MACAttack

MAC Matters I Page

To: Biz of Biz matters, MAC Attack Input II, MAC Attack Input III,

Re: Wholesaler/Importer group or Everyone? It has been suggested by a few that we form a group to represent Wholesalers/Importer only. Currently, AMDA is in place to represent the dealer level. With many coming into town for the MAC workshop, we have an opportunity to get together throughout that weekend. Planning in advance will help keep it smooth. Keeping these letters as short as possible: Question: Organization of Wholesalers/Importers? Organization of All (including dealers, service co.'s)? Thanks, Scott

Fw: [amdamembers] Sea of regulations Bob, Read this simple yet explicit warning from Mike. <Have seen this all before... thirty years back... and seen its fostering, festering by Holthus for years in this last go around. Another chip at our (U.S. citizens) personal freedoms... Who is served? Bob Fenner> Mitch I will mitch, I just hope you understand the industry is at a turning point it must change or end. Mike Mike, Randy brought the AZA into the picture. I just hope everyone goes aza.org and reads the articles. You included. Mitch Gibbs Subject: Re: [amdamembers] Sea of regulations Wow Mitch I guess we should just go back to the USCRTF and tell them we should just shut down the industry, Paul and the others in the MAC can then become Reef biologist again, I can go do my reef restoration, Randy can go back to the big tanks, and you can do what ever is left for you to do. Randy and I are not trying to help, we are helping. Unlike some who are kicking and crying about the changes ahead. These Changes are going to happen no matter what any minor group tries to do, for it is the US Gov't telling us to change not the MAC. "When it comes to inviting government intervention: Less is more" 1st we are not inviting Gov't intervention, that is going to happen regardless what MAC or any one else does. The Difference being the end of the Marine ornamental industry ( less = 0) and a regulated one where we will have to be held accountable. With sustainability we and hopefully the reefs will still survive ( = More.). Will paperwork be needed ? That's a given, we need to prove we are improving, that's the accountability we must provide to continue. I just hope we have a group like the AZA that can help us with the paperwork. (Don't all you AMDA members worry I have all ready been working on that :-). Mitch it wasn't MAC that created the USCRTF, it was the US Gov't. The USCRTF has already said that we are a unsustainable user of the Worlds Coral Reef Resources. They go further and say all unsustainable users of the coral reefs in the US shouldn't be allowed to continue. They can shut us down tomorrow if they want, they have all the tools in place to do so. " IMO government regulation will be the total ruination of the industry." Well if that proves true, you best start looking for another form of employment because you are about to be awoken to reality. Mike Subject: [amdamembers] Sea of regulations Randy, Your recent analogy about the AZA formation was only part of the story. Today the AZA is drowning in a sea of red tape and paperwork. The February 2002 issue of CommuniquÃ© (official AZA publication) contains no less than eight articles about keeping proper paperwork and such. Many of the zoos and public aquariums are having a very hard time understanding and meeting all the requirements. I honestly believe many of the AZA members have gotten much, much more than they bargained for originally. These institutions are infinitely better equipped to deal with complicated record keeping than the average pet store. IMO government regulation will be the total ruination of the industry. Please go to www.aza.org and read the articles I mentioned. At least read "Take a Closer Look: Permitting processes at USFWS." I know Randy and Mike think they are trying to help, but I remained unconvinced at this time. Please read the AZA articles and get a feel for what your future will be like. Do what you feel is right, but don't say I didn't try to warn you. Try to pick your analogies a little more carefully in the future. When it comes to inviting government intervention: Less is more. Mitch Gibbs

Bob, The chain of custody issues MAC is pushing for sound like they come right out of the Lacey Act. Randy hijacked AMDA just after the MACNA XII meeting. He has never sought out the will of the membership, and has in fact blatantly refused, when asked to do so by Mary and others. Mike King and Randy have both threatened that the marine industry will be totally shut down if we refuse to accept MAC. I think they know more than they are willing to share with the rest of us. <Keep on pushing for clarity, understanding Mitch. Bob F> Mitch Gibbs From: Mitch Gibbs <mitchgibbs@mindspring.com> To: amdamembers@yahoogroups.com <amdamembers@yahoogroups.com> Date: Saturday, February 16, 2002 9:54 PM Subject: [amdamembers] Keeping Us Organized Randy, AMDA members, I am going to copy the last part of the Judith Block article titled Keeping Us Organized: The Importance of Collection Management. which appeared in the February 2002 issue of CommuniquÃ©. I can assure you this article dealt with general collection management issues and was not just speaking about endangered species. I would also ask Steve Robinson to be careful what he wishes for in terms of invoking the use of "The Lacey Act." I hope things don't get as complicated for the aquarium industry, but who really knows what the future holds. "The Lacey Act presents a particular challenge to transaction documentation. The Act prohibits the importation, exportation, transportation, sale, receipt, acquisition or purchase of wildlife taken or possessed in violation of any law, treaty or regulation of the United States or any Indian tribunal law or wildlife or plants taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of any State law or regulation or foreign law. In essence, the act requires that the recipient is able to show that an animal was legally obtained (whether abroad or in the U.S.), exported and imported. This proof must be on hand prior to transfer. As a practical matter, documentation is an obligation of both shipper and receiver, and records must be kept in perpetuity, especially when parts or samples outlast the specimen. The provenance of any animal (i.e., its origin and its subsequent holders) must be thoroughly tracked and documented. Knowledge of the foreign or domestic regulations involved throughout the process is expected of zoo professionals by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), which administers the Act. Origin-particularly with respect to ancestors - and subsequent location information is also crucial for population management and other conservation programs. Acquisition is the act of gaining legal title, and accessioning is the formal process used to acquire and record an animal into the collection. An animal can come to the zoo and not be accessioned into the collection - for example, in quarantine an animal may be found to have an unsuspected medical problem, or may be determined to be a different sex or taxon; however, there must be transition records of the shipment and subsequent disposition, and of course a decision must be made about accessioning the animal. Scrupulously accurate, timely, secure and complete transactions and specimen records in combination with the policy and procedures of the zoo fulfill the requirements of the public trust and accountability that are concomitant with keeping animals in captivity. As a legal colleague once counseled when I was explaining the convolutions of a proposed activity: Don't do anything you couldn't justify in a couple of sentences for an article in the NY Times." End of quote. Mitch Gibbs

Sea of regulations >Randy, Mike, >I owe you both a response. I think the cause of reef conservation is a noble >one, but you both sort of >remind me of the guys who create the computer viruses so >they can sell the anti-virus software. I would like to see you both deny >that you have any plans to benefit personally by working in "new" jobs >created by the bureaucracy you both have so completely endorsed. <Gosh, well-stated. Wish I had penned this> >I fully understand that complete and accurate records are needed when >dealing with endangered species. Many zoos are doing the breeding work that >is necessary to keep many species from becoming extinct. Poor record keeping >and poor genetic >breeding can lead to birth defects or reduced number of offspring. I read >every article in the February 2002 CommuniquÃ© which is available on >www.aza.org. >Zoos are held highly accountable for all the animals they have in their >custody and not just those which are "endangered". >Most zoos do the very best job they can, but many are under-funded and do >not have the money to hire a full time data entry person. I will quote from >"How Records Relate to Conservation Programs" by Kevin Willis in the same >2-2002 CommuniquÃ© issue. Willis says less than half of AZA institutes have >fulltime animal data entry people. "Institutions cannot continue to rely on >volunteers and untrained staff to enter animal records. The new generation >of software currently being discussed may help, but will not solve the >problem of poor quality records. The adage "Garbage In, Garbage Out" will >always be true." >Randy I would also like to quote from "Keeping Us Organized: The Importance >of Documentation in Collection Management" by Judith Block of the >Smithsonian Institute. "Two unstated goals of an institution are:staying out >of court and keeping an unsavory story off the front page of the newspaper. >There is a two-pronged approach to achieving these goals: documentation and >process." >Randy if any of the members bother to read the AZA articles they will be >able to make judgements for themselves without either me or you interpret >the articles. The animal rights people do not like zoos any better today >than in the past. Despite all the good they do, zoos are under constant >scrutiny, and is not just because they have endangered species. >I believe that it is the exact same organizations that pushed for the zoo >reform and >regulations, that are now pushing MAC to create industry reform. Just what >exactly was Mike King talking about when he recently made the following >statement: "I just hope we have a group like the AZA that can help us with >all the paperwork. (Don't all you AMDA members worry I have already been >working on that.) With sideways smiley face. >If any AMDA BOD are trying to get the membership to endorse a program that >will result in a direct financial gain to them personally, I believe this >could be construed as a "conflict of interest". <Uh, yes> >Cyanide use needs to end now. <Needed to never get started... or end when it began in the late 1950's> I respect the efforts of Steve Robinson and >(like Geoff Sampson) I also would like to learn ways to help achieve this >goal. Running down the wholesalers will not be the >solution. People who work in the marine industry do need to be accountable, >but we >also need an organization whose leaders come from an industry background. >The AZA is not headed by people who spent the best part of their careers in >the retail pet business. >Mitch Gibbs <Here here Mitch. Bob Fenner>

Fw: [amdamembers] Stay the course Hi Bob, Forward this to the world. <Done. Bob F> Mitch >Randy, Mike King, AMDA BOD, >Please go to www.aza.org (CommuniquÃ©) and read the article titled >"Navigating the Jungle of Permits" by Lynn McDuffie and then please comment >on how you think hobbyists will be able to get permits to keep fish that >make the MAC "unsuitable list". >Thanks, >Mitch Gibbs

Fw: [amdamembers] Stay the course Bob, Here was Randy's original. <Talked (or shall I say listened) to Randy go on for about an hour a few days ago on the phone... Don't really understand what he is about... Am very sad to read below of Tom Walsh's passing. A very fine gentleman. Bob Fenner> Mitch >Hello out there, > I have been staying off this format for the most part of this weekend, >for, like Mitch, I have received word from some that I don't need to get into >everyones conversation. > Again, I want to apologize for any past personal stuff...this forum gets >heated at times, and I have slipped down into the muck a few times. As Elwyn >and others have said, lets all try and keep it professional. > I do need to go over the big picture again. There are some just getting >onto this board, others who may have been off and are back and still others >that are sitting on the fence. I need to tell you what I know. > First, let me go back to when I was running for office. I said I have >been a marine biologist for 10 years, public aquarium curator for 13 years >and a service company/consultant for 19 years (some consulting on the side >while I was at the Pittsburgh Zoo and now full time service/consulting). Have >worked with a variety of local stores (some OK, some good and a couple very >good) and have been to a slew of AZA, MASNA, Western Marine, Bakker and RAW >meetings. Teach Oceanography. Served as the Chairman of the Marine >Invertebrate TAG group (corals) for a year while at the zoo and put together >a couple of conferences on Corals and Conservation (where I met Charles >Delbeek and Julian for the first time). The second conference I hosted at >the Pittsburgh Zoo and in that one we targeted the IATA (International >Airlines Transportation Association) as a team of zoo officials and aquarists >and US F& W service agents and government officials to get IATA to change the >regs on shipping marine inverts (corals ) in the airlines. We actually pulled >it off, and for the next year, corals were shipped with the same priority as >corpses and flowers (those that understand that the airlines are a big part >of our headachs may see the significance). Didn't know that you have to fight >for it each year in Montreal, and the following year it reverted back to old >regs. > But the thing I am most proud of happened at the Pittsburgh Zoo. I was >hired as an assistant director by the city to run the Aqua Zoo in 1982. By >1983 I was heavy into the new reform movement in the zoo industry...the >American Association of Zoos and Aquariums. It was new, it was set up to do >one thing and that was to bring accountability through rigorous inspections >to zoos in the US. At that time, the government was breathing down the necks >of zoos. Animal rights activists had made inroads into pushing for closure of >zoos because they highlighted roadside zoos and menageires and tried to paint >all zoos wiuth the same brush. The government was listening. Several good >zoos began to get together and formed the nucleus of AZA and they put >together a reform package that included real accountability and began to sell >it to other zoos. When I joined the Pittsburgh Zoo there were only about 10 >accredited zoos or so and most were up in arms and were making all sorts of >false claims about AZA and slander and inuendos and all sorts of insults were >flying about. My first few zoo conferences were real eye openers. Couldn't >believe some of the shit I was hearing. Guess what. Thats where we are now in >this industry reform movement. I was there when the city realized they needed >to get their zoo accredited. The old director who hired me was moved downtown >as he was one of the resistant ones, and one of us two assistant directors, >Tom Walsh, became the acting director. As his right hand man, I was in the >thick of it. And we went to the staff and they lsitened. The previous >director hadn't always listened, so they were all ears. And we made a team. >And we began to get the various areas ready. There was a lot to do. And >others would check in and give their negative spins to the whole thing. And >as we went to the conferences, we began to hang with the AZA officials and >the zoos that had crossed over. Three months before the big inspection, >downtown dropped the political boom on Tom. He had led the fight and got >everything ready and they said "we need a ringer...we can't take any >chances". So Tom was denied the directorship, they brought in the Chairman of >the AZA accreditation committee as the new zoo director and we were >accredited. We made it. That is history now, and AZA is the norm and the zoos >are all proud to be members. And the Government is happy and outside of >yearly inspections by USDA inspectors, they let AZA run the show for the >zoos. Sadly, the funeral I mentioned to some I had to attend last Friday was >for Tom Walsh. He was a hero to me and will not be forgotten for what he did, >even if the official credit was taken from him. > In case you didn't get the connection, I have been through this before >(industry reform). In case you don't realize what this is, that is what we >are doing now. Why? > Go back in time to several years ago, when the USCoral Reef Task Force >was mandated by Bill Clinton. That group was brought into existence to study >the reefs and find a way to help save them. Even back then (7 years or so >ago) there were enough reefs showing stress or outright dying that the alarm >has reached capitol hill. This is no small group. There are representatives >from the house and senate, State Department, Dept of Interior, Dept of >Commerce (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and National >Marine Fisheries Service (side shoot...I worked at not one but two NMFS labs >in New England years ago and this is the finest branch the government has)), >the Coast Guard, The Navy, the governors of each of our terriotries holding >coral reef ecosystems (Guam, Marshall Islands, US Virgin Islands, etc) and a >slew of consultants, NGOS and others. To be at one of their meetings is to be >overwhelmed. Some thought that as the Bush administration came to power, this >body would fold or be held back. Nope. For those who made our annual meeting, >Tom Praster of the State Dept let it be known that they are following through >on the work started under the Clinton administration. > The Marine Aquarium Council also came to being around this time. I will >let Paul and Dave go over their history, for they inform me that that will be >coming for you to better understand their beginnings and the evolution to >their present state. > All these groups have carefully looked at the reefs of not only our >territories but all over the world...CITES is a big part of this venture, for >this UN mandate regulates international commerce of living organisms and that >includes reef organisms. As they looked things over they began to formulate >action plans. Included in that were plans to address EVERY negative impact on >living reefs that they could identify. Some of these are small, some are >large. One of these negatives is our industry. Hate to pop anyones bubble, >but we are considered a negative impact. MAC, our ally and a strong advocate >for the reform of the aquarium hobby industry through accountability and >support of sustainable harvesting on reefs, began work on the Core Standards. >When you see the history of that program, you will realize that there were >review processes all along its inception and development. Why did we not get >involved sooner? A few did. But most of us didn't. Because we are a somewhat >myoptic industry. What I mean by that is that we as individuals are usually >so focused on making a living that we rarely have time to took at the bigger >picture of the coral reef ecosystems. Some of us did and some realized that >AMDA could help in all of this. That's why I got involved three years ago. >Ran for and was elected as vice president first and under Ricks tutaledge I >began to see that the idea of real reform was going to take time. John >Tullock had always said that we can't take any stand cause others would sue >us. That was then, this is now. Having been throgh this happy horseshit >before (the reform and all the nashing of teeth) I knew enough to get a >lawyer on board for the BOD so our asses would be covered. That is done. > The USCRTF basically made a move to just close down the industry. MAC >stood the ground for us. If you don't believe me, ask Mike King, who was >there. What the USCRTF has basically said is that if MAC can finish the core >standards and get the industry to come to terms with this need for reform, >they will hold off. But not forever. And what is this reform? We need to have >real ethics in regards to the animals we deal with, to lower mortalities >throughout the chain of custody to a level that is acceptable to all >concerned at the USCRTF level and to make sure that we are all accountable >through our own set of real plans. That is what the 1% is all about. Not >something MAC dreamed up or some NGO came up with to trip us up with. You >want to know what is the opposite of us trying to reach the 1% (actually 8% >overall allowed) and not doing so across the board (we will, make no mistake, >achieve it with some species and only part of the time if we do but little to >improive things...those of us who get fish in regularly realize this...I have >plenty of experience getting fish in from wholesalers, first for the Aqua Zoo >and then for the customers I have)? The opposite of that (to do nothing or go >with what we have now (probably 20% overall or higher)) is that we will fail. >That is unacceptable to those who have plans in place to save these reefs. I >am the messenger here, remember. And as for the "do the sustainable study >instead"...mirrors. That's like looking in a mirror and getting the >reflection as reality instead of reality. The wholesalers didn't come up with >this plan...it's already in place and will be done by others with us in >support or without us. > These people (USCRTF) have all the right to make sure that we turn >ourselves from a negative image to that of a positive one. They are working >to save whole ecosystems. How do they have the right? By being accountable to >ourselves and the government through real reductions in mortality. And why is >that an issue? Because when the sustainable studies are done (basic baseline >studies), they will show that if we are to really have sustainable reefs, we >will need to adjust our take off the reefs down a bit. That adjustment will >be the lower mortalities meaning less take needed on the reefs. If some at >the wholesale end of this want to say different, be my guest. I am a marine >biologist who does get publications with occasional baseline stidies and I am >not stupid. I see what the reef scientists see. To do this right, we will >have to have true sustainable harvesting...not the stuff Steve Robinson spoke >of that is going on now "the collectors keep having to go further out and >further out to get their harvest". Thats going to be borne out and I am not >one to lead us where we don't need to go. We need to do this...stop the >bickering and sit down at that table Paul is talking about. > If any of you have doubts about this all I suggest you to do the >following. Go to our web site.Look at our mission statement and our goals. >Understand what we are all about (for ethics, real reform and accountability >and sustainable harvesting that fosters stewardship). Now look in the >mirror. Can you now say you still want to be with us. If so, stand with us. >If not, go off and start your own group. That's Ok by me. We will do what is >right. We will hold the course for the flagship AMDA. We will move forward >with the members that want real reform. And don't kid yourself, there are >members who want this. Got a message from two new ones last night asking if >we really are for ethics and reform and fighting the good fight or are we for >same old shit you hear at all the conferences. I said we are for the good >fight. I said we are making history here. We are! Come join the battle and >stand by us. It's up to them and it's up to you. We have spoken... (resign, >my ass) >Randolph Goodlett, AMDA

Fw: [amdamembers] Sea of regulations Hi Bob, Go to aza.org Read below. <Agreed. Am forwarding to some friends, associates in the aquatics trade. Be chatting. Bob Fenner> Regards, Mitch Randy, Your recent analogy about the AZA formation was only part of the story. Today the AZA is drowning in a sea of red tape and paperwork. The February 2002 issue of CommuniquÃ© (official AZA publication) contains no less than eight articles about keeping proper paperwork and such. Many of the zoos and public aquariums are having a very hard time understanding and meeting all the requirements. I honestly believe many of the AZA members have gotten much, much more than they bargained for originally. These institutions are infinitely better equipped to deal with complicated record keeping than the average pet store. IMO government regulation will be the total ruination of the industry. Please go to www.aza.org and read the articles I mentioned. At least read "Take a Closer Look: Permitting processes at USFWS." I know Randy and Mike think they are trying to help, but I remained unconvinced at this time. Please read the AZA articles and get a feel for what your future will be like. Do what you feel is right, but don't say I didn't try to warn you. Try to pick your analogies a little more carefully in the future. When it comes to inviting government intervention: Less is more. Mitch Gibbs

Re: Association and MAC Regarding the structure of the AMDA - If the everyone is convinced the best course of action now is to unite under the AMDA, then I think Fred points out something that is very important. Having anything less than a split board won't do much in the way of representing everyone in the industry as Mary M. suggests below. "No one here is interested in filling the board with strictly importers/wholesalers. AMDA is an industry organization that should represent everyone from the importer to the wholesaler to the retailer and service companies" "There are currently retailers on that board who do a good job and in my opinion should stay in their positions (namely the secretary and treasurer). I'm not sure that two lone representatives of the retail trade or service trade can or will adequately represent their respective market sectors. I recall from our meeting last week that there were six or seven board seats to fill, are these in addition to the two, secretary and treasurer, as mentioned above? How many seats are there actually 8, 10? The point here is that this again doesn't look terribly bi-partisan. If the AMDA is to represent all sectors of the industry, then let's make sure it does... If it's not going to, and it doesn't look like it does, then what's the MAC going to make of it anyway? Give them some credit. Seems to me like there needs to be a pretty clean split in the board among different types of industry operators... that means getting more responsible, effective representatives from the retail trade involved. Is this possible? <Yes. If we make it so. Bob F> Chris

RE: Association and MAC Bob, thanks for your comments. As it is most likely that you'll be our representative to MAC as well as president of AMDA, you should probably coordinate our efforts. Do you think you can draft the retraction letter? <Mmm, no... in so much as I was/am not a signateur to the same. It must be done by the folks who decided it was worthy in the first place as is.> I wrote a small paragraph on an earlier e-mail. You can revise or write a new one. The commitment letter form that we signed is posted on MAC website, in case you need to see what it said (it is a short and simple letter). Regards, Fred.

Suggestions Fellow Distributors, Lets see if we can try to come up with something. I think that we all basically agree that we need to form an organization so that our collective voice can be properly represented to MAC and other governing bodies. The $64,000 question is, "to AMDA or not to AMDA?". Lets see where was all are on some of these issues that have been brought up during, and since the meeting last week. I know that there are many more ideas out there. Please add to them, and I'll keep a running list as they come back to me. I'll try to put an "official" list together later in the week for us all to go over. Here's a start: 1) Wholesalers/Importers need to unite in a collective organization? 2) Do we (wholesalers/importer) take over, for lack of a better term, the current AMDA BOD and restructure it to better represent Distributors and Dealers? <Am amenable to such a move... forming own may entail too much time, initiative at this point (to make a difference)> 3) Should Dealers (retail stores) be involved in this organization? (should help answer the AMDA question) <Yes, once again IMO> 4) Do we form a new organization for representation? If yes, what levels of the industry should this include (Wholesalers? Dealers?) <No need, place for this at this time. Can join the OFI...> 5) Certification of facilities is sufficient for sustainability methods proposed by MAC? <Sufficient> 6) No DOA/DAA quotas should be in place? Certification is sufficient? <Yes. Ludicrous, unsupportable from the get go re "standards".> 7) Wholesalers need to be represented on the MAC board of directors? <Yes... of course... it is the American Marinelife Dealers Association... are you Marinelife Dealers? The verbage should be expanded for the AMDA to encompass all business interests in the trade> Looking forward to many comments, Scott <You have mine. Bob Fenner> Scott D. Cohen

Re: Association and MAC Chris, I was only pointing out that there are two retailers on the board now that do a good job and should stay on- not that they should be the only 2. There are 10 board seats. The VP is resigning on April 1 and he's the only large retail store owner on the board. The rest are small stores and will probably remain on the board. I think the wholesalers could take the seats of President, VP, one or two of the other board seats (1 I know we could take for sure), and MAC Rep. It would make sense to me to create another board position to make 11 seats. 5 wholesalers, 5 retailers, and 1 MAC Rep who should be neutral. Then the president could be an industry rep with no fear that one side would be unequally represented. I still say Bob is our best bet for MAC rep and an industry type should be pres, but I'll go along with the crowd on this one. I understand what Fred is saying about withdrawing our support. Maybe we should give MAC a deadline to meet our demands or then we would withdraw support- say 3 months or less. <Less. I suggest a limit of a month from now. Bob Fenner> Mary

Association and MAC On the issue of who should be the president of MAC: My thinking is this, Mary. Since this will be an organization of both the wholesalers and retailers, we need someone neutral. I feel that if a retail owner serves as president, the interest of wholesalers would not be adequately served/represented. The same situation occurs if a wholesaler owner serves as president. If we have someone neutral as president, and then have 5 board members from wholesale side and 5 board members from the retail side, I think the organization will be more evenly divided and thus more attractive to the whole industry. At any rate, why don't we have a vote on this too. On the issue of MAC: I feel more and more that we need to send a strong message to MAC, even before the meeting, that the standard in its present form is not practicable and not acceptable. I am thinking that those of us that already signed the commitment letter should at this point wrote a "withdrawal" letter. It should say something like: "After carefully reviewing the standard, we believe that it is not practicable in our business and therefore, we hereby withdraw our commitment to this standard in its present form." What do you all think? <Well thought out, written Fred. Bob Fenner> Regards, Fred Re: Association and MAC Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 17:26:16 -0600 Fred- Excellent, well spoken letter. Glad to hear from you! I completely agree that we should vote on whether or not to use AMDA as a forum for our collective voice. I have spoken to many of the board members and I do not think it would be difficult at this point to turn AMDA into a voice that will represent the entire industry. AMDA members are already calling for Randy's resignation. As far as whether the importers/wholesalers should have a different organization as the retailers, I'm leaning toward us all being one group. The main purpose for an industry organization would be to facilitate communication between industry professionals in order to address organizations/governments that look at us with a critical eye. When it comes to legislative issues, we all have the same goal and I feel we would be more powerful as a collective "industry professionals" group than by splitting into two factions. I'm torn about whether we should organize first, address MAC later or the other way around. At our meeting, I was inclined to think that addressing MAC should be our first priority, and organization would be something we could do after that. However, now that the whole AMDA thing has kind of erupted, it may be better to take advantage of that situation now and walk into the MAC meeting as representatives of the industry under the AMDA banner. However you guys want to do it, I will support you, but we need to make a decision SOON. I do not feel that Bob should be the president of AMDA or whatever organization we decide to unite under (no reflection on Bob personally!). I strongly believe that the president of such an organization should be a direct industry professional. I do believe that Bob would make a more than excellent MAC representative, because his years of industry expertise would serve us well yet his lack of direct industry involvement at this time (with livestock) would give him a certain credibility that a livestock handler could not acheive. <Will do my bit in any case> Concerning what we should present to MAC, I honestly believe that it should be exactly what Walt said at our meeting- forget certifying individual animals, concentrate on certifying facilities and working on sustainability studies and MAC will have our support. This is something that we all need to decide on quickly. We want to be able to present a united front at this meeting. Also, for those of you who are not experienced in speaking "MAC-ese", be prepared for them to tell us everything we want to hear and give us warm-fuzzy feelings about MAC before they let us leave. We have to stick to our guns and demand that if they want continued industry support they have to change their "standards" and PUT IT IN WRITING. We will NOT be dissuaded by MAC's assumptions, beliefs, promises, intentions, or other non-tangible motives. I know that "trust" is a word that Paul is going to use more than once. He has taught me well to believe only what I see in print from the MAC camp, and I hope all of you feel the same. Mary Marine Specialties Intl. 805-986-4301

Communication Bob, You know, there are a lot of people involved in all of this. Rumors are rampant and inuendos are being flung all over the place. <Mainly very general speculations as far as I can see/understand> Maybe you and I need to talk. I would like to know where YOU stand on these issues, not via Mary and her tapestry of aquarium tales. <Go ahead and "speak". Will respond as best I can> Randy Goodlett ( call me at 412-257-0696 or email me at aquadoloh@aol.com...if phone is busy, I am on line) <Better to use the Net at this point. Bob Fenner, WetWebMedia.com>

Association and MAC I think there are 2 issues that need to be addressed: 1. Whether or not AMDA is a good platform to use for our new "association". And if not, then should we form a separate association? <Something like AMDA... its inclusiveness, coverage, goals ought to exist in our trade... And it is already "in place"... as Mary.M has pointed out... and not "too tainted" IMO, to be of use> I think we should just vote on this. And my vote is, yes, we can use AMDA as our industry association. And I think Bob, being someone with a lot knowledge and experience in this industry but doesn't own any wholesale or retail business, seems like a neutral and ideal choice to be the president. While I think we should get the ball rolling on this issue (get your votes and form the association), I don't think it is critical that this process be completed before March 8 (the MAC workshop). Since most of us are going to that workshop (you are still going, right Bob?), it is important that we start to discuss issue no. 2. <Yes> 2. What is it that we are going to present to MAC so we will have a unified view during the meeting? <Let's accumulate our "position statement"... Who will come forward as our "secretary"?> I have glanced through the MAC standard when it became available and realized that it would be impossible to put into practice. However, Paul told me that some wholesalers had indicated that they were willing to be the first ones to be certified. He then asked me if I want to be one of them. I told him that I didn't think that standard can be put into practice and if anyone can do it then I'll let them do it first. So instead of questioning or challenging the standard, I kind of let it slide. And Paul assured me that the 1%, among other things, was kind of a starting point. I didn't want to waste much time on it since I felt, at that time, that it would eventually be changed into something that can be put into practice. I let someone else be the "test" case. Now, I realize that everyone probably think the same way I did. The fact that the standard has been out for a while and no one said anything about it until now convinced me that we all did the same thing : letting things slide and letting MAC decide what the standard is. If we don't do anything now, it is possible that MAC will make a case to the government to adopt this standard for the industry, citing industry's support and letters of commitment from major wholesalers. And if the government enforces this standard in its present form, it will be the end of our industry. So I think, over the next few days, we should take time to read the standard and then discuss as to what need to be presented to MAC on March 8. And I think that if we cannot convince MAC to substantially change the standard (and as Bob said, change this term "standard" to a something like a "guideline"), then we should all withdraw our support from MAC. <Agreed. The "standard" bit has to go. Only dealers and their businesses can or should be "certified". Bob Fenner> Regards, Fred

<Agreed all the way around. Bob F> Subject: Re: The MAC and our Industry Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 21:35:38 -0500 Howdy Chris, I missed your mail. Please correct me if I am wrong but I thought AMDA was a organization of all marine dealers in the U S. Retail through the importer. I agree with Chris we need a body that represents the industry. The fact that AMDA does not is probably our fault for not all joining. I know the FTFFA is very bennifical to the Florida Tropical Fish Farmers. I do not know what we would have done with out is. It has a seat on PIJAC board. Maybe some day AMDA has a seat on both MAC and AMDA. to do that it will need all our support. There are some important players just in L A who are not represented in thie mail. We need them. Thanks Chris for your comments. We are all competitators, but I hope friendly competators. There is room for all. But if we do not stand together we will not have that oppertunity. E

<Thanks for fwding Elwyn. Bob F> Jamie wanted me to post this to all. Dear Elwyn, I have been following MAC's developments since it was MAFC with interest. Now, I see with concern this 1% "permissible mortality rate" . For all stakeholders being involved in this trade for many years we know it is impossible to attain. If that is MAC's goal I would say it will affect negatively the industry participation and support to MAC initiatives. As we have been saying for many years, work has to be done to the collectors level where fish are suffering more stress than to any other level of the trade. If nothing is done to that level all the other stakeholders will get stressed fish and as a result mortality rates won't decrease. Many thanks for keeping us posted. Best Regards Jaime Baquero OVI Elwyn Segrest wrote: > Howdy Mary, > I do not believe MAC can post the name of the person who recommended a !%. It > seems no one actually recommended this. This was taken out of context and > meaning from a statement at a meeting. This is not a rumor. > MAC has dreamed this up itself I guess for its own agenda, what ever that is. > Certainly not for the advancement of the hobby or industry. We are being had > and placed exactly where any group wishing to close the trade down wants us. > A 1% that is impossible to meet and a list that can cut us off. > I just got mail from a friend who is prominent in the European industry whom > I mailed my concerns and many have raised the same questions and concerns we > have raised. Have you heard MAC say anything about this? THIS IS SO > IRRITATING. Especially, since you and I were told individually that we were > the only ones who did not think this was an achievable goal. > I changed my vacation to make this March 1 meeting. I can not wait. Any > person not being able to attend should send a letter as to their opinion. > I have been a strong supporter of MAC since before there was a MAC. However > if MAC insist on any % or any list I nor any of our organization is going to > support MAC. We will continue our standards which are above MAC standards and > our business will not be affected any. > MAC needs to certify that the fish were collected environmentally safe and in > sustainable numbers. Then it needs to certify facilities with out of country > personnel on unannounced test and inspections. This includes the holding > facilities of the collectors. Stress not cyanide is the main killer of > Philippine fish. The very first step before we can have anything else is > certified fish from the collectors. It seems this is a long way off. > We all want as little stress placed on the fish as possible at every link of > the chain. Then dead will decrease drastically. Also some maybe many fish > that were thought to be difficult will not be so. > We all want an organization like MAC. But with the interest of the > environment, sustainability and decreased stress. This is a very big plate. > Anything else and this organization has an agenda of its own. I believe MAC > has enough personnel and most of this ready. But again there must be > certified fish from collectors to begin with. > E > cc: Paul Holtus MAC > MaryHM wrote: > > David, > > I realize that the emails have been piling up from here and maybe you > > missed this... > > Mary

Re: The MAC and our Industry Chris, No one here is interested in filling the board with strictly importers/wholesalers. AMDA is an industry organization that should represent everyone from the importer to the wholesaler to the retailer and service companies. It is imperative that they all hold positions on the AMDA board to ensure that their specific interests are properly voiced and acted upon. It would not be right for the AMDA board to say it respresents the industry, but only consist of one of the players. In order for us to have a true voice, all must be represented. There are currently retailers on that board who do a good job and in my opinion should stay in their positions (namely the secretary and treasurer). <Agreed. This was/is my understanding as well Mary> The reason why AMDA is such an excellent place for us to begin this "movement" is because the shell is already there. It has been incorporated. The by laws are in place. There is name recognition. To begin another organization would be extremely time consuming. I believe that AMDA is the best vehicle for organizing ourselves. I agree that the MAC board position that is afforded to the AMDA rep does not have much leverage. We aren't saying "Let's organize under the AMDA banner" for the sole purpose of obtaining that seat on the MAC board. It's bigger than that. It's about organizing the major players in this industry and insuring that we are not manipulated by any organization based on the fact that we are a splintered industry. AMDA is the perfect organization for us to utilize. Mary <Thank you. Bob F.>

The MAC and our Industry Friday February 8, 2002 Dear Fellow Fishpeople, It's very apparent that there exists a general consensus that industry opinions, views and concerns haven't been, or currently aren't represented very well, if at all, in the current MAC organization. I'm not convinced the MAC won't acknowledge the current sentiment or take steps to try to re-gain this waning support. I do agree however that it is paramount that we as industry operators band together in some form, an industry organization of sorts, where our thoughts, concerns, opinions, etc. can be constructively cultivated. I am completely behind and supportive of an effort to contruct a panel, group, or new organization representative of our sector within the Marine fish Industry. I'd like to point out that while I understand clearly the motivation for using the AMDA as a vehicle to achieve this result, in that it already occupies a seat on the MAC board, I'm not fully convinced that it's the best one. As importers and wholesalers in this industry, we are now concerned that the MAC, whose board is made up of non-industry operators, doesn't have our best interests at heart. Yet there is now a mad rush to assume control of the AMDA, a body (please correct me if I'm wrong here) that fronts as the representational arm of the retail stores nationwide that make up it's membership. In summary, we are proposing precisely the same logic in assuming control of the AMDA, that we are fighting in the MAC. What kind of membership could the AMDA ever draw if it's board is controlled by Industry operators, whose best interests aren't necessarily the same as those of it's members. I haven't had enough time to coherently draft any real opinion or proposal, but it seems to me that the AMDA could be salvaged somehow by a group of responsible retail store operators who might be represented within the MAC by someone like Bob. Perhaps we as industry operators might form a new organization whereby we might come to some common consensus as to our opinions, concerns, etc. and that our collective voices might be repesented within the MAC cohesively and professionally by an elected president or chairperson (might I here suggest Elwyn). I'm not up to speed on who the current MAC board-members are, nor what the curent by-laws happen to be, but It seems a stretch that one lone AMDA representative on the board will have much leverage. That AMDA representative should really be the voice of the retail stores whose support the MAC desperately needs to ultimately market their certified fish to the hobbyists. Ultimately it is consumer demand for certified fish that will make or break the MAC. If that demand can be controlled through the efforts of a group like the AMDA, it could be that much more powerful in controlling the direction of the MAC. Let's remember here that the MAC needs our industry, they need our support at the consumer, retail and wholesale level. I'm sure the Mac is acutely aware of this, and I imagine will be quite cooperative. We shouldn't rush to judgment until we absolutely have to. I'm suggesting we compile our thoughts and present them to the MAC in a clear consise opinion. We need to form a representative body, ought to vote in a president, get that president a seat on the MAC board, and that president should represent the common, voted views of the industry operators that make up it's membership. If we want to play the government game, let's play it right, and represent ourselves in an organized unified fashion. Them's my two cents, Chris <Thank you for this well thought-out, earnest message/query Chris... I do sense the AMDA "shell" as a possible "good beginning" for the trade to exert an/its influence... but also recognize that in all likelihood the industry can/will only be served by "taking over" the MAC itself (and likely ridding itself of its current management). Much to be done, decided first as our mandate. Bob Fenner>

Thank you for this Mary... Have read, will accumulate. Why can't we all just "work" for the government? Self-explanatory. Bob Fenner> Subject: Letter from Andy Bruckner of USCRTF Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 11:00:13 -0600 Andy Bruckner posted this letter to the AMDA message board concerning a misunderstanding about something I wrote. Within this letter, he gives a good idea of the government's view on the issue of mortality. My response to the AMDA message list is also given. Andy doesn't have access to that board, so I'm not sure if he's aware of the response. Date: Mon Feb 4, 2002 8:32 pm Subject: Andy Bruckners letter without other comments ADVERTISEMENT Subj: MAC posting Date: 2/4/02 5:58:09 PM Eastern Standard Time From: Andy.Bruckner@noaa.gov (Andy Bruckner) To: aquadolph@aol.com File: CommentsonMaryMiddlebrooksposting.doc (25600 bytes) Dear Randy, It was good to speak with you today. I drafted a response to MMs comments which I am attaching to this message and am also pasting it in below. Andy ********************** Andrew Bruckner, Ph.D. Coral Reef Ecologist Biodiversity Division Office of Protected Resources NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service 1315 East West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 P: 301-713-2319 x 140 F: 301-713-0376 Dear Randy, I would like to comment on a recent posting from Mary Middlebrook (MM). I would like to clarify a few of the issues she raised, as I feel that our discussion was taken out of context, and I was not quoted correctly. As you are aware, MAC has begun to implement a certification scheme for marine aquarium organisms. MAC has developed core standards that include specific collection guidelines, ecosystem management measures, and handling practices that the industry must meet to achieve certification. These standards are designed to address two major principles: 1. Ensure optimal health of the organisms from the reef to the consumer; and 2. Ensure that the reefs and fisheries from where these organisms come from are sustainably managed and conserved. MM stated that MAC should focus their efforts in the countries of origin, and not on handling practices. I disagree. I think MAC should remain at the forefront for establishing and implementing industry-wide standards for handling and transport. The only way to achieve MACs first goal (optimize the health of the organism) is to require that the industry adopt minimum standards for handling, holding and transport , including water quality and temperature issues, packing systems, shipping time and other steps that are likely to reduce mortality. There is a lot of anecdotal information on the low survivability of ornamental species Ã¢?" some of this may be related to cyanide use - but handling practices are likely to play a major role. While some exporters/importers may actually achieve higher standards than required by MAC, many more exporters/importers have not achieved sufficiently high standards to reduce mortality. Without some sort of certification, new legislation or other form of policing, how can we guarantee that the industry will adopt appropriate practices? In contrast to what MM said, the U.S. and other governments are very concerned about the high rates of mortality from the reef to the consumer. The statement Ã¢?o a fish removed from the reef is gone from that reef forever-whether it lives 10 minutes or 10 yearsÃ¢?Â may be true. BUT, it is very naive to think that the two scenarios have the same impact on the reef. Levels of mortality may be important from a Ã¢?obusiness senseÃ¢?Â, but they are equally or more important from an ecological perspective, as mortality rates have a bearing on reef health and ultimately the numbers of fish that can be removed without negative impact. If one or many fish die during transport, an equivalent number will have to be harvested a second time around to supply the demand (which presumably remains the same whether all fish survive and make it to the consumer or whether all fish die). This, in turn, affects the sustainability of the source reef, by placing more pressure on the resource to repeatedly collect fish to replace those that die. Through adoption of the MAC core standards, species in trade are likely to survive longer, and by lowering mortality to 1% for each level in the trade stream, less harvest overall is needed to meet a specific demand for a species. I do agree that greater efforts are needed to develop sustainable management plans in the countries of origin. Although this is currently the weakest part of the MAC core standards, it is also the most difficult to address due to many unknowns. We have an incomplete understanding of the biology of many of the species, their status and trends, and their role in the ecosystem. Furthermore, there are many political/social hurdles that must be overcome to implement sustainable management plans. MAC is making efforts to fill some of these gaps Ã¢?" through the implementation of a new monitoring program introduced by Reef Check, efforts in Indonesia to train fishers in the use of nets, and other initiatives, but we all recognize that we have a long way to go. To achieve sustainable harvest is the responsibility of all stakeholders (governments of importing and exporting countries, resource managers, industry, scientistsÃ¢?Â¦) and not just MAC, but MAC can provide some of the tools needed to make sure sustainable approaches are implemented and enforced. <Enforced... by whom? PAID FOR BY WHOM?> Through increased efforts by MAC, IMA, governments, industry and other stakeholders we can develop strategies for sustainable management of ornamental fisheries. These efforts should include: 1) expanded training of collectors in the use of appropriate collection techniques; 2) baseline assessments and monitoring to determine the status of the resource, to assess impacts associated with collection and to ensure that harvest is sustainable; 3) development of management plans that identifies and licenses fishery participants and establish strict guidelines on how, where, when and how much of each species is removed to ensure sustainability using a precautionary approach until we have enough scientific information to justify increased take. However, sustainable management approaches can be effective only if the user groups in exporting countries are provided with incentives that promote stewardship of their ecosystems, conservation and sustainable use of the resources within those ecosystems. It is likely to cost the exporter (and the fisher) more to produce a high quality product - it is more difficult to catch fish with nets than with cyanide, and it takes more effort to place each fish in a separate bag and change the water at regular intervals. Why should he or she bother, unless the fishery participants are adequately compensated for their efforts? Additional efforts taken at the collection site MUST be complemented with additional efforts throughout the chain of custody, and it is likely that this can be achieved only if there are unified standards that everyone must adhere to. Ultimately, MAC certification may ensure that the hobbyist will get a product that was sustainably harvested AND properly cared for. By having a MAC certified fish that will live longer, the consumer may be willing to pay more for it, and this ultimately benefits the country of origin and can help promote greater stewardship of their reefs. MACs core standards provide the only mechanism currently available that has the potential to bring all of these pieces together. The first standard calls for sustainable management plan so we know how many animals and what species can be harvested from a reef. The second standard requires specific collection guidelines to minimize injury to the target species and to ensure minimal impact to the habitat or other species. The third standard requires that these animals are handled to the best of our ability from the time they leave the reef, until they reach their new home Ã¢?" a home or office aquaria. MAC certification is likely to achieve success only with full support at all levels of the chain of custody from the reef to the consumer, especially with full support from industry. The views expressed in this message are those of the author and they do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Marine Fisheries Service or the U.S. Government. Andy Bruckner ************** First of all, I am really glad to hear from Andy on this board, as I don't think most members would personally contact him and get his take on the matter. I for one would be fully supportive of allowing Andy to subscribe to this list as we did for MAC. Now for a little clarification. I went back and read my previous post...here's the excerpt that Randy used: "He (meaning Andy) agrees that MAC should focus its efforts in the countries of origin. Stopping destructive fishing methods and putting management studies into place should be the goal. Not tracking every single solitary fish from the collector to the retailer." The statement concerning Andy should have ended at the period after "origin", as the following 2 sentences were of my own opinions. I do realize that the way they are clumped together makes it look like Andy was saying the whole thing, but that was not my intention. That unfortunately is the pitfall of this type of communication. Andy and I talked about a few different things, MAC being one of them. I told him that I had resigned and wanted to know what I could do to help insure the future of my business. I pointed out my main concerns with MAC (1% being top of the list) and he stated that Eric Borneman had many of the same concerns (I have also had discussions with Eric) and they had been discussing them. We then talked about the problems in the countries of origin and Andy and I agreed that MAC needed to focus more effort there as that is where the majority of the problem lies. I don't think Andy can dispute that. Andy and I never really discussed mortality rates and how the government feels about that, because if we had and he had stated what he posted here a heated argument would have ensued! <grin> Again, my original post talked a lot about sustainability issues and Andy did say that MAC should put a lot of effort into this area as it is extremely important. If anyone was misled by my comments because of the last two sentences of that post then I apologize. Believe me, I am not foolish enough to purposefully try to misconstrue someone's intent and then ask you to call them to clarify it! Something struck me as interesting in Andy's post. First he states "There is a lot of anecdotal information > on the low survivability of ornamental species Ã¢?" some of this may be > related to cyanide use - but handling practices are likely to play a > major role. " Then he states "In contrast to what MM said, the U.S. and other governments are very > concerned about the high rates of mortality from the reef to the > consumer. " I get very concerned when the government is very concerned about "anecdotal" high mortality rates. I also want everyone to read Andy's statements very carefully about how mortality rates affect the reefs. Remember, I stated in my original post that it is extremely important to determine sustainability rates on the reefs- how many fish can we sustainably harvest. Here's Andy's comment: If one or many fish die during transport, an equivalent number > will have to be harvested a second time around to supply the demand > (which presumably remains the same whether all fish survive and make it > to the consumer or whether all fish die). This, in turn, affects the > sustainability of the source reef, by placing more pressure on the > resource to repeatedly collect fish to replace those that die. As long as we are staying under the sustainable harvest rate, I can not understand how we could be putting additional pressure on the reefs. Yes, if the mortality rates were high we'd be taking out more animals, but as long as the harvest doesn't exceed the sustainability then what is the issue??? I do not see why sustainability issues for this industry should be any different than those for the food fish industry. Sustainability is sustainability no matter what the purpose of the harvest is. Are there criteria in place saying that 99% of all food fish collected must be able to get to the end user in an edible condition???? If not, then why is the ornamental industry strapped with this burden? A wasted fish is a wasted fish, whether it dies in transport to the retailer or exceeds the temperature conditions necessary to make sure it is healthy for consumption. So now to my next area of contention...mortality. Here's the question of the week, folks. What is the definition of mortality? Does a fish have to live just through the chain of custody (where MAC is able to record its every heartbeat)? Does it have to make it alive to the hobbyist's tank (who's collecting that data)? Does it have to live for at least a year? Does it have to live for a substantial amount of its projected life span? Who determines the life span for every single species? Theoretically corals can live for thousands of years... If the answer is A- It has to live through the chain of custody where MAC is recording it, then that means we have to keep them alive for about 2 weeks or so. I don't see the difference between 2 days and 2 weeks in the grand scheme of things. I know many of you are tired of this back and forth all of the time, but I urge you to pay attention. MAC and the government are highly interested in our industry and are firmly planting themselves in it. That is not necessarily a bad thing, because I think we can all agree that industry reform is necessary- and not just because MAC is breathing down our necks. I was fighting for industry reform long before I ever heard of MAC. My main concern, and yours should be too, is how these organizations go about regulating an industry that they know nothing about. There is no scientific evidence to support mortality rates, and unfortunately there is also no scientific evidence to establish sustainability rates. The latter is being worked on. However, the former is being "set" at 1% without ever a study being conducted first. All I and many of my colleagues are calling for is for MAC to do some STUDIES on mortality prior to giving us a goal to shoot for. One last thing (I promise!). Since David is reading people's comments that were made during the discussions leading up to the creation of the standards to Randy, then I assume these comments are public domain. I want to see the people in the industry who asked for the 1% vs. the people in the industry who argued against it. In fact, I want to see this much more than I want to see the log of the board meeting!! Mary

