Misleading Behavior of On-Line Fish Vendors

[Stuart60611]

My suggestion would be to take the forthcoming list of tang recommendations from RC and use it to try and change LA's suggestions. Maybe start with an email to them. Then maybe talk to them about the lionfish and other fish that you see on their website and keep going with your suggestions.

I would also pray that they don't read this thread. No one thinks you should do nothing but it's all about how you went about it.

Jeff, the purpose of this thread was to explore the subject matter and to assemble viewpoints concerning the same in an attempt to determine whether the alleged problem addressed even exists (which many feel it does not) and perhaps to attempt find appropriate solutions. It is understandable that one can take the view that this approach may not be the most effective while others may think it is an effective means to sort out the issue and explore solutions. Reasonable minds can clearly differ in this regard.

As far as taking the recommended minimum tank size info. suggested concerning tangs to LA, I think that is a fine idea. IMO, the concern goes far beyond tangs and feel the comprehensive discussion going on in this thread is more broadly focused and an appropriate method to attempt to address the subject matter.

 

[Sk8r]

:lol: and if that was not confusing enough---
You are back online. Everybody relax.

 

[returnofsid]

Having followed this thread, since it's inception, I now find myself needing to post. While it may seem that the OP is directly attacking LA, I think I understand why LA is being used as such an example, and may be able to put it in words that others can more easily understand.

While lots of Vendors give out minimum tank size requirements, LA is considered the leading vendor, in our hobby, as well as a leading Marine educational authority. With "Drs." on board, it gives their "advice" more credibility than most other vendors.

While we, as hobbyists, should be doing our own research, prior to making any purchase, one of the sources of that research, IS LA, in a lot of instances. Even we, as informed hobbyists, sometimes use LA's website, for research means. We rarely use websites of other Vendors, for research purposes. However, we've grown to "trust" LA to give us accurate information, because of their reputation. We as hobbyists, and even educators, have migrated from using LA, solely as a vendor, to using them as an informative learning tool. I think LA has nurtured that relationship. IF LA wants to be seen as a leading vendor AND educational source, I do feel they have a higher moral duty, to provide the most ethical information. IF vendors, such as LA, want to be perceived as a "leader in the industry," and an educational source, those vendors do have the obligation to have "correct" information.

I think this is the main reason that the OP chose to use LA as his prime example, and nothing more. I don't think he meant to attack LA, but merely used them as an example, because they DO have the BEST reputation, among the vendors us hobbyists typically use.

 

[ackee]

You seem to forget, Stuart, that I also stated that inappropriate tank sizes were frequently posted by on line fish vendors, along with other misleading information. I made this point quite clearly, way back at the start of this tedious repetitious string.

I subsequently used satire, suggesting that the only way to fit an adult Lionfish in a standard 50 gal. tank would be to bind it by forcing it into a cage and folding its finnage against its body. You took me literally. I made fun of you, especially when you misread data about tank sizes, and I suggested that someone in your business should read things more carefully. I apologize for having written so churlish a comment.

You replied that you needed no advice regarding your profession even though I had offered none. I had merely observed that I expected a lawyer to read things carefully. It was wrong of me to do even that. I hope you will forgive me.

I think you are beating a horse that is not only dead, but is starting to smell bad. The long, redundant, and incredibly prolix things you write do make one concept more clear to me than it has ever been: billable hours.

It is with respect and courtesy that I suggest you desist from continuing this Monty Pythonesque argument. I think you are a splendid fellow, and I apologize for anything I may have written that suggests otherwise. You have made your points with clarity and succinct precision. I am grateful to you for the gift of your insights, and look forward to reading many more. On other topics.

 

[Stuart60611]

You seem to forget, Stuart, that I also stated that inappropriate tank sizes were frequently posted by on line fish vendors, along with other misleading information. I made this point quite clearly, way back at the start of this tedious repetitious string.

I subsequently used satire, suggesting that the only way to fit an adult Lionfish in a standard 50 gal. tank would be to bind it by forcing it into a cage and folding its finnage against its body. You took me literally. I made fun of you, especially when you misread data about tank sizes, and I suggested that someone in your business should read things more carefully. I apologize for having written so churlish a comment.

You replied that you needed no advice regarding your profession even though I had offered none. I had merely observed that I expected a lawyer to read things carefully. It was wong of me to do even that. I hope you will forgive me.

I think you are beating a horse that is not only dead, but is starting to smell bad. The long, redundant, and incredibly prolix things you write do make one concept more clear to me than it has ever been: billable hours.

It is with respect and courtesy that I suggest you desist from continuing this Monty Pythonesque argument. I think you are a splendid fellow, and I apologize for anything I may have written that suggests otherwise. You have made your points with clarity and succinct precision. I am grateful to you for the gift of your insights, and look forward to reading many more. On other topics.

The appology is accepted and unnecessary. The suggestion is noted and taken with respect. I agree that this thread has gotten way overly verbose and could have gotten here with far less drama. However, I have a simple counter-suggestion and suggest simply not participating in the thread if you find it objectionable. There is no requirement to read it or post therein. Lastly, I am billing no hours, nor being compensated in any form for any of my postings. My legal work product is far better than the rubish I have written here. :spin3:

 

[JHemdal]

Yeah I know, this thread kind of closed itself down, and I said I would stop posting on it, but I found this on the web today:

Recommended minimum tank size: TheVolitan prefers a tank of at least 30 gallons with plenty of places to hide & swim.

Doesn't matter whose site it was (not LA) but it goes to show that the problem is NOT with LA, but rather, with the whole premise of relying on a dealer to supply you with good information. I had a Honda dealer, with a totally straight face, tell me that the three tiny ridges on the side view mirrors of a CR/V would save me 1.5 mpg in gas due to the way they broke up the airflow!

And you know, some hobbyist out there with a 29 gallon tank (net volume only 22 gallons) is going to say that is almost a 30 gallon and will buy the fish....so I still say the responsibility is on the buyer to make informed choices....

Jay

 

[Stuart60611]

Yeah I know, this thread kind of closed itself down, and I said I would stop posting on it, but I found this on the web today:

Recommended minimum tank size: TheVolitan prefers a tank of at least 30 gallons with plenty of places to hide & swim.

Doesn't matter whose site it was (not LA) but it goes to show that the problem is NOT with LA, but rather, with the whole premise of relying on a dealer to supply you with good information. I had a Honda dealer, with a totally straight face, tell me that the three tiny ridges on the side view mirrors of a CR/V would save me 1.5 mpg in gas due to the way they broke up the airflow!

And you know, some hobbyist out there with a 29 gallon tank (net volume only 22 gallons) is going to say that is almost a 30 gallon and will buy the fish....so I still say the responsibility is on the buyer to make informed choices....

Jay

You just cannot leave it alone, can you? Just kiding, and I really enjoy the thoughtful input you have provided here. I agree with you that LA is not the sole problem here, and many vendors are giving misleading information about minimum tank size. However, as I and both Returnofsid have argued, I believe LA is unique in this regard because they are not merely a seller of fish, but one of leading providers of information related to fish husbandry for the aquarist hobby. When you look to LA/DF&S for information related to fish husbandry, you are not relying merely on a vendor, but a leader in pet education and often a source which has originated or pioneered all kinds of fish husbandry information. I think that is an important distinction here. If LA/DF&S are going to assume the role of being a leading source of information for fish husbandry (which they have affirmatively chosen to do without any obligation to do so), then I believe that they have a corresponding duty to provide accurate and complete information in this regard. They are not merely a vendor, but according to their own statements a leading educator. Teachers should teach accurate and complete information. For example, if you college professor taught you a concept would you think to challenge it or research whether the professor was accurately explaining the concept? Of course not because you would assume an educator knows about the topic he/she is educating upon. The same holds true for LA/DF&S, and many people rely on the information that they provide because of their voluntary assumption of the role and indeed substantial promotion and advertisement of themselves as leading pet educators and not merely vendors.

 

[DoubleM 10]

Doesn't matter whose site it was (not LA) but it goes to show that the problem is NOT with LA, but rather, with the whole premise of relying on a dealer to supply you with good information. I had a Honda dealer, with a totally straight face, tell me that the three tiny ridges on the side view mirrors of a CR/V would save me 1.5 mpg in gas due to the way they broke up the airflow!

Jay

WOW thats awsome! i work for honda!!!!!!!! that is way to funny!!! all of my fellow employees are reading it right now lol

and about this thread like all of us have said time and time again their is no resoving this issue here. we could talk about this for years.

the problem is you cant fix stupid. thats it it plain and simple. One of my buddies just bought a blue tang and put it in his 65gal. i told him he is an idiot and he should take it back.

all people like him need is one place online or person to think its ok and they are sold. i tried to fix "stupid". it dont work

 

[uhuru]

You just cannot leave it alone, can you? Just kiding, and I really enjoy the thoughtful input you have provided here. I agree with you that LA is not the sole problem here, and many vendors are giving misleading information about minimum tank size. However, as I and both Returnofsid have argued, I believe LA is unique in this regard because they are not merely a seller of fish, but one of leading providers of information related to fish husbandry for the aquarist hobby. When you look to LA/DF&S for information related to fish husbandry, you are not relying merely on a vendor, but a leader in pet education and often a source which has originated or pioneered all kinds of fish husbandry information. I think that is an important distinction here. If LA/DF&S are going to assume the role of being a leading source of information for fish husbandry (which they have affirmatively chosen to do without any obligation to do so), then I believe that they have a corresponding duty to provide accurate and complete information in this regard. They are not merely a vendor, but according to their own statements a leading educator. Teachers should teach accurate and complete information. For example, if you college professor taught you a concept would you think to challenge it or research whether the professor was accurately explaining the concept? Of course not because you would assume an educator knows about the topic he/she is educating upon. The same holds true for LA/DF&S, and many people rely on the information that they provide because of their voluntary assumption of the role and indeed substantial promotion and advertisement of themselves as leading pet educators and not merely vendors.

Have you done anything about it besides participate in your own thread? I didn't read through the whole thing but you've written some very long posts with lots of editing, which means you've put a lot of time into it (your thread I mean).

I've found customer service from LA to be the best in the business. I have a feeling just reaching out and talking to someone there in a positive way will go a whole lot farther than making this long thread that portrays them in a bad light. If change is what you are really after, then try asking nicely first. Based on your posts I think you do know that, but perhaps you have other motives.

 

[Stuart60611]

Have you done anything about it besides participate in your own thread? I didn't read through the whole thing but you've written some very long posts with lots of editing, which means you've put a lot of time into it (your thread I mean).

I've found customer service from LA to be the best in the business. I have a feeling just reaching out and talking to someone there in a positive way will go a whole lot farther than making this long thread that portrays them in a bad light. If change is what you are really after, then try asking nicely first. Based on your posts I think you do know that, but perhaps you have other motives.

I realize that this thread is long so maybe you missed this when I posted this before. In summary, I realize that this thread puts LA in a bad light, but as it relates to this issue I think it is well deserved for an otherwise highly reputable company which does have great customer service but also which has nothing to do with the issue here. I have had and continue to have no motive for this thread other than having an interesting and lively discussion about a topic that troubles me and which I feel goes largely unnoticed in the hobby. Any change or solutions developed is an unexpected bonus. Post 151 above (first post on this page) pretty much states my position in this regard. Finally, LA is very much aware of this thread and the information contained herein. If they wish to comment or initiate change they do not need me to ask them to do so.

 

[spieszak]

Finally, LA is very much aware of this thread and the information contained herein. If they wish to comment or initiate change they do not need me to ask them to do so.

Hey, I've been out of this thread for a while, but if you've actually contacted someone other than customer service at LA, I'd be interested to hear who you spoke to, and their response to this thread.

 

[Stuart60611]

Hey, I've been out of this thread for a while, but if you've actually contacted someone other than customer service at LA, I'd be interested to hear who you spoke to, and their response to this thread.

I contacted no one at LA about this thread, but I have first hand information that they are aware of this thread. I have never received any comment about the thread or the information contained herein from LA other than the brief statements i got from customer service about minimum tank size I posted several pages back.

 

[ctenophors rule]

Minimum aquarium size for a volitanus 55 gallons.- scott w michaels.

The subjectiveness of this topic makes it tautilogical to discuss. This is belief. Can anyone PROVE that a volitan shouldn't live in a 55 gallon tank?

What would be a better gallonage? 100? 200? 300? 3,000?

And If you can tell me a specific number for the volitan, I would like to know your reasoning behind it.

Now, Lets see if I, or everyone else agrees with you.


correct me if I am wrong, but the basis of your arguement is that a volitan in the wild has more room than a 55 gallon, and it can't/ wont be happy in a 55 gallon?

you believe that fish happiness is directly related to how "naturaly" it is maintained.

considering that, I ask you, is a dog happier surviving in 'nature' or living in luxury within our homes?

 

[Stuart60611]

Minimum aquarium size for a volitanus 55 gallons.- scott w michaels.

The subjectiveness of this topic makes it tautilogical to discuss. This is belief. Can anyone PROVE that a volitan shouldn't live in a 55 gallon tank?

What would be a better gallonage? 100? 200? 300? 3,000?

And If you can tell me a specific number for the volitan, I would like to know your reasoning behind it.

Now, Lets see if I, or everyone else agrees with you.


correct me if I am wrong, but the basis of your arguement is that a volitan in the wild has more room than a 55 gallon, and it can't/ wont be happy in a 55 gallon?

you believe that fish happiness is directly related to how "naturaly" it is maintained.

considering that, I ask you, is a dog happier surviving in 'nature' or living in luxury within our homes?

I agree that the subjectivity of this issue can pose some problems in terms of definitive information. However, with the Volitan Lionfish as it relates to LA, my position has nothing to do with happyness of the fish, nor conditions in nature and can be expressed in terms of objective criteria as I describe in post 151 above. LA is recommending that you use their maximum size for the fish, 15 inches according to them, as a basis when considering minimum tanksize and suggests one keep this fish in a 50 gallon tank which has only a 17 inch internal width while at the same time keeping rock or other items in the tank sufficient to provide at least 3 separate hiding spaces for the 15 inch fish. This objectively is impossible b/c a 15 inch fish cannot fit within the tank under these conditiions.

Unlike LA, Scott Michael does not indicate whether his suggested volume is for an adult or juvenile fish (could for sure be ok for a small juvenile for a while) or under what conditions this fish could be maintained in a 55 gallon tank. Because of this, I too challenge Scott Michael's information about minimum tank size because it is often grossly incomplete and even rises imo to the level of irresponsible. Minimum tank size is, perhaps, the single most important item of fish husbandry information, and he, authoring a book and having the luxury of substantial extra space this medium affords when compared to a vendor's website, fails to provide even as much information on this subject in most cases as LA. It is much better to provide no information on this topic than to provide materially incomplete information in an authoritative book form for others to rely upon.

In terms of what I think is an appropriate size tank for a Volitan, my opinion is nowhere near as authoritative as, for example, what was very recently posted here by perhaps one of RC's most experienced keepers of these fish (13 lionfish/scorpionfish/waspfish tanks currently operating and 20 years saltwater and 52 years freshwater experience) who recommends a minimum size of at least double that of LA or 100 gallons and describes the fish as reaching the adult size of an American football (see thread below). Not just a small discrepancy here.

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1937920

 

[namxas]

Can anyone PROVE that a volitan shouldn't live in a 55 gallon tank? correct me if I am wrong, but the basis of your arguement is that a volitan in the wild has more room than a 55 gallon, and it can't/ wont be happy in a 55 gallon?

I suppose it depends on what one considers "proof", but let me offer something we've learned from keeping our own fish:

Our adult volitans started its life with us in a 6 gal cube (it was about 1.5" at the time), then moved to a 24 gal cube, then a std. 60 gal. The fish "seemed" OK but as it grew, became more sedentary and pretty much sat around until "the food god" visited. We set up a 100 gal "wide" (48" x 24" x 20") and moved the fish into that box.

Its behavior changed quite a bit. It began swimming gracefully around the tank, in the water column, and rarely perches much. IMHO, it was not only the tank volume, but the wide footprint that made the difference (think of a 12" cube trying to turn around in even an 18" wide setup that is aquascaped). To be honest, I've sat and observed the volitans in our setup for hours, and I think the 48" 100 gal is really the best, smallest option for an adult volitans. So beyond total volume, once really needs to consider footprint for a given species as well.

I've seen similar behavior with our dwarf species after being moved from their smaller setups to the vacated 60 gal. They really do "appreciate" the extra space.

Another issue is the amount of waste these big fish produce, as well as the fact that much of the food they eat is a bit oily and can indeed affect the water quality.

Are the fish "happier" in the larger setups? Who knows, but I much prefer their behavior when they're in more roomy digs.

FWIW, once we knock off a few more immediate projects, we hope to set up an even larger tank for our volitans and a couple of other large-bodied lions/scorps (in-wall, 300 gals +).

JMHO/JME

 

[Stuart60611]

Namxas:

Well said. Now, if Namxas were to advise a fellow hobbyist here that they should follow his substantial experience on the appropriate minimum tank size for a full grown adult Volitan of 100 gallons and not LA's recommendation of 50 gallons he could expect on many occassions to receive the kind of response that someone made just yesterday (see below link):

"I would trust what liveaquaria says more than the word of anyone who says to not believe liveaquaria."

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1944084

This response was made from someone who does not at all appear to be a novice hobbyist with nearly 1500 posts here on RC. I think this illustrates the seriousness of this problem because it is very difficult sometimes even to get people to accept correct minimum tank size husbandry information when so provided in contravention of such information offered from a leading vendor and pet educator stating otherwise.

 

[igot2gats]

I agree with the OP, Stuart.

Posting minimum tank requirements is telling only half the battle...so they might as well not post it at all, IMO.

It would be the same as if someone knew absolutely nothing about dogs....and a pet store only telling the customer that the dog needs food & water.

Why inform only part of what's needed? It just doesn't make any sense at all. So I disagree with the the notion of: "giving minimum tank requirements is a step in the right direction." Because it's not if they're not going to give more information beyond that, it's pointless to even give that info....no offense at all, it's just my opinion.

Should the customer do research? Of course.

But it makes the information useless if you're only going to give part of the necessary info.

What they need to do is - put a statement of something like "this is only the MINIMUM requrired for juvinle fish." We expect you to do more thorough research on what other requirements for this fish/invert/coral needs in order to thrive & live as long as possible in captivity."

If they did that, I'd endorse it by a googleplex %

 

[namxas]

"I would trust what liveaquaria says more than the word of anyone who says to not believe liveaquaria."

I generally have nothing but good things to say about LA/DD (they have a lot of our money by now), but every once in a while one has to wonder...take a look at the binomial ID for this fuzzy dwarf:

http://www.liveaquaria.com/diversden/ItemDisplay.cfm?c=2733+3&ddid=104877

The correct binomial name is Dendrochirus brachypterus, NOT D. zebra. This appears on both fuzzies they have for sale, AND after Renee (seahorsedreams) has pointed it out to them via email when the first specimen went up for sale. We didn't even get an acknowledgement, nor has it been fixed.

Granted, ID-ing scorps can be a challenge, but lions are pretty EZ, and a zebra looks nothing like a fuzzy. Something like this seems like it should be simple enuff to change, not to mention messing it up a second time after they have been informed, UNLESS they have some info that is making them refer to the fish as Dendrochirus cf zebra that they don't mention, but it sure looks like a fuzzy to me...

 

[Stuart60611]

I generally have nothing but good things to say about LA/DD (they have a lot of our money by now), but every once in a while one has to wonder...take a look at the binomial ID for this fuzzy dwarf:

http://www.liveaquaria.com/diversden/ItemDisplay.cfm?c=2733+3&ddid=104877

The correct binomial name is Dendrochirus brachypterus, NOT D. zebra. This appears on both fuzzies they have for sale, AND after Renee (seahorsedreams) has pointed it out to them via email when the first specimen went up for sale. We didn't even get an acknowledgement, nor has it been fixed.

Granted, ID-ing scorps can be a challenge, but lions are pretty EZ, and a zebra looks nothing like a fuzzy. Something like this seems like it should be simple enuff to change, not to mention messing it up a second time after they have been informed, UNLESS they have some info that is making them refer to the fish as Dendrochirus cf zebra that they don't mention, but it sure looks like a fuzzy to me...

I hear ya on the misidentification and the failure to correct the same even though put on noitice of the error. I can see how that can get under the skin of someone like you who is so engrossed in the keeping of these fish.:rolleye1: However, as you acknowledge, this error can be attributed to mistake. As far as the minimum tank size information, I have trouble accepting the same.

 

[namxas]

As much as I hate to say it, I suppose b'ness is b'ness, and in most cases, listing the correct tank size would likely cut sales by quite a bit. Just think of how many volitans are sold, and what the liklihood of all of them going home with keepers who have at least 100 gal setups.

However, as Jay mentioned, it's ultimately up to the buyer to perform their due diligence. Altho, one needs to have a reliable source doesn't one? Which brings us back to whose word to take. Personally, if I KNOW that someone is super familiar with keeping a given critter, I will defer to them, as they rarely have anything to gain from being even slightly misleading.

If you REALLY want to go nuts, take a stab at telling the masses that large species SH can't be kept in 10 gal tanx and fed live brine shrimp...it's hard to debunk old myths.