Who's fault is it?

[cameron]

George;33253 wrote: Responsible care of any living organism is a matter of conscience and, like it or not, plays into personal morality. If the LFS cares at all about the hobby and the livestock they carry, they are showing some level of conscience and morality as well. I would argue it is impossible to be in the pet business without exercising (or ignoring) conscience and morality.

Responsibility for a pet belongs to the owner... period. If a dog I sell you bites a neighbor, not my problem unless that dog had a condition I knew about before I sold it to you and I didn't disclose. If I sell you a puppy and you chain it up, not my responsibility. This shared responsibility thing is or has ruined this country and its laws. What I do with the things I own and my person, is my business and my responsibility. If I sell you a car and you have 3 DUIs on your record, do I bear some responsibility for putting a drunk behind the wheel? No.

No business (apart from ones we work with) should be held accountable for your, my or someone elses negligence on any level. They aren't a person, they are a business.

George;33253 wrote: You stated your support for inquiring customer fitness. I would say that if a store chooses to sell live creatures for the purposes of keeping them alive, they have at least some responsibility to make sure the customer understands the requirements of the organisms they sell.

I could not disagree with that thought process more. We should only be held accountable for our own actions. Making someone else responsible for what we do or don't do is very socialist thinking. I can't argue the philosophy of socialism, but I can argue the results.

George;33253 wrote: We've had discussions on this board about the subject of Nurse sharks for sale. How is this any different? Most agreed that the sale of Nurse sharks is irresponsible because virtually nobody has the resources to really care for one over the long haul.

Then pass a law protecting the shark thus passing the responsibility onto the individual for its care, but don't start morality policing businesses because you don't agree with them selling fish to people. I am affraid one day I am going to wake up and eating cow is going to be illegal because a bunch of people think it is mean to the cow and they know better than I how I should live my life.

George;33253 wrote: Selling a reasonably difficult set like a pair of clowns and an anemone to a customer blindly without asking a few questions is irresponsible as well. It's a lesser degree of irresponsibility, but some of the responsibility still sits with the LFS.

What about the internet? Should they ask these questions before they sell a fish to someone? Should I be responsible if I sell you a fish from my tank?

 

[george]

Cameron;33276 wrote: No business (apart from ones we work with) should be held accountable for your, my or someone elses negligence on any level. They aren't a person, they are a business.

You're missing my point. My point is a responsibility to inform, not to ensure actions. Yes, I feel there is a responsibility to inform if there are special needs. In this case, there are special needs.

The LFS is not accountable for misuse or actions by a customer in the least. They do bear some professional obligation to ensure that a customer has been told how care for an animal. It's the customer's decision to determine if they can care for that animal and that they do care for the animal.

To use your car analogy: no, the seller isn't responsible for someone drinking and driving. However, if the car requires a special fuel additive or premium gas, I think they have some responsibility to inform the buyer. Since most fish don't come with owners manuals, I think expecting a little info out of the LFS isn't unreasonable. Again, is it required? No.

Is a pet store responsible if a dog bites someone because the buyer doesn't train it? No. Does it bear a measure of responsibility to inform the buyer that the dog might have special diet needs or require lots of space or special bedding? I think that's part of the buying process.

I think anything that requires unusual or special care on the part of the buyer should be told to the buyer. Caveat Emptor is nice, but applied purely to the marketplace, I should be able to buy dynamite at Wal-Mart. I'm fairly certain I can't (though I could be wrong. They do have ammo).

I'm not advocating any monetary or legal responsibility. Just a responsibility to inform when more exotic creatures are involved. It's a matter of increased odds. The average customer that walks into a Petco (for example) fish department can be assumed to have a different (probably lower) level of knowledge about aquariums than the average customer that walks into a dedicated saltwater LFS.

