Ask the WWM Crew
|Please visit our Sponsors|
Re: Pix, Deep Blue bob thanks for the photos...... Deep Blue Creeps.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Pacific Aqua Farms site is up!!!! check it out! <The MSN search engine brings up these folks: http://geoheat.oit.edu/directuse/all/dua0166.htm with the input "Pacific Aqua Farms"... what's your URL?> We need sales people any ideas???? <Will post your request on our sites if you'd like... And, would you like to change the link of your ad from WSI to PA? Bob F> Help thanks DEB > Walt, pls acknowledge you've got pix... and thx for the heads-up re Deep > Blue Crooks... did get the July FAMA, tried calling their numbers, looking > up their site... called Barbara Richardson at Havasu and told her of them... > and she's cancelling their bi-monthly ad pronto > Bob F
Re: More fun with my new Eheim tanks Hi Bob Arcadia, Zoomed , Hagen carry that size Bulb. Its a T8 42 " <Thanks much. Will order from them. Be seeing you. Bob F> Thanks Daniel
RE: More fun with my new Eheim tanks I called them as well, but they have not returned our call. Sorry Bob. I am beginning to feel bad about this. <Don't. Are you going to carry these 42 inch lamps? By ZooMed, Arcadia, Hagen? Bob F, who can/will wait if so> Todd
Lawsuit Bob, This is interesting--> http://220.127.116.11/psw/ Mike <Have heard about this case, looked over a few times. Ridiculous. The guy is a crook, trying to intimidate people for expressing their views (right, wrong or otherwise) on the Net... I'll stick with the first amendment, thank you. Bob Fenner>
RE: Eheim Choices, Decisions The boxes are great so when we ship them, the freight company will not destroy them even though they are on a pallet. Try one tank of each? Tough call, I am glad that I am not an interior designer. <Me neither... I have had hate-hate relations with them... Bob F, who would rather switch the two out for two... Do you know if the filters/as in the boxes, are the same with the 4 by 2 by 2 tanks? That way I can just keep the ones and you can keep the others. Am asking Daniel.S Bob F> Todd RE: Eheim Choices, Decisions I believe that the price difference is about $200 , Craig is out with the Eheim rep and he is the only one here that know the Eheim pricing. But it is something like that. <Mmm, a tough one... twice the gallonage for 2/7 more the price... Bob F who will trade out if it's not too much of a pain> Todd
Re: Tomorrow's Meeting Place/Time Bob, I just want to thank you for coordinating yesterday's meeting, being so kind as to offer your time and effort to help us, and for lunch! I was extremely skeptical that we could get the "big boys" in a room together, but you did it! Yesterday may just have been the first step in saving the industry and helping to better it. Again, thank you so much and I really look forward to working with you in the future. <Thank you Mary for caring enough to promulgate such an adventure. Very glad to "do my part" for/in the trade... and am more hopeful re the "direction" of MAC in all our efforts. Be chatting. Bob F> Mary
Fw: [amdamembers] Perspective from someone in the field- Larry Sharron Bob, Enjoy while you can, messages like this will have a snowball's chance of reaching the public in the future. <Couldn't agree with Larry any more. Bob F> Regards amigo, Mitch >This letter is being posted with the permission of Larry Sharon. This >was his response to an email from Steve Robinson: > >Now this is the Steve Robinson I know and love. Having lived on >islands for the past 14 years, in the field, I am acutely unaware >what the hell Mac is up to. And to be honest I don't really care. >They don't seem to want to listen from those of us practicing in the >field. I have tried to communicate some ideas I had but was brushed >off. I personally did not think that the Philippines was the best >place to start MAC certification. There is little doubt that the >Philippines desperately needs some reform. But MAC is not equipped >nor experienced enough to deal with it yet, if ever. I suggested they >start certifying smaller collecting stations in other locations like >Palau or Tonga where their overall task would be more manageable and >where the quality of fish tends to be better anyway. This way the >first MAC certified fish to roll off the assembly line would be of >higher quality anyway. And at least give the illusion that MAC >certification made a difference. Trying to certify the Philippines >first is going to cost MAC what little credibility they have. Anyone >who's spent any time in the Philippines knows what a truly >insurmountable task it is to get anything done like this. It's really >a life's work. In a way mother nature will take care of the >Philippines. As it already is. Where divers have to go further and >further to get a viable catch. I'm not saying to just let providence >take care of it but all good things must come to an end sometime. >Philippino divers jump at the chance to work overseas. And revel on >a reef that produces a big catch. These divers are proud of their >profession and love to prove themselves. And anyone that's seen a >Philippine net diver in action might wonder "why bother with cyanide >at all?" They make it look so easy. Now who's rambling. Whatever you >have Steve, it's catchy. I got your e-mail address when I received >that e-mail Elwyn Segrest sent to me. I noticed your address was on >there too. I assumed he was talking about MAC trying to set a DOA >standard of 1%. Although when I chatted with Eric from SDC, he told >me they had since revised that and now have no number at all. Trying >to set a minimum for DOAs is a recipe for deception. People in the >trade will end up not being honest in their reporting (as if there >are that many honest ones to begin with) to MAC and their data will >be even more corrupted.
FW: Origin of MAC Bob, It was good seeing you today. <And you my friend> On Monday, I inquired Paul about the origin of MAC and his current position. Here is his response. Fred <Thank you for this... Will start making annotated notes of all my "MAC-related" correspondence. Am very surprised at the degree of disagreement with what is understood re this organization, its constantly revised "history"... I do consider Paul Holthus, MAC a threat to the trade, and will do what I can to either diminish their influence and/or urge them to disclosure. Bob Fenner> Dear Fred, thanks for your reply. I have just returned this morning from a very fruitful week in the Philippines where there is much support and momentum re MAC and certification. It is unfortunate that you will be out of town on 1 March. There are a few other of the invitees that will also be out and we are now looking at the possibility of Friday March 8 as a better date. Will you be available then? Re your question on the creation of MAC: MAC began as a "multi-stakeholder" initiative based on an international mix of industry, conservation organizations, public aquariums, and hobbyists. These people all began to work together based on a shared interest in a sustainable future for the marine aquarium trade that was based on healthy fish, reefs, collectors communities and industry. As this "coalition" grew, the individuals and organizations that were most concerned and consistently involved formed an informal steering committee. On the industry side in the US, Phil Shane, Marshall Meyers (PIJAC) and other key figures in the aquarium trade provided much of the early leadership and involvement. Through the work of the steering committee, a critical mass of momentum and involvement developed and it was decided that the way forward was to set up MAC as a separate organization. The steering committee chose me from among several candidates to work with them to accomplish this. In setting up the non-profit organization, the steering committee became the initial Board of Directors of MAC, with Marshall Meyers as the Chairman on the Board. I hope this helps fill in a bit of the background on the critical industry involvement in MAC and where my involvement came from. I will give you a call in case there are any other questions you might have and to explore other possible dates for the meeting. (I will cc this to David Vosseler, who is leading MAC's outreach to the US industry.) Paul At 10:42 AM 2/5/2002 -0800, you wrote: Dear Paul, I am interested to attend the work shop but won't be able to make it on March 1 as I will be out of town. So if you will have the workshop on that day, please update me later on. One thing needs clarification. I was introduced to you and MAC by Phil Shane. I was always under the impression that MAC was created by the fish industry's own initiative. Now I have heard that it was not the case. Can you clarify this (ie. who created MAC) and also who appointed you to your current position? Thank you and regards, Fred Ong.
