MAC Certified Cultured Live Rock

[Anonymous]

Crying wolf in a crowded theater creates a lot of victems wayne. It's people like you, that create undo stress on OUR tax dollars by silly notions such as banning sharks in Arizona, or Piranha in Washington. If it was up to people like you, we'd all have to live in Berkeley, CA <shudder>

 

[Caterham]

It's extremely important that we are all able to differentiate between those involved in the trade of marine ornamentals and those who have no experience in our industry, past or present.

Sometimes it can be difficult. Other times, however, it is crystal clear by just reading the comments of the uninvolved hobbyist.

 

[Anonymous]

Wayne,

I think Jenn is right - you are dangerous because in your zeal you will prolly do more harm than good.
I think your heart might be in the right place, but I think basing your jihad on juice based on your one experience is not the best of ideas. I think you are lacking a comprehensive idea of what is actually going on on a meta level and are just shooting from the hip. What you are doing may get results similar to the banning of boa's in SF, the MO leopard shark laws and things like the 'vincent bill'. People all thought those things were good ideas too, but without a comprehensive understanding of the different parts of the industry they ended up being ineffective money wasters that hurt more than helped.

Thales it was more than my experience in PI.
I read all the material which Mary Middlebrook had posted on her website.(now removed). I trusted her fully that the information she posted was accurate.

Yet you won't trust Steve on the issue and he has more experience than Mary.

I have been a member of this forum since its inception and have read, asked questions and participated in most discussions on the subject of cyanide.

IMO, that does not make you at all qualified to be trying to strong arm the industry.

I have done everything I can to have industry understand that cyanide can no longer be accepted and they must choose a leader, and take steps to regulate their own industry.

You have done what is convenient for you to do, which seems to mostly be posting about it in this forum. What else have you done?

I am done.

You seem to say that a lot, but I don't know what it means.

Dangerous! Me! Hardly!

Nope. See my post above.

The only persons who need to be afraid are those directly or indirectly involved in the cyanide fish trade.

Nope. You have been talking about closing doors to all PI imports, both juiced and net caught.

 

[naesco]

1. I have the outmost respect for Steve. I feel and understand his frustrations. It is my belief that banning the import of cyanide caught fish will accomplish the following.
increase the price paid to the fishers. Everyone will be scrambling to buy net caught fish
create more jobs for Islanders in aquacultural pursuits
improve the health of the reefs which in turn will provide more and healthier fish, coral and inverts.
provide numerous positions stateside and on the islands for those who provide training, sustainability and other needed advice.

2. I have no intention of strong arming anyone.

3. I tried to convince industry to take the cyanide issue seriously. I spent hours on this board as you are aware. I privately encourage industry types to choose a leader and seriously thought one would surface. I don't think he will take that position now.

4. I have contacted the US Task Force and offered my support and my help. After the summer is over I will speak with their Counsel and offer my services.

5. I am done trying to convince industry that they should organize themselves so that they could self regulate the industry they are a part of.

6. You are wrong on the last point to made.
It was Philippines AND Indonesia.
The US Task Force will exempt certified net caught fish IMO. Obviously it has never been my position that net caught fish should be banned.

Thank you

Wayne Ryan

 

[Anonymous]

iirc, one of the main reasons mary removed all of her cyanide related links was (partly) due to naesco and his behavior , and others like him :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

1. I have the outmost respect for Steve. I feel and understand his frustrations.

Yet you ignore him.

It is my belief that banning the import of cyanide caught fish will accomplish the following.

Here is the number one problem. How do you propose to ban the import of juiced fish when you know full well there is no useful cyanide test?

increase the price paid to the fishers. Everyone will be scrambling to buy net caught fish

Since there is no way to test for juice, all exports from the given area will have to be stopped, net caught or no. What about exporting to other countries that don't ban the importation of juiced fish?

create more jobs for Islanders in aquacultural pursuits

And the funds for the come from where? Why not do that now and let the profits show that its better than juicing?

improve the health of the reefs which in turn will provide more and healthier fish, coral and inverts.

Except you aren't talking about banning juicing, just the import of juiced fish. There is no reason to expect that juicing for food fish will not continue, nor is there a reason to expect that other countries will allow the import of juiced fish so juicing will continue.

provide numerous positions stateside and on the islands for those who provide training, sustainability and other needed advice.

With what money?

2. I have no intention of strong arming anyone.

Maybe its a language thing. You wrote: 'I have done everything I can to have industry understand that cyanide can no longer be accepted and they must choose a leader, and take steps to regulate their own industry.'

The bolding was even yours.

