MAC's spokestoken...

[mkirda]

May I ask who the "we" are that tried honestly. The statement is not clear to me.

"We" here meant the operators of Reefs.Org.

Regards.
Mike Kirda
P.S. I am not an operator, but have heard this from several RDO operators.

 

[clarionreef]

James,
I do envy your detachment from the consequences of getting this issue wrong.
I too wish it were irrelevant to my own livlihood so that I may enjoy the whimsey of tossing in a conceptual 2 cents worth from time to time.
Unlike yourself and even most of the dealers and hobbyists who read this forum....some of us actually have to decide every day...every single day what to order for the coming week. This by definition involves ethical choices which some of us take seriously.
For example...to buy what sells and is in demand this week regardless of wether it was caught with cyanide or not....or to stick to the higher ground and keep it netcaught albiet with lower variety...reducing sales in the process.
In this quandry...some uf us are caught.
What would you do? Just buy what ever sells like virtually everyone else? Or would you withhold your buying power from the trade in cyanide fish?
As a 80 hour a week professional in the import and sales of wholesale marines...I honestly find nothing...absolutely nothing that MAC has done that can help make this job any easier. Train some divers to catch fish not already netcaught..PLEASE! But years later...its the same ol story.
So forgive me for not holding my breath and buying cyanide fish in the meantime...as the certified MAC dealers do.
My disenchantment with the rising eco-consulting industry is not without cause!
Mixing in cyanide fish to engineer good variety would be hypocritical and dishonest...Attributes that one might find ...extreme.
Why am I and MSI not logical allies of the MAC movement?
Indeed...why are they not allies in ours?
Sincerely, Steve

 

[jamesw]

Hi Ad and welcome to reefs.org.

I had just typed up a long reply and was almost done when my computer crashed. Oh the frustration!

So this will be a succinct post.

Some time ago, Mary Middlebrook was the moderator of this forum. When she stepped down, we asked John Brandt to take over because he has a good understanding of the trade, and is also a MAC representative.

As the moderator, John was hounded at every turn, and whenever he would say anything in a MAC capacity he was essentially "shouted down" by a very vocal and loud few.

So he decided, to spend his time on more worthwhile activities. As you will find out, arguing on the internet is a very un-rewarding thing to do.

Cheers
James

 

[clarionreef]

James,
We all enjoy the same freedom to influence each other and win points and arguments in the spirit of freedom of expression.
If you or another feel there is no currency in it then it may be on account of a faulty position, or lack of being convincing enough.
To fault the right of 'freedom of speech' as the reason MACs petshop people haven't made inroads into supply side and field issues...is not fair.
What would be preferable? Closed door sessions among big money interests?
Look. Just because they cannot win in the court of public opinion here doesn't mean they won't win anyway. They're getting cashed up nicely this year and will prevail regardless of merit.
Sincerely, Steve

 

[jamesw]

I think what would be fair is if you didn't hound them every step of the way Steve. I know it's your right and I support freedom of expression - as clearly evidenced here on reefs.org MANY times - but I don't think it's productive.

Remember, this isn't a yelling contest or a debating society. I'm afraid that this is what many think this forum had become. Certainly that's what MAC thinks (in my opinion).

Cheers
James

 

[clarionreef]

ANOTHER YEAR GONE BY,
MORE VICTIMS BY THE WAYSIDE.
There are exporters who sunk all they had into this thing based on MACs empty promises...of rising market reception based on the value of the certification premise. The damage has been serious....but I guess none of it was to you, I can tell.
In defense of MAC I have said people shouldn't have been so gullible as to believe them! Its their fault as well for investing so much in such non aquarium peoples faulty market analysis and untested notions.
Anyone hurt by them, counting on them and wasting time and money on them from now on has only themselves to blame.
MAC can no longer be held accountable for the netcaught fish and eager customers not appearing anytime soon. Killing off and ruining themselves with the ones most disposed to accept reforms...leaves them with the conventional trade in cyanide fish and gives that trade advantages over the more environmentally conscious of us.
And so dealers peddling reef-killing cyanide fishes are now certified and therefore 'more ecologically responsible than those of us sacrificing so much not to???
And do you have any idea how many divers have gone back to cyanide from bogus training?
Wheres the justice in any of this James? Its pure politics and misguided money and you assist it with your intellectual complicity...and duplicity.
I agree with the plea to lay off them though. Its just not a fair fight....
I'd much prefer a formal debate at MACNA, IMAC or IMO.
There should be nothing to fear from the lunatic fringe, right?
Steve

