• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up

over priced fish...

I think the Coral Pencilfish is over price because I really want some but as a shoaling fish seeing prices of 12 quid for a single fish or buy 5 for 50 quid is just :rage:

And that Cory's price is crazy.
 
Whenever you shop at Rare Aquatics the fish are typically going to be expensive. The clue is in the name of the shop. :)

Are fish over-priced? It is difficult to answer. In general if fish were more expensive then people may take more notice of their proper care requirements as losing them would prove quite expensive. The cheaper the fish the more disposable they become. Where do we draw the line?
 
MirandaB said:
Totally agree with what you're saying there Andy,trouble is at that price per fish I can't see anyone buying a proper group of them :(
Click to expand...


I completely agree. I sometimes feel that shops should make buying a minimum number of schooling fish compulsory. I'm sick of seeing people write about problems with fish after explaining they have "one congo tetra" or whatever. I also dislike that idea that fish-keeping is thought of as a hobby. Since when is keeping a mouse/cat/dog a hobby?
 
Fish prices change with the seasons...it must be Otto season at the moment cos I've seen em at 6 for a tenner. In the summer they can go upto a fiver each.
 
Alastair said:
Dont know about overpriced fish but my local sells cardinals for 69p each. Rare aquatics actually do cheap fish from what ive seen. I remember them doing ottos at 99p not too long ago
Click to expand...
:woot:

You want to live down here mate
:woot: 1 Lazer Cory..............£22.50
:woot: 1 Galaxy Rasboro......£2.75...£3.75
o_O 1 Cardinal Tetra.........£2.50..£2.75
hoggie
 
I think lfs should be forced to be more responsible, minimum school numbers and ensuring customers know exactly whats required to keep fish, special requirements. Why should poorer fishkeepers suffer just because some people are too thick to research their pets before buying.
All your going to achive by putting price up is making lfs or tax man richer
 
I agree with Andy's comment about having expensive fish as a way of deterring people from taking the fish for granted, no doubt about that even for the more experienced fishkeeper. However, I believe that having the price being so high can be like a double edged sword. As Miranda commented on prices for a single fish being quite high itself, having to buy a number of the particular fish to make them feel at home will no doubt put the less experienced keeper off therefore, in a way making the idea of buying a small group or even one or two of the fish more tempting. Is this not in a way encouraging people to make mistakes? Then again, one could argued that if you can't afford a group then don't buy the fish, simple as that. So it is hard to judge what is worthy to buy. I guess if you want something enough then there shouldn't be many obstacle blocking your way.

I think its up to the more experienced keepers to breed some of the rare species for local fish stores and that fishkeepers should work together with owners to provide a reasonable price for everyone to enjoy. This could also in some way put pressure on large chain stores who really set prices that are high in order to gain profit to re-think their prices. Obviously this won't happen within a day, but if fishkeepers can help each other out, spread knowledge about breeding/fishkeeping then this hobby can move forward.

I find that in our community in this forum we are doing quite a nice job of doing exactly this for plants, there are constantly sales where people often give more than they advertise and swaps and exchange in knowledge. Hell some of our members don't even ask for anything or ask for a donation to the forum further encouraging the growth of this community. If this can be repeated in a more of a fish dedicated forum then that will be something. Although, it is fair to say that perhaps more work is required for the fish keeping aspect but its not like it can't be done albeit it will take time. The last two issues of PFK is definitely an inspiration to this as it focused on two hobbyists setting up breeding projects either to improve fish strain through cross breeding commercial strains or finding rarer fish to breed hoping to spread them to people who may otherwise not be able to come across them.

Michael.
 
I am not going to say too much, but I would rather fish not be cheap as chips, far too many people have little respect for these life forms under their responsibility. I agree with the minimum buy requirements as well. There has to be balance though.
 
sanj said:
I am not going to say too much, but I would rather fish not be cheap as chips, far too many people have little respect for these life forms under their responsibility. I agree with the minimum buy requirements as well. There has to be balance though.
Click to expand...


Agreed! I think price, and minimum buy requirements will have people think twice before purchase. Also, I think LFS owners or chain workers should also question some people before buying fish/inverts and decide accordingly if said fish/es should be sold to the person. It is actually surprising how some customers are actually willing to listen to LFS' advice. I think by interacting with customers and offer advice can help both owner and fishkeeper develop good relations, the owner can help educate while the customer will gain confidence towards the owner and their stock's quality and reliability. Instead of thinking about not being able to make one sale, why not think about having the customer returning back to the shop due to sound advice and a reliable service (Got to love the concept of delayed gratification)?
 
Assessing the customer is fine, but there's no guarantee it will be done properly. Countless times have I been in Pets At Home for plants and spotted something interesting in the tanks, only to be asked irrelevant questions from a sheet. I've alo repeatedly overheard assistants telling customers to "leave everything in the tank running for a week before adding fish". I'm not sure what this is supposed to achieve.

There are still far too many shop owners who haven't moved on since the 70's, and
screw their face up when you suggest anything different. If one shop doesn't sell you fish for ethical reasons, there's always someone up the road who is just wanting to make some money.
 
Henry said:
Assessing the customer is fine, but there's no guarantee it will be done properly. Countless times have I been in Pets At Home for plants and spotted something interesting in the tanks, only to be asked irrelevant questions from a sheet. I've alo repeatedly overheard assistants telling customers to "leave everything in the tank running for a week before adding fish". I'm not sure what this is supposed to achieve.

There are still far too many shop owners who haven't moved on since the 70's, and
screw their face up when you suggest anything different. If one shop doesn't sell you fish for ethical reasons, there's always someone up the road who is just wanting to make some money.
Click to expand...
. . nutshell
 
I don't mind paying Top money for fish from a specialist shop where you can see that they are quarantined and in good health, you can understand why they are that price as they have been cared for properly and there are over heads. But when you go to a store for example pets at home and they have just thrown them in a tank then want Top money then I have a problem. Mark up on Fish is shocking more than double in most cases, I used to run a shop some years ago and the guy I worked for couldn't careless it was all about the wonga. I get my fish trade posted to me about 29p for a neon for example and I still love and care for them as if I'd payed a tenner each. :)
 
Discus are a fine example IMHO.If they were cheaper,,no incentive for proper care by those who seem to stock their tank's through attrition.
Is how Grant defeated Lee during civil war in U.S. Grant was willing to lose more troop's than the South could afford to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top