Flying fish, truth in advert, Pets Warehouse Reply Position
p...@petswarehouse.com
I had intended to wait until all the facts were in before addressing the
NG's comments but they were getting a little out of control. The negative
comments we read on the NG are from the exact segment of the hobby we
wanted to apprise of this improper shipping activity because you lack the
pet industry's knowledge of such matters and concerns! We have the
support of the industry in this story.
If you read the remarks by "afleming" posted on Feb. 6 his comments go to
the root to my complaint concerning not only Flying Fish but any live
stock dealer improperly shipping. In his post Aaron Fleming wrote,
"FedEx not ship live animals" my motive is not one of attempting to gain
new customers. I've been in the pet industry for 28 years and have a
very established business and clientele.
I have always been involved and will continue to be involved in exposing
the illegal handling carriage and care of live animals. Because of our
industry background I thought it would benefit the general publics
interest (yes and don't say oh sure) to know that they were purchasing
animals from a company or (perhaps not even a company) that doesn't abide
by honest advertising and ships illegal shipments all over the United
States violating IATA regulations and the Federal LACY Act.
FACT: FedEx does not except live animals (if you doubt that call there
legal department directly and speak to Tina Wallace 901-395-3431.) FACT:
Page 99 of Fed EX's hand book Par 14.b states ...following items are
prohibited and will not be accepted: live animals, including
birds,reptiles, fish except edible seafood..lobsters... FACT: If the
contents of the boxes were not identified as containing fish corals etc
to FedEx that constitutes a federal felony crime under the LACY Act (if
you doubt that call any special agent of the US Fish and Wildlife
department.) FACT: The issue of FedEx shipping not only goes to FFE
(they had the Fed EX logo's and tracking linked to their site thereby
they were the most blatant of anyone)-- it goes to anyone..... it goes to
Jeff's Exotic Fish, Ken Arnold at Kenco Fish and anyone else who violates
the law. FACT: We are not 100% sure of about the 75,000 gallons but we
are 99% sure since additional calls were made to wholesalers in LA.
Actually make that 99.99%. What this creates is a false sense of security
to the consumer thinking they are dealing with a LARGE reputable dealer,
that should have experience in the products they sell and how they are
delivered. In our opinion and the opinion of the Fed Ex legal dept it
appears that the contents of the boxes were SECRETED violating the LACY
ACT because if they had known that live animals were contained they would
not have acceped them, because if they did they would be in violation of
the IATA regs. FACT: The LACY act is a felony crime carrying a $350 per
animal fine! FACT: FFE is not listed with phone company local or 800.
Fact: A Prominate aqua site is dropping FFE links due to complaints.
Now lets take a look at the moral issue-- fish are accepted unknowingly
by FedEx that doesn't have IATA required facilities to keep them warm
during transport as is required by companies who do correctly ship
livestock. Typically, FedEx sends all its packages into a central HUB
which is unheated and/or air-conditioned they are then placed aboard
aircraft without pressure or temperature control. When they arrive at
their next destination, they are transported to a warehouse without
temperature control and then into the final delivery van without
temperature control. HEAT PACKS DO NOT COUNT THEY ARE ONLY CONSIDERED
SUPPLEMENTAL HEAT. The fact that you and several others have said the
fish arrive fine is not the point. They were subject to a higher risk
that they were supposed to have been according to Federal Law. Or in
other words more fish corals etc died then should have. Therefore, what
they did was immoral if the contents were secreted. Everyone working for
Pets Warehouse is outraged over this CRAP because we all care about
animals. The industry's voice is projected through an organization called
the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Counsel, "PIJAC" in Washington DC. This
organization is headed by an attorney, Marshall Meyers his firm also
represents FedEx. I caught up with him on Friday at the Phoenix Airport
and he concurred with the regulations and alledged violations not only of
FFE but any dealer shipping livestock with FedEx. So if you think I am
blowing smoke... think again, I KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT. These are
serious alledged violations which may also include every hobbyist that
has received livestock via FedEx by that the buyer may become an
accessory to the LACY Act violation. You must understand that I don't
give a damn about putting my company name in front of NG's what I do care
about is the bigger picture that if this illegal trafficking of live
animals spins out of control the entire industry and every hobbyist will
be affected by a prohibition of interstate trafficking of pets. If you
doubt that, it happened in NY with birds 12 years ago. The final results
will unravel shortly, in the meantime only use authorized carriers. Bob
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Charles J DeVito
p...@petswarehouse.com wrote:
FACT: If a company I've never heard of before this ridiculous thread
encourages legal action to the detriment of several suppliers who have
provided me with nothing but high quality, reputable service over
several years, then I for one will be sorely annoyed at said company.
FACT: Even if they cause every one of the suppliers I deal with to close
down, leaving me with no viable choice but themselves to order from, I
-still- won't do business with them.