Fw: [amdamembers] Final days Bob, The AMDA forum has been great for democracy , but its glory days appear to be short-lived. <Agreed... tis a shame... but self-determined. Better days, years ahead my friend. Bob Fenner> Best regards, Mitch Gibbs
LA Wholesalers I was wondering how the LA wholesalers meeting went. Mary emailed me and told me it was today. <Yes... don't know where to start here... many important revelations. Will cc you on the bulk of memorialization tomorrow if you'd like and forthhence. Bob F> Steven Pro
Re: Fw: [amdamembers] ATTENTION! READ THIS! Bob, You have to be joking!!!! Is this the same Steve Robinson who owed me about $10k about 5 years ago and stiffed me along with everyone else in the industry?? This same person who preaches from his high horse about ethics and drug-free fish collection bought HIS FISH for quite some time from ANY EXPORTER WHO WOULD SELL TO HIM!!!!!!!!!!! I know this for a fact. <I do too Rob... and want nothing to do with him (Steve)... hence my bold comment> He had burned so many people that he had to buy from anyone he could without any discrimination as to how the fish were collected or where they came from. I even know who he was buying from and BELIEVE ME these collectors did not employ drug-free collection methodology by any means. It is both comical and ironic that Steve now preaches from his aquatic pulpit having soiled this same industry so very thoroughly in his past. <I agree... his big claim to fame is being "head" of his High School Speech Team... sigh> I am going to forward his little diatribe to those other poor souls who have been "previously enriched" by his wisdom and experience. By the way, if you talk to him again in the near future please ask him if he has my money and when I can expect to receive it!!! <He has (sad to admit) owed me a few hundred dollars that our friend in common (Chris Turk) somehow talked me into "lending" (ha!) him back in the mid eighties... did so to get him off of Chris' couch long back... a shyster for sure. Bob F> Regards, Rob. ERI International
Re: Fw: [amdamembers] ATTENTION! READ THIS! Hi Bob, I agree Steve damaged his reputation years, but a lot the AMDA members are so green they won't realize it. "Reputation changable" or something like that by George Harrison with the Traveling Wilburies. I enjoyed the rant and rhetoric. <I as well. Be chatting my friend. Bob F> Mitch
Re: Fw: [amdamembers] ATTENTION! READ THIS! Bob, Could you write a similar "rant" on MAC and let me send it to the AMDA membership?? I think they're tired of hearing me crying in the wind- they need some fresh blood! Mary <Will try to get to ASAP... have a couple hundred MAC related pages from the years of "their unfolding" and some reviews (to the Scientific American pc a few months back, to John Dawes of OFI re Holthus history...) and can hopefully compile my concerns better than the H.S. rhetorician. Bob F>
Fw: [amdamembers] ATTENTION! READ THIS! <I agree with a good part of Steve.R's rantings here... it's a shame he has no credibility in the trade either. Bob F> >The following 2 letters are from Steve Robinson, owner of Cortez >Handcaught Marine, and he is allowing me to post them to the AMDA >list. Steve can be contacted at Clarionreef@aol.com >Dear People of the trade, >I was just thinking. > I DON'T KNOW WHICH IS WORSE. > 1] Peddling environmental and social >reform fraud for money as does Mac and the IMA... > Or 2] Being a marine fish exporter and >dealer knowingly selling and pushing cyanide caught-reef killing fish. > NOW HEAR ME OUT! > The 30 year record of crime against the reefs and village >people lead by the Manila fish traitors [I mean traders] in some ways >has earned them whatever grief MAC can threaten them with. Problem >is, innocent people are threatened as well. > Yes MACs off base but so is your everyday passionless, ethics >free exporter who has never had a problem w/ the cyanide trade. >Perhaps MAC will produce a net benefit w/ their misguided campaign by >scaring up support for real net training. [Which exporters have >opposed and delayed for 15 years or so.] > > As misguided as MAC is, the Manila cyanide cartel is an >outfit I'd rather indict for war crimes against the environment and >these crimes are real and a matter of fact. MAC is a boogeyman only >to the guilty. Net caught importers are not guilty and not threatened >by this high profile yet incompetent organization that simply cannot >reach into the field and produce trainings to match their paperwork >because all their paperwork is based on the IMAs paperwork and not >real achievement! The IMA IS FLEECING THE MAC for training funds >w/out increasing the total sum of netsman or competence needed to >carry out anything that must bear scrutiny. The MAC lacks the field >expertise and ground level acumen to even perceive the scam. Their >highly paid Philippine cohorts are still simply trying to keep their >good salaries going as long as possible before it hits the fan and >are sounding no alarms. > IF MACS WILDEST DREAMS CAME TRUE THEY WOULD >MORPH INTO NIGHTMARE AS THE WHITEWASH AND CERTIFICATION OF THE >CYANIDE FISH TRADE BECOMES REALITY AND THE RESULTANT SCANDAL MAKES >THEM A LAUGHING STOCK. > > MAC is just a reminder of the routine >eco/social development fraud consuming the 3rd world these days >accomplishing very little change while making careers and salaries >out of the issues. > MAC IS NOT AN ENEMY IF THEY WOULD ONLY BE >HONEST, COMPETENT AND TRUE. Their stated goals, plans and assumptions >of successful mass trainings on collecting, handling and husbandry >are little more than a compilation of ideals based upon interviews >and "book reports". If writing down goals were all it took to achieve >them, how easy things would be! Their planned successes are without >the competence to achieve them. NIETHER MAC nor the IMA are worth >much in the field where if I'm not mistaken, something like 100% of >the fish are collected. > After 10 years of trying to convince the IMA to actually >train fisherman instead of "claim to train them failed, we now behold >a "sales conspiracy" packaging the phantom trainings into a turn key >operation ready to sell to the Mac. MAC already pays the IMA to run >the pilot program, a program that only has had hand-netting material >for a month and a half now. During the last year or so they didn't >have any! Barrier nets yes but not handnets, which made them less >than credible to many divers who already knew of the missing netting >material but are never heard from. If I didn't sent it to them just >this past December they still wouldn't have it but they would still >be trumpeting their imagined, upcoming successes regardless. > > > > Genius...a masterstroke of Dr. Pratt [the IMA president for >life] to have pulled it off. If only his talents worked in the >service of good than he'd be very useful in the struggle to reform >the trade's harmful impact on the reefs. However, MAC and the IMA ARE >SOAKING UP WHAT GOOD INTENTIONS THERE ARE ON THE NEED FOR REFORM and >leaving little room for viable efforts. If the clock is ticking to >keep the trade from being shut down, fraudulent effort will not make >a difference underwater. > > SO THE CYANIDE TRADE IS AFRAID OF A FRAUD? Fine, I find that >amusing. >Now if the MAC AND THE IMA were really going to train and sincerely >and honestly focus on the real life requisites of field training and >really deliver the goods, then we'd have something of a good vs. evil >drama! > > I for one would support that 100% and go to war against the >cyanide trade. However, AS A TRUE BELIEVER, I FIND NO ALLIES IN MAC >or the IMA ...... > FOR REAL ACHIEVMENT...AND THATS WHY I CAN'T BE A PART OF THEIR >ENTERPRISES. < > Only insiders and professionals know how false their >pretentions to competence and achievement are. < > Good people have a need to believe them and may >well be fooled. That's the real crime and why I use the term FRAUD >when regarding them. > IF TRUE THAT MAC THREATENS THE MARINE FISH BUSINESS, THEY POSE >LITTLE THREAT TO THE CYANIDE TRADE AT ALL.... In fact the support >for and continuation of the IMAs ineffective yet regularly funded >phoney net trainings may well aide the cyanide trade by using up the >remaining public patience with the lack of progress on this >issue. > . OUR INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE AND FOR DECADES HAS BEEN >SLOW TO EMBRACE REAL REFORM. THIS HAS ALLOWED THE PRETENDERS AND >WANNABES TO GAIN THE UPPER GROUND AND ASSUME THE MANTLE OF 'PRO- >ENVIRONMENTAL' TYPES. > 5 YEARS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN GRANT MONEY LATER THESE >ENVIRONMENTAL TYPES HAVE WATCHED THE CYANIDE TRADE INCREASE GREATLY >AS THEY ASK MORE MONEY TO COMBAT IT. > My group in the 80's could've trained a thousand collectors >inside of a year and a half but were not allowed to by the IMA WHO >WANTED TO MILK THE COW IN PERPETUITY. As a result I RESIGNED FROM >THE IMA AND TOOK THE TRAINING TO THE PHILIPPINE ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP >HARIBON. HARIBON EMBEZZELED $150,00 IN GRANT MONEY FUNDS SECURED BY >IMA CANADA [WHICH THEN BECAME OCEAN VOICE] AND I HAD TO RESIGN AGAIN >IN PROTEST. > I HAVEN'T TRAINED IN THE PHILIPPINES SINCE 1993, AS I COULDN'T >FIND A GROUP WHO WOULDN'T STEAL THE GRANT MONEY. ...AND THATS WHY >EVEN SIMPLE HANDNETTING MATERIAL HAS BEEN MISSING ALL THIS TIME! > MAC was assured by the IMA that they could handle the big time >trainings that the death threats to the industry would create. The >IMA is not a field organization ...its a paper organization that's >lives for grant money that they liquidate to no acclaim. The >assumption of real trainings by the IMA is a foolish one. > MAC and the IMA cannot deliver.... they can only claim to. > The industry shouldn't wait for outside, money-grubbing groups to >do its job. It should support and fund its own salvation and show MAC >and the IMA how it's done. Professional collectors from our own ranks >can do these job 10 times better and faster then ineffective >outsiders. > There are million dollar entities in our trade and if >they cannot support the real, professional solutions then they get >this silly MAC STUFF run by egotists and incompetents eager to earn >good salaries while playing in the water. >I know pros from Australia, the South Pacific and the Philippines. >They could be organized, funded and deployed to train divers in net >collecting and handling and with the sanction and the blessing of the >chief of the BUREAU OF FISHERIES, ATTY. Malcolm Sarmiento, I assure >you. > American importers could collectively exhort their >exporters to take this seriously and support it. > Of course MAC DADDY has the answer if we >don't. Who's to blame for that? > SINCERELY, STEVE >The second letter >************** > BLAST FROM THE PAST >Dear People of the trade, > Please pardon the long e-mail detachment I sent out last >nite. Its >just a analysis from my corner on the pending MAC debacle and the >real need >for reform, reform that the MAC lacks the pedigree to carry out or >even >understand. > With or w/out the MAC thing, we as an industry should've >embraced >reform ages ago on the cyanide and fish mis-handling issues. Net >training and >handling training is all I ever do for a living and I recognize the >great >need for it thru out our industry... But who is going to train MAC >people to >run with the big dogs and accomplish more than collating >information? What >they may have gleaned from their many interviews makes for good >reading but >does not constitute talent and know how or ability to put it into >practice >MAC couldn't even run its own pilot training project in the >Philippines so it >paid the IMA to do it. The IMAs project is full of serious problems >and >failures and they will come into the light as the need requires. > Now it rankles many of us who resent being "regulated and >evaluated" by incompetents and inferiors like the MAC and the IMA. I >know >something about the IMA. I am its inventor and co-founder. I wrote its >mission statement and its goals. I wrote its whereas clauses and I >wrote all >its field training stuff way back before it sold out and just focused >on >making money. > MAC has no one who could make it thru the day on a real, >commercial collecting boat with a bit of wind and waves. If in order >to be >certified we will be required to pay a grand or two to provide a >venue for >their "city boy", pasty white monitors to throw up in our collecting >boats >and that is something my operation in Mexico will not do. I already >pay for >'city boy' Mexican gov't.monitors to throw up in our boats and theres >no room >for any more! [There is I guess if we leave the fish collectors >ashore..] > I'D rather be bon-fide but not MAC certfied. > Anyway, I may be wrong but knowing the characters in this >drama >as I do, I have a hard time imagining that that their lack of >competence will >somehow grow into a monster and convince US Fish & Wildlife or >Congress or >anyone else that they are credible enough to dictate events. > Is there a cyanide problem? Yes and a cyanide training >scam and >scandal going on for a decade as well run by MACs partners in crime, >the IMA. > I'm sorry I gave birth to the IMA. They were not >supposed to go >for the gold and ruin our chances to reform the trade in the >Philippines. >Inasmuch as the MAC depends on them, that is perhaps their weakest >link. >Falsified competence and a decade of squandering grant money without >training >cyanide fisherman. > Read my stem winding analysis and proposal in the other >email >attachment >and let me know what you think. [ or don't ] > VERY SINCERELY, > STEVE >ROBINSON
