only 5% of sold fish are cyanide collected.

[clarionreef]

...and shes on the MAC board of directors....
so there you have it!
No cyanide usage and therefore no reform mission to deal w/ it. She wouldn't fib now would she?
MAC can now dissolve, return unused grant money and we can go play on the general fishkeeping boards.
Ever wonder how they can even carry this charade with a straight face?
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

it's also the reason for mac's pathetically short mandatory holding time for "certified" importers/exporters/retailers :wink:

Vitz,

Do you have some extraordinary insight into the MAC holding time issue or are you just creating a new conspiracy theory?

i was trying to raise a point about another lack of a control, i.e.-holding time to observe/prevent cyanided fish from reaching u.s. market

my understanding is that the maximum amount of time a mac certified exporter would be required to hold fish is 5 days

cyanide damage often takes far longer to do a fish in completely

so the 'holding standard' contributes nothing to the issue (it also contributes very little to ensuring the general health of all caught fish, imo)

why do you think that all comments i make about mac have something to do w/a 'conspiracy theory'?

 

[clarionreef]

Vitz,
Are there any wholesalers who don't blow em out the door as soon as possible as soon as they can?
The turn-over in a single cube at a big, certified Florida wholesaler is triple in one week...ie. each cube in a row of hundred of cubes turns over its daily fish population three time in a single week to make way for the daily shipments that get mixed in...er...daily!
In-out-in out...Thats the mantra and the goal.
What is this silliness about holding times that no importers pay attention to...least of all the certified ones?
Paper. You can put things on paper but I assure you, the importers culture will ignore it aggressively and remain 'certified'.
Steve

 

[mkirda]

oh, wait, according to lolita ty, at least (in her emails to peter rubec, available for perusal on wwm), the ptfea doesn't use cyanide, and never has :lol:

Peter,

Did any of the 25% positive MO samples come from Lolita's place?

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Anonymous]

message deleted

 

[clarionreef]

Testing and then revealing results for all to see?
Since when do ReDO'ers expect to get such service and such clarity? How simple if the smoking guns could all be but a click away! So simple that anyone could see and understand...so simple that we could look and see who has the best variety...oops, I mean the most positives and negatives.
Test results of the head of the exporters association who ships out thousands and thousands of boxes [ to the two main certified importers ] would of course be good to see. [and of course we never will ]
Lee has added that test results of poor Marivi who ships out dozens and dozens of boxes of far less variety to the smallest importers would also be good to see.
Thankyou Lee for that suggestion to stay fair and balanced.

Steve

 

[Anonymous]

message deleted

 

[Anonymous]

message deleted

 

[Anonymous]

Steve,

I'm not trying to pick on the little guy. I'm just saying that it would be interesting to know how much of an improvement in "cleanness" has been realized by the careful screening of cleancatch exporters such as Aquarium Habitat.

Sadly, I doubt that any exporter specific CDT results can be released due to the possible legal ramifications.

what legal ramifications would publishing the results of a test publicly, have, if it wasn't a test conducted in a 'secret', or private, arrangement?

i would think there is no 'legal' issue here involved, unless the test itself is faulty, or intentionally misconducted, in order to influence the results

if a private individual, or /group/publicly comissioned body were to conduct testing of a local lake, would there be legal ramifications against the ability for the tester to publish the results of the test?

why would someone NOT want the tests to be published?

 

[Anonymous]

i was trying to raise a point about another lack of a control, i.e.-holding time to observe/prevent cyanided fish from reaching u.s. market

my understanding is that the maximum amount of time a mac certified exporter would be required to hold fish is 5 days

cyanide damage often takes far longer to do a fish in completely

so the 'holding standard' contributes nothing to the issue (it also contributes very little to ensuring the general health of all caught fish, imo)

why do you think that all comments i make about mac have something to do w/a 'conspiracy theory'?

Vitz,

I read your earlier comment as an inditement that a lack of a long manditory holding time was an attempt to cover up something.
Interestingly, the one MAC certified retailer that I have personal experience with has always quarentined their livestock prior to sale. I believe the owner once publicly said that mortalities with MAC certified livestock was almost zero, except for a couple of jumpers. I believe that another certified retailer that I know publicly said the same thing as well.

i read it more as a lack of attempt to look into something :wink:


would you be able to find out approximately how many shipments were involved, or approximately how many individual items of livestock?

i'm interested if the amounts are appreciable enough to warrant making a general conclusion about the quality of the source, or if more shipments would be needed before an accurate evaluation could be made

tia

 

[PeterIMA]

message deleted

 

[Anonymous]

Peter, Lee explained a few months ago what his qualifications he has and I highly doubt he's being paid by MAC. He's just doing it for free

 

[mkirda]

Peter, Lee explained a few months ago what his qualifications he has and I highly doubt he's being paid by MAC. He's just doing it for free

Notice how just as soon as 'the reformists' (as he calls them) start to squabble, Kalk just exits the picture?

