To be clear on a few points:
- The purpose of this poll is to assess whether people would change their purchasing behavior based on a retailer demonstrating RESPONSIBLE PRACTICES in selling fish
- I agree completely that this HYPOTHETICAL CONCEPT relies on people changing their purchasing behavior (giving a $h*t) based on whether a fish retailer demonstrates commitment to being a RESPONSIBLE IN ITS PRACTICES. It also relies heavily on whether vendors give a $h*t about the ACA and its members.
- Additional cost associated with demonstrating responsibility would primarily come from the additional costs of, for example, properly labeling fish, having quality stock, not housing easily confused species together, quarantining, etc...and not from cost of certification itself (which would be relatively trivial). Vendors that are already spending money on being responsible would have very little if any incremental costs. Those that aren't being responsible would have much more work / cost (if they chose to change their practices).
- Voluntary "certification" is much different from "regulation". Voluntary certification means nothing more than committment to demonstrating an agreed upon set of practices. It's not the law. It's voluntary and run by a private organization. There are numerous examples of private organizations that run certfication programs.
- The purpose of this HYPOTHETICAL program would be to recognize fish vendors that demonstrate commitment to responsible fishkeeping practices and to allow them to differentiate themselves from those that do not make this commitment: an incentive to do the right thing. Developing such a program would require DEFINING a practical set of RESPONSIBLE PRACTICE guidelines that organization members would like to see vendors demonstrate.
- IRRESPONSIBLE PRACTICES by fish vendors represent a major cause of unintentional hybridization and impurity of captive stock. This HYPOTHETICAL program would address this issue directly by providing guidelines and incentives for those who follow them.
- This HYPOTHETICAL PROGRAM would represent an actionable, measurable, and visible way that the ACA could demonstrate commitment to its goals / principles. It would require resources but could be funded by the program itself.
- It appears that most people who have responded to this poll WOULD NOT change their purchasing behavior to a significant extent based on whether a vendor demonstrates committment to RESPONSIBLE PRACTICES..so it seems to be a moot point.
- The purpose of this poll is to assess whether people would change their purchasing behavior based on a retailer demonstrating RESPONSIBLE PRACTICES in selling fish
- I agree completely that this HYPOTHETICAL CONCEPT relies on people changing their purchasing behavior (giving a $h*t) based on whether a fish retailer demonstrates commitment to being a RESPONSIBLE IN ITS PRACTICES. It also relies heavily on whether vendors give a $h*t about the ACA and its members.
- Additional cost associated with demonstrating responsibility would primarily come from the additional costs of, for example, properly labeling fish, having quality stock, not housing easily confused species together, quarantining, etc...and not from cost of certification itself (which would be relatively trivial). Vendors that are already spending money on being responsible would have very little if any incremental costs. Those that aren't being responsible would have much more work / cost (if they chose to change their practices).
- Voluntary "certification" is much different from "regulation". Voluntary certification means nothing more than committment to demonstrating an agreed upon set of practices. It's not the law. It's voluntary and run by a private organization. There are numerous examples of private organizations that run certfication programs.
- The purpose of this HYPOTHETICAL program would be to recognize fish vendors that demonstrate commitment to responsible fishkeeping practices and to allow them to differentiate themselves from those that do not make this commitment: an incentive to do the right thing. Developing such a program would require DEFINING a practical set of RESPONSIBLE PRACTICE guidelines that organization members would like to see vendors demonstrate.
- IRRESPONSIBLE PRACTICES by fish vendors represent a major cause of unintentional hybridization and impurity of captive stock. This HYPOTHETICAL program would address this issue directly by providing guidelines and incentives for those who follow them.
- This HYPOTHETICAL PROGRAM would represent an actionable, measurable, and visible way that the ACA could demonstrate commitment to its goals / principles. It would require resources but could be funded by the program itself.
- It appears that most people who have responded to this poll WOULD NOT change their purchasing behavior to a significant extent based on whether a vendor demonstrates committment to RESPONSIBLE PRACTICES..so it seems to be a moot point.