3. I tried to convince industry to take the cyanide issue seriously.

How? Who? Did you give a talk at MO? Did you write impassioned articles published in trade magazines? Did you create a method for industry people to communicate with each other regarding these issues?

I spent hours on this board as you are aware.

You mean you have been trying to use this forum as a place to get something done? This is a hobbyist forum, not an industry forum?

I privately encourage industry types to choose a leader and seriously thought one would surface.

I think that hope shows a lack of knowledge about this industry.

I don't think he will take that position now.

Who, and why do you think you are qualified to choose such a leader?

4. I have contacted the US Task Force and offered my support and my help. After the summer is over I will speak with their Counsel and offer my services.

Please direct them to this thread so they can see that you have little to no expertise in this field.

5. I am done trying to convince industry that they should organize themselves so that they could self regulate the industry they are a part of.

How long have you been trying? How many actual hours?

6. You are wrong on the last point to made.
It was Philippines AND Indonesia.

That is a triviality and misses my actual point. Your elaboration strengthens my point - banning juiced imports from PI and Indo means banning all fish imports because there is not way to tell juiced fish from net caught fish.

The US Task Force will exempt certified net caught fish IMO.

How are they to be certified? How is the US going to go into other countries and enforce certification? Where is the money coming from to pay for the tracking of the certification?

Obviously it has never been my position that net caught fish should be banned.

What I think you need to realize is that it is a very real possibility given the direction you are pushing.

You really don't think that government would do a blanket ban? Have you looked at some of the history of government involvement in the trade? What about the other countries that won't ban the importation? It is illegal to sell boas and pythons in SF based on the idea that they get too big, yet the fact that ball pythons only get between 4 and 5 feet (the same size of 'legal' snakes) has fallen on deaf ears and all of them were banned.

 

[pyrrhus]

Crying wolf in a crowded theater creates a lot of victems wayne. It's people like you, that create undo stress on OUR tax dollars by silly notions such as banning sharks in Arizona, or Piranha in Washington. If it was up to people like you, we'd all have to live in Berkeley, CA <shudder>

You think the shark thing is bad, check out AZ F&W Re: family Serranidae, It's even more ridiculous than the sharks.

 

[Anonymous]

Crying wolf in a crowded theater creates a lot of victems wayne. It's people like you, that create undo stress on OUR tax dollars by silly notions such as banning sharks in Arizona, or Piranha in Washington. If it was up to people like you, we'd all have to live in Berkeley, CA <shudder>

You think the shark thing is bad, check out AZ F&W Re: family Serranidae, It's even more ridiculous than the sharks.

Besides that family, anything else banned from your stores in AZ?

 

[pyrrhus]

Nope, thats it as far as marines go, of course there is a laundry list of freshies including piranha amongst many others.

 

[clarionreef]

Wayne,
A number of us are friends and in contact w/ dreaded panel members of the US Coral Reef Task Force.
Drop Andy a line. [[email protected]] He's the most credible member of the panel regarding the trade.
Steve
ps. [but don't tell him I sent you.]

 

[Anonymous]

:lol: didn't he say at MO he drops by here once in a while He'll know you sent Wayne....busted Steve :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

http://www.reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.p ... 265#104265

I think this blast from the past gives some interesting insight into our current discussion.

 

[Anonymous]

http://www.reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=104265#104265

I think this blast from the past gives some interesting insight into our current discussion.

I have dedicated the past few years of my life to industry reform issues, and feel that we have come a long way. The thought that my trying to involve the hobbyists in this process is starting to lead to the detriment of the process makes me really sad. By asking WWF to withdraw their support from MAC, you would cause a SEVERE blow to the process of industry reform. Reform goes much deeper than banning 30 species. There are many levels to it. If you are willing to destroy the entire process over one tiny aspect, then you have forced me to make a decision. I will no longer be able to actively involve hobbyists in industry reform via this forum. I will continue to answer questions about the industry and participate in discussions about industry reform issues. However, I will no longer directly involve the hobbyists in any specific action. It's too potentially dangerous to the issues I and many others have been working on for so many years. I regret that it has to come to this, because I think this forum could have been used in a positive way to acheive the goal we all want. However, I won't open myself up to the possibility of being responsible for people using their emotions instead of common sense when dealing with these issues- and in the process ruining all chance of true reform.

Wayne, that was your doing, remember?

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry, I should have posted the whole post, for better reference:

MaryHM
{squat}


Joined: 01 Dec 1999
Posts: 2264
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2002 3:21 pm Post subject: Hurting more than helping

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Naesco, I am stunned to hear you say that you will no longer participate here because everything you wanted did not happen exactly as you wanted it to. 24 hours ago the industry was in favor of NO LIST. They have comprised and are willing to accept a list now, and part of that is because of what has gone on here. As I posted in my "meeting report", the committee hasn't even been set up yet. I told you before I went to the meeting that NO SPECIES would be determined Friday. There is still a possibility that some obligate feeders could get on the list once the committee gets ahold of it. Like I said, both industry and conservation groups will be participating in the creation of the USL, so the industry doesn't have a 100% say in what happens with it. It's just plain silly to "pack up your marbles and go home" because things didn't go precisely your way. Things are moving in your direction and for that you should have been pleased and even more motivated to continue working on this subject since there has been some REAL progress made.

There are so many factors and variables involved in these issues, and they are not as black and white as many of you would like them to be. Running to Greenpeace and telling the WWF they should withdraw their support of MAC is both irresponsible and dangerous. Especially since THE LIST HASN'T EVEN BEEN DECIDED ON YET. I am seriously concerned about the idea of hobbyists running to some of the major organizations and causing an uproar over something that is still in the process of being worked on. Three years ago no one was even interested in industry reform. We are now progressing in that direction, but things don't happen overnight. This is a huge industry with many different variables and it will take a while to get it where it needs to be. There are many, many, many things that go on behind the scenes that you guys aren't aware of. I've tried to make some of those available to you both to educate you and involve you in the process.

I have dedicated the past few years of my life to industry reform issues, and feel that we have come a long way. The thought that my trying to involve the hobbyists in this process is starting to lead to the detriment of the process makes me really sad. By asking WWF to withdraw their support from MAC, you would cause a SEVERE blow to the process of industry reform. Reform goes much deeper than banning 30 species. There are many levels to it. If you are willing to destroy the entire process over one tiny aspect, then you have forced me to make a decision. I will no longer be able to actively involve hobbyists in industry reform via this forum. I will continue to answer questions about the industry and participate in discussions about industry reform issues. However, I will no longer directly involve the hobbyists in any specific action. It's too potentially dangerous to the issues I and many others have been working on for so many years. I regret that it has to come to this, because I think this forum could have been used in a positive way to acheive the goal we all want. However, I won't open myself up to the possibility of being responsible for people using their emotions instead of common sense when dealing with these issues- and in the process ruining all chance of true reform.

 

[dizzy]

Speaking of blasts from the past. I went back and looked at my first post on rdo. Chales Delbeek was suggesting MAC was on the fast track to reforming our industry. I told him I didn't think it would be the smooth sailing he was predicting. BTW Mary's post was about 6-weeks BD. (before Dizzy) I was never aware of industry agreeing to any type of compromise on the USL. If I had seen her post I probably would have challenged it. It must have been something the BOD was doing without consulting the membership. As soon as I heard MAC was working on a list that wasn't based on sustainability I spoke out publically against it.
Mitch

http://www.reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.p ... ht=#104576

 

[clarionreef]

Wow,
Charles,
Whats your opinion of the MAC project now?
Now that 4 years have past with MAC having its say over the way they ran the thing, spent the treasure and mismanaged the campaign...
Kudos to Mitches minority report, for sticking to it and for trying to educate the naive early on.
Steve
PS.
The 1 % nonsense was not ever a consensus among stakeholders....it was a contrived figure from a frag shipper that said he was perfect, this was seconded by a retailer who said he was perfect and despite other industry folks pointing out the silliness of this, they were ignored by Holthus and his marketing co.

 

[clarionreef]

since when are the end users, ie. consumers and consumer spokespersons considered the experts on field stuff anyway?
Seriously, relying on convenient sources and literature /google searches on subject matter calls more for the skill set of a librarian then a field researcher. Much less a field consultant.
Experts are not made from google searches...unless they are the proverbial Mac expert.[ A MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE TERM]
steve

 

[Anonymous]

Where did you ever find that picture, I have the original in the family archives. That's Gramp's (Stretch) Lehman in is hey day, circa 1937 showing the down payment for the cheese factory they soon purchased.
Family lore states he spend his golden years out by Gresham and Steve.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I bet your Gramps doesn't know you can file browse his "me" directory and see that he's apparently still quite young and going by the username "groophy" at the Academic Computer Club, Umeå University, Sweden.

Heres a closer look at your "Gramp's"....

Apparently he likes playing dress up with his mates too..

Want to see more of the "old" man?? - Just click...
http://www.acc.umu.se/~groophy/bilder/me/


:lol:
Ask Chip how much of a snoop I can be on improperly secured systems... :twisted:

 

[Anonymous]

So is this his brain scan then?

 

[Anonymous]

The reason Mary pulled off all that valuable info from her website was because Wayne would misquote the site and stuff she said to further his cause.