tarantula pricing

[viper69]

and very rarely has been able to procure a specimen for $10, $20, $50, or even $100.

@JJC

What type of specimen?? Reptiles/Amphibians or Ts? in either category there are thousands of animals offered for less than $100 every year. I see them ALL the time, there is no shortage in either category.

Why spend $30 on supplies when the spider only cost $5? It happens with lots of animals already and we can add inverts to that list.
The less they cost - the less value they have to the person buying them.

That's not everyone. My freebie Ts get the same respect and care as my expensive AFs. I can't speak for others, but the value of the T is not a factor in terms of what it will get for a home. I'll drop a A. sp. amazonica in an ExoTerra just as I would put a freebie or cheap A. avic in one.

 

[Trenor]

The more someone has to pay - the less we'll see members here having Chernobyl sized meltdowns on others for killing their tarantulas because there will be less tarantulas dying.

But we won't, that was my point. Every day people buy juvi female P.metallicas for 150+ dollars and care for them just a poorly as the 20 dollar slings they also bought. We have seen this all over the board. On many threads, there are people who bought them and had no clue at how to care for them. The price tag didn't make them less likely to be poorly cared for. The price tag doesn't determine the value of life. I have over a dozen slings which I paid less than 10 dollars for and I care for them (and their lives) just as carefully as I do the ones I have paid a 100 dollars for.

I respect your views on the value of life. They are very similar to mine. I just don't feel a price tag changes a person's value of life. It may make them more regretful for the monetary loss if the animal dies but that has nothing to do with regret for the life lost. I don't like seeing any living thing abused, negeletced, or harmed regardless of how much market value it has.

 

[Vanessa]

We have seen this all over the board. On many threads, there are people who bought them and had no clue at how to care for them. The price tag didn't make them less likely to be poorly cared for.

So, what you're saying is that when you go back and look at all those neglected tarantulas posts on this board, that every single one of them would still be there if the person posting had to pay $100 for the tarantula? What you're saying is that every single person who has killed their tarantula would have still purchased it in the first place if it were $100 instead of $10?
Nope, that is absolutely not making sense to me. I pay attention to those threads too and I can guarantee you that more than half of those people never would have purchased that tarantula in the first place if the price tag was higher than a cup of coffee. If that were the case then you would be seeing a hell of a lot more dead T. blondi posts and you aren't. What you are seeing a lot more of is dead B. albopilosum, dead A. avics, dead OBT, dead G. porteri posts and a lot less dead T. blondi, dead M. balfouri, etc. Now, I'm not saying that people don't have those expensive tarantulas dying because it is happening, but it is not happening on the vast scale of other species because the person made absolutely no investment in taking care of the animal properly. Those people with dead $200 spiders have a lot more knowledge than those with dead $5 spiders.

 

[viper69]

What you are seeing a lot more of is dead B. albopilosum, dead A. avics, dead OBT, dead G. porteri posts and a lot less dead T. blondi, dead M. balfouri, etc.

Correct, however, this is a function of availability and knowledge. Most people don't even know what M. balfouri is. But they do know what a smithi and rosea is. If M balfouri was the popular well known T instead of the other 2 I mentioned, we'd see plenty of balfouri problem posts.

 

[Vanessa]

That's not everyone. My freebie Ts get the same respect and care as my expensive AFs. I can't speak for others, but the value of the T is not a factor in terms of what it will get for a home. I'll drop a A. sp. amazonica in an ExoTerra just as I would put a freebie or cheap A. avic in one.

Yes, and mine do too. My $30 female B. albopilosum gets the same level of care that my $140 female A. chalcodes does and she always will. But you and I are not the majority - you and I and the handful of others who think the same way are a fraction of the thousands out there who think 'It's just a spider and it was free anyway'.
Are you saying those people don't exist? What do you think the ratio is for dead B. albopilosum vs dead T. blondi is? Do you think that there are an equal number of both? Just as many T. blondi deaths than B. albos? Why not? Because the average person can't afford the $350 pricetag of a 1" T. blondi and that is the way it should be. That tarantula should never cost less than that.

