Saltwater Aquarium Hobby Survey

[mkirda]

Hello all,

The University of Florida (Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences) would like to invite hobbyists to take their "Saltwater Aquarium Hobby Survey".

The University of Florida will only use responses received by noon (EST) on Wednesday, February 25th, 2004. They need to conduct the survey within the week in order to have time to analyze responses for the Marine Ornamentals Conference, which begins March 1st, 2004.

Please feel free to take the survey yourself now.

http://agsurveys.org/hobby/

University of Florida "Saltwater Aquarium Hobbyist Survey" Invitation Letter: http://agsurveys.org/hobby/invitation.htm

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[clarionreef]

Ms Larkin,
MAC doesn't do blueface...Thats way beyond them
MAC doesn't do slime-free maroon clowns...thats beyond them also.

I find the inference that they could to be misleading.
The only defense is that...its just a hypothetical situation.
Exactly...its still, I mean STILL a hypthetical situation.

There are also people who like to imagine to themselves, what would happen if they win the lottery. They don't however, put it out in public.

Pretending to be able to produce net caught blueface and slime-free maroons for the purpose of market survey is insulting as it posits the option between the alledgedly ethical [ MAC] and the less ethical [ non- MAC]...
Playing with people like this when you can't perform or produce the
inferred better choice is a fluff piece of propaganda.

Offering what is with in their capability to produce would be something like;
halfblack angels and pink skunk clowns.
That would be realistic, possible and deliverable.
However, those fish are not as marketable...as the poor dealers dependant on MAC to come up with something marketable know only too well!
I'm bringing fish in from a certified exporter again this week and I know better then to order the maroons and they'll never have a blueface angel.
Steve

 

[dizzy]

But Steve the survey gives me the impression MAC is thinking about offering a 14-day guarantee with their fish. That should take care of any slim problems. I suspect the results of this survey are more for the benefit of non-fish people than anything else. It obviously has something to do with the big certify aquaculture kickoff that is taking place at MO.
Mitch

 

[mkirda]

Steve,

I doubt the study's author reads this, so you'd better e-mail her directly if you want to be heard.

Mitch,

Doesn't it just strike you as a little 'odd' to begin with that MAC is attending a conference whose main focus is aquaculture? Aquaculture is so outside their mission that I don't see an obvious or logical link.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[mkirda]

Oh, wait... I see a link...

It is in Hawaii.

Silly me.

 

[MaryHM]

Link #2- Lots of scientific, non-industry types to pat them on the back.

 

[dizzy]

Doesn't it just strike you as a little 'odd' to begin with that MAC is attending a conference whose main focus is aquaculture? Aquaculture is so outside their mission that I don't see an obvious or logical link.
Regards.
Mike Kirda

Mike,
You lose points for not paying attention to the issues. Go to www.hawaiiaquaculture.org/marineornamentals04.html
There is to be a session on drafting the MAC certification standards for aquaculture. Didn't the questions about the cost of the MAC certified aquacultured clown, versus the aquacultured non-MAc fish wake up your suspicions at all. Man I know you're sharper than that.
Mitch

 

[naesco]

It is refreshing to ask hobbyists what they think but the survey missed two important questions.

Q. Would you support a ban on the import of fish and inverts from the Philippines and Indonesia where the use of cyanide is rampant?

Yes,because cyanide not only kills the fish but the reef itself and all the critters that dwell within.

Q. Do you support mandatory random cyanide testing of US import and wholesales faciltiies of fish purchased by them from the Philippines and Indonesia where the use of cyanide is rampant?

Yes, because industry must be held accountable.

 

[MaryHM]

Since this survey is heavily associated with MAC, and was probably initiated by MAC, you aren't going to see them yapping about "bans" and "mandatory random cyanide testing". They're stupid, but not crazy. They aren't going to piss off the few industry people that support them by tossing around such words.

 

[mkirda]

Mike,
You lose points for not paying attention to the issues. Go to www.hawaiiaquaculture.org/marineornamentals04.html
There is to be a session on drafting the MAC certification standards for aquaculture. Didn't the questions about the cost of the MAC certified aquacultured clown, versus the aquacultured non-MAc fish wake up your suspicions at all. Man I know you're sharper than that.
Mitch

Mitch,

I am. It was a round-about way to bring into focus the fact that MAC has lost their focus on their initial mission. There is absolutely no need for certification of cultured fish. Margins are already so incredibly low on cultured fish that it is difficult to understand how any producer could stand to have increased costs at all. It isn't exactly a huge slice of pie to begin with, and I don't see a lot of money to be made by certifying cultured fish either. It seems to me to be entirely counter-productive.

