The distribution system should be made more efficient, without question. But there is a lack of constructive ideas so far. What is to be read in these postings exhibits the fact that the writers are inconscious about the problems we face. I shall mention only two major problems, there are more.
The first problem is that the breeders decide themselves whether they are willing to expose their names and addresses openly. We tried to get them agree to this idea, but most breeders refused to accept. There are different reasons behind. One that has to be taken serioulsy is the argument that you should not offer rare endangered fish as you do with “normal” aquarium fish. Serious Paro friends realize that there is a difference between trading normal stuff and living beings, especially if they are really endangered. The breeders are not willing to contribute to a situation in which a sudden run on such fish might arouse (as we have experienced it with catfish or cichlids or others). I think that this hesitation has to be taken serious, although I think it must not necessarily arise from a publication of the addresses. But I have to respect this opinion.
Most breeders are conscious about the fact that this is an obstacle to easier contacts between breeders and new Paro friends, but they deny to the publication of their address nevertheless. I have to accept it, although things would run much smoother and quicker the direct way. But if I loose most of the good breeders by going this path, it’s wrong.
The second problem is that the more difficult way we prefer presently has the advantage to let the project supervise the system of distribution. One central advantage of the Paro-Project-system is to give a certain control to the fate of endangered fish by giving vital information about the status of the different species and forms at the disposal of the project. It has been much praised for that, and this is a big difference to most other aquaristic activities. I don’t think it would be a progress to more existential safety for them if we would organize a complete free exchange between breeders and buyers. For them, it would make things easier, but for our knowledge about the state of the stocks it would not be helpful.
Nevertheless I think, we could improve the system. Ideas are much wanted. But they should reflect that without the consent of the majority of the breeders and without thinking of our knowledge of the state of the stocks this will not work. Making things easier cannot be the only directive one has to follow. Things are a bit more difficult.
And wordings like “One has to be German in order to understand this system at all” are not helpful. Let’s look for better solutions than those we have, but not neglecting the two points I have mentioned.