 

[blue hula]

G'day all,

I've kind of picked apart James' comments ...not a flame James and please don't take it personally ... you've just stated it more clearly than some others ...

but ultimately, I think it would be like showing up at a public transportation town hall meeting at UC Berkeley. No matter what you say, you will be wrong in somebody's eyes.

Public meetings are part of the resource management / conservation / public policy game, particularly if you are an NGO partly funded by public dollars and and one that is pushing a broad-based policy program involving stakeholder engagement. That MAC avoids the discussions is worrying from the point of view that there are pushing a product (certification) to a public audience - hobbyists who must feel confident that the seal means what it says.

I have little sympathy with their fragile sensibilities. In my current position, I am responsible for selling the idea of marine parks to the general public (including recreational and commercial fishermen). We catch a lot of flak from all sides - greenies who think we should be doing more, fishers who think we should be doing less. My colleagues have gone to public meetings where people have rented buses, gotten drunk on the way down to the meeting and spent the entire time hurling abuse. You take it. I've been publicly pilloried more times then I can count and, in years past, even had the pleasure of finding all 4 tires slashed on my truck.

Interacting with the stakeholders is a key part of the game. You weather it and in the end, if you can support your position, you usually have their respect if not agreement. No pain, no gain.

Besides, it's not about being "right". It's about building the best product / program going by engaging in debate and listening ... particularly to those with key skill sets / knowledge.

And the people that disagree with you have a lot more free time on their hands and a LOT louder voice. So why bother? Focus your efforts somewhere else.

Sorry, who has all this spare time? I have a full time job, I am a partner in a business and still try to enjoy a social life. The time to post here seriously cuts into my drinking / diving / bushwalking / reading time.

I do it because I believe MAC reads this and hope they get something out of it, because I hope it shakes the complacency of those who think the work has all been done, and because I care about coral reefs and fishing communities.

If you want to talk about loud voices, look to MAC. They have a staff member dedicated to communications, they have big grants, and their PR machine has forged alliances with ReefCheck and the World Conservation Monitoring Union - MAC is everywhere despite having produced only a negligible supply and apparently having done no marine resource management. Oh, and they get paid to do this.

As a "volunteer" to the cause, my voice is but a laryngetic whimper in comparison.

If you want to ask MAC questions, why not just call them, like I advised. If you have a cell phone w/ nationwide plan, it won't cost any more than calling your next-door neighbor. Dispatching an email may be more convenient for you - maybe because it doesn't feel like you're talking to a "real person" and all - but emails are pretty easy to just file away "to answer later."

If an organisation dealing with the public establishes a website with an email contact on it, you have de facto accepted the responsibility of responding to correspondence (this certainly has been the case at every organisation I have worked with). Even if it is to say, "we can't help you or we have no information publically available on that topic". Silence is unprofessional. Simple as that. And when it is selective ... it is suspect.

Again, it is not about the cost of a call (although not all of us live in America) ... it is about professionalism and accountability when working in the public domain. 'Sides, by emailing them, they have a chance to think through a careful response ;-)

Cheers, Blue hula

 

[JennM]

Unlike yourself and even most of the dealers and hobbyists who read this forum....some of us actually have to decide every day...every single day what to order for the coming week. This by definition involves ethical choices which some of us take seriously.
For example...to buy what sells and is in demand this week regardless of wether it was caught with cyanide or not....or to stick to the higher ground and keep it netcaught albiet with lower variety...reducing sales in the process.
In this quandry...some uf us are caught.
Sincerely, Steve

Amen, Brother Steve!