But then again, I still believe in their original mission.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[clarionreef]

The survey...
Is obviously a 'set-up' to gage opinion on paying more for money for fish to absorb proposed MAC surcharges.
Aquacultured fishes would not actually be enhanced by the MAC label as they are already produced by people 20 X more qualified then MAC office people.
MAC needs this kind of subsidy and validation. In return it offers the P.R. advantage of being associated with its label making enterprise.
Aquaculture folks should decline, but...the PR is cheap and painless [ for them anyway] so they may go for it. PETCO will be the greatest beneficiary as they will then pump the certified clowns from ORA as a'new breakthru' achievement to the general, oblivious public.
The Nemo crowd, 'researchers' paid by MAC and other beginners on this stuff...[ 'cough' ...funders...] go for this schtick don't they?
So much effort on the advertising end...so little on the real working end.
My goodness. I think we're all in the wrong business!
Steve
PS. MACs Genesis [ and original mission] was in the effort to clean PETSMART IF PETSMART got into saltwater fish. This segue into assisting PETCO I hardly find surprising.

 

[mkirda]

a conference whose main focus is aquaculture?

Someone e-mailed me to say that the conference isn't just about aquaculture.

Looking at the sponsor list:

Sponsors: University of Hawaii Sea Grant College Program, National Sea Grant College Program, Hawaii Aquaculture Development Program, Florida Sea Grant Program, Center for Tropical and Subtropical Aquaculture

Contributors: North Carolina Sea Grant Program, Oregon Sea Grant Program, Virginia Sea Grant Program, New York Sea Grant Program, Texas Sea Grant Program

Organizing Committee:
John Corbin, Hawaii Aquaculture Development Program, Co-Chair;
Gordon Grau, Hawaii Sea Grant Program, Co-Chair;
Paul Holthus, Marine Aquarium Council, Co-Chair;
Christopher Brown, Florida International University; James Cato, Florida Sea Grant Program; Thomas Farewell, Oceanic Institute; Charles Helsley, Hawaii Sea Grant Program; Kevin Hopkins, Pacific Aquaculture and Coastal Resources Center; Steve Hopkins, Rain Garden Ornammentals; Cheng-Sheng Lee, Center for Tropical and Subtropical Aquaculture; Richard Masse, Mangrove Tropicals; Matthew Ohare, Superior Tropica Farms; Sara Peck, Hawaii Sea Grant Extension Program; Sylvia Spalding, Marine Aquarium Council; Clyde Tamaru, Hawaii Sea Grant Extension Program; Leonard Young, Hawaii Aquaculture Development Program

Man, I sure see a pattern here... Aquaculture this, Sea Grant that...

I'm glad to see that some net-caught sessions are appearing, but this still seems to me to have a heavy aquaculture bent.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[hdtran]

If you want to quibble about the survey, the most surprising thing (to me, as a consumer) is the presence of a "stay alive" garantee.

None (that is, zero, zip, zilch, nada, in Californiaglish or rei in Japanese, except I don't think I'm counting correctly) of the LFS's in my area offer a "stay alive" garantee on saltwater fish. All of them have a 7-day to 14-day garantee on freshwater, and all of them have a 0-day garantee on saltwater.

Those of you who are LFS owners (as opposed to wholesalers), how many of you offer a "stay alive" garantee on your saltwater fish?

 

[clarionreef]

Yes Mike,
The gross created by the trade in wildcaught fish has attracted the aquaculture crowd in a big way.
In funding write-ups they never fail to speak of their eco-friendly superiority to the poor fishermans produce...and the size of the market to cash in on.
The fact that they produce a mere percentage or three of any species list is lost on non-fish trade people. They speak as if breeding and growing out clown triggers and naso tangs, coral beauties and Cuban hogfish is just around the corner if you'll just support them.
Take away clowns and dottybacks and most of it is still in the R & D phase of course. A fair bit away from real reef saving productivity.
The attempt by lab people to put the fisherman out of a job would still leave us with fisherman...out of a job.
They will not go quietly into the nite.

But the CERTIFIED aquaculture fish label in PETCO will help to cover for all the wildcaught and also cyanide caught fish in PETCO.
There is no clean fish "instead of" ethic here. Its clean fish "on top" of the ...um...regular fish.
The logic is there. Its just business logic, not the environmental logic you were using.
Steve

 

[dizzy]

The survey...
Is obviously a 'set-up' to gage opinion on paying more for money for fish to absorb proposed MAC surcharges.

