Saltwater Aquarium Hobby Survey

[mkirda]

As a peer reviewer, I would ding the survey for going out on the internet without controls. If I were a peer reviewer for an economics journal, I would severely chastise Dr. Larkin for doing an uncontrolled internet survey.

Given enough responses, the potential bias may be lessened.
I think it all depends on the number of responses- Given the potential for bias, the number needs to be way higher than 384, I think. More like 3840 or more.

Something tells me it won't get that sort of response level though.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[hdtran]

Mike,

Even with 3,840 responses, it's a biased sample, because it's not taken from randomly selected saltwater aquarists. And what's to prevent people from voting twice? (OK, you're from Chicago, and we know that's not a problem there 8) )

Hy

 

[dizzy]

Guys,
I don't think the intention of the survey is really fooling anyone in the industry. It might not even fool James Wiseman and John Brandt. The speaking lineup has been announced for some time now, so why wait to the last minute to post the survey. Does this leave enough time to analize the results properly? I found the questions a bit difficult to understand and to answer honestly. I got a sense I was being played, and I'll bet others did too. Am I alone in thinking that this type of scheming does MAC's image more harm than good? Remember the Dealer Cost/benefit study? Does anyone else see any similarities here?
Mitch

 

[clarionreef]

Mitch,
I feel the leading and misleading survey was worthless and nothing of value will come of it except the fact that Sherry, though naive and well intentioned , was played as are the rest of us.
The survey will be remembered for the 'tactic' it is and the marketing to the uninitiated that it represents. [ blueface indeed!]
As if...as if they could actually teach anyone to catch a blueface angel and engineer a quality netcaught connection in the Philippines holy grail fish! Oh it can be done...but not by them. Such a notion cheapens the deed of people who really can do it. To flippantly use it in the survey implying that they could put certified blueface in the chain is false and misleading.
This is the kind of thing that challenges people to think...are we really trying to find the best way to reform things or just re-enforcing whos team we're on; auto pilot, knee jerk tribalism as a guide to our thinking.
This MAC-tribe is created out of money and it evaporates the day the money does. Meanwhile, the people of conviction, passion and commitment will still be here.
I find the false survey about things they cannot achieve very telling.
Steve

 

[Caterham]

Naesco,

How many times have you been to the Philippines and gone out to the reef with some fish collectors?

I am not asking about the use of cyanide in the Philippines, so the word cyanide should not be in your response unless you were in the ocean, in the Philippines, and you were with collectors that were using cyanide. Nor am I asking your opinion on sustainability or possible reef habitat destruction. The answer to my question will contain a number, and only a number. Maybe the number is 1500 times, maybe it is only 15 times. I just want to get a feel for your personal experience while you were there.

How many times have you been to the Philippines and gone out to the reef with some fish collectors?

Many thanks in advance for your reply!

 

[naesco]

Naesco,

How many times have you been to the Philippines and gone out to the reef with some fish collectors?

I am not asking about the use of cyanide in the Philippines, so the word cyanide should not be in your response unless you were in the ocean, in the Philippines, and you were with collectors that were using cyanide. Nor am I asking your opinion on sustainability or possible reef habitat destruction. The answer to my question will contain a number, and only a number. Maybe the number is 1500 times, maybe it is only 15 times. I just want to get a feel for your personal experience while you were there.

How many times have you been to the Philippines and gone out to the reef with some fish collectors?

Many thanks in advance for your reply!

I spent 5 days diving at a remote location off the Island of Palawan- 3 years ago. I never met cyanide fishers but saw first hand the destruction of the reef caused by them and the US industry that demands cheap fish. I saw how the tourism industry in that area declined to almost zero as a result of these crimes.
I talked with the natives whose livilihood (fishing and tourism) and source of food to feed their families near disappeared.

It is my opinion, as is evidenced by the recent posts from Ferdie and other in other threads, that the Philippine government will never change things.
We need to stop the import of these fish into the US immediately and provide international aid to the poor fishers who will be impacted by this drastic but necessary move.
Until pressure is put on the Philippine government and the stateside wholesalers and importers who are part of the cyanide problem, there will be no change.
The US industry his wholly responsible for the destruction of the most beautiful country with the most friendly people in the world.
The US industry is raping the Philippines Islands of a beautiful resource and the US and Philippine governments are doing nothing to stop this happening.
The answer to your question is "once".

 

[naesco]

I am surprised by the negativity of the industry participants in this thread.
They have told us all along that hobbyists will not pay more for clean fish.
The good Doctor is undertaking a sampling of how hobbyist really feel.
Are you afraid that you will be proven wrong again?

The last time this happened was when most of you attacked Dr. Peter on his cyanide statistics and you came out looking like fools.


Please wait for the results of the hobbyist's input and than comment. If she was interested in industry's views she would have asked for your input.

 

[Caterham]

Naesco,

It would appear that the answer to my question is that you visited one time and never saw anybody with a squirt bottle. You also saw what you believe to be habitat destruction on the reefs.

