Is price the bottom line when you buy livestock?

[paul b]

OK Tom this is your Baby, get it back on track. 

[Origami]

OK Tom this is your Baby, get it back on track. 

Cracking the whip, now.

 

I think that Rob (zygote2k) provided some of the additional dimension to the discussion that I was looking for: Conservationist thinking. Or captive bred species. Or species that may not be well suited to captivity - that is, better left on the reef? Do we think about things like this when we make our decision? Sure, there's the cost from our wallet to consider. But do we think about how our purchase decisions affect how many fish come off the reef and die in the chain of custody just to get that one success in our tank? To that end, do we think about whether or not we're supporting stores that value and respect life as much as we do (assuming that we do) and have practices that reflect our values? Or are we fixated on price? And, if we think about these things, can our consumer behavior shape things and improve the supply chain and the perception of the industry/hobby? 

 

Some may remember this 2011 image from Hawaii and the beating that the industry took as a result. It's images like this that ultimately led to the Hawaii collection ban.

 

[treesprite]

The original question was about the true cost of fish. The first few posts became a discussion of praise for vendors who charge more because they QT before purchase, and disdain of vendors who charge less who do not do pre-sale quarantine (who have been thrown in a group called "flippers", which would be contradictory on the part of those using the term, because flipping of property entails the fixing up of the property before sale). I found the direction of the discussion to be insulting to both myself and the vendors I have used for many years, from whom I have always gotten healthy fish, and from whom I have learned many things about caring for fish. I felt the need to defend those vendors by contrbuting to the war against them that was going on in the thread. Then I realized that the focus went away from cost, so I re-directed in an additional post about what part of my cost is, which is the cost or quarantining fish myself.

 

I tend to go to the source that is easiest for me, where the fish I want is located, regardless of a handful of dollars in price. I am always going to have the cost of QT, so that adds nothing. The primary cost is the cost not to me, but to the environment. I would pay more for an aquacultured specimen over a wild caught specimen, regardless of the vendor. The first problem is, sometimes it is not possible to get an aquacultured specimen for a desired fish, so people continue to support non-sustainable capture of fish. The second problem is that some hobbyists do not care at all about the oceans, they just want whatever is cheapest, and wild caught fish tend to be cheaper than aquacultured fish. That is one reason why aggressive damsels get put in small tanks with passive fish, to just all kill each other off... those hobbyists are responsible for those losses, and those are probably the majority of the hobbyists who go to buy lots of fish frequently.

 

The bottom line in cost then becomes the education of hobbyists, and the end of letting people purchase non-aquacultured animals. It has nothing to do with vendors, unless there are vendors who only sell aquacultured fish.

[Jon Lazar]

 

As experienced hobbyists, I think we owe it to those just entering the hobby to beat this drum loud and often: That price is not cost; that risk does not always lead to reward; and that real value may mean paying a higher cost for a specimen that is captive bred and/or has gone through a more rigorous and extensive QT protocol to reduce the risk to you.

 

Two points.  First, I think it's well worth it to pay more for a fish that's been medicated for ich, velvet, brook, flukes, and internal worms.  High price doesn't guarantee that fish have been thoroughly medicated, but low price guarantees that they haven't.

 

Second, something that hasn't been addressed yet is that some fish are better looking than others, depending on where they're collected from.  Indian Ocean fish are generally more colorful and have a reputation for being hardier than Pacific/Indonesian fish.  They can also be more expensive because the shipping chain is longer.  I suppose this isn't strictly price vs. "cost", but more price vs. "value".

[paul b]

I think that many people don't really know the proper way to keep fish and they die way before their lifespan.  Me and Moses rarely have to buy fish because they normally only die from old age and a few jump out, but I read, especially on the disease threads of how many fish die after a couple of weeks or months.  Thats horrible because most of the fish we keep live for 15 or 20 years and clowns live for almost 30 years.  (I feel fish should never get sick) 

 

It's odd that so many people talk about collection practices and how many fish a LFS loses but many people can't keep their own fish for a couple of years.  We need better methods and education.  I myself disagree with so many of the practices we use because being I was here when the hobby started, I think it was on a Tuesday about one or one fifteen in the afternoon, almost all the things we do now which didn't work then, we still do.  Much of this hobby is still in the dark ages.  Especially on how to keep fish healthy.   In My opinion of course as I am sure "no one on here" loses fish like that. 

 

It is certainly true that way more fish are collected then make it into LFS tanks and that should be changed.  On many Islands where fish are collected many fish just end up on the sand to die.  I have seen it myself. 

 

Of course captive bred fish would be the best thing but I don't see tank raised copperband butterflies or angels around.

Edited May 2, 2018 by paul b

[treesprite]

I would be all for paying an extra $5 or whatever tax per live item for education of marine aquarium hobbyists, that came accompanied by mandatory educational flyers. It would hit beginners and "irresponsibles" at the cash register every time they make a purchase decision. If it was done like the MoCo bag tax, it would give a financial incentive to retailers to provide the education, and maybe to start being more careful about their sources and their own practices.

[Origami]

The original question was about the true cost of fish. 

Fair enough. But we headed into a discussion about QT and its merits. And Rob added some additional dimension to cost which is worth considering and the sort of thing I was wondering about. "Cost" is not only what comes out of your pocket. It most certainly includes the cost of losses that you, the hobbyist, sustain. But, from YOUR point of view, do you every consider that it might include losses that you don't directly see but, perhaps, indirectly influence? And that, by changing your shopping habits might help effect positive change? Do we ever consider those? Should we?

 

I heard today, for example, that the the Governor of Maryland recently signed a law banning Maryland pet stores from selling puppies sourced at puppy mills. There's an odd similarity in that the law aims at retail outlets to, in effect, effect change at the source. 

 

BTW, Forrest, "flipping" (refers to selling a product or property before it depreciates rather than allowing it to remain on the shelf until its value is insignificant. It's not restricted to real estate and the resale of fixer-uppers. It's part of a high-velocity, high-turnover inventory management and can be a very profitable business model. So use of the term "fish flippers" is perfectly descriptive of the sort of business model that seeks to get a fish in one day and sell it the next.

[paul b]

I don't think fish are to expensive and I know quite a few  LFS owners and none of them are rich, as a matter of fact almost all of them are out of business.  It's a hard business and the internet didn't make it any easier.