Steve,
You got that one exactly right. I'm looking at a Tentative Program schedule form Marine Ornamentals that I've had for a couple of months now. Tuesday, March 2 10:45 Session Marine Ornamental Marketing, Trends and Statics-Organizer: James Cato
Sherry L Larkin, et al.-Hobbyists Preferences for Eco-labeled Marine Ornamental Results from an Internet Survey.

This title suggest that the author Sherry Larkin knew what the results of the poll would be before the poll was even taken. It sounds an awful lot like MAC wanted certain results then hired Sherry to design a poll that would give then what they want. This is exactly the type of thing that reminds of why I am suspicious of the MAC. Shame on you MAC.
Mitch

 

[clarionreef]

Tran,
Home Depot had /has a one year guarantee on their plants
Now I know plants and theirs are not superior to Orchard Supply Hardware or the local garden shop....however, the plant quality is not the point behind the guarantee.
The point is the initial marketing advantage in creating a stampede in your direction. Only a huge operation could absorb the losses and claims that will result in this consumer surge...but, its all good in the math to them. The replacements will be small compared to the income generated by this marketing scheme.
Have you ever seen the $7.99 10 gallon aquarium in PETCO? How do they do it you may ask? The public doesn't wonder...they just grab em and figure that the local dealer is gouging them.
MARKETING....its all marketing now.
Steve

 

[MaryHM]

Interesting find there, Mitch. I'm going to go puke now.

Concerning all of the Sea Grant sponsorship for MO- it's been like that for every conference. Nothing new this year.

 

[dizzy]

If you want to quibble about the survey, the most surprising thing (to me, as a consumer) is the presence of a "stay alive" garantee.

None (that is, zero, zip, zilch, nada, in Californiaglish or rei in Japanese, except I don't think I'm counting correctly) of the LFS's in my area offer a "stay alive" garantee on saltwater fish. All of them have a 7-day to 14-day garantee on freshwater, and all of them have a 0-day garantee on saltwater.

Those of you who are LFS owners (as opposed to wholesalers), how many of you offer a "stay alive" garantee on your saltwater fish?

Hy,
I'll try to untangle this a bit. Drs. Foster $ Smith do offer a guarantee on saltwater fish. Perhaps Petco does too. Both sell the ORA fish I believe. This survey signals that MAC is considering certifying either one or both of the above, despite telling us earlier that they wouldn't. How else can they make any sense of certifying aquacultured fish. Not sure if I really untangled anything or not. I know they're up to something.
Around here we don't have a formal guarantee. Sometimes we replace the fish at half cost. We take things on a case by case basis.
Mitch

PS
If you go to www.aquariumcouncil.org and then to the list of industry operators committed to become MAC certified you can scroll down and find the good doctors on the list. Figure it out from there.

 

[clarionreef]

The attraction of multimillion dollar companies is clear.
They enjoy an economy of scale and ability to absorb losses better then working class dealers. This is no secret. It is also no secret that their service is poor and that they kill more fish then anyone...including ORA clowns.
Buying direct in volume allows a marketing cheaper to the public that is so attractive to begginers... that other concerns like better advice and disease control education gets lost in the excitement. [ they can go get free advice from a LFS later....but buy the clowns from PETCO now.]
The concentrated money pot of the multi million dollar companies has also excited MAC.
So much for the environmental mission.
Steve

 

[hdtran]

Mitch & Steve,

Last time I was at PETCO (about 1 month ago because my preferred LFS was closed, and I needed a thermometer), there was no "stay alive" garantee on saltwater fish. Drs F&S does not have a retail store where I live, so they are not a LFS for me. I'm sure many internet FS's offer arrive alive, and/or stay alive. But all my LFS's have a "it's in the bag, it's yours" policy.

Steve, I'd like to differentiate between unethical marketing practices (false ad\vertising, spam) and ethical practices; and ineffective practices (incomprehensible superbowl ads) and effective practices (loss leaders in supermarkets). Monopolistic pricing strategies are illegal (hence, also unethical), but loss leaders are not. I don't have an opinion as to whether certification is an effective/ineffective pratice, nor as to whether it's ethical/unethical.

Mitch, the title of the paper does not lead to its conclusions. The title does not say "Hobbyists prefer ecolabels." 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.

Because of local practices, I would not pay extra for a 'stay alive' garantee, regardless of certification. I find it interesting that the survey author asked for price sensitivity for 5 day vs 14 day stay alive garantees (on my survey, anyway) when neither type of garantee is available in my LFS's to start with. Like asking a vegetarian whether he (or she) would prefer $5/lb for choice beef, vs. $3/lb for generic beef...

Regards,

Hy