In the case of the Nurse shark, it's likely that not even 1 person in 1000 that walks into any brick and mortar store has the setup at home to house one for its entire life. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to let the person considering the buy know that it can grow to 10x the size it currently is. If the buyer wants to be an *** and still drop it in a 200 gallon tank, that's his business, not the store's. I can think of at least 2 freshwater fish I bought years ago that even after I asked questions in the LFS making it *clear* I had no knowledge of the species, the employee never once told me this neat looking 4" Snakehead could grow to 2 feet or more. Back then, I was that uninformed buyer that was last seen in the guy buying 2 clownfish and an anemone for a 2 week-old aquarium.

Just selling live animals to anyone who asks by mute sellers can lead to things like http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51391-2004Apr28.html">this</a> and [IMG]http://www.ccfhr.noaa.gov/stressors/invasivespecies/Lionfish">this</a> once they realize what they're in for. Is this the fault of the LFS? NO. Could they have helped prevent it by informing the consumer? Possibly.

As I said before, final/ultimate responsibility rests with the consumer. However, the seller is part of the chain and involved to some extent. It's not a legal issue. It's an issue of personal involvement in the process. Therefore, it's an issue of conscience and personal morality. They're not telling you what you can and can't do. They're telling you what you'll need to do what they think you're trying to do.

The good stores do have a conscience. Otherwise, there'd be a "Nemo and Dori" special at every one of them.

 

[wbholwell]

Well put, George. I think that at some point each of us have purchased (or wanted to purchase) a specimen for which we were ill-equiped. Soon after I set up my first tank (a 30 gallon) I wanted to buy a mandrin. The store employee asked about my tank, then told me I probably shouldn't buy it. I was a little sceptical, but b/c I didn't know anything about the fish I took his advice. Of course, now I'm extremely grateful that he offered the advice. It's not so much a question of responsibility, but more one of moral obligation.

BTW, the LFS in my story was the one in Athens (I forgot the name.) If I was still in the area I'd still be doing lots of buisness with them.

 

[reefscape]

I think you are talk'n about aquarium outfitter's in athens

 

[wbholwell]

reefscape;33303 wrote: I think you are talk'n about aquarium outfitter's in athens

I think so, but I believe they had a different name at the time...???

 

[cgill311]

Frewl;33159 wrote: No I disagree its your fault. You should have ranted raved. Faked a really really really bad asain </em>accent(I can say that since I too am asain </em>therefore not offensive.) so they take you more seriously. What's smarter then an asain </em>man? They are great at math and science sort of stuff.

But apparently not spelling!

 

[cameron]

George;33294 wrote: You're missing my point. My point is a responsibility to inform, not to ensure actions. Yes, I feel there is a responsibility to inform if there are special needs. In this case, there are special needs.

This is another consumer issue. It is the consumer who should be informed before a purchase. If a XYZ car has horrible crash ratings, it is not my obligation to tell you that before you buy the car.

George;33294 wrote: The LFS is not accountable for misuse or actions by a customer in the least. They do bear some professional obligation to ensure that a customer has been told how care for an animal. It's the customer's decision to determine if they can care for that animal and that they do care for the animal.

We just fundamentally disagree. People should just own up to their responsibilities and quit passing it onto everyone else. McDonalds has no obligation to tell you that Big Mac you are about to eat can kill you. They information for that Big Mac killing you is provided IF you ask. Had the customer asked the LFS employee about special considerations, then the LFS should have pointed the person to a book or answered his/her questions. But they have no obligation to be proactive in the matter.

George;33294 wrote: To use your car analogy: no, the seller isn't responsible for someone drinking and driving. However, if the car requires a special fuel additive or premium gas, I think they have some responsibility to inform the buyer. Since most fish don't come with owners manuals, I think expecting a little info out of the LFS isn't unreasonable. Again, is it required? No.

If you bought my GTO, I am probably not even going to mention the premium gas thing unless you asked. The only responsibility I have is to inform you of any non-standard changes to the car. Such as that is has been in an accident before. It is up to you to know how frequently you change oil, what kind of gas to put it, etc. As a seller, at no point do I hold a moral or legal obligation to disclose things you should have already known. It is up to the consumer to know what they are buying not the sellers responsibility to inform the consumer.