FACT: Even assuming they are right in asserting it's illegal to ship
fish via fedex, as stated, this usually isn't a problem to the detriment
of the fish; which leads to my final:
FACT: Even though they take a moral high ground over the health of fish
shipped this way, this is still a company that sees no moral issue in
sending puppies out via mail order. So, wait, lemme get this right: that
clownfish that's sent via fedex and arrives safely at it's destination
is morally inferior to taking a small puppy and shipping it in a box via
a mass cargo carrier? Oh, now THAT makes everything so much clearer.
Thank you, Pets Warehouse. Would you care to censor my reading material
now, or just tell me how to raise my kids?
--
Charles J DeVito
Ravenheart Enterprises
rh...@gte.net
Jimmy Chen
p...@petswarehouse.com wrote in message <887082103...@dejanews.com>...
>FACT: FedEx does not except live animals (if you doubt that call there
>legal department directly and speak to Tina Wallace 901-395-3431.)
>FACT:
>Page 99 of Fed EX's hand book Par 14.b states ...following items are
>prohibited and will not be accepted: live animals, including
>birds,reptiles, fish except edible seafood..lobsters... FACT: If the
>contents of the boxes were not identified as containing fish corals etc
>to FedEx that constitutes a federal felony crime under the LACY Act
>In our opinion and the opinion of the Fed Ex legal dept it
>appears that the contents of the boxes were SECRETED violating the LACY
>ACT because if they had known that live animals were contained they would
>not have acceped them, because if they did they would be in violation of
>the IATA regs.
>So if you think I am
>blowing smoke... think again, I KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT. These are
>serious alledged violations which may also include every hobbyist that
>has received livestock via FedEx by that the buyer may become an
>accessory to the LACY Act violation.
With all the FACTS stated above, how can you explain to me that I actually
have a old box in my living room, marked 'LIVE TROPICAL FISH' all over the
box with a FedEx label on it?? And I know when I got the box, it was
livestock. I don't see how much more clear one needs to be on content id
within the box.
May be their legal dept needs to go on field trips and see what their
carrier actual picks up. After all, it is FedEx, with a knowledge legal
dept, that isn't following the IATA reg and the LACY Act.
FACT: We only received the package, we did not FORCE FedEx to pick up boxes
that is marked with LIVE TROPICAL FISH and deliver it to our door steps.
After all, our Govn't isn't suppose to be screwing us either, right?? ;)
jc
Eric
Stop whining.
Jeff Breitner
p...@petswarehouse.com wrote:
: I had intended to wait until all the facts were in before addressing the
: NG's comments but they were getting a little out of control. The negative
: comments we read on the NG are from the exact segment of the hobby we
: wanted to apprise of this improper shipping activity because you lack the
: pet industry's knowledge of such matters and concerns! We have the
: support of the industry in this story.
If you had read the comments in the newsgroup, you would have come to
realize that the first thing you do when you've dug yourself into a deep
hole, is to stop digging.
: I have always been involved and will continue to be involved in exposing
: the illegal handling carriage and care of live animals. Because of our
: industry background I thought it would benefit the general publics
: interest (yes and don't say oh sure) to know that they were purchasing
: animals from a company or (perhaps not even a company) that doesn't abide
: by honest advertising and ships illegal shipments all over the United
: States violating IATA regulations and the Federal LACY Act.
Your motives in this are preferably to end the existence of your
competition. However, wounding them would probably sit well with you too.
Please don't start in about how you are working toward the elimination of
illegal handling of animals, a lot of people here don't believe you.
: animal fine! FACT: FFE is not listed with phone company local or 800.
: Fact: A Prominate aqua site is dropping FFE links due to complaints.
DBA fish-boy! Their phone number is readily available, find it and call
them. If you keep this up, I'm sure they'll be in contact with you.
: temperature control and then into the final delivery van without
: temperature control. HEAT PACKS DO NOT COUNT THEY ARE ONLY CONSIDERED
: SUPPLEMENTAL HEAT.
How much heat does a bagged fish need to stay healthy? I don't know the
answer, do you?
: The fact that you and several others have said the
: fish arrive fine is not the point. They were subject to a higher risk
: that they were supposed to have been according to Federal Law. Or in
: other words more fish corals etc died then should have. Therefore, what
: they did was immoral if the contents were secreted.
I think you should compare the volume of livestock killed when shipped
this way versus livestock killed at the hands of uneducated/uncaring
consumers. Or, the number of livestock killed when placed in a tank with
incompatible species. Are you going to lobby for federal laws that
dictate what can be kept in a tank?
Bob Mills
On 10 Feb 98 07:11:21 GMT, ei...@gatecoms.gatecom.com (Jeff Breitner) wrote:
;>p...@petswarehouse.com wrote:
.....<flames removed for compactness>
;>Your motives in this are preferably to end the existence of your
;>competition. However, wounding them would probably sit well with you too.
;>Please don't start in about how you are working toward the elimination of
;>illegal handling of animals, a lot of people here don't believe you.
;>
;>
;
I was wondering if anybody (everybody) else had noticed that their return
address was a PET STORE.
Bob
Matt Brown
p...@petswarehouse.com wrote a whole bunch of stuff, including...
