No you are absolutely not
Yes I am.
I think it is.
Regulating prices is in no way directly related to the harvesting methods.
I don't believe I ever said anything about regulating prices.
Difficult to keep does not mean endangered.
I don't believe I said it did.
collection practices are not related to the sale price.
Of course they are. Current retail prices of MO are at least partially based on how inexpensive it is to collect the animals (the other part is shipping, which can be argued to be part of collection costs). Juiced fish are cheaper at the retail level because it costs less to collect them. Fish caught with hand nets are more expensive because it costs more to collect them. Fish caught on rebreathers are more expensive because it costs more to collect them. It costs more to treat the animals better through the COC, and that cost effects sale price...which is part of the reason some animals are not treated better though the COC.
I assume you mean by increasing the supply cost you will decrease demand.
I am all for pricing responsibly handled fish what it costs to handle them responsibly. I don't think that will necessarily decrease demand. This is a luxury hobby, and people who have no problem spending hundreds or thousands on a new piece of equipment won't have much of a problem spending 30 dollars instead of 15 dollars on an animal. If pricing animals at price points that reflect the cost of responsibility collecting them prices people out of the market, people who get into the hobby and out in 18 months because they kill stuff and don't figure out what they need to do to keep animals alive long term...well that may be a good thing.
and I certainly agree with your ideals but increasing the price lends to tighter profit margins for the suppliers which in actuality decreases the proper collection practices. It is a noble idea but one that has failed consistently.
The only price I am talking about increasing is the cost it takes to responsibly handle the animals. If we are getting animals cheaply because corners are being caught and animals are dying in the process (but who cares because they are so cheap), then we have real ethical issues around the industry and hobby.
A great example of charging the actual cost of responsibly treating the animals is Live Aquaria Diver's Den where animals are treated and conditioned before offered for sale. This results in higher prices, but their business seems to not have suffered. And it is easy to see that paying 20% more for an animal that lives cost the consumer less than buying a less expensive animal 4 times because it doesn't live.
write the laws to deal with the methods not the end consumer.
Maybe. I feel however that since we are talking about live animals, not widgets, that we, the people who want to keep them, have a responsibility to see to it that they are collected and cared for well. A well constructed surcharge on the sale of animals could go a long way to fulfilling that responsibility in many ways.