George;33294 wrote: Is a pet store responsible if a dog bites someone because the buyer doesn't train it? No. Does it bear a measure of responsibility to inform the buyer that the dog might have special diet needs or require lots of space or special bedding? I think that's part of the buying process.

Same issue as above. If you buy a dalmation and you live a sedintary lifestyle, it is not the petstores obligation or responsibility to tell you that you are not fit to be an owner.

George;33294 wrote: I think anything that requires unusual or special care on the part of the buyer should be told to the buyer. Caveat Emptor is nice, but applied purely to the marketplace, I should be able to buy dynamite at Wal-Mart. I'm fairly certain I can't (though I could be wrong. They do have ammo).

This is why we are becoming a weak nation. We expect things to be done for us instead of doing it ourselves. This used to be a country where people knew how to take care of themselves and helped each other out when needed. Now we have become a country expecting handouts and to be spoon feed information. We want to cared for rather than care for ourselves. It saddens me every day when I look around and see what we are becoming as a nation. We are doing Rome proud.

Your example is flawed. The reason we pass certain laws regarding explosives is safety. Not your safety but public safety. IMO yeah you should be able to buy dynamite, but that is another long discussion.

George;33294 wrote: In the case of the Nurse shark, it's likely that not even 1 person in 1000 that walks into any brick and mortar store has the setup at home to house one for its entire life. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to let the person considering the buy know that it can grow to 10x the size it currently is. If the buyer wants to be an *** and still drop it in a 200 gallon tank, that's his business, not the store's. I can think of at least 2 freshwater fish I bought years ago that even after I asked questions in the LFS making it *clear* I had no knowledge of the species, the employee never once told me this neat looking 4" Snakehead could grow to 2 feet or more. Back then, I was that uninformed buyer that was last seen in the guy buying 2 clownfish and an anemone for a 2 week-old aquarium.

That was your bad not the stores. You should have known better than to buy an animal and not know how to properly care for it. Don't pass your mistake onto the store. The guy selling you the fish might have been just as clueless. Would it have been nice for him to say something if he knew, sure. However, he had not legal or moral responsibility to do so.

George;33294 wrote: As I said before, final/ultimate responsibility rests with the consumer. However, the seller is part of the chain and involved to some extent. It's not a legal issue. It's an issue of personal involvement in the process. Therefore, it's an issue of conscience and personal morality. They're not telling you what you can and can't do. They're telling you what you'll need to do what they think you're trying to do.

and again they have no obligation to do so. It is your obligation to ask if you don't know and to inform yourself.

George;33294 wrote: The good stores do have a conscience. Otherwise, there'd be a "Nemo and Dori" special at every one of them.

All part of how a store does business IMO. To some it will be an advantage to be up front and to others they are just going to sell fish. Neither is morally or legally better they are just different business practices.

 

[frewl]

Exactly. I'm horrible at spelling. It didn't help that I spent most of yesterday on the road. But I digress. But you are right I can't spell with crap.

CGill311;33309 wrote: But apparently not spelling!

or proofread.

 

[reefscape]

ok i am going to agree with camron on this lfs petsore ...is about selling ..not a pet school ...I would not buy something if i didnt know how to care for it....but then again i doask about tanks set up...before i sell anything..case in point I had never meet brandon an he came in the store i work at an i asked him about his set-up while he waslooking around..but then again thats just me..its not

 

[reefscape]

ok i am going to agree with camron on this lfs petsore ...is about selling ..not a pet school ...I would not buy something if i didnt know how to care for it....but then again i doask about tanks set up...before i sell anything..case in point I had never meet brandon an he came in the store i work at an i asked him about his set-up while he was looking around..but then again thats just me..its not the store's place to teach someone how to care forever..everything ...people need to read books do a little research....jmo

 

[reefscape]

fogive the double post ....computer has amind of it's own sometimes

 

[wolfie]

Who's fault is it?

