Juvenile Regal Angel

[clarionreef]

I would think twice before marketing any fish as "net caught" if you cannot prove it.
Why yes...After a history of reform typified by fraud, peoples suspicions are easy to understand...
There are more critics of clean collecting operations it seems then there are customers for clean fish.
I think its because people doing the right thing make the rest feel guilty. Their own guilt drives them to insure that no one else is clean. This helps to justify their "current buying habits".
There are so many good fish absolutely netcaught that draw little interest among eco-folks and the market in general.
Marketing all and only netcaught fish is no boon to sales as the market in general is itself pretty much dis-interested in the whole question....
Proof of clean fish is a bit of a brain teaser as the representatives of our own cultures schemes to certify truth have been the least credible sources of all.
What would now constitute proof in the post MAC era where the cleanest sources are uncertified and the cyanide associations have all signed the letters of committment to MAC?
What indeed makes for certainty in the sit and post and do nothing culture we have evolved into?
I don't believe anything myself anymore until it is officially denied and uncertified. :roll:
Steve
PS. I believe that EASTI, Ferdie and Dr Turingan are the real deal and are doing more inside the Philippines now as much as anyone.

 

[PeterIMA]

Caterham, I don't need to think twice about stating my fish are net-caught. There is no law against buying and selling net-caught fish. I have outlined some of the steps that are being taken to ensure that the fish I buy are net-caught. Perhaps it is you who should think twice about selling cyanide caught fish.

Peter

 

[PeterIMA]

Jaime, People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Peter

 

[clarionreef]

"I have outlined some of the steps that are being taken to ensure that the fish I buy are net-caught."

Good point Peter;
Perhaps everyone should outline those steps before taking potshots.
I mean, the struggle to get clean fish is sure a lot more laudable then the inactivity to remain unclean.
Is the effort that caring people put out so embarrassing to those who care not?
Even trying and failing is a far more noteworthy thing then not trying at all.
Sure the 'top down office and market tinkering approaches' have failed but the poison fish supply is there still and the need to withhold support from it as well.
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Steve, Peter said he had outlined the steps, why should everyone else outline them for him? It's his own hole he dug, no one gave him shovel to dig it.

None of that is my point. My point is/was, he was schilling by being a importer/wholesaler (by defualt - you sell the fish you import to LFS's, your a whoelesaler) and posting about his "stock". He now needs to learn the commercial limitations since he has joined the commercail sector. I for one wish he hadn't, it's just another way to discredit him, which he honestly didn't need. He's fighting an uphill battle, and he just took on a thousand pound monkey on his back. Good luck Peter, I don't envy you.

 

[PeterIMA]

Gresham, Actually you make good points. I did not get into the trade to make money. I did it to assist the net-collectors and Ferdinand Cruz. For example, the regal angelfish I mentioned was imported to my laboratory in St. Petersburg as part of my study to help improve shipping practices. It was not imported to be sold. Whether I like our comments or not, that is the way it is.

Your friendly 500 pound gorilla

Peter

 

[Caterham]

Peter,

Thanks so much for your comments. I cannot prove any of my fish to be cyanide caught. You can probably relate, as you cannot prove your fish to be net caught.

It kind of funny actually because I was just asking a few questions. Your defensive posture speaks volumes.

 

[Jaime Baquero]

It is asked;
"What would happen if someone from MAC becomes a fish seller?"

Answer;
They would go out of business in a week as they produce no fish!"

Wrong again, even if they do not produce enough fish, yet, you would be accussing and condemning that someone of wrong doing... you wouldn't stop your nasty attacks. Of course you'd enjoy it.

 

[Anonymous]

<sigh>

 

[PeterIMA]

Jaime, It seems to me that while you were associated with OVI you had a confict of interest. You had (and still have) an aquarium maintenance business and you were the head of an NGO with marine conservation goals. During that time you worked with the Haribon Foundation and the PMP to market net-caught fish over the internet (including postings on RDO and elsewhere). You have conducted the same activities for which you have recently criticized myself and Ferdinand Cruz.

Peter Rubec

 

[PeterIMA]

Caterham,

Actually the steps I outlined can ensure that most of the fish I buy are net-caught. I believe that most of the trade buys and sells cyanide-caught fish. You admit that you can't prove otherwise. Personally, I don't think buying cyanide-caught fish is defensible.

Peter Rubec

 

[Anonymous]

Peter,

Thanks so much for your comments. I cannot prove any of my fish to be cyanide caught. You can probably relate, as you cannot prove your fish to be net caught.

peter, you might want to read it again

 

[PeterIMA]

Vitz, Yes I know. You guys seem to think I am tryng to prove something. I am not.

