Letter to Paul Holthus

[John_Brandt]

How funny, MAC has had millions in funding, years to figure out their certification policy, yet once it's implemented, they ask the PUBLIC for sudjestions on how to solve a problem they created and should have addressed PRIOR to implementation of their program.

Hey, no names John :wink: . You've mentioned a wholesaler by name, shame shame. I though the policy was no names, for good or worse.

Gresham,

My appeal to this board to offer suggestions is entirely independant of what MAC decides to do concerning this issue. MAC is not asking for your advice; I am. If there are good suggestions I'll pass them on to MAC. There is no good way to physically stop entities from misrepresenting or impersonating MAC Certification. The best that can be done is deal with each incident as they come up. There are ways to help prevent stores from misrepresenting, and this is where I'm looking for ideas.

A no names policy is not workable when applied in a strict sense. It is impossible to communicate about ideas, issues, events & concerns without naming names. Just think about what you write. Think that some entities cannot defend themselves here. Remember that there are laws against libel, and that reefs.org cannot protect you from these laws.

As a (co)moderator, I will allow posters a range of liberties that I find to be reasonable. If I feel that there is serious trouble brewing I can intervene or ask for assistance from the administrators. We really don't want to see anyone get into trouble.

 

[Anonymous]

A no names policy is not workable when applied in a strict sense. It is impossible to communicate about ideas, issues, events & concerns without naming names. Just think about what you write. Think that some entities cannot defend themselves here. Remember that there are laws against libel, and that reefs.org cannot protect you from these laws.

As a (co)moderator, I will allow posters a range of liberties that I find to be reasonable. If I feel that there is serious trouble brewing I can intervene or ask for assistance from the administrators. We really don't want to see anyone get into trouble

Well said!

 

[Anonymous]

John, since this is a tricky subject, I've simply sent you a pm. Though now I realize I left some stuff out.

I hope it's not going too far to say that, while at ** (an outfit I "cut my teeth" on) I found row after row of clearly ill and dying animals. I'm wary of going any further with my statements at this time.

If I've already gone to far, please save us the headaches and just delete my posts on this.

 

[John_Brandt]

No, it's not a problem to discuss this here seamaiden.

 

[Anonymous]

In a word...I'm afraid to tell the truth right now. I don't care to burn my bridges at this point.

 

[Nancy Swart]

In a word...I'm afraid to tell the truth right now. I don't care to burn my bridges at this point.

Then why bring this up publicly in the first place? You've opened another can of worms and John deserves an answer to the question.

Nancy

 

[Anonymous]

Having been to **, as well as *** recently, I'm getting a bitterly ironic chuckle out of these establishments being MAC certified. :roll: Sheesh. I don't have to ask what it means, I've seen what it means.

-and-

John, since this is a tricky subject, I've simply sent you a pm. Though now I realize I left some stuff out.

I hope it's not going too far to say that, while at ** (an outfit I "cut my teeth" on) I found row after row of clearly ill and dying animals. I'm wary of going any further with my statements at this time.

If I've already gone to far, please save us the headaches and just delete my posts on this.

-and-

In a word...I'm afraid to tell the truth right now. I don't care to burn my bridges at this point.

Sad to see that the sorry fountain of innuendo hasn't dried up. I'm happy to see direct references to names removed, but this persistant "insult, run, and when cornered refuse to give details" grows wearisome.

-Lee

 

[JennM]

Sad to see that the sorry fountain of innuendo hasn't dried up. I'm happy to see direct references to names removed, but this persistant "insult, run, and when cornered refuse to give details" grows wearisome.

-Lee

Would you rather see the world through rose-coloured glasses? Or have it be seen that way? I've seen plenty of crap in unnamed wholesale places too - if we don't talk about it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I went to one place and saw at least 6 species of FW fish dyed all colours of the rainbow. I don't deal in FW, but I won't buy from somebody who condones that kind of inhumane behavior.

