Poll: Fish Store "Responsible Practices" Certification

[dogofwar]

"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?"

I didn't claim to have all the answers...and this poll wasn't about the feasibility of such a program.

A preliminary question is whether the ACA seal would influence purchasing behavior enough to make LFS / vendors care enough to go through a certification process.

It appears that hobbyists don't value responsible vendors enough to change their purchasing practices.

Some preliminary thoughts on process (from the other thread):

"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."

To certify, a store must fill out a form. They receive a preliminary score. Someone designated by the organization would visit the store to verify and make recommendations for improvement. Based on the score, the store would receive a "certified" or "not certified" rating. "Not certified" stores would be given an additional opportunity to pass muster.

"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."

ACA could charge a small fee to cover the administrative and logistical costs of certification and validation. And maintain a list of certified stores on the web...and give the stores an "ACA certified" sign.

"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?"

Let's say certifications are good for two years. Stores must re-certify to maintain their certification.

Enforcement could work this way: Stores that achieve certification keep it for the term of their certification (2 yrs) unless they receive X number of complaints. Complaints could come via mail, email or through a web reporting form that the ACA sets up (probably on the same page as its. No more than (some small number) of complaints could come from any single person. Stores in danger of loss of certification would receive notice and the opportunity to correct deficiencies.

"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."

It is true that RESPONSIBLE FISHKEEPING costs more than IRRESPONSIBLE. If a store is ALREADY responsible in its practices, incremental costs aren't going to be much. If they're not, then it will be more.

I DON'T HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS ON THE LOGISTICS OF THIS. IF YOU HAVE BETTER IDEAS, PLEASE POST THEM!

 

[TheOscarGuy]

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.

One way of looking at it.
On the other hand however, with the ACA certification they have a chance of building a reputation and building a loyal customer base. If I know I am getting a pure Trimac from ACA-approved LFS, as opposed to getting a fish that *may be* Trimac, I would not mind paying that 10% extra!

 

[jcardona1]

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.

true. but how are you going to justify us paying 20 cents more? by giving the shop owner a little piece of paper to hang behind the register? im sorry but this certification really means NOTHING at the end of the day because there is NO authoritative body to enforce this. it just wont work.

'A' for effort, but this just wont work in the real world where all people care about is money...

 

[dirtyblacksocks]

Personally I think the hobby is plenty strong in the underground, and true hobbyists who care about the fish don't really bother with the LFS as much as your average Joe.

There is a huge learning curve in this hobby that everyone has to go through, and most advanced hobbyists do not have the patience to answer all the basic questions out there.

I misunderstood the point of this thread in thinking that it would go more in depth than just seeing how much hobbyists care.

In the grand scheme of things, most people really don't care and they can't be blamed, they are just fish. There are those of us that do, though. I try to buy all of my fish through hobbyists for the simple reasons of them being cheaper and healthier. But even out here in Los Angeles the scene is so small that almost anyone who is deep into the hobby knows everyone else by reputation alone - I'd hate to see how it is in smaller more rural areas.

LFS are struggling to survive these days due to internet vendors, I don't think penalizing them is going to help matters, and the large corporations couldn't care less.

While it's a good idea - I don't see how it would work without hurting things all around. I used to be really gun ho about pointing out peoples mistakes when I'd overhear conversations in the LFS, now that I've been in the hobby for 15 years and heard it all I just shrug and ignore it...I'm literally burnt out on the ignorance out there.

You see the same behavior in most LFS owners, at least in these large population areas. It's not that they don't care, it's that they're worn out from answering the same stuff over and over again - hell go look at Cichlid-forum.com, the same 3 questions pop up in threads almost every day, some times more than once! Imagine what fish store owners have to deal with - consider that by comparison people who ask questions on the internet are EDUCATED.

I think the most the ACA could do is start mailing out fact pamphlets to LFS to put on their cash register's for people to use as they please, with a link to the site for donations.

But then the ACA is kind of full of itself too, which is why there is a huge decline in younger members. It's not some "cool club" for people to get into...we're all nerds.

 

[jcardona1]

Personally I think the hobby is plenty strong in the underground, and true hobbyists who care about the fish don't really bother with the LFS as much as your average Joe.

There is a huge learning curve in this hobby that everyone has to go through, and most advanced hobbyists do not have the patience to answer all the basic questions out there.

I misunderstood the point of this thread in thinking that it would go more in depth than just seeing how much hobbyists care.

