Who's fault is it?

[frewl]

I beg to differ. Heck that's one heck of a salesman that can sell cars like that. A sales person is there to sell. There are guidelines that they must follow. I mean should every car sales person ask the 40 year old man that is buying a sports car really tell him that the car isn't going to help him compensate for what he lack in his pants? (No offense to the gentlemen that are in there 40's with sports cars). That he doesn't really need the spots car that a Kia would be suffice since it is an inexpensive car that goes from point A to point B?

The acronym O.M.S. comes to mind. One More Sale. I was always taught this as a retail employee. That energy or protein bar, a roll of film, candy or even a dessert at restaurant. Selling you what you need a machine can do that. Look at the self checkout lanes. A salesperson is there to get you to buy the extras.

 

[skriz]

true, the salesman IS there to sell you extras (afterall, the greatest sales pitch in the history of sales is "would you like fries with that?). But, a true salesman is not there to simply sell just anything. He must qualify the customer. Commision sales is dependent on the customer keeping the merchandise. Stores also like their customers to return and purchase items from them. They will only do this if they feel they are being provided customer service.

If you walk into a store to buy a phone, and the salesman goes directly to the most expensive one and hands it to you, would you buy it just because he said so? Would he do that and expect you to buy it? Wouldn't it make more sense that he asks you a couple of questions as to what you are looking for and what your needs are? (lets not get into a conversation about need vs. want; you know what I mean by this "need")

However, I am talking about good salesmen. Not highschool kids who are simply told to sell sell sell and could care less about anything.

 

[kwl1763]

I've refrained so far but it's totally the customer's responsibilty. You have to take care of what you own period. That means researching and knowing you can care for it properly.

The LFS employees SHOULD be knowledgeable but be realistic. It's like going to a best buy and asking advice on electronics form a pimply face high schooler. Your paying someone close to minimum wage do you really think they are experts in the feild that have been doing this for years?? Very unlikely. There are some but not many! In fact it makes no business sense since it's a largely price sensitive business. Also when your paying minimum wage you don't invest huge amounts in training, knowledge, etc. so we've got a lot working against us here.

 

[cameron]

Lets boil this thing down by the numbers. 10 people (as of this post) believe that the LFS is actually responsible for a person buying a fish the person couldn't care for. It infuriates me to see us shuffle our responsibilities onto others. To think that others should do for us what we don't do for ourselves. That thinking has weakend this nation.

Skriz said "The LFS is supposed to guide the customer", where do you get that from? The only thing an LFS is supposed to do is make money and follow the laws doing it. Great when the go the extra mile, but they aren't obligated to do so.

 

[flyingarmy]

In my opinion it's the buyers fault! It's a personal responsibility issue. If you get into this hobby, it is ones responsibility to safeguard the creatures you take into your care. It in not like having a dog or cat, our inhabitants rely on us soley to keep them alive. (dogs & cats do too, but a lot less care is needed) You should have said something to the customer and to the LFS employee. True it was not your responsibility, or the LFS...most are out to make money. But we are all stewards of the sea, we have a responsibility to ensure its safekeeping. Know, be & do! Sad situation to say the least!

 

[xyzpdq0121]

No comment on this thread... I will end up getting myself in trouble. All I will say is the LFS is not selling toasters, they are selling living animals (or soon to be dead as the case might be) and doing so in a way that I do not agree with. I blame this whole thing on cameron and the LFS and the customer....

 

[george]

Cameron;33856 wrote: Lets boil this thing down by the numbers. 10 people (as of this post) believe that the LFS is actually responsible for a person buying a fish the person couldn't care for. It infuriates me to see us shuffle our responsibilities onto others. To think that others should do for us what we don't do for ourselves. That thinking has weakend this nation.

Since the survey didn't say "They both have a potential hand in it", one or the other had to be picked.

