Thanks For Closing My Thread Mods

[Twinklecaz]

I never saw the original thread but I have to be honest and say I have noticed a few times that some (and some very experienced) users on here actually have quite a blase attitude about bad fish treatment and I just don't get it. You expect most people to have a "so what it's only a fish" attitude but not people who've devoted so much time and care to the hobby and know better. Frankly, it's strange. They are some on here that almost seem defensive of the "bad LFS". Unless of course a fish has cost them a lot of money, then it's different obviously .

Whether what I've said above is true or not, to someone quite new to the hobby like me that is how it looks when you try to prevent people chatting about experiences such as this with other fish keepers. The whole point of forums like this is so you can chat with people who understand, are as into it as you are and whose eyes don't glaze over when you talk about your fish tank. Supposedly.

You can say there's no point trying to take the LFSs on but why not? If it wasn't for decent people who wouldn't stand for it over the years then the RSPCA wouldn't exist, there would be no laws protecting any animals atall and idiot worthless people would stil be allowed to set fire to puppys for a "laugh" without getting into any trouble. I'm sure the original pioneers all those years ago were told there was no point too. Imagine if they'd listened?


Finally for the record I am not a P@H hater. My local one is actually ok.

 

[Vin Swords]

yep.. even i thought it was needless to close..

lfs man should know about fish.. or he should say he dont know..

giving WRONG advise to someone with poor fish is evil and careless.. even if is it by a security guard in the pet shop... who is not supposed to know about fish keeping.





good on ya gilli..

 

[Gilli]

Thanks for all the support guys! I didnt think I did anything wrong either and im sure all the souls of those fish that are dead because of advice like that are all nodding their little heads!

TWINKLECAZ the thread is still up on this forum if you want to read it - the Mods have just closed it so no one can comment on it any more for some reason.

 

[Curiosity101]

I do admit there are other ways you could've gone about it. But at the end of the day no one ever really likes being corrected no matter how you do it. And if you'd gone for the softly softly approach of 'oh that's wrong' 'here is a link to a website with the correct info' and you hadn't actually shown you knew what you meant or explained it in person.... does anyone honestly believe that web address/softly softly correction would've gone anywhere other than into a bin or in one ear n out of the other?

 

[N0body Of The Goat]

Did anyone see BBC1's Watchdog the other night? They did an article on Argos misinforming customers about items for sale, one of which was advertised as a "goldfish bowl." When it arrived, the box was labelled as a "Rose Bowl!"

Its turns out that the RSPCA have a minimum size tank as 45 litres, which I've now just found a reference to on their site...
http/www.rspca.org...InGoldfishBowls

Which begs several questions including...

• Why are shops being allowed to display Betta (and other fish) in tanks less than 45 litres?
• Why are shops being allowed to market bowls less than 45 litres as suitable for fish?
• Why are shops being allowed to let staff knowingly sell fish to customers who plan to use bowls smaller than the RSPCA minimum?

 

[Ludwig Venter]

We all know, that this is a borderline discussion, but the content is very interresting as we speak.... so let's continue (in this fashion) without pointing fingers and air your views..... It is going to be closed (eventually) when it gets to accusations and the likes, but let's see if we can get some positive contributions before that happens.

 

[ConnerD]

To be fair i'll give my local pets at home there due, they are currently revamping there tanks and upgrading there filtration system also adding more tanks .

Well in all honesty it' a hit or a miss with the shop assistants here but a couple of people in the shop that i regularly now ask for advice have a real interest and fairly good knowledge of fish in general. ( Not them all but some )They also do there best to make sure fish arent sold to people qith inadequate resources witch i respect them for.

 

[Tolak]

Your freedom of speech does not extend to this forum. This forum is private property, owned by William.

http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

“We have the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary.”

And;

“The admins and moderators have final say.”

You agreed to these rules. Your ranting at a sales clerk who is supposed to be selling fish and related supplies was found to be objectionable. They are there to sell a product, much as the employee behind the counter at McDonalds is there to sell a product. I’ve often said that taking aquatic advice from a clerk at a fish shop is like taking nutritional advice from the guy at McDonalds.

Sad really, in both cases, but in both having a more educated employee would require a larger payroll, and subsequent price increase of the products being sold. They would both price themselves out of the market in short order. The money you spend, or don’t spend talks. Talking nicely to the clerk, hanging out to chat and help educate will go further to obtaining your goal of proper information in regards to fishkeeping than venting ever will.

Think about it, if I were to go off on you right here concerning the closed topic with the same attitude you went off on that clerk with what would your first thought be? Jerk mod would be my first guess, if not something stronger, and that clerk is probably no different. If you expect to educate carry and present yourself as an educator.

 

[Gilli]

I dont see the point in closing the thread - it was in the past and I was merely angry and expressed that to the salesman when he failed to answer the simplist of questions. I didnt hit him nor did I threaten his family so I fail to see why it was objectionable. He told the customers to come back in a couple of days to buy the fish which he would have sold them quite happily knowing they would probably die. These people are not merely selling fish and related products - they are selling living breathing creatures who suffer and die because of the advice they give out - if they dont know how to treat fish then they should say nothing and advise customers to buy a book! Also he agreed with me that he was wrong and that there was room for improvement. Mod Ludwig said lets continue the discussion without pointing fingers - but if we dont name bad shops and salesmen how is anyone going to avoid buying there?


