Aquarium Reform

[Anonymous]

kylen wrote:
The funny things is...you can get aquacultured rock, MAC certified rock, cultured corals, cultured fish, and clean fish from from a variety of sources. How would gov't intervention effect this unless there is a complete ban on these products, thereby, shutting the industry down?


The intent of BILL 4928 is to encourage all of the above.

That is my point, Wayne. Where would the risk come in your investment if all these products were available at the time and you tailor your operation to this legislation that you foresaw two years ago? Wouldn't this be a competitive advantage over the other LFS in Vancouver because you would be ready for this new era in the industry? Your supply chain wouldn't have been effected by any legislation put forward, unless there is a total ban on MO importation. Other stores in the area wouldn't be so lucky. Then I'm sure that the hobbyists in the area would have been beating each other up to get to your "clean" store.

Ditto Jenn...Bill 4928 doesn't apply to Canada. So obviously you know of similar legislation in the works for us up here. Care to fill us Canadians in?

if he ever had actually considered going into the biz, and done basic research, the answer would have been 'yes' :wink:

the same apllies, imo, to any current ops that either already meet or exceed (all to easy to do) the proposed/current mac standards

which again begs the question....

(why) should anyone have to 'lower their standards' (publicly stated) to accept, or have to do business w/, a mac sticker paid for as a levy by the industry through the federal gov't ?

 

[JennM]

If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards...

The crazy thing with MAC is... that the "best practices" don't have standards. As David Vosseler explained it to me, part of "certification" (cough) was for each store to write down their policies and procedures.

So if it's my "standard" to do water changes once a year whether I need it or not, and run my nitrates at 200 ppm, as long as what I have written down is in line with what I'm actually doing (and who's gonna come and see?) then I can buy a certification. It is not so much about good practices, as it is in being consistent - whatever my written procedure is, should be practiced. Again - don't know when any "snap inspections" might have been done, or by whom, but there was no watchdog to verify if my "best practices" were actually good husbandry or not. IMO that was "certification" (cough cough) without substance. If it's like that all through the certification chain... what's the point? Where is anything anywhere that makes "certified" product any better than anything else?

Presumably, a certified facility would have to maintain realistic best practices in order to keep their batches certified... but even then...

I couldn't then, nor could I now, figure out the "value" of buying a sticker. It wouldn't change a thing about what I'm doing, and hobbyists don't give a rat's hairy butt. I've yet to have anybody come into my shop asking for MAC certified stuff, despite the PR campaign.

At this stage of the game, buying a certification isn't even good "advertising".

Jenn

 

[MaryHM]

Jenn gets the "Nail on the Head" award. You understand MAC certification completely. There are NO set criteria for maintaining a system, handling your fish, acclimation, etc... Just write what you do down, hand over a check, and wa-la- you're certified. It really is just a step up from an AMDA sticker. At least MAC requires you write something down.

 

[dizzy]

Man you can sure tell you guys weren't AMDA members the past couple of years. MAC does have a best practice set of standards. It was 1%DOA/1%DAA, I'm shocked 8O you haven't heard about. You have leeway to design your own maintenance and husbandry program. As long as you can do the 2% total your good to go. After 3-days DAA is ok I think. If you can't do the 2% total consistantly they will be paying a visit to find out why. You will be required to track your fish and report accurate data on deaths or sales into the Global Marine Data Bank. It is my belief this information will eventually be used to build the unsuitability list. There has been much speculation that cheating will occur to prevent the dreaded visit to see what is wrong. The certifying agency will visit you once a year, at your expense, to make sure you are following the game plan you submitted. I believe this is to occur even if you are meeting the best practice standards for DOA/DAA. John seems to think you will always be allowed to carry non-MAC certified fish as well as the certified ones, but I don't believe this is really the long term plan. Wish I could sugar coat this stuff for Chip, but I don't like to get my news like that. They say the 1% is just a goal, and perhaps it is. It sure is a longway to go from the 30-50% loses they believe occur. Seems like a slightly more modest improvement would have been a good starting place, but what do I know?
Mitch

 

[JennM]

Ok so other than the once a year visit, what's to stop a store from cheating?

Using the now-infamous green chromis comparison...

I have 25 MAC green chromis. I lose 3. What is stopping me from sticking 3 "other" green chromis in the tank? Nothing. It's all the honour system - no matter how you slice it. If I don't have to track the non-MAC fish, there's a ready supply of fillers-in to make myself look good. Who's the wiser? Just me

Unless a store is ALL certified fish, all the time, and unless they can account for every fish every time... oh the paperwork.... it is a very flawed system, and hardly worthy of the price tag.

Oh and an inspection at my expense -- gives me lots of heads up to clean the place up for show if I know when they are coming.

Sorry - not worth the paper it's printed on.

Jenn

 

[MaryHM]

There isn't even a once a year required visit, from what I understand.

 

[JennM]

I'll go one step further...

If a MAC certified facility can still carry non-certified fish, what's the advantage? Occasionally having a fish or two that earn the sticker? The rest of the time my supply could be as dirty as sin... but the appearance of that sticker conveniently greenwashes everything in the store as far as the average hobbyist is concerned.

IMO that's worse than a non-certified store, period.

Jenn

 

[dizzy]

Ok so other than the once a year visit, what's to stop a store from cheating?


I have 25 MAC green chromis. I lose 3. What is stopping me from sticking 3 "other" green chromis in the tank? Nothing. It's all the honour system - no matter how you slice it. If I don't have to track the non-MAC fish, there's a ready supply of fillers-in to make myself look good. Who's the wiser? Just me

Unless a store is ALL certified fish, all the time, and unless they can account for every fish every time... oh the paperwork.... it is a very flawed system, and hardly worthy of the price tag.

Oh and an inspection at my expense -- gives me lots of heads up to clean the place up for show if I know when they are coming.

Sorry - not worth the paper it's printed on.

Jenn

I think the cheating can be stopped by eliminating all non-MAC fish from the marketplace. It is my belief this is the master plan. Either hr4928 or the airline plan would make them the only source. You might be able to replace green chromis from one certified wholesaler with some from another, but what is the point? For this to work they have to eliminate all competition, don't you see that? The plan is, as it has always been to make MAC certified fish the only choice. If they had gotten a good fish supply it might already have been that way for some MAC certified stores. The plan to have the stores only sell the limited variety of MAC certified fish works much better for a chain like Petco that doesn't need profit from the fish room. Now do you understand?
Mitch

 

[JennM]

You're kidding right?

There aren't any MAC certified fish right now in the chain at all that I'm aware of, and yet this proposes to have ALL MO fish MAC certified?

I'll believe that when they implement a CDT... :roll:

Jenn

 

[dizzy]

Jenn,
I'm serious as cancer. A lot of money will be spent in the very near future to rush the training and get the supply, for the vertically integrated system. The sustainability issue is a curve ball and must be changed in the bill to allow the plan to work. Fiji should be the first place to bring some relief.
Mitch

PS Why do you think I have been suggesting this will be so bad for independetn stores? No way to sugar coat this stuff for the general independent community.

 

[JennM]

So who's funding all that? They've already pumped untold bags of money into it, and there's no supply to speak of. Putting the government in charge will just increase the wastage...

Jenn

 

[dizzy]

Jenn,
Read the MAMTI documents. Glenn posted the link. They got funded to the tune of 22 million to make this work.
Mitch

 

[clarionreef]

Jenn,
I think It works like this;
First... you run pilot projects w/ wannabies and newbies and fail to create fish suppply due to he reasons posted 500 times...ie. "incompetence, blind leading the blind, that dog don't hunt, cart before the horse, emperor sans clothes, city boys like babes in the woods, false reports back to HQ to hide the failures, divers being wooed away from MAC by an Aussie who then ships em to China, netting material bogus so phoney netting used , aloof, out of touch, cold, imperious management...etc. etc. etc.

