Poll: Fish Store "Responsible Practices" Certification

[ewok]

at the end of the day, fish stores are a business... this certification would be scoffed at to be honest. there really is no formal organization that would recognize this either.
i am not saying i don't like the idea, but i find it hard to believe it would even take off is my two cents.

 

[dogofwar]

"In my area alone there are close to 120 fish stores..."

How many of those stores focus on cichlids?

How many would like to differentiate based on responsible cichlid-keeping practices? Maybe 4-5 in a metro area...

"It would have to be somthing government regulated to even stand a chance, and by the sounds of it would require fish stores to charge more anyway."

Responsible fishkeeping - beyond the realm of fish and game and illegal species - isn't something that the government is likely to focus on any time soon.

 

[TheOscarGuy]

I threw out the idea of a VOLUNTARY certification program for fish stores and other vendors of (both) wild-type and man-made fish.

I voted "not change my current shopping practices".

There are a few vendors whom I use for getting fish that have build a reputation for being responsible distributors. More often than not, they have quite competitive prices for their stock. I personally see no reason why I will support a new LFS simply because ACA gives a stamp of approval to them.

On the other hand, if the situation changes vis-a-vis the reputation or cost competitiveness of existing vendors I (like to) use, I *will* consider going to the ACA-approved LFS/distributors.

 

[dogofwar]

"at the end of the day, fish stores are a business... this certification would be scoffed at to be honest. there really is no formal organization that would recognize this either."

So you're saying that the ACA brand is something that LFS and hobbyists scoff at?

We're not talking about thousands for LFS to shoulder...maybe a couple of hundred bucks every two years...to cover expenses...

 

[dogofwar]

"There are a few vendors whom I use for getting fish that have build a reputation for being responsible distributors....I personally see no reason why I will support a new LFS simply because ACA gives a stamp of approval to them."

Wouldn't this be a more formal way for the ACA to recognize / publicize such responsible stores / vendors...and provide criteria to encourage others to follow suit?

 

[ewok]

"at the end of the day, fish stores are a business... this certification would be scoffed at to be honest. there really is no formal organization that would recognize this either."

So you're saying that the ACA brand is something that LFS and hobbyists scoff at?

We're not talking about thousands for LFS to shoulder...maybe a couple of hundred bucks every two years...to cover expenses...

scoffed at by the LFS... aside from a handful of stores, i highly highly doubt 99% of the other lfs would care to sign onto this. i am taking a highly pragmatist view of this in both execution and adoption.
i am all about accountability, but at the end of the day, there are like >50,000 LFS in the country and each have their own things to worry about. i would think that this is towards the bottom of their priority totem.
and IF they sign up, who is actually going to vett this process? who is going to be going there on a regular basis to see if they are violating something or another in accordance to this certification? there is no organized OFFICIAL body outside of the fish clubs who would be bothered about this stuff.
again, i am glad to see this stuff raised, but sadly in execution i don't think it would fly.

 

[dirtyblacksocks]

I don't think you've really thought this through at all...how is the ACA going to fund some sort of certificate and ensure their name stays good by performing visits to these LFS to see they are following the standards set forth by the certificate itself?

Furthermore what's to keep some one from not just lying and setting up a front to get the certificate, and then going back to making it a business.

The shear magnitude of regulating things for certificates, and keeping it an honorable practice, not just somthing to make more money off of, requires a lot of effort - time - and money.

Even then, what would the punishment be? Reprimanding the certificate? You can't take somthing back when a person has made payment - they would have to keep an online database of who is still qualified, which means more work, and even then how many people are actually going to check that database after seeing a certificate?

The only way for somthing like this to work - is to make it a government regulation with penalties and fines set forth by the law for misrepresentation if the certificate's authenticity is abused.

Fish stores would have to up their prices a lot more to even consider obtaining the certificate due to the cost of upkeep that would be required to make the certificate mean somthing.

This isn't really all that feasible when you look at it from a business perspective - it's not like fish store owners are in the business to get rich, this is a very hard and very trying business to make money on period, as a sole source of income.

I don't know how many places are dedicated to cichlids alone, I only go to a handful of LFS that I've been going to for almost 15 years, because I know they have a good reputation. But I do know that you can walk into almost any fish store on the planet and see your run of the mill cichlids that bring in cash, oscars, red devils, gold saums, various africans ect.

 

[dogofwar]

I agree that not all - and probably only a few - LFS (or God forbid) chain stores in a metro area would care to persue certification. It's an opportunity for differentiation.

The bottom line is that if a store's CUSTOMERS care if the store is responsible in its practices (i.e. are willing to change their shopping habits to more responsible stores), then SOME stores will care.

What I'm seeing is that most - even on this board - don't value responsible practices by their stores (at least value them enough to pay 20 cents more on a $2 fish). Which is why the vast majority of fish stores aren't responsible.

 

[TheOscarGuy]

Wouldn't this be a more formal way for the ACA to recognize / publicize such responsible stores / vendors...and provide criteria to encourage others to follow suit?

Absolutely! And I feel, this is true for new vendors that want to make sure that their customers understand that they are actually responsible fish suppliers.

Places like TUIC, fishfarm usa don't necessarily need the certification, since they have a track record over the years.

As I have stated earlier, there is no reason for me to change what is working for me. If on the other hand, in situations where I simply can not get a fish or don't want to wait for these vendors, my first choice would be a ACA-certified LFS.

 

[ewok]

fish stores are about turn over... just like a grocery store. except in this case, a fish store has limited supply of customers. customers for fish are very much like other customers. they are driven by the desire to get what they want, when they want and at the price they want.

to be perfectly frank, how many of us, should they see a beani for example, sitting in an LFS walk away from the LFS if there is a tank full of diseased guppies dying and eating each other's poop 3 rows down? i would, rightly or wrongly, scoop that beani out and get the F outta that store.

if you want to talk about social, environmental responsibility at the level of fish stores, then

1- should we buy from places like Southeast asia where fish are mass produced or in places like florida where the same happens?

2- would that be considered cruelty to animals in itself? we set standards for other animals like chickens or cows, but does that mean we should extend that to fish? should we only buy fish from breeders that follow the 1 inch of fish for 1 gallon rule?

my personal guess is that an LFS makes very little money at the end of the day once you factor all the costs of doing business. if they realize that they are charging 10% more for their fish than the guy down the street, i think they will not care about this certification and care more about their competitiveness.

my two cents is that word of mouth and reputation proceeds anything a piece of paper will tell me. reputable stores will have their names spread, and shady stores will languish. i think the idea of reputable stores being posted on the ACA magazine is fantastic and that would be viewed with much less eye rolling than a piece of paper.