Wow, only 3 of us? But looking at the top, sadly about a third is what I would have guessed woth me being all pessimistic and such.
Poll: Fish Store "Responsible Practices" Certification
- Thread starter dogofwar
- Start date
Unless you're promoting IRRESPONSIBLE PRACTICES by fish stores, I'm not sure why someone would avoid a store or vendor that commits to being RESPONSIBLE.
Unless you're happy with the status quo in fish stores, I'm not sure why someone would object to paying a little more to a store that commits to being responsible.
You reap what you sow...
Unless you're happy with the status quo in fish stores, I'm not sure why someone would object to paying a little more to a store that commits to being responsible.
You reap what you sow...
Does the British Cichlid Association (BCA) have a responsible fishkeeping program (for hobbyists) and/or responsible fishkeeping practice guidelines / program for vendors?
I have two problems with this idea:
First of all, I am a teenager, which means that at least 95% of my "income" is disposable. I am also a Monster Fish Keeper, so at least 95% of that goes towards fish and tanks. This means that although I am definitely no rich kid, I spend about $50-$100 per fish on a regular basis. A ten to twenty percent increase on a $75 fish is a heck of a lot more than the same increase on a $2 dollar fish. Now, one could argue that if I will pay $50 without thinking twice, why not just pay $60? The answer is my other problem with this idea.
I already know where the good and reputable LFS are, I do not need to pay a premium to feel good about myself. If my favorite LFS got this certification and started charging more, I would probably be less likely to shop there. For example, Jeff Rapps always sells incredible rare fish and is obviously a responsible fish keeper, but sometimes I can get the same fish for a lot less at the LFS. When the LFS starts charging more, it becomes a lose lose situation for me.
First of all, I am a teenager, which means that at least 95% of my "income" is disposable. I am also a Monster Fish Keeper, so at least 95% of that goes towards fish and tanks. This means that although I am definitely no rich kid, I spend about $50-$100 per fish on a regular basis. A ten to twenty percent increase on a $75 fish is a heck of a lot more than the same increase on a $2 dollar fish. Now, one could argue that if I will pay $50 without thinking twice, why not just pay $60? The answer is my other problem with this idea.
I already know where the good and reputable LFS are, I do not need to pay a premium to feel good about myself. If my favorite LFS got this certification and started charging more, I would probably be less likely to shop there. For example, Jeff Rapps always sells incredible rare fish and is obviously a responsible fish keeper, but sometimes I can get the same fish for a lot less at the LFS. When the LFS starts charging more, it becomes a lose lose situation for me.
There are currently some places that adhere to (an as of yet to be defined) set of responsible practices for stores. They already do...and the price of being responsible is already built into what they charge.
This program would publicly recognize them for what they are already doing...and bring attention/differentiate them to a wider audience....and hopefully bring them more business.
There are lots of vendors that aren't committed to responsible practices. The reason that most don't commit to these practices is that it costs (slightly) more to be responsible than it does to be irresponsible. To maintain margins if they committed to being responsible in their practices, many would (probably) charge (slightly) more (where I came up with the hypothetical 10-20%) to offset these additional costs.
What I'm reading here is that most on this board - about 70% - wouldn't pay slightly more to buy from a responsible vendor than from one who isn't committed to responsible practices (mis-labels, mixes confusable fish, doesn't quarantine, doesn't keep tanks clean, etc.).
Which is the reason that most fish vendors don't act responsibly.
This program would publicly recognize them for what they are already doing...and bring attention/differentiate them to a wider audience....and hopefully bring them more business.
There are lots of vendors that aren't committed to responsible practices. The reason that most don't commit to these practices is that it costs (slightly) more to be responsible than it does to be irresponsible. To maintain margins if they committed to being responsible in their practices, many would (probably) charge (slightly) more (where I came up with the hypothetical 10-20%) to offset these additional costs.
What I'm reading here is that most on this board - about 70% - wouldn't pay slightly more to buy from a responsible vendor than from one who isn't committed to responsible practices (mis-labels, mixes confusable fish, doesn't quarantine, doesn't keep tanks clean, etc.).
Which is the reason that most fish vendors don't act responsibly.
Being that i don't do any of my cichlid shopping in my LFS's and rather order online from already resonsible and tested importers (TUIC and others) than i personally wouldn't need the proposed rule in place. i do think that it would be a decent idea to start but i wouldn't pay any extra charge for this service, i believe this idea should be on the retail LFS's and others backs to uphold and chargeing for this would be somewhat upsurd. (IMO).
A program like this could also "certify" that online sellers adhere to responsible fishkeeping principles...and certainly TUIC (and others), who are already doing the right things would have no problems with certification. It would just recognize them publicly and allow them to differentiate in a visible, tangible way to a larger audience. If anything it would help them.
It seems that people are getting hung up on having to pay a little more for quality. Believe me that a lot of sellers - online and LFS - who are already acting responsibly build the (additional) costs of being responsible into their prices. They could sell for less and get questionable fish from questionable sources. Or save money by maintaining fewer tanks and mix all sorts of stuff together. But they don't...and they charge what they do.
The vast majority of vendors don't act responsibly...because it's cheaper not to. It's far from absurd to think that fish vendors would weigh the status quo with the additional costs of acting more responsibly and getting more business.
The purpose of this program would be to both recognize those who act responsibly...but also to expand the number of vendors who act responsibly. I think it could accomplish both of these purposes, but only if there is a business case for acting responsibly.
Sadly, it doesn't appear to be the case with 70+% on this board evidently happy enough with the status quo of practices by fish vendors that sell cichlids. And several who would stay away from places that act responsibly (I don't know why.)
Think about that next time you b*tch about an LFS or vendor acting irresponsibly, post a thread wondering about whether some fish that you bought from a store is what you think it is, buy something that turns out not to be what you thought it is, see unpriced/mislabeled fish in a store, etc, etc, etc.
It seems that people are getting hung up on having to pay a little more for quality. Believe me that a lot of sellers - online and LFS - who are already acting responsibly build the (additional) costs of being responsible into their prices. They could sell for less and get questionable fish from questionable sources. Or save money by maintaining fewer tanks and mix all sorts of stuff together. But they don't...and they charge what they do.
The vast majority of vendors don't act responsibly...because it's cheaper not to. It's far from absurd to think that fish vendors would weigh the status quo with the additional costs of acting more responsibly and getting more business.
The purpose of this program would be to both recognize those who act responsibly...but also to expand the number of vendors who act responsibly. I think it could accomplish both of these purposes, but only if there is a business case for acting responsibly.
Sadly, it doesn't appear to be the case with 70+% on this board evidently happy enough with the status quo of practices by fish vendors that sell cichlids. And several who would stay away from places that act responsibly (I don't know why.)
Think about that next time you b*tch about an LFS or vendor acting irresponsibly, post a thread wondering about whether some fish that you bought from a store is what you think it is, buy something that turns out not to be what you thought it is, see unpriced/mislabeled fish in a store, etc, etc, etc.
dogofwar;2162089; said:
What? That doesn't even add up. 4/10+6/10+3/10=FAIL.
Also, I like when you said this:
dogofwar;2158889; said:
When did ewok say anything about breeding the beani?
This poll would work if you were at all willing to hear the other side of the argument, but you obviously have your own preconceived idea of this reality.
