel pressing MAC up against the wall and demanding they expose the fact that they may not have worked out all the bugs in the certification process.........is helping the cause? { You know... reeform ?} I understand the issues you and Mary have with them , but giving MAC a death blow {Testing or proving total sustainability} is only going to reduce the chances of there ever being any reform at all.......Like it or not , MAC is the only hope of achieving reeform ........you can end that hope by expecting too much .........too soon........And I really dont think thats what you or the reefs want..............is it?

 

[clarionreef]

So Kalk,
This is as good as it gets?
Why should we have to dumb it down to find merit in this group and its half measures, lack of results, lack of field sense, no netting worth a damn and non aquarium trade objectives?
Why do you think it can't be a real effort instead of a settling for less?
Why must the politics of it be so much more important then the substance of it?
Why must we be content with a D when a much better grade is possible?
Why do we have to accept fake reform instead of the real thing?
Why must we all sell out to lowered expectations in our lifes occupations?
Do you know something we don't? Do you know that a real reformation of trade practice will not be allowed? Is it that there is a
power behind the curtain that we are not allowed to see?
To accept the notion that we will never fix, never reset and never be proud of our trade is defeatist and cowardly.
What do you know of the forces against all reason and the struggle
for a scientifically managed industry? Why must a final decade of ignorance prevent a sustainable trade forever?
Are LA Wholesalers that dead set against teaching, training and handling to produce better livestock? Is it MAC that pooh=poos all that they cannot understand...? Is it in fact the funders that insist on sending these boys to do a mans job?
Just what is this 'treason against reason' that must thwart all attempts to make our industry better?
If you have a clue...let us know...please.
Sincerely, Steve

 

[Kalkbreath]

First,you have to ask yourself why MAC has not responded to the questions raised on this board...........What would be the results if they did.......? It seems that , most of you feel their fish would not pass their own standards in respect to sustainability and poison free.......What if thats true.? Do you realize what kind of a picture that paints? Even cheating, MAC collectors cant collect very many fish? How many fish do you think they will collect if their stock was 100% certified? If there are ZERO fish in a box marked "certified"........would not that mean no fish were collected with cyanide ? And if there are zero fish in a bag marked "MAC fish" how could there be over collection ? If MAc was bringing to market thousands of fish a day ...........and there was some question as to what percentage of those fish were truly certified .................then you might be bringing something helpful to the reeform table..........but at this time .......it sure seems as if Mac is failing on all fronts...........Its your choice, Give them some more time .......or kick them as they lay on the ground in the fetal position : twisted: ........This is surely the last attempt at reeform we are likely to see in our lifetime........but I am beginning to think that the second string reeformers want this current attempt at reeform to fail .....{why}...Funny , I am defending reeform , when I personally dont even think it will help or that it is even needed..... :wink:

 

[MaryHM]

Give them some more time .......or kick them as they lay on the ground in the fetal position

Good grief, Kalk. If I had a dime for everytime someone told me "lay off poor wittle MAC- give them more time", I could retire from this industry and live somewhere nice like Hawaii . How much time exactly are we supposed to give them to live up to their own standards that they created for themselves?? Heck, I've been waiting since 1999 to see this program go somewhere. I've been asking the "hard" (read: relevant) questions since 2001. My beef with them is this: They could have done it right. They had input from the right people who tried to steer them in the right direction. They decided to go wrong and haven't turned back since. They make empty promises- in public mind you!- and don't follow through. It gets old fast. Was I supposed to wait for MAC to get hand netting material over to the collectors?? They had 4 years and did nothing. How much longer should I have given them? Another 4 years? Or should I have taken it upon myself to get it done? I'm not much for waiting around for slow, grant-fat, self-serving organizations. Sorry. Their given time ran out for me when they looked me in the eye and straight up lied to me. That's when I saw their true motives, and time isn't going to fix that. A change of leadership might though....

