Can We Enforce a Higher Level of Accountablity?

Originally Posted by shrap

So you are saying that people like myself and Wes and other good folks who have chosen not to participate in the GGC, for whatever reason, should be boycotted? That they should be FORCED into joining or be ostracized for not doing so?

Dont forget, Bill Leverton, MG Reptiles and Top Shelf Exotics (Chris Johnson) were all GGC members at one time. Just having that certificate means nothing about who you are.

Originally Posted by deborahbroadus

I am not saying that at all.

It looks like that is what you are saying to me.

Originally Posted by deborahbroadus

to encourage and educate about the GGC and see if we can turn around this trend of buying from people that do not display this emblem.

I choose not to participate in the GGC myself, so people should not buy from me?

As far as any reptile-related legislation goes, I honestly think it is much more of a "be careful what you wish for" situation than you realize. I am not sticking my head in the sand, I simply am sick of seeing people freaking out over reptile ownership, and towns passing bans on animals they know nothing about, out of sheer knee-jerk political BS. As Bryon said, I'd just rather avoid being the one to paint the target on my own back.

Originally Posted by deborahbroadus

So you are purposing that we continue to bury our heads in the sand, and everytime some herper does something that reflects badly on the trade, we act reactively

I'll try this post again.

We as a community have taken a lot of preemptive measures right here.

Don’t presume anything with me. You haven’t a clue how preemptive I’ve been when it comes to the scum out there. Both in public and not so visible. Because I don’t agree with some of your points(legislation), I’m burying my head? I think your points are very clear. If you also take some of the other recent posts you have been making in other threads, the arguments are the same made every year since the beginning of Fauna. I guess, I’m going to fall in this category and be put out to pasture for not agreeing.

Originally Posted by deborahbroadus

The old cliques will be losing power because of their inability to welcome newcomers and are being seen as "outdated" by those coming in. Stick around and you will see that *I learned this in Business 101*.

To be honest, i have to agree with those saying that you should point people here and to the BOI to help lessen the impact on scammers and scum. This site is already going, and while the BOI can get a bit muddy at times, its still good to bring out the important information and such.

And as for the GGC like some have also been saying how they do not participate because they dont feel the need, i would buy from many of those people without hesitation.

If anything, i guess, we should be more worried about educating people on how to research who they are buying from, and helping pass along correct husbandry techniques than trying to pull in legislation. But. i just do not know enough about it to say yay or nay against such a thought though.

Originally Posted by deborahbroadus

The old cliques will be losing power because of their inability to welcome newcomers and are being seen as "outdated" by those coming in. Stick around and you will see that *I learned this in Business 101*.

Deb, i dont think they will be losing "power" at all..

sure they may be... at first, seemingly unwelcoming and a bit cold at times... But, i have to say that they ARENT like that in the least if you take the time to get to know the individuals.

I feel, as a new person to this hobby and community, that in the time ive been here so far, ive been fairly well welcomed, and have been seriously taught many useful things that have helped me out.

These old timers have a lot to give to us newbies and i cant thank them enough for having the patience to sit there and listen to my seemingly endless repetitive questions... and... blatant noobness at times.

I think though, that the real problem with them being so "unwelcoming".. is that they are more willing to help a person who will listen and learn what they have to teach, (and also more willing to lighten up) if people show respect of their opinions and experience(listening to what the have to say, and look into the reasons why they are saying it)

You seen that too?

I also seen her response to someone when asked if they can be part of HER clique.

Originally Posted by deborahbroadus: You are one of MY girls. I watch your posts; keep up the good work.

That was posted after the Business 101 comment. How nice, good for some, bad for others.

So Deborah, as long as things are done the way you think they should be, then you are willing to go along with that program? And cliques are ok as long as they are yours? And I must agree, you did say:

Originally Posted by deborahbroadus
to encourage and educate about the GGC and see if we can turn around this trend of buying from people that do not display this emblem.

Give me a break......

Originally Posted by deborahbroadus

I am not saying that at all. It would still be up to the consumer which whom he wanted to do business with.

I really do not see this statement of yours being interpreted any other way. Can you tell me if not a boycott, then exactly what did you mean by the following statement?

to encourage and educate about the GGC and see if we can turn around this trend of buying from people that do not display this emblem.

