DOA/Shipping and Handling in the Trade

[Anonymous]

Maybe I should just ban the use of simile, metaphor, and analogy. That's where we get into trouble.

 

[Kalkbreath]

This may well be the biggest issue ever discussed on this board. This one issue might well take out our businesses......... And the hobby. Almost every aspect of the trade has been distorted by the people reporting to the Government. There is no scientist on the planet that knows more about importing MO fish then Steve and Mary . Yet , somehow its the scientists that have the final word. I dont see how Peter could have listened to what we said about Franks data and not have understood that as a whole fish stores dont import the species of fish in those ratios. So the data has no place in any publications The question is why has he not recanted the data?

 

[MaryHM]

Just ban conversation while you're at it.

 

[dizzy]

Rick actually co-authored the paper we're talking about. How one small retailer in Portland, ME can serve as the example of all east coast retailers is beyond me. I don't talk to Rick anymore (not personal, just one of those "out of touch" kind of things). Rick was on the BOD at the time of the CCIF thing. But don't get the impression that there was some big coverup to the membership.

Mary,
Rick wasn't just some small store. He was president of AMDA back in 1997 I believe. That positon would have carried quite a bit of weight back in those days. People were telling Peter things were bad. I'm certain of that. That don't mean I think Peter walks on water, but I will say I've yet to catch he intentioanlly lying to me. I don't believe he is trying to hurt the trade.
Mitch

 

[PeterIMA]

I find it strange that we discussed the survey by Frank Lallo over a year ago with Frank Lallo on Reefs.org. The issue died down until it was revived this week.

All I said was that Frank's data represented a large sample. It reprsents the most comprehensive survey of retailers ever undertaken concerning mortality. I did not influence how Frank did the study, or his findings that I reported in 2001 in the one line that Lee quoted. The paper was co-authored by Frank Lallo. It should be noted that Frank was a member of the IMA in 1997 and allowed his name to be added to the paper published in 2001. Richard Oellers is also listed as a co-author. He did not influence the mortality figures used in the paper. So, don't blame Rick.

I still believe that the numbers published are credible. No claims to superior survey methods were stated or implied. Very little scientifically gathered mortality data exists for the aquarium trade. The data I presented is fairly typical of the statements made even recently on this forum. Something like, "I worked in a retail store in xxx 5 years ago and we experienced high mortality. Since, I owned my own store we have very low mortality."

I have also listened to a number of people in the trade tell me how they got burned by certain shipments. Wouldn't the average for the shipments have to include the bad shipments as well as the good ones?

I am not responsible for MAMTI or H.R. 4928. I can understand why the mortality issue may be more personal now. I sympathisize.

Another fact we discussed a year ago is that managers often use the best information available. Is it always the best science? Maybe not, but managers and law makers will still use it because it is the best information available.

When I wrote the paper in 2001, I wished to do a study of mortality in conjunction with AMDA members. This did not happen because IMA lost grants and the MAC rose to fill the void. Recently, the MAC announced they were hiring a Filipino MBA to study mortalty and economics in the trade. Do I see you attacking the MAC over this issue? I guess the 1% mortality standard does not matter anymore.

Peter

 

[MaryHM]

So Frank was a member of IMA so any study by him constitutes a study by the IMA? I'm a member of the Association for Kinesensory Teaching. Does that mean that if I do a phone survey that it is akin to the AKT doing it? No. It doesn't. And you know that as well.

Very little scientifically gathered mortality data exists for the aquarium trade.

So that gives you free reign to just find what IS available and claim it to be scientific?

Recently, the MAC announced they were hiring a Filipino MBA to study mortalty and economics in the trade. Do I see you attacking the MAC over this issue? I guess the 1% mortality standard does not matter anymore.

How can I attack something that hasn't even been completed yet? If they come up with numbers as shoddy and irresponsible as the ones you used for your paper, then I'll be on their a$$ as well. This isn't a MAC thing. This is a discussion about what you, Peter Rubec, did.

I want to hear two things from you:

1. Do you think that Frank's survey was scientifically conducted? If no, then how is it responsible science to publish them without indicating that fact?

2. Concerning my yellow tang mathematics. Do you see how flawed the data must be if that is the math that comes out of it? Can you see the reality of the inconsistencies?

 

[dizzy]

I find it strange that we discussed the survey by Frank Lallo over a year ago with Frank Lallo on Reefs.org. The issue died down until it was revived this week.