At first, once I realized that not everybody who claims to have all net-caught fish, really does, and once I changed my suppliers accordingly, that decision became a lot easier.

Educating hobbyists - many of whom are astonished to learn that there is *still* a cyanide problem in certain areas, makes the job easier. Less mortality, healthy livestock and the resulting better bottom line makes the decision much easier too - the most expensive fish is a dead fish. From a purely economic standpoint, I can't understand why all retailers wouldn't demand net-caught - there's just so much less mortality. My mortality numbers are now negligable, where they used to exceed 10% at times.

James, respectfully, it's easy for you to cheer from the sidelines - you ARE on the sidelines. This hobby is not your livelihood - it's your HOBBY, a luxury. You can take it or leave it. For us this is our means of support. Yeah we're going to get worked up from time to time. If you had something distressing going on in your workplace, you'd get a bit fired up too.

About MAC and their lack of response - I have no personal history with MAC, yet after the Paul Holthus chat on #reefs, and I made some strong commentary in the peanut gallery, somebody with MAC took enough notice of lil ole me to actually have David Vosseler call me at my shop, some time shortly after. He spent a good deal of time on the phone with me, but he really couldn't give me answers to my questions - and they were not really meaty questions at that point, because I really had only scratched the surface of my own questioning of MAC. At first I was on board with MAC's ideas - they mirror my own, but when the lack of substance and infrastructure became evident, I began to question its validity.

After my single, but lengthy phone conversation with David Vosseler (and it was a pleasant conversation - I was actually impressed that a MAC rep would take the time to reach out to me), MAC gave up on trying to win me over - I'm too critical. I wasn't emotional at all, rather I was simply demanding answers to questions that MAC didn't have. I wasn't going to be fooled, so they moved on to a more willing target.

And I just have to laugh James' selective memory of John Brandt's tenure as moderator - sure he got nailed with pointed questions (and virtual pointed sticks), people won't cut your head off til you stick your neck out... BUT let's not forget just how inflammatory John was! Attack or counterattack notwithstanding, John wasn't exactly Mr. Congeniality.
While most of us confined our attacks to the entity known as MAC, and its policies and practices. We directed our queries to John Brandt, moderator and MAC rep. Yes Mr. Brandt was the sounding board for many frustrations - but it's my assumption that MAC put him out there with their blessing - since John Brandt signs his posts listing his MAC credentials. In response Mr. Brandt chose to make personal attacks, and his approach to many postings was not just defensive, but downright hostile. IMO this did even more damage to MAC's image, especially in this place, where their credibility is already on shaky ground. Please don't portray John Brandt as the helpless MAC rep who got crucified here - he's no martyr in my eyes. FYI my statements are not meant to be an attack on John Brandt, but an observation of events which took place here. Posts are in the archive to back me up, as well as personal communications between myself and RDO administration, regarding personal attacks made by Mr. Brandt, toward me and my business. Totally unnecessary.

The bottom line is that MAC is plowing forward, advertising, selling their greenwash to whomever will buy it. Since we aren't buying it blindly, we aren't worthy of any notice.

The arrogance of MAC is amazing. Heck they won't even answer the questions of some of their paid-up certified dealers! Guess once the money's in the bank, who cares, right? :roll:

I've stopped investing much time in the MAC issue. Rather, I'm putting my ideals into practice. I'm not waiting for MAC or any other entity to fix the trade for me, I'm fixing it in my own little way by the choices I make and where I spend my money. No mixing.

Jenn

 

[Ad van Tage]

It started almost three weeks ago when

Is there a person on this forum, who has been charged by MAC to field questions relating to the Industry Behind the Marine Aquarium Hobby? And if so, in what capacity?

