Sure, I'll pay more. I actually don't care how much more I would pay. If it costs triple then I'll pay triple .. but only if the certification means something I can trust. Problem is the certification process is the industry policing itself and that is basically a conflict of interest. I think technically this certification already exists (MAC certification) but hardly anyone seems to bother with it.

My opinion on the whole big fish thing marking themselves up .. if you can't do it without cyanide then it probably shouldn't be done. Maybe big fish oughtn't be collected anyhow. Removing a breeding size adult has more impact than removing a nonbreeding juvenile.

LOL...no. I have been in the hobby long enough to know not all fish perish because they are cyanide caught ;)

no I would not pay double, but I would certainly pay more.
But as everyone else is saying, how, and who would police this?
Would I trust this certification? Probably not.
Twice have I bought a rabbitfish and have it expire within 2 weeks.
Just bought one from J&L and we will see whether this " easier to care for fish" will live.

Yes I would not hesitate paying double if I could get irrefutable proof of net or container caught fish. Every Vendor says they do not sell cyanide caught fish but ????.
Kevin

Yeah of course...

Can you imagine a vendor actually admitting they are selling cyanide caught fish? They all do whether knowing it or not but admitting it is another story.

I think how close the poll is to 50-50 says a lot about why things like this will not change very quickly.

I voted no, just because there is no way to differentiate without a certification body and supply-chain monitoring.

This sort of exists in the form of the MAC certification but that has just turned into a pointless mess.

There is currently no way to do any kind of cyanide testing on fish in the supply chain. It's not an easy testing procedure and it requires some significant investment in equipment. You can see what is currently being worked on here: http://coralreef.noaa.gov/Library/Pu...yanide_doc.pdf

With that considered there is no way for a retailer to offer 100% cyanide free fish, we don't know if they are or not. Now we can make some pretty educated guesses sometimes, I can tell you that a fish caught in the Sea of Cortez is almost certainly not but I can't prove it. In the case of Indo or Philippine fish I would be less certain. If I ever saw someone selling Indo fish with a No Cyanide guarantee I'd fall down laughing.

Until the infrastructure is in place for testing everybody is on the honor system, sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn't. Retailers are doing everything they can at this point.

That wasn't the question/vote though. It was a "what if" thing...

Should also have a "depends" catagory....as it would really depend on the fish.

So do you mean it depends on the species to you? So some species are ok to be cyanide caught? Or do you mean something totally different?