> FACT: FedEx does not except live animals (if you doubt that call there
> legal department directly and speak to Tina Wallace 901-395-3431.)
I CALLED FEDEX THIS MORNING (08:20 PST, Tuesday Feb. 10th, 1998) -- just
the 800 number -- as a concerned customer. The entire call lasted less than
2 minutes, and it went something like this (from memory, not direct
quotes."
FEDEX: "Good morning, how can I help you."
ME: "Hi, I have a question I hope you can answer for me. I am looking at
buying some fish over the Internet, kind of like a mail-order situation,
but I've heard conflicting reports that they may not be legally shipping
their fish through FEDEX."
FEDEX" "We don't ship animals."
ME: "Even from a company that specializes in shipping fish?"
FEDEX: "No, we don't ship any type of animal."
ME: "So then this company is illegally shipping these fish -- I'm reading
their web page right now, and it says they ship through FEDEX."
FEDEX: "These are live fish?"
ME: "Yes, for an aquarium."
FEDEX: "Please hold."
*** On, hold for less than 1 minute ***
FEDEX: "Sir, are you still there?"
ME: "Yes."
FEDEX: "It seems that companies can arrange for special transport of live
animals through FEDEX. They have to go through a process with our legal
department as well as *** department (sorry, forgot the actual department
name, but it was something like Live Animal Shipping). So it is possible
that this company you are referring to has arranged to ship these fish
through us."
ME: "So FEDEX can ship animals, but special arrangements need to be made in
advance is what you're telling me."
FEDEX: "If special arrangements are made, then yes."
ME: "Thank you for your help."
FEDEX: "You're welcome, have a nice day."
*** END OF CALL ***
I'm a newbie to salt-water aquariums, but not the net. Pets Warehouse seems
to be a newbie to the net as well as common business practices! As far as
the sw-aquarium business, they have lost a young, professional, and
enthusiastic possible customer in the past few days. On the other hand, If
I was to purchase fish over the net, FFE would probably be my first choice.
PetsWarehouse: YOU TOLD ME TO CALL FEDEX!!! I DID, AND THEY DISPROVED YOUR
ENTIRE ARGUMENT IN LESS THAN 2 MINUTES!!!
All of the rest of this post is horseshit, slander, and arguably SPAM!
Anyone can email me if you have any specific questions:
tl...@gte.net
Matt
--
VB/C++ Programmer
Training Labs, Inc. Redmond, WA.
E-mail if interested in testing software for Windows NT/95.
Matt Brown
p...@petswarehouse.com wrote a whole bunch of stuff, including...
> FACT: FedEx does not except live animals (if you doubt that call there
> legal department directly and speak to Tina Wallace 901-395-3431.)
I CALLED FEDEX THIS MORNING (08:20 PST, Tuesday Feb. 10th, 1998) -- just
Mike Fester
p...@petswarehouse.com wrote:
: I had intended to wait until all the facts were in before addressing the
: NG's comments but they were getting a little out of control. The negative
: comments we read on the NG are from the exact segment of the hobby we
: wanted to apprise of this improper shipping activity because you lack the
: pet industry's knowledge of such matters and concerns! We have the
: support of the industry in this story.
with us. Therefore you, the paying customers, are ignorant.".
Yeah, I can see where *I'M* not going to do business.
: stock dealer improperly shipping. In his post Aaron Fleming wrote,
: "FedEx not ship live animals" my motive is not one of attempting to gain
: new customers. I've been in the pet industry for 28 years and have a
: very established business and clientele.
That's good, because you screwed up. FedEx *DOES* ship live animals. Now,
if you've been in the business as long as you say, it would appear you
lying about a competitor, or incompetent to handle your own business.
: I have always been involved and will continue to be involved in exposing
: the illegal handling carriage and care of live animals. Because of our
Yet now you seem to be fabricating things.
BTW, FedEX, as several people have already confirmed will, indeed, ship
live animals.
Mike
Jeff Breitner
Bob Mills (rmi...@kern.com) wrote:
: I was wondering if anybody (everybody) else had noticed that their return
: address was a PET STORE.
That's been the whole problem. Pets Warehouse is terribly bothered by
the fact that FFE has a stellar web site with good prices. Instead of
hiring a graphics artist and going at them that way, they decided it would
be easier if they just went at them through mudslinging.
Problem is, you tend to get just as dirty picking up the mud as your
competition does when hit by it.
Dave & Lisa
*ROTFLMAO*..hahahahahaha, well he asked for it. I'm glad someone actually
called Fed Ex. Thanks Matt
Matt Brown wrote:
> p...@petswarehouse.com wrote a whole bunch of stuff, including...
>
> > FACT: FedEx does not except live animals (if you doubt that call there
> > legal department directly and speak to Tina Wallace 901-395-3431.)