I have been following these boards for a while and am having a hard time figuring out if in fact we have an official MAC-voice present.

If there is, will that voice please pipe up?

then

John Brandt is the MAC board member on this board. In fact, he used to be moderator of this board. He does fine when it comes to cut and pasting articles or blatantly attacking those that question MAC, but when it comes to answering any of the hard questions he's mysteriously absent. Honestly, I don't blame him. It sucks to be asked direct, simple, extremely relevant questions and not be able to have answers. Frankly, I think MAC stuck him out on the front lines here but didn't have the ammunition to back him up. But hey, silent spokespeople are MAC's favorite type! Look at little what's-his-face from Finding Nemo. He's an official MAC spokesperson. Exactly what has he "spoke" about?????

and amongst others

John is a friend of mine- I know him fairly well, I understand his mindset with regards to MAC and I know that he wants to see it work. When he tried to answer questions, the truth of the matter is that he (and MAC) were attacked worse than before. In the end, I think they made a conscious decision to no longer post in this forum because they just thought it would be easier.

Thanx Mary, Mike and all who posted replies.

When I first posted my opening query on this post I had hoped to hear first hand from the MAC - yes, perhaps from John Brandt !!! -
whether he is or isn't a spokesman for the (Board of Directors of the) MAC. Given that I saw many signoffs on posts where

_________________
John Brandt

MASNA (USCRTF/MAC/Legislation Liaison)
MAC (Board of Directors)
CMAS-Chicago (Vice President)

I don't think that that was really too much to ask.

However, I since had to conclude that this appears to be a sensitive subject, and that Mr. Brandt appears to have withdrawn from this particular forum. His last post - as best as I can tell - was on the 13th of December.

Now I happen to think that it would be nice to hear from John Brandt directly as to the yeah or nay of being here as a spokesman or representative for (Board of Directors of the) MAC.

Such a simple question - imo - can hardly be regarded as "too hard to answer" or leading to "attacked worse than before".

when it comes to answering any of the hard questions he's mysteriously absent

that he (and MAC) were attacked worse than before

I appreciate Mike sticking up for a friend. But these questions are not about friend or foe. They are intended to try and shed some light on issues involving the MAC. Some clarity would be great.

I have to say that from my perspective, I agree with the person who posted that MAC's failure to respond to questions that are posted in such a public forum as we have here is a big mistake. Yes, there may be times that the going may get a little "heavy", but since when has hiding ever been a solution?

Mike's comment

In the end, I think they made a conscious decision to no longer post in this forum because they just thought it would be easier.

would indicate a very sad state of affairs.

I DO note that John Brandt, still signing his name as a MAC board of directors member IS posting on "General Reefkeeping Discussion" and is also in "The Sump"

I'm herewith CC-ing Mr. Brandt via person<-->person messaging.
CC: John Brandt

 

[John_Brandt]

Response to Private Message:

Ad,

I will communicate with you about this as soon as you tell me and the forum who you are without ambiguities.

 

[Anonymous]

Wow.. I've been seeing plenty of posts down under..

Less ambiguity would be nice, however, I fail to see why it has any bearing on whether or not one would answer honest questions with honest answers.

 

[Ad van Tage]

Response to Private Message:

Ad,

I will communicate with you about this as soon as you tell me and the forum who you are without ambiguities.

Hey we are making PROGRESS... This is the first time I have actually seen a DIRECT response from John_Brandt on this thread.
I also note, that his usual "credentials" and "certification" are absent. So I will take this as John's personal message.

Now to the matter at hand, and John's as soon as "challenge":
John, I - for the time being - have no intention, nor need for
"certification" by you, in either a personal, or a MAC role.

Suffice to say, that I speak purely for myself here. Without any labels. Without any preconceived notions. Without any ambiguity.

And as I have asked before: how about YOU John?

Btw. Taking a leaf out of Kalkbreath's book,
and spouting "YOU FIRST!" won't work.

Yours "without fear and without favour",

Ad van Tage, ~ aka Ecoworrier ~

 

[clarionreef]

Dear Ad,
Don't tell anybody nothin!
To withhold judgement on your words pending an I.D. is silly. Who cares who you are if you make sense. I sure don't. Truth spoken by a child is worth more than lies spun by a PhD....So ignore em.
Besides...there are plenty of known characters on this board who we do know...and it helps their cause not a bit. There are others who must remain incognito so that their dalliances here cannot be traced by their superiors at work.
Race, color, gender or creed makes no difference here. Hell, we even let you hold forth on the issues of the day if you're a service guy!
Hows that for tolerance?
Steve

 

[Ad van Tage]

BIG OOPS!!!

................
I also note, that his usual "credentials" and "certification" are absent. So I will take this as John's personal message.

I somehow, via the reply process, missed the fact that John Brandt DID sign off with:

MASNA (USCRTF/MAC/Legislation Liaison)
MAC (Board of Directors)
CMAS-Chicago (Vice President)

DENG... Now I have to ask , if that reply was in fact an OFFICAL REPLY
for MASNA, MAC or CMAS or any combination thereof? ...


I DARE and will say though, that such aggressive BRANDT answers don't speak well for the labels MASNA, MAC, or CMAS...

Makes one wonder how MASNA, MAC, or CMAS, feel about that, or?


Yours "without fear and without favour",

Ad van Tage, ~ aka Ecoworrier ~

 

[clarionreef]

Ad,
Once, a half year or so ago there was touble in the land of MAC and their 'service guy' ie. chief information officer was becoming downright nasty, defensive and vindictive and as such putting MACs image in a bad light.
Then we heard a cock crow three times and a terse statement that read
... "I am not MAC!"
From this we are left to deduce that it must be a seasonal label. Perhaps determined by water temperature.
Or perhaps one offered to impress the masses like the medals on an old style dictators chest. Then again, when becoming a liability... the one is no longer part of the MAC franchise....you know like the proverbial ex CIA agent.
Personally, I think its just to impress the girls.
So, I want to try it also;
Sincerely, Steve

AMDA president
IMA founder
Discoverer of the MACs country coordinator in P.I.
Field trainer Environmental Center of the Philippines 82-83
Field trainer Haribon, IMA and IMA Canada 86-92
member So. Calif Turtle and Tortoise club
[HOWEVER...IF I bring shame to the turtle club...I am no longer a member the moment that happens.]

 

[Ad van Tage]

Wow.. I've been seeing plenty of posts down under..
Less ambiguity would be nice, however, I fail to see why it has any bearing on whether or not one would answer honest questions with honest answers.

Dear Ad,
Don't tell anybody nothin!
To withhold judgement on your words pending an I.D. is silly. Who cares who you are if you make sense. I sure don't.
Truth spoken by a child is worth more than lies spun by a PhD....So ignore em.
Besides...there are plenty of known characters on this board who we do know...and it helps their cause not a bit.
There are others who must remain incognito so that their dalliances here cannot be traced by their superiors at work.
Race, color, gender or creed makes no difference here.
Hell, we even let you hold forth on the issues of the day if you're a service guy!
Hows that for tolerance?
Steve

Seamaiden, Steve, thanx for those posts.

Hey Steve, rest assured that my childhood is well behind me... But take it easy on PhDs!!! Most of them have to put up with peer reviews. And many actually welcome that! [ Do you get it Kalkbreath? ]

Yes, I think "tolerance" and "mutual respect" would go a long way in impoving communications. Especially for folks who are, or appear to be in "leadership" roles.
When they lack "tolerance" and "respect" theirs becomes "l*e*a*d*e*r*s*h*i*t"... You can quote me on that!

