An ethics question

[Thales]

Often in discussions about ethics and our hobby the idea comes up that people at LFS shouldn't sell items to people that won't take care of them properly. Generally, people think this seems to be a good idea. At the same time, it seems a bit like expecting restaurants to not sell pie to obese people. What difference do you all see? What other retail stores not obligated by law regularly are expected to not sell to customers?

Thanks!

 

[sfsuphysics]

Interesting question... the guy missing a finger going into home depot to buy a table saw still happens.

However one particular industry I can think of is the bar industry as on occasion a bartender will stop serving someone who obviously had too many. Insurance companies will drop someone if they get into too many accidents as well, but that's more for a financial benefit on their side, not because they give a crap about the person. But other than that I can't think of any examples off the top of my head

That said I don't know if I think LFS really have any right to say whether or not people can take care of animals, if anything very often its the kettle calling the pot black. They want to move product as quickly as possible, however what conditions do their fish live in? 50 damsels/chromis/etc in a 50g long tank is humane? Or 5 yellow tangs in the same tank is good? Or what about those little pico boxes you often see fish in that dot the walls? Oh it's ok to keep them in those conditions because they're not going to be there for long. How many fish have died in the care of a LFS? Well at least for them they get to write off the dead livestock as a business loss.

 

[LordHelmet]

I for one am grateful that restaurants continue to sell me pie.

that's all from me now.

 

[eldiablosrt8]

does the so called lfs have a sign posted saying we reserve the right to serve anyone??? If so i am all for it,jk that's is a crazy question rich....

 

[iani]

Jess, Justin at Ocean Aquarium (only freshwater) will ask for water samples from new customers before he sells any live stock to them. I have seen him refuse sales countless numbers of times when I was into freshwater planted tanks.

 

[GDawson]

Jess, Justin at Ocean Aquarium (only freshwater) will ask for water samples from new customers before he sells any live stock to them. I have seen him refuse sales countless numbers of times when I was into freshwater planted tanks.

Gresham has said the same thing from his background....I would love to see this just once....(I believe both of you..I just want to enjoy the moment in person).

-Gregory

 

[eldiablosrt8]

ian , I was kidding. Its an odd question with many opinions. I don't know if there's a right answer. But I believe they shouldn't self if the buyer isn't ready/mature/etc...

 

[rygh]

Very interesting question.

I would say that the LFS has some responsibility to try to educate the customer enough to make the right decision.
Specific example : Ask tank size when selling a big tang. If it is too small, suggest that it will likely die, and
point them to a good book on the shelf to read first.
Beyond that, the customer really has to take responsibility.
The fact that they often don't, is just one of those things with our society these days.
But that is not the fault or responsibility of the LFS to fix.

Beyond that, ethics get pretty twisted.
There is the good point Mike pointed out.
And taken even farther : How many fish are ground up for the fish meal in fish food we use every day?

And back to the pie example.
I am all for requiring restaurants to show calorie content.
But beyond that, the customer has to take some responsibility.

 

[bookfish]

I think a lot depends on the relationship a business hopes to establish with the customer. There are stores that will try to milk the customer for every penny they have on the first visit, on the assumption they won't see that customer again. There are other stores that recognize the value of a long-term customer, and for these, there's no benefit to the store/customer/animal in allowing the customer to make mistakes. Even if the customer insists!

 

[GDawson]

Tough but legitimate questions…….

Often in discussions about ethics and our hobby the idea comes up that people at LFS shouldn't sell items to people that won't take care of them properly. Generally, people think this seems to be a good idea. At the same time, it seems a bit like expecting restaurants to not sell pie to obese people. What difference do you all see?

Remember – the following is reduced to its simplest form.

For me the difference is where the burden of “the quality of life” responsibility falls. If Mr. Creosote decides to stuff a piece of pie in his face the only life in jeopardy is his own and he takes responsibility for that act and that life. If Johnny puts a Moorish Idol in a fish bowl there is a 3rd life in question with no recourse/say for the act or outcome. Seems to me there is a burden of responsibility when there is a “dependant” life in question.