Originally Posted by deborahbroadus

But like the BBB those that buy from places that display the emblem have a greater recourse if something goes wrong with a transaction. Likewise, that same principal would be reflected in the use of the GGC. But like the BBB every business doesn't subscribe, but I personally try and do business with those that DO display this emblem it makes it easier to obtain customer satisfaction.

Continuing the allegory to the BBB: It's not the emblem alone. It's not just having the emblem, its the organization behind it and how they enforce/put pressure to encourage good business ethics and principles.

You act like being a GGC member makes it safer for the consumer to purchase from that member. It absolutely does not in any way. That is a proven fact. The biggest scam in the reptile industry was pulled off by a GGC member. Not to mention other GGC members that have proven to be some of the biggest scumbags in the industry.

You also go on to say that you have "a greater recourse if something goes wrong" when purchasing from a GGC member. Exactly what "greater recourse" did the GGC program offer people when Chris Johnson, a proud bearer of a GGC emblem, ripped them off? Or MG Reptiles? Exactly what "greater recourse" does the GGC program offer to anyone that has a problem with a GGC member?

I am not saying the GGC is a bad thing, but as a consumer it certainly does not mean a GGC member is a safe haven to buy from nor does it provide you with any recourse what so ever if "something goes wrong" when buying from a GGC member. And it certainly is not something where non-GGC members should be boycotted.

The very best preemptive thing we can do is educate the consumer. Which is what this site and the BOI is all about. Steering people here to investigate sellers before buying is a great first step.

As Gary mentioned earlier in this thread, I think one of the best improvements we can make is making thread titles easier to search. Having a very strict Business Name and/or Person Name only policy in the thread titles would help. Eliminate the good guy and bad guy and all that other stuff. Just Business Name and/or Person Name only.

My reason being is two fold. Easier searches and how many Good Guy Threads have turned out to be Bad Guy Threads? And how many Bad Guy Threads have turned out to be Good Guy Threads? The title of the thread alone can be very deceptive. Force people to go into these threads and read before they come to a conclusion.

Originally Posted by deborahbroadus
I am not saying that at all. It would still be up to the consumer which whom he wanted to do business with.

Shrap:

I really do not see this statement of yours being interpreted any other way. Can you tell me if not a boycott, then exactly what did you mean by the following statement?

Deborah Broadus

to encourage and educate about the GGC and see if we can turn around this trend of buying from people that do not display this emblem.

Originally Posted by deborahbroadus

But like the BBB those that buy from places that display the emblem have a greater recourse if something goes wrong with a transaction. Likewise, that same principal would be reflected in the use of the GGC. But like the BBB every business doesn't subscribe, but I personally try and do business with those that DO display this emblem it makes it easier to obtain customer satisfaction.
Continuing the allegory to the BBB: It's not the emblem alone. It's not just having the emblem, it's the organization behind it and how they enforce/put pressure to encourage good business ethics and principles.

Shrap:

You act like being a GGC member makes it safer for the consumer to purchase from that member. It absolutely does not in any way. That is a proven fact. The biggest scam in the reptile industry was pulled off by a GGC member. Not to mention other GGC members that have proven to be some of the biggest scumbags in the industry.
You also go on to say that you have "a greater recourse if something goes wrong" when purchasing from a GGC member. Exactly what "greater recourse" did the GGC program offer people when Chris Johnson, a proud bearer of a GGC emblem, ripped them off? Or MG Reptiles? Exactly what "greater recourse" does the GGC program offer to anyone that has a problem with a GGC member?
I am not saying the GGC is a bad thing, but as a consumer it certainly does not mean a GGC member is a safe haven to buy from nor does it provide you with any recourse what so ever if "something goes wrong" when buying from a GGC member. And it certainly is not something where non-GGC members should be boycotted.
The very best preemptive thing we can do is educate the consumer. Which is what this site and the BOI is all about. Steering people here to investigate sellers before buying is a great first step.
As Gary mentioned earlier in this thread, I think one of the best improvements we can make is making thread titles easier to search. Having a very strict Business Name and/or Person Name only policy in the thread titles would help. Eliminate the good guy and bad guy and all that other stuff. Just Business Name and/or Person Name only.
My reason being is two fold. Easier searches and how many Good Guy Threads have turned out to be Bad Guy Threads? And how many Bad Guy Threads have turned out to be Good Guy Threads? The title of the thread alone can be very deceptive. Force people to go into these threads and read before they come to a conclusion.

Oh wow..while I can understand totally where you are coming from, apparently my post wasn't as clear as I thought. Let me see if I can clarify even more.

But like the BBB those that buy from places that display the emblem have a greater recourse if something goes wrong with a transaction. Likewise, that same principal would (WOULD not IS) be reflected in the use of the GGC. THEN I went on to say that But like the BBB every business doesn't subscribe, but (STILL REFERRING TO BBB) I personally try and do business with those that DO display this emblem it makes it easier to obtain customer satisfaction.

Continuing the allegory (how it could be if set up like the BBB/could BE..not IS) to the BBB: (This reference is to the BBB) It's not the emblem alone. It's not just having the emblem, its the organization behind it and how they enforce/put pressure to encourage good business ethics and principles.

I am/was not saying that the GGC made it safer. My references were to the BBB. I have marked my passages above and perhaps it is more clear now? Not that your points are not valid..I just wanted to make sure that I was clear...and finally the word "encourage" is not comparable in any way to "Boycott" in the sense that I am using it. The BBB does encourage people to shop from sites displaying the emblem but it in no way means boycott anyone that does not. It is simply their way of saying we can help more if the person is one of our members.

The following statement is a very good improvment on the first suggestions offered previously in other discussions and threads. It is a start in improving the current situation and is more proactive than waiting for someone to be scammed and then reacting.

As Gary mentioned earlier in this thread, I think one of the best improvements we can make is making thread titles easier to search. Having a very strict Business Name and/or Person Name only policy in the thread titles would help. Eliminate the good guy and bad guy and all that other stuff. Just Business Name and/or Person Name only.
My reason being is two fold. Easier searches and how many Good Guy Threads have turned out to be Bad Guy Threads? And how many Bad Guy Threads have turned out to be Good Guy Threads? The title of the thread alone can be very deceptive. Force people to go into these threads and read before they come to a conclusion.
The very best preemptive thing we can do is educate the consumer. Which is what this site and the BOI is all about. Steering people here to investigate sellers before buying is a great first step.

What would you suggest as being the first step to reach more people in order to steer them to the BOI? We have read many posts that said, "If I had known about this."

Originally Posted by hhmoore

Having looked over the posts in this thread, I still find myself coming back to the fact that you seem to be suggesting that we strive for legislation. Having battled the legislative process a few times, I have mixed feelings about that. Your statements seem to indicate that you want to be proactive, and create/mold the laws before the governing bodies do it for us.
On one side, there is the acknowledgement that IF there is to be more legislation, that would be the way to go. We, as reptile enthusiasts, are viewed more as freaks and exceptions. Our rights to pursue our hobby are far overshadowed by the "health and well being of the general public". That reptiles are dangerous is a foregone conclusion...just look at all the news stories about people being bitten/injured. The irresponsible behavior of reptile keepers (escaped, abandoned, or released animals, inappropriate shipping, etc) casts us all in a negative light. While WE appreciate and enjoy reptiles, there is still a pervading prejudice based (like most prejudice) upon fear and ignorance. Once one of THEM gets it in their head that there is an issue, the typical result is a steam rollered action that we are powerless to control or steer.
Personally, I am leery of seeking legislation. By stepping into the spotlight, I think we would be risking many of the freedoms that remain. I'll admit that I am not particularly clear on the type of laws you think we need to have in place...but I suspect that once the legislative bodies are looking at us, they will find more, lol.

I am not trying to be discouraging, but anywhere there are consumers (and $ to be had) there will be people trying to capitalize on the market. I think it would be great to actually make people accountable for their business practices, and to eliminate the scammers (dishonest, scum, ripoff artists).
<grrr - duty calls, gotta run...I'm sure I'll lose my train of thought before I get back>

Harald,

The first thought/idea was acually to technically create some kind of "software" (I am not technically inclined...bear with me) that could track those that actually had bad guy posts and were proven scammers to keep them from posting more ads and scamming more people this software could be downloaded on all reptile websites that provided ad space similiar to the setups that prevent or discourage spammers from posting (yes I know there are loopholes).

After metaphorically having my head handed to me (without the platter) for even suggesting such a thing, I tried to find another route, which happened to be legislation, laws on the scammers not the reptile business. A law that would be clearly defined and one that police would only need documents to show that the person was scammed to have authority to go and talk to the scammer and either seize the animals or have the scammer ship them back immediately. In cases of diseases (ill animals shipped), they or a qualified representative (they can create a position just for this job) would go and visually check for dying obviously ill animals (yes..I do dream ).

I understand what you are saying. But it appears to me that people are speaking of singular personal experiences and not the general good for all? Certainly this can be approached rationally by politicans if we have a representative speak for us? Not all herpers have tattoos up the yahzoo with piercings on every orifice and outside, a big gut, balding...oops almost started talking about the politicans..(well who am I to speak..I recall the lynching years)...so I am going to leave that thread of thought alone..I certainly do understand the mindset of the small minded.

There will always be some trying to capitalize on the free market, if an idea is needed and there's money to be had, someone will have the foresight to run with it and implement it....I have seen many of my ideas taken... (before they started putting cereal in newborns milk, I was doing it against the doctors' orders..this was a time when the "law" was all babies can drink milk and milk only) Now they sell cereal to put in the newborns milk! My point is...sometimes the most far-fetched idea while it may not be viable in the whole, discussion, tweaking will usually refine and polish the idea until it's something that the majority can agree with and come together to implement.

The organizations that are currently organizations and getting money from the goverment to oversee sections that the goverment doesn't want to be bothered with..started out with an idea.

Originally Posted by deborahbroadus

There will always be some trying to capitalize on the free market, if an idea is needed and there's money to be had, someone will have the foresight to run with it and implement it....I have seen many of my ideas taken... (before they started putting cereal in newborns milk, I was doing it against the doctors' orders..this was a time when the "law" was all babies can drink milk and milk only) Now they sell cereal to put in the newborns milk! My point is...sometimes the most far-fetched idea while it may not be viable in the whole, discussion, tweaking will usually refine and polish the idea until it's something that the majority can agree with and come together to implement.

Just because someone sells something does not mean it's a good idea. They also sell cigarettes because people want them. How does a market driven demand for cereal to put in baby formula (which, btw, is a very bad idea and is thought by many medical scientists and practitioners to have increased the incidence of food allergies in children -- see http://www.keepkidshealthy.com/welco...allergies.html for some info) have anything to do with what you are suggesting? You are using a very bad idea (cereal to mix in formula) to promote your suggestions.

Originally Posted by Jim O

Any "plan" that involves "laws" to further regulate our hobby/business is in and of itself totally ridiculous to the point of stupidity. Once politicians get their hands in things they tax and regulate it to death.

There is not even something so sophisticated in dog breeding, something that is much more common. What about medicine? Is there a national database that consumers can query that has any real meaning?

I'm sorry Deb, but you really are spinning your wheels here quoting Business 101 concepts. To compare this issue with ADA, an issue of extreme importance is silly at best. That bill and the subsequent regulations are far from the panacea you seem to envision. And they were and are written by "professionals". It did however add to the growing number of wealthy lawyers and professional plaintiffs who make a living suing for minor non-compliance issues. It also added to the number of empty handicapped parking spaces in otherwise nearly full lots (I like it because I now have a permanent placard and can always get a close up spot). Is that progress? Maybe. Do you want that in herpetoculture? I don't.


Please don't get me wrong. I am not saying that people should not be held to a high standard. That's why we have tools like the BOI and references. I can't count how many BOI threads start with "I wish I had come here first..." or "I know he had bad guy threads but he assured me that all of the issues were in the past..." or "I decided to take a chance despite the bad guy threads...".

Thank you for your opinion.

I don't know, maybe I am seeing it differently; I do not think laws even MORE laws that prevent the internet scammers or at least gives an organization authority to resolve issues is "stupid." I was not thinking of more regulatory laws on the reptile trade per se..but laws specifically aimed at the scammers..selling online.

The reference to the ADA was the fact that it started out as an idea, most great things did, still do, and I am sure that others thought those that had the idea were "spinning their wheels;" a lot of people do think that it's pointless to try and accomplish anything though laws.

The ideas may be Business 101 concepts; I did graduate with a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration and I am currently on haitus from getting my MA...so if you recognized the percepts..that means I learned my textbooks well.

Since you agree that scammers should be held accoutable what's your idea? How do you think we should go about it?