Topic Changed to "Policy of Not Guaranteeing Hard to Ke

[naesco]

I noted that on their website lfs x they list most of the fish we are talking about here and state that these fish should only be purchased by espert maine aquarists, zoos or research institutions.
The reasons they give is that these fish do not ship well, are difficult to care for and do not accimate well in the home aquaria.
They refuse to guarantee the fish.
IMO the industry knows this stuff and some are even prepared to not even offer it to reefers.

[ December 28, 2001: Message edited by: MaryHM ]</p>

 

[MaryHM]

Of course Naesco! This isn't some kind of top secret information. The problem is that it is the minority of companies that abide by any ethics.

One request- please don't start a new thread everytime you find a new reputable place- stick them under your first thread

 

[naesco]

OK Here is another one we all know; lfs z
They say to their list(similar to ours)
"extremely difficult to keep alive in the home aquarium. Unless you are an exper hobbyist or researcher co not buy them>"

[ December 28, 2001: Message edited by: MaryHM ]</p>

 

[MaryHM]

Naesco,
Keep in mind that these companies are still importing oodles of these animals. They're just saying "We won't guarantee you'll get them alive". Big difference from "We won't import them".

 

[naesco]

Yes but they should be prohibited from doing so by their own definition.
Why are these and other LFS refusing to guarantee them and warn potential buyers that they are for expert and researchers?
Why are these fish the same as the ones on our list (more or less?

I submit the reason is that these fish meet your definitions of unsuitable species and should not be imported.

 

[MaryHM]

I took the two stores you listed in this thread and did a quick once over:

LFS Z

Wardley's and Dragon Wrasse- These are extremely hardy species when imported from the Solomon Islands.

Fiji Yellow Leathers are EXTREMELY hardy when handled properly.

Xenia- Although many species are poor shippers, many others are extremely hardy.

LFS X
Yellow Goatfish- I've never had a problem with them. Eat like pigs. They do put (IO) after them, which may mean Indonesia. Solomon Island ones are great.

ALL Cucumbers?? Come on. That's just plain crazy.

Spaghetti Leathers- VERY hardy when handled and shipped properly. Same with Green and Yellow Leathers.

Blue Linkia Stars- Get them from Fiji, handle them right, and they do great.

Like I said in the beginning, you can not create an Unsuitable for Importation list based on things like handling problems. They must fall into easily defined and documentable criteria like we have already put forth. When we start working on the "These can be imported, but are touchy- buyer beware" list, then we'll talk about all of these animals.

[ December 28, 2001: Message edited by: MaryHM ]</p>

 

[MaryHM]

Naesco,

I'm not sure what you're saying, so please forgive me while I give you the two possibilities that I am interpreting.

Possibility #1- You are saying that because the fish from Tullock's list matches the fish that other LFS are calling unsuitable, that we should include them on our USL also. If that is the case, please tell me which fish we have excluded from Tullock's main list fit the original criteria for the USL.

Possibility #2- You are saying that we have some kind of validation from other industry types because the fish we have included on our USL matches fish that they say are unsuitable.

 

[naesco]

I do not support their list.
You missed the point, Mary as well as the fish being on Tullocks (our) list, they are also confirmed by Fenner AND even appear of the list of notable LFS as being unsuitable by your definition. This is more evidence.
I am not suggesting that the LFS expanded list be adopted by us.

 

[Anonymous]

Why is a fish unsuitable if it can be kept by "expert" marine aquarists? Granted, the online stores don't know me from Adam, but my LFS does. They are aware of my tank and it's inhabitants. They know how long I have been ding this and have a good feel for my "experience level". So why should i not be able to purchase a "difficult" species?

 

[jamesw]

Sorry folks. I asked you not to discuss specific companies in this forum - that's one of the most important ground rules.

I personally don't have ANY problem with it, but frankly, I'm not in the mood to get sued by LFS X (who is already suing another discussion board) or LFS Z .

Please start another thread to discuss the general POLICY of "not guarenteeing" fish that are hard to keep. I personally have a lot of issues I'd like to discuss here as well.


Thread Closed.
Cheers
James

[ December 28, 2001: Message edited by: jamesw ]

[ December 28, 2001: Message edited by: MaryHM ]

[ December 28, 2001: Message edited by: MaryHM ]</p>

 

[MaryHM]

I typed all of this post in, but it has seemingly disappeared into thin air, so here it is again:

James originally closed this post because names were being used. At first I was pissed because I didn't think the names were being used in a derogatory manner (and I still don't), but the more I thought about it I realized that I actually agree with James (Lord, I hope that never happens again!

). We have to keep names out of it as we originally agreed in the rules. Therefore, I reopened the thread with some edits. My edits are in bold type and were only to change specific names to generic ones. I didn't want to keep this thread closed because I think it's moving along quite nicely and there are some specific questions I would like to see answered. Plus, starting a new thread and retyping everything is a PITA.

Your humble moderator,
Mary

 

[jamesw]

Thanks Mary,

Basically, I think it's good that a company would point out to a hobbyist that a certain fish or invert should only be kept by "experts."

BUT, they don't do this out of the goodness of their hearts...they do it because they want to point out that there is no _x_ day guarentee on the fish.

So what that really means is that the company is selling the fish, knowing full well that is has a really dismal chance of survival. That really chaps my hide.

Cheers
James

 

[MaryHM]

Boy, I'm going to open myself up to a flame fest for this one, but here goes...

The policy with my company, Wholesaler XYZ

, is to not guarantee touchy shippers. These animals include acroporas, xenia, XL pieces of certain corals and clams, and certain species of soft corals. None of these animals would be considered to be kept only by expert aquarists, but I have to let the customers know they are touchy shippers and it's "ship at your own risk". Very rarely do we ever have a problem shipping any of these species, because we know how to pack them. (Large bags, float on styrofoam, etc...). However, retailers inherently know that these animals have a track record of coming in DOA and that they are easy "claims". Most wholesalers won't argue if a retailer says "I had 2 acroporas and 4 xenia die in transit". However, after checking in on some of these "claims" and discovering that they were lies, I make it a point to protect my interests with these species.

 

[JeremyR]

I agree with james on this one.. they are still selling tons of these animals.. and do not mark them as "restricted" in order to stop their sale (if that was the case, they wouldn't stock them!) but do so in order to still sell them, make money, and not have to replace losses.. meaning.. they can sell you a 3/4 dead fish and blame it on shipping/restricted item and get away with it. There are large wholesalers that do this on a regular basis. (haven't seen this type of behavior from wholesaler XYZ)

 

[VkeSu]

I sounds to me like making a profit is most important (as with most business) problem here is they are dealing with live animals. It sounds like you guys should be taking it up with the owners of the other stores, not just Mary. She explained her point clearly, write to the other companies!

 

[naesco]

The reason I started this thread was because I came across some reputable wholesalers and retailers who had listed fish on a restricted list. I know they do not want to guarantee them.
But that is the point. Reputable wholesalers and LFS refuse to stock these species. Somewhat reputable ones list these species more than difficult to keep and therefor we do not guarantee them. THEY SAID DON'T BUY THEM.
They agree with us and they are industry people.
We hum and haw here about whether a regal tang should or should not be on the list. This, in spite of the fact that accomplished marine authors (who are also in the industry by the way) tell us in no certain terms that they are best left in the ocean.
One apparently accomplished reefer (a moderator for reef central) makes some third party comment that a species that dies 99.9% of the time may now be kept in some expert tanks or whatever and we are prepared to abandon that fish to a grey list.

 

[esmithiii]

Man, I am going to sound like a left-wing tree hugger here, but:

Not guaranteeing something is an admission that survival rates of that specimin in home aquaria (due to shipping concerns or other reasons) are quite poor. It is hard to argue that you are a contientious vendor when you admit you sell things that you expect to die.

I am not pointing fingers here. Maybe I missed something and someone could enlighten me.

One company I have bought from (they did a good job, great specimines, but forgot to include the reef glue! Man I hate when that happens!) recently has this statement on their website:

"Refused shipments or shipments returned due to lack of someone to sign for the shipment will terminate our business relationship with you. We will not ship to you again."

Or something like that. WOW! They seem to care about the welfare of the livestock after it leaves their store!

I had another company tell me "well due to cold weather our gaurantee is not valid for shipped items." I mean that is like saying "All the fish/corals will probably be dead when you get them, and that is cool as long as we make a buck and you don't expect us to refund your dough." (I waited until warmer weather to order from them)

I am not condemning these businesses... I mean I still bought from that last one. I am simply saying that it is hard to seem too concerned with the welfare after the sale of livestock when you have disclaimers about certain species.

E

 

[Anemone]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by naesco:
<strong>We hum and haw here about whether a regal tang should or should not be on the list. This, in spite of the fact that accomplished marine authors (who are also in the industry by the way) tell us in no certain terms that they are best left in the ocean.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Um, just to straighten this out, regal tangs do just fine in our tanks, regal angels have problems. If people who know better can make this simple mistake, what happens when the "ban" folks (ie, jump on the bandwagon politicians) start in?


Kevin

 

[naesco]

Kevin a simple mistake. It is regal angels we were talking about and not regal tangs.

 

[Anemone]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by esmithiii:
<strong>One company I have bought from (they did a good job, great specimines, but forgot to include the reef glue! Man I hate when that happens!) recently has this statement on their website:

"Refused shipments or shipments returned due to lack of someone to sign for the shipment will terminate our business relationship with you. We will not ship to you again."

Or something like that. WOW! They seem to care about the welfare of the livestock after it leaves their store!</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ernie,

I wouldn't bet that they care about the livestock any more than any other retailer - just that they care about taking a loss. It simply means that if no one signs for the delivery, or if the delivery is refused, then the shipper is out its money, since the CC company won't make a customer pay for an item they didn't receive, and the returned livestock will probably be DOA when it gets back to the shipper.

Kevin