<What terrible B.S.... who is the "industry member" who suggested the "1% mortality"? Ignore these ignorant people and their agenda. Bob F> Dear AMDA members, The following clarification doc was released as part of the info package that accompanied the letter (sent to this forum earlier) to those companies who signed a Statement of Commitment (SOC) to become MAC Certified. Paul touches on many of the issues presently under discussion in this forum. We will be addressing these issues more in depth in the weeks before the planned industry meeting. I look forward to receiving your constructive input. Thank you. David Vosseler MAC Certification Coordinator CLARIFYING KEY ISSUES ON IMPLEMENTING THE MAC STANDARDS Paul Holthus, Marine Aquarium Council, 02-05-02 What does the DOA/DAA (Dead on Arrival/Dead after Arrival) figure refer to? It is critical that we are all clear that the 1% DOA/DAA refers to the mortality per batch of species. Under this measurement, there would be a cumulative total DOA/DAA of 8% from reef to retail. Any batch of species that does not qualify on the mortality criteria (or other criteria) can still be imported and sold. They just are not able to continue in the supply chain as MAC Certified. Species' batches that consist of less than 100 specimens would be allowed a single mortality down to a lower batch size limit. A reasonable lower limit will have to be set for this. Why is mortality important if the other standards are being met? Reducing environmental damage to coral reefs and ensuring the sustainability of marine ornamentals resources is paramount to our shared goals. The mortality of harvested marine ornamentals affects reef health and ultimately determines the numbers of fish that can be collected without a negative impact. For every fish that dies after harvest, another one will have to come off the reef to supply the demand. This, in turn, affects the sustainability of the source reef, by placing more pressure on the resource to repeatedly collect fish for replacement. By reducing mortality, marine ornamentals in trade are likely to survive longer, and by lowering mortality for each link in the chain of custody, less harvest overall is needed to meet the market demand. To ensure sustainability of the resource we take as few organisms as possible and maximize the use of those that we do take. Where did the DOA figure come from and who is "pushing" it? Those that are critical of the industry without an interest in being constructive have suggested mortality of up to 80%. During development of the standards, we received informal information with a wide range of mortality figures from industry. The 1% DOA goal was actually initially suggested by a major industry operator. <WHO?> It was put on the table during the standards development as a tough but achievable mortality level for many species and that we should try to see how it works. Many industry members have told us they feel the same way, i.e. it is a bit of a stretch, but that a good industry operator should be able to achieve it with a bit of effort. MAC is under no pressure from any groups, conservation or otherwise, to irrevocably push any particular part of the standards, not even the 1% mortality issue. Neither is any one group using MAC to force the 1 % DOA/DAA on the industry as a way to show the industry is unable to meet the standards and therefore is unsustainable. Conversely, no small interest group or individuals have undo influence in accepting or rejecting criteria in the standards that they find difficult. The standards must continue to be developed through an open, inclusive and transparent process. What were the DOA/DAA results of the Feasibility Study? Importers and retailers receiving fish from the Philippines indicated DOA was as high as 15% when we were undertaking our initial standards preparation work, but there was little hard data on this. At the beginning of the Philippines' Feasibility Study (FS) of the practicality of the MAC Standards on the supply side, DOA/DAA data from collector to exporter was about 10%. We undertook a cause and effect analysis of the problem and found that although the collection techniques were very good the post harvest activities were not so good. The training then concentrated on these post harvest activities for example-improved storage of harvested organisms in the sea, less organisms per bag, more water per bag, proper oxygenation, screening for organism quality and packing to withstand the journey to Manila etc. This brought the DOA down to <1% in most cases for the remainder of the FS. The exporters involved also improved their facilities and also managed to greatly improve their DAA. All collectors and exporters in the FS knew that the 1% DOA/DAA target would be hard to achieve but more importantly they were willing to try. All were pleasantly surprised with the result. By reducing DOA/DAA from 10% to 1%, 10 times fewer organisms were taken from the reef for the same export demand. What are plans regarding Annex 4 on unsuitable species? Annex 4 of the Standards is on Unsuitable Species indicates that a sub-committee of the MAC Standards Committee will identify the unsuitable species. The Standards Committee (and the sub-committee on unsuitable species) will be established by the MAC Board, which includes some very good industry representatives. We will also be asking more widely among stakeholders for suggestions on who should participate in the sub-committee. There is no existing list at MAC and no work is underway on developing the sub-committee yet, much less on actually identifying potential unsuitable species. Any claim that this work is underway or that MAC has a list is simply not true. We look forward to working with the industry to identify those species that are not consistent with responsible practices.
Wholesalers & MAC You cc'd me an email titled "Your Business, the Ornamental Aquatics Industry and MAC" and I was wondering how the response has been. <Not overwhelming... half thus far... but folks are busy, and I've been out of town as you know, and haven't yet followed up with calls. Will be doing so later this week.> I have been hoping that the major wholesalers would just pass on the option of buying MAC certified fish. Too much hassle, too much money (for fish and system requirements, MAC fish are not to be in the same water as uncertified fish), too much paperwork, etc. <This is not "enough" for us to do... my real concern is the disception that is Paul Holthus and MAC re their real funding (so-called conservation groups) and agenda... the making of industry-sanctioned "standards" that will lead to more government taxation and control...> You are getting some of the emails from the fighting going on at AMDA. I average about ten a day, almost all against the 1% requirement and unsuitable list. If no one buys their fish, then they will have to go away, change substantially, or push government for mandatory status (show their real colors). Steven Pro <I say we, the industry, make "them" go away as in totally out of our apparent regard ASAP. It is idiocy to give credence to people who number one don't know what they're talking about, and secondly who will only cause detriment to the industry, hobby of ornamental aquatics.
Getting Together in Los Angeles on Wednesday All, sorry for the delay. Am coming up that way this Wednesday, the sixth about noon. Have chatted on the phone and net with most all of you... Are you willing, desirous of meeting, hearing my ten minute pitch of "what's wrong with MAC" and why I think the industry ought to abandon its endorsement? Whereabouts should we convene? RSVP. Bob Fenner
RE: Wholesalers & MAC Hi Bob, <Hello Fred> sorry for the late reply. I am not sure if I understand what's going on (the "revelation"). But I want to tell you where I am at and my opinion about MAC. <Thank you. I appreciate your taking the time> I felt that a lot of the requirements from MAC is not workable (1% mortality etc). I had mentioned this to Paul and he said that it was just a starting point and a lot of the process and requirements will be adjusted later if it is not logical/workable. <Sorry to interrupt, but this is a ridiculous statement. Why "start" with an unrealistic expectation? Why call these "standards" such? Have you pressed Paul to reveal the sources of his funding? Do you have a clear understanding of his and MACs agenda?> I also did not want to participate in the initial certification process until everything have been worked out and some wholesalers have been certified. This is because I believe the company doing the certification has a lot of learning to do. <Why even have so-called certification? Do you think other people, organizations outside the industry have any right or value in "administering" the trade? Why would they?> However, at this point at least, I do feel that the intend is good and that there are some problems in this industry that need to be addressed. <Through the aegis of MAC? Not me> If you have other ideas and opinions, please let me know as I would like to hear what you have to say. <I feel, think it's best at this point for some of us to meet in person re... Would you prefer the email format? Bob Fenner> Thanks and regards, Fred.
RE: Wholesalers & MAC Bob, I was introduced to MAC by Phil Shane. Phil also seek initial contribution from us, wholesalers, during the initial forming of MAC. I was always under the impression that MAC was created by the industry (at least this is what Phil told me) with the purpose of self-regulating ourselves so we reduce the risk of government coming down and regulate us. During the initial meeting, they got wholesalers from Hawaii, from LA etc and the initial discussions were as to MAC is going to do. Later on, I was told, MAC seek and obtain funding from World Wildlife Fund (I think that's the name) and other entities. But it was after the formation of MAC. And Phil told me that the funding would not had been possible without industry support. <Bizarre... I am very sure that MAC did not "start" with industry money or initiative. It is the brain-child of Paul Holthus alone... who presented an outline to a few conservation groups, funded by the Packard Foundation (of Hewlett-Packard, Monterey Bay Aquarium... fame) with their own anti-industry agenda... has had many catch-words like "stakeholder" over the years gained by persuasion and other influences its present sway... Being all this as it is, am still coming up to chat with folks... this Wednesday about noon... Will send out a note to all. Bob Fenner> Anyway, let me know when you are in town so we can talk. Thanks, Fred.
RE: Wholesalers & MAC Bob, Eric has had two conversations with Paul Holthus in the last week. You may want to contact Eric to get the update. We expect MAC to rescind the 1% recommendation no later than this week. MAC claims that 1% was just used as number to work with, and that it was not fixed at that rate. They agree that closer to 10% is more realistic. <I fully expect MAC to be seen (finally) as an unnecessary, dangerous agency that it is/wants to be, and discarded. Why would the trade be interested in such as their "help"? Idiocy in my opinion... to bring on attention, more taxing, folks to control yourself... Do you really think these folks are going to help you? Keep other competition out? Are people in the trade so paranoid or able to be made so to invite this influence? I am not assuredly> SDC has been supporting MAC since its inception, and plans on continuing to support MAC. However, we do no agree with the 1% death rate. Our concerns were expressed to Paul, and he assures us that the number was not intended to be concrete, and they will publicly increase the number. <You're being duped... badly. Once "you don't meet the standards" you will find your business fined, inspected, the costs to you and all before and after you in the line of supply increased... and no one but the government and Holthus served by it... the conservation groups funding him/MAC will even lose out in the longer term, as the public loses touch with the "real world"...> Please make sure that you use your name and influence responsibly. <I hope to, thank you> While there are a few things that we (larger wholesalers) don't agree with, we do support the overall goals of MAC. Even Elwyn Segrest has spoken out against these unrealistic goals, but still supports the main cause of MAC. <I don't trust Mr. Segrest "any further than I can throw him", sorry to state> Take some time to contact us when you get a moment. Thanks, Scott <Will do so... am terribly behind. Later this week. Hello to your father. Be chatting. Bob Fenner>
Fw: [amdamembers] Putting the 1% into perspective Bob, Here is one of Randy's latest rants. I swear the guy must plan on being paid by MAC in the future. <Mmm, maybe so... folks are foolish to not see what is coming here... a "standard" (not guideline, suggested limit...) "set up" with industry approval... not met... necessitating government intervention... eventual shutdown or causation that results in such a loss of profitability that collapse entails... You are not blind certainly. Bob Fenner> Mitch >Geoff, > I think what Mary has neglected to tell you is that she knew and knows >that MAC has said that they are ready to roll with this and that the chance >to respond was there but no one did from our industry for months and now they >are ready to launch the program and are asking for our help as a group to try >this. The AMDA board has voted unanimously to go forth and accept this >program and support it. We need for the members to decide if they as well >will do so. We as their board members are urging them to do so. We are being >realists here, with the understanding that MAC is far more than a group of >individuals who just want to force something on us or try and get us to go >with something we either don't understand or fear. MAC is an advocacy group >that supports our aquarium industry and was created to try and find common >goals and solutions with other groups that are focused on coral reefs and >their conservation. They have done a tremendous job in light of all the >particular participants and concerns. This 1% deal was reached after lengthy >negotiations and when Mary says that 20% was unacceptable for some, it was. >And it should be. If any of you think that that is what we should be shooting >for, then you just don't want a better industry. We can do better. Many >support that premise. But many here argue that we should start high and work >down. Well, the whole group decided to start low and adjust up and we were >invited to have a say in that and we didn't. Who is at fault here. Seems like >"we" are cause we are all so involved in a career that often seems like it is >24/7 that we rarely have time to take an hour or two and read some lengthy, >technical documents that were begging for review. FOR MONTHS!!! So we didn't >and they went forward. > Now here many of you are grousing over this 1% and asking "why can't we >have a higher rate or mortality, or start higher and work down". Because we >didn't ask that when it was time to ask that, that is why. You are all trying >to close the barn door after the horse has left. That is why. > So go ahead and rail against the Gods. The MAC Certification ship is >about to leave the docks and none of you are going to get them to change >their itinerary, cause you are all now going to stand at the dock and wave >goodbye. Me...I am going to be on board and I feel confident about who is >piloting the ship. So is the AMDA board. So should you guys. To say that "No >one in the industry will support this" is simply not so. Some will and they >will sign on and it will be tested. > So...again...go to the MAC website (www.aquariumcouncil.org) and look up >this program and read about it and see if you are willing to be one of the >pilgrims. Man, they must have had some courage to set out on that trip and >look what they accomplished. You will never know what is possible if you >don't try. >Randy
Fw: [amdamembers] Criteria and Standards Bob, More good stuff from Elwyn. Mitch <Mr. Segrest's opinions are generally discounted by me... Here he makes imminent sense. Bob Fenner> >Howdy Again, >After reading some input and being that it is a day off I have more thoughts. I >do not have thoughts often so I need to get them out. >Actually there is no reason to start out with any set goal of % dead. MAC should >implement its standards. Certify those who meet these standards from the reef to >the retail shop. After these are implemented and have time to have an affect >there will be some facts to make intelligent decisions. Who knows for a fact >what this is today. But who knows what affect the MAC standards would have. >Usually there are facts to support most goals or rules. In this case, there are >no facts and everyone I know who has knowledge of import and/or export has >stated the 1% is unreachable. As things are today these are the ones best able >to guess. What this will be tomorrow, my crystal ball is broken. >Richard's contention of buying only cultured (much better word) fish sounds >great. I do not know about "only" but this will become a reality for many more >species in the not too distant future. But today it is not possible to sustain >the hobby. Actually, this has been tried at retail (cultured only) and failed >miserably. We sell cultured fish. Unfortunately, we sell some but most we keep >for a while and transfer in with the wild caught. The reason is most pet shops >will not pay more for cultured. I agree with Richard's contention that there are >a lot less losses. We have just made an agreement with a company to market their >products. They are pouring a lot of money into culturing ornamentals. We have >cut our margin considerably to market cultured fish and one reason we can do >this is less loss. Hopefully, they will sell. But just as Mary said, WE DO NOT >GET DOWN TO A 1% AVERAGE LOSS ON CULTURED FISH. We cannot eliminate the human >factor and this is usually the weakest link in the livestock business. People >are not perfect and some fish get hurt just by handling and always will. Fresh >water has been around for many years and we have spent untold money on improving >the quality. Many and maybe most are cultured right here or very close and never >have the stress of shipping. Try as we might we cannot get the yearly dead down >to 1%. I might point out there is no law, rule, or standard that state we have >to try to lower this dead. Economics dictates that we must try for the highest >quality (converts to less dead) so our product will attract retail customers. >There is certainly no need to create any list as MAC states their standards will >improve all fish. If MAC believes in its own claims then it should be against >any list until their standards are implemented and have a chance to work. MAC >sends out very conflicting vibes and statements. They claim they will improve >everything ( I am positive the standards will improve the over all quality) but >they are afraid to wait and see the result. >I personally do not want MAC or anyone else predicting my future. I do not >believe many do. This is our lives, work, hobby, and love and I do not want any >chances taken with what I have worked for all my life. >Randy, in my opinion, what ever we say we are trying for is going to be what we >are judged by. If we say 1% anything above that will be too much. We will get >ripped apart. I do not care how far MAC is along in its agenda. MAC's agenda has >changed considerable since the beginning. It can change again. >Unfortunately, some organizations that call themselves environmental have other >agendas, some only to get themselves a lot of money others to cover up that they >are against any pet ownership. This is detrimental to real environmental >organizations. In my dealings with PETA and some environmental organizations >with the same agenda I have found they will use anything against the hobby. At >least PITA states its goal of no pet ownership. All of these organizations would >love to see this 1% goal. Actually these would like to see a 0% goal as this can >be accomplished only by shutting down the industry. A 1% goal is the same as a >0% goal, unachievable and may have the same result. >But we cannot group all environmental groups together. I remember the >representatives of WWF and Natures Conservatory, there may have been others, >were in on the creation of MAC and were not for shutting down the industry. They >are very much trying to work with MAC to ( here most would say lower the dead. >That is a negative statement) increase the quality of the fish (this will lower >the dead) and improve the environmental impact.. They know there are many, many >more environmental destructive occupations these collectors would have to do if >not for the ornamental fish industry. Actually, the collection of ornamental >fish is one of the very least destructive to the ocean environment. Food >fishing, mining around the world with cyanide, run off, ships, and etc. do more >damage in a week than ornamental fishing could possibly do in several years, >even with the collection methods we are trying to eliminate. > >The following is my view only. Not worth a lot. Our people here call this an >Elwynism. We have fun working here. >There is no need for any % dead rule EVER and there is no need for any allowed >or prohibited list EVER If only each would do their own job and stay in their >area of interest. We only get into problems when someone or some organization >tries to do some one else job or exert influence or power out of their area of >expertise. >MAC tries to cover a lot of territory that covers many areas. I guess there has >to be one organization to achieve the goals that most of us want environmental >protection and higher quality). As long as that group represents all, listens to >all, and all have the same influence in the ultimate decision. I will admit this >industry is very slow to respond but I am sure many thought twice about maybe >trying to confront such large and powerful organizations. >Elwynism: >Environmental and Wildlife groups should have the most influence in the >harvesting (collecting) of the animals. Their stated goals are admirable and >should be everyone's goals. >1 - The habitat (environment) must be protected. This should also be a goal of >the hobby and industry. >2 - The animal is a renewable resource (sustainable collection practices) Also a >goal of the hobby and industry or there will not be a hobby. >3 - The industry provides jobs for these third world people so they will not >have to work in a more damaging occupation for the habitat and animal. This is >not a commercial goal but should be everyone in the worlds goal. >Once the animal is in the boat and has met the above criteria, this ends any >concerns of Environmental and Wildlife organizations as their agendas would have >been achieved. At this time it should end their influence and input to MAC. >Myself, I would take anyone's input as long as they understood that did not mean >control. Any Environmental or Wildlife organization who would want influence or >control after the animal was in the boat would have other agendas. This would >separate the ones who truly want a continued better hobby and those who want no >hobby. >At this point the hobby and industry criteria should be the controlling factors. >Here MAC works for the industry to devise with knowledge people standards for >the quality control of these animals. Then it is MAC's job to publish these >standards and let industry have time (set time) to achieve these standards. Then >MAC should enforce these standards and publish all who meet or surpass these >standards in the trade journals and/or hobbyist magazines around the world for >all to see. >Isn't this simple, uncomplicated, non controversial, and fairly easy. Who could >possibly complain. It would meet every possible goal of everyone. >RETAIL PET SHOP >The real controller of the animal after it has met the environmental standards >and is in the boat would be the retail pet shop. It could only buy from MAC >certified wholesalers / importers. Retailers would impose stricter restrictions >on a wholesaler / importer than MAC. The wholesaler / importer would have to >meet MAC criteria and standards then it is ALLOWED to compete for the retailers >business. Which means it has to make itself better than the average MAC >certified wholesaler / importer to earn the retail business. This would get >tougher and tougher. higher quality and higher quality >WHOLESALER / IMPORTER >The wholesaler / importer must meet MAC standards and could only import from MAC >certified exporters who have met MAC criteria and standards. But the wholesaler >/ importer would have to have a better than MAC certified facility and impose >stricter restrictions on the exporter than MAC. It has to be the best of the >best to earn the retail business. higher quality and higher quality >EXPORTER >The exporter must buy from MAC collectors and must meet MAC standards to be >certified. The pressure from the retailer on the wholesaler / importer and in >return the pressure of the wholesaler / importer would make the exporter improve >its facility beyond MAC criteria and buy from the best collectors. higher >quality and higher quality >COLLECTORS >The collectors must be certified. The Environmental and Wildlife groups have the >main influence in MAC standards to certify a diver. >How simple is that. It is easily certified. Environmentalist and Wildlife >concerns have to be satisfied at the beginning. One does not have to be a rocket >scientist to do water test, check training manuals, check titles on invoices and >etc. Economics will do the rest. >This way MAC would only be speeding up an evolutionary process that is happening >today. Economics is dictating this with no criteria or standards. The biggest >impact would be the collecting and that is where it is needed the most. >Retailers have this choice today but MAC could make this easier for them. What >standards would do is teach everyone how to do this. >There is no need for any setting of any %. Everyone in the chain would be >driving everyone below it to increase quality this and only this will decrease >dead. This is happening today. MAC certification will only publish a list to >make it easier. >There is not need for any list. Retailers do not buy animals that die. It is too >expensive. After MAC's standards are in place and working then I believe there >should be a list of the difficulty of keeping specific fish. There are already >books that do this. However, if MAC standards will increase the quality of fish >and I believe they will, these books will be incorrect. >This could be a done deal so quick and no one would be afraid of MAC or the >powerful organizations that control it. There would be no one trying to form >anti-MAC groups as there is nothing to be anti. > >I think that opposition from industry has been slow coming because: >1 - there have been so many ideas like MAC pop up and disappear that many did >not take it serious enough. >2 - Most in the industry do not understand what MAC is about or ever the >existence of MAC. >3 - Most shy away form any organizations, example AMDA. It cannot say it >represents the marine industry because it has almost no members. >4 - Anyone would think twice about taking on organizations such WWF and Natures >Conservatory. The sad part is I do not think these two are against us. >Let us not forget MAC cannot exist without the support of the industry. It is >MAC who must have our support. Not us who must have MAC. We have existed a long >time with out MAC. We do not have to accept ideas that may harm our future. >What really happens if the U S industry does not support MAC . Or better, if the >U S industry stated it will support MAC in all standards as stated today except >for predicting a % dead and making a controlling list with no experience. The >problem is we have no marine organization that has enough support from the >industry to make any statement. Unfortunately, AMDA does not representing the >industry. Its membership is too small. This is not a criticism or a put down >for AMDA. It is more of a criticism of us within the industry for not joining >together. The forces who wish us harm are counting on this. >Actually, the only organization with any clout that represents our industry is >PIJAC. It was in on the meetings that created MAC. Maybe this is the >organization that can help us get MAC's attention. I am not suggesting that we >do not need AMDA. AMDA could work with PIJAC. The FTFFA organization of Florida >tropical fish farmers work closely with PIJAC and has a member on the board. I >know PIJAC has very capable people and the experience. One thing about PIJAC, it >only represents the livestock industry. I do know that if not for PIJAC we would >not have the opportunity to have these discussions. There would be no fresh or >salt water fish business. One problem is there are almost no marine businesses >that belong to PIJAC. >I encourage all what ever your opinion to mail some of these letters to others >and let them know. Hopefully some will get involved. Someone said "together we >stand or divided we fall." >I still think all communication should have old fashion courtesy. I know when >one is discussing their lively hood it can be emotional. >Sorry for this book. I doubt it will ever be published. >E
Re: [amdamembers] MACNA refund <Ah, don't discount your present/past> Bob, glad to hear that someone remembers me < s > <I do hope you are correct here.> you dont know how many times i have thought about doing another conference. doing MACNA X was one of the greatest times of my life. who knows what may happen in the future < g > <No one> so, how are you ? did you ever buy that house in Kona ? what exotic lands have you been travelling to lately ? <In/out of escrows on the Big Island... still looking there, elsewhere. Out to Cancun/Cozumel last week, Taveuni/Fiji last month... will put you on the e-mail out list for upcoming travel adventures... make it known if you'd like off> i spent the last summer and fall devoting myself to my service business and my new web project. as of the first of the year i bought a home here in Thousand Oaks and have spent the last three weeks spending all my money on remodelling it. <Congratulations!> keep in touch, jim Aquarium Design http://www.aquarium-design.com/ <Chat, hopefully see you soon. Are you going to Interzoo in May? Bob F>
[amdamembers] Putting the 1% into perspective Bob, I am forwarding this stuff to you because you act like you care and because it is in the public domain once it is posted on the AMDA forum. I hope someone writes something about all this for FAMA, <Mitch, you should> because even though the AMDA forum has inspired some good correspondence, it only goes out to about 80 people per Mary. I think reefs.org has some good stuff and maybe your site as well, but I don't go out shopping much, and this stuff just keeps popping up on my e-mail. Regards, Mitch <Be chatting my friend and associate. Bob Fenner>
Fw: [amdamembers] Re: Geeze Louise Bob, I just wanted you to see Randy's latest reply. Mitch <This person is self-delusory... or at least wrong. The folks who are the theives called MAC are not trying to keep the industry out of the governments influence... self-aggrandizement is their only goal. They are on a path to sell out the industry/hobby by creating an "industry created" standard that is unrealistic (they DON'T know what they're doing?) and when it's not attained, to show the government they need to come in and close the business down... Seen it in other fields and resent being treated as a presumed idiot. Paul Holthus is a liar and thief. Bob Fenner>
FW: In support of Elwyn's words <Well-stated Scotter. Thanks for sending along. Bob Fenner> Paul, I am sure that you will be getting many e-mail's in the aftermath of Elwyn's words. I have discussed these issues with some of the other major wholesalers/importers in Los Angeles over the past couple of weeks. Yes, there has been a call for LA importers to form up against MAC. Sea Dwelling Creatures, Inc. supports the goals that MAC is working hard to achieve. Sustainable harvest, hand collected animals, proper transportation and holding are all areas that SDC strives to be among the industry leaders in. But, we too have great concerns with the two main topics that Elwyn mentions. The 1% death, and the unsuitable animal list. It is always our goal to strive for the lowest possible death rate for the animals that we import. 0% is the goal, but that is unrealistic. It is our request that 1% be a goal to strive for in the future, not now, but the industry as a whole, needs time to let the standards that MAC is implementing work. Just 10 years ago very few people had access to SPS corals for the home aquarium. Through hard work and research, we were able to introduce collection, holding and shipping techniques that currently make SPS corals suitable for almost all aquariums. The unsuitable animals list should not be established until the MAC standards have had a chance to work, and research can be established to validate claims. Establishing a list and a 1% goal right now is irresponsible and unachievable, and would result in miserable failure. I could go on in further detail as to the damage that this could cause the industry if implemented. These are the main topics that we have difficulty with. Again, SDC supports the work and the greater cause that MAC stands for, but we strongly recommend that MAC reconsiders its position on these two topics, and requests more achievable goals. Thank you for your time and effort, Scott D. Cohen Sea Dwelling Creatures, Inc. 5515 W. 104th St. Los Angeles, Ca 90045 310-676-9697 Phone 310-676-9699 Fax www.seadwelling.com