Case and point: When I had FW setups and wanted to change focus (community to Africans, Africans to planted, planted to SW) I couldn’t just take the fish down to the LFS and trade them in nor sell/give away on CR. I would have not been able to vet the recipients of the fish I had raised and bred. Instead I kept the tanks active until the last fish died. Then I made the change. When I purchased the fish I made the commitment to care for them to the best of ability and the thought of the lives in my care going to someone without the ability, knowledge, or drive to maintain them correctly was not acceptable. Even now I still have 2 Africans left in my office that are going on 7 years since the tear down of the original African tank. And they will have a well maintained home until the end. Yes I am a bit extreme in this, but I take quality of life for dependant pets very seriously.

So let the restaurant sell the pie, but the LFS should not sell Johnny the Moorish Idol. This was broken down into ithe simplest terms with no variables....real life is far more complex and twisted.

-Gregory

 

[treylane]

Well, there's the rainbows and puppydogs ethics where we do our best not to harm anything for any reason. But as for the culture we ACTUALLY live in...

We kill and eat animals. A lot of animals. And our attempts to make sure they die humanely for that purpose, regularly fall short. We capture and kill wild animals to cut them up and see how they work, or to stuff them in zoos or glass boxes for our amusement. We may have any number of justifications for this, but they don't make the end result for these creatures any less dire. It seems the only obligations we (generally) cling to in their defense, is to prevent "needless cruelty."

To that end, yes it is reasonable for LFS's to try to establish that the hobbyists they sell to are well-intentioned, and properly equipped to care for the livestock they're buying.

Where the lines get drawn between a "reasonable thing to do" and "required by law" nearly always ends up as a cost/benefit question:
- We're likely willing to require that store owners ask a few basic suitability questions, but in that case the customer is free to lie, and all we'll probably accomplish is to slap a sticker on each holding bin, such as "Royal Gramma, Salinity: 1.021 - 1.025, minimum tank size: 30 gallons" and the LFS is off the hook once you swear your tank is at least 30 gallons in size. Is this going to make enough of a difference?
- Are we really willing to go through (and pay for) a process to have our aquariums tested, inspected, and certified on a regular basis, with a license required to buy aquarium livestock? This will probably do a lot to improve the captive conditions for livestock, but it'll also probably come close to killing the whole industry.

 

[rygh]

Jess, Justin at Ocean Aquarium (only freshwater) will ask for water samples from new customers before he sells any live stock to them. I have seen him refuse sales countless numbers of times when I was into freshwater planted tanks.

Impressive to be that resolute about it.
Especially since I would think most new customers would not know they need to bring a water sample.

 

[sfsuphysics]

Jess, Justin at Ocean Aquarium (only freshwater) will ask for water samples from new customers before he sells any live stock to them. I have seen him refuse sales countless numbers of times when I was into freshwater planted tanks.

Then there's the other side like that place (out of business yet?) that has a sign posted "Only regular customers can ask questions" (or something to that affect.

 

[rygh]

... slap a sticker on each holding bin, such as "Royal Gramma, Salinity: 1.021 - 1.025, minimum tank size: 30 gallons.../quote]

Thinking about it, this is where I do think many LFS's could improve.
In this day and age with computers and printers, they really should have stickers like that. (Along with aggression, etc)
Yes, it takes valuable time, but not that much, and it probably takes less time overall than
answering the same customer questions.
Same with coral.

Getting useful info at a fish store can be really hit an miss.
And that lack of information does lead to problems and dead fish + coral.
Since the LFS really should know that cause/effect, it could even be considered an ethical lapse.

 

[treylane]

I think a lot depends on the relationship a business hopes to establish with the customer. There are stores that will try to milk the customer for every penny they have on the first visit, on the assumption they won't see that customer again. There are other stores that recognize the value of a long-term customer, and for these, there's no benefit to the store/customer/animal in allowing the customer to make mistakes. Even if the customer insists!