All I said was that Frank's data represented a large sample. It reprsents the most comprehensive survey of retailers ever undertaken concerning mortality. I did not influence how Frank did the study, or his findings that I reported in 2001 in the one line that Lee quoted. The paper was co-authored by Frank Lallo. It should be noted that Frank was a member of the IMA in 1997 and allowed his name to be added to the paper published in 2001. Richard Oellers is also listed as a co-author. He did not influence the mortality figures used in the paper. So, don't blame Rick.
Peter

But wait a minute. If Frank and Rick are both co-authors on the same paper, it would mean that Rick at the very least signed off on the data. He was an East Coast retailer and he co-authored a paper that stated 60% DOA on the East Coast or something like that. If he disagreed he should have said so. He does have some responsibility here.
Mitch

 

[MaryHM]

I'm curious as to what "co author" means anyway. What contributions did Rick and Frank have to the actual writing of the paper? And Mitch, you're right. If Rick signed off on this then he is at fault as well. You can't take the experiences of one or two retailers and some shoddy phone study and create a scientific paper around it. Or can you?

 

[Len]

GRRRRRRRR! And something else. I actually defended Peter to a certain exporter in Fiji who swore up and down that Peter wanted to shut the trade down.

I don't see how this is pertinent to our discussion.

Just ban conversation while you're at it.

I believe strictly enforcing the personal attack policy may be worth a shot. No one wants to stifle the exchange of ideas so long as you refrain from deragotory, uncivil, ad hominem attacks. We are presently trying to clarify our position to a few people, but eventually temp bans may be the only solution. It can't be said a sincere effort wasn't made on the moderator's/admin's part.

 

[naesco]

Comeon Mary lightenup.

Everyone else takes a step back when they are out of place and warned. You should to.

And, please lose the avatar. I am sure you can find something nice,eh

 

[PeterIMA]

At the time I wrote the Net-caught paper and the TURFs paper, I sent drafts to various people for their comments (including Mary). It did not elicit the kind of comments that we see here today.

Peter

 

[Anonymous]

Comeon Mary lightenup.

Everyone else takes a step back when they are out of place and warned. You should to.

And, please lose the avatar. I am sure you can find something nice,eh

i hope you also heed len's posts-in my eyes, you've been just as guilty for just as long as anyone of ad-hominem statements , including the post above :wink:


carrying on...

peter, thanx for the cyanide article

do you think it accurately reflects, for better or worse, the present situation today?

i'd like to hear your opinion also on the phone survey, do you think it's an accurate reflection on the state of affairs of the wholesale/retail doa/daa issue/level of present times ?

do you think it's fair, if you think it might not be, to preface it as such, regardless of whether there's an increase OR decrease in the numbers ?

 

[dizzy]

At the time I wrote the Net-caught paper and the TURFs paper, I sent drafts to various people for their comments (including Mary). It did not elicit the kind of comments that we see here today.

Peter

Just as the US was a different country after 9/11, the industry is different after the introduction of hr4928. I agree with kalk again, this is the most important issue we have discussed.
Mitch

 

[MaryHM]

I don't see how this is pertinent to our discussion.

It's pertinent in the fact that someone else a couple of years ago (actually a few someone else's) said that Peter had an agenda and wanted to ban the trade.

Everyone else takes a step back when they are out of place and warned. You should to.

Um, I did. Have I personally attacked Peter since I told Len I was done arguing about it? No. And thanks, but I'll not take discussion board behavior advice from someone who was banned from another board.

And, please lose the avatar. I am sure you can find something nice,eh

As far as I know, there are no av regulations I'm breaking. When you become moderator, I'll listen to you. Actually, I'll just leave the board.

At the time I wrote the Net-caught paper and the TURFs paper, I sent drafts to various people for their comments (including Mary). It did not elicit the kind of comments that we see here today.

Back then I had no idea that the numbers were so bogus and irresponsible. I thought it was a study conducted by the IMA, as you stated. Back then I also thought the IMA was some major-player big-wig organization and I trusted in the fact that they had a clue. Back then I trusted you implicitly. Had I known the truth and seen the details of the study, I would have spoken up then. But interestingly enough the details and the truth didn't come out until years later.

 

[MaryHM]

Peter, can you please answer these questions:


1. Do you think that Frank's survey was scientifically conducted? If no, then how is it responsible science to publish them without indicating that fact?

2. Concerning my yellow tang mathematics. Do you see how flawed the data must be if that is the math that comes out of it? Can you see the reality of the inconsistencies?

 

[Anonymous]

Thread split

 

[MaryHM]

And moved to Announcements?? Huh??

 

[MaryHM]

Nevermind, it's back. Way to freak me out, Glenn.

 

[naesco]

Mary your comments are not fair to Dr. Rubec.

You were given an opportunity to comment on his study BEFORE anyone else read it and you made no comment.

It is highly inappropriate for you to engage in cross examination when you neglected to do so when you had the opportunity.

It is as simple as that.

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry, I always forget to check the forums field and "Announcements" is the default.