>
Ken Arnold
p...@petswarehouse.com wrote:
<snip>
>FACT: The issue of FedEx shipping not only goes to FFE
> (they had the Fed EX logo's and tracking linked to their site thereby
> they were the most blatant of anyone)-- it goes to anyone..... it goes to
> Jeff's Exotic Fish, Ken Arnold at Kenco Fish and anyone else who violates
> the law.
"FACT" ? "violates the law"??????
You now need to not only post a public apology for the slanderous remark
against myself but also a formal hard copy is to mailed to me.
I violated no laws!
Then be thankful that im not the type that will sue you for those and
other remarks because of my religous beliefs,but you do need to post
and snail mail an apology for those remarks.
<snip>
> Now lets take a look at the moral issue-- fish are accepted unknowingly
> by FedEx that doesn't have IATA required facilities to keep them warm
> during transport as is required by companies who do correctly ship
> livestock.
FedEx/UPS can do no wrong?????
Sticking up for another big Business while condeming a small buss.,
sound a little biased????
a quick question;
Did you start as a small buss. or just had enough money to buy an
existing facility?
--
Ken Arnold
KenCo Fish & Supplies
please remove " NOSPAM " from email address to reply
http://www.kencofish.com mailto:ke...@kencofish.com
Mark E. Porterfield
forum with many personalities and we must be prepared to accept the
consequences of speaking out in this type of theater. Remember this is
cyberspace and emotion should not be read into any post no matter how plain it
seems to have been written into the post.
If the Accusations against FFE are true then there are legal means to approach
the matter and nothing needed to be posted here. If it is true pursue it...if
not drop it. Regardless, it is inappropriate until proven true.
Matt Brown
Mark E. Porterfield <port...@nauticom.net> wrote
> The accusers on BOTH sides in this thread need to back off. It's a
public
> forum with many personalities and we must be prepared to accept the
> consequences of speaking out in this type of theater. Remember this is
> cyberspace and emotion should not be read into any post no matter how
plain it
> seems to have been written into the post.
I don't know if you are referring to me specifically, though I see this as
a response to one of my postings (sorry for the double-post all -- I'm not
sure why that happened). I'm not arguing anything here, I read this
newsgroup every morning and have found it to be an invaluable resource for
someone new to the hobby.
Being a consumer, conscientious pet owner, and someone who loves to be
involved in a heated discussion, this entire thread has fascinated me. I
noticed that PetsWarehouse seemed to be in a no-win situation, but were
practically pleading for someone to call Federal Express to validate their
claim. The crux of their argument has been that FedEx supposedly never
ships live animals, and doing so would be a violation of multiple laws --
laws that I essentially support.
If I had called FedEx, and they had stated that no way, under no
circumstances, would they ever ship live animals, then I would have logged
a complaint with them against Flying Fish Express, and reported the same
here. I care too much about animals, especially pets, to see them
recklessly abused in such a manner.
Instead, in less than 2 minutes (literally) I was told not to worry about
the treatment of the animals, as it is possible for a company to work out a
deal with FedEx to ship animals properly and legally. This too needed to be
reported to the newsgroup. PetsWarehouse needed to do a little more
research before posting as they did -- as I tried to show, it isn't hard to
do.
> If the Accusations against FFE are true then there are legal means to
approach
> the matter and nothing needed to be posted here. If it is true pursue
it...if
> not drop it. Regardless, it is inappropriate until proven true.
Agreed, and I felt that, to the best of my limited ability, that I had
DISPROVED the accusations. If someone wants to pursue the subject further,
I posted my E-mail address so that people could contact me personally. If
the situation requires, I am also willing to give a telephone number,
though I won't post it in a public forum like this one.
For the record, I'm not upset with PetsWarehouse. I've never done any
business with them in the past, and based on what I've seen here I won't do
any business with them in the future. They very well could be (in fact they
probably are) a very good business with excellent treatment of the animals
as well as their customers. If you are happy with their service, then by
all means continue to use them.
Making my last post on the subject,
Matt.
Mike Fester
Mark E. Porterfield (port...@nauticom.net) wrote:
: The accusers on BOTH sides in this thread need to back off. It's a public
Excuse me?
Some company gets on the internet, demonstrably slurs several competitors
with proovably falst information, and those smeared need to back off???
: If the Accusations against FFE are true then there are legal means to approach
: the matter and nothing needed to be posted here.
My goodness, shouldn't they have thought of that BEFORE they decided to
attack others?
Mike
Ken Woods
Am I the only one that has become /REALLY/ fed up with all this
bullshit??? Who cares??
NOBODY ELSE CARES!
THE TWO OF YOU ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT ARE REALLY INTERESTED IN THIS
BANTER.
On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, Ken Arnold wrote:
> p...@petswarehouse.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >FACT: The issue of FedEx shipping not only goes to FFE
> > (they had the Fed EX logo's and tracking linked to their site thereby
> > they were the most blatant of anyone)-- it goes to anyone..... it goes to
> > Jeff's Exotic Fish, Ken Arnold at Kenco Fish and anyone else who violates
> > the law.
>
>
> "FACT" ? "violates the law"??????