The store is in business to make money. The store also traffics in live animals which many people believe means they bear some responsibility to the animals they sell and, if they are conscientious participants in a hobby that purports to deeply involve itself in education and preservation, bear some professional responsibility to educate people who buy the creatures they sell. The LFS is also a customer to its wholesaler. One example bandied in this thread has been the Nurse Shark. Has anyone ever even seen pictures of a private, hobbyist setup capable of rearing an 8-12 foot fish to adulthood? Ok, that makes the sale irresponsible on the part of the hobbyist. BUT, it also makes the purchase from the wholesaler irresponsible on the part of the LFS. Has anyone ever seen a LFS that could rear a Nurse Shark to adulthood? A LFS should never buy an animal into stock they can't rear to adulthood since it might not sell. Likewise, a LFS should never buy an animal that they don't know how to care for. However, under your idea of laying all on the customer, the LFS is essentially saying, "Screw the fish. I don't care what happens as long as I get a sale". That's irresponsible.

Professional responsibility is not actionable. It's not morality. It's not even perfectly quantifiable. Professional responsibility is what drives good professionals to ensure that their clients (regardless of what industry) have all the options and information so that they can make an informed, intelligent decision. It is not sitting back and just saying "oh well, they should have known better." It's a two way street. Shared involvement in the outcome.

The pure "Laissez faire" business environment where we can all buy anemones, clownfish, nurse sharks, and dynamite to our hearts content with the vendor simply a conduit is as unrealistic as the environment where the seller bears all responsibility for poor purchases by the customer. Would it strengthen the nation (to utilize your hyperbole) if we dumped all consumer protection laws? That's the logical conclusion of saying the seller has no participation whatsoever, even on a professional ethics level (remember, with the exception of lawyers and doctors, "professional ethics" means little other than a sense of obligation). No lemon laws. No willful neglect laws. No FDA. No child safety laws.

The beauty of our nation and its system of government is that it very effectively blocks the very thing they hated most about England: absolutism. The draw to compromise on neither extreme is ingrained in the country. I agree that over dependence on lawsuits for what is consumer incompetence or neglect is causing big problems. The solution is not to fling the pendulum in the other direction, but to bring it back to the middle. When fish come with an owner's manual or a sewn-on care tag, I'll agree the LFS shares no part in the process. But then they still will be part of the process, really, if they're the ones supplying the manuals and tags.

 

[cameron]

Xyzpdq0121;33867 wrote: No comment on this thread... I will end up getting myself in trouble. All I will say is the LFS is not selling toasters, they are selling living animals (or soon to be dead as the case might be) and doing so in a way that I do not agree with. I blame this whole thing on cameron and the LFS and the customer....

Don't you have some fish to kill?

 

[cameron]

George;33871 wrote: The store is in business to make money. The store also traffics in live animals which many people believe means they bear some responsibility to the animals they sell

While in there care yes, but afterwards a business should hold no reponsibility in any form to the care of the animal. If I create a porno, should I be held accountable for kids watching it? These all devolve into as a society where we think blame lies when the fish dies. I assert that in a truly free society it is the inviduals right, choice, reponsibility and obligation on all levels to insure he/she is informed and capable of handling these. When you start deciding who was to blame outside of the invidual you start passing morality laws which is fundamentally against the concept of this country. Course that line was crossed long ago and maybe I am holding onto a pipe dream of individual responsibility.

George;33871 wrote: if they are conscientious participants in a hobby that purports to deeply involve itself in education and preservation, bear some professional responsibility to educate people who buy the creatures they sell.

If a fish store adversites such, then yes they should be held accountable but I doubt this fish store is an outspoken advocate of fish conservation.

George;33871 wrote: The LFS is also a customer to its wholesaler. One example bandied in this thread has been the Nurse Shark. Has anyone ever even seen pictures of a private, hobbyist setup capable of rearing an 8-12 foot fish to adulthood? Ok, that makes the sale irresponsible on the part of the hobbyist. BUT, it also makes the purchase from the wholesaler irresponsible on the part of the LFS. Has anyone ever seen a LFS that could rear a Nurse Shark to adulthood? A LFS should never buy an animal into stock they can't rear to adulthood since it might not sell. Likewise, a LFS should never buy an animal that they don't know how to care for. However, under your idea of laying all on the customer, the LFS is essentially saying, "Screw the fish. I don't care what happens as long as I get a sale". That's irresponsible.