If the USCRTF comes up with a CDT test that works in the USA, the burden of proof will be with those being prosecuted to prove that they do not import cyanide-caught fish. So, while Caterham speaks for himself and others in the trade in stating that he cannot prove whether fish are cyanide-caught, it will be up to the trade to defend itself from prosecuters who claim that the trade buys cyanide-caught fish (a crime under the Lacey Act).

Personally, I am more worried about ReefCheck's and MAC's plans to implement CDT. I am told that ReefCheck is against the aquarium trade. Who still thinks the MAC is on the side of the aquarium trade?

Peter

 

[clarionreef]

In typical knee jerk defense of MAC...Jaime writes;

"Wrong again, even if they do not produce enough fish,..."

Enough fish? You mean as a shortfall of a hundred boxes a week or so or no fish...
It is very dishonest to infer that the effort is simply "a bit short."
No fish after a decade of ineptitude and 10 million wasted is a failure of epic proportions and a fraud on the environment which you would be wise to distance yourself from.
Identifying with this scandal defines you . Do you wish to be identified w/ the MAC movement futher?
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Vitz, Yes I know. You guys seem to think I am tring to prove something. I am not.

If the USCRTF comes up with a CDT test that works in the USA, the burden of proof will be with those being prosecuted to prove that they do not import cyanide-caught fish. So, while Caterham speaks for himself and others in the trade in stating that he cannot prove whether fish are cyanide-caught, it will be up to the trade to defend itself from prosecuters who claim that the trade buys cyanide-caught fish (a crime under the Lacey Act).

Personally, I am more worried about ReefCheck's and MAC's plans to implement CDT. I am told that ReefCheck is against the aquarium trade. Who still thinks the MAC is on the side of the aquarium trade?

Peter

what's to worry?

do you think that they would falsely manipulate test results to shut it down, or close down a specific supplier?

seems to me the only ones that need to really worry are the collectors/exporters who still use juice, no ?

 

[PeterIMA]

Vitz, I was told by a senior official with the Task Force that the USCRTF will take advice and possibly use cyanide testing experts recommended by these environmental groups. The same official sees the CDT as a means to stop the trade from countries using cyanide for capture of MAF. The recommendations of this official on the USCRTF were the main basis for the draft bill by Senator Ed Case. So, CDT could become a weapon to shut down the trade, or become linked to MAC Certification that ONLY allows MAC Certified fish to be imported to the USA. I am speculating to some degree on what I think might happen. Regulation is usually all or nothing. I don't forsee the CDT being used selectively against individual companies, but I could be wrong.

Peter

 

[Anonymous]

Gresham, Actually you make good points. I did not get into the trade to make money. I did it to assist the net-collectors and Ferdinand Cruz. For example, the regal angelfish I mentioned was imported to my laboratory in St. Petersburg as part of my study to help improve shipping practices. It was not imported to be sold. Whether I like our comments or not, that is the way it is.

Your friendly 500 pound gorilla

Peter

The fact of the matter is, you are selling them, so regardless of what you've just said, the importation of them, was for sales after the fact of the study. Amgen runs HUGE costly tests all the time. When done, they donate the gear used to charity/non profits. We're talking MILLLIONS of dollars in gear every year. It's one of the only ways they can keep the standards, and perceptions about them, clear as day.

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Jaime, It seems to me that while you were associated with OVI you had a confict of interest. You had (and still have) an aquarium maintenance business and you were the head of an NGO with marine conservation goals. During that time you worked with the Haribon Foundation and the PMP to market net-caught fish over the internet (including postings on RDO and elsewhere). You have conducted the same activities for which you have recently criticized myself and Ferdinand Cruz.

Peter Rubec

Peter,

You are wrong. I did help as a bridge between PMP and importers in Canada. Also, I participated in some conferences as MACNA promoting PMP among importers in the US. I never sold a fish from PMP. You can verify it with Chris Whitelaw from Aquarium Services in Toronto they got fish from them, I went to Toronto to observe and listen comments from Chris about packing and fish conditions. Anyways that is part of the past.

I was never an importer/distributor of their fish as you are right now. Peter your credibility is at risk.

 

[PeterIMA]

Jaime,

There is no law that says I cannot be a member of an NGO and also be in the fish trade. Lets say I owned a fish farm and joined the Tampa Bay Area Aquarium society. That is about the same as what I am doing. Some may not like what I am doing, but that is the way it is.

I would like to know what CCIF is doing as part of MAMTI, and about their dealings with the MAC, ReefCheck, and the World Bank. I think the conflict of interest there is of concern. They (MAC, ReefCheck, and CCIF) are using World Bank funding to support a hidden business agenda.

Peter

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Peter,

You are saying that because is convenient for you, but you wouldn't think that way if someone else, thinking different to you, were doing that.

The only law is the transparency law... and that one should come from yourself.

Jaime