Some Fish Best Left Alone

[excuzzzeme]

Is failing to educate yourself really being lazy? . . . . . .

Yes it's laziness


Chicken or the egg? Retailer or consumer. A retailer will not carry what he cannot sell. Therefore educating the purchaser is a must. We all see how well educating consumers work when it comes to hybridized, dyed, tattooed, maimed fish - it doesn't. If consumer education was the key there would be no non-indigenous species found in non-natural habitats.

By the same token, a purchaser can be a lingo expert and purchase whatever they desire in spite of not affording proper care. We see it all the time here in the forums.

Assigning responsibility to the retailer will not work either for the same reason. If they have a buyer, they have an inventory to make a buck. Enforcement on either end would be a nightmare as black-marketing would then prevail in greater form than currently exists.

There is no easy answer, and in the meantime it is incumbent upon us to teach proper husbandry while praying for the best outcome.

 

[Spewn]

Is failing to educate yourself really being lazy? Do you go out an research every purchase you make?

Yes.

Would you buy a computer without finding out what it was capable of first? Would you buy a video card without looking at gaming performance numbers? Would you buy a used car without looking at its reliability rating(common issues etc)? Would you buy a TV without comparing it against other models?

Most people's biggest problem is that they assume they know more than they do. If someone brings home a Pacu and a 29gallon aquarium as their first trip into fishkeeping, that's 100% their own fault. The human experience itself should teach you to LOOK before you LEAP. Failing to do so is nobody's fault but your own.

Edit: Finally, responsibility should lie with the consumer if for no other reason than the fact that retailers won't *accept* that responsibility. There's only one other option.

 

[vmprlrd]

I believe its responsibility of both sides. when i first started i had no idea what i was doing. I brought home a 20 gallon and 4 oscars. When i went back later to buy more food, i started to talk with one of the employees and they explained a lot to me including the whole concept of cycling. Because of that, I was able to return the oscars and buy more appropriate stock. But now every time before buying a fish, i just google it and i can find out what its needs are in few minutes. So its responsibilty of both sides to engage in a conversation before buying anything.

 

[Spewn]

vmprlrd; You ended using google as your source only *after* you made a mistake. This mistake would have been prevented by you doing your own research first, no?

I'm just not understanding the whole "It's your responsibility to make sure I don't screw up" thing. Isn't it always my responsibility to make sure I don't screw up? When you bought those four oscars, did you ask "How big will they get?" And if you did, what was the answer? It's hardly any retailers responsibility to step-in and question your capability of operating/owning their stock, it's a great way to convince people not to come back to your shop no matter what business you're in. Unless you asked all the right questions(What size tank should I get? How big will they grow? How do I set this all up? What do they need to eat? Is there anything else I should know, or anyhting else that would help me?), and they lied to you on every account, I don't see how you can place the blame with them.

You didn't know what questions to ask? Sorry, but I consider those to be fundamental questions of LIFE itself. "How does this work, and how do I operate it?" are the MOST important questions to ask before you attempt to involve yourself with any sort of functioning object. Failure to know how to drive could result in your death, but that's hardly Ford's fault.

 

[THE V]

Let's get the real options out in the open.

Governments will regulate industries when abuses become apparent. Unfortunately the only way to effectively regulate is to prohibit the sale of. Many states already have partial bans on specific species (snakeheads, piranha, etc) to protect against invasive species.

Licensing strategies are always expensive. As very large tanks that can house these fish are rare the fee's will probably be very large. Also why would anyone breed these species if they can only sell a couple a year?

Getting these fish into a banned status is usually not that difficult. Begin a letter writing campaign to have everyone write their representatives & senator as well as phytosanitary agency in the country (USDA in the US).

Now the real question is do you really want these fish banned. I think the guys at monsterfishkeepers would disagree. Sadly for every one them keeping the fish in appropriate environments there are thousands sending them to an early flush.

 

[excuzzzeme]

Let's get the real options out in the open.

Governments will regulate industries when abuses become apparent., , , , , ,

Partly true. Government is the result of individuals not taking responsibility for their actions and decisions. Unfortunately we will always have persons refusing to accept their responsibility for any given cause and a resultant Government edict will be issued in response. Nice effort but that won't stop those determined to skirt around laws and those that think laws don't apply to them.

Shameful thing to say about the human race isn't it? Yet we call ourselves superior.

 

[THE V]

^ I didn't say government regulations were completely effective. Individuals will always ignore regulations i.e. Did you speed this week? Did you come to a complete stop at that stop sign? On the positive side the majority of human society will follow government regulations if the penalty is severe enough and/or the consequences of failure to obey said law is severe (running a red light - the fine is minimal compared to the injury/death of failing to obey).

 

[MisaHasTheEyes]

For the people who insist the stores are at fault: when I worked at a pet store, I refused sales to people who had too small of a tank, who had incapatible tankmates, etc. I would always offer other fish, new setups, new ideas, offered books and websites and a ton of information.

I helped people build tank stock from the bottom up, told them how to water change and when, what chemicals to use to dechlor, how to deal with sick fish....at what point am I excused from being a professor? I understand that at the time, it was my job, but I certainly wasn't paid to be a teacher of every fish and herp we had in stock.

And after a while, I got written up by my managers for poor customer service skills, lost a raise, and was put on a probation. Even when I'd try to find better substitutes for customers, when they had their mind set on an oscar for their "HUGE!!!" 5 gallon tank, if I refused to sell it to them, another writeup.

So blame the managers, blame the CEO, blame everyone, but please oh please, customers, never ever take the time to read a book or do basic research before you buy an animal. I know that impulse buys are fun, but when I saw my first royal pleco, I didn't buy it instantly; I researched and decided it wasn't fit for my tank. Now with my new tank and tons of driftwood, I'm fine.

For fish best left alone, I think a good chunk of the cichlids the chain stores sell shouldn't be there (the mix Africans, the midas cichlids, etc), and forget common plecos, irredescent sharks, tinfoil barbs....but that's me.

 

[Star_Rider]

when you create laws you also need to 'enforce' the law.

therein lies a different problem.. with no enforcement the law is similar to a dog with no teeth.

 

[eveliens]

I do think that it is the customer's responsibility. Even when I first started fish-keeping, I interrogated the employees and did my own research. I still made a few mistakes, but at least I knew enough to stay away from pacus, tinfoils, and the like. As several people have said, retailers won't stock what won't sell.

It's not like the information isn't out there or that it takes a ridiculous amount of time to round up. Punch 'pacu' into google and see how many hits you get. Second hit on the search: "Additionally, full-grown pacu are much larger than piranha, reaching up to 60 pounds in weight, in the wild."

That being said, I am also a LFS employee as well. You would not believe how unreasonable people can be. I suspect a lot of employees know better but simply give up fighting after the 253rd person to insist that "fish only grow to the size of the tank" and "my goldfish lived a long time in the bowl before! They died of old age when they were 6 months old." Or how about this one: "I have a 5" oscar and a 3" jack dempsey and a 5" pleco in a 5.5 gallon tank. Why can't I keep my water clean?" (I convinced them to return the fish, convinced my managers to let them return the fish even though it was over the 14 day policy and without a reciept, and steered them towards something a little more acceptable). Now imagine putting that much effort (cumulative effort of 3 hours over 2 weeks) into EVERY customer. Impossible. Customers have to help us out a little. Aside from that, people want the pacus because they "look cool" and "get big". One of the questions people ask me about pacus is if they eat other fish. That's when I know that they're looking at a potential toy rather than a living animal.

I don't feel there isn't much the government can do. If they can't even keep up with their 4" turtle law or banned snakehead law, how in the world can they regulate pacus, sharks, and the like? Part of capitalism is the marketing being regulated by the consumer. Hit the retailers where it hurts: their wallet.