[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Information Age Holdback Nonsense
My buddy Steve Demarle wrote:
>> I can't see why it is so urgent to have an online
>> F&EL that's updated daily. .... <snip snip> ......
>> but don't see why ....ordering killies is so time
>> sensitive that it requires an e-solution.
I'm not sure that the time-lag in publishing a hard-copy F&EL is necessarily the problem, exactly ... rather it's the time-lag to "un-publish" ("persistence") that actually causes people to list less fish, less often, than they (arguably) would via an electronic media that could be revised quickly and re-distributed without any additional out-of-pocket expenses. Someone ... I think it was Boat ... alluded to this earlier.
What you typically get in the F&EL is those fish & eggs that the offerer THINKS will be in decent supply a month or two AFTER he/she has to make the decision to submit (or not) something for listing in the F&EL. As an offerer, what you most certainly do not want to happen is to list some type of fish of which you have a very limited supply, and then have to spend the time & effort to turn away 50 people who were interested in obtaining said fish/eggs. And of course besides the time, you also really don't want to be in the position of disappointing scads of people by having to tell them, "gee, I'm very sorry, I only had one excess pair of those, and it's already gone."
So the unpredictability of future supply, and innate human nature that wants to avoid being the bearer of bad news, conspire together to make a hard-copy/snail-mail F&EL most suitable for the distribution of relatively common fish in good supply.
And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
But ... here's a question to ponder ... would an AKA-sponsored electronic-media F&EL perhaps improve the movement and distribution of the less-commonly kept varieties within the hobby, precisely because it would allow for the publication of news concerning the availability of smaller and more transitory fish-room over-stocks ????
I personally think it would, and that doing so would be VERY MUCH in accord with the spirit of species maintenance efforts, etc.
* * * * * * *
Semi-related thought ... re the placement/adoption of uncommon/difficult/new * varieties:
Tom Grady raises a very real and substantial issue with his "do you want/can I (as agent for the hobby) trust you with the only extant pair of some variety of fish?" line of thought.
You know, when you go to pick up a puppy from a reputable breeder, he/she will make inquiries concerning your readiness and capability of looking after the dog's needs.
It occurs to me that we could use the existing "Breeders Program" levels of recognition as a short-hand method of exchanging breeders credentials when distributing fish where there's a special need for concern. If you're a Master Breeder, that says you're one of the journeyman elites of the hobby ... no one else would be likely to do much better with a particular scarce fish than you would. On the other hand, if a Novice or unranked breeder (like me) lines up in the queue for a scarce fish, that would call for a more conscious and deliberate consideration of whether that was an appropriate placement of the fish in question, given all the circumstances.
I don't think it'd be a good idea to more or less "mandate" that someone has to be an "advanced breeder or higher" to receive fish X, because there are (and always will be) good killie-people and breeders who don't participate in the AKA Breeders Program for various reasons.
But when you think about it, the sentiments we've sometimes heard here that "I wouldn't let just any Joe or Juanita GlassHouse take these fish, I make sure they get into the hands of someone whose abilities I trust, and that's why I don't list them publically" .... you realize this process is already in place, albeit informally and probably only for the scarcest of fish ... because "someone whose abilities I trust" is essentially saying "someone I know from personal experience and/or reputation to be a qualified master breeder." Well, the AKA already has a formal credentialing scale and process for k-breeders in place, maybe we should lean on it more routinely.
* AKA since yr-2000.
* footnote: this begins my campaign to banish the generic term "rare" as applied to k-fish. I propose that "rare" be always clearly distinguished as:
(1) new (and therefore rare)
(2) difficult (and therefore rare)
(3) not commonly kept (anymore, and therefore rare)
The reason for making this distinction is that Rare #1 appeals esp. to "collectors" (for a year or two), Rare #2 needs very experienced breeders (perhaps in perpetuity), and/but Rare #3 is possibly suited even for newbs for beginner fish (if they could just get their hands on some to start with.) So the three different flavors of "rare" have different management solutions, so to speak. (I think some of the "elitist" conflict a while back was sparked by the failure of the Rare#2's and the Rare#3's to realize they were not talking about the same thing when they said "rare.")
See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe