Who's Fault Is It?

[PRW1988]

I saw it's more of the customers fault than the stores, yes the store could've given more information. But how on earth can somebody answer your question if you don't ask it?

 

[kribensis12]

It was the ifs fault, if it was a favorite, then why didnt they ask more questions. I f they put it in a freshwater tank, then obivously the keepers are noobs. They should have ensured that the tank was suitable for the fish. Ex: If i buy a camera, and it dosent say that you cant keep it by fire, and the consumer does, then it explodes. How was the consumer at fault, when they didnt know?

 

[Nevergone815]

Ex: If i buy a camera, and it dosent say that you cant keep it by fire, and the consumer does, then it explodes. How was the consumer at fault, when they didnt know?

That' just plain stupidity there... its aong the lines of that woman sueing McDonalds because the coffe cup didn't say it was hot and she burnt herself. So now everyone has to put "Caution, contains hot contents" o ntheir cups. Like floors slippery when wet signs are a joke... what's the floor supposed ot be when wet, sticky? To me ignorance is not an excuse to common sense. That's the problem in the world, no on uses their common sense anymore. If o id somehiogn that stupid, then you deserve ot suffer the conequences.

How is it the lfs fault that the customer didn't know the difference between a FW and SW fish? You can clearly tell th difference. Most of the time they are kept in different looking tank setups i nthe lfs. The fish of each type of water look nothing laike. You can grab any kid on the street that ahsseen Finding Nemo (which is almost everyone, including their parents) show them a tang and the ywill say Dori! And know they go in the sea not the rivers.

C'mon, the customer acted like they knew, the store assumed they did and the customer were idiots. Its that simple. Google is a very easy tool t use. All the peopel had ot do is ask if they wouldhold it until later that day, most would. Go home research the fish. Oh, google said these are marine... call the lfs and say sorry we can't take it. End of story.

These people need ot learn to take responsibility for their atons an stop pointing the blame elsewhere. Ive made my mistakes in fishkeeping but I don't blame the lfs I got the fish from, I didn' do the necessary research. Take responsibility for your own actions. It's that simple...

 

[kribensis12]

Ex: If i buy a camera, and it dosent say that you cant keep it by fire, and the consumer does, then it explodes. How was the consumer at fault, when they didnt know?

That' just plain stupidity there... its aong the lines of that woman sueing McDonalds because the coffe cup didn't say it was hot and she burnt herself. So now everyone has to put "Caution, contains hot contents" o ntheir cups. Like floors slippery when wet signs are a joke... what's the floor supposed ot be when wet, sticky? To me ignorance is not an excuse to common sense. That's the problem in the world, no on uses their common sense anymore. If o id somehiogn that stupid, then you deserve ot suffer the conequences.

How is it the lfs fault that the customer didn't know the difference between a FW and SW fish? You can clearly tell th difference. Most of the time they are kept in different looking tank setups i nthe lfs. The fish of each type of water look nothing laike. You can grab any kid on the street that ahsseen Finding Nemo (which is almost everyone, including their parents) show them a tang and the ywill say Dori! And know they go in the sea not the rivers.

C'mon, the customer acted like they knew, the store assumed they did and the customer were idiots. Its that simple. Google is a very easy tool t use. All the peopel had ot do is ask if they wouldhold it until later that day, most would. Go home research the fish. Oh, google said these are marine... call the lfs and say sorry we can't take it. End of story.

These people need ot learn to take responsibility for their atons an stop pointing the blame elsewhere. Ive made my mistakes in fishkeeping but I don't blame the lfs I got the fish from, I didn' do the necessary research. Take responsibility for your own actions. It's that simple...

First of all, i dont like being called stupid, exspecially when i am not. Second of all, the coffe, and wet floor sign has nothing to relate with my example!!!!And third of all, if they are a noob, how are they to know the difference!!!!!!!!!Think befroe you speak(type) next time b***h.

 

[Nevergone815]

First of all, i dont like being called stupid, exspecially when i am not. Second of all, the coffe, and wet floor sign has nothing to relate with my example!!!!And third of all, if they are a noob, how are they to know the difference!!!!!!!!!Think befroe you speak(type) next time b***h.

A ) When di I ever say you were stupid? I said that if warnings like those need to be there, that's stupid. Don't jump to conclusions. You know the old saying about assumptions don't you?

B ) I was using them how whiny people are in this world and that people need to think on their owns and not be told everythingand use a little common sense. Take responsibility for your poor chooice and not blame other people.

C ) Umm... anybody can tlel the difference. When I didn't know aobut fish or even keep them, I was able totell the difference between a marine and a FW species. Its common knowledge and you don't need otknow much about fish to know that.

D ) That last part was completely rude and unnecessary. Its amazing how brave someone is on the other side of the computer screen. Its clear that you didn't think when you typed your response, but instead misinterpreted and let anger control your posting.

 

[Birdie]

I really think that Nevergone wasn't calling *you* stupid, kribensis - the "stupidity" referred to the ridiculously foolish actions of the customers in the examples. The coffee and wet floor signs were analogies - quite reasonable ones - as regards the lack of common sense and sense of reposnsibility for one's own actions that is prevalent.

Name-calling is quite uncalled-for.

 

[Nevergone815]

I really think that Nevergone wasn't calling *you* stupid, kribensis - the "stupidity" referred to the ridiculously foolish actions of the customers in the examples. The coffee and wet floor signs were analogies - quite reasonable ones - as regards the lack of common sense and sense of reposnsibility for one's own actions that is prevalent.

Name-calling is quite uncalled-for.

Thank you for understanding what I was saying .

 

[dwarfgourami]

Normally, I would have sided with Kribensis and said how can newbies be expected to know. But in this particular case I can't help feeling that there are limits, there are certain things that you are just supposed to know. As a part of your general education, you are supposed to be able to tell a rodent from a feline, know that cats and dogs are carnivores but that rabbits are not, know that a dog needs walking every day, know what marine fish look like. Someone who has lived long enough in the world to be able to buy a regal tank, yet does not look at that fish and think "marine"- well, there's got to be something wrong with them.

The unpleasant truth, though, is that stupidity and unusual ignorance was not the only problem with these particular customers- if they had been upfront about their lack of knowledge the shop would have known how to deal with them. I am sure every lfs worker on this forum could provide us with horror stories of customers who pretend they know everything and get offended when they perceive themselves as being challenged; this particular couple seem to differ from the majority in that they actually made it sound convincing. Honesty would have been their better policy.

 

[cheesy feet]

I'm enjoying reading this thread haha

 

[Miss Wiggle]

I am fairly confident I can speak for MW when I say that we are not so much discussing the indivdual case as the responsibilities of the lfs compared to the fishkeeper in general.

If someone bought a dog, cat, bird, reptile or amphibean and mistreated it, we don't blame the shop it came from, we blame the custoemr that bought it without knowing about it. So hy should fish be different. If we make mistakes we need to stop pointing the finger and hone up to it.

yes, but to my mind this isn't really equivalent to someone buying a cat and not quite knowing what to feed it or something like that, it's more like the RSPCA re-homing a great dane to someone with a tiny flat, no garden and a busy lifestyle. It's completely fundamentally inappropriate, and if I had heard of something like that happening yes I would apportion some of the blame to the RSPCA as well. Fish shouldn't be any different.

If someone is a total novice, it is really their responsibility to let the shop know that. Instead, they tried to present themselves as experts- well obviously there are things you wouldn't feel you needed to tell an expert. If I had a shop and Neale Monks walked in, do you think I would have the nerve to ask him "do you realise you need to put salt in a brackish tank"?

the first time he came into the shop i'd probably ask him the same questions as anyone else, then get hideoulsy embarassed as I later worked out who he was, however I'm sure plenty of you have a good relationship with your lfs and some staff in particuar, we certainly do. I would not expect to be asked by those staff if my tanks were suitable as they know me and my tanks, they at least have a good idea what fish I have and my ability to keep them. If I walked into a new shop and spoke to someone I'd never met before I'd expect a few basic questions about my set up.

I really hope we never end up in a society where we take so little responsibility for our own actions that the above takes place. What next?

 

[Miss Wiggle]

I am fairly confident I can speak for MW when I say that we are not so much discussing the indivdual case as the responsibilities of the lfs compared to the fishkeeper in general.

If someone bought a dog, cat, bird, reptile or amphibean and mistreated it, we don't blame the shop it came from, we blame the custoemr that bought it without knowing about it. So hy should fish be different. If we make mistakes we need to stop pointing the finger and hone up to it.

yes, but to my mind this isn't really equivalent to someone buying a cat and not quite knowing what to feed it or something like that, it's more like the RSPCA re-homing a great dane to someone with a tiny flat, no garden and a busy lifestyle. It's completely fundamentally inappropriate, and if I had heard of something like that happening yes I would apportion some of the blame to the RSPCA as well. Fish shouldn't be any different.

If someone is a total novice, it is really their responsibility to let the shop know that. Instead, they tried to present themselves as experts- well obviously there are things you wouldn't feel you needed to tell an expert. If I had a shop and Neale Monks walked in, do you think I would have the nerve to ask him "do you realise you need to put salt in a brackish tank"?

the first time he came into the shop i'd probably ask him the same questions as anyone else, then get hideoulsy embarassed as I later worked out who he was, however I'm sure plenty of you have a good relationship with your lfs and some staff in particuar, we certainly do. I would not expect to be asked by those staff if my tanks were suitable as they know me and my tanks, they at least have a good idea what fish I have and my ability to keep them. If I walked into a new shop and spoke to someone I'd never met before I'd expect a few basic questions about my set up.

I really hope we never end up in a society where we take so little responsibility for our own actions that the above takes place. What next?

I think that's sensationalism and at least taking my argument to an extreme.

You don't have to ask if someone has a saltwater tank nescessarily, if you are even slightly suspiscious of the customers set up there are plenty of leading questions you can ask that will soon give it away, someone gave the example earlier of asking about specific gravity.

While I'll accept that if the customers in this particular situation completely hoodwinked the lfs and deliberately mis-lead them then it is entirely they're fault, I do believe that in general there is a degree of responsibility with the lfs.

No of course they shouldn't be going to people's houses and checking up on every single tank but just a few basic questions can avert disaster.

For the most part people who don't know how to care for they're fish will loose a steady amount of fish so will continually be back in the lfs buying more. The only other people really regularly buying fish would be those with multiple tanks and big set up's. The employee's in the lfs should be able to differentiate between the two categories that they're regular livestock purchasers fall into and should then assist the former with some better information.

 

[andywg]

yes, but to my mind this isn't really equivalent to someone buying a cat and not quite knowing what to feed it or something like that, it's more like the RSPCA re-homing a great dane to someone with a tiny flat, no garden and a busy lifestyle. It's completely fundamentally inappropriate, and if I had heard of something like that happening yes I would apportion some of the blame to the RSPCA as well. Fish shouldn't be any different.

Why should this be different? This is the purchase of a fish, not an adoption. And Great Danes are a bit of a bad example there. A previous champion Great Dane used to spend its entire day in the cab with its lorry driving owner, yet I was chatting to a breeder who knew someone who exercised theirs for 7 miles a day and it died young from heart failure.

But I am getting picky, and the point you make is somewhat good, but then also a little irrelevant. The RSPCA are rehoming as the dog has been in inappropriate surroundings (or the surroundings have changed to become inappropriate) and does not want the dog coming back. The fish is being sold for the first time. This is a matter of sale vs adoption, so I don't feel the RSPCA comment is as close to this matter as you say.

I think that's sensationalism and at least taking my argument to an extreme.

You don't have to ask if someone has a saltwater tank nescessarily, if you are even slightly suspiscious of the customers set up there are plenty of leading questions you can ask that will soon give it away, someone gave the example earlier of asking about specific gravity.

My reply there was to people saying that the lfs should ask whether you are aware the fish is marine.

For the most part people who don't know how to care for they're fish will loose a steady amount of fish so will continually be back in the lfs buying more. The only other people really regularly buying fish would be those with multiple tanks and big set up's. The employee's in the lfs should be able to differentiate between the two categories that they're regular livestock purchasers fall into and should then assist the former with some better information.

Why? For one, the lfs is a business, not a charity. It is there to make money. Also, with a larger lfs with many staff on shifts (and a staff turnover) it could be months before the shop can at all realise whether someone is buying a lot of fish or not.

Finally, the new statute makes it clear it is the responsibility of the owner to care for the animal and prevent unnecessary suffering, not the vendor. Sure the lfs should help if requested, but why would it want to go out of its way to give information that could potentially lead to loss of sales and/or arguments?