You say educating salesman would cost and reflect on fish prices - well if it meant billions of fish not suffering and dying because of wrong advice I for one would gladly pay a bit more. If everyone took this view on keeping prices low we wouldnt have free range animal products in the shops!

 

[Ludwig Venter]

Mod Ludwig said lets continue the discussion without pointing fingers - but if we dont name bad shops and salesmen how is anyone going to avoid buying there?

Continue in this trend, (not attacking any of our members replying to this thread)..... I will monitor untill (in my opinion) I find reason to close..... You are doing fine ATM....

 

[Twinklecaz]

The whole price thing occured to me now you mention it. I'm not sure what the solution is but surely there has to be some middle ground to it.

As a matter of interest, does anyone actually have an LFS that knows about fishless cycling and tells its customers to do it?

 

[Ceramicbull]

Not a lawyer, but one problem here is libel. If you say bad things about any business, and the store believes it can argue that those are lies, they can sue you (and I understand that the UK has very strong libel laws). However anonymous you may be on the forum, even if they cant find you they can sue the forum and its owner for allowing such a thing to continue to be broadcast. The rules offer a good disclaimer, but it is not invincible in court. Even if there is good evidence that what you are saying is true, legal fees are quite expensive and if you exaggerate even a little bit, the case may be in jeopardy.

It's not that I disagree with you on the welfare of the fish at any particular store, but there are good reasons why you're not supposed to name names and be irascible. If you really want to put a campaign together to change people's perception of fish, that's fantastic, but you have to be ready to take on the risks yourself and there are limits to how much you can borrow someone else's space to organize that.

Re: "LFS that actually practice 100% best practices?"
My LFS actually quarantines fish and otherwise does a commendable job, but doesn't advocate fishless cycling. To be fair, their clientèle usually doesn't listen when they tell people how to properly fish in cycle, so they might be afraid people will just dump a whole bottle of pine sol in thinking more is better. Generally if they sin it is a sin of omission rather than commission.

 

[Tolak]

Mod Ludwig said lets continue the discussion without pointing fingers - but if we dont name bad shops and salesmen how is anyone going to avoid buying there?

If you discuss how to deal with and perhaps educate these shops without naming them you will prevent this forum and its owner from the legal repercussions of defaming a business. If you start naming them you leave others open for legal problems. Yes, we have had to deal with this in the past.

Mod Ludwig said lets continue the discussion without pointing fingers - but if we dont name bad shops and salesmen how is anyone going to avoid buying there?

Continue in this trend, (not attacking any of our members replying to this thread)..... I will monitor untill (in my opinion) I find reason to close..... You are doing fine ATM....

If you start naming & shaming we will have to close, and perhaps remove this or any topic of the sort. We as moderators have the responsibility of keeping this forum running as smoothly as possible, a legal situation is not exactly a smooth thing to have to deal with.

So, rather than naming shops, which may vary by employees present, change of staff, ownership, policy, and so on, why not try to make a list of easy & common questions to ask shop personnel before considering a purchase? This could apply to any & all shops at any time. I've seen some really poor shops make a huge turnaround in a few months with a management change, I've also seen them go the other way. Listing shops & personnel is neither fair to the business, nor fair to the potential customer who may be relying on this site for proper and current information.

 

[CrystalClear16]

Having worked in retail (as I am sure many here have) I can attest to how horrible it feels for a customer to scream at you for something that isn't your fault. The majority of the time workers in pet stores are students working part time and proberly don't even like working there. Sure, in an ideal world they would go off and learn about the products they are selling but would I have used precious time when studying for my law degree to further my knowledge for a job I had no intention of keeping long term? Of course not. If using that knowledge would mean I go directly against my manager's instructions, would I have risked my job (and therefore money for food/rent)? No way.

Yelling at the little guys on the bottom rung achieves nothing and just makes them feel rubbish. When you work at these stores people don't see you as a person with feelings and as a result seem to have no problem publically humiliating you.

@Ceramicbull - in the case of large chains stores it is highly unlikely a libel case would suceed. There is a defence of 'fair comment' which covers opinions that where honestly held and based on facts. A customer giving a shop a bad review is considered to be fair and expected in the industry, I imagine a case would only suceed if there was a long term systematic attempt to destroy the company's reputation. Contrary to popular belief, judges are actually very good at applying common sense. Having said that, I agree that the 'better safe than sorry' is the best policy.

 

[toshapetriji]

May I remind that mod that we do have freedom of speech in this country - but apparently not on this forum even though I was protesting against cruelty to fish! I have every right to question shop assistants that are giving out lousy advice that is going to make fish suffer and result in their death, and the manner in which I chose to do this is also my choice!

You have freedom of speech not freedom of rant.

The sales assistant also has the right to go to work without being abused.

If you feel so strongly why not go to Head Office and educate them?