In the grand scheme of things, most people really don't care and they can't be blamed, they are just fish. There are those of us that do, though. I try to buy all of my fish through hobbyists for the simple reasons of them being cheaper and healthier. But even out here in Los Angeles the scene is so small that almost anyone who is deep into the hobby knows everyone else by reputation alone - I'd hate to see how it is in smaller more rural areas.

LFS are struggling to survive these days due to internet vendors, I don't think penalizing them is going to help matters, and the large corporations couldn't care less.

While it's a good idea - I don't see how it would work without hurting things all around. I used to be really gun ho about pointing out peoples mistakes when I'd overhear conversations in the LFS, now that I've been in the hobby for 15 years and heard it all I just shrug and ignore it...I'm literally burnt out on the ignorance out there.

You see the same behavior in most LFS owners, at least in these large population areas. It's not that they don't care, it's that they're worn out from answering the same stuff over and over again - hell go look at Cichlid-forum.com, the same 3 questions pop up in threads almost every day, some times more than once! Imagine what fish store owners have to deal with - consider that by comparison people who ask questions on the internet are EDUCATED.

I think the most the ACA could do is start mailing out fact pamphlets to LFS to put on their cash register's for people to use as they please, with a link to the site for donations.

But then the ACA is kind of full of itself too, which is why there is a huge decline in younger members. It's not some "cool club" for people to get into...we're all nerds.

i think this is a good idea. something a little more feasible

 

[dogofwar]

"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."

Not to get off topic, but I would question whether getting a "beani" from a random LFS, breeding it with another "beani" (from another random LFS...or even a reputable source) is RESPONSIBLE.

 

[darth pike]

Not to get off topic, but I would question whether getting a "beani" from a random LFS, breeding it with another "beani" (from another random LFS...or even a reputable source) is RESPONSIBLE.

Agreed. Even assuming the possiblity they are both truely beani, there seems to be several color forms. Mixing differant color forms is very irresponsible ... like mixing various malawi peacock color forms or kribs species.

 

[dogofwar]

"im sorry but this certification really means NOTHING at the end of the day because there is NO authoritative body to enforce this. it just wont work."

So riddle me this: what authoratative body enforces the Good Housekeeping seal, or Consumer Reports, the Better Business Bureau, or the American Dental Association seal? These are private organizations...yet companies invest in meeting the certification standards to achieve this recognition.

I'm not suggesting for a minute that the ACA (or the taxpayer) invest in full time inspectors to ensure that LFS label properly and otherwise do business responsibly

Here's an idea:

To assess whether vendors are maintaining responsible practices (after they've been initially certified), provide a web forum as well as incentives for members and non-members to post. Maybe the certification sign for the stores would say something like, "This store has demonstrated committment to the American Cichlid Association's principles of RESPONSIBLE FISHKEEPING including: A, B, and C. The ACA values your input as to how you feel that this store is maintaining these principles. Please comment at www.website.com"

Too many bad reviews from too many (unique) members / reviewers could result in loss of certification. Vendors that are truly trying to be responsible in their practices will care whether they lose certification, especially if they've paid a couple of hundred dollars to undergo the certification process.

This is the proverbial "wisdom of crowds"...and how Yelp.com, Angie's List, Amazon have established themselves as valuable resources for consumers looking to make good purchasing decisions.

Incentives for posting a review could include credits toward free / discounted stuff from ACA / its sponsors, entering a raffle, I don't know...let's use our imaginations!

 

[saltydog_1]

i think this is more hypothetical, as in if it were a real cert would you pay more. regardless of what people are saying, they do pay more for responsible practices. jeff rapps has an excellent reputation and equally impressive fish (i have quite a few of them) and you do pay more for his fish than you would at a chain store or a shabby irresponsible lfs. that's not including shipping. people like tuic and fishfarm would i my opinion be someone that would get this cert. it would set them apart from others to new customers that are'nt aware of their reputation. let's face it once you've bought from these responsible suppliers, you can't wait to place your next order.

 

[Aquamojo]

It's a nice idea, but it's unmanageable, and really unrealistic. The ACA isn't a governing body...just a club. In order for a "seal of approval" on anything...you have to really "give a $hit" to make it worth anything. And what does THAT mean? I would be very careful on how something like this is positioned or even discussed. It sets a level of expectation that I really don't see happening. At a minimum maybe a handout that talks about responsible fish keeping. But who prints those? Who circulates them? Who gets them? More questions than answers.