I think it's important to be aware that all is not always fine and dandy in this industry - if we all thought it was, there would be no motivation for change or reform. Naming names wouldn't be prudent for a number of reasons. The poster posted an opinion - did not tout it as "fact", but stopped short of committing to anything tangibly damaging. Wise move, IMO. (For what it's worth, I wouldn't have figured out exactly who she was talking about, if John had not mentioned MAC certified fishes.....I could have narrowed it down to a few, but it could have been any of several places on 104th street, or elsewhere in LA. John gave enough information to identify one of the places mentioned. I still don't know who the other is, and it doesn't matter.)

It's also tricky legal ground to walk on. As well, it's tricky business ground to walk on. This industry is already laden with preferential treatment, piss off your supplier, and you risk missing out on "the good stuff". I used to deal with one place that also deals with another shop I am aquainted with - they always got awesome specimens, I always got junk. Since I'm a new kid on the block and the other store has been around for some years, I put two and two together. My dollar isn't quite as green to that establishment as the other shop's dollar. Not everybody works that way, but I don't imagine my experience was unique. That much of it can be very subjective.

John, why should it be OK to discuss MAC certified fishes in a wholesale facility, if it's not necessarily OK to discuss non-certified fishes from any given wholesaler? This is an industry forum, not a MAC forum, so IMO one is just as relevant as another. Besides, if the certified organisms are sharing system water with non-certified sick organisms, there's nothing stopping the MAC fish from getting sick too... and oh the paperwork and the waiting if one too many dies..... :roll: Also, since there are so few MAC fish available, even MAC retailers MUST bring in non-certified organisms or they wouldn't be able to survive, so even to a MAC certified retailer, this discussion has lots of relevance.

I'm curious - are there any statistics yet on certified batches that have been de-certified due to mortality, and then re-certified? I'd be very intersted in that data...

Jenn

 

[John_Brandt]

John, why should it be OK to discuss MAC certified fishes in a wholesale facility, if it's not necessarily OK to discuss non-certified fishes from any given wholesaler? This is an industry forum, not a MAC forum, so IMO one is just as relevant as another. Besides, if the certified organisms are sharing system water with non-certified sick organisms, there's nothing stopping the MAC fish from getting sick too... and oh the paperwork and the waiting if one too many dies..... :roll: Also, since there are so few MAC fish available, even MAC retailers MUST bring in non-certified organisms or they wouldn't be able to survive, so even to a MAC certified retailer, this discussion has lots of relevance.

I'm curious - are there any statistics yet on certified batches that have been de-certified due to mortality, and then re-certified? I'd be very intersted in that data...

Jenn

Jenn,

You can pretty much discuss whatever you want in here, within reason. Just try not to get yourself in any trouble. Seamaiden expressed personal reasons why she did not want to go further about the topic she had broached.

Of course disease happens. When MAC Certified fish exceed the DOA/DAA limits they become de-Certified. Most disease situations in holding facilities can be controlled and treated.

There are DOA/DAA statistics kept by the MAC Certified facilities themselves. I've heard over and over that the health is excellent and the mortality is extremely low or nil. The MAC Certified Retailers have lots of really great things to say about MAC Certified fish. But inevitably problems will occur here and there.

 

[naesco]

Ladies and Gentleman

The issue is not MAC and not MAC.
The issue is cyanide.
Who here supports cyanide use?
MAC doesn't therefor support their affiliates.
Yes, and a random CDT is around the corner to catch cheaters.
There are other issues with MAC but they pale compared to the necessity of getting a CDT up and running soon.
I can't wait to out all the cyanide suppliers at all levels.
Are you listening? :twisted:

 

[MaryHM]

There are ways to help prevent stores from misrepresenting, and this is where I'm looking for ideas.

Ok John, here's an idea for you. This first one is free.