It everyone fault.

The custommer fault for not knowning what he/she getting themself in. That LFS is not at fault, BUT THEY ARE INMORAL for not even trying to see of the custommer can take care of those clown and the anenomes.
It FutureInterest fault for lission.

Cameron you are right that the custommer ned to take responsible for their action.

All that sale person had to ask was "how old are your tank" and advice the customer not to buy it then he/she would had no fault in this even if they sale it to that 1 custommer.

Future I am just messing with you there.

 

[josh]

i have mixed feelings about this. the lfs should have asked how long his tank has been set up, but only if he/she is expeirenced. new employees may not know everything about the cycling process, they are just trying to please the customer, getting them what they want, just catching fish. the employee could have been very new to the hobby. we all have to start somewhere in this hobby and some people start by working in a fish store. i would feel very guilty and bad by know this fish is not going or may not survive in there tank. if someone was trying to buy those from me, they would have not taken them home that day. but would have told them they can have them later on, when the cycle is complete and to be more educated on the fish and the nitrogen cycle and suggest them to buy a book instead. but some people are not willing to wait and want it right now. if they told them they could not by them right now, they probably would have got them some place else. hope i did not upset some people. jmo. maybe the lfs will learn from this when they bring the fish back because they died or maybe the customer will learn not to rush into this hobby. but to take is slow. again this is jmo. i think this is just a mistake or accident. i think futureinterest was trying to do the right thing by letting the customer know. i would have done the same thing. but sometimes people just dont want to listen. i have some people that come in the store and want to buy fish and dont even know what size tank they have or what kind of fish they have and they want to add more fish. its tough dealing with them. but anyways not to get off subject. people need to know what they are buying and stores need to know what they are selling and how it is being housed. i cant blame the customer nor the employee.

 

[wolfie]

Josh that my point. If only the sale person ASK and advice the customer that it a bad idea for them to buy it. After that it up to the customer wherethe they wanted or not. I will not blame the store for selling it to the customer after they advice the customer not to. Store have to earn their money somehow.

LFS would have a loyal for life rather then a mad customer because their fish die. No fault to the store when the customer tank are still new, but that customer will not think it that way. They will think that the store sold them a sick fish.

 

[FutureInterest]

Lots of good arguments. Thank you for your responses, it does make things a bit more clear for me. I still think I could of done something more though, and hey one person out there agrees with me!

I understand the points above, you guys are very well spoken and it's ok to disagree where there is a bit of grey area. Perhaps a few more details might help clarify the murkiness.

I'm quite certain that the employee had actual knowledge that the customer hadn't even tested for ammonia yet, since she was standing right next to us long enough to have overheard at least that statement and possibly a few earlier ones. If she did hear anything she certainly didn't voice any concern as she quickly phased out that topic and moved onto whether the maroons might grow up to have gold stripes or not.

Meanwhile, I stood there dismayed and somewhat appalled and struggled with whether I should interject on the maroon's behalves or not. After standing there like a deaf mute while I trid to wrap my powerful math/science brain around a moral dilemna... I finally decided without apprehension that the customer was solely responsible and consoled myself with that simple thought as I said my goodbyes and left the conversation and the store behind.

However, I just couldn't get it out of my head and the more I thought about it, the more it bothered me and the less clear it became and so I posted my experience here just to get it off my chest more than anything else. I'm still not completely certain, but I think the fault that those clowns and that anenome are probably going to die is still primarily the customers... that's something I think we can all agree on. Maybe with these details you might agree that its also partly the salesperson's fault and by extension the LFS... and I still can't shake the feeling that I should've done something more. I feel like that guy in Shindler's list... "I could've saved them!". I dunno, All I know is that I should've added another option to the poll to include "all of the above(to some degree)", that would be my vote.

 

[piznac]

Well to be real honest I didn't really read the last page much,.. but I wanted something,.

A store has to make money,.. the lines between "shady" and "business" are very thin. But no matter which side of the line you are on,.. you must make money,. or its not a business.

The ARC member present should have done what you did. Offer advise where you can without intefering with a sale and end up getting yourself kicked out, or a bad rap for the club itself.

The customer,.. well yes ultamitly this is where the blame lays. With this day and age,.. we have the wonderfull world of the internet. Information age and all. If you want to know something about anything,. turn to the internet,.. to me if you want to learn you will learn. If you just want to do it,.. then trust in what the fish stores opinon is. There are some many opinons out there,..

The internet has them all,.. judge for yourself. But this means keeping a perfectly medium balance with sponsors and business in this area. Without them we really dont have a hobby. But do your best to educate through this forum. I have been searching for reef "stuff" for years,.. searched for Atlanta reef clubs one time came here,.. now I have a healthy tank,. a bit bare,. but healthy,..lol

Ok I guess thats my version of a rant,. Educate where you can,. it is no ones responsibility to govern anyone elses experience,. but it is nice to help.:thumbs:

 

[george]

Cameron;33312 wrote: Your example is flawed. The reason we pass certain laws regarding explosives is safety. Not your safety but public safety.

Not really. There are plenty of pet stores, brick and mortar as well as online, that will gladly sell you a dangerous organism that can injure or kill you and others. Perhaps not at 7000 m/s, but dangerous and potentially deadly nonetheless.

Cameron;33312 wrote: That was your bad not the stores. You should have known better than to buy an animal and not know how to properly care for it. Don't pass your mistake onto the store. The guy selling you the fish might have been just as clueless. Would it have been nice for him to say something if he knew, sure. However, he had not legal or moral responsibility to do so.

And I said it was ultimately the purchaser's responsibility (mine). I never argued this point. I have not said it was a legal obligation of the store. Ever. Not once.

I have said that the store bears some obligation in doing business in a trade that is not the same as me buying very many other retail products. They are in the business of disseminating advice. In my case, I was actively soliciting advice on the creature in question. The year was 1993, so the LFS was the source for advice, information, and virtually all things pet. There were no books on snakeheads. There was no freshwater fish club. A role the LFS still plays for many consumers to this day.

Do they have a moral obligation? No. Do they have a legal obligation? No. Do they bear responsibility legally or morally? No. The LFS should bear no lawsuit worries or any of the other weights on them that our lawsuit happy populace would throw on them.

Do they have a professional obligation? Yes, in my opinion, they do. Do they bear some professional responsibility? Yes, in my opinion, they do. TO GIVE GOOD INFORMATION. Not to ensure it's been followed. Not to even check if you're listening.

And since we both agree that this is just good business and good service, I would add that I expect good business and good service out of any establishment I frequent. I consider THAT to be an obligation.

Would you really shop at any store that had "Caveat Emptor" written over the doorway? That really would make every retail experience just like buying a car.

 

[george]

Cameron and I will have our own round table discussion on this tomorrow night.

The final decision will be decided by a game of Rock-em, Sock-em Robots.

 

[frewl]

Maybe someone should start a store called "Caveat Emptor" I mean atleast they are putting it all out front. But then how much of the general public knows what Caveat Emptor means anyways. I know I didn't at the beginning of this thread. I even thought a first that might have been the name of the LFS:doh:. I felt like an idiot.

 

[skriz]

the LFS did it!

The LFS is supposed to guide the customer; the salesperson is not only to sell, but to provide customer service. Part of customer service is to make sure that the customer is purchasing the right items.

Sales. A good salesman qualifies the customer. the customer will only be happy if he has purchased something that is good for him. take any other product, for example. If you are not happy with it, you can return it (dvd player, etc.) so, the salesman needs to make sure that you will be happy with the purchase. Would you go back to a store which constantly sold you the wrong items?

Also, blaming the customer is like blaming the old folks who end up buying 6 cars from a dealership paying double the price and not even having a drivers license.

Ergo, the lfs is to blame. :tongue2: