"Just plain awful..." when someone else is doing it.

Steve, value is a subjective term. Everyone's "values" are different.

Sorry, I forgot to address this. The only time I used the word "value" in my post was in conjunction with the term "monetary" as in "monetary value" which I am pretty sure everyone agrees to mean how much money did it cost. I know the term "value" in itself is subjective and that something that you may think has "value" is in fact "valueless" to me. The "value" of something often times has no correlation with it's "monetary value"

If my post was confusing, I am sorry, maybe I should have said

"I find it pretty disturbing when people determine the amount of care an animal receives based on how much money it cost."

rather than

"I find it pretty disturbing when people determine the amount of care an animal receives based on its monetary value. "



Steve Schindler

First... I'd like to say as a disclaimer that, since the topic was locked down... This thread's creation was slightly questionable... The first few posts dealt with generalities, but it's leaning back towards the BOI issue and named people... Which would not be appropriate for this forum and would not be appropriate since the other thread was closed down.

With that being said however... Jordan frequents one of the same chatrooms as I do, I've "known" him online for five or six years now and, while I have never purchased animals from him, I feel I've gotten a feeling for how he operates... He had a few, very few, things to say about the issue... First, that he wasn't going to register to post because the other thread went off topic so badly and he's not going to participate just to have it lost amid unrelated crap (The discussion about vet tech vs vet nurse was unrelated crap, had nothing to do with Jordan)... Secondly, that he never ships 2-3 day... That he uses Airborne or Delta Dash overnight service for all shipments. Using Airborne and smaller bulk packaging, I believe he'd be able to sell Cubans (wild caught in Florida is my guess) shipped without taking a loss.

I'm not sure what's up with the e-mail Rob supposedly got, but Jordan denied ever shipping or planning to ship in that manner...

And my entire post doesn't belong here... but neither does the last half of this thread... I'm not real comfortable writing this as it is, this entire thread stinks like it's going to explode the same way the first one did.

If you all want to have a generalized discussion about shipping practices, then there is a SHIPPING forum on this site for that use.

If you want to discuss the shipping practices of a particular person or company, that's what the BOI is for. But in this particular instance, you all blew it when it went wildly off topic, forcing me to close it down.

If you want to try again and think you can all keep it on topic in the correct forum, then have at it. But if THIS thread tries to resurrect the previous thread I closed and touch every topic in here as well, I will simply delete this one.

Steve, I used the word value because that is what I'm talking about. Can we agree the Cuban tree frogs are pretty low on the monetary value totem pole?

If so, here is what I mean. Shipping these frogs w/ 2-3 days service is acceptable because of thier monetary value. If whomever loses some in the shipping process they can replace them for about a buck each. It would also acceptable because of the hardiness of this particular species. 2-3 day service would not be acceptable for lets say, a chameleon, more delicate species of frogs, OR animals with much greater monetary value. Even though an albino ball could probably do ok in a box for 3 days NO ONE is going to take that risk.

As far as care goes, sure the $5 frog deserves the same care. But, unless that $5 frog is someone's pet it's not going to get it. Not (or at least very rarely) in the business world. The albino ball cage gets cleaned first, and we all know it.

Webslave, I'm not sure if I'm on topic enough or not. I couldn't tell if that was a gag order or just a warning. But I'm just hoping to point out that this company's descision was not one that should permanately label them as a bad guy. The original post struck me as one of those pity parties where everyone wanted to pile on so they to can feel good about thier sense of animal rights. When no animals had actually been harmed. And, in my opinion, probably would not have been.

I truly find it funny that now he is stating that he does not ship in that method and only ships Airborne and smaller bulk packages. He can deny it all he wants but I have the e-mail direct to him in response to the ad where I directly asked him what shipping method he woudl use and he wrote back and stated " I will be shipping the cheaperst 2-3 day service in your area" Now that the entire subject has come to light the ad has been deleted and now he is stating that he does not ship like that nor ever planned to. What a crock of horse pucky. Seamus if you would like me to forward the e-mail to you so you can see excatly that your friend said it let me know.

I would honestly like to see this person come on here and defend himself or at least come on here and make a statement regarding the issue. But I am sure he won't as he still has yet to respond to me in private much less on an open forum.

Just a really quick note...

I didn't say I believed anyone or didn't believe anyone, I merely stated what I was told.

I asked Jordan to come post here to clear up the problem but he declined to do so... Frankly I think it would do a lot to ease whatever doubts people might have, in one direction or the other but it's his choice to leave a bad guy post unanswered I guess... Even though this leaves people no real option but to believe the negatives.

I have a funny feeling this thread is going to dissapear in fairly short order... Although with it being closer to the topic of the one that it related to on the BOI and devoid of the secondary altercations... Maybe... it could just be retitled and moved to the appropriate forum? It seems to be a much more reasonable discussion of the situation... Without the unrelated stuff, Jordan might be more likely to consider responding.... maybe...

I am sorry if you all felt my post was off topic or aimed at any on person. I happen to believe it was neither. IMHO the topic was the care that an animal receives and that is what my post was geared toward, and yes I think shipping methods fall under that category. If it were strictly shipping methods I would agree it would belong in the shipping section, and if it were strictly care issues I would say it belongs in one of the care sections, but since Brian was equating the amount of care that a business can afford to give an animal vs the amount of money that business can expect to make off the animal I feel it is appropriate in the general business discussion.

Steve, I used the word value because that is what I'm talking about. Can we agree the Cuban tree frogs are pretty low on the monetary value totem pole?

You can talk about value how ever you want, just don't equate yours to mine. Yes I agree that Cuban tree frogs are pretty low on the monetary value totem pole, that doesn't mean that they don't deserve the care that will give them the greatest chance for survival, they can get. Not the best care that will give them the greatest chance for survival that the keeper can afford to give them. There is a difference.

My example about the salamanders fits here. My store is set for 78 degrees during the day and 74 at night. These temps are too warm for many salamanders. I could buy them anyway, put them on the lowest shelf, put a fan blowing on their cage, use ice packs to cool it etc. but we all know that that would probably not be enough to keep them from suffering in the heat. You are saying that it would be more acceptable for me to do that with a $5.00 blue spotted salamander than a $30.00 fire salamander because it is a cheaper animal. I say it is not.

Shipping these frogs w/ 2-3 days service is acceptable because of thier monetary value. If whomever loses some in the shipping process they can replace them for about a buck each.

This is my whole point, I find it sickening that people are willing to accept higher losses with no apparent regret simply because an animal is cheap.

It would also acceptable because of the hardiness of this particular species. 2-3 day service would not be acceptable for lets say, a chameleon, more delicate species of frogs, OR animals with much greater monetary value.

There it is again. In your mind, just because an animal is cheap means that you may treat them in a way that MAY cause a higher mortality rate than something that is more expensive. You may be right. Cuban tree frogs may be able to survive practices that other animals may not, but you would have to agree that better (read as faster) shipping methods would increase the chance of the frogs arriving alive. If you agree with that then you would conversely agree that subjecting the frogs to a substandard (read as slower) shipping method would increase the chance that they die in transit. What you are saying is that because an animal is cheap it is OK to subject them to practices that would increase the likelyhood that they arrive dead. If you would have kept your argument focused on the fact that the hardiness of the Cuban tree frogs make it more likely that they would survive certain practices, instead of saying that because they are hardy AND CHEAP its OK to subject them to practices that may increase the likelyhood that they die, I probably wouldn't have said anything, because in that limited scope you are correct.

Not (or at least very rarely) in the business world. The albino ball cage gets cleaned first, and we all know it

its not a matter of who gets cleaned first, its a matter of who gets cared for properly. First does not equate with proper, but apparenty cost does.


I hear what you are saying and I think you hear what I am saying. If you feel the need to respond to this then by all means go ahead. If you want to contact me privatly that is fine with me, but since the webslave obviously wants us to end this I will not reply on this thread any more. I think I have made my case. In the event I am still unclear I will try to sum it up.

The cost of an animal should have no bearing on the degree of care it receives, at any level of the distribution chain.

Steve Schindler

The world must be a beautiful place, when looking at it through those rose colored glasses of yours.

I also see moral problems with assigning a value as a living thing to an animal as a direct equation of it's sales value but...

One thing we have to realize is that the monetary value is based off supply and demand... Species that are more delicate, harder to breed or keep or ship... The demand is higher than the supply and thus the price is higher. The reason chams cost more than cuban tree frogs is because cuban tree frogs are practically bulletproof.

In this sense, a limited correlation exists between the dollar value of an animal and the amount of care it needs to remain healthy (either as a pet, a breeder or during shipping).

I *think* this is what Brian was saying, I don't believe he was saying "well treefrogs aren't worth money so who gives a damn what happens to them" I believe it was simply a practical analysis of the above mentioned situation and a honest reflection on the nature of "business"... people are more careful with things they have invested more (money, emotion, time, effort... just more of anything) into, more protective of that investment.