 

[Miss Wiggle]

yes, but to my mind this isn't really equivalent to someone buying a cat and not quite knowing what to feed it or something like that, it's more like the RSPCA re-homing a great dane to someone with a tiny flat, no garden and a busy lifestyle. It's completely fundamentally inappropriate, and if I had heard of something like that happening yes I would apportion some of the blame to the RSPCA as well. Fish shouldn't be any different.

Why should this be different? This is the purchase of a fish, not an adoption. And Great Danes are a bit of a bad example there. A previous champion Great Dane used to spend its entire day in the cab with its lorry driving owner, yet I was chatting to a breeder who knew someone who exercised theirs for 7 miles a day and it died young from heart failure.

But I am getting picky, and the point you make is somewhat good, but then also a little irrelevant. The RSPCA are rehoming as the dog has been in inappropriate surroundings (or the surroundings have changed to become inappropriate) and does not want the dog coming back. The fish is being sold for the first time. This is a matter of sale vs adoption, so I don't feel the RSPCA comment is as close to this matter as you say.

I'll happily conceded the breed in question may be a bad example (i don't know much about dogs, just thought of the biggest one i could think of as an example) feel free to substitue it for any large breed needing plenty of exercise as this was my intention.

See to me I don't see the difference, the fish could have been returned to the lfs by a pervious owner who no longer wanted it. I don't think it makes one iota of difference if it is a first time sale or a second time sale or adoption. It's semantics, the principal is the same, you are giving an animal into the care of someone and that is the issue.

I think that's sensationalism and at least taking my argument to an extreme.

You don't have to ask if someone has a saltwater tank nescessarily, if you are even slightly suspiscious of the customers set up there are plenty of leading questions you can ask that will soon give it away, someone gave the example earlier of asking about specific gravity.

My reply there was to people saying that the lfs should ask whether you are aware the fish is marine.

i know, i just wanted to clarify my standpoint on it and show the differences. that's why i ghilighted my with italics, to clarify i referred only to my own arguments.

For the most part people who don't know how to care for they're fish will loose a steady amount of fish so will continually be back in the lfs buying more. The only other people really regularly buying fish would be those with multiple tanks and big set up's. The employee's in the lfs should be able to differentiate between the two categories that they're regular livestock purchasers fall into and should then assist the former with some better information.

Why? For one, the lfs is a business, not a charity. It is there to make money. Also, with a larger lfs with many staff on shifts (and a staff turnover) it could be months before the shop can at all realise whether someone is buying a lot of fish or not.

Finally, the new statute makes it clear it is the responsibility of the owner to care for the animal and prevent unnecessary suffering, not the vendor. Sure the lfs should help if requested, but why would it want to go out of its way to give information that could potentially lead to loss of sales and/or arguments?

because the people running it and working there care about the animals?!

sadly i know this isn't alwasy the case but i would at least hope in a reputable lfs it would be the case

edit - bugger, messed up my quote tags, sorry!

 

[Darkstar]

An lfs has the responsibility to look after their fish in stock and to be able to provide basic information required for the future keeping of their livestock. It is not their responsibility to question each customer as to what set-up they have. If a customer isn't aware of the requirements of a particualr fish then it is up to them to ask or check it out themselves. If they do ask the lfs and the information given by the lfs is wrong, then the customer has a valid reason to claim that it's the fish shops fault. Any other scenario and I fail to see how the customer is not at fault.

Ex: If i buy a camera, and it dosent say that you cant keep it by fire, and the consumer does, then it explodes. How was the consumer at fault, when they didnt know?

words fail me...

The RSPCA are rehoming as the dog has been in inappropriate surroundings (or the surroundings have changed to become inappropriate) and does not want the dog coming back

You also fail to mention the difference between the RSPCA, a registered charity and an LFS which is a business. Both have completely different objectives and so aren't really comparable.

 

[K.J.]

Think about this. Would this not be awkward?

Buyer: "I'll take this fish, please."
Seller: "Alright. You do know it's saltwater?"

It's just something that doesn't go down. I probably wouldn't ask just because I would be afraid of offending them by unintentionally, shall we say, calling them stupid. It's their job to ask, not the LFS because the LFS is there to presume that the people buying the fish know about the fish, and if they wanted help they would have asked for it.