More MAC

[Anonymous]

Vitz,

Good points. Perhaps I shouldn't assume too much about the certification process or its value. But, MAC is putting its reputation and its continuing existence on the line with each fish that it certifies. So far the fish have been healthy, according to reports. So give MAC credit for that, do not accuse them of certifying unfit animals as several have done.

If MAC certified livestock is consistantly healthy and the organization behind the certification promises continuing improvement regarding environmental stewardship the certification will gain respect from the hobbyist community. Healthy livestock will be a major means of evaluation of the success of the MAC certification process in the hobbyist community, not what we say or even the cyanide testing issue.

-Lee

 

[MaryHM]

Again, this is could be done on a trust basis by certifying only collectors that have shown a high level of integrity.

Really? How do you certify integrity??? The same integrity these collectors have been showing for the past 30 years they've been using cyanide?? Please! This is a CORRUPT country and anyone will tell you whatever you want to hear to make you happy. I'm sorry, but I don't accept a fish as certified because some guy says it is and MAC trusts him. The wholesalers have been telling retailers for years that all of the fish are net caught. Does that make it so?? Of course not! You need checks in place. Healthy livestock is not the only issue here, Lee. It's healthy REEFS. You can get a healthy cyanide caught fish. It is possible. But you cannot catch a fish with cyanide and maintain a healthy reef. Again, you say "reports are that the fish are healthy". Again, I ask you, which fish? Not all fish are cyanide targets. And probably the certified fish coming out of the Philippines are all net caught as of now. Because most of them are coming from Aquarium Habitat (Marivi Laurel) and it is a known fact that basically all of the MAC net caught fish (and that's not a lot) are being funneled to her. The problem is that MAC is going to be expanding and certifying more and more exporters that have a KNOWN TRACK RECORD for cyanide violations. This is where the problem comes in. If you can't see that and you will accept a fish as cyanide free just because it's healthy and the supplier says so, well.....

We all want reform. That's not even arguable. But I want real reform. Not psuedo-reform that makes us all feel good and in the meantime the reefs are continuing to be destroyed. You can't push MAC through just because something has to be done and they're the only game in town. You have to do the right thing. If not, all hope for TRUE reform will cease to exist. MAC can do the right thing if it wants to. In fact, MAC has supposedly realized that cyanide testing IS a necessary part of certification and are working on that right now. So to defend the idea that it that testing isn't a necessary component of certification is silly at the best and irresponsible at the least.[/i]

 

[Anonymous]

Vitz,

Good points. Perhaps I shouldn't assume too much about the certification process or its value. But, MAC is putting its reputation and its continuing existence on the line with each fish that it certifies. So far the fish have been healthy, according to reports. So give MAC credit for that, do not accuse them of certifying unfit animals as several have done.

i have never said that mac certifies unfit animals-i have said that the certification easily allows collectors, and holding facilities, to still collect and export cyanided fish just as easily as they've done in the past, and that, is tantamount, to certifying unfitly caught animals directly

allowing this method to continue is in direct contradiction to maintaining a 'sustainable method of collection'

a 'reputation on the line', for me, is judged by my evaluation of the 'reputation', based on history and actions of the org. whose 'reputation' is the issue-sorry, but from what i've seen, read, and heard-mac's 'putting it's reputation on the line' means absolutely nothing to me
:wink:

If MAC certified livestock is consistantly healthy and the organization behind the certification promises continuing improvement regarding environmental stewardship the certification will gain respect from the hobbyist community. Healthy livestock will be a major means of evaluation of the success of the MAC certification process in the hobbyist community, not what we say or even the cyanide testing issue.

by healthy livestock i understand you to mean healthy fish that are shipped-what about all of the destroyed reef habitat that cyanide causes?


again, lee- cyanide is one of the most destructive means of collection, with regards to it's impact on the reef environment and any organization proffessing to be championing the interests of the industry, w/regards to the end effect on the hobbyist, and the reefs, that doesn't address this issue as its first priority, and gives its certification w/out first correcting that issue, is simply a crock, imo.

especially when the knowledge of what cyanide is, and does, has been around for so long :wink:

i have no more interest in giving 'helpful, or constructive criticism', to a crock :wink:

-Lee

 

[Anonymous]

<sound of more feces being flushed down my toilet> :wink: :lol:

 

[MaryHM]

I have received a copy of Paul Holthus' response to Josepf Steiger's letter (the letter that starting this thread). Paul has said that I can make it public. You can access it here http://www.reefsource.com/Industry%20Is ... teiger.htm

 

[MaryHM]

This is the email I just sent back to Paul. I'm not printing his original mail to me because I don't have his permission. But you can get the jest of what he said.

