Can't we all just get along?

[Anonymous]

It seems to me that there are several types of people. Those that wish to help others, those who watch others get help, those who help others, and those who need help themsleves. It's up to your own self defining methods to discover which you are. I always find it amusing that those who think they help the most are actually the ones who help the least. Now does it really matter who does what as long as it was a step in the right direction? I don't really know too terribly much about MAC and or AMDA, but I am currently studying up. However I do know BS when I hear it and smell it and some of you folks could get a lot more done for the better of the industry if you were'nt so damn stuborn and self rightous. :wink: :!:

So much negative energy going on. To think it could of all gone to nets and efforts for the net caught industry what a waste. Senseless bickering among what should be allies for a better industry as a whole.

 

[mkirda]

Dragoon,

Why? Simple- Sometimes things are worth fighting for, and they are not necessarily simple or easy. Examples:

Women's right to vote
Civil rights of people of all colors
Tolerance of religious differences
Unionization of industry

Throughout our history, we have fought amongst ourselves, and the fight has often been brutish and nasty. Assassinations, both corporal and character.

Think what America would be like if women were still second-class citizens with no real rights. If minorities were still treated as sub-humans. If the government were ruled by the religious right. And we were all drones, having to work 6 days a week, 12 hours a day. Jeez, sounds like the Taliban to me...

There are things worth fighting for.
And sometimes those issues mean that we can't all get along.

Sorry, but that is reality.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[dizzy]

And we were all drones, having to work 6 days a week, 12 hours a day. Jeez, sounds like the Taliban to me...

Regards.
Mike Kirda

Taliban hell. Mike you just described the work week of the average lfs owner. 8O

 

[clarionreef]

Try and reverse the logic...
Smile...and glad hand everyone like a used car salesman
Pander... to every one and everything
Sell out... any/all principals for the sake of silence
Swallow... any fuzzy feel good line you hear
Believe... in all mission statements w/out deeds
and...above all, choose style over substance in all things, especially things most relevant in life.
The "lets stop bickering" thing is generally a knee jerk response to things least understood and least relevant.
Recent awardees of the Neville Chamberlain award for "Peace [ without deeds vis a vis the Nazis ] in our time" are a veritable whos who on this very board.
My favorite juxtoposition of peace-nik and bomb thrower is of course Vitz. His inceniary Naesco bomb last week will be hard to beat.
I'd need 4 double shot expressos in a row and two back stabs in one week to even make a run at it.
If agreements and accord can be reached on matters of importance, one cannot justify a continuation of dispute for the sake of dispute. I want accords, resolutions and closure on matters...not recreational, superficial debate for the sake of getting a rise out of people.
Peace? What fool doesn't want that? Peace in our time and with deeds of merit to go with it. Lets the dialogue continue.
Steve

 

[naesco]

It seems to me that there are several types of people. Those that wish to help others, those who watch others get help, those who help others, and those who need help themsleves. It's up to your own self defining methods to discover which you are. I always find it amusing that those who think they help the most are actually the ones who help the least. Now does it really matter who does what as long as it was a step in the right direction? I don't really know too terribly much about MAC and or AMDA, but I am currently studying up. However I do know BS when I hear it and smell it and some of you folks could get a lot more done for the better of the industry if you were'nt so damn stuborn and self rightous. :wink: :!:

So much negative energy going on. To think it could of all gone to nets and efforts for the net caught industry what a waste. Senseless bickering among what should be allies for a better industry as a whole.

Dragoon, you are absolutely correct.

 

[mkirda]

In the interests of social harmony, I have a suggestion.

Everyone should listen to me and obey my every wish, desire or command.

I can guarantee you that all the cyanide-caught fishing issues will be solved.

You cannot ask me how, because that is not allowed- To question is treason.
All ya'all should just agree to agree with me all the time and submit to my will.

Is this what you want? :roll:

Regards.
Mike Kirda

P.S. For the sake of understanding, I feel that I must add something here...
The above post is not indicative of my true feelings: It is merely poking fun, a sarcastic look at a self-effacing characterization of a non-me...
I openly encourage diversity of opinion, and openly wish more people would go to the Philippines to seek out the answers for themselves.

 

[Anonymous]

You cannot ask me how, because that is not allowed- To question is treason.
All ya'all should just agree to agree with me all the time and submit to my will.