Thanks so much for a quick and honest reply. I was just trying to get a feel for your experience.

 

[hdtran]

Naesco,

I'm a consumer. I do pay more for clean fish. My clownfish are captive-raised (at least, that's what PETCO had on the label 4 yrs ago), and cost more than the non-tank-raised version (I believe $12.99 vs $9.99 or something like that). My tang, though wild caught, is almost certainly net caught, as it's a red sea sailfin, and cost nearly twice as much ($79.99 vs $39.99) as the 'indo/pacific' version. (BTW, you've got a GREAT avatar).

The survey is attempting to gauge price sensitivity for various things, but is doing it in a weird fashion.

Hy

 

[naesco]

Naesco,

It would appear that the answer to my question is that you visited one time and never saw anybody with a squirt bottle. You also saw what you believe to be habitat destruction on the reefs.

Thanks so much for a quick and honest reply. I was just trying to get a feel for your experience.

I never saw a squirt bottle.
But I most certainly saw massive habitat destruction on the reefs and had many discussions with the locals.
They told me fishers from outside their locality came in and destroyed their reefs.
They told me they used cyanide.
They told me the cyanide laced fish that survived this crime were to be sold to foreignors for their pleasure and not for food.
Thank you

 

[naesco]

Naesco,

I'm a consumer. I do pay more for clean fish. My clownfish are captive-raised (at least, that's what PETCO had on the label 4 yrs ago), and cost more than the non-tank-raised version (I believe $12.99 vs $9.99 or something like that). My tang, though wild caught, is almost certainly net caught, as it's a red sea sailfin, and cost nearly twice as much ($79.99 vs $39.99) as the 'indo/pacific' version. (BTW, you've got a GREAT avatar).

The survey is attempting to gauge price sensitivity for various things, but is doing it in a weird fashion.

Hy

I suspect there are more of us, Hy, than industry cares to admit.
It is easier for them to turn a blind eye to their participation in this crime against humanity and blame the hobbyists.
They fear and oppose government intervention for purely ideological reasons.
That is why I am most interested in the results. I hope they are proven wrong again.

 

[hdtran]

Naesco,

Let me add that the survey did not ask whether I would pay more for net-caught. What it asked (for me, anyway) was whether I would pay more for MAC-certified, and whether I would pay more for a 14 day vs 5 day garantee. I answered the question as posed, not as implied.

Hy

 

[jamesw]

I'm sure the survey was just posted because it was just finished - last minute kinda thing. No big conspiracy there.

Now the title of the talk is "Hobbyist Preferences..."

Well, the results of the survey may well show that Hobbyists prefer not to pay $15 more for a certified fish - we'll have to see.

Should be interesting.

Cheers
James

 

[dizzy]

Now the title of the talk is "Hobbyist Preferences..."

Well, the results of the survey may well show that Hobbyists prefer not to pay $15 more for a certified fish - we'll have to see.
Should be interesting.
Cheers
James

James are you saying that the official title of Ms Larkin's presentation is no longer "Hobbyists Preferences for Eco-labeled Marine Ornamental Results from an Internet Survey"? Changing the title now is even more suspicious than leaving it as it was. Your inferences are not very clear. I think we need to acknowlege the apparent weaknesses in the survey that Hy pointed out. Personally I think whomever devised it was either a genius or an idiot and I'm yet sure which. The survey is reminiscent of one that was sent out a few years ago when MAC was first emerging onto the scene. That survey asked retailers if they would be willing to pay $2.25 for a MAC certified Bicolor angel verus $2.00 for a non-MAC one, or something about like that. Given the fact that retailers had to pay about $8-10.00 for bicolors at the time, it also left one with the impression that they were either being setup, or the pollster didn't know what the heck they were doing.

Now come on James and at least admit that Hy was right about the guarantee part being strange. Given the fact that lfs don't give guarantees. It seems like maybe Drs. Foster & Smith had funded the survey and that little bit was a concession to them. It really does make one wonder what new direction MAC will head in.

Your right about one thing the results could be totally different than the ones desired. It was difficult to understand which questions would help MAC, even if that is what you were trying to do. If the majority of the hobbyists who frequent these boards are really honest it will not turn out good for MAC. Not good for MAC if the survey reflects people's actual buying habbits and not just people putting down what they think MAC wanted to hear. I believe Sherry Larkin is likely to be made the goat for a survey that will be every bit as convincing as a "hanging chad" election. (Must be a Florida thing ) She deserves better.
Mitch

 

[John_Brandt]

Dear Mitch,

You need to adjust your tinfoil hat, otherwise those Black Helicopters hovering over your store will get a good reading on your brainwaves.


PS: Paul Holthus just learned of this survey last night after I sent him a link to it.

 

[MaryHM]

John,

You're trying to tell us that someone came up with a MAC oriented survey, had you work on it, planned well in advance to present it at the MO conference, and the executive director of MAC was never informed about it until last night?? Sounds a little "fishy" to me.

