Letter to Paul Holthus
- Thread starter MaryHM
- Start date
John,
Pro MAC, but , a very BIG but, for god sake fix the problems with MAC. Open up, listen to the industry, don't be afraid, they know what they are talking about. Don't be afraid to admit to past mistakes, just don't keep making them.
Regarding the WWF, I would like to quote Mary, they don't "give a flip what dippity-do" about the industry as it is. They and other envirnonmental organizations just want the problem fixed, the reefs that is. The INDUSTRY hasn't been able to fix the problem in 30-40 years, just sweep it under the rug. If it means shutting the industry down...so be it.
Pro MAC, but , a very BIG but, for god sake fix the problems with MAC. Open up, listen to the industry, don't be afraid, they know what they are talking about. Don't be afraid to admit to past mistakes, just don't keep making them.
Regarding the WWF, I would like to quote Mary, they don't "give a flip what dippity-do" about the industry as it is. They and other envirnonmental organizations just want the problem fixed, the reefs that is. The INDUSTRY hasn't been able to fix the problem in 30-40 years, just sweep it under the rug. If it means shutting the industry down...so be it.
For those who are familiar with (and whose correspondence is contained within) Bob's "MACAttacks" (birthing pains is an apt description), I'd like to let you know that I've received permission to link. I'll wait a day or two to see/hear from those whose messages are contained before I post these links. I'm sure that you folks are aware, I'd just don't want to pop any surprises on anyone.
It is, without a doubt, a history extraordinaire. I found it EYE-OPENING.
It is, without a doubt, a history extraordinaire. I found it EYE-OPENING.
Seamaiden,
If your going to dig up dirty laundry from days gone by it should be prefaced with a little history. Prior to the links I think you are going to provide, there was a great deal of semi-public correspondence on the AMDA forum as AMDA members were trying to figure out just who MAC was, and what their (MAC) true intentions were. You should all know that we were being told by the AMDA President and Vice-President that the government was going to step in and shut the industry down if we didn't join and accept MAC. Mary Middlebrook and Elwyn Segrest were two AMDA members who had both spent a great deal of time working with MAC and both were warning us that MAC was not being honest.
Many of the retail and livestock wholesale members of AMDA realized that the 1% DOA/DAA and some of the other tough standards were not realistic. The AMDA BOD was composed almost completely of aquarium maintenance people and they voted to endorse MAC without bothering to ask the membership at large how we felt. Some of us AMDA members were asking for the standards to be more realistic and we were told it was impossible to change things, and that the time for industry comment had passed. We were told in no uncertain terms to either accept things the way they were or be shut down. I'm assuming that this failed bluff and hard line stance is one of the mistakes that David Vosseler admitted to making at the IMAC.
I'm not certain what good it does to bring all this up again, but if the story is going to be retold, then by God, let's put it all out there so people can understand just what was going on behind the scenes. I can assure you there was much, much more than just that little bit posted on Bob's site.
Mitch Gibbs
PS If Al Gore would have won the election instead of George W. Bush that bluff about shutting the industry down would have likely become a reality.
If your going to dig up dirty laundry from days gone by it should be prefaced with a little history. Prior to the links I think you are going to provide, there was a great deal of semi-public correspondence on the AMDA forum as AMDA members were trying to figure out just who MAC was, and what their (MAC) true intentions were. You should all know that we were being told by the AMDA President and Vice-President that the government was going to step in and shut the industry down if we didn't join and accept MAC. Mary Middlebrook and Elwyn Segrest were two AMDA members who had both spent a great deal of time working with MAC and both were warning us that MAC was not being honest.
Many of the retail and livestock wholesale members of AMDA realized that the 1% DOA/DAA and some of the other tough standards were not realistic. The AMDA BOD was composed almost completely of aquarium maintenance people and they voted to endorse MAC without bothering to ask the membership at large how we felt. Some of us AMDA members were asking for the standards to be more realistic and we were told it was impossible to change things, and that the time for industry comment had passed. We were told in no uncertain terms to either accept things the way they were or be shut down. I'm assuming that this failed bluff and hard line stance is one of the mistakes that David Vosseler admitted to making at the IMAC.