I wonder how Mr. Brandt would answer if he thought but for a moment that I am / work for a major funder?

So long,

Ad van Tage,
aka Ecoworrier,
my pals call me "Van".


PS "l*e*a*d*e*r*s*h*i*t" without the *s morphed to "crap" on this forum. We don't want any of that now, do we?

 

[Ad van Tage]

Ad,
.......................
Personally, I think its just to impress the girls.
So, I want to try it also;
Sincerely, Steve
....................
member So. Calif Turtle and Tortoise club
[HOWEVER...IF I bring shame to the turtle club...I am no longer a member the moment that happens.]

:idea: :idea: :idea: Is THAT why Kalkbreath keeps rubbing his eel??? 8O 8O 8O

 

[Anonymous]

hmm..

i don't get why the identity of the poster is more important than the questions being asked, john.


does the answer change depending on who you're telling the answer to?

 

[JennM]

hmm..

i don't get why the identity of the poster is more important than the questions being asked, john.


does the answer change depending on who you're telling the answer to?

It's all just more smoke and mirrors. Yet another way NOT to answer the tough questions, by changing the focus from the questions, to the questioner, and his/her credentials - talk about hypocricy.

I'd bet that ANY questions that come in via email, from ANYONE, are ignored or disregarded, because God forbid it could be one of us loonies, disguised as a garden-variety hobbyist! After all, relative newcomers to the forum here have had their queries gone unanswered.

Ad van Tage could be any of us - or none of us. He/she could represent any of the fine folks throwing money at MAC, could represent the industry, the hobbyists, John Q. Public... or all of the above.

Why should it matter *who* they are?

Is the answer dependent on who the questioner is?
Will MAC only answer *certain* people and not others?
Do the answers change depending on the perspective of the person asking?
Talk about discrimination!!! I always thought that there were laws about non-discrimination in non-profit organizations?

We know that certain among us are not worthy of any sort of accountability - but who are we? Merely those in the industry that MAC is trying to "fix".. what do we know anyway? :roll:

And MAC wonders why the mood gets increasingly hostile?

Guess they never heard the old cliche, "You can catch more flies with honey, than vinegar"...

You know, there are some here, who have tried for a long time, to give MAC the benefit of the doubt, for a long time, before finally accepting that it's a farce. There are some of us here that believed for a long time that if *only* MAC could come clean with the truth, that the organization could regain credibility and move forward with the support of even the critics, IF some hard issues were acknowledged and addressed.

Goodness knows I didn't want MAC to fail, but I've had my doubts the longer it went on, and the more industry people became disenchanted with the organization. The lack of infrastructure makes a mockery of the whole notion of industry reform.

Now, I've basically lost hope that it can be turned around. There is too much damage done at this point. And the staunch refusal to even communicate with anyone, just keeps driving that point home.

Years and millions of dollars wasted.

Too bad.

Jenn

 

[blue hula]

Response to Private Message:

Ad,

I will communicate with you about this as soon as you tell me and the forum who you are without ambiguities.

John,

You know who I am (name, rank and serial number at any rate) and you don't answer my questions (and remember, there were only two simple ones ...) Paul Holthus also has met me face to face and silence continues to reign supreme from that corner as well.

Geez, I guess the rules just keep changing. When you and I were going round the Batasan mulberry bush, I thought maybe the rule was that you would answer mine if I answered yours.

I did.

You didn't.

Now a label is required ?

Next it will be photo id avatars ...oops hang on ... that's only if your handle makes you sound like a terrorist... but hey wait a minute ... that other moniker ... "ecoworrier" ... d'ya reckon s/he spikes trees and juices reefs? Is that vowel swap simply a thin cover for dastardly deeds?

Suspend all civil liberties immediately! Raid the AMDA office. Members of the forum clearly cannot distinguish between questions focused on accountability and malevolent pot stirring.

Good golly miss molly that's a low opinion of our poor old gang.

Cheers,
Black and blue hula