 

[Anonymous]

Welcome Back, John.

 

[Douglas S Lehman]

Hello Everyone
As a hobbiest with 27 years experience I long for the days gone buy.
When I started their were 4 LFS (Chicagoland) that sold MO. One of the best WAS Marineworld on Devon ave. They would quarentine all stock for three weeks, The back room was larger than the showroom. "Sorry Doug that clown trigger is sold" ($250.00). They did let me buy a small P.xanthometopon ($100.00). He was housed in a 55 gallon for a year or so & then a 110. We watched grow into a beautiful adult, but died in a major tank failure in 1984(100 gallons on the floor). This was done with a UG/600 Aquaking power and well water! With todays knowledge and hardware properly caught/handled fish should be bullet proof. Fast forward 25 years and oh does the story change. I walk into the LFS (40+ -E-tail now) and you see clown triggers for $50.00 small/skinny ones that I just pass on. Oh wait I spot my favorite angel. I ask the KID working the floor where that fish came from? "Hold on I'll ask the owner" He says they "got em a few days ago from a guy by the airport" and "since your a regular customer I can knock of $20.00-$49.00 and it yours". I ask if they can hold it a few weeks as my quaretine set up is in use. "Sorry Doug I cannot hold em as I got a of lookers for THAT fish. Oh well maybe the next one. Is their any thing to learn from this I don't know, just my own experience. The real value in MO are the ones that we can all grow old with and enjoy for the years to come!

Sea Ya Douglas S Lehman
CMAS President

 

[dizzy]

John,
You need to read what Ferdie had to say about being able to take constructive criticism over in the EASI thread. If this survey was your work and I insulted it, I'm sorry. I found it difficult to interpret the exact intent of many of the questions. I'm thinking that it was designed to show funders or investors that the hobby will support higher priced MAC certified fish. Am I wrong? It appeared that the polster wants the hobbyist to be willing to pay more for certified tank reared fish than non-certified tank reared fish. Am I wrong again? People will have to make their own decisions on the value of these type of surveys, but I see problems with them. I'm not a blind faith kind of guy and you can spin that however you like. Ends justify the means don't work for me. It's how you play the game that counts.
Mitch

 

[John_Brandt]

Mitch,

Your criticisms were not contructive, they were from an alien galaxy.

The survey was requested of the University of Florida (Food and Resource Economics Department) by the Florida Sea Grant Program, not by MAC.

Dr. Sherry Larkin (and her assistants) produced the entire survey without MAC's help or guidance. Upon completion, she contacted MAC's Communications Coordinator to arrange for it to be looked-over to see if it would make sense to a hobbyist since many of the questions would be related to MAC Certification. At that point MAC's CC immediately contacted myself to see if I would be interested in doing the editing since they know that I am intimately familiar with the hobby and hobbyists, and that I am an excellent editor of such things :wink:

There were multiple corrections, edits and suggestions that I made and the survey evolved from numerous drafts over about a month's time. Each change requires approval by the Institutional Review
Board within the University of Florida. Over a week passed before absolute final approval, and there just seemed to be lots of delays from the very start. I had several phone conversations with Dr. Larkin throughout because email exchanges can be much slower than just talking it out. The survey debut is "tardy" for its presentation at MO Conference only because of the university "red tape". Ironically, the Institutional Review Board made a couple of minor wording changes themselves (in what they thought would be clarifications) at the last moment that made it into the survey without my editing. This was not noticed until the survey was actually posted (and in fact you pointed it out in the RDO General Reefkeeping Forum, thank you Mitch). I contacted Dr. Larkin and the wording of one question was immediately changed (a change of that nature didn't require IRB approval).

Now, these survey questions were not formulated for MAC's benefit or for any subversive motive as you have imagined. These are survey questions that the Florida Sea Grant Program wishes to test on hobbyists. The survey is not meant to cause behavior in hobbyists (as you have suggested) but rather to ask them what their behavior would be in various hypothetical situations. Some of the questions may seem odd to you, but they are questions that the Florida Sea Grant Program wishes to test upon hobbyists. It is only because you assume that this is some sort of MAC conspiracy that the survey doesn't make sense to you. I will admit that there could have been more, and possibly different questions asked but there were constraints put upon the survey that didn't allow my full control; and after all it is not survey produced by the hobbyist, it is a survey of the hobbyist.

Certification of consumer products is not limited to marine ornamental fish. The departments within the University of Florida are already familiar with testing consumers on these types of things. In some ways the questions are similar regardless of whether they are asking about clownfish or peaches.

It should be logical to understand why the Executive Director of MAC had no knowledge of this survey until just recently. It was produced and edited entirely independent of him.

If you have any more questions I would be willing to entertain them in the thread in the General Reefkeeping Forum, but not here. Additionally, Dr. Larkin would likely answer any rational, reasonable and non-accusational questions herself. There is more information about the survey in the introductory letter to the survey as well as the opening page of the survey itself.