Fw: [amdamembers] Criteria and Standards Bob, I don't know if you get the AMDA stuff or not, but I wanted you to see that some of us in the industry are waking up. <Thanks much for this. Bob F> Mitch -----Original Message----- From: Elwyn Segrest <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Paul Holthus <email@example.com>; AMDA Members <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Friday, February 01, 2002 12:58 PM Subject: [amdamembers] Criteria and Standards >Howdy Paul, >I think you are aware there are some grave concerns growing about MAC >and the direction it is going by many in the ornamental fish industry in >the US. Many in the industry have repeatedly informed MAC that 1% dead >is not achievable, as things are today. MAC continues to ignore the >experience of many years and thousands of shipments of US importers, >wholesalers, and retailers. Does each one of these people want a 1% >dead? Of course, all do. But wanting and actual fact are not the same. >We have to deal with the situation as it is today. >Yes, anyone can achieve almost anything with a specific shipment handled >with kid gloves. This only proves a point with an artificial test. I >have never heard of reaching a conclusion on so few test no matter how >done. This would not be close to an average of the hundreds of shipments >that enter the US each week. To conclude that this test represents the >average is ludicrous. >Today to shout to the world that our industry will have a 1% dead is >suicidal. If MAC continues this rhetoric it will become the most >dangerous thing for our industry and hobby. This one thing will turn >most of the experienced people in our hobby and industry against MAC. It >makes MAC look so blind. >Some environmental groups give MAC a lot of support and I for one >appreciate their efforts. I always contend the greatest environmentalist >should be those who make their living from Mother Nature, and many are. >But there are many more organizations that wait for any opportunity >whether real, imagined or created themselves to limit or eliminate this >entire hobby. This will give them all ample ammunition and I am sure >they are encouraging MAC to continue its present course. >Also, the creation of a list of allowed or prohibited fish, at this time >with the 0 experience of MAC and MAC standards, is an extreme danger to >our hobby and industry. Who are the "experts" to create such a list? >What has endowed them with such knowledge? Who knows what affect the MAC >criteria and standards will have on these fish. If the result of MAC >standards will be what MAC portrays then many difficult fish should not >be difficult. Then this list would not help only unnecessarily limit >Any list at present time will be terribly inaccurate. All who wish to >harm the hobby and industry will jump on this. Again, MAC is making >itself a danger, maybe the most dangerous thing ever, for this hobby. >I ask myself, WHY There is simply no need for such risk. IF MAC would >stick to first things first and stop trying to put the cart before the >horse these dangers would be eliminated. However, it seems no one in the >MAC organization wants to hear anything but what they want to hear. >Anyone or organization pushing for the 1% or a list at present time does >not have the health of the environment, third world divers, hobby, or >the industry in mind. They have other goals or agendas. >I believe the majority in the hobby and industry more that support most >of MAC criteria and standards. Many in the industry have been calling >for these for years. MAC is way down the line and in some cases behind >the times in calling for and implementing many of these standards. MAC >will find many collectors, exporters, importers, wholesalers, and >retailers already exceed many of MAC's standards. I will be the first to >say, unfortunately, there are too many that do not. >In my opinion, MAC needs to start ar the beginning and not ar the end. >Most if not all MAC standards about collection, handling, training, >water quality, shipping, having a facility to hold every fish handled, >and many more are strongly supported be the hobby and industry in the >US. If these standards put anyone our of business they should be out as >they hurt everyone and expose all to dangers. >I have been involved in this from the meetings that led to the creation >of MAC. I strongly support MAC and almost all of MAC criteria and >standards. They are very much needed. Our organization is deeply >involved in all aspects of this industry except retail. All in our >organization welcome most of these standards. I believe most in industry >do. These will help every conscientious person and organization in the >business and further the hobby. >Everyone I know supports MAC's end goals. >I implore MAC to start at the beginning. Get these criteria and >standards about collection, handling, training, water quality, shipping, >facilities, and etc. solved and implemented. We all know these will lead >to less stressed and healthier fish. In turn this will lead to, we hope, >much less dead in each type fish. How much and if all types I nor anyone >else knows. Maybe, but I personally doubt, a 1% dead. But we all hope >and pray this would lead to 1% or whatever is the lowest dead. possible. >But when these standards have been implemented and has time to work, >what ever this lower dead is, it is the lowest dead possible at that >time. At a later time with more experience and knowledge through >implementation this dead may be lowered. But to say now at the present >time with out any experience or implementation that the dead will be 1%, >MAC must have a crystal ball and read the future. I do not have a >crystal ball. But if this industry boasts a 1% dead and fails to achieve >it, I see a very bleak future. With a little rational there is simply no >need for such risk. >For those in the industry this lowered dead would be a bonanza. All dead >is subtracted directly from the bottom line. To the hobby it would a >bonanza as fish keeping would be easier and less expensive. >To try to start at the end goals is to me unnecessary, completely >stupid, and extremely dangerous to the entire hobby >I know I leave myself open to world wide criticism and possibly a >backlash business wise with this letter. For these reasons I have >hesitated to come forward. But I believe we have to be heard now or we >will be fighting impossible regulations later. >I have heard and thought myself that if the industry or any individual >comes out against MAC the environmental groups will come down on the >industry or individual as not wanting to improve itself. I think we need >to solve this problem now before it gets any further and we are >criticized for not being able to achieve our own standards. It may >already be too late to stop this. But it is not too late to let the >world know these particular standards or list are not our industry >standards or list and we do not say we can meet them or any list is >accurate, we have tried to have input but were not allowed, these >standards or list are made with utopia in mind with out any experience >or implementation. >I have heard of forming Anti-MAC groups only because of this 1% and >someone making a list. I have heard little criticism ot the other >criteria and standards. I sincerely hope all can be solved within MAC. >For this to happen MAC has to listen and work with the industry. Not >become its greatest threat. >This letter is not against MAC. It is against setting the end goals >before we start the beginning. It is against stating the result before >we begin the game. It is against MAC becoming the greatest danger to >this hobby and not the savior it was intended. >I remain a supporter of MAC. I will always be a supporter of MAC's goals >of a healthier environment and healthier fish for the hobby. But if MAC >continues to play this game of Russian roulette with our hobby and >industry I believe MAC will see its support from many erode. I do not >want to see this happen. If it does happen MAC has only itself to blame >for keeping its head stuck in the sand. >I am sure all will not view this as I do. But I think it is time for all >to be heard regardless of their view. >I put this on the AMDA mail so this may encourage others in the trade, >whatever their opinion, to stand up and be heard and pass the word >around the industry. >This also gives your e mail address to all so you can hear directly for >your self what others think. >Regards >E
MAC problems Bob, Give me a call this morning to discuss this issue. I am not aware of any problems, but last week I felt some insecurity in someone close to MAC. I'd like to know what is going on. <All right Scotter... but can't chat till next week. Out this AM (now!) for a week down south. Chat with you next. Bob F> Thanks, Scott Scott D. Cohen Sea Dwelling Creatures, Inc.
INS shit Bob, The guy I tried to bring over to run the hatchery is currently the director at the largest bird park in Africa. He has over 30-years experience in keeping marines, wrote a book on marine keeping in SA, and has spawned common clowns. He was a trained laboratory technician and worked he way up the ranks to the top, and he has 25-years in the zoo business. I was trying to get involved with aquaculture and also wanted someone to run the quarantine system so we could provide 100% protozoan parasite free fish for public aquariums, when we sold large rotating systems. Although Alan worked mostly with animals he also spent some time working for the National Aquarium in South Africa, and was trained in raising animals behind disease free barriers. He was highly qualified. The INS requested more evidence and Kevin Gaines wrote a great reference letter for me explaining his qualifications at ORA and stating Alan had similar qualifications. <Sounds good> The other person was the Marketing Director at the same bird park, and I was trying to bring her over as marketing director for Aquatic Revolution. Her major was in graphic design. <Great> South Africa has a National Diploma that equates to a 3-year degree and you need a BS for H1B visas. It is generally accepted that 3-years of OJT equals 1-year of formal education. They both had 20 plus in their field, and the INS made me get professional equivalency certificates done by a professional company. I got all that done and spent months and months and $1000s of dollars. I had people from the Senator Mitch McConnell's office and also the US Representative checking with the Texas Service Center on a regular basis. I had reference/support letters from Congressman Ron Lewis, Western Kentucky University President Gary Randsdell, Small Business Development Center Director Rick Horn, President of my bank Bob Fitch, and President and CEO of the Bowling Green/Warren County Chamber of Commerce. I ended up spending over $10,000 and writing dozens of letters and working very hard to get these people out of desperate situation. They would have done wonders for my AZA business and become excellent residents of our state and country. Alan paid his dues years ago and is highly respected both in South Africa and the US, he also has lots of contacts at other zoos where his colleagues have emigrated to. <Ridiculous... bureaucrats> Bob it is a sad fact that the INS discriminates against white South Africans. Overall they are a hard bunch to work with for just about any ethnic group coming over, but about 60% of H1B work/education visas go to people from India. <I have heard this elsewhere.