I'm not certain what good it does to bring all this up again, but if the story is going to be retold, then by God, let's put it all out there so people can understand just what was going on behind the scenes. I can assure you there was much, much more than just that little bit posted on Bob's site.
Mitch Gibbs
PS If Al Gore would have won the election instead of George W. Bush that bluff about shutting the industry down would have likely become a reality.
dizzy":2drpklx3 said:
Mitch,
This threat never really goes away. There are a number of political and private interests who could make more aggressive moves towards promoting regulatory restrictions. Make no mistakes, an organization with goals and standards such as MAC, looks like a very supportable model for the direction the industry should be going. Certifiability - traceability - sustainability - these are all important features that speak of self-regulation. Let's have this same discussion in 5 years.
Warning the general aquarium-keeping public that there are threats to your freedom as a hobbyist is no mistake.
Being on the MAC board of directors and active in supporting them, I hear a lot more positive things than many of you do. The hardcore MAC bashers are a small cultish bunch. Don't ignore the fact that the international conservation community is in strong support of MAC's efforts. That is not unimportant.
From what I can gather, I think you should count Elwyn Segrest as a supporter of MAC.
From what I can gather, I think you should count Elwyn Segrest as a supporter of MAC.
History is what's missing from the information that's being put up here, though, dizzy. Some may call it dirty laundry (I don't necessarily see it that way), I think history is a more fitting word.
It's clear to me that there are many who truly have no idea how long the debates have been going on, or what has and has not been covered/discussed/argued on the subject. If you object to any of your correspondence being included, then I can c&p so those can be eliminated. Truthfully, for those interested at least, I think anything you can add to that history (I, for one--not being a shop owner--haven't seen anything from AMDA) would be quite helpful, I'm sure.
I've just read Horge's post, he's posing that December would be a more likely date for the cyanide detection test. In my opinion, if a date such as that is adopted (with allowances for the fact that it is not our government that is being worked with here), it would give the MAC more time to get their ducks lined up.
Also, I think it would be helpful to others who wish to participate that we either not use acronyms so exclusively, or provide a link to the full names, as I'd asked some weeks ago. Hhmm..I should find that thread, eh?
It's clear to me that there are many who truly have no idea how long the debates have been going on, or what has and has not been covered/discussed/argued on the subject. If you object to any of your correspondence being included, then I can c&p so those can be eliminated. Truthfully, for those interested at least, I think anything you can add to that history (I, for one--not being a shop owner--haven't seen anything from AMDA) would be quite helpful, I'm sure.
I've just read Horge's post, he's posing that December would be a more likely date for the cyanide detection test. In my opinion, if a date such as that is adopted (with allowances for the fact that it is not our government that is being worked with here), it would give the MAC more time to get their ducks lined up.
Also, I think it would be helpful to others who wish to participate that we either not use acronyms so exclusively, or provide a link to the full names, as I'd asked some weeks ago. Hhmm..I should find that thread, eh?
John_Brandt":3jg2l51u said:
John,
You imply a sense of solidarity of opinion within the 'international conservation community' which just is not there. You guys think MAC gets bashed? You should hear some of what passes for 'policy discussion' between two sides of the reef conservation debates. These guys get personal in a way I've never heard about MAC... But this gets off topic.
Yes, you are correct, John, in that there are a few organizations that support MAC, but there are also quite a few which do not.
MAC has the potential to do incredible good. They also have the potential to do incredible harm. Every single comment in this forum is made to try to steer them away from the harm and into the good. I know MAC listens to a certain degree. The problem is that there is NO FEEDBACK from MAC.
People have gotten frustrated that everything has taken so long, and that our constructive criticism has seemingly gone ignored. This is one of the things MAC needs to rectify, John. If I were to use a cliche, I would say that MAC is losing the hearts and minds of the hobbyists, the very people whom should be giving MAC their unwavering backing. There is time yet to turn this beast around, but not much. I daresay that everyone here would love to see MAC succeed assuming that they stick to their original mission statements and goals, and do not water them down.