 

[blue hula]

But do you really feel pressing MAC up against the wall and demanding they expose the fact that they may not have worked out all the bugs in the certification process.........is helping the cause? { You know... reeform ?} I understand the issues you and Mary have with them , but giving MAC a death blow {Testing or proving total sustainability} is only going to reduce the chances of there ever being any reform at all.......Like it or not , MAC is the only hope of achieving reeform ........you can end that hope by expecting too much .........too soon........And I really dont think thats what you or the reefs want..............is it?

Kalk,

My first communications with MAC and John were gentle questions. When MAC continued to prevaricate publically and refuse to answer private emails .... the water got hotter.

I find it hard to characterise the absence of resource assessments of the collection area as a "bug" in the system. Were resource assessments difficult, I'd have more sympathy. But based on my own experience in the area (we had a program monitoring 30 fishing grounds with 100 plus fishers filling out records on daily catch and effort and location) - I know it is NOT difficult if you want to do it and make it a priority. My expectations on this score are NOT to high.

MAC failing is not my worst nightmare and I don't think it would be the death noll for the reefs.

My worst nightmare is everyone believing that MAC has solved the problem when they haven't ... and thus no more attention to the state of the reefs or the lives of the fishers. If MAC is seen to have fxed the problem when they haven't, we will continue to see a concentration of funding in their hands and a complacency in the trade and government bodies responsible for reef conservation. MAC continues to consolidate their position by creating partnerships with organisations like ReefCheck and WCMC - yet making no progress on the ground. It will get harder and harder to point out that the emperor has no clothes as their position becomes stronger. The greenwash will prevail.

I do not believe for a moment that MAC is the only hope for rEform (and for pete's sake Kalk, will you quit lumping me in with Naesco's Reeform - I have nothing to do with it).

The best hope for true reform is for those involved to take a serious look at what has been done and ask what worked and what didn't work and then chart a new course. A key question is whether certification is even an appropriate approach for this industry. Certainly certification of fisheries under the Marine Stewardship Council is delivering mixed benefits from a conservation point of view.

The path to failure is certain if we blindly continue along the same track because we mistakenly believe it is the only option we have.

There is essentially a simple question to ask MAC. Why have they put their energies into certifying companies rather than developing a clean supply of fish?

Blue hula

 

[blue hula]

Mary,
The issue of staffing and leadership is interesting.

I have wondered why, given that a sustainable fishery is a goal, they don't have a senior fisheries scientist / ecologist on board at their headquarters with resource assessments as her/his main brief.

Blue hula

 

[mkirda]

I have wondered why, given that a sustainable fishery is a goal, they don't have a senior fisheries scientist / ecologist on board at their headquarters with resource assessments as her/his main brief.

Blue hula

Blue,

Not at their headquarters, please... A Filipino scientist based in the Philippines with good truck, a decent travel budget, and dive gear. They gotta get wet.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[clarionreef]

Mike,
They don't even get wet from aquarium keeping...
how they gonna advance to actually working in the field?
This group is miscast in the role.
Steve

 

[mkirda]

This group is miscast in the role.
Steve

Even paper-pushers can hire field scientists, Steve.

 

[clarionreef]

Of course they could...
But won't, wouldn't, didn't.
Why??
Same reasons they wouldn't provide the nets....or commercial training.
Not logical?
No...but the answer remains. Won't, wouldn't , didn't.
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Heck, I've been waiting since 1999 to see this program go somewhere. I've been asking the "hard" (read: relevant) questions since 2001.

This question is not directed at you alone Mary, it's for anyone who feels that they've waited too long..

What's a more acceptable timeframe?

Don't get me wrong, I bear no ill toward those who want to see change, I'm just curious what type of expections people have here....

Norm

 

[mkirda]

I'm just curious what type of expections people have here....

Norm

Hi, Norm.

For some things that are fairly simple and straightforward, taking a week or two to reply is acceptable.

For things that are more complex, or for something where policy has not been considered, it would be up to MAC to set the timeline, let the questioner know, then do their upmost to stick to it.

Let's use two concrete examples:

1) Were resource assessments done at Batasan Island? If so, what protocol was used?

2) What would happen if a certified fisherman from Batasan were caught using cyanide within their fishing grounds? What if it was outside the fishing grounds?

