Letter to Paul Holthus

[MaryHM]

Ever hear of Robert Novak of Pets Warehouse, Lee? That is the reason we all have to be very careful. All anyone said about him was that his freshwater plants and customer service sucked. Some of the people who said this had to settle for thousands of dollars because they couldn't afford to defend themselves. This has to be kept in mind before anyone goes and places what they deem to be an unethical company "on the spot".

NGO's and businesses are two separate entities. When an NGO, such as MAC, is taking it upon themselves to make decisions that affect my livelihood, then you better believe I'm going to have a say in it. They are not making a profit (supposedly) off of reform, so by pointing out their warts you can't be causing them financial distress. Whenever I point out a flaw with MAC, I back it up with evidence. For example, when I accused them of being fradulent, I listed multiple reasons as to why I believe this to be true. To run around making all encompasses accusations about an organization without any evidence is wrong in my opinion. But to publicly point out the flaws in a public program is not. Why pointing out these flaws is considered to be "railing" against them is beyond me. Had we not spoken up, MAC would not be considering a CDT right now (if in fact they still are). Keeping MAC on their toes is a good thing, not only for the industry but for MAC itself.

 

[Anonymous]

Great points, Mike.

The funding ultimately has to be provided by the PI government. The PI govenment is the only one that has the power to fund the project via export taxes and the power to enforce laws.

Maybe we should be concentrating our efforts at industy reform by purchasing a lobbyist in the PI government?

JMHO,
-Lee

 

[Anonymous]

Can an NGO sue for slander?


Mary,

I fail to see how MAC is directly affecting your livelihood. Either you buy into their program or you don't. MAC isn't twisting anyone's arm to buy their more expensive certified fish. MAC is just advertising their product. That advertising program appears to threaten many here.

I've always appreciated and respected the facts that you have presented, I just don't always agree with the labels you have hung on NGOs.

-Lee

 

[Nancy Swart]

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

AMEN, Lee and this is the point I was trying to make when I suggested a ban against all PI imports.

IMO, our stateside wholesalers have the most power to speed up the reform process. The first step would be to find a way to work with the exporters to see that the net fishers get paid a decent price. But again...it all boils down to the almighty dollar.

NS

 

[MaryHM]

Lee, of course you fail to see how MAC affects my livilihood because you aren't in the industry trenches so to speak. Steve and I make our living off doing everything we possibly can to insure that every fish in our facilities is cyanide free. Period. No cutting corners. Net caught is our niche. It's one of the ways we compete against the "big boys". We are the only two wholesalers that do this. Speaking for myself, I don't even bring in fish from Indonesia (one of the major fish exporting countries) because I don't trust the supply out of there. Find me another wholesaler that does this (with the possible exception of Steve). They don't. But they all say they have net caught fish anyway. Now, this isn't too much of a problem for me, because when my customers question this I can point out the obvious tell-tale signs (huge variety and availability).

Now, to the meat of the matter. How does MAC affect my business? When MAC is certifying my competition with a sticker that MAC claims means cyanide free fish and fish collected from well managed reefs when there is no CDT in place and no resource assessments required, do you begin to see the problem? They are greenwashing the industry. Telling everyone that MAC fish are the best thing since sliced bread, when in practice this isn't true. Now the cyanide dealers have "proof" that their fish are net caught. The problem is that the MAC program is full of holes and at this point in time I can not put my trust behind it. I was going to be one of the first businesses to be MAC certified. If I was interested strictly in my business, I would have remained MAC's golden child and rode the train on in to the certification station. However, I have this annoying thing called ethics. I love what I do and I love the animals and the reefs. I can't stand back and allow MAC to greenwash this industry. And whether they are aware of it or not, that is exactly what they are doing by certifying companies before having a fish supply in place and by allowing the certified companies to misrepresent MAC certification. And by a hundred other little things they continue to do.

Does it strike you as odd that I, former MAC spokesperson and one of their biggest allies, resigned? Does it strike you as odd that Ferdinand Cruz, their field trainer, resigned? It's because there are major flaws in the MAC program. By MAC greenwashing this industry, two things happen:
1. The true reformists will be pushed out of business because we cannot compete with "MAC Certified" companies that are still allowed to conduct business as usual but under the protective banner of a MAC sticker.
2. THIS IS THE IMPORTANT ONE. The industry reform movement will be set back, possibly to the point of no return. If MAC claims to have solved all of the problems, but the problems still continue under the table, then who is going to take up the cause and push for true reform? No one. Because MAC will be claiming true reform is alive and well thanks to them. This would be the biggest travesty of all, and once it became exposed (as it inevitably would), the animal rights activists and government would pounce on us. Chances are, it could mean the end of the industry. No industry=No livelihood for Mary.