Is this what you want?

This is not what I'm talking about. There is simply a number of people not to name names. That simply feel that they should argue about how things should be done and with who and or what when simply it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter who gets the credit for the reform and it doesn't matter who these fish go to and it doesn't matter who catches these fish. It only matters that the industry changes into a more practical means of allowing itself to blossom and thrive into a renewable resource.

I could care less who is doing what, where they send their fish, and who it takes away from(organizationally). The simple truth is that the more you B!tch and moan about who gets to do it and where, the more fish and people are harmed by cyanide. Have you guys ever heard the phrase "if your gonna take a crap take it don't just sit there farting" because all you do is slow down the whole process and give off the impression of a congessional committee who is more worried about there wallets than the people.

 

[jamesw]

I think the message is:

"It's fine to disagree, but the way to do it is:

Hi Mr XXX, I don't agree with you for these reasons."

As opposed to:

"Shut Up Mr XXX, you are a ****head and you don't know what you are talking about."

8O 8O

 

[blue hula3]

It doesn't matter who gets the credit for the reform and it doesn't matter who these fish go to and it doesn't matter who catches these fish. It only matters that the industry changes into a more practical means of allowing itself to blossom and thrive into a renewable resource.

At risk of sounding like a glory hound, this is why it matters who gets the credit for reform and by reform I mean small steps in the right direction:

Financial and human resources are limited. If credit is wrongly given to organisations who in fact are making no progress, they continue to get a disproportionate slice of the pie which could frankly be better used elsewhere. Meanwhile, those who are quietly achieving success don't get the resources in proportion to their effectiveness ... cause there is only so much pecan to go around.

If credit is wrongly given to an organisation, we then say "hey, that must be a good model to follow" and we continue doing it wrong. A frank assessment of what works and what doesn't work is impossible where there is no accurate record of who did what.

When we think the job is getting done, we relax. If credit is wrongly given to an organisation that has been in fact ineffective, our complacency may mean no true change happens.

And finally, it is just wrong. Many people working out in the field have made HUGE personal sacrifices in their quest to help make the world a better place. Yes, there is satisfaction in a job done well, regardless of whether the only ones who know it are the local fishers. But it can also be exhausting, dangerous and soul destroying. It is not unreasonable to acknowledge (accurately) their successes. We certainly lambast them for their failures.

Yes, the end is important but achieving it through ethical means also counts.

My apologies if I sound a bit edgy.

Blue hula

 

[salt creepette]

I thought the comment about "who cares who does it as long as it gets done?" made sense.

but blue hula's comment also made very much sense and covered some points I/we may not have thought of.

I think that it is important to have a diversity of opinions and many viewpoints expressed, because what one of us doesn't think of, another one will.

I do think it would be nice if everyone got along; not necessarily ALL BE CLONES ALL GOING IN THE SAME DIRECTION, but were at least amicable toward one another despite our various differing goals.

Unfortunately, that scenario would be present in a perfect world, which ours is not.

 

[Anonymous]

I see the emerging role of AMDA as keeping MAC in check and verifying (for the retailers) that they are staying above board.

 

[dizzy]

Glenn, (Rover)
That's all I ever wanted from the beginning. I just wanted AMDA to be a watchdog over the MAC. The intention was never to try and destroy the objectives that MAC was trying to accomplish, only to negociate a deal that would allow the industry to be able to improve and continue. MAC wants to be the cops and so be it. AMDAs role should be more like the ACLU. Make sure that the MAC doesn't put us out of business due to a lack of understanding of the situation. I mean what else should the role of a dealer's organization really be? Group insurance and purchasing power would also be nice. :wink:
MG

 

[Anonymous]

i just call 'em as i see 'em-as honestly as i feel 'em

always have and always will, 'tell it bang', and have little tolerance for 'politics of feely good rhetoric' types who really have nothing to offer...

and i'm not nearly double faced enough to offer anyone a 'levantine smile'

in all fairness, and so there is no doubt as to whether i'm just trying to be 'incendiary',-as i stated in my reply to naesco, i've been reading his posts for a long time-he's inconsistent,horn touting, and never directly answers any question/challenge w/a real answer(just like mac)

i have very little respect for those types of people, or org.'s, and there insult to my, and others, intelligence behooves me to 'call them out' w/strong, direct challenge

fish, or cut bait

 