With this logic, the wholesaler is responsible for the LFS not educating customers, the guy who caught the fish in the first place is responsible and we are responsible for spending money in the store that doesn't pro-actively educate shoppers. If you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem, so this guy is responsible as well. Where do you draw the line is the fundamental question being asked here.

George;33871 wrote: Professional responsibility is not actionable. It's not morality. It's not even perfectly quantifiable. Professional responsibility is what drives good professionals to ensure that their clients (regardless of what industry) have all the options and information so that they can make an informed, intelligent decision. It is not sitting back and just saying "oh well, they should have known better." It's a two way street. Shared involvement in the outcome.

You are basically saying the LFS is unethical in selling a fish to a customer without knowing if the customer can care for it. I think that is a strong opinion and one that simply can't be justified. The LFS is not responsible for making that judgement call. They can if the choose to, but they are not obligated to do so. By assigning that responsibility to them, you are in fact making it actionable when they don't pro-actively inform the customer.

George;33871 wrote: The pure "Laissez faire" business environment where we can all buy anemones, clownfish, nurse sharks, and dynamite to our hearts content with the vendor simply a conduit is as unrealistic as the environment where the seller bears all responsibility for poor purchases by the customer. Would it strengthen the nation (to utilize your hyperbole) if we dumped all consumer protection laws?

Whoa! This case isn't about protecting the customer or in this case individual from unfair business practices. The store didn't falsely advertise the sale, they didn't sell a fish that was substandard. They sold a quality fish to a person. What the person did with the fish is there business so long as the fish being sold was not defective. Saying that the business is proticipating in an unfair business practice for selling a fish any person can readily get information about is very unfair.

George;33871 wrote: The beauty of our nation and its system of government is that it very effectively blocks the very thing they hated most about England: absolutism. The draw to compromise on neither extreme is ingrained in the country. I agree that over dependence on lawsuits for what is consumer incompetence or neglect is causing big problems. The solution is not to fling the pendulum in the other direction, but to bring it back to the middle.

You need to research your history. First absolutism was the concept of a single person being able to rule others in an unquestioned manner. A king being such an example. This country decided that the individual had certain rights and with it came certain responsibilities. While we are keen on the rights part of that conversation we are not so keen on the responsibility part. With individual rights comes individual responsibilities. To me any law can be broken down with this simple proof, does the law prevent one person from infringing on the rights of another. That was the concept this country was founded upon. No king can pass laws that infringe upon my rights. Trying to balance the right of the individual with your own morality is why we have retarded drug and gun laws on the books today. Don't even get me started on the red light laws.

George;33871 wrote: When fish come with an owner's manual or a sewn-on care tag, I'll agree the LFS shares no part in the process. But then they still will be part of the process, really, if they're the ones supplying the manuals and tags.

and when a law is passed to include an instruction manual with fishes, then they are responsibile but not until that point.

 

[xyzpdq0121]

I have to side with George on this one. (I just could not stay out of the topic... I think the LFS DOES bear some blame in the above situation. Th do not just collect the cash and wash thier hands. If I was a ring maker and I could buy great conflict diamonds, should I? Those diamonds are used to fund militia in the world who are first hand at some of the greatest geneocital events in the world. What do I care, I get a great diamon and my customer gets a product. The world does not and should not work that way. In the case at hand, we are dealing with a living animal, does that not carry some inhearent responsiblity?!? The LFS passes itself off as an "expert" in what it sells, does that not carry some sort of self emposed ethics.

 

[george]

Cameron;33890 wrote: While in there care yes, but afterwards a business should hold no reponsibility in any form to the care of the animal.

I never said the store has the responsibility for care of the animal after it leaves the store. I stated in so many words:

<ol>
<li>I feel that the store has the professional responsibility to disseminate information to the customer for the correct care and techniques for caring for the creatures they sell.</li>
</ol>

• I further feel that the store has the responsibility to the trade and to the creatures they sell to ensure that for what they carry in their tanks, they are capable of caring and knowledgeable on how to care.