Paul,

I have posted your response here http://www.reefsource.com/Industry%20Is ... teiger.htm

I am glad to see that you have recognized the importance of a CDT to the certification scheme. I understand and sympathize with the fact that the burden to produce a test should not fall upon MAC, however if you want a valid certification one must be in place. And if you can't rely on any other organization to produce/conduct it to your standards, then there's no other choice but for MAC to get directly involved. I still do not understand why the IMA test is not good enough and would like an thorough explanation citing the specific reasons.

I have not received any information from MAC since I "went public". Last time I checked, I was a member of the advisory board. Haven't heard anything in over a year. I also expressed my strong interest on several occasions (Marine Ornamentals, LA meetings, phone conversations) in being a member of the unsuitable species committee. I have heard nothing, but noticed that John Brandt is a member of that committee. Just because I disagree with some of the things MAC is doing doesn't mean I should be left out of the process. You should welcome people like me into the fold if you have nothing to hide, because I will always tell it like it is. I have no agenda. In fact, if you can come up with a program that Steve Robinson, Peter Rubec, and myself approve of, you will know that you have a strong, reliable program in place. It's better for the problems to be exposed and discussed now rather than 3 years down the road when certification is firmly in place. My company will seek certification if and when a certification program is in place that meets my personal standards for true reform. Until that time, just like I have always told you, I want to be involved in making the process better. But if I don't receive any information from MAC I can only assume the worst at all times.

Are you going to be in LA for the hobby day at Aquarium of the Pacific? If you would like, we could meet face to face and discuss some of the current issues.

Mary Middlebrook

 

[jamesw]

Thank you very much for posting that Mary. I took the time to read teh whole letter that Paul wrote and I think MAC has adressed the gentlemen's concerns very well. As you can see, there is no "hidden agenda" involved.

Cheers
James

 

[MaryHM]

People never come out and say they have hidden agendas. They keep them hidden. Hence the name Time will tell how all of this plays out. Not some letter from Paul assuring us that everything is a-ok and not some ranting from me. However, I hope that the rantings have led to a fervor to make sure that certification is done correctly and that everything is kept out in the open from now on.

 

[naesco]

The Good News is that the cyanide issue is a priority. It was worth reading through both letters.
I have a suggestion to THE MOD from a mere mortal reefer.
Lets concentrate all of our efforts moving forward on this issue.
Questions like how long will it take, implementation issues etc. are good questions. Dealing in the past does not have us move forward.

There are a number of other issues raised in the letters and by reefers on this forum. But lets take the issues on a priority basis and deal with them and I believe the issue is to get a cyanide test in place in a quick but reasonable timeframe.

THE MOD might want to 'create a thread' which monitors the progress.
All the other issues can continue to be discussed on the forum with the clear understanding that we want MAC to deal with them on a priority basis one by one.
Thanks

 

[dizzy]

naesco,

I think Paul Holthus should jump in this thread and explain why he rejected the CDT that was developed by Peter and the others working for IMA. I'm not saying he didn't have a good reason, I just think now would be an opportune time to explain his reasoning.

Mitch Gibbs

 

[kylen]

I tend to agree with naesco. I think the important issue here is moving forward and not dwelling on the past.

I think that if the IMA CDT was reliable and was the basis for the MAC standards, lets find a way to reinstitute this testing or a system similar to it.

Peter...how easily would this be acheived? Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't all the equipment still in place? It appears that what would be needed is for some organization like the IMA to oversee the testing again or am I oversimplifying this process?

This CDT has to be reinstituted with MAC establishing a timeline to achieve this goal. Seeing concrete progress will go a long way in rebuilding some trust.

Although...those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it.

 

[naesco]

Dizzy I personally don't care why it was rejected. Like I said I am more interested in helping MAC reach their future goals one post at a time. (pun here but only Canadians will get it
I would like MAC to keep us informed as to their plans once they have had a chance to formulate them.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm just happy to see Mary, Josef, Paul, etc. in cordial dialog. If the dialog proves to be productive we all win, especially the world's reefs.

-Lee

 

[PeterIMA]

Reply to Kylen,

All of the equipment was turned over to BFAR, who don't seem to be able to conduct the CDT testing for a variety of reasons (mostly pertaining to funding). So most of the equipment probably exists, it just isn't being used because BFAR staff lack the knowledge and financial support. This pertains to the labs in Manila, Zamboanga, and Cebu, which are open, but don't appear to be doing much testing. The labs in Davao and Tacloban (on the Island of Leyte) are not open so far as I know. The lab in Puerto Princesa was originally funded through the city of Puerto Princesa and by BFAR. Mayor Hagedorn was re-elected and recently asked IMA to resume running that CDT lab (that mostly analyzed food fish-groupers). We found the lab in disarray and most of the equipment damaged. The IMA staff are now ordering new equipment.

The IMA has the knowledge and the desire to reinstitute CDT testing (possibly indepent of BFAR). I have no confidence in the ability of BFAR to conduct CDT testing based on what has transpired over the past year. The MAC could help by supporting IMA to reinstitute CDT testing that supported a revised MAC certification process.