Correct, however, this is a function of availability and knowledge. Most people don't even know what M. balfouri is. But they do know what a smithi and rosea is.

They aren't available because nobody can sell them for $350 each. Supply and demand 101. There is very little demand for $350 spiders and a lot more for $5.

 

[viper69]

They aren't available because nobody can sell them for $350 each. Supply and demand 101. There is very little demand for $350 spiders and a lot more for $5.

M. balfouri aren't $350 slings. You can get them for 60$ and less.

People who neglect animals are going to do it whether it's a 1$ T, or multi-thousand dollar big cat from Africa or India.

 

[Matabuey]

So, what you're saying is that when you go back and look at all those neglected tarantulas posts on this board, that every single one of them would still be there if the person posting had to pay $100 for the tarantula? What you're saying is that every single person who has killed their tarantula would have still purchased it in the first place if it were $100 instead of $10?
Nope, that is absolutely not making sense to me. I pay attention to those threads too and I can guarantee you that more than half of those people never would have purchased that tarantula in the first place if the price tag was higher than a cup of coffee. If that were the case then you would be seeing a hell of a lot more dead T. blondi posts and you aren't. What you are seeing a lot more of is dead B. albopilosum, dead A. avics, dead OBT, dead G. porteri posts and a lot less dead T. blondi, dead M. balfouri, etc. Now, I'm not saying that people don't have those expensive tarantulas dying because it is happening, but it is not happening on the vast scale of other species because the person made absolutely no investment in taking care of the animal properly. Those people with dead $200 spiders have a lot more knowledge than those with dead $5 spiders.

$100 isn't a lot of money, so yes.

Besides I've seen people neglect animals that cost far more than that regularly, in the reptile hobby and other areas.

I adopted a Bengal kitten from Cats Protection, as this kitten (and it's sibling which died) were confiscated off the breeder due to neglect. This is a $1500 kitten...Worth a lot of money to this breeder, but still, they were neglectful.

If someone is going to neglect their animal, they will do so regardless of how much it cost them.

 

[Vanessa]

M. balfouri aren't $350 slings. You can get them for 60$ and less.
People who neglect animals are going to do it whether it's a 1$ T, or multi-thousand dollar big cat from Africa or India.

I don't understand why you think that I am saying that they will NEVER abuse an expensive animal. Of course people do. But they absolutely do not abuse them in the quantities that cheaper animals are abused. Are you saying that the same ratio of multi-thousand dollar tigers from India die as $30 housecats do? Is that what you're saying because it makes no sense. Do you know what the price tag on a Bengal Tiger is in North America? Believe me - there would be a lot more people buying them if the price tag were lower because availability is NOT an issue.
If tarantulas were not $5 then there would be less of them being purchased and less of them dying - I never said that none of them end up dying. I don't understand how else that I can word this.

 

[viper69]

I don't understand why you think that I am saying that they will NEVER abuse an expensive animal. Of course people do. But they absolutely do not abuse them in the quantities that cheaper animals are abused. Are you saying that the same ratio of multi-thousand dollar tigers from India die as $30 housecats do? Is that what you're saying because it makes no sense. Do you know what the price tag on a Bengal Tiger is in North America? Believe me - there would be a lot more people buying them if the price tag were lower because availability is NOT an issue.
If tarantulas were not $5 then there would be less of them being purchased and less of them dying - I never said that none of them end up dying. I don't understand how else that I can word this.

As I said earlier, regardless of cost people will neglect animals, be it a goldfish or a tiger. Those are facts we both know. All things being equal, the person who neglects a goldfish, is going to neglect their pet elephant.

Cheaper animals are abused in more absolute numbers (again that is NOT the same as rates as I'm sure you know), simply because they are cheaper, ie more available. That goes without saying I thought, it's quite obvious. If tigers were 30$ we'd see similar rates of abuse IMO.

I do not know the per-capita rates of abuse of any animal, if you do please provide them with the source material.