I know I would.
I keep looking, hoping to see the wheels start to turn, hoping to see the backbone required to actually lead.
Regards.
Mike Kirda
I mostly agree d/a. But not every concern from the bunch is appropriate. MAC is never deaf, it just cannot and will not entertain every bit of advice it gets.
When one wants to get answers, and set up a dialogue with MAC there are better ways of doing it than others. When one positions oneself as a tyrant one doesn't often get the customer service that another might. Also there is an annoying impatience with this cultish bunch. Eventually, all questions get answered. Did you have one?
When one wants to get answers, and set up a dialogue with MAC there are better ways of doing it than others. When one positions oneself as a tyrant one doesn't often get the customer service that another might. Also there is an annoying impatience with this cultish bunch. Eventually, all questions get answered. Did you have one?
Those "MAC Attack" links have been up at www.reefsource.com for months in my "MAC Files" section.
My John, but you do fit the MAC mold well. A "cultish" bunch. PUHLEESE!! This is the same stupid, pathetic tactic MAC used with Elwyn Segrest and I a few years ago. We were each told we were the only one who had any concerns, that everyone else realized MAC was wonderful and was going with the flow. And we both believed it. Until Elwyn and I were chit-chatting at the Baltimore MACNA and started talking about MAC. I said, "Well, they keep telling me I'm the only one with any concerns." He looked at me and said, "Mary, they tell me I'm the only one with concerns.". Let me tell you, eye brows were raised at that very moment.
Don't try to separate us into some tiny group fringe lunatic group that has outlandish opinions and expectations. We aren't. There are many, many, many more people who have serious doubts about MAC. They just aren't all public about it. Because a few of us decide to voice our concerns doesn't mean we are the only ones. Obviously the industry reformists aren't behind MAC- you can't even answer to my little challenge to name 5, or 3, or 1. Doesn't this concern you? That the majority of MAC's support comes from organizations, most of which don't have a clue about the industry? On paper MAC looks wonderful. Who could argue with what they're trying to acheive. It's the implementation that is killing them. But people not in the know wouldn't have a clue about how difficult it is. As I mentioned earlier, even MAC finally admitted it was more involved than they ever imagined. Don't try to discount us by sticking a "cult" label on us. If we were so neglible, I highly doubt you'd be moderating in here.
My John, but you do fit the MAC mold well. A "cultish" bunch. PUHLEESE!! This is the same stupid, pathetic tactic MAC used with Elwyn Segrest and I a few years ago. We were each told we were the only one who had any concerns, that everyone else realized MAC was wonderful and was going with the flow. And we both believed it. Until Elwyn and I were chit-chatting at the Baltimore MACNA and started talking about MAC. I said, "Well, they keep telling me I'm the only one with any concerns." He looked at me and said, "Mary, they tell me I'm the only one with concerns.". Let me tell you, eye brows were raised at that very moment.
Don't try to separate us into some tiny group fringe lunatic group that has outlandish opinions and expectations. We aren't. There are many, many, many more people who have serious doubts about MAC. They just aren't all public about it. Because a few of us decide to voice our concerns doesn't mean we are the only ones. Obviously the industry reformists aren't behind MAC- you can't even answer to my little challenge to name 5, or 3, or 1. Doesn't this concern you? That the majority of MAC's support comes from organizations, most of which don't have a clue about the industry? On paper MAC looks wonderful. Who could argue with what they're trying to acheive. It's the implementation that is killing them. But people not in the know wouldn't have a clue about how difficult it is. As I mentioned earlier, even MAC finally admitted it was more involved than they ever imagined. Don't try to discount us by sticking a "cult" label on us. If we were so neglible, I highly doubt you'd be moderating in here.
)It's very rare that a business is able to change their customers to meet their needs. Most of the time it's the business that adapts to customer demand. Especially when those customers are vocal about what they want. No business ever succeeded by ignoring its customers thinking "they'll see it our way eventually".
:?
:?
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