I would expect #2 to take a lot longer to answer of the two. #1 should be easy...

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[clarionreef]

Its not the time,
Its the people.
I read your question like;
How long would it take the MAC organization to train 2,000 cyanide divers, stop our trades part in killing coral reefs, survey collecting areas and produce meaningful proof of a job well done.
In the hands of the right team....2 years to 3. If they start now.
In the hands of the wrong team...the answer is obviously, never.
If this dog won't hunt, it becomes your own fault for depending on him.
If the team, the leadership, the talent and the experience to accomplish the job isn't there...it isn't there.
Steve

 

[Kalkbreath]

They are not shipping fish ......At least wait until they stand up and stop wobbling ........so you can belt them again ...........Ask yourself , "why they are not shipping fish?' Even Mike Tyson waits until the opponent straps on his gloves .................MAC is not ready to step in the ring..............When they start selling fish .....then complain about the product.............. :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks Mike, I agree that something doesn't smell right if theres an obvious lack of response on MAC's behalf. However, it's not all that suprising (to me anyway) to hear of an organization taking an inordinate amount of time to respond to a question either.

When the whole salt mix debacle came unglued earlier this year I quickly posed a question to the AZA (www.aza.org) asking if they have ever or would be willing to poll their members for what type of salt mix(es) they use. This was back in April. - I have yet to receive a response of any sort. (I know that's like comparing apples to oranges, but still.. Who's to say the reasons of an organizations lack of response but the organization itself?)


Steve.. - My question was intentionally very broad. Yes, I was looking for that perspective as well.. - I'm not entirely sure I can agree with the 2-3 year mark but then again, I'm not a professional in this type of field by any stretch either.. Personally, I wouldn't be suprised at an organization having to deal with the logistics and politics that have to go into an undertaking of this sort to require 3-4 times your estimate (6-12 years). Perhaps I'm too liberal.. I don't know, I have only questions, not answers..

 

[mkirda]

They are not shipping fish

From whom are you getting this information, Kalkbreath?

Everything I have heard, and I mean every single report from several different sources involved in the trade in the Philippines suggests that this is not true.

I've heard several boxes every week are getting moved from Bohol to Cebu.
Much less is making it to Manila. Distribution out of Cebu mostly goes to Europe, where the fish were decertified because there was no MAC-certified facility until recently. John Brandt, you could verify this for us- I don't want to be passing on wrong info here...

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[MaryHM]

First of all, they are shipping fish and have been for months. Not that many and not a big variety, but certified fish are moving through the chain.

My expectations as far as a time line goes are simple. Have the infrastructure in place BEFORE certification is in place. Have the trainings, the nets, the supply, etc... finished and then move on to certification. I don't care how long it takes, just as long as some type of progress is being made. However, as my avatar shows, MAC has put the cart before the horse. They push certification and push it hard- this latest FAMA ad being a good example- but don't have the infrastructure in place yet. That is my gripe with MAC. Pretty simple.

 

[clarionreef]

Grate,
In each and every year, well over a thousand divers ...even 2,000 could be trained, and well. Another team would have to do the survey work as to not slow down the commercial training.
The training of divers however...and the conversion of the trade to a more sustainable one has been held up for several key reasons:
1] MAC cannot train. Don't know how. Not their cup of tea.
2] They want all the linkages to the certification bookkeeping first...and failing that...have stalled progress. "If it ain't certified", the line goes..."it didn't happen and is a worthless achievement."
3] They have no idea what netting to use and where to get it.
The handnetting material supplied by MSI/Reefcentral project is new to them and the thicker thread barrier netting that all the Aussies and Hawaiians use...Greek to them. Thus far they use a cheap, delicate thread 'knock-off' from China which tears easily and serves to send serious divers back to cyanide fishing.
4] The certification of 'facilities' has been frontloaded in deference to diver training....
How else do you keep an organization going for so many years without converting more than a few dozen divers?
Reform of the trade is not for lack of capability and possibility...its for lack of competence and will.
10 times more results could be produced for 10 times less money...in the right hands.
Steve