Re: AMDA information Howdy All, I think everyone needs to be a little more open. I disagree with the very un polite messages that have been circulating. I also disagree with working behind anyone's back. I hope the meeting in L A was not a secrete. <Never a secret or to be> If so it ws a very poorly kept, as most secrets are. I understood it was just a meeting of L A wholesalers which nothing is wrong with that. If we are trying to accomplish something lets be out in the open for everyone. If the 9 (I heard ) dues paying of AMDA are against the officers and board ( with only 9 almost everyone must be on the board) just tell them so. I think everyone has done what they think is good. I may and do disagree. I think they will all resign. But then who, as there are only 9. If this is true about 9 ( and I laughed when I heard this with all the mail ) AMDA must get members or disappear. I hope it can get majority of the trade. Most have not heard of it. E <Mmm, is this an example of unpolite messaging? Nothing of the sort, secretive, indiscreet is my intention, or that I'm aware of the other addressees here. Of course, anything sent on the Net should be understood to be ultimately available, and read by the "Government", MAC... Bob Fenner>

Re: MAC, WWM daily e-pix Bob, Since you went away fromtyhe Jpeg format I can't read the images in these txt files. AOL seems to have a problem with this file type! By the way, I was REALLY sorry to miss the meeting the other day and woud love to talk to you about it. Where can I call you? <Here at home/work. 858-549-4948... Sorry that you couldn't make it as well. Walt.S said you had related you were very busy with work. The salient points will be sent along... am sure... as we all do what we will to "re-steer" the MAC, and get on with improving the industry, our respective businesses. Be chatting. Bob Fenner> Regards, Rob. ERI International

Industry Support for the 1% Howdy Mary, I do not believe MAC can post the name of the person who recommended a !%. It seems no one actually recommended this. <Guess I'll state categorically that Eric Cohen mentioned that Paul Holthus had stated it was none other than Walt Smith who had suggested this... Walt seemed truly shocked to hear, at our gettogether two days back. You can see reference to this suggestion in Holthus' letter of 2/5... more innuendo... that seeks to divide the trade in my opinion.> This was taken out of context and meaning from a statement at a meeting. This is not a rumor. MAC has dreamed this up itself I guess for its own agenda, what ever that is. Certainly not for the advancement of the hobby or industry. We are being had and placed exactly where any group wishing to close the trade down wants us. A 1% that is impossible to meet and a list that can cut us off. <Absolutely agreed... "The industry came up with this standard, they can't meet it by their own admission, we tried to help them, they must be regulated... end of story. This is what happened to the psittacine bird business for a case history> I just got mail from a friend who is prominent in the European industry whom I mailed my concerns and many have raised the same questions and concerns we have raised. Have you heard MAC say anything about this? THIS IS SO IRRITATING. Especially, since you and I were told individually that we were the only ones who did not think this was an achievable goal. I changed my vacation to make this March 1 meeting. I can not wait. Any person not being able to attend should send a letter as to their opinion. I have been a strong supporter of MAC since before there was a MAC. However if MAC insist on any % or any list I nor any of our organization is going to support MAC. We will continue our standards which are above MAC standards and our business will not be affected any. MAC needs to certify that the fish were collected environmentally safe and in sustainable numbers. Then it needs to certify facilities with out of country personnel on unannounced test and inspections. This includes the holding facilities of the collectors. Stress not cyanide is the main killer of Philippine fish. The very first step before we can have anything else is certified fish from the collectors. It seems this is a long way off. We all want as little stress placed on the fish as possible at every link of the chain. Then dead will decrease drastically. Also some maybe many fish that were thought to be difficult will not be so. We all want an organization like MAC. But with the interest of the environment, sustainability and decreased stress. This is a very big plate. Anything else and this organization has an agenda of its own. I believe MAC has enough personnel and most of this ready. But again there must be certified fish from collectors to begin with. E cc: Paul Holtus MAC <Not certified fish... which is the means to "count", "name names and addresses", tax, fine, control the industry, but the less profitable (for MAC and their supporters) certification of facilities and processes. Bob Fenner> MaryHM wrote:

