• Why not take a moment to introduce yourself to our members?

Fish_dave

Experienced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
It is pretty obvious that Wayne does not have a clue. I hope that it is as obvious to others that Wayne has contact with as it is to many on this forum that he has no clue as to the real issues with our industry.

The logging reference that I used applied to my collectors whom I know very well, I know what they do to survive if I even shut down for a couple of weeks at Christmas time. That same situation does not apply to the Philippines, the Philippines is pretty much logged out compared to the Solomons. The Philippine reefs are in much worse shape because of it too. The Philippine divers that I know do not have the option of cutting down trees, they are not land owners. The only option that they really have to feed their families is to turn to food fish if the ornamental trade is stopped. If they are out of work for more than a week the family starts to suffer. These people have no back up, no bank account, nothing to fall back on. Take away the option to fish for ornamentals and they fall back to fishing for food fish. Wayne, fishing for food fish in the Philippines is much more destructive than the ornamental trade. Everyone but you seems to agree to this. Many papers have been written about this. I see a link that Mary gave where the V.P. of the WWF explains this quite nicely. Ban the collection of ornamentals for your "feel good" reasons and the reefs will take a big hit. Environmentally it would be a hugely stupid mistake.

I have issues with your unsuitable fish list also. I have always been against regulating what can and can not be brought into the trade. But on the same hand I am very strong in my opinions of what I will and will not bring in. If a supplier sends me a fish that I did not order because I feel that it is unsuitable then I am very hard on them. I have species that I feel are unsuitable and I do not want them brought in. However I know that my list is different from what other people think. Your ideas should not be forced on me and vice versa. Much of the advancement in this hobby is brought on by people finding ways to keep previously "unsuitable" species.

Dave
 

MaryHM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Much of the advancement in this hobby is brought on by people finding ways to keep previously "unsuitable" species.

Dave, we've had discussions about this fact before. My favorite example is Acropora. Back in the eighties everyone thought it was an IMPOSSIBLE coral to keep. Now it grows out of people's tanks and is one of the more prolific corals in the aquaculture trade. When MAC was asking for public comments prior to the standards being published, I chimed in on their unsuitable list. They actually used what I said. That there should be 3 criteria:

1. Grows too large for the typical home aquarium (ie black tip sharks)
2. Has KNOWN dietary requirements that are either impossible or too expensive for the typical hobbyist to maintain (ie coral eating butterflies). This does NOT include species that seem to starve to death but we don't know why. Eventually someone will find out why.
3. Deadly Animals (ie Blue Ring Octopus)

Those are the only criteria that I agree to. Others argue for more or for less. But I feel that is a good starting point.
 

dizzy

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Annex 20: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) On Transforming the Marine Aquarium Trade
144
stakeholders to ensure that the process is transparent and participatory. In Batasan, the next
CAMP review meeting is scheduled to take place by December 2003.
8.2 What about species inappropriate/unsuitable for the marine aquarium trade?
MAC Certification works with the stakeholders to identify and limit the collection of species that
should not be included in trade through Annex 4 of the MAC Core Standards that allows for those
species not suited to the aquarium trade to be identified and not allowed to be collected or traded.
The MAC Core Standards include Annex 4 on Unsuitable Species, as follows:
The initial designation of a marine aquarium organism as an “unsuitable species” will likely
include organisms for which the requirements for keeping in captivity are well known and clearly
impractical to fulfill. This will undoubtedly include:
· organisms that get too large for most home aquariums (e.g., sharks and rays),
· organisms that are obligate feeders of food that is difficult or expensive to obtain (e.g.,
obligate coral polyp or sponge feeders), and
· organisms that are dangerous or highly venomous (e.g., blue ring octopus).
The sub-committee will develop criteria for reasonable and responsible exceptions to allow for
the small number of these organisms that should be able to go to
· public aquariums and scientific institutions (e.g., documentation that the end buyer is a
public aquarium accredited to the appropriate body, such as the American Zoo and
Aquarium Association) and
· home aquarium keepers who are conducting research into the conditions required to
successfully keep these organisms in captivity.
The sub-committee will periodically review and revise the list. The sub-committee will delete
organisms from the list if and when they are determined to be viable in a certified trade and will
add to the list when other animals are determined to not be viable.
The sub-committee will review and revise the criteria for identifying unsuitable species as more
information becomes available. This will likely include information on
· the ability of a species to survive collection, handling, and transport,
· the ability of a species to survive captivity for a considerable portion of its potential life span,
and
· life history traits that make a species particularly vulnerable to over-exploitation (e.g.,
intrinsic low growth or recruitment rates).
MAC will move forward with the procedures for developing a list of inappropriate species in
trade in 2004. The sub-committee on unsuitable species will be established by the MAC Board as
soon as possible and will include a range of stakeholders with relevant experience and
information from science, conservation, industry and the aquarium hobby. The initial list will
include species that do not survive well in captivity, that grow too big, and that are poisonous.
The MAC Board sub-committee will develop a process for listing species that are rare and/or
particularly vulnerable to over-exploitation. The Unsuitable Species process also provides a
mechanism for evaluating and listing species that are “rare” at any geographic scope, i.e. local
collection area, sub-national, national, international.
At the collection area level, the evaluation and management of rare species can be effectively
implemented through existing procedures. The EFM Standard and the development and
 

Fish_dave

Experienced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Well I vote for no regulation. I do not like to be told what I can and can not do. I did not agree with John Tullocks unsuitable list, I am sure that I will not agree on MAC's. I will agree with several of the fish listed but not all of them. If I feel that it is unsuitable then I will try to not bring it in. I do agree with the premise of CITES and the tracking of potentially endangered species.

A good case in point is the blue ring octopus. Industry sentiment is that it is a deadly poison animal. How many people do you know that have actually been bitten by one ? Lion fish sting people all the time, sometime someone is going to have an allergic reaction to a lionfish sting and die. Do we ban lion fish then ? The locals in the Solomons handle blue ring octopus with no problem. I was shocked when I first saw it and asked them if they were not scared to do it. They did not know what I was talking about, they say that there is no problem. Generally they know very well what plants and animals are a problem to handle. Show them a stone fish and they immediatly whistle and say "be careful very bad". In the late 1980's I got several blue ring octopus for Alex Kerstich to photograph and study. He determined that there were 5 different species or sub species of blue ring octopus and he thought that possibly only one (the australian species) was toxic. I do not know, I am not an expert on them but I now handle them with no worry about them being deadly poison. I have handled several and am still living. Should the blue ring be banned ? In my opinion no, but according to others yes. In general they are hard to ship, do not live long lives, and are unsuitable for most tanks yet for the hard core octopus guy they are great animals to keep. Let's not ban them but just be responsible as to how they are sold.

Dave
 

clarionreef

Advanced Reefer
Location
San Francisco
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Lookie here,
As far as a unsuitable species goes,
the MAMTI document exhalts them as species present and collected in their pilot projects in Buhol! Read it for yourself!
While stem-winding doublespeak on one page explores the methods of adjudicating the issue of unsuitable species, the list of fishes shown to prove sustainability and variety is full of them!
The list has non present species and unsuitable species. It also has species so threatened and rare that they have no place in a fluff document that pitches to the investors how sure is the return on his money.
Blueface and majestics collected in Batasaan??!!
And if one is ever found under a foot long...leave it alone! They are decimated there!
I point this out to simply prove that it was crafted by amatuers, non players and city people ...which has been a consistant point all along.

A second point logically follows; Since they don't know fish or survey methodology [despite claims to the contrary] and fudged the lists to look good to non peers...what else may we see that was as hastily and incompetently done?
This little observation and others like it should not exist in the frequency they do to see fault with. You don't have to look hard to see this stuff jumping off the page. All you have to know is basic fish stuff which apparently the would-be crafters of our futures do not.
You can't fake it to real fish people and should not even try without serious peer review from independants that do not kiss butt to curry favor and who are not yes men who just give the boss what he likes to hear.
Steve
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
It never ceases to amaze me that I can sell a blue ring octopus or lion fish, but it's illegal to sell a baby turtle.
 

dizzy

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Fish_dave":2sgopom3 said:
Well I vote for no regulation. I do not like to be told what I can and can not do. I did not agree with John Tullocks unsuitable list, I am sure that I will not agree on MAC's. I will agree with several of the fish listed but not all of them. If I feel that it is unsuitable then I will try to not bring it in. I do agree with the premise of CITES and the tracking of potentially endangered species.
Dave

Dave MAC's unsuitable species list will include everything that cannot meet the MAC certification criteria. If it can't do the 1%DOA/1%DAA it will find its way onto the list. It has has too don't you see. Mary's three rules were a concession to get dealers to join. After they have you on board, they tighten up the rules. It is exactly how it works with accrediated zoos and public aquariums. The paperwork grows each year. Most zoos have had to add staff just to handle the paperwork load. All this just to move an animal that was raised at one facility to another. Do you have any idea how hard it is for them to bring in animals from the wild? I warned Mary in the AMDA forum that she might be opening a Pandora's Box with her list. It wasn't too long after that, that posts to the list ceased. The MAC plan is to force everything through them. HR4928 and the airline regulations are proof of that. Once they control everything, only stuff that can stand up to their 1% standards will get through. I warned the AMDA members about this several years ago. I was severely attacked by Randy for making such a wild suggestion. The global data base will be used to build the list. Like I say, if the fish can't do the 1% they will make the unsuitability list. MAC will never allow a bunch of fish to be shippped that can't live up to their Utopian standards, it would upset the funders.
Mitch
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Rover":2g7d75dm said:
It never ceases to amaze me that I can sell a blue ring octopus or lion fish, but it's illegal to sell a baby turtle.


the squeaky wheel gets the oil :wink:
 

MaryHM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I warned Mary in the AMDA forum that she might be opening a Pandora's Box with her list. It wasn't too long after that, that posts to the list ceased.

Whoa, hold on there. MARY didn't think up the idea of a USL. MARY didn't incorporate the USL into the MAC standards. MARY simply didn't want MAC's extremely vague definition of USL animals that appeared in the original set of standards to be printed in the final copy. I tried to make sure that if they were going to have a list (and they were, long before I ever even came along) that it wasn't open to be potentially used against any species MAC didn't like. I just tried to narrow it down.

What list are you talking about where "posts ceased"?
 

clarionreef

Advanced Reefer
Location
San Francisco
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Right Mitch,
The more you teach them how to regulate you they will . Why? Because thats what they do. Hope for anomalies and then look good fixing em.
There are outsiders that hope for a terrible situation at every turn so that they can propose the remedies we explained to them in the first place.

Writing down the free dialogue found here can be parlayed into a new groups mission, purpose and funding.
Our most recent friend thought that dealers are flooded with coral feeding butterflys and ribbon eels, orange spot file fish and mimic blennies. No, says I . We wouldn't carry em as stocking that stuff makes you look stupid and money grubbing. The natural inclination to avoid scorn has detered many from stocking fish from these overballyhooed lists long ago. I know that I'm not the only dealer that never had a moorish idol or a meyeri butterfly in his shop. Nor an oxymonocanthus longirostris or an octofasiatus. Nor a trifasciatus, nor chevron nor ornatissimus.
Who in the hell is in fact stocking this junk that feeds the need to find fault in a trade thats stocks it less and less frequently.
A simple little list may suffice for bogus goody two shoes types who have never done anything and wish to do a tiny little thing now...but those fish are common only on the reefs now because no one wants them!
I've never seen a post where a guys say..."Ohh...Ohh.. I just got in a baronessa butterfly...! Wow!
If some silly importer brings it in as an asst. butterfly to sell it to some schmuck who refuses to ever read about what he puts in his tank...does anyone think that there is a dragon to slay here?
This token, silly, unrepresentative footnote next to the real issues means so very little! The lack of demand for these species means they are brought in a fillers or assts. Fish in those categories add up to not very much. The reef trade had diminished trade in butterflies anyway...especially those that feed on coral.
So...do we really need born again eco-newbies to carry on this bogus...empty crusade?
This is one of those little exercises that just give one a chance to show that hes greener then you and more eco-correct' then you. He also seperates his recycables diligently and washes them with detergent prior!
Next to the real environmental issues this "easy, beginners one" is worthless and only serves as scraps for the hounds to ...keep them away from the table.
Agreeing that its an issue made it one out of nothing at all.
If you really wanna get this junk out of the trade....boycott those FEW who still who carry them.
And futher more...to all you wannabie pet-cops and PETA equivalent eco/types who can't get a life...there is no conspiracy to hide literature about animals afoot. Any 12 year old can pull up ...nurse shark... on Google in 3 seconds and tell you how big it gets in 7 seconds.
Somewhere in the purchase of a butcher knife is an assumption that you are a sentient being and capable of reason.
Where is the secret, hidden stuff that unscupulous dealers keep from anyone?
The need to legally regulate in case of moronic consumerism???
Really? Do you really want to go there and apply it to anything else?
Fooling newly minted, google searching reformers w/ rumors of tens of thousands of coral feeders torn from reefs [ now devoid of coral anyway ] to starve in hobbyists tanks...is actually happening as we speak.
I'm trying to turn one of them right now into something useful and not into just another lame 'connect the dots'-'template filling in'...eco-bureaucrat.

These guys pull stuff up on computer from years gone by and think they're policy wonks or something.

Motorcycle deaths in the US this year = 12,000
blue ring octopus = 0

and so on...
What we need is an unsuitable issues list .
Steve
 

dizzy

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
MaryHM":2oleqwfo said:
I warned Mary in the AMDA forum that she might be opening a Pandora's Box with her list. It wasn't too long after that, that posts to the list ceased.

Whoa, hold on there. MARY didn't think up the idea of a USL. MARY didn't incorporate the USL into the MAC standards. MARY simply didn't want MAC's extremely vague definition of USL animals that appeared in the original set of standards to be printed in the final copy. I tried to make sure that if they were going to have a list (and they were, long before I ever even came along) that it wasn't open to be potentially used against any species MAC didn't like. I just tried to narrow it down.

This list: What list are you talking about where "posts ceased"?
http://www.reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=14205 When the uproar on AMDA members began the posts here stopped.
Check the dates. I think the USL was always just a smoke screen to divert attention. Something to keep people occupied with while the rest of the plan had a chance to work. The 1% certification standards were always sufficient to reduce the volume of the trade. Why reduce the number of fish even further by adding the USL. I think it was created to make John Brandt feel important.
Mitch
 

MaryHM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Sorry Mitch, but you're wrong. The USL list on here had nothing to do with AMDA. If you go back and do a search, I asked for volunteers to do all of the sorting and compiling and double checking I had been doing because I didn't have time to do it anymore. I asked twice and no one came forth. It's all archived somewhere in the early days of this forum. MAC did not ask me to do any work on the USL. I did that myself. I don't think it had anything to do with John either.
 

dizzy

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Mary,
You're the one that is wrong. The whole uproar on amdamembers.com began when you made a post telling us you were working on the USL over here. Tom White, the guy you replaced as the AMDA rep on the MAC BOD went off on you. I doubt it is possible a victim of such a nasty tirade could forget it. He told you in not such a nice way that he didn't want you making a list of what he could or couldn't sell. Is it coming back yet? I have the emails somewhere if you need to see them. It ain't pretty. Anyway that coincides with when the USL went flatline. I checked the dates. I know what I'm talking about.
Mitch
 

dizzy

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
And I should add that I jumped into the fray to defend Mary. I told Tom he was acting like an ass. I then told them both I was agains the USL becasue I felt that it would grow to include all that couldn't do the certification standards. I told Mary she might be opening a Pandora's Box. The emails still live on hard drives across the country. Fenner has some of that stuff too, so you can check dates. MAC Attack files.
Mitch
 

clarionreef

Advanced Reefer
Location
San Francisco
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Wow,
From the stories I've heard about raging tirades between BOD members it sounds like AMDA was more... fun back then.
We've been getting along too well lately.
Steve
 

MaryHM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Mitch, I'm telling you. I asked for help here. Did I lock the thread? No. Did I just quit participating? No. Go back and find where I asked for help. Heck, even since then I've posted that I still wanted to serve on the MAC USL committee. Yeah, Tom was an ass. But just because someone yells at me doesn't mean I cower to their wishes. It generally makes me carry on with whatever I'm doing just to spite them. Of course the AMDA discussion and the RDO discussion were around the same time. The RDO discussion is what made the AMDA discussion happen. I, Mary Middlebrook, am the one who started it on BOTH boards. I don't like being told that I quit working on the USL because of Tom White/AMDA. Because it is NOT true. I think everyone in here knows by now that I'm not the type to back down from a fight. I generally start them. ;)
 

dizzy

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Mary I know you didn't lock the thread. I just think that all the nasty stuff that got exchanged over on the AMDA forum made you lose your passion for this project. The dates on the amda posting and the last posts here certainly bare that out. Perhaps it was just coincidence. John has been working on his own list, independent of your efforts.

Here is my point: First you make sustainability a requirement before fish can be collected. This shrinks the numbers down to God knows how little. Then you look at the fish that made it, and remove any of those from the list that can't consistantly do the 1%DOA/DAA. The list is now very small. Then you take any fish that were sustainable and hardy enough to survive the MAC standards to the retailer level and use the USL to further reduce their numbers. What the hell is left? You do all this while promising the dealers they will make more money by being certified, tell the collectors they will make more money, and then you promise the Packard green investors that they will get rich off the scheme too. Someone would have to be one hell of a saleman to sell that. No?
Mitch
 

MaryHM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Ok, I did the research for you:

http://reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t ... t=usl+help

My quote:
We were working on it and compiled a lot of obligate feeders. No formal list though, but many species are listed. I can't list every single nudibranch species known to mankind. The vast majority of them are obligate feeders and it would be easier to list the ones that aren't. After the Los Angeles MAC meeting, the USL kinda fell apart. I asked for volunteers to work on the "too large" category and no one really stepped up to take it over. I have enough to do without having to do all of the work on the USL too!!

I can't find the exact thread where I asked for help, but it's in here somewhere.

Now, what are the dates of the AMDA thing? Obviously they're going to be close as this was a hot topic at the time. But if I do more digging, I'll be able to find where I have mentioned that I would still like to work on the MAC USL- this was even AFTER I broke ties with MAC.
 

Sponsor Reefs

We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.

Click here to sponsor $10:


Top