• I do not feel that the store is in any way responsible for ensuring that the customer can or does care correctly for the purchase.

These things are part of being in business, being a good professional business, and being a part of a hobby such as ours. I don't feel that Hobby Lobby has to tell every customer how to build a model. But then if the customer doesn't have a clue or buys a 13 and up model for their 5 year old, nothing dies. I feel a store that sells live animals should inform their customers about the needs of the animals they sell.

I am not advocating any legal responsibility. I am advocating professional responsibility to a community of which the LFS is a part. Furthermore, I am not absolving the customer of final responsibility.

On the subject of government and history, "absolutism" has 3 definitions according to Webster:

<ol>
<li>a : a political theory that absolute power should be vested in one or more rulers b : government by an absolute ruler or authority : DESPOTISM</li>
</ol>

• 2 : advocacy of a rule by absolute standards or principles

• 3 : an absolute standard or principle

Our government is founded on the prevention of the first in order to prevent the second and third. Our laws are tempered by precedence which provides the gray area where we avoid absolutism in the application of the law.

Similarly, individual responsibility is not an absolute. Seller and buyer responsibilities are not absolutes.

You seem to refuse to see a shared gray area of these two things along with an insistence that the only responsibility of any selling party is to that of the law and therefore the LFS bears no legal, moral, or professional responsibility to its customers. In my opinion, doing so, while an understandable reaction to our lawsuit happy culture, falls into the second definition.

 

[cameron]

George;33928 wrote: I feel that the store has the professional responsibility to disseminate information to the customer for the correct care and techniques for caring for the creatures they sell.

We will just have to disagree on this point. I feel the customer who is taking ownership of an animal should know how to care for that animal and no obligation should be placed on a business beyond a fair trade with the customer. The responsibility for the welfare of that animal ends at point of sale and no LFS, internet business or personal hobbyist should be held accountable for crappy pet owners.

George;33928 wrote: I further feel that the store has the responsibility to the trade and to the creatures they sell to ensure that for what they carry in their tanks, they are capable of caring and knowledgeable on how to care.

I think saying that a LFS or internet petstore is unethical and unprofessional for not schooling people on every special needs fish (which is a lot of fish in the reef business) is simply an unfair statement. I doubt when Brandon bought his Mandarin the guy told him about the special needs. I doubt when lots of people bought there clams at Cap Bay they asked about every setup. I wasn't told at Petland about special requirements for sun corals (but I did know). Unethical, unprofessional? I think no.

George;33928 wrote: I do not feel that the store is in any way responsible for ensuring that the customer can or does care correctly for the purchase.

With that statement you in no way believe they are accountable then. Responsibility means they are accountable. The original arguement is are they responsible and I maintain the are not responsible. I won't argue what would have been a better transaction, but I am simply stating they have no responsibility to inform a customer it is the customer who should be informed.

George;33928 wrote: Our government is founded on the prevention of the first in order to prevent the second and third. Our laws are tempered by precedence which provides the gray area where we avoid absolutism in the application of the law.

The entire bill of rights and the DI were written so that absolute rights existed. That we as individuals have certain inalienable rights or in other words absolute rights. The laws in this country were meant to be derived to interpret those rights. The original concept was that no law should exist that didn't serve the constitution in some form. Fast forward a bit and here we are with a bunch of morality laws that have nothing to do with our individual rights or constitutional protections.

George;33928 wrote: You seem to refuse to see a shared gray area of these two things along with an insistence that the only responsibility of any selling party is to that of the law and therefore the LFS bears no legal, moral, or professional responsibility to its customers.

I believe a business should be held to fair trade practices and nothing more legally. In this case, no fair trade practice was violated. I believe there are gray areas when my right to freedom of speech might effect your right to lawful assembly which must be resolved, but beyond that accountability gets pretty clear pretty quick in my book. The LFS did nothing to infringe on the customers rights, the moral obligation to care for the fish extends only to there care of the fish. I see no responsibility beyond that and as I stated earlier don't think it is unethical to not inform every client of every special need a species of fish might have.

