The Disturbing Trend of Price Slashing in the reptile hobby/industry

Evan, I have yet to see you cite anything either.

darn fat fingers

But anyway, Evan, you ask Seamus and I to cite these laws, but you don't either, so what is your point in asking?
I honestly don't know every fish law out there nor have I ever claimed to. I also don't know every herp law on the books. However, as I said, I am confident there are more restrictions than just no pirhana and no snakeheads and that the fish trade has got an equal if not higher amount of regulation as the reptile trade.

I am in the process of doing more extensive searches on tropical fish, but here is food for thought(possibly) involving regulated fish in the US compared to reptiles.

Endangered Species listed in the US, here is how they rank.

Fish: 115
Reptiles: 37
Amphibians: 21

Now, for whatever reason you said we should exclude native fish, but since they are fish that are REGULATED and protected by law, I thought I would put it up. True, not too many people would want to keep trout(thought I've seen some really cool indoor river trout displays), but I'm sure that if fish afficianados could get their hands on some of the different more colorful darters they would be prized possessions and probably worth a bundle in the trade.

Anyway, back to my lazy workday research. Cheers!

And PS Evan, noone ever called you WRONG, we just have DIFFERING OPINIONS and VIEWS. AND I don't know if you are missing it or not, but Seamus was comparing the fish trade of the PAST to todays' herp market, not today's fish trade.

This has turned into quite a side issue that we may want to create a new thread to discuss if it's really going to keep heading in the direction it looks like it might...

I have never stated the fish market was identical to the herp market, I simply stated that there were enough similarities between the two to make some minor analysis worthwhile.

The fish market did not spring up overnight into the enormous commercial breeding facilities that we see today, it started mostly in private homes or public aquaria, much like the reptile indistry started in zoos private homes for the most part.

Both then saw an increase in the frequency of specific commercial breeding facilities, both starting small and getting larger and larger.

Both started by doing a fair amount of importation, moving away from that to some degree to focus more on captive breeding efforts.

Both deal with animals that were not considered a pet at one point. I agree that fish never had the same social stigmata that many herps do but there was a point when they simply couldn't be kept alive and then when the technology to keep them alive was avaliable, it was almost prohibitivly expensive, the fish industry has been and continues to slowly grow as more and more individuals decide to keep these animals in their home.

Both do have a strong focus on The next big thing with breeders and importers always trying to locate something or create something that will catch people's attention and make them some money to some degree, how often have you heard cornsnakes or leopard geckos reffered to as "the guppies of the herp world"?

The price on these new arrivals and these hot ticket items drops as more and more are produced. Animals with a faster reproductive rate drop faster. I have never said that the production numbers or prices were completely even or identical, just that the situation is similar.

Both groups are under fairly heavy restriction although any group of animals really would be considered under heavy restriction if you look closely enough.

Both groups do have more ideal "pets" in the avaliable species (Fish way, WAY more) than do mammals or birds, this is somewhat important in a slightly abstract way, it means that there is a dual focus, some seek to provide the same species that are already known (often in new ways), others seek to provide new species or to gain popularity for what they consider an underrated species.

Both groups have animals with different reproductive rates that can be used as proportional models to gauge the market value of the species when looking at basic supply and demand. Certain color morphs of many of the poeciliidae more commonly seen in the pet trade will drop in the average market price faster than a color morph of say... a cichlid. This is because of the copmparative reproductive rate and the production numbers of the species involved when breeders begin to saturate the market... This is the same general situation as many reptiles (the leo, BCI, ball albino example for instance) it simply occurs in a much smaller time frame, this does not mean that it's a totally different situation.

I personally do feel that the herp industry, the way it operates, the production numbers and the volumes that many species will require be produced in order to have long term success as being similar enough to the aquarium fish industry to make the comparasin worthwhile. I see the history of the aquarium fish industry as being of value for a bit of a prediction of the future of the herp industry. There will always be specialized and cutting edge people or those occupying a small niche unto themselves, as there is in the fish industry, but I see the production numbers and the way common species are being sold and it reminds me of fish, production numbers growing every year, more and more households having at least one pet that's a representative of the group every year and more of a focus on those animals that make ideal starter animals than the delicate or high end critters. This is not to say the slightly more delicate or expensive animals will dissapear, I simply think the money spent on those more common animals will increase at a faster rate.

As much as reptiles still do have a certain social stigma that will never go away completely, they are becoming more and more acceptable in the mainstream pet industries, while this is not always a good thing, I think at this point that the full acceptance is virtually inevitable given enough time and I feel that we should reccognize this trend in order to guide it properly, have the correct people determining all those specifics and maintaining the integrity of the hobby as WE want it, those of us who have been doing so for awhile and have a vested interest in it's continued success. If we don't understand that this growth is occuring, then others will determine what the final result is instead of Us (as a collective group and as individuals), do you want PETA or the HSUS or the people who write pet store care books to be making these determinations?

I'm pretty sure I never really expressed anything as something other than my opinion... so why condemn my opinion for being what it is? It is my opinion that there are enough similarities between the two industries to make the comparasin valid and worthwhile, if you disagree, that's your opinion, I won't condemn you for it, I'll merely disagree.

I do agree that Evan really hasn't presented many facts though, just vague statements that, while sometimes true, can be highly misleading in their wording. If you wish to present a fact to support your opinion, lets see something concrete and verifiable, not "My cousin used to live next door to a guy who owned a fishtank and she said that he said you're full of crap." If you don't wish to present any facts (it's an opinion, you really don't need to) then stop being a hypocrite and demanding that others do.

Reading comprehension is a problem for others I guess as I have very clearly stated where my intel comes from. It comes from my direct, daily involvement in my industry. I have stated dozens of references to people and business that I gain info from. The "vague" percentages that I quoted are from Pet Product News, Pet Age and PIJAC. Really vague when I stated dollars and percentages.

Again, laws on native fish are irrelevant as they are not in the pet trade!!! How many pet stores sell salmon, blue gill, trout as pets? NONE! So why is that so hard for you to grasp? Many fish species more than reptiles are native endangered or protected for the most obvious of reasons! They are overused as a food resource and suffer from diminished habitat due to pollution and human range extension. Can you handle that? Most Americans do not eat reptiles, but they sure eat fish.

I give up. This conversation just keeps going backword to so many unrelated topics. I can't take reading any more twelve page posts on other topics while trying to discuss something else. Everybody knows my email if they have a legit conversation. Good bye. Evan Stahl