>
> You now need to not only post a public apology for the slanderous remark
> against myself but also a formal hard copy is to mailed to me.
> I violated no laws!
>
> Then be thankful that im not the type that will sue you for those and
> other remarks because of my religous beliefs,but you do need to post
> and snail mail an apology for those remarks.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Now lets take a look at the moral issue-- fish are accepted unknowingly
> > by FedEx that doesn't have IATA required facilities to keep them warm
> > during transport as is required by companies who do correctly ship
> > livestock.
>
> FedEx/UPS can do no wrong?????
>
> Sticking up for another big Business while condeming a small buss.,
> sound a little biased????
>
> a quick question;
> Did you start as a small buss. or just had enough money to buy an
> existing facility?
>
>
> --
>
> Ken Arnold
>
> KenCo Fish & Supplies
> please remove " NOSPAM " from email address to reply
> http://www.kencofish.com mailto:ke...@kencofish.com
>
>
--
Ken Woods
kwoods<at>kens.com
Charles J DeVito
Matt Brown wrote:
> p...@petswarehouse.com wrote a whole bunch of stuff, including...
>
> > FACT: FedEx does not except live animals (if you doubt that call
> there
> > legal department directly and speak to Tina Wallace 901-395-3431.)
>
> I CALLED FEDEX THIS MORNING (08:20 PST, Tuesday Feb. 10th, 1998) --
> just
> the 800 number -- as a concerned customer. The entire call lasted less
> than
> 2 minutes, and it went something like this (from memory, not direct
> quotes."
Stand up and take a bow. You did good :)
Now, if you'd like some information about how Ted Church of Aquatic
Connection stated there would be a new CITES ban on all corals larger
then 4" beginning Jan 1st of this year, then proceeded to run a sale on
these corals from his shop while they were still available (this was
last fall). When pressed he flatly refused to discuss the matter, even
when everyone from Albert Thiel to Eric Bourneman asked for details.
Independantly, no one was able to verify these claims in their own
investigations. January 1st has come and gone, with no new 'ban' in
effect. If you feel like going after these guys with the thoroughness
you display above, I'll happily forward all the details to you :)
Charles J DeVito
CW wrote:
> The management of Pets Warehouse have made some very outlandish and
> unsupported statements in their attempt to smear the reputation of
> Flying
> Fish Express, its owners and employees. We feel certain that the vast
>
> majority of this newsgroup's readers can clearly see the reason for
> this
> attack. However, we thought some of you might appreciate some
> documented
> information, rather than half truths and deliberate misinformation.
'Bout bloody time you folks showed up. Now maybe we can end this :)
Sean McSharry
>"FACT" ? "violates the law"??????
>
>You now need to not only post a public apology for the slanderous remark
>against myself but also a formal hard copy is to mailed to me.
>I violated no laws!
>
>Then be thankful that im not the type that will sue you for those and
>other remarks because of my religous beliefs,but you do need to post
>and snail mail an apology for those remarks.
Clap, Clap, Clap.
CW
The management of Pets Warehouse have made some very outlandish and
unsupported statements in their attempt to smear the reputation of Flying
Fish Express, its owners and employees. We feel certain that the vast
majority of this newsgroup's readers can clearly see the reason for this
attack. However, we thought some of you might appreciate some documented
information, rather than half truths and deliberate misinformation.
-----
The IATA is not a government agency and has no legislative or enforcement
authority. It is a non-profit trade association supported by dues and
contributions of air freight carriers. To the best of our knowledge, there
is no such thing as "IATA required facilities" for the transport of
livestock. As proof of our statements, we offer the IATA website at:
http://www.iata.org/
FACT:
-----
The LACEY Act of 1981 applies to the importation of endangered species and
to wildlife taken in violation of the law. Flying Fish Express has never
taken any wildlife in violation of the law and operate in full compliance
with all Federal and State laws. Quoting from the U.S. Department of Fish
and Wildlife:
"Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42; 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378). This Act provides authority
to the Secretary of the Interior to designate injurious wildlife and ensure
the humane treatment of wildlife shipped to the United States. Further, it
prohibits the importation, exportation, transportation, sale, or purchase
of fish and wildlife taken or possessed in violation of State, Federal,
Indian tribal, and foreign laws. The Amendments strengthen and improve the
enforcement of Federal wildlife laws and improve Federal assistance to the
States and foreign governments in the enforcement of their wildlife laws.
Also, the act provides an important tool in the effort to gain control of
smuggling and trade in illegally taken fish and wildlife.
FACT:
-----
We are fully compliant with all CITES requirements.
Quoting directly from the law --
"The law covers all fish and wildlife and their parts or products, and
plants protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species and those protected by State law. Commercial guiding and outfitting
are considered to be a sale under the provisions of the Act."