 

[skriz]

Cameron- If the LFS's only responsibility is to sell, then they should have at minimum sold the guys a couple of books which would tell him how to care for the fish. This would serve 2 purposes: increased profits for the store and educating the customer (everybody is happy).

If stores fealt no responsibilty of information, then why do online stores give info on the fish they sell. They list the reccomended tank size, lighting, temperament, reef friendliness, difficulty to keep, etc.? This simple information does their part in this whole debate. Every vendor also "teaches" you how to acclimate the fish, why?

It is good business to take care of your customers, not just treat them like a source of income.

Again, this applies to PROFFESIONALS. I know that highschool kids don't give a darn and the company is not going to waste money on training them. They should, however, spend the money on a manager who knows what he's doing and maybe even some labels that can give the same info as the online vendors.

having said that, ignorance is no excuse. The customer has to take some blame, but I just put more on the lfs.

btw, we don't have any absolute rights. Having so would infringe on other's rights. (are we going in a different direction here?)

 

[frewl]

I just want to say this. What about if I just liked really fresh fish. I cruised the LFS's until I found a tasty morsel to snack on. I ate one but I didn't know it was poisonous and it killed me. Would it be the LFS's fault for not telling me it was poisonous? If I was to be in the habit of eating fish out of aquariums I should have prior knowledge of the animals in question.

I know this is a ludicrous situation. But remember a portion of these animals aren't met to be kept in aquariums. I say this in the fact that how often to you see a fish just jump into a tank or put out a bucket and call for your fish to jump in the bucket and they do that.

I know most of my ramblings make no sense but its been a long day too much freaking driving. I need to either move closer to Atlanta or just invent a teleporter.

 

[skriz]

Nothing is meant to be kept in an aquarium. Not sure where you were going with that.

Going to a lfs to buy food for yourself is different than going there to buy a pet. It is expected that you are buying a pet, just like it is expected you are buying food at kroger. And anyway, in this case it is not the wellbeing of the fish that is in question (although you did kill it to eat it, but it probably didn't suffer and have to live in substandard conditions); it is your wellbeing. The lfs should offer some advice on the fish, not on you!

anyhoo, offering you a book about the fish would take care of that situation too

Has everyone seen anchorman? "when in rome!"

 

[flyingarmy]

Hmm...I was wondering why I saw the Korean at the humane society!

J/K..no offense to any Korean meant.

 

[george]

Cameron;33958 wrote: With that statement you in no way believe they are accountable then. Responsibility means they are accountable. The original arguement is are they responsible and I maintain the are not responsible. I won't argue what would have been a better transaction, but I am simply stating they have no responsibility to inform a customer it is the customer who should be informed.

Edit: missed this one. You can be responsible for a part without being responsible for the whole or the end result. The LFS is a point in the process. Saying they are responsible to inform does not imply they are responsible for actions just as saying they aren't responsible for actions does not mean they are not responsible to inform.

How about they have a responsibility to the animal then? The professional ethical sale of an animal to another person, IMO, should carry the professional responsibility to the animal to ensure the customer is aware of what is required to maintain the animal. That doesn't mean if I buy a puppy on Craigslist, the person should be responsible to tell me all about it. He/she isn't in the business or profession (presumably).

Cameron;33958 wrote: The entire bill of rights and the DI were written so that absolute rights existed.

Go yell "Fire" in a crowded movie theater (or better yet "He's got a bomb!", these days) and see how far your right to free speech gets you.

The Bill of Rights is subject to interpretation like all other governing documents in this country. Therefore it is not absolute.

 

[xyzpdq0121]

All I got to say is I was in Petland today and *a round of hands* to danny for telling this chic that a tank needed to cycle before she could add live stock. She seemed ready to buy a tank and some coral and fish and take them home that night to plop them in. Heck I do not even think she knew what salt water was or how much table salt she needed to add! He turned her away. He told her she needed to buy a few books and come back when she had read them. On a down side he would have sold her the small 3 gal tank they have at the bagging station without the same reading involved, "Just go home and set it back up." But he get an A- for effort!

 

[reefscape]

lol thanks for the a-....you know i thought about that after she left ...you should have smacked me in the head .....