> I know Jeff Turner always goes to Interzoo and Ed Mowka usually brings Tom Frakes and Rand along. Julian and Danny are always there. Are there still hotel rooms available? <Oh, yes, certainly. The tube system there for transportation is very efficient... space for many more> When are you leaving and what hotel are you booked in? <Leaving the US May 8,9... and still looking for accommodations for about eight folks there... Likely an apartment or two, three rooms in the same hotel> How much is air fare right now? <About $800> I might give it some serious thought I would truly like to see Dieter and Alf Jacob again. I also know Helmut D. and Peter Wilkins. I was considering taking a 24" diameter rotating system over to display. Alf Jacob told me once he thought Werner might like to have one in his booth as a bit of a draw. <An excellent idea. I will send your note along to BSV> They are going to be awesome tanks with a small footprint and automatic glass cleaning features. The complete system is probably about a month away from being ready to test market and needs to gain US acceptance first, so I would probably just go to look at pretty reef tanks and for the beer. I guess I could leave some CDs at the United States table. <All sounds good. Definitely consider going. You can pal around with our crew if you'd like> I'm glad you contacted Mary. Mary knows a great deals about the situation. She told me IMA was needing nets for the net-caught fishermen and MAC did nada to help. They are full of shit. <Agreed> Ask Bob Keene about Daniel Knop. Bob is a really nice guy and good friends with Dana Riddle. <Yes, all find people. Very glad to have such fine friends, associates in the trade, interest> I think Ralph is a decent guy, but Daniel is a snake. Several German hobbyists told me the clam book was not Daniel's work. <Really? I do believe this IS Daniel (Knop's) work. He does know the material> Daniel has also written articles that were total nonsense according to some of the guys I met. Peter Wilkens does not like Daniel even a little. If you go around to see hobbyist tanks you will be much better received if you don't tell them you know Daniel and that is God's truth. Ask Jeff Turner or Kevin Gaines how Daniel's personal tank looked when they were there. <Will do so. But please don't be too harsh w/o having the opportunity to meet with Daniel.K yourself> I'm not saying the reactors are bad. Knop only lends his "good" name to the product. I actually think they sell much better in Japan and US than in Germany. I trashed him enough, but I know what I saw and learned when I was there. <Yes, you are correct re their sales. But I am hoping/hopeful that the changes occurring in the U.S. in the hobby, the introduction of their new model, and popularization of the technology will change this soon. Be seeing you, Bob Fenner> Regards, Mitch
Your Business, the Ornamental Aquatics Industry and "MAC" In view of recent "revelations" concerning the self-called "Marine Aquarium Council" I am writing to ask that we meet, discuss and possibly form a union to disengage the industry from MAC. The reasons for engendering this "vote of no confidence" are many and serious and are best talked over in person, amongst ourselves (marine livestock suppliers). I will be contacting you via the phone if we can't come to an appointment sometime in the near future in Los Angeles. Bob Fenner
Re: Diving, SeaScope, etc. Bob, Sorry I missed you in Cleveland. However this is not cold! <Yikes! You must be joking!? I had to actually wear pants!> We are having an incredibly mild winter although a little snow from NewYears is still around in piles. Still I do want to get away. Unfortunately I am still looking at late April (~27th) thru early May (~10th) for Pohnpei which will conflict with InterZoo. <Rats!> Sorry, but will get back to you if it gets delayed. <Please do> Regarding your daily photos, although I do like them, my phone line is very slow and so I prefer not to get many pictures except for ones associated with articles and then often have them sent to Aquarium Systems, since they will go there anyway. <Okay, will drop you from the e-list until time you ask to be re-instated. They're posted on WWM at full size daily as well: http://www.wetwebmedia.com/dailyemailpix.htm> By the way, thanks for the Postcard from the Keys. Got your message on MAC and am still mulling it over. Regards, Tom <Real good my friend. Be chatting, hopefully diving with you soon. Bob Fenner>
RE: Fw: Destructive Fishing video/MAC conspiring Hi Bob, I will always welcome discussions on the aquatic trade and how to keep it alive and kicking. Looking forward to see you at Interzoo. <Yes my friend. I as well on all counts> My e-mail to Mitch was a response to a private mail from him, following up a specific discussion on the AMDA Board. I would rather NOT that this e-mail is further distributed out of that context, and certainly not posted on a web site. <Very well. I do understand> You say that you "hope/trust [I am] not accepting monies from this outfit". I have difficulties interpreting this. Would you feel more at ease with my involvement in MAC if I wasn't paid for my time? <Yes. By being paid you are implicitly involved, giving credence to their policies. "With them" so to speak... not impartial in your views.> I am not employed by MAC, but invoices them for specific jobs I do for them. I can also inform you that I was specifically recommended for my position in MAC by three of the largest trade associations in our business; Ornamental Aquatic Trade Association (OATA) in UK, Ornamental Fish International, and PIJAC. The chief executives of all these three (Keith Davenport, John Dawes and Marshall Meyers) are on the MAC Board. Perhaps these three organisations see some perspectives that some other people in the trade fail to see? <I do know these organisations, people... but do have grave doubts as to MACs directions, intentions. I am decidedly against their involvement in the trade. Much to relate... have had occasions over the years to offer my "content" gratis for the "ends" of MAC... i.e. identification of "best organisms", catch techniques, holding and shipping protocols... and more. None accepted. Have spent a considerable amount of my life dedicated to these very principles and dissemination of such information... as have you. Methinks Paul.H is on the one hand only partly knowledgeable in the fields here, and on the other has an intentional alterior program... self-aggrandizement at the cost to the trade, hobby. I will see him questioned, driven out of the trade if necessary. In so much as the MAC is of use, benefit I am all for their efforts. In so much as they posit ridiculous "guidelines", continue to do nothing over the years, threaten to tax, control and ruin the trade I consider them hostile. Bob Fenner> Regards, Svein Svein A. Fossa AKVARIEKONSULENTEN Fladefjell 15 NO-4878 Grimstad, Norway Tel: +47 37 09 18 88 Fax: +47 37 04 30 29 E-mail: email@example.com
Re: RE help, Jason C, Mary L Thanks Bob. Since you are the real estate guru, let me throw some questions at you...any advice/suggestions you might have would be greatly appreciated! I am sure you are sick of answering questions about Ich... <Can get, seem that way> My current apartment lease is up in July so I would like to get into a home around that time. I've already been pre-qualified at my bank of business for a loan in the $250K range and from the research that I have done I believe I can afford this size of a mortgage. I would like to find something in the Mira Mesa area. <Okay... there are a couple of nice townhome units about our place... right on the canyon, with nice views, upside potential...> Some questions I have are... 1. I originally thought that it would be financially prudent to go with a traditional 20% down payment, but after talking with you and others I am starting to think that going with a very low down might be better, or more appropriately, no worse. If this is the case, 3-5% down is definitely much more appealing. <Mmm, if you can afford it, better to go with a Conventional Loan (an official title) avoiding PMI (Private Mortgage Insurance)... Do study up on this... There are other benefits to "owning" more of your own place from the get-go... with your relationships with banks, other creditors> 2. Do you think the best course of action is to get a loan pre-approval and then work with someone like Mary to find the right house? <It's one good way... This is such an important aspect, part of life that you should thoroughly educate yourself... with my, others help... Including going about, visiting MANY potential properties... Developing your own solid understanding of what the choices are, your possibilities> If this is the way I do it, and I want to move out of my apartment in July, how long do you think this entire process would likely take and when should I start "looking seriously"? <Now. Excrows can take a few weeks to a couple, three months... depending on circumstances, desires of the buyer, seller.> 3. I know you have stressed the great savings that roommates bring, but I am pretty sure I want to "go it alone" even if it means paying a lot more. <Your choice. Many benefits/drawbacks to both> Rent is really frustrating me, and purchasing a house will definitely be the smart move - the question is, on how thin a line would you suggest I walk in regards to mortgage payments and down payments? <Mmm, for a good part the banks won't let you get into trouble (qualifying ratios...), but do chat this over with your "tax consultant", family, me if you'd like> Are you of the opinion that I shouldn't worry "too" much about future income and the potential for negative changes in my business income? <You should be concerned, informed, confident in your understanding. Not worry> If I can afford it now should I just go for it considering the tax savings and not be overly pessimistic or conservative about the future? <Some degree of "paranoia" is natural, desirable... Take your "best shot" at perceiving your future and live accordingly. Much more to state/divulge and share my friend. Would you like to come by for dinner tonight? Mike.K, a friend who bought a place a couple years back, and Pete.C who has bought many places, and Di who is always looking, Jack Melroy (Slow Poke) of Melroy Investments (R.E.) et ux. will be here, grant you their insights. Bob F> Once again, thanks for any input you might have... I am very grateful to have a friend in the know like you. <A pleasure, honor my friend> Jason Kim
MAC Hi Bob, Mitch Gibbs here. We met at MACNA X in LA. <Yes. Hope this note finds you well> I had the little rotating aquariums. Anyway I hope you are well and I have a few questions for you. What do you think about MAC? <The Marine Aquarium Council? I have strong misgivings re their "director", lack of progress, spending of other peoples' money thus far...> Do you think MAC will help or hurt the marine industry? <Hurt... they've done nothing, zip, nada but given lip service to government, the trade... can see where the "certification" double-speak is coming... taxing the trade, controlling and then banning it> It is my fear that MAC is going to ultimately cause a great many fish that are sustainable, from eventually being collected, because of surivability issues. <They/Holthus don't/doesn't know what they're/he's doing... the "program" of added spiels stolen from other agencies, people in the industry over the years is a sham... as the "control" numbers indicate> I belong to AMDA and we are currently discussing MAC on our forum. <I have long-stated my opinions re MAC... am a strong supporter of the concepts/goals of both the AMDA and MAC... see the AMDA as a more "do-able" process, source of help for consumers, the trade, the environment> Any way I was talking with Steven Pro and he mentioned your name so I thought I would give you a shout. One more question: If you were the one making the "unsuitability list" what fish would you put on it? <Please see the many such lists, comments posted on WetWebMedia.com here... have spent my semi-adult life describing "best organisms", methods of capture, holding, shipping... sources... My written record (books, articles, presentations) will bear this out> Keep in mind that these fish on the list will quite possibly become very difficult for people to work with in the future. <Am very aware of this effect... have been in the trade for thirty five years...> Go to www.aquariumcouncil.org for a current list of MAC standards. <Have seen them... unrealistic. Bob Fenner> Regards, Mitch Gibbs Press cuttings Suspension of trade with Fiji, Viet Nam and Yemen recommended Decision 11.77 directs the CITES Standing Committee to decide the appropriate measures to be taken with respect to the Parties identified in Decision 11.15. These are Parties whose national legislation, analysed during phase 3 of the National Legislation Project, is believed generally not to meet the requirements for implementation of CITES and that are engaged in significant amounts of international trade in specimens of CITES species. Fiji, Viet Nam and Yemen have been identified as such Parties. Decision 11.16 states that all Parties should refuse any import of specimens of CITES-listed species from, and any export or re-export of such specimens to, the Parties listed in Decision 11.15, if, in spite of receiving any assistance that was requested from the Secretariat, the Parties concerned do not adopt the legislation required before 31 October 2001. Pursuant to Decisions 11.15, 11.16 and 11.77, the Secretariat informed the Standing Committee, at its 45th meeting (Paris, June 2001), about the progress made by the countries concerned. Having considered the report of the Secretariat, the Standing Committee agreed to defer until 31 December 2001 a recommendation to suspend trade in specimens of CITES species with those countries. The inadequacy of legislation of Fiji, Viet Nam and Yemen was brought to the attention of the respective Management Authorities, which have been aware since the 11th meeting of the Conference of the Parties held in April 2000, that they might be subject to a recommendation to suspend trade in specimens of CITES species. Despite all the efforts made by the Secretariat, including technical assistance, it appears that Fiji, Viet Nam and Yemen were unable to adopt the necessary legislation before the deadline established. Therefore the Secretariat has informed the Parties that, pursuant to Decision 11.16, the Conference of the Parties recommends that, from 14 January 2002, all Parties should refuse any import from and export or re-export to Fiji, Viet Nam and Yemen of specimens of CITES-listed species, until further notice. Please see Notifications to the Parties No. 2002/003, 2002/004 and 2002/005 for more details. (CITES Secretariat) <Great... not! "If you laid all the do nothing, know nothing civil servants in a row they'd make a long line leading to nowhere." Bob Fenner>
RE: Eheim sales, dinner, new tanks at home I will have to chat with her. Todd Dinner tonight still? <Yes... can you boyz bring up just one of the Eheim units? Read over what little there is on Eheims website re... don't come with filtration? Want to rig up one as a freshwater, plants, likely Rainbowfishes (maybe Discus...) tank... but the other Di wanted to try Knops line on... and consider that another format (sump, refugium)... would be better... Bob F>
RE: Daily Fish Email out WWM Another great shot. You are good with that camera thing. <Hey, where are my two Eheim tank outfits? Do you have time, space, inclination to deliver for the big moolah? Want to get started with setting them up! Bob F> Todd
RE: This eve, pet fish biz Lunch is a good thing. I will be working for your lunch every day this weekend if that sounds tempting. <I'll come on by tomorrow. What time? Will two of the Eheim systems fit in my Toyota? Bob> thanks, Todd (We have two left of the new Eheim room divider aquariums.) <Geez Toddster, mark them sold. Bob F>
RE: This eve, pet fish biz You should come up a and take a peep at the Ehiem tanks. <Don't need to/a peep... unless they've changed... which I doubt, do know what they consist of. Please make up an invoice for one and bring it on down for din din... will write you a check. Bob F> Thanks Bob. Todd
RE: This eve, pet fish biz Yes, this is an all new super cool Eheim tank, The 120 room divider is a great looking tank. <Tempting... write me up for two please (will they fit in my Toyota in one go? What time for that lunch? Bob F> Free lunch. Todd Gabriel
RE: This eve, pet fish biz I am destined to be at work forever. I should be leaving to go home by nine tonight. We have been slammed with business. We are in the process of hiring more people to help with the work burden. Eggplant sounds good. Breakfast, lunch, of dinner all sound great. <Come on down! Give us a call when you can make it> Overworked and underpaid, <It's the pet-fish industry!> Todd (Gabriel, Custom Aquatic) <Bob Fenner>
RE: This eve, pet fish biz I must be the poster child for the fish industry. <A worthy goal! Bob F> Todd
Bins Bob, Thanks for the bins. They look in great condition. Please send me an invoice for the 8 bins. <Faxed yesterday after speaking with Iko/Eiko (sp?)...> How's the trip coming along? Any better idea of when it is going to be? <Fine, will send latest notice along in a few minutes. Thanks for asking. Bob Fenner> Ken
RE: Petco seeks to trade shares again Is this good news? <For you? Yes. Bob F> Todd
Din Din Out with Todd.G and fish chatting I have always enjoyed the pre 1982 pictures from P.B. point looking down onto Crystal pier before it was shortened. When can I provide dinner for the crowd? <Tell us where, when and bring your credit card! Have made a sort of French onion soup today... but would rather haul out to Callahan's with you and chat pet-fish, dive/adventure traveling... What say you? Bob F> Thank you, Todd
Water Container Bob, I forgot to ask you for a long time...I'm the proud owner of 7 water containers :-). Diane mentioned that she would bring them up on the way to picking up her Knop shipment. I don't know when that will be, but I will need one sooner than that. When is a good time for me to go down with the van and see if we can fit one or two into the van? <Hey, where's the big cash? And it's eight; you're taking them all! Pete and I will sell them to you for the agreed upon eight hundred smackers Amerikain... and will cc' Di re delivery shedsyule. Be chatting. Bob F> Yours, Ken
Re: Water Container Bob, I'm taking them all. COD company check work for you? <Yes... and cheap at twice the price! Talking about such bargains... are you ready to sign back on to WWM ad-space? We've just passed up the 100,000 ISP sessions per month mark... over a million page views per month for two hundred dollars! Incredible.> Your going to give me a headache if you write like this too many more times. Let me know how you want to arrange this. <Will ask Di (and even Jason.C!) if/when s/he can be in the area to start dropping off, pick up the big cheque. Be chatting, Bob Fenner> Ken
Re: Eheim Distribution Dear Bob, When e-mailing Daniel Stopnicki at EHEIM, would you kindly send the messages to firstname.lastname@example.org <Done. Thank you. Bob Fenner> Thank you and best regards, Marilyn EHEIM North America
Re: Fw: Eheim and Aqua C Hi Bob, In the future, please email me at email@example.com. I check my mail here much more frequently. <Done> It is unfortunate that Daniel feels that we will not be a good distributor for him. Please check with him if it is okay if I can get his contact info. Perhaps, I can change his mind in the future. I think that if he had a chance to visit our warehouse and meet our staff, he might change his mind. <It is fine to contact him... 514-624-2229 in Canada/Quebec... Don't feel this "deal is not to be done"... we are only "chatting" at this point. Bob Fenner> Ken
Re: Eheim and Aqua C Thanks Bob, I will get in contact with Daniel and let you know what becomes of it... <Very well my friend. Make it known if I may be of assistance. Bob Fenner> Jason Kim
Eheim and your businesses Jason, Ken, by now you will know that I've e-mailed and spoken with Daniel Stopnicki, and are likely to know his position, concerns re selling to Marine Depot. He proposed that Ken might buy from Todd.G/Custom Aquatic. I explained why this would not likely work or be acceptable... and will be writing Daniel re the briefest explanation of your relationship... and proposing the sale to Aqua C of Eheim products (more the full line than pumps), which I suggest (to you, he) that Jason in term "distribute" to Marine Depot. With some planning, conversation this will benefit all. Bob Fenner
Eheim and Aqua C Daniel and Jason, this will serve as an introduction of you two, your companies (Eheim, Aqua C) respectively. As an interested party, part of the industry, I would greatly like to see Aqua C offer Eheim's fine line of pumps with Jasons growing number of Skimmer, Calcium Reactors, Sumps... In speaking with Daniel, there seems interest enough to open a dialogue twixt you two. Eheim may be able to OEM their pumps, making them very attractive to Aqua-C. Please make it known if I may be of assistance. Bob Fenner>
Eheim, Aqua C and Marine Depot... and Custom Aquatic... Daniel, per your request, the following pertinent information re Jason Kim/Aqua C and Ken Wong/Marine Depot... and their relationships in turn with Todd Gabriel/Custom Aquatic. Aqua C's products are solely distributed by Marine Depot. An agreement founded on Jasons need for a strategic partner in sales/distribution and Ken's buying of such rights, Jasons selling them for initial capitalization/tools for his business. Todd Gabriel has told me he would not buy/sell Aqua C from Ken Wong as "he is my competitor"... similarly Ken will not likely agree to buy Eheim to/through Custom Aquatic... Perhaps Jason Kim can buy as an OEM and in turn distribute to Marine Depot (the whole of Eheims line). At any length, do let me know if/when I may be of service. Bob Fenner
Tom, Suk, Daniel, Am writing to introduce you all, see if there is a build-able interest at this juncture to consider Eheim pumps and where they might fit in with CPRs product line. In conversation with Daniel Stopnicki today, he asked that I might identify, send to him, the names of pre-eminent companies in the industry that might well be positioned for OEMing their goods. CPR is of a certainty, the first, best choice that came to mind. Tom Miller, might you and Suk Kim want to pursue this matter? Bob Fenner
Eheim Distribution Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 17:52:20 -0800 Daniel, does Eheim have "space, time" for another worthy etailer in southern California? Ken Wong's business, Marine Depot does an outstanding job in the trade. As you can see by their web presence, they offer good lines of drygoods as well as marine livestock. Would you please contact Ken re the possibility of distribution of Eheim? I vouch his honesty and competence in the trade. Be seeing you, Bob Fenner Dear Bob, It was a pleasure seeing you again yesterday. Since Daniel Stopnicki is a good friend of yours, please introduce me and my company, Marine Depot, to him. I am interested in distributing his line. Eheim products are are among the highest quality in this industry, and I have long been interested in carrying the Eheim line. We have a very good reputation for distributing and representing quality products. I feel the relationship will be very beneficial for Marine Depot and Eheim. Thank you for very much. Yours, Ken
Email for Eheim Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 17:54:28 -0800 Bob, Thanks a lot for helping me with Eheim. I hear you are greatly philantropic with regards to helping people and especially with this hobby. I truly appreciate it as we could all use a helping hand. I will not let you down. <I am happy to help you, the trade.> Please let me know if worded the inquiry too stiffly. I'm sort of known for that with people I don't know. <You are doing fine my friend. Bob F>