Peter Rubec, Ph.D.
International Marinelife Alliance

 

[PeterIMA]

Reply to Kylen,

All of the equipment was turned over to BFAR, who don't seem to be able to conduct the CDT testing for a variety of reasons (mostly pertaining to funding). So most of the equipment probably exists, it just isn't being used because BFAR staff lack the knowledge and financial support. This pertains to the labs in Manila, Zamboanga, and Cebu, which are open, but don't appear to be doing much testing. The labs in Davao and Tacloban (on the Island of Leyte) are not open so far as I know. The lab in Puerto Princesa was originally funded through the city of Puerto Princesa and by BFAR. Mayor Hagedorn was re-elected and recently asked IMA to resume running that CDT lab (that mostly analyzed food fish-groupers). We found the lab in disarray and most of the equipment damaged. The IMA staff are now ordering new equipment.

The IMA has the knowledge and the desire to reinstitute CDT testing (possibly indepent of BFAR). I have no confidence in the ability of BFAR to conduct CDT testing based on what has transpired over the past year. The MAC could help by supporting IMA to reinstitute CDT testing that supported a revised MAC certification process.

Peter Rubec, Ph.D.
International Marinelife Alliance

 

[PeterIMA]

Reply to Kylen,

All of the equipment was turned over to BFAR, who don't seem to be able to conduct the CDT testing for a variety of reasons (mostly pertaining to funding). So most of the equipment probably exists, it just isn't being used because BFAR staff lack the knowledge and financial support. This pertains to the labs in Manila, Zamboanga, and Cebu, which are open, but don't appear to be doing much testing. The labs in Davao and Tacloban (on the Island of Leyte) are not open so far as I know. The lab in Puerto Princesa was originally funded through the city of Puerto Princesa and by BFAR. Mayor Hagedorn was re-elected and recently asked IMA to resume running that CDT lab (that mostly analyzed food fish-groupers). We found the lab in disarray and most of the equipment damaged. The IMA staff are now ordering new equipment.

The IMA has the knowledge and the desire to reinstitute CDT testing (possibly indepent of BFAR). I have no confidence in the ability of BFAR to conduct CDT testing based on what has transpired over the past year. The MAC could help by supporting IMA to reinstitute CDT testing that supported a revised MAC certification process.

Peter Rubec, Ph.D.
International Marinelife Alliance

 

[dizzy]

Exclamation Point,

That's a threepeat Peter. You must want to do the testing badly. MAC would lose face if they now supported exactly the same testing they had rejected as flawed a bit earlier. Sort of like publicly admitting they made a major blunder. IMO there is far too much ego for such a simple solution.

Mitch

 

[PeterIMA]

Mitch,
As I have stated repeatedly, the IMA CDT testing for BFAR was not flawed. It was accepted by BFAR from 1993 to 2001. It was also endorsed by the Philippine Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the Presidential Task Force on Anti-Illegal Fishing. It was accepted by the Philippine court system in support of laws against cyanide fishing. The CDT procedure has been extensively evaluated and endorsed by US government agencies like the APHA, ASTM, and USEPA. The MAC created a flawed report, which IMA demonstrated reached false conclusions. The MAC has no expertise with regard to cyanide testing and does not represent the Philippine government or the Philippine court system.

I agree with you that the MAC's ego may prevent them from endorsing the CDT procedure used by IMA. The catch22 is that if they don't, the MAC (or someone else) will need to come up with a procedure that is internationally recognized and acceptable by both the US government and exporting countries. I would assume that if the MAC develops a new cyanide testing procedure, they will need it reviewed by US organizations (ASTM, APHA, USEPA, Dept. of Commerce-USFWS, USEPA) including agencies involved with regulating the aquarium trade and associated with the US Coral Reef Task Force (USCRTF).

PS: Sorry for posting the last message three times. It had more to do with problems with my computer on-line than with my zeal to get your attention.

Peter Rubec, Ph.D.

Acronyms listed are the following
CDT-Cyanide Detection Test
ASTM-American Society of Testing and Materials
APHA-American Public Health Association
NOAA-National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
USEPA-U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USCRTF-U.S. Coral Reef Task Force

 

[MaryHM]

I would assume that if the MAC develops a new cyanide testing procedure, they will need it reviewed by US organizations (ASTM, APHA, USEPA, Dept. of Commerce-USFWS, USEPA) including agencies involved with regulating the aquarium trade and associated with the US Coral Reef Task Force (USCRTF).

Good point. And how long would all of that take? I would assume longer than the "few months" they're throwing out as a time frame.

 

[naesco]

Peter,I am not interested in what happened in the past. Even if you post it three times

What I am interested in is a cyanide testing procedure implemented in the shortest possible timeframe