FACT:
-----
There is no $350 fine per animal for those who break the law. In fact, the
fine is much, much steeper and only applies to import shipments with
livestock which has a value exceeding $350. The actual penalty section of
the act reads --
"Felony criminal sanctions are provided for violations involving imports or
exports, or violations of a commercial nature in which the value of the
wildlife is in excess of $350. A misdemeanor violation was established, with
a fine of up to $10,000 and imprisonment of up to 1 year, or both. Civil
penalties up to $10,000 were provided. However, the Criminal Fines
Improvement Act of 1987 increased the fines under the Lacey Act for
misdemeanors to a maximum of $100,000 for individuals and $200,000 for
organizations. Maximum fines for felonies were increased to $250,000 for
individuals and $500,000 for organizations."
The entire LACEY Act is online at:
http://www.fws.gov/laws/digest/reslaws/lacey.html
Contrary to what Pets Warehouse says, they really DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE
TALKING ABOUT. Perhaps more is said about the motivations and integrity of
Pets Warehouse by their flagrant violations of copyright law. They have
copied huge sections of the Flying Fish web-site and are trying to pass it
off as their own. Truth in advertising indeed!
p...@petswarehouse.com wrote in message <887082103...@dejanews.com>...
Rich Decatur
again, I ask
do you think we could give this thing a rest? I think everyone gets the
idea.
--
Email: rdec...@NOSPAMbellsouth.net
Remove "nospam" from email address before reply
CW wrote in message <6br505$5k6$1...@gte1.gte.net>...
fra...@clark.net
CW (eric...@gte.net) wrote:
: The management of Pets Warehouse have made some very outlandish and
: unsupported statements in their attempt to smear the reputation of Flying
Where/what authority did this come from? A letter like this should
really have some signature at the bottom.
Ali Fracyon
p.s. The PW guy has made a mess indeed. I need Live Rock for a 90
gallon once I move and he added FFE to the list of places to
consider.
your name
ok ... i'm sure that you're not associayed with PW in any way, huh?
In article <34E09FE6...@nauticom.net>, port...@nauticom.net says...
>
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>--------------EDE9955256233E44028E8E88
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>The accusers on BOTH sides in this thread need to back off. It's a public
>forum with many personalities and we must be prepared to accept the
>consequences of speaking out in this type of theater. Remember this is
>cyberspace and emotion should not be read into any post no matter how plain
it
>seems to have been written into the post.
>
>If the Accusations against FFE are true then there are legal means to
approach
>the matter and nothing needed to be posted here. If it is true pursue
it...if
>not drop it. Regardless, it is inappropriate until proven true.
>
>
>
>--------------EDE9955256233E44028E8E88
>Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Description: Card for Mark E. Porterfield
>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
>
>begin: vcard
>fn: Mark E. Porterfield
>n: Porterfield;Mark E.
>org: Mangement Consulting Solutions Inc. (MCSI), A BRC Company
>adr: 2710 Rochester Road;;;Cranberry Township;PA;16066-3408;USA
>email;internet: port...@nauticom.net
>title: Senior Consultant-Database Technologies
>tel;work: 412.779.7700
>tel;fax: 412.776.9199
>x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
>x-mozilla-html: FALSE
>version: 2.1
>end: vcard
>
>
>--------------EDE9955256233E44028E8E88--
>
Exquzmwa
[Note this message is in response to the Pet Warehouse response to the FFE
thread and refers to much text in those messages not copied in this message -
I've managed to be quite long winded on my own without copying the text of the
Pet Warehouse response.
I apologize in advance for furthering the amount of bandwidth being taken up by
this, but after watching this thread for so long I can no longer keep my
fingers from typing. This message (and the thread I've been reading) basically
covers opinion on the politics and laws in this country in regards to a company
and their pursuit of what they say is the law in regards to purchasing /
supplying fish via mail order (a view by Pet Warehouse which if truely the law
would convienently help eliminate / harm some of their competitors at the same
time they pursue what they say is a rightful cause).
I can't resist responding as I've seen this thread go on for some time and have
grown quite bored and irritated with what's going on here. After this message,
I won't waste further bandwidth with additional messages on this subject, and
apologize for any reading this who feel I wasted the bandwidth I did by sending
this here in response to the FFE thread instead of alt.politics or alt.whining
where the thread on FFE and in particular my response would probably be more at
home.
Before I begin, I will say up front that I've ordered from Pet Warehouse before
and due to a mixup which would delay a shipping timeframe which was critical to
me and specified before the order was placed, I got ticked off at them and no
longer order from them. I can say that after seeing this garbage going on,
even if I had been ordering from them I would cease to do so because I disagree
with the general politics they're using - if a law protects the fish from
unnecessary harm that's one thing. If it goes beyond this, the law should be
changed. I can't say that before writing this I am neutral regarding Pet
Warehouse, as I'm not.
At any rate, here goes....]
>p...@petswarehouse.com wrote:
>
><snip>
>FACT: The issue of FedEx shipping not only goes to FFE
> (they had the Fed EX logo's and tracking linked to their site thereby
> they were the most blatant of anyone)-- it goes to anyone..... it goes to
> Jeff's Exotic Fish, Ken Arnold at Kenco Fish and anyone else who violates
> the law. '
<Major snip>
[Stand on soap box....]
[Flame On....]
[Begin...]
Pet Warehouse responded that not only shippers of the fish, but also consumers
(of which I am one) receiving the packages can be held liable for being in
violation (an "accessory" to the violation anyway) of the Lacy Act enacted here
in the USA. To this I say:
I don't know whether this is really true with regard to the Lacy Act or not,
but understand in our legal system ignorance doesn't excuse people from obeying
and being held accountable for upholding the letter of the law. However, if
it's true then my opinion is this law sucks and I think the real criminals are
the people who make laws like that (as well as those who probably lobbied for
and paid to influence this law / Act being passed).
If our country has enacted laws that will hold a consumer criminally liable for
receiving a package when:
1) the contents have been clearly marked in multiple places with big red and
black letters 'Live Tropical Fish - Handle with Care'
2) are a product which is well known to be legal to purchase and possess.
3) which had been ordered in good faith from a company that is pursuing a
legal business (the pet trade)
4) and delivered by a shipper who is recognized as a legitimate shipper in the
shipping industry (Fed-Ex)
Then it's no wonder our prisons are overflowing and we continue to spend
millions of tax dollars to build more - why concentrate on solving any real
problems when we can hold all kinds of people responsible for something totally
silly like this and selectively fine / imprison whomsoever we choose for
violating some obscure and silly law that's been enacted? After all, it gives
us a good reason to raise the amount of taxes we need to collect so we can keep
up with the overwhelming need to build more prisons to hold the terrible people
guilty of crimes like this (or if there's only a fine involved with the
expense, we'll still need the space for any who can't / don't pay the fine).
What a deal!
Although I don't believe this is really the case with the Lacy Act, I'm no
lawyer and could certainly be wrong. I've seen plenty of examples of silly and
/ or self serving laws that have been enacted in this country in the past (In
my opinion some still exist), so I guess anything's possible. There are plenty
of cases where companies pay for and create lobbyist groups (which they name as
something totally unrelated to their company name so consumers don't know who's
really paying the group to convince them something is right or wrong - this
deceitful practice should be illegal in my opinion).
FACT: Isn't this a great country - if you feel threatened by competition keep
them tied up in bulls*** accusations such as this along with courts, lawyers,
etc. Why really compete if you don't have to? Lobby for laws to drive away
competition, do what ever it takes. Raise that profit line or else....
While I fully support any law that addresses unnecessary wrong doing against
useful living creatures or protects a living being from uneccessary harm to
their person or belongings by another, I also believe that there are many
companies in this world who spend a great deal of money to attempt to influence
law makers to create laws for no other reason than pursuit of the almighty
dollar and self serving interests - that's the crime. You be the judge of
whether or not any are ever successful.
If as the Pet Warehouse person said, the Lacy Act does hold a consumer in
violation of the law (as listed above for simply ordering a tropical fish),
then I believe this law is wrong and it's passage was a crime against humanity
as it would be going well beyond trying to protect the fish which are being
shipped.
It chaps my hide that a company indirectly infer it is the customers
responsibility to investigate the business they're ordering from, the shipper
used to deliver the goods, as well as understand the thousands of laws this
country has so they can be applied to their legal impact on placing an order
for a tropical fish (laws of which are all written so clear, easy to
understand, unopen to interpretation, and so commonly kept and referred to by
each and every one of us American's in our second house serving as a legal
library storage closet so we can keep current on the daily changing laws).
Or do they believe everyone:
1) hires a private investigator to get the complete scoop on the company
2) asks the shipping company to send a complete listing of all their rules and
regulations including any special provisions that can be made in addition to a
list of the companies that have these provisions
3) hire a lawyer to analyze the results and wording of all the documents
obtained in addition to the way they apply to US rules
and regulations
so that individual consumer can be sure the common legal item (which is clearly
marked as to the contents) being ordered from a common legal business,
delivered by a common legal mail / package carrier is actually not in some
obscure way violating some type of law?
This position infers it's not good enough for the customers to be ordering
products that are legal to purchase, from a company that provides them good
service, sends the shipment when expected / agreed to, and finds the product
(fish) to be healthy and doing well on arrival. --- Maybe I'm alone in my
weird views but I truly think this sucks and is unrealistic. Again I say if
this is really what the Lacy Act says - then it should be changed to protect
the fish, not include a bunch of other wording and action that would allow it
to be used to screw over average consumers acting in good faith while helping
big companies eliminate competition. If the purpose of the law is to insure
fish are shipped in a humane manner then that should be what it addresses -
nothing more!!
I know if I were the owner of one of the companies Pet Warehouse mentioned, and
was not actually in violation of the law as they indicated, I would plan on
owning Pet Warehouse after the lawsuits I'd raise against them for the
incorrect public statements made against my business. (But then I'm not as
easy going as folks such as Ken seem to be).
[End....]
[Flame off...]
[Off soap box...]