[Anonymous]

and steve...

i far prefer to do all my 'name calling', and judgements out in the public view, and in the open, as opposed to surreptitious pm's/emails, and the like-(re: your 'unpleasant subjects' pm :wink: )

i think your 'industry philosophy' is one i may share, actually, and i'm not exactly sure of the gist of what

My favorite juxtoposition of peace-nik and bomb thrower is of course Vitz. His inceniary Naesco bomb last week will be hard to beat

means.

i'm neither peace nik, nor bomb thrower-i'm an lfs manager w/a conscience, who doesn't have the means to do much to help the issues i'm concerned about, aside from presently educating my customer base as much as possible, to make them aware of this forum/bb, and to educate them to keep their charges alive as long as is possible, in order to reduce the demand/pressure on the incredible resource we all have a hand in slowly wiping out, bit, by bit :?

 

[Anonymous]

What it comes down to is that some people are more concerned about getting net caught fish as a gimmick to sell more fish. Some are out there to not make waves, and more still just want to help. If ther was only a way to get people involved without all the BS????????????????

At risk of sounding like a glory hound, this is why it matters who gets the credit for reform and by reform I mean small steps in the right direction:

Financial and human resources are limited. If credit is wrongly given to organisations who in fact are making no progress, they continue to get a disproportionate slice of the pie which could frankly be better used elsewhere. Meanwhile, those who are quietly achieving success don't get the resources in proportion to their effectiveness ... cause there is only so much pecan to go around.

If credit is wrongly given to an organisation, we then say "hey, that must be a good model to follow" and we continue doing it wrong. A frank assessment of what works and what doesn't work is impossible where there is no accurate record of who did what.

When we think the job is getting done, we relax. If credit is wrongly given to an organisation that has been in fact ineffective, our complacency may mean no true change happens.

And finally, it is just wrong. Many people working out in the field have made HUGE personal sacrifices in their quest to help make the world a better place. Yes, there is satisfaction in a job done well, regardless of whether the only ones who know it are the local fishers. But it can also be exhausting, dangerous and soul destroying. It is not unreasonable to acknowledge (accurately) their successes. We certainly lambast them for their failures.

Yes, the end is important but achieving it through ethical means also counts.

My apologies if I sound a bit edgy.

Blue hula

Only if the people starting the organizations are total morons(about the model to follow comment). No, it doesn't matter who gets the credit. Mac is funded by grants and therefore has power and resources to tackle the problem by the horns. They should careless who else starts doing what as long as it starts getting net catching out in the open. IMO all it does is lessen the load on MAC and give them some free assistance.

If someone wants to help they have to help MAC's or AMDA's way it doesn't make sense. Afterall it's a free world. From what it sounds like MAC should worry about MAC and AMDA should woory about AMDA, and whenever in contact with each other should treat eachother with respect and professional courtesy. Playing the fame game only is politics and should stay with those who are bound by them.

Just for kicks what would be wrong with lets say a millionaire starting a net fund/net catch fund education program in the south pacific. Without first contacting MAC or AMDA. Answer: nothing it's their money and their cause which equals their baby. Now if organizations/individuals are worried about fame and glory maybe they should start acting and stop bickering before someone decides to show them up and take the cake and fish to whomever they choose.

 

[Anonymous]

i'm neither peace nik, nor bomb thrower-i'm an lfs manager w/a conscience, who doesn't have the means to do much to help the issues i'm concerned about, aside from presently educating my customer base as much as possible, to make them aware of this forum/bb, and to educate them to keep their charges alive as long as is possible, in order to reduce the demand/pressure on the incredible resource we all have a hand in slowly wiping out, bit, by bit :?

Thanks for summing up my position on the whole thing, Vitzer.

However, I have one more line to add to my situation, and that is that I will attempt everything in the above paragraph, but if one of my customers insists on doing something that would make me choose a likely cyanide-caught fish or a husbandry difficulty fish, I have to think of the bottom line, and that's $$$. If I don't sell, then I don't do as well financially. Unfortunately, that has to be the last stop on the road for me...

Peace,

Chip

 

[MaryHM]

What it comes down to is that some people are more concerned about getting net caught fish as a gimmick to sell more fish.

Lord I wish the net caught "gimmick" sold more fish. The truth is that it doesn't. If it did, more people would be clamoring to get them. TRUE net caught fish right now are a liability- not an asset. You have very limited quantities/varieties and that does not make for a very attractive stocklist. Of course, every joe-schmo in the world says they have "net caught fish" because that's what the customers want to hear. But if that were truly the case, we wouldn't have a cyanide problem, now would we?

 

[mkirda]

Just for kicks what would be wrong with lets say a millionaire starting a net fund/net catch fund education program in the south pacific. Without first contacting MAC or AMDA. Answer: nothing it's their money and their cause which equals their baby. Now if organizations/individuals are worried about fame and glory maybe they should start acting and stop bickering before someone decides to show them up and take the cake and fish to whomever they choose.

Dragoon,

Absolutely nothing wrong with this, and trust me: There are those who are thinking of doing this very thing...

It is called Vertical Integration, and would consist of an exporter having their own 'house' collectors in various areas. They would foot the bill, having to solve the transportation and handling issues on their own. It would be strictly a business relationship, with no CAMP required. Frankly I am quite surprised that this model hasn't already taken hold in the Philippines. It has in other areas in the South Pacific- Eric Cohen (if I recall correctly) was describing this system in place in Fiji...

The only trouble with this model is that it is not open to all. Techniques developed become trade secrets.

MAC's goal is to set up the largest network of hobby/Industry funded Managed Collection areas with Marine Protected Areas in the world.
Everyone should understand this.
Certification is an means to an end, adding cost that may not end up in the hands of collectors, but is meant to cover salaries of administrators for the MPAs. I have no problem with the cost as long as the collectors will benefit- If I have an agenda in participating at all, it is to help the collectors first and foremost.

Honestly, I like the MAC concept as long as it lives up to its promise.
CAMPs and MPAs are great goals, but the collectors MUST benefit from what will be extra work by increasing the pesos in their pockets too.
You want to motivate them, show them the pesos.
That they will understand.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Anonymous]

Glenn, (Rover)
That's all I ever wanted from the beginning. I just wanted AMDA to be a watchdog over the MAC. The intention was never to try and destroy the objectives that MAC was trying to accomplish, only to negociate a deal that would allow the industry to be able to improve and continue. MAC wants to be the cops and so be it. AMDAs role should be more like the ACLU. Make sure that the MAC doesn't put us out of business due to a lack of understanding of the situation. I mean what else should the role of a dealer's organization really be? Group insurance and purchasing power would also be nice.

Well said Mitch. And I agree wholeheartedly. And in the light of AMDA as a "watchdog" group, the net fund makes perfect sense. As long as MAC has the best interest of the retailers at heart, the retailers cooperate and pitch in. If they go astray, the cooperation and support vanishes. Essentially a checks and balances sort of system.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't really know too terribly much about MAC and or AMDA, but I am currently studying up. However I do know BS when I hear it and smell it and some of you folks could get a lot more done for the better of the industry if you were'nt so damn stuborn and self rightous.

Dragoon, unfortunatly, simply searching out info on MAC and AMDA will not even give you a glimse of what is going on. To fully understand what is going on, who's involved and the things work the way they work, you'll need to go back A LOT furthur then MAC or AMDA's inception. Both these groups a truly new to an old situation. Read the articles from the FAMA, MFM from the 80's/90's and do a web search on such orginazation's as IMA, Haribon and OVI. Talk to the people involved, most of all, the people of PI as its truly their story to tell.

I think there needs to be way more accountability with ALL these groups involved, so if AMDA can act as a watchdog for MAC, GREAT. Our great government is built on checks and means(excluding the last Pres. election, and post 9/11 legistlation), why not bring that to this situation? MAC can do good, and will if the right people work with them. The figure heads of these groups need to meet on common ground, and thats what the Town Hall meeting was supposed to address. I was disappointed in that meeting, basicly no one said a damn word except the people who are all ready involved. Many people in this forum cried/yelled for that to take place, then they couldn't even speak up or worse, not even attend. IMHO, if you call for action and you don't even put any energy into the action you called for, you don't deserve a voice or an ear to listen to you. This is serious business and not to be taken lightly.