an obvious crude joke that surpassed what you can comprehend.
As I am obviously so dense, you'd help our I’d say rather earnest discussion if you distinguished your serious claims from the kidding around. You are asking good questions and posing serious accusations, hence, by default, all you words are taken at the face value.
Irrelevant to the question being asked. How many do you PROFIT from.
Most likely so far none, especially true when it comes to the jumbos. But somehow I think you won't like this better.
I sincerely have no recollection where I thought to myself after an adoption out, “Well, I think we went into the black with this fish!”. Perhaps mostly for the lack of trying hard. See more below.
The typical and easy to grasp example happens to fit the idea that it’s a money losing situation yet you point out these extreme losers make up a mere 1% of what you adopt. Like I said, using an extreme example.
It's vice versa: the analysis of the reality leads to this conclusion, not that the analysis is manipulated to fit an a' priori set conclusion, although everyone is free to think either way.
I haven't said 1% anywhere, you made it up I think but feel free to point it out to us. In fact, I didn't provide any quantitative indication of big versus small rescues. In reality, the big fish to medium and small fish ratio is about 50/50.
I didn't say both examples were the extreme losers. The second one was. As indicated by the words "one of the worst cases". The first one was labeled as "one of the best". I didn’t care to talk about Oscars, African cichlids, goldfish and such as I don’t pay them the same mind as I do the jumbos.
... I find it interesting that you are aware of how much money you lose a year yet you don’t have any books to keep track of such losses or any potential gains. From a business stand point this seems pretty amateurish.
I've only described one facet of what we do. I didn't have the time, the goal or the obligation to describe the whole picture. Our business model is not a Fish Rescue at all but a Public Aquarium, so in first approximation, I don't waste my time with counting rescue losses to the nearest $10 per every rescued goldie or common pleco. These operational losses don't mean much to me and are occurring in parallel with us working on our main, far, far bigger goal of a Public Aquarium.
In other words, if we didn't run the rescue at all but did everything else we have been engaged in, our expenses / losses would probably remain roughly the same. We buy and raise plenty of fish for our exhibition purpose and this has nothing to do with the rescuing. We buy rare and interesting fish and at any given time, our inventory is about 75% bought and 25% rescued.
We don't advertise aggressively to solicit rescues, nor do we have the time and money to do the same for the adopting out. Both happen by a tiny effort of ours and by the word of mouth mostly by itself.
I suspect even if we went with the business model of a Fish Rescue and invested all our effort there, there’d be no way to make it profitable, even if we discriminated against the offered fish, at our volume and with the types of fish we rescue. I’d venture a guess that we’d cut our losses in half, is all but I’ve been wrong before.
You questions are good and pointed, for which I admire you because you realize or keenly sense that there is more to the story. Good job! There sure is and I am not concealing it, never have, and never will, although you make it seem like I have some kind of hidden and likely malicious agenda to mislead or present myself in some light to evoke pity or empathy in the least, or a shower of donations in the most.
People who have been reading my posts for the last 10 years, know all this that you have made me additionally report / repeat here.
I dont think he's being combative, just critical, and understandably so.
Agreed.
as for bringing attention to the non-profit, is that not how all charity’s claim to operate?
We are not a non-profit, as I said dozens times before, as recently as last week in one of our DIY threads. I don't need attention based on less than honest public announcements. I don’t need anything from anyone, if I have to cheat my way. All I intended with this thread was to offer a glimpse into the rescue part of our overall effort because I often get questions about rescue profitability and because e.g., our respected peer FishDance directly asked me to. I stated my case. Better and savvier and more dedicated rescuers may make it work, for all I know. I said what I've learned in my shoes and with my caveats.
Perhaps I am a loser for the lack of trying properly because my focus is not there. So be it and I am ok with it. I challenge though anyone who rescues fish to come out with their numbers and will be more than willing to learn from them and tell them “Thank you, you schooled me”. If you rescue fish, tell us your story, teach us.
I'm sure there are fish that can sell for more than he has into them, and he should avail himself of that opportunity. It seems that there plenty of others that are money-losing propositions, but he still takes them in.
Thank you for this. Yes, when a rescue is offered to us, we don't consider how we could profit from it. Not at all and far from it. Doesn’t even cross our mind. We don’t discriminate against fish except our best effort is reserved for the fish we could use for our main goal of exhibition. If we can, we go and rescue the fish, and if it is a fish desirable for our exhibition purpose, we try to give it our best shot. The paroon shark catfish given in the OP is one such example. If we can't go and rescue, we state so.
There is a lot of people doing it. Jump on your local classified and look how many people are taking in your unwanted fish because they have 5 tanks! At least the smart ones say “no plecos or goldfish”
I am sure their scale is at least 10x smaller than ours by the fish number and 1000x smaller by the fish weight.
I just don’t see why he’s crying about being the victim here and denying that he sees any return. Using the most extreme example to demonstrate his losses. I would highly doubt he would continue with this venture year to year if he was losing upwards of $40,000 without seeing room for profit. Love of fish is one thing but putting your family in financial stress over it is another and those of you supporting such actions should give your head a shake.
IDK if this needs to be addressed because of the above-going in this post, I believe. You are right that there is more to the story. Those supporting my actions probably know more of our story than you do, so the difference between you and them can be as simple as that.
Our family is committed to this project, is all. We have no debt. We are free. We can drop it like a hot potato tomorrow and pick up a new direction.
Again, I repeat that I admire you for picking holes in my OP. They weren’t really holes, just things I didn’t say and you didn’t know. It took me 2 hours to compose the OP. A (dense) man has to stop at some point. Feel free to ask more. HTH.
thebiggerthebetter
knows what he is doing and enjoys it. If...IF...he manages to turn a profit at it as well, why is that such a sin in the eyes of some people? Is it the use of the term "rescue"? Does that mean that the rescuer is required by some strict moral code to live on bread and water in a hovel under a highway overpass? I'm sure there are fish that can sell for more than he has into them, and he should avail himself of that opportunity. It seems that there plenty of others that are money-losing propositions, but he still takes them in. What's with all the hate?