Then...having proved you cannot do this...you are then ready to spend 20 million or so to "ramp it up".
Its ECO-business...and its the hot new thing!
Everyone wants into it and groups are springing up to compete for the imagined riches we possess.
Actually...for the long work weeks and poor income, I want out. I need to find me a 'little' Packard investor to pitch a line to.
Apparently they are easy to fool, take fibs as fact without question and insist on reports blowing smoke up their rears.
Failure is considered OK, and the inability to produce is a plus.
Playing not only with the lives of dealers, they will fail terribly in the field and maintain the system in cyanide fishing as they prove futher TO THE FISHERS that NETS DON'T WORK.
Like the green, amatuer netcaught shippers who kill too many fish due to inexperience....green amatuer eco-groups will blow the chance to convert the trades collectors due to the same inexperience.
PACKARD MADE THEM AND NOW THEY GET TO PLAY IN THE WATER...BECAUSE its their beach ball.
Alas...training divers is not hard if you do it right.
The wrong people with the wrong approach though???No way.

Steve


I edited you post for you, for clarification. Help me out int the future, eh?

 

[Kalkbreath]

What has US Fish and Wildlife said about all this ? They are the only go between with imported fish and the permit holder/importer. Most of the LAX wholesalers dont even land their fish.{Whens the last time you actually landed a shipmet MARY? ] Agents for the exporters/brokers do most of the "landing" For instance, when I place an order overseas .....The only people that get envolved with me and my shipment of fish is USF&W and US Customs. There are only three agents at most of the twelve or so points of entry into America . In order for Fish and Wildlife to inspect all the fish landings into the USA The manpower would have to increase tenfold. As of today USF&W only inspect CITES items . It would be a serious venture to actually inspect fish shipments. It would require the USF&W to increase the agency more then Twice its current size! Has anyone heard a response by the agency that would over see this .......?

 

[MaryHM]

Not sure exactly what you mean by landing. We import our shipments, give the documents to our customs broker, broker sets up the appointment with USFWS and deals with customs. We're usually there when the shipment lands and we're there while USFWS inspects/clears the shipment. Broker deals with all of the clearance paperwork.

 

[Anonymous]

What has US Fish and Wildlife said about all this ? They are the only go between with imported fish and the permit holder/importer. Most of the LAX wholesalers dont even land their fish.{Whens the last time you actually landed a shipmet MARY? ] Agents for the exporters/brokers do most of the "landing" For instance, when I place an order overseas .....The only people that get envolved with me and my shipment of fish is USF&W and US Customs. There are only three agents at most of the twelve or so points of entry into America . In order for Fish and Wildlife to inspect all the fish landings into the USA The manpower would have to increase tenfold. As of today USF&W only inspect CITES items . It would be a serious venture to actually inspect fish shipments. It would require the USF&W to increase the agency more then Twice its current size! Has anyone heard a response by the agency that would over see this .......?

Exactly why making certification mandatory for space makes sense, right? If everything comes in certified, all they have to check is paper work and not the actual shipments.

 

[Anonymous]

Jenn,
I think it works like this;
First... you run pilot projects w/ wannabies and newbies and fail to create fish suppply due to he reasons posted 500 times...ie. "incompetence, blind leading the blind, that dog don't hunt, cart before the horse, emperor sans clothes, city boys like babes in the woods, false reports back to HQ to hide the failures, divers being wooed away from MAC by an Aussie who then ships em to China, netting material bogus so phoney netting used , aloof, out of touch, cold, imperious management...etc. etc. etc.

Then...having proved you cannot do this...you are then ready to spend 20 million or so to "ramp it up".
Its ECO-business...and its the hot new thing!
Everyone wants into it and groups are springing up to compete for the imagined riches we possess.
Actually...for the long work weeks and poor income, I want out. I need to find me a 'little' Packard investor to pitch a line to.
Apparently they are easy to fool, take fibs as fact without question and insist on reports blowing smoke up their rears.
Failure is considered OK, and the inability to produce is a plus.
Playing not only with the lives of dealers, they will fail terribly in the field and maintain the system in cyanide fishing as they prove futher TO THE FISHERS that NETS DON'T WORK.
Like the green, amatuer netcaught shippers who kill too many fish due to inexperience....green amatuer eco-groups will blow the chance to convert the trades collectors due to the same inexperience.
PACKARD MADE THEM AND NOW THEY GET TO PLAY IN THE WATER...BECAUSE its their beach ball.
Alas...training divers is not hard if you do it right.
The wrong people with the wrong approach though???No way.

Steve

I edited your post for you. Help me out in the future, eh?

 

[Kalkbreath]

What has US Fish and Wildlife said about all this ? They are the only go between with imported fish and the permit holder/importer. Most of the LAX wholesalers dont even land their fish.{Whens the last time you actually landed a shipmet MARY? ] Agents for the exporters/brokers do most of the "landing" For instance, when I place an order overseas .....The only people that get envolved with me and my shipment of fish is USF&W and US Customs. There are only three agents at most of the twelve or so points of entry into America . In order for Fish and Wildlife to inspect all the fish landings into the USA The manpower would have to increase tenfold. As of today USF&W only inspect CITES items . It would be a serious venture to actually inspect fish shipments. It would require the USF&W to increase the agency more then Twice its current size! Has anyone heard a response by the agency that would over see this .......?

Exactly why making certification mandatory for space makes sense, right? If everything comes in certified, all they have to check is paper work and not the actual shipments.

No ,its not certified until fish and wildlife says so ........ A CITES permit only states that the items on the paper are alowable in number of items . Whats to prevent items not on the list to be included ........ or items take/collected outside the certification program? What prevents items from being placed on the plane that are not the items featured on the paperwork? Fish and Wildlife only can check that items are the correct species. NOT that the fish was collected in a specific section of reef. The idea that it is possible to screen fish and know the exact location it was collected is silly. Who is it that checks the fish before they board the plane? And how exactly do they know where the fish they are looking at were netted?

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk,In PI, BFAR issues export permits based on the list supplied by the exporter or his broker. As far as I know nobody checks to verify that the box contains what is listed on the export permit.

Furthermore, USFWS does not computerize any of the information about the species being imported (just families). Other than one or two short-term studies (e.g., Christina Balboa of WRI) the information is essentially lost. You can ask to see it however, if your petition USFWS. They have a whole warehouse full of the paper forms listing species.

Back to the original point. There is no means to verify where the fish were actually caught. I guess that will change with the paper trail created by MAC Certification. Right?

Peter Rubec

 

[Anonymous]

Kalk,In PI, BFAR issues export permits based on the list supplied by the exporter or his broker. As far as I know nobody checks to verify that the box contains what is listed on the export permit.

Furthermore, USFWS does not computerize any of the information about the species being imported (just families). Other than one or two short-term studies (e.g., Christina Balboa of WRI) the information is essentially lost. You can ask to see it however, if your petition USFWS. They have a whole warehouse full of the paper forms listing species.

Back to the original point. There is no means to verify where the fish were actually caught. I guess that will change with the paper trail created by MAC Certification. Right?
Peter Rubec

i'll interject here by saying that it's fairly well established that the answer is no, it won't

heh- the ONLY way for total traceability and pinpoint of locale, would be for each diver to chip a fish immediately upon collection, before his catch can even mix w/any other divers

chip-ing at the collection 'stations' at the best would only confirm supplier

the 'paper trail' is all too easily circumvented, and as steve's pointed out, most likely will be, as soon as the 'gringos' (yeah yeah, so i can't remember fillipino for 'gringo', bite me ) turn their backs :wink: