AquaErik":1rldn2vp said:
You are assuming that there are overseas suppliers in developing countries that are looking for more ways to move their specimens but wholesalers/retailers cannot find them? Many times the demand of a good supplier overseas outweighs the supply they can send on a regular basis. Most of these overseas suppliers can only handle 1 or 2 major wholesalers and because of ethics they usually do not supply multiple vendors in the same city. All the major Wholesalers on the west coast know the majority of their competitions sources their is no secrecy in that.
I am not under the illusion that there is some supplier sitting on a ton of coral that he or she just can't move, and, having traveled much of the developing world, I am well aware that access to the Internet and markets is pervasive, even in some very remote places. As you suggest, there are of course the big wholesalers who have invested time and resources in developing their suppliers in a manner consistent with principles of fair trade, and they may even have an exclusive, mutually beneficial, relatively trasparent relationship with their suppliers. That's great. I think the industry would be all the better for money being invested in good suppliers intent on developing sustainable and self-sufficient businesses that can serve the demand. I'm sure we both could list a number of examples of this sort of relationship, but I am only interested in these insofar as they are examples of how the marine aquarium industry can have a positive impact on the socioeconomics of the developing world.
The other side, and admittedly it may be a much smaller percentage in terms of overall volume, is the suppliers who don't have the stability of investors and all that comes with that (business planning, marketing, etc.) but who do have access to livestock and markets, even if those markets are not the A-list. I'm sure some people will disagree strongly, but personally, I would like to see all but the largest, most respected retailers working through the established A-list wholesalers in a transparent fashion. Retail, as we all know, is a whole different ball game than wholesale with enough daily distractions to make truly investing in a relationship with a small supplier thousands of miles away little more than a pipe dream...but I digress.
As we all know, there are suppliers out there that are unethical, but which also have the ability to bring stunning products to market regardless of the cost to the environment or the collectors. Given some of the allegations levied against these suppliers (up to and including responsibility for the death of their collectors), I think we can all understand why a wholesaler, transhipper or retailer dealing with that supplier would want to keep the supplier's identity a secret even as they continue to use them.
Obviously not every "secret supplier" is a bandit engaged in unethical and illegal practices, and, more often than not, talk of a secret supplier is little more than a marketing device. I would disagree, however, that it is, as you said, "a good sales tactic," and I suppose that is the big-picture, take-home point of my article in its present form. Playing the secrecy card is, in just about every situation of which I can think, bad for the industry. To me, it sends the wrong message to hobbyists about the way the industry does business, it has the potential to breed distrust amongst colleagues and, given the air time allotted to seizures and environmental degradation resulting from the trade, it gives those looking to regulate the industry out of existence one more piece of ammunition.
So there are my somewhat disjointed, incoherent thoughts on a Saturday afternoon. I appreciate your willingness to engage in this dialog, Erik (and others), and I look forward to continuing it, as I think we all have the same ends in mind: a robust and sustainable industry.
Cheers!