Curtis
John Ruscio
In article <6bq170$rh4$1...@gte1.gte.net>, "Matt Brown" <tl...@gte.net> writes:
>
>I CALLED FEDEX THIS MORNING (08:20 PST, Tuesday Feb. 10th, 1998) -- just
>the 800 number -- as a concerned customer. The entire call lasted less than
>2 minutes, and it went something like this (from memory, not direct
>quotes."
>
[transcript deleted]
>
>PetsWarehouse: YOU TOLD ME TO CALL FEDEX!!! I DID, AND THEY DISPROVED YOUR
>ENTIRE ARGUMENT IN LESS THAN 2 MINUTES!!!
>
>All of the rest of this post is horseshit, slander, and arguably SPAM!
>
>Anyone can email me if you have any specific questions:
>tl...@gte.net
>
>Matt
I really don't care to take sides in this debate, but in the interest of
keeping this argument on the right track I would like to point out the fact
that FedEx's acceptance of live fish does not disprove much of what PW is
claiming. If anyone cares deeply enough about this to do real research, they
should look up the relevant laws. FedEx can say whatever they want over the
telephone, that hardly supports either side's case here. I have no idea what
the law actually is, what FedEx can legally do or not do, and so forth. PW has
pointed to a specific law that forbids this practice, and this, in my opinion,
is the crux of the argument. I wholeheartedly agree with the notion that *if*
laws are being violated, this will eventually hurt the hobby.
I do appreciate the fact that you tried to get to the bottom of this, Matt, but
I also agree with another poster that you did let your emtions run wild. I
found this thread very interesting, but only briefly, because the posts all
began to read as though they were written by uninformed, irate individuals.
Is anyone else out there dispassionate and neutral enough to speak to the
underlying legal issue? We hobbyists usually seem to have enough common
interests to do what's right for all of us, and this seems like an important
issue to have settled authoritatively so that we can help promote safe and
legal fish handling. Have we been doing so already, or do we in fact need to
avoid certain procedures? I'm not yet convinced either way by any of the posts
so far, although PW's specific legal claims remain unchallenged...
John Ruscio
---
Psychology Department, MS 062
Brandeis University
Waltham, MA 02254-9110
(781) 736-3254
(781) 736-3291 (fax)
rus...@brandeis.edu
Mike Fester
John Ruscio (rus...@binah.cc.brandeis.edu) wrote:
: >I CALLED FEDEX THIS MORNING (08:20 PST, Tuesday Feb. 10th, 1998) -- just
: >the 800 number -- as a concerned customer. The entire call lasted less than
: >2 minutes, and it went something like this (from memory, not direct
: >quotes."
: >
: >PetsWarehouse: YOU TOLD ME TO CALL FEDEX!!! I DID, AND THEY DISPROVED YOUR
: >ENTIRE ARGUMENT IN LESS THAN 2 MINUTES!!!
: >
: >All of the rest of this post is horseshit, slander, and arguably SPAM!
: >
: >Anyone can email me if you have any specific questions:
: >tl...@gte.net
: I really don't care to take sides in this debate, but in the interest of
: keeping this argument on the right track I would like to point out the fact
: that FedEx's acceptance of live fish does not disprove much of what PW is
: claiming. If anyone cares deeply enough about this to do real research, they
: should look up the relevant laws. FedEx can say whatever they want over the
: telephone, that hardly supports either side's case here. I have no idea what
Uh, actually, PW's point was that a phone call to FedEx would "prove" that
FedEx will not ship live fish. Since a phone call seemed to indicate that
FedEx will indeed ship live fish, PW's comments seem to be baseless.
Assuredly, one side *IS* supported by all this, and it ain't PW.
Mike
Clever Jim Swinehart
On 11 Feb 1998 16:41:31 GMT, rus...@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (John
Ruscio) wrote:
>I really don't care to take sides in this debate, but in the interest of
>keeping this argument on the right track I would like to point out the fact
>that FedEx's acceptance of live fish does not disprove much of what PW is
>claiming. If anyone cares deeply enough about this to do real research, they
>should look up the relevant laws. FedEx can say whatever they want over the
>telephone, that hardly supports either side's case here. I have no idea what
>the law actually is, what FedEx can legally do or not do, and so forth. PW has
>pointed to a specific law that forbids this practice, and this, in my opinion,
>is the crux of the argument. I wholeheartedly agree with the notion that *if*
>laws are being violated, this will eventually hurt the hobby.
John,
Go to PW's website. In big bold print on several pages they
specifically state that they "DO NOT SHIP ANIMALS VIA FED EX WHICH IS
ILLEGAL AND AGAINST FED EX'S POLICY. THERE ARE SOME MAIL ORDER
COMPANY'S THAT DO SHIP ANIMALS ILLEGALLY VIA FED-EX". Not only is
that the crux of their argument, but on their web site they bash other
carriers who use Fed-Ex. And someone has already pointed out that
individual companies can and do have ship animals via Fed-Ex when
there is an agreement between the parties.
Anyone a nad's hair above clueless can figure out what's going on
here. Do your homework before you try to jump in and play mediator.
Jim