Personally, I think he stirs the pot just to watch and laugh.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Anonymous]

message deleted

 

[PeterIMA]

Lee,

I have the CDT database and will use it against the cyanide cartel at the appropriate time. They are the ones who will face prosecution. Those breaking Philippine law should take heed of what I am saying. I am not afraid to confront them in court.

I take your comments about releasing CDT results as a verbal threat. If you and/or the MAC feel that it is necessary to defend the cyanide cartel, I will be happy to face you or the MAC's lawyers. It is a shame that the organization supposedly dedicated to reforming the trade has become the group defending those most guilty of destroying coral reefs and the marine aquarium trade. I hope that clarifies where I am coming from.

Peter Rubec, Ph.D.

 

[clarionreef]

Lee,
Whats your own opinion of the idea of releasing the cyanide test data on the exporters?
Never mind the free legal advice...don't you think it would be good to see what Dr. Rubec has spent so many years on compiling?
Don't you think we all need to see more data, more evidence and more truth to set us free?
I wish someone would set up the poll on RDO and see what people think.
I have always wanted such information to come out and can't imagine why any concerned hobbyist wouldn't.
Sincerely, Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Lee,

I have the CDT database and will use it against the cyanide cartel at the appropriate time. They are the ones who will face prosecution. Those breaking Philippine law should take heed of what I am saying. I am not afraid to confront them in court.

I take your comments about releasing CDT results as a verbal threat. If you and/or the MAC feel that it is necessary to defend the cyanide cartel, I will be happy to face you or the MAC's lawyers. It is a shame that the organization supposedly dedicated to reforming the trade has become the group defending those most guilty of destroying coral reefs and the marine aquarium trade. I hope that clarifies where I am coming from.

Peter Rubec, Ph.D.

Peter Rubec, Ph.D.,

I was not threatening anyone. Any misconstruing of anything that I have written as a threat is purely an incorrect conclusion on your part. In fact, I did not know that you had that type of specific data.

-Lee

 

[Anonymous]

Lee,
Whats your own opinion of the idea of releasing the cyanide test data on the exporters?
Never mind the free legal advice...don't you think it would be good to see what Dr. Rubec has spent so many years on compiling?
Don't you think we all need to see more data, more evidence and more truth to set us free?
I wish someone would set up the poll on RDO and see what people think.
I have always wanted such information to come out and can't imagine why any concerned hobbyist wouldn't.
Sincerely, Steve

Not giving any opinions tonight. Never gave any legal advice either.

I stand by the words of Jesus: "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." John 8:32 KJV

Sincerely,
-Lee

 

[Anonymous]

Do we really want this discussion to spiral into a bunch of legal threats? Honestly. Everyone just chill out for a second or two, there is good stuff here, don't let your passion or your blood pressure dictate or squelch the discussion.

 

[Anonymous]

i was trying to raise a point about another lack of a control, i.e.-holding time to observe/prevent cyanided fish from reaching u.s. market

my understanding is that the maximum amount of time a mac certified exporter would be required to hold fish is 5 days

cyanide damage often takes far longer to do a fish in completely

so the 'holding standard' contributes nothing to the issue (it also contributes very little to ensuring the general health of all caught fish, imo)

why do you think that all comments i make about mac have something to do w/a 'conspiracy theory'?

Vitz,

I read your earlier comment as an inditement that a lack of a long manditory holding time was an attempt to cover up something.
Interestingly, the one MAC certified retailer that I have personal experience with has always quarentined their livestock prior to sale. I believe the owner once publicly said that mortalities with MAC certified livestock was almost zero, except for a couple of jumpers. I believe that another certified retailer that I know publicly said the same thing as well.

i read it more as a lack of attempt to look into something :wink:


would you be able to find out approximately how many shipments were involved, or approximately how many individual items of livestock?

i'm interested if the amounts are appreciable enough to warrant making a general conclusion about the quality of the source, or if more shipments would be needed before an accurate evaluation could be made

tia

SciGuy2 wrote:

I believe the owner once publicly said that mortalities with MAC certified livestock was almost zero, except for a couple of jumpers. I believe that another certified retailer that I know publicly said the same thing as well

just for my own clarification and understanding - according to the standards required by mac for certification, there should be exact records at these locations, on a fish by fish basis, that would substantiate these claims, and show how long these livestock were in the facility, and when they were sold ?