 

[Thistles]

I'm not here to convince anyone to think like I do or live like I do. I take what I have seen, and experienced, within my lifetime and I live my life accordingly - 'be the change you wish to see in the world' and all that. That is my choice and I live each and every day accordingly. I have never, and will never, live with the attitude that things are just the way they are and they aren't going to change, so why bother even trying. Status quo has never been a concept I am comfortable with.

I do the same. That's why I think your volley at me is so misplaced. I'm not apathetic, but I am realistic. Do I think that everyone is going to stop eating animals? Not any time soon. Does that mean I do? Absolutely not. I'm responsible for me, not for someone else. I treat my animals well regardless of their price. I sell them cheaply even when others don't, because I think that's the right thing to do. I even give them away to people whom I consider responsible owners. I'm not looking for praise, but I think by quoting me and then talking about defeatism and apathy you're engaging in some friendly fire.

I don't think tarantulas should be cheaper than they are today. I don't think that someone should ever be able to purchase a tarantula for $5, for $10, or even $25. The more someone has to pay - the less we'll see members here having Chernobyl sized meltdowns on others for killing their tarantulas because there will be less tarantulas dying. We won't have 20+ pages of people complaining bitterly about PetCo selling tarantulas, based on the buyers not being equipped with the correct information, when the truth is that sellers within the hobby don't check on 90% of who they sell to and don't care about that either.
If you have no problem with them selling for less than a cup of coffee at Starbucks, then so be it. I don't think like that and I never will and you have even less likelihood of changing my mind than I have of changing yours.

This is pretty arrogant, honestly. You're essentially saying, "I take care of my animals, but the common people can't be trusted with them." My first freebie was a Heteroscodra maculata. She ended up being my favorite tarantula for years. I agree to a certain extent. There are people who will impulse buy animals that are low-priced, then not want to spend the money necessary to take proper care of them. Those same people will catch wild ones and do the same. I've been in the pet industry for 12 years, and trust me, there are plenty of expensive animals meeting the same sad fates as the cheap ones. Feeder goldfish that get put in bowls, baby sliders illegally sold by people on the streets and bettas suffer the most. Once the price gets over a few cents, there doesn't seem to be much difference. Based on my experience, a $5 anole has about the same odds of being purchased by someone unprepared as a $100 chameleon.

The big difference is availability. If someone has to go online, find a specialized dealer and then place an order, they aren't making an impulse buy. I bet there are just as many sad $100 pet store Theraphosa stirmi and Cyriopagopus lividus per capita as $20 Grammostola rosea. Petco is a problem because it opens more animals up to the casual impulse purchase.

Since we're using anecdotal evidence from the forums, I've noticed lot of dead Poecilotheria metallica threads lately and a lot of Brachypelma albopilosum owners seeking help with egg sacs. I'm not trying to change your mind, but I am justifying my opinion.

 

[viper69]

Are you saying those people don't exist?

No

What do you think the ratio is for dead B. albopilosum vs dead T. blondi is?

I don't know.

Do you think that there are an equal number of both?

No, more dead B albo for the reason I mentioned in previous post.

Because the average person can't afford the $350 pricetag of a 1" T. blondi and that is the way it should be. That tarantula should never cost less than that.

I don't believe there should be some hard line set for the selling price. I wouldn't care if they cost 100 or 50$ etc. Pricing will only be supported by the consumer.

 

[Vanessa]

Okay, from what I gather from everyone's arguments is the following.
When a person is making an impulse purchase of an animal that they know absolutely nothing about - how much that animal costs is NEVER taken into consideration. How expensive that impulse buy is going to end up being is NEVER prohibitive in the purchase of that animal. When someone makes an impulse buy of an animal that they know nothing about they NEVER even take into consideration how much that animal costs initially and will NEVER walk away because that animal is too expensive for them.
That is what I'm getting from all these responses and that is just not logical.

 

[Trenor]

Now, I'm not saying that people don't have those expensive tarantulas dying because it is happening, but it is not happening on the vast scale of other species because the person made absolutely no investment in taking care of the animal properly. Those people with dead $200 spiders have a lot more knowledge than those with dead $5 spiders.