How about make it a policy that all certified wholesalers must state on their stocklist and invoice that while any store can purchase MAC certified fish, that only MAC certified stores can advertise them as such? That is the most ridiculously obvious answer to solve a lot of the crap that has been going on. So obvious in fact, that it really cracks me up that MAC didn't have enough sense to do that in the first place. If MAC can't figure out simple things like this, we're supposed to trust them with every tiny little detail from "reef to retail"?? :roll:

 

[John_Brandt]

There are ways to help prevent stores from misrepresenting, and this is where I'm looking for ideas.

Ok John, here's an idea for you. This first one is free.

How about make it a policy that all certified wholesalers must state on their stocklist and invoice that while any store can purchase MAC certified fish, that only MAC certified stores can advertise them as such? That is the most ridiculously obvious answer to solve a lot of the crap that has been going on. So obvious in fact, that it really cracks me up that MAC didn't have enough sense to do that in the first place. If MAC can't figure out simple things like this, we're supposed to trust them with every tiny little detail from "reef to retail"?? :roll:

That idea has been discussed since the first reports of 'misrepresentation' were known.

 

[MaryHM]

A) It should have been discussed BEFORE misrepresentation took place, since you yourself said MAC was anticipating it.

and

B) Why hasn't it been implemented? It's not a complicated solution. Unless of course MAC certified importers don't want to be forced to do that because then their little marketing tool loses some of its impact...

 

[JennM]

Ladies and Gentleman

The issue is not MAC and not MAC.
The issue is cyanide.
Who here supports cyanide use?
MAC doesn't therefor support their affiliates.
Yes, and a random CDT is around the corner to catch cheaters.
There are other issues with MAC but they pale compared to the necessity of getting a CDT up and running soon.
I can't wait to out all the cyanide suppliers at all levels.
Are you listening? :twisted:

MAC is not the only entity that is trying to get away from cyanide use.

I buy from non-MAC wholesalers, who either catch their own, collect in areas where cyanide is not a factor, or buy from Marivi. Period. Marivi happens to be MAC certified, but nothing I buy from anyone who buys from her is listed as such. MAC is a non-consequence to me.

If you believe MAC has all the answers, then you have borrowed the rose-coloured (spelled properly!) glasses.

John, when is MAC going to stop "discussing" the misrepresentation issue at the wholesale level, and DO something about it? You can talk about it all you want, but that doesn't put a disclaimer on a stock list. This week's stock list from the LA-based certified wholesaler still lists MAC certified fish with no strings attached.

I'd also love to see data on how many non-certified retailers are buying "certified" fish? That would be a great way for MAC to snoop around to see who is misrepresenting MAC certified fish too (note: FREE SUGGESTION FORTHCOMING)..... have a MAC investigator CALL the stores that buy the fish and ask if they have MAC certified fish and see what they say? Or MAC could send somebody around the country to visit all those stores and see.... :roll:

I still think sending stock lists of MAC fish ONLY to MAC retailers would be the best way, but that whole supply & demand thing is still full of bugs, eh?

Jenn

 

[Anonymous]

Would you rather see the world through rose-coloured glasses? Or have it be seen that way?

No, I'd rather see problems addressed. I feel that the observations and critism of the someone's supply chain could be very constructive IF the specific suppliers were named. Then that group could specifically address the issues. Otherwise it is just the typical unspecified criticism and serves no positive purpose.

Sorry, If I forgot that the primary purpose of this forum is to complain and not specifically address problems.

I went to one place and saw at least 6 species of FW fish dyed all colours of the rainbow. I don't deal in FW, but I won't buy from somebody who condones that kind of inhumane behavior.

So why not name them? They do not affect your business and that type of behavior disgusts me. They ought to be publically ostracized so everyone else can avoid them as well. Without specifics we can not vote with our dollars as we've been told to do so many times.