I have to disagree with this, actually - There's HUGE benefit to the store in allowing customers to make mistakes! This is the whole foundation our hobby is built upon!

A new hobbyist heads down to the LFS and picks up their first tank and a lot of lousy gear. They come back and buy a bunch of lousy (more on this later) livestock and it all dies. They come back again for more slightly-more-suitable gear and buy the livestock again. They kill things more slowly this time, and maybe they go a few more rounds in the cycle, but after 1-3 years, they burn out and switch to racing RC cars, having provided several rounds of equipment and livestock patronage to the aquarium industry.

Why are the fish lousy? The entire supply chain plays hot-potato with livestock, trying to move it along to the next sucker before it succumbs to stress and poor living conditions. Sure, each link in the chain has *some* interest in keeping the creatures alive, but when the aquarist wants cheap livestock cuz they're going to have to buy it all over again next month, the focus is much more on volume than quality.

What if the hobbyist bought good quality gear the first time? What if the livestock was healthy? The initial equipment purchase would be a bit larger, but would probably not add up to as much total investment as several rounds of upgrades. Fish would be more expensive since they'd need to be handled properly. Would fish also have to be expensive enough to make up for the related lack in sales volume, to keep these suppliers afloat?

 

[bookfish]

"I have to disagree with this, actually - There's HUGE benefit to the store in allowing customers to make mistakes! This is the whole foundation our hobby is built upon!"
I think this comes down to the relationship the store is choosing to have with their customers and is indicative of the respect (or lack thereof) they have for both the livestock and customers. The store owners I know that have lasted beyond a decade tend to take a more long-term view of the customer relationship. Sadly I think you're right in the majority of cases, but that's what makes it worth talking about stores and owners who aren't shamelessly mercenary.

 

[Thales]

Thanks guys! Though I enjoy the specifics, right now I am more interested in the general nature of the discussion (but don't let that stop the discussion from going anywhere you want it to).
I believe that all businesses in CA have the right to refuse service to anyone, but that isn't really what I am getting at. Where else do we regularly expect and cheer retailers when the protect us from ourselves by refusing to sell a product when not obligated by law? I believe bars refusing to sell to drunk people is a legal issue.
'Pie' in the original post should be changed to 'shark fin soup' or 'orange roughy tacos' or even 'steak' to better involve a third life. Does that change anything for you?
How about selling live animals to feed other animals? I have never seen anyone who supports the idea of LFS being selective in their sales to protect animals have any problem with feeder animals of any kind. Why is it ok to sell some animals for certain death, but not others for possible death?

Have any of you been denied a animal at an LFS? I have and its a very strange feeling and I certainly never went back to those two pet stores. One was a herp store that would only sell you an animal if you had one of their enclosures - horrible, particle board things (water damage and toxic VOC's don't seem like a good idea for any animal). The other was a new LFS employee quizzing me about the temp I was going to keep a catalina goby at, because they need it 'cold' - it was amazing to watch him dance back and forth with his boss (who sadly refused to get involved directly) when I pointed out that they had it in a tropical tank with tropical animals at tropical temperatures for several weeks already. Both stores are no longer with us.
FWIW, when I was in LFS retail I remember not selling turtles to a guy who wanted to keep them in a box in his living room - he would heat them up if he needed to. I also would refuse to sell animals to people who were also buying the equipment for the system right then. Some bosses were ok with it, others weren't. I was always very nice about it, and tried to be as helpful as possible, but it still pissed most of those people off.

 

[seminolecpa]

I think your question about ethics is unethical.

 

[eldiablosrt8]

I think your question about ethics is unethical.

Hahahahahaha

 

[GDawson]

Changing the food item doesn't change my opinion. I see where you're going with it but to me that's a another subject; the ethics/treatment/exploitation of food animals. Whereas they both can involve deplorable conditions, animal misery, and human greed the end "product" and consumer expectations are far different.

-Gregory