for rover re: mac invite

[MaryHM]

I don't need you to fax the hard copies over. I just wanted the dates. You're telling me I quit working on the USL because of heated debate on the AMDA forum. I'm telling you that I quit because a) No one wanted to help compile the large species and b) I had the whole MAC/AMDA resignation thing going on plus was in the busiest season for my company. I brought the USL up in the big MAC face to face meeting the following March, which proves I wasn't running scared from the topic. Accept the truth or not, I really don't care. When someone is accusing you of "thinking" one way or the other, it's impossible to try to prove yourself right in their mind so I'm not going to try anymore. I gave you the facts, do with them what you will.

 

[Len]

Vitz, I believe my moderation is fair and balanced; I am well aware you disagree with some of my points of view. I can't please you all. I can find comfort in that there's only about 4 folks in the entire community - it should be noted all these folks have been reprimanded at one time or another- who have expressed to me your opinion about my moderation. Again, I try, but try as I may, I'm simply not going to satisfy everyone.

 

[dizzy]

Mary,
Take a trip down memory lane. Hope it comes through readable. Check the dates.
Mitch

 

[John_Brandt]

Mitch, your comment about MAC wanting to create an USL to make me feel important is false, misleading and insulting.

Len, your avatar is an unsuitable species :lol:

 

[dizzy]

Mitch, your comment about MAC wanting to create an USL to make me feel important is false, misleading and insulting.

Len, your avatar is an unsuitable species :lol:

I knew you'd like it. It does seem unnecessary if you follow my logic. No?

 

[John_Brandt]

If it can't do the 1%DOA/1%DAA it will find its way onto the list.

False and misleading.

 

[dizzy]

John,
Are you going on record as saying that MAMTI will continue to let fish be shipped to retail stores, knowing they cannot meet the standards set for MAC certified fish? I don't think so. I think you are doing the misleading.
Mitch

 

[dizzy]

Who's next? I'll take ya all on.
Mitch

 

[John_Brandt]

Um, yoo-hoo. Dave was talking about the Solomon Islands, where his station is. There is no cyanide use there.

There are reports of cyanide use in the Solomon Islands.

 

[John_Brandt]

John,
Are you going on record as saying that MAMTI will continue to let fish be shipped to retail stores, knowing they cannot meet the standards set for MAC certified fish? I don't think so. I think you are doing the misleading.
Mitch

Yea right, Mitch :roll:

If we used your statements, predictions and logic, MAC would not allow certification of nearly all species then be self-funded by the export levy placed on the handful of certifiable species that remain. Great plan.

 

[dizzy]

John,
I'm not the one who painted MAC into the corner with the Utopian standards. God knows I practically begged Paul to reconsider. I got hard copies of this too. When no compromise was forthcoming, the battle lines were drawn.
Mitch

 

[naesco]

Can anyone name me one example where an NGO has forced their program on to the international stage via legislation? Where an industry has been severely slowed or stopped because of regulations based on an NGO?

No I can't.

But I can name an industry whose very survival is under siege yet that industry does nothing to reeform itself to avoid it's own destruction

 

[naesco]

IT IS IN THE HANDS OF THE GOVERNMENT MY FRIENDS and crap like you have to let them fish with cyanide because if you prohibit it they will become loggers and log all the trees off the Philippines is simply just crap.

Um, yoo-hoo. Dave was talking about the Solomon Islands, where his station is. There is no cyanide use there. Wayne, how do you think banning the MO trade will help the Solomon Island reefs?? Please answer the question this time instead of ignoring it.

There is no question that once a ban on cyanide caught fish from the Philippines and Indonesia is in place, net caught fishers from PI the Solomons and others will benefit from higher prices caused by greater demand. Organizations like MAC and CIDA funded Canadian NGOs will be there to ensure that sustainability issues remain protected.

In the meantime the cyanide gang will rush to get in experts to train the cyanide fishers net caught techniques so that they too can reap the benefits from higher prices. Overtime when the Philippines and Indonesia prove their cyanide days are over, prices will revert back to pre-reeform pricing.

There will be healthier reefs slowly mending, more, healthier fish and coral, less DOA from better holding transport and other improvements.
The USL will allow fish like the cleaner wrasse to stay on the reefs and do their good job for the benefit of all.

The good news is it is right around the corner. God Bless America and BILL 4928

 

[naesco]

It is pretty obvious that Wayne does not have a clue. I hope that it is as obvious to others that Wayne has contact with as it is to many on this forum that he has no clue as to the real issues with our industry.

The logging reference that I used applied to my collectors whom I know very well, I know what they do to survive if I even shut down for a couple of weeks at Christmas time. That same situation does not apply to the Philippines, the Philippines is pretty much logged out compared to the Solomons. The Philippine reefs are in much worse shape because of it too. The Philippine divers that I know do not have the option of cutting down trees, they are not land owners. The only option that they really have to feed their families is to turn to food fish if the ornamental trade is stopped. If they are out of work for more than a week the family starts to suffer. These people have no back up, no bank account, nothing to fall back on. Take away the option to fish for ornamentals and they fall back to fishing for food fish. Wayne, fishing for food fish in the Philippines is much more destructive than the ornamental trade. Everyone but you seems to agree to this. Many papers have been written about this. I see a link that Mary gave where the V.P. of the WWF explains this quite nicely. Ban the collection of ornamentals for your "feel good" reasons and the reefs will take a big hit. Environmentally it would be a hugely stupid mistake.

I have issues with your unsuitable fish list also. I have always been against regulating what can and can not be brought into the trade. But on the same hand I am very strong in my opinions of what I will and will not bring in. If a supplier sends me a fish that I did not order because I feel that it is unsuitable then I am very hard on them. I have species that I feel are unsuitable and I do not want them brought in. However I know that my list is different from what other people think. Your ideas should not be forced on me and vice versa. Much of the advancement in this hobby is brought on by people finding ways to keep previously "unsuitable" species

Dave you are correct I am 100% against the use of cyanide which destroys the reefs and the critters that live therein.
ZERO TOLERANCE for those in the industry caught importing cyanid fish.