We concentrate too much on problems and not enough on solutions.
-Lee

 

[dizzy]

So why not name them? They do not affect your business and that type of behavior disgusts me. They ought to be publically ostracized so everyone else can avoid them as well. Without specifics we can not vote with our dollars as we've been told to do so many times.
-Lee

Lee,
This sounds like an attempt to start some type of witch hunt. Let's go after every wholesaler or retail store that sells painted glass fish and see if we can ruin them. Good plan. When we run the people out of business who sell dyed freshwater fish we can set our sights on the people who dye their dogs and cats. After that we can take on the tatoo and body piercing business. Let's just all name everything that disgusts us and we'll go after that in turn. If we aren't careful another rather large pecking party is likely to get started. Personally I think it is better to stick to the issues of stopping cyanide use.

 

[clarionreef]

Comon Dizzy,
Keep going with the list of things we don't like about dealers so we can "out" them:
Especially those who stock bright yellow gonipora coral and purple/red soft corals.
Innuendo and observation without choosing to "out" everyone and expose everyone by name we don't like is preferrable to open challenge and warfare with everyone we disagree with.
Since our whole industry is based on a foundation of improperly collected fish out of Indonesia and the Philippines, we live in glass houses ourselves and had best be careful. Given the choice between dyed glassfish or coral killing blue tangs and baby clown triggers...I'd say we, collectively [ ie. the great majority of us ] commit the greatest crimes.
Compared to our industrys crimes, the infusion of some food coloring into some glassfish is a non event.
Our credibility will improve when we clean up our own act better working under the assumption that we are collectively guilty and have a collective responsibility to solve our shared "big problem."
Casting stones on this problem will break everyones windows.
Steve

 

[mkirda]

We concentrate too much on problems and not enough on solutions.
-Lee

Lee,

This is not the issue at all. Solutions to the problems are readily available to anyone willing to spend a few weeks thinking about the greater issues.
Every problem discussed here could be easily overcome.

The greater issue here is not complaining or lack of solutions, but FUNDING to implement solutions that already exist.

You want a solution, I'll give you a solution. Train every single collector in the Philippines to use nets. Then lobby whomever is responsible for issuing export permits for PI exporters to implement random testing using whatever CDT is available, on fish likely to be cyanide targets, and tie their ability to export the fish to passing the test. Next, start a 'Sea Ranger' program, whereby citizens can arrest poachers in their municipal waters, and have the poachers procecuted.

This solution, in and of itself, will cut cyanide use drastically to practically zero.

All we need is about 10 million dollars US to kick the program off, and probably another 5 mil each year thereafter.
Net training, in and of itself, can be done for a mere pittance in comparison, say a few hundred thousand, depending on how many you want to train...
Think we can get that kind of coinage using Fund-a-Friend?

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Anonymous]

Steve,

People/companies often do not change their unethical ways until publicly and awkwardly “placed on the spot”. Even then truly corrupt individuals/companies will not change unless financial or legal pressures are exerted on them. Innuendo very seldom exerts pressure to cause any specific change.

Why is it okay to rail against NGOs all day but not to specifically name retailers/wholesalers that knowingly and repeatedly practice unethical husbandry standards? Seems like a double standard to me sometimes. In my ascertation, the crime of cyanide in the marine ornamental trade has persisted due, in large part, to the inactivity and ignorance of the wholesale industry. So why not clearly state the facts and the case against the worst offenders of the wholesale industry?

-Lee

 

[mkirda]

So why not clearly state the facts and the case against the worst offenders of the wholesale industry?

-Lee

Lee,

That word rears its ugly head again... Money.

If you outed exporter A as a cyanide dealer, you need to have iron-clad proof. Hard to come by in the Philippines for reasons previously stated in another thread. So you would be sued for libel. Even if the charges are false, the amount of money it would take to prove your case would bankrupt most people. Justice sometimes comes at a price that is difficult to swallow.

As an example, look at the Petswarehouse case. Many people opted to settle when faced with the prospect of spending $10,000 or $20,000 to fight Mr. Novak. The cost to fight for 'justice' was way too high, and it was cheaper to settle instead.

It is an ugly truth, but it is the truth, Lee.

Regards.
Mike Kirda