It's is okay we can agree to disagree. But products and livestock are very different and require different care as I am sure you agree. I think you missed the point I was trying to make but that is okay as well. My main take away is small shipments sent through a channel that drops packages from conveyor belts 10' or more while sorting at the hubs is not the way to ship fish and corals. I have gone through the package design phase for UPS and FedEx for products and ignoring their rough handling requirements ignores many of the reasons they should not be used for livestock. Even airfreight has its problems but it is a faster, safer way to deliver livestock. Forcing shipments into a channel that Is designed for dry goods only is a higher risk. Then, expecting high care in a low care environment is not reasonable. The shipper has no control once the livestock is delivered to the shipping company. We are now expecting great results from a degraded delivery system not designed for live shipments. Just saying that placing all the burden on the small mom and pop shipper is unfair and unreasonable. They worked with the limitation the buyer placed on them by using a poor channel of delivery for these small shipments. If you want small shipments you will have to accept the risk with the seller. Again a level of trust between seller and buyer will have to develop in order to overcome the poor delivery options. Assuming the seller is somehow always at fault and responsible is unfair and unreasonable. The seller and the buyer should honestly share the cost of doing business with these limited options.Yeah, I don’t know where you got any of that from my post. All I’m saying is that that if you order something, and you pay for shipping, if you don’t receive what you ordered, you shouldn’t have to pay for shipping again. I don’t think it’s ‘entitled’ to expect to receive what you paid for.
I also don’t think the assertion that vendors would have to raise prices 5-10x to cover shipping on DOA replacements is even remotely accurate, like not even close (if covering the cost of DOAs would raise prices that much, that would be mean over 90% of shipments are DOAs, and if that’s the case then ethically they shouldn’t be shipping live animals in the first place). I don’t have a problem with prices going up a little bit, if that’s what needs to happen, for the vendor to work shipping on DOAs into their overhead, but I think that charging the consumer an extra $30-$50 to receive the product (I don’t view live animals as ‘products’, but legally, that’s what they are) they already paid shipping for is tantamount to extortion (they don’t offer refunds, only store credit, so unless you’re okay with just losing all the money you spent, you have no choice but to pay shipping again).
I’m well aware that nearly every vendor charges shipping for DOA replacements, and I’ve never complained about it to a vendor when I’ve had DOA’s, because those are the TOS I agreed to, but I think as an industry wide policy, it’s unethical and anti-consumer.