Re: the USL I will start a thread on that topic next because it is also covered by BILL 4928 You are aware of course that unsuitable species often are unordered filler. This practice must stop.

 

[Anonymous]

IT IS IN THE HANDS OF THE GOVERNMENT MY FRIENDS and crap like you have to let them fish with cyanide because if you prohibit it they will become loggers and log all the trees off the Philippines is simply just crap.

Um, yoo-hoo. Dave was talking about the Solomon Islands, where his station is. There is no cyanide use there. Wayne, how do you think banning the MO trade will help the Solomon Island reefs?? Please answer the question this time instead of ignoring it.

There is no question that once a ban on cyanide caught fish from the Philippines and Indonesia is in place, net caught fishers from PI the Solomons and others will benefit from higher prices caused by greater demand. Organizations like MAC and CIDA funded Canadian NGOs will be there to ensure that sustainability issues remain protected.

In the meantime the cyanide gang will rush to get in experts to train the cyanide fishers net caught techniques so that they too can reap the benefits from higher prices. Overtime when the Philippines and Indonesia prove their cyanide days are over, prices will revert back to pre-reeform pricing.

There will be healthier reefs slowly mending, more, healthier fish and coral, less DOA from better holding transport and other improvements.
The USL will allow fish like the cleaner wrasse to stay on the reefs and do their good job for the benefit of all.

The good news is it is right around the corner. God Bless America and BILL 4928

*************************************************************
The good news is it is right around the corner. God Bless America and BILL 4928[/quote]

the same way the cdt was right around the corner, as you repeatedly informed us all non-stop, over a year ago ? :roll: :lol:

could you just explain the thought/logic process you use to arrive at these conclusions ?

i'm genuinely curious to know if you could provide just a hypothetical timeline of how, and who, would be implementing each step necessary to do all of this, how much manpower needed, where the funding would come from, some actual numbers, please

i'd be happy just to hear the steps/stages you invision occuring, as they should unfold, according to your post, and which orgs would be responsible for which facets

 

[John_Brandt]

Mitch, there are many who believe that the 1% mortality limit is too low. In many cases I must agree. But there are a few things that need to be said. First, the 1% mortality limit has already been modified and you know this, Mitch. Look here: http://macweb.inets.com/docs/1/application/9-27-02MACCertificationMortalityAllowanceInfoSheet.PDF

Secondly, this limit is not etched in stone. In combination with GMAD, MAC will compile a database of the mortality reports from all certified industry operators. Once the database grows one can look at statistics on the DOA and DAA by species, location, trade route, operator, etc. From this MAC will be able to get a sense of what the global mortality trends are and from there can work towards modifying the mortality limit if needed. It may turn out that a more realistic limit is 4% or 6% or 8% or whatever. It could even be possible to set particular limits by species, regions or whatever.

Mitch, MAC/MAMTI is not interested in ruining the trade. And if the CCIF is interested in return on investment (as you say) then it would be illogical for them to fund a program that cannot charge levys because animals are not certifiable. The program will be directed, modified and run by what makes the most reasonable sense as a sustainability vehicle. It's about creating a responsible and sustainable industry, not slashing and burning it.

But the thing is, I'm going nuts trying to follow and make sense out of your conspiracy theories. You insult me in the process by including me in grand nefarious schemes that are completely false. I often agree with your philosophies, opinions and suggestions but you make so many proclamations and predictions that are completely unfounded and damaging that I want to tune you out. I don't like tuning you out.

 

[naesco]

Sorry Mitch, but you're wrong. The USL list on here had nothing to do with AMDA. If you go back and do a search, I asked for volunteers to do all of the sorting and compiling and double checking I had been doing because I didn't have time to do it anymore. I asked twice and no one came forth. It's all archived somewhere in the early days of this forum. MAC did not ask me to do any work on the USL. I did that myself. I don't think it had anything to do with John either.

What are you talking about Mary. You did research and I did hundreds of hours of research.
We went through dozens of fish and finally you came up with the LIST which you recommended to .............(help me with this) but you were turned down flat. (You tried to make the best of it remember)

 

[naesco]

I just think that all the nasty stuff that got exchanged over on the AMDA forum made you lose your passion for this project.

Then you think wrong. Think of all of the nasty stuff that has gone on over the past few years. How many times have I shut up because someone has challenged me? How many times have I "lost passion" because someone didn't agree with me? ESPECIALLY when dealing with the idiots in AMDA? I'll answer for you. NONE.

First you make sustainability a requirement before fish can be collected.

I agree. I have changed my views somewhat on the USL. I have alluded to that recently and there was a long discussion about it on here sometime in the past. My husband has always felt as you have. I felt differently. I eventually came around to his way of thinking.[/quote]

And what was he thinking?
And how have you changed your views on the USL and when?

 

[Anonymous]

http://www.reefs.org/phpBB2/viewforum.p ... &start=775

 

[naesco]

Len I have been accused off naughty posting but plead a 'missing comma defense." Here is what I posted

IT IS IN THE HANDS OF THE GOVERNMENT MY FRIENDS and crap like you have to let them fish with cyanide because if you prohibit it they will become loggers and log all the trees off the Philippines is simply just crap.

Here is what was intended

IT IS IN THE HANDS OF THE GOVERNMENT MY FRIENDS and COMMA crap like you have to let them fish with cyanide because if you prohibit it they will become loggers and log all the trees off the Philippines BIG COMMA is simply just crap.

I did not call anyone crap.