Featured Club rules updated

[BAYMAC]

I don't have any reservations to the club limiting a businesses ability to organize "bag sales" vs hobbyists coordinating. There is a difference between shaving labor for properly handling live animals and sharing shipping costs on an order of live animals.

Domestic VS tranship

Domestic shipping / group buys IMO should be allowed, but not "sanctioned" by the club itself. Provide a forum, moderate it, but don't run them

Tranship bag sales shouldn't be supported on the forum.

 

[spuri87]

well said @Coral reefer .. the forum isn't meant to attack people, certainly not people who are working hard to keep this place lively.. and yes, threads or topics like this wears people out - not just BOD who may step down from all the important roles, but also supporting members who as @grizfyrfyter said will be forced to choose other forums.. There should be no place for these kind of threads or enforcements where there clearly is a split.. We live in a democracy, best is to have the community vote what's best for them.. Coining something as 'unethical' when a lot of people have taken a part in that activity themselves, is bound to raise issues as we saw in this thread.. let's try to stay away from this and find better ways to create rules.

I personally don't think @Edgar Sandoval meant to attack a personnel here with his comment though.. I think his initial comment was a response to Randy who kept on asking who on the BAR is supporting this when all of the supporting members are clearly against this new rule.. There was a thread few months back where 1 LFS openly came against this EXACT same ideology.. For the forum users who dont attend the BOD meetings and have no idea what was discussed and why it was decided this way, it was just convenient to connect the dots and comment why this rule came into place.. this may or may not be 100% true, but as an outsider not attending the meetings, this is what crossed our minds! But then ClearWater's demotion from Sponsor to LFS in the same week and his posts getting deleted doesnt spark the feeling of inclusion.

That being said, let's try to keep the conversations civil.. I feel people are misunderstood on forums, because text can send different vibes than what they truly meant.. I honestly believe, everyone in this forum is trying their best to make this forum a better place in their own way - but since the ways can be so vastly different, let's give the power of attorney to the community (open/anonymous voting!) to decide what works for them and what doesn't.

 

[Patio]

But then ClearWater's demotion from Sponsor to LFS

Politely- Is this statement true? Were they ever a sponsor?

 

[RandyC]

Domestic VS tranship

Domestic shipping / group buys IMO should be allowed, but not "sanctioned" by the club itself. Provide a forum, moderate it, but don't run them

Tranship bag sales shouldn't be supported on the forum.

I still don't get the difference on why this is unethical versus the other. No lying or malicious intent is going on here as long as everyone is being upfront about where things came from. As a consumer, as long as I have the truthful facts, I can determine that risk for myself.

What's the difference? A transshipped bag that gets delivered to a local distributor at midnight via cargo, then gets picked up the in the morning by an LFS, then goes in their for sales tanks that day or the day after and then is bought by a customer that day is probably harder on a fish or coral.

I understand that LFSes have skill and knowledge, but I also understand we hobbyists do as well. What is the obsession that LFSes are the only ones that can "condition" a fish or coral or that they do it better than us BAR members? The end goal is the same, healthy livestock, but LFSes and hobbyists are driven to reach that end goal by different means and hobbyists will most likely put in more effort to reach that end goal for what they purchased than an LFS. This is not a knock on LFSes, so don't go there. They get tons of stock in at a time and are likely not as razor focused on a few fish/coral like we are when we buy new things or are willing to spend the time and resources one or two things that look unhealthy.

So again, I gotta ask because I haven't seen a real response to this. Who/What is driving this decision to ban and why do the proponents of this ban think this enables better treatment of livestock?

 

[spuri87]

Politely- Is this statement true? Were they ever a sponsor?

Clearwater created a post about it last week, to which Eric replied that BAR graciously made all LFS sponsors at some point and never took it back.. to that ClearWater asked what needs to be done to gain the sponsorship tag, coz the terms he posted doesn't list requirement to pay any fee etc, but then the post was deleted.. Again, this is how much visibility I have in this issue.. There should be transparency -

1. If BAR decides ClearWater is not meeting the standards to be a Sponsor, lets openly say why that's the case and satify everyone's quest for answers.. I dont believe in deleting posts and demotions that keep the entire community wondering.
2. If the sponsorship terms need to be updated, let''s do that. All LFS should know what and how much to pay to become a sponsor here.

tldr; Transparency

 

[fishy408]

Hey Guys,

For the sponsorship stuff, I'm working on it. I'm new to this role and it's taking me some time to adjust. Please don't take any mistakes as intentional or malicious. I'll try to get to it as soon as I can.

 

[BAYMAC]

I still don't get the difference on why this is unethical versus the other. No lying or malicious intent is going on here as long as everyone is being upfront about where things came from. As a consumer, as long as I have the truthful facts, I can determine that risk for myself.

appreciation for the ethical husbandry and propagation of marine life.

It's not about lying, etc, as you put forward. Its about knowingly buying animals on a lit fuse. ITs about giving them a fighting chance.

What's the difference? A transshipped bag that gets delivered to a local distributor at midnight via cargo, then gets picked up the in the morning by an LFS, then goes in their for sales tanks that day or the day after and then is bought by a customer that day is probably harder on a fish or coral.

The difference is, one has a bag time typically of +36 hours sitting on tarmacs in heat and flown halfway around the world, where as the other is less then 12 and shipped domestically and spending very little time on the tarmac.

 

[RandyC]

It's not about lying, etc, as you put forward. Its about knowingly buying animals on a lit fuse. ITs about giving them a fighting chance.



The difference is, one has a bag time typically of +36 hours sitting on tarmacs in heat and flown halfway around the world, where as the other is less then 12 and shipped domestically and spending very little time on the tarmac.

I get the difference in shipping timeframes, but how does the coral/fish have a better chance of surviving at an LFS vs in my hands?

The point of this ban should be to improve livestock health and chances of survival. How does banning this type of sales to BAR members improve that?

 

[BAYMAC]

I get the difference in shipping timeframes, but how is the coral/fish have a better chance of surviving at an LFS vs in my hands?

The point of this ban should be to improve livestock health and chances of survival. How does banning to this type of sales to BAR members improve that.

Why does it matter who's hands in dies or lives in, what does the club have to support it when its in direct violation of the mission statement?

 

[RandyC]

Why does it matter who's hands in dies or lives in, what does the club have to support it when its in direct violation of the mission statement?

What's the violation?

That livestock is getting transshipped no matter what. Whether a LFS puts it in a tank or a BAR member buys it and puts it in a tank/QT. If it dies because it's unhealthy or it's too hot on the tarmac, it's most likely going to die anyway no matter what. No violation there. If it's DOA, the person who ordered from the seller/shipper has to deal with it. If the hobbyist ends up buying something that ends up dying in their hands they unfortunately have to suck it up, but they knew of that increased risk. But I still fail to see how that's a violation of the mission statement. If a fish or coral arrives healthy enough, why does the chance of survival increase being in an LFS' hands versus being in a BAR member's hand? I'd probably argue that in most BAR member's hands, it'll probably get more focused treatment. So if you want to argue "ethical husbandry and propagation of marine life", I'd argue it's in equal or better hands of a BAR member. But hey, if you have a reefer with bad husbandry, it doesn't matter when that livestock gets to them, but that's a different issue.

 

[spuri87]

Feels like we are going in loop

Clearly definition of ethical is different for different people, and nobody - I repeat, NOBODY is wrong! simple question is how enforcing such a policy across the board will help BAR and not divide BAR?

 

[CaseyP]

Feels like we are going in loop

Clearly definition of ethical is different for different people, and nobody - I repeat, NOBODY is wrong! simple question is how enforcing such a policy across the board will help BAR and not divide BAR?

We certainly are The whole hobby itself is a grey area of ethics. Everyone just draws the line differently and end of the day not everybody is going to be happy. Maybe responsible practices is a better word than ethics here.

 

[RandyC]

Feels like we are going in loop

Clearly definition of ethical is different for different people, and nobody - I repeat, NOBODY is wrong! simple question is how enforcing such a policy across the board will help BAR and not divide BAR?

We certainly are The whole hobby itself is a grey area of ethics. Everyone just draws the line differently and end of the day not everybody is going to be happy. Maybe responsible practices is a better word than ethics here.

Honestly, if this ban was made because it increased the chances of shipped coral and fish to survive, you wouldn't be getting such an uproar from me. But there's not a single iota of reasoning that has been provided why these bagged sales are contributing to increased poor health of livestock. Then someone said, domestic fine, international no, but again, still no reason provided why an LFS vs BAR member increases the survivability of the livestock. I would love to increase the chances of livestock surviving for everyone, but this rule, in my mind, just isn't it. And the lack of reasoning and logic on how it does, just hasn't been provided. So why are we trying to police this? What problem is it fundamentally fixing that increases treatment and survivability of livestock?

I don't think BAR needs to sponsor these types of sales, but BAR shouldn't be banning/policing them either.

 

[Coral reefer]

well said @Coral reefer .. the forum isn't meant to attack people, certainly not people who are working hard to keep this place lively.. and yes, threads or topics like this wears people out - not just BOD who may step down from all the important roles, but also supporting members who as @grizfyrfyter said will be forced to choose other forums.. There should be no place for these kind of threads or enforcements where there clearly is a split.. We live in a democracy, best is to have the community vote what's best for them.. Coining something as 'unethical' when a lot of people have taken a part in that activity themselves, is bound to raise issues as we saw in this thread.. let's try to stay away from this and find better ways to create rules.

I personally don't think @Edgar Sandoval meant to attack a personnel here with his comment though.. I think his initial comment was a response to Randy who kept on asking who on the BAR is supporting this when all of the supporting members are clearly against this new rule.. There was a thread few months back where 1 LFS openly came against this EXACT same ideology.. For the forum users who dont attend the BOD meetings and have no idea what was discussed and why it was decided this way, it was just convenient to connect the dots and comment why this rule came into place.. this may or may not be 100% true, but as an outsider not attending the meetings, this is what crossed our minds! But then ClearWater's demotion from Sponsor to LFS in the same week and his posts getting deleted doesnt spark the feeling of inclusion.

That being said, let's try to keep the conversations civil.. I feel people are misunderstood on forums, because text can send different vibes than what they truly meant.. I honestly believe, everyone in this forum is trying their best to make this forum a better place in their own way - but since the ways can be so vastly different, let's give the power of attorney to the community (open/anonymous voting!) to decide what works for them and what doesn't.

Anyone can and should attend BOD if they want the details or to have their opinion heard by the people that have to make decisions.
If you can’t or won’t make it there are minutes posted here that anyone can read. I suggest people do that before they make assumptions.
Or feel free to ask a BOD member nicely for details
Assuming isn’t good

 

[Slingfox]

It's not about lying, etc, as you put forward. Its about knowingly buying animals on a lit fuse. ITs about giving them a fighting chance.



The difference is, one has a bag time typically of +36 hours sitting on tarmacs in heat and flown halfway around the world, where as the other is less then 12 and shipped domestically and spending very little time on the tarmac.

To give fish the best chance to survive sometimes it will be better to allow the hobbyist to condition the fish rather than an LFS. The only LFS in the Bay Area that has fish handling practices that cannot be reasonably doubted is Kenny at High Tide Aquatics.

For coral, I am skeptical there is much if any positive value with an LFS “conditioning” coral for some short period of time in their tanks vs. a dedicated QT tank at the home of a hobbyist who has made the effort to learn how to intake coral.

This is particularly an issue for SPS colonies. What LFS in the Bay Area is importing from Indonesia or Australian and then immediately fragging those colonies (higher survival rate than leaving them in colony form), inspecting for pests, and putting the frags through 4-6 week quarantine with dips and Interceptor? Nobody from what I can tell. If an LFS does not have a strict QT protocol then adding an imported coral to their system for “conditioning” increases rather than decreases the risk profile for the coral.

 

[spuri87]

If you can’t or won’t make it there are minutes posted here that anyone can read. I suggest people do that before they make assumptions.
Or feel free to ask a BOD member nicely for details
Assuming isn’t good

Thanks @Coral reefer .. At the risk of extending the loop, as has been asked multiple times in the thread, can someone share minutes of the meeting why it was decided to make this post an enforcing rule?

 

[tribbitt]

BAR mission is to promote ethical husbandry practices and share information. When faced with a morally nuanced issue, enacting change starts with education, not bans. (And I still have some doubt that requiring "conditioning" actually makes this more ethical).

For example, I would love LFS to share their conditioning practices and let hobbyists decide. Or share good / bad experiences with group buys. Challenges with logistics, challenges with husbandry, and workarounds. Or a rule that all group buys must clearly describe origin of animals at the top of the post.

I worry that this kind of policing will drive users off the site and create a net negative in terms of education and responsible reefkeeping.

 

[grizfyrfyter]

I understand the ethics of not supporting bag sales of transshipped animals but if that's the metric, the forum should also not be discussing buying from a lfs who sells transshipped animals without a full qt. That's arguably harder on the animal to be purchased 2 days after arrival from a store system than a hobbyist taking it directly home.

In other words, the club has no business policing this policy because it's not being applied logically. It's targeting a very specific situation that is still going to happen. Again, this is where "best practice" guidance from a collection of experienced club members has value.

 

[BAYMAC]

I understand the ethics of not supporting bag sales of transshipped animals but if that's the metric, the forum should also not be discussing buying from a lfs who sells transshipped animals without a full qt. That's arguably harder on the animal to be purchased 2 days after arrival from a store system than a hobbyist taking it directly home.

In other words, the club has no business policing this policy because it's not being applied logically. It's targeting a very specific situation that is still going to happen. Again, this is where "best practice" guidance from a collection of experienced club members has value.

The ban doesn't have to get that deep, you sure are taking this hard. Sure its going to happen, guess where its not going to happen? You can't police the world, but you can your own forum.

The fact is, you guys are really late to the party. This idea predates BAR and goes back to BARE.

We have never supported bag sales.

On the topic, guess what caused the rift and inception of BAR... a group buy gone bad.

 

[BAYMAC]

BAR mission is to promote ethical husbandry practices and share information. When faced with a morally nuanced issue, enacting change starts with education, not bans. (And I still have some doubt that requiring "conditioning" actually makes this more ethical).

For example, I would love LFS to share their conditioning practices and let hobbyists decide. Or share good / bad experiences with group buys. Challenges with logistics, challenges with husbandry, and workarounds. Or a rule that all group buys must clearly describe origin of animals at the top of the post.

I worry that this kind of policing will drive users off the site and create a net negative in terms of education and responsible reefkeeping.

If you want to get that deep... the hobby to its core is unethical. So is keeping pets in general.

You know what gives a bad name to reefkeeping... cut flowers/bag sales.