That's like saying Lamborghini owners are better drivers than Chevy owners because the Chevy owners have more accidents. This isn't necessarily true. It just means there are less Lamborghini owners to run into people.

If there were just as many 200 dollar Ts going out as there are 20 dollar Ts there would just as likely be just as many 200 dollar T deaths. As it is there are quite a lot of high dollar T deaths on here.

If tarantulas were not $5 then there would be less of them being purchased and less of them dying - I never said that none of them end up dying.

This is true but it's not because a higher price means better knowledge when it comes to care. There are just less out there to die.

Cheaper animals allow for impulse buys as was pointed out. This can be bad as people are more likely to grab an animal without thinking it through more.

The point I am trying to make is the price tag doesn't give someone more knowledge nor make them place a higher value on the life of the animal.

 

[Thistles]

Okay, from what I gather from everyone's arguments is the following.
When a person is making an impulse purchase of an animal that they know absolutely nothing about - how much that animal costs is NEVER taken into consideration. How expensive that impulse buy is going to end up being is NEVER prohibitive in the purchase of that animal. When someone makes an impulse buy of an animal that they know nothing about they NEVER even take into consideration how much that animal costs initially and will NEVER walk away because that animal is too expensive for them.
That is what I'm getting from all these responses and that is just not logical.

No. I'm saying there are thresholds. Under a buck or two, yes, more people see them as disposable. Over a few hundred dollars, they may be priced out of the range of casual people. In between, I don't think there is much difference. I had a lady buy a $150 wild caught butterfly fish for her husband's birthday. The fish died, and there is no guarantee on marine fish. She was back in the next day for another one. I've had people wanting to buy chameleons just because they wanted to get high and watch the chameleon. I've never had a stoner asking for a $5 anole.

 

[Trenor]

Okay, from what I gather from everyone's arguments is the following.
When a person is making an impulse purchase of an animal that they know absolutely nothing about - how much that animal costs is NEVER taken into consideration. How expensive that impulse buy is going to end up being is NEVER prohibitive in the purchase of that animal. When someone makes an impulse buy of an animal that they know nothing about they NEVER even take into consideration how much that animal costs initially and will NEVER walk away because that animal is too expensive for them.
That is what I'm getting from all these responses and that is just not logical.

Anytime anyone buys anything price is a factor. That's just how buying works. It might stop some of the impulse buying if a 10 dollar T suddenly costs 50 dollars. Does the extra 40 dollars difference make the people go do more research on keeping the animal? Or does that just mean I still impulse buy it at 50 because I have an extra 50 dollars and things end up the same? At the end, you only move the impulse benchmark not made for better animal care.

 

[Poec54]

Is this thread getting derailed by a side argument?

 

[Vanessa]

I've been in the pet industry for 12 years

Out of the last 50 tarantulas that you have sold...
How many people did you ask what type of enclosure that they were going to use for it?
How many did you ask what substrate they were going to use?
How many did you ask what they were going to use as a water source for their new spiderlings?

 

[Trenor]

Is this thread getting derailed by a side argument?

Yes

 

[Vanessa]

Out of the last 50 tarantulas that you have sold...
How many people did you ask what type of enclosure that they were going to use for it?
How many did you ask what substrate they were going to use?
How many did you ask what they were going to use as a water source for their new spiderlings?

Because I have to tell you that I have bought a number of spiders over the years - from individuals and dealers - and I have never been asked anything about care.

 

[Thistles]

Out of the last 50 tarantulas that you have sold...
How many people did you ask what type of enclosure that they were going to use for it?
How many did you ask what substrate they were going to use?
How many did you ask what they were going to use as a water source for their new spiderlings?

All of the last 50 tarantulas I've sold went to people I know. Some have even sent me pictures of their enclosures.

Because I have to tell you that I have bought a number of spiders over the years - from individuals and dealers - and I have never been asked anything about care.

I've sent people enclosures for the tarantulas I've sold them. I've had long conversations about proper care. I've asked people about their comfort level if they're new to OW tarantulas. Maybe you're buying from the wrong people?