AMDA I got the scoop from Mary concerning the LA wholesalers meeting. She said you want/were asked to be AMDA's rep to MAC. Is this true? I also heard you may be the next President of AMDA. What is true? <Asked yes, may be, yes> I think a lot of the stuff that came out of the meeting was great. I think the industry desperately needs a strong AMDA and to keep MAC around. <Agreed on the first count, and on the second only if this organization serves the interests of "the marine aquarium" fields, hobby, business and science. It has "been a sham" in my opinion to date... gathering dust, changing agendas, outright lying, flummoxing its so-called "stake-holders"... it has been and is a front for conservation, government interests... as all who look are beginning to realize. The Paul Holthus "tiger" has not changed its stripes.> I know you do not like people that feed off of the government and do not generate any real income, but the industry needs to use these people, too. <Once again, only in so much, so far as they "do their jobs"... Would you outright pay someone to reduce your chances of improving your life, your income? I trust not. This is directly and only what the current MAC can and will do> They can be exploited and used to deal with the government and environmental groups. They speak the same language and already have the contacts. If the industry remains strong and forces MAC to do the right thing, I think they could be a valuable asset. <They (MAC) have done nothing... but gather data, catchwords and phrases... their funding has come from an organization hostile to the aquarium trade, their changed-out membership made up of people not of the industry...> Mary asked me to look into the AMDA by-laws and see about removing officers as a last resort. The by-laws seem to be a little messed up right now. Various people not keeping good records of what they were doing. Let me know if I can be of any assistance. <Appreciate this. You might want to seek the counsel of John Tullock. Please do mention my involvement, our friendship> Steven Pro P.S. The AMDA BOD already heard the gossip about the meeting and the plans to come out of it. This industry is so small, it is hard to keep anything a secret for long. <Mmm, I do agree. However only transpareny, the "truth" will help us all here. The reality that the industry, hobby exert a minuscule negative effect on the oceans resources, that indeed we engender awareness, sensitivity to these very issues, aid poor countries in the development, use, conservation of their resources. Be chatting. Bob Fenner> > Aarrgghh, > Damn the scallywags and man the guns...this was posted to me as a > confidential message and I called him to confirm. He wishes to remain > annonymous but feels I and all of you should know about this. This both > amuses and angers me. We need to discuss this on our own board only...call me > as well if you like. Just when I thought things were calming down. The > Capt'n...and the confidential means only among us board members. > Randy: > I just spoke with one of Los Angeles marine fish importers and wholesalers. > I was informed that therer was a "meeting' with several of the large LA > marine fish wholesalers yesterday. > It is the plan of this group to: > 1) Join AMDA > 2) Join in numbers large enough to become board members. > 3) To literally take over AMDA and......... put Bob Fenner in as President. > I asked why would they want to do this? I was told, so they could be in a > better position to deal with MAC. > One of the LA wholesalers in the group is on MAC's board. > I do not know if MAC is aware of this LA wholesaler meeting? I have no idea > if MAC is aware of their plans? Within this self-serving LA group the general feeling is that there is NO > exisiting orgainization that "do them any good" in the industry. They feel > it is better for them to "take over AMDA, because it is nearly dead".... Vs. > start another assoication or group. > This is what I was just told. > By the way.........Mary, yes, AMDA's Mary is part of this group. > I STRONGLY suggest that you DO NOT spread this around so it ends up as a > thread.... My honest opinion is that there are several AMDA members that > have nothing to do but stir up mud and make the group appear even less > professional than it is! -- I.e. I do not want to see any reples from > Tom or Mitch regarding this issue. -- These are the psudo-key players in > AMDA that give the entire group a bad name. E.g. These are the guys that > drive at least one member per month to request they be taken off the email > list. > However, if you think AMDA is ready to come apart and you are ready to wash > your hands of the entire mess, then by all means.... spread this information > like a rash... and just put end to the misery. > If you are part of this LA wholesaler program to turn AMDA in another > direction... Then, OK..... > If you are not aware or in agreement with this potential plan I heard of > today, then advise REAL KEY AMDA board people and be aware that this > situation is already in motion.

AMDA information The proverbial cat was let out of the bag about the AMDA thing a little prematurely, and the BOD has already gotten wind of it. I was very busy yesterday, but tried to do as much "damage control" as I could. I spoke with one of the board members, Steve Pro, who completely backs the idea and will help us to implement it- even offering to give up his BOD position and research the by-laws for us. At this point, I feel the best course of action is to confront Randy Goodlett (President) directly and inform him why stepping down would be the best thing for AMDA and the industry. I think this is better than an all out "coup" attempt, although we can hold that idea in reserve in case it's needed. So if the president steps down, obviously we need a replacement so I can tell him why "person x" would be so much better for AMDA. I think Scott, Eric, or Elwyn would be excellent in this position. <Yes> I don't really know everyone in the industry as well as I should, since I chose not to set up shop on 104th <wink>, so if you all think there is someone better suited for the job, then please let me know. We need to do this quickly before it takes on a life of its own and Randy is able to do some spin control. "Big industry doesn't care anything about the reefs- just about money- this is not what AMDA was created for. Blah, blah, blah." I've been working with him for 2 years and this will definitely be his next move. I'm going to sit down today and hammer out some kind of an outline of our concerns that we can present to MAC. We threw around a couple of ideas at our meeting. One was to force MAC to do away with the 1%, the other was to force MAC to certify facilities and not individual animals. I for one think the latter is our best bet, because anytime they are collecting mortality data on the animals we import it's going to come back and bite us in the arse at some point. <Yes, agreed> So if each of you could do two things for me today, I'd appreciate it. 1. Figure out who would be a good candidate for AMDA president. <Hopefully someone will come forward as desiring the position> 2. Decide if we want to change MAC's program for certification of animals or eliminate it. Please let me know this today so I can begin working on an outline and get it out to all of you by next week. <As stated, either change it to certifying the actual agencies, helping to develop "optimum sustainable yield data and protocols" or eliminate MAC> Looking forward to hearing from each of you, Mary Middlebrook <Be chatting, developing. Bob Fenner>

Re: correct email request Howdy, I am just adding Quintin's e mail address to all your books. Bob, If AMDA is to be anything it has to have a drastic change and not so much stupid mail. E <Agreed... let's get to a clear, straightforward mandate, and secure it. Bob Fenner who has recorded and added your and Quintin's emails and added them to my MACAttack email base>

correct email request One more thing. Some of us have multiple email accounts. Direct email, and indirect (via generic company email). Please notify me of any corrections that you would like to make for your email. I'll take the responsibility of being the "email organizer" for now. It is important that we all get these messages regarding our industry as quickly as possible. Also, please keep in mind that some of the comments made in this forum may be intended for "your eyes only". Supplying you correct "direct" email account will ensure that the intended "eyes" view the mail. <Right, agreed. To memorialize what I think was in agreement as of yesterday. "We" discussed the apparent misgivings folks in the industry are expressing re changing, too-restrictive suggested "standards" in MAC. There is a need to address, alter these. To bolster the position of the trade itself in the MAC (which seems to be on a course of excluding the very organizations its named for...). That Mary.M suggests that we might consider forming our collective opinions, ambitions, needs as part, substantially "the" AMDA... and is looking into same further. Anything else substantive? Bob Fenner> Thanks again, Scott Scott D. Cohen Sea Dwelling Creatures, Inc.

FW: Feb - 6 Meeting Eric and I would just like to personally thank those of you who showed up to voice your opinions yesterday. Hopefully, from this meeting will stem the creation of a regular "forum" for all of us to gather and discuss current issues and future directions and trends of the industry. We feel that we have a responsibility to the rest of the country as representing the largest collection of Marine Importers. This is an ample opportunity for us to pull together and lead the industry. As mentioned yesterday, regardless of what the future of MAC is, if what ultimately comes of this is an organization that properly represents the industry, then that's not too bad at all. This has been a long time in coming, and hopefully we can continue forward with unity, and be properly represented at the higher levels of influence. Thanks again, Scott <Well put, agreed. Sorry to have missed coming by yesterday Scotter. Di had an appt. (that she missed after all, sigh) re her health. See you soon my friend. Bob F.> Scott D. Cohen Sea Dwelling Creatures, Inc. 5515 W. 104th St. Los Angeles, Ca 90045 310-676-9697 Phone

Please visit our Sponsors