Yellow Tang Prices

  • Thread starter Thread starter IKD
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users None
That's criminal. If they were giving the cash to conservation efforts, that would be one thing. At this, they are just profiteering. Shameful
The function of business is to profit. They can charge what they want. The prices are high because supply is about to get very limited and there are people willing to pay these prices. No one is forcing anybody to buy yellow tangs.

The cost of conservation is to just leave the fish in the wild and have more effort go into captive breeding. Ironically it will take high prices to do that.
 
Either way everyone. There will be good ppl trying to do good things and bad ppl doing bad things. :/
D
And if we hobbyists insist on purchasing only captive bred specimens, I am sure the market will figure out how to oblige.
And going back to the start, we balk at paying $450 for a beautiful living creature that we will care for for years (hopefully), yet think nothing of dropping that or more for a single LED fixture, controller, or 40 gallon sump. We are interesting creatures also?
 
And if we hobbyists insist on purchasing only captive bred specimens, I am sure the market will figure out how to oblige.
And going back to the start, we balk at paying $450 for a beautiful living creature that we will care for for years (hopefully), yet think nothing of dropping that or more for a single LED fixture, controller, or 40 gallon sump. We are interesting creatures also?
Part of that is likely the aversion to paying that much for something that can die. Much harder to kill a sump than a fish or coral.
 
And going back to the start, we balk at paying $450 for a beautiful living creature that we will care for for years (hopefully), yet think nothing of dropping that or more for a single LED fixture, controller, or 40 gallon sump. We are interesting creatures also?
So does this mean that you don't see an issue with them charging $450 for a yellow tang? Assuming the yellow tangs didn't cost them some ridiculous price. Which I doubt they did, theyre probably just the last ones before the ban started. It's disgusting in my opinion that they are price gouging. I probably never would've bought from them anyway but now I wouldn't on principal alone.
 
So does this mean that you don't see an issue with them charging $450 for a yellow tang? Assuming the yellow tangs didn't cost them some ridiculous price. Which I doubt they did, theyre probably just the last ones before the ban started. It's disgusting in my opinion that they are price gouging. I probably never would've bought from them anyway but now I wouldn't on principal alone.
I might not buy a $450 yellow tang. After all there are a "lot of fish in the sea" and plenty of great species to care for and study, and many may cost much less that that. So, the store takes a risk that they have priced the product beyond what the market is willing to bear.
As for price gouging, we are discussing a luxury product, even though a living creature, and pricing of luxury products frequently have little to do with production costs. However, many potential customers, such as yourself, are offended and they have lost potential future business. So, there is a cost to them for overpricing a tang, even if they end up making money on this one fish.
 
So, the store takes a risk that they have priced the product beyond what the market is willing to bear.
I really hope that $450 is more than the market is willing to bear, because if someone buys them at that price it sets a precedent for them to continue this trend of over pricing items based on possible (if not probable) supply issues. In my opinion luxury item or not it is still price gouging based upon the fear of limited supply, but who knows maybe In a few years from now I'll be regretting not buying that cheap $450 yellow tang.
 
See post #83 here - this doesn't make sense.

 

IF YOU HAD TO TAKE A REEFING EXAM, WOULD YOU PASS?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 32 45.7%
  • Not yet, but I have one that I want to buy in mind!

    Votes: 9 12.9%
  • No.

    Votes: 26 37.1%
  • Other (please explain).

    Votes: 3 4.3%
Back
Top