 

[MaryHM]

IMO, our stateside wholesalers have the most power to speed up the reform process.

Of course they (we) do! Do you think the cyanide issue has just become apparent to them over the past couple of years? Of course not. They've known about it and actively supported it for decades. They are not going to initiate change, if they were interested in reform they would have done something loooooong before MAC reared its head. Why do you think the exporters/importers who have been thriving on the cyanide trade are pursuing MAC certification? They know they can conduct business as usual and get validation for doing it! These people are businessmen and businesswomen. Not staunch reef lovers/ethical industry supporters. They know a good thing when they see it.

 

[Nancy Swart]

Ok, Mary, take a deep breath. Heaven help me but after being one of MAC's staunchest supporters since they were founded, your last message has now helped me to understand your concerns.

BUT I also feel that publicly bashing them constantly is not going to fix anything. They obviously don't have the funding and/or manpower to fix the flaws as quickly as y'all would like. So...what's our plan "B"?

Mary, you've done such a wonderful job with the Netting Fundraiser...why not start a campaign among the wholesalers to see what can be done stateside to speed up the reform movement?

NS

 

[clarionreef]

Lee,
Who is a "NGO-ist"?
As a founder/co-founder of some, certainly not me!
I just want this lazy industry of ours to get off its duff and clean its own house and not let non aquarium wannabies do it. They have often pointed out how the trade only "takes" and puts nothing back...not even funds and energy for its own salvation! I agree with them. It is their best point! I only wish they were better at the job and didn't proceed with such inadequate knowledge and advice on how to change this trade from the outside.

In business, if there is failure, there is generally customer loss and sales loss and the business dries up quick.
In NGOs there is theoretically the same process only it may take years to dry up. Funds are based on years...not the businessmans daily and weekly productivity. An off-base NGO with a faulty trajectory may veer off course for years! Its funders, listening to its sales pitch once every few years may re- fund the initial error and there we go for a few more years!
Like a bad politician, once he's in, theres not much you can do about it til the next election...4 years away!
The shame of having outsiders come and wash our dirty clothes will hopefully spur us to do it ourselves from now on...with our own...are you ready for this? ...with our own NGOs.
NGOs can be a Godsend...they just need to know what they're doing and not affect our lives and livlihoods in an flippantly ineffective way. My beef is not that they are being too environmentally oriented...goodness no. Its that they are acting more like a chamber of commerce for the status quo ie. the conventional trade, and attempting to change it too slowly, too ineffectively and squandering the issue in this manner.
Fortified with salaries and budgets allowing them to focus all day long on the issue...for years... the lack of training and "net-less training" didn't help much and may indeed have convinced divers that these darn nets don't work! Sending them back to cyanide fishing!
Commercial, professional figures regard much of this with a smug smile and are glad they are missing the mark, blowing it and letting them off the hook...year after year. The major players are of course silent as only "lightweights" debate the issue out loud.
We need NGOs and we need good, effective ones drawn from our own ranks. This is coming to pass...finally.
Look for the posting today w/ a stickey on it.
Sincerely, Steve
pro-AMDA NGO
pro-CORL NGO

PS. A new term..."net-less training" first appeared here for the record..

 

[MaryHM]

Nancy,

Again, it's not "bashing". That makes it sound like we're just harping on poor old MAC for no reason other than our own personal entertainment. It's pointing out the problems. I tried doing this first within the system, and after getting no where took it to a larger audience via AMDA, and after still getting no where brought it here. MAC has proven in the past that if everyone stays silent they will forge ahead and do it their way- whether that way is right or wrong. They have had MILLIONS of dollars, Nancy. They have had people trying to help steer them in the right direction- people that they subsequently alienated and ignored. They contine to forge ahead bass-ackwards with everything. Plan A was to fix it from the inside. That didn't work. So Plan B is to publicly out every flaw in order to get their attention, and hopefully their program, back on track. That is working, as is evidenced by their finally admitting that a CDT had an important place in making their certification program more valid. The CDT would still be on the back burner if it hadn't been for all of the "bashing" as you call it. If "bashing" is all they respond to, then believe me I'm going to bash away.

Concerning "rallying the wholesalers". Been there, done that. Ask Bob Fenner, he helped me organize it. Like I said, the wholesalers aren't interested in reform. If they were they would have done something a long time ago. They are much more interested in maintaining the status quo and getting a good validation marketing tool- and that is what MAC is currently providing. Why on earth would they want something different? Ask yourself this question. Which wholesalers are actively involved in this forum or in ANY industry reform public promotion?? Here's a hint. The only two who insist on running their businesses with reform at the top of the agenda.

 

[Nancy Swart]

Mary,

OK so you don't like my choice of words...let's move on.

Excuse my ignorance while I try to catch up on this whole reform issue but has anybody directly challenged these wholesalers to come join us here and give us an outline of what they feel they're doing/not doing to help.

Why are we putting all our eggs in MAC's basket if you feel they're never going to get it right?

NS

 

[MaryHM]

Nancy,

Most of the major wholesalers are aware of this forum (and some have even posted here). Most wholesalers aren't interested in discussing this issue in public. I'll leave it for you decide why. I'm not going to directly challenge my peers/competitors to an industry reform duel at reefs.org. There are so many reasons why they do the things they do, some of which I understand, none of which I agree with. But it's not my place to tell someone else how to run their business, and especially to drag them out publicly. Like I said earlier, if this industry was interested in reform it would have done something a long time ago. This isn't a new problem.

I have never said that I don't feel MAC will ever get it right. I have said (many times) that if they do get back on track I'll hop on board again. I'm not here to initiate the systematic problem by problem tearing apart and destruction of MAC. I'm here to point out the flaws- out in the wide open where everyone can see and judge for themselves. If this does destroy MAC, it's not my fault. It's theirs. MAC has the opportunity to do it right. However, as far as I can tell when given the choice between the right path and the wrong path they've charged blindly down the wrong one practically every time. Also, I don't have any eggs in the MAC basket. My eggs right now are in the Ferdinand Cruz basket. That basket doesn't have near as many holes in it, so my eggs are less likely to fall out and break.

Nancy, you know I respect and appreciate everything you've done/do. I want to point this next thing out not to pick on you, but to use you as an example.
You said the following earlier:

Heaven help me but after being one of MAC's staunchest supporters since they were founded, your last message has now helped me to understand your concerns.

Then

Excuse my ignorance while I try to catch up on this whole reform issue

This is the inherent problem. To people who are ignornant as to the entire scope of industry reform, MAC looks like a great thing. Hey, they even had me fooled at first, even when good friends of mine like Morgan Lidster were telling me to watch out. MAC can talk a good talk. They can release fancy press releases like nobody's business and make it seem like they are the answers to the reef's and the industry's problems. To the average person, they look like a miracle. But the people who understand and live the issues day by day can see them for what they are. Here's a challenge. Name me five prominent hobby/industry people who are known to be advocates for reform that wholeheartedly support MAC. (Those riding the MAC gravy train to support sales of their products don't count!) To make it fair, I'll name some people who meet that criteria but don't support MAC. Me, Steve Robinson, Ferdinand Cruz, Eric Borneman, Bob Fenner, Morgan Lidster.

 

[dizzy]

issue

To people who are ignornant as to the entire scope of industry reform, MAC looks like a great thing. [/quote]

Mary if you are going to call people ignorant at least spell it correctly.

 

[Nancy Swart]

but to use you as an example

Mary,

Please DO use me as an example as I feel I represent the average, hobbyist. If this exchange is helping ME to get a better grasp of the entire scope of the problem, I'm sure it's helping others too. Your recent fundraiser has proven how uninformed many of us were but how eager and willing we ALSO are to help.

Your points about not challenging the wholesalers are well taken. And don't worry about picking on me as long as the discussion stays positive and helps us arrive at solutions.

NS

 

[jamesw]

Hi Mary,

I've been out of this for a while, but I read some of your points in this post, like this one:

Steve and I make our living off doing everything we possibly can to insure that every fish in our facilities is cyanide free. Period. No cutting corners. Net caught is our niche. It's one of the ways we compete against the "big boys".

So I wanted to ask:

Does this mean that if MAC ultimately succeeds and ALL of the fish coming into the states can be PROVEN without a doubt to be net caught (bear w/ me, we are talking hypothetical) then you and Steve have lost your competitive edge?

Yet you two still want MAC to succeed though right? And if not them, you still want to see 100% net caught fish coming to the US right - whether they come through your business or someone else's right?

It is easy for you to say "Yes" but that goes against conventional "business rules" which would demand that you fight to keep your competitive edge.

Cheers
James

This is my opinion only and does not reflect the official policy of reefs.org blah blah blah

 

[mkirda]

Does this mean that if MAC ultimately succeeds and ALL of the fish coming into the states can be PROVEN without a doubt to be net caught (bear w/ me, we are talking hypothetical) then you and Steve have lost your competitive edge?

James,

If the entire Philippines suddenly were converted 'overnight', that does not mean lack of competition, James. Far from it.

If I were in their shoes, I would:
1) Develop a relationship with a single exporter who caters to my needs.
2) Work with collectors who would get for me what I wanted and how I needed them, then sell them to the above exporter.
3) Jealously guard the identity of this group.

There will always be varying degrees of quality, even if cyanide suddenly disappeared from the face of the earth, and all the fishermen could do is catch the fish by nets...

MAC or no MAC.

I'm sure that Steve and Mary would also argue the point of handling net-caught fish as being a competitive edge...

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[MaryHM]

Dizzy,

Man, I must be an ignoramus

James,
If all fish coming into the US are net caught, then as I've said before we will compete on quality and customer service. These are two things that I feel smaller wholesalers have a definite advantage on. But it is practically impossible to compete against the cyanide trade with net caught- especially if that cyanide trade is being greenwashed. For me, fish aren't the main focus of my business- corals are. In fact, we haven't even been carrying fish seriously for quite a year yet and our business in over four years old. So no, saying we want a 100% net caught industry does not go against any "business rules" because we can still maintain a competitive edge with quality (cyanide isn't the only thing that kills fish), customer service (a big complaint from many retailers about the big boys), and our coral selection. And obviously we have also branched out into the retail market as well, which gives us an added edge.

 

[clarionreef]

Why yes James,
We stand to lose our "competitive edge" if the cyanide trade goes straight. ..
And what pray tell, edge is that?
Are sales improved by the lack of baby clown triggerfish, the lack of blue tangs and majestics, the lack of blue face angels and venustus? Are we happy to do without half the angelfish on the list enjoying our competitive edge? Are we selling to customers, customers basing their purchases on moral, ethical grounds only? I got 3 like that...repeat 3 like that.
50 % OF MY CUSTOMERS ORDER FROM ME BECAUSE I DELIVER TO THEIR DOORSTEP.
40 % ORDER IN HOPES TO GET SOME MEXICO FISH OR SOMETHING ELSE IE. LOST LEADERS, CHERRIES ETC.
This netcaught or nothing imperative is a curse and an abomination to me. It has ruined me in the marketplace and kept one hand tied behind my back while complete morons outsell me every day because they sell anything to anyone caught by any means available.
Goodness James. You must be an innocent hobbyist! Do you actually think that netcaught means "value added" to anyone other then your own choir?? Have you been reading too many MAC brochures? Do you really think that a better hamburger will outsell Mc Donalds?
I want all fish to be netcaught so that I can compete on a level playing field and outsell the turn and burn wholesalers with the same variety!
Thats why I want to train so badly. Thats why all the net-less training frauds have been so infuriating! Thats why I'm teamed up with Ferdie and CORL to launch the 1,000 man training and with AMDA to support it!
Thats why I'm on reefs.org! What other motive? To troll for customers? What customers? None from here in two years now.
If it were true what you suggest then I must withdraw the offer to train, supply nets and assist competitors. That would be the normal business attitude. My goodness. Did you really think all this time that MAC and their service guy disciples held the higher ground morally? Do you really think they represent higher thinking on this issue? And better strategy?
Do you really believe that an aggressive certification movement with no/few fish to certify is indicative of intelligence? I can't even think slow enough to understand that.
I'm doing what is right because I think it is right and am divorced from the consequences. Reduced sales? So be it. Unlike MAC certified dealers, I do not enjoy the luxury of lapses in moral character required to mix in cyanide fish...
Holding back is what I'm learning from MAC. They have taught me patience and restraint...as we play this flute while the reefs of other people in Indo and the Philippines burn.
Somehow this polite, empty peace seems like a sell out.
I must reconsider tactics. Thanks for the push!
Sincerely, Steve

 

[Nancy Swart]

Unlike MAC certified dealers, I do not enjoy the luxury of lapses in moral character

Are comments like these really necessary to make your point, Steve!!! Sorry but my respect for you has just dropped 10 notches knowing a couple of very morally upstanding MAC dealers. In fact, I believe they're AMDA members.

Going balistic every time we ask a question is not the way to move toward all of us NPOs working as a team. The aura of hostility in this forum is what drove me away a year ago and I now wonder why I bothered coming back.

NS

 

[clarionreef]

Nancy,
Finish the sentence. Lapses in moral character "REQUIRED TO MIX THEIR FISH "...meaning with cyanide fish. To mix cyanide fish together with some netcaught fish to fool people is what?? What is that indicative of viv a vis character?
Steve

 

[clarionreef]

and futhermore...
As an importer, when I say MAC dealers, I first think of exporters and importers mixing in cyanide fish.
Save some indignation for they who would fool and cheat the poor innocent retailer who must not know better. Afterall, he is so far removed from the scene of the crime...isn't he?
Exporters know better. Their deception is premeditated, calculated and offensive in the extreme.
Steve