Wild Caught species VS store bought

[Madness]

I don't see how there is a real difference between "line breeding" and "hybridization." We are playing god in both cases.

And also, please don't try to claim that you're practicing "conservation" by not hybridizing. If you were really that concerned about conservation, you would be out working to save the natural habitats of these fish so that they can continue to survive in the wild. Continuously line breeding and back-breeding just a (relative to nature) few specimens from a single collection point is most certainly not conservation. You might be able to claim it's preservation in a certain sense, but even that is a stretch.

What you're doing is animal husbandry. You are breeding and selecting for traits that you think are "natural," and then discarding those which don't make the grade. Compared to your average home aquarium setting, there may be (and most likely is) a completely different set of pressures on a species in the wild, and breeding them without these pressures is probably progressively making the species weaker, if anything. You cannot call this conservation.

I am in a very rant-y mood today

Yes you are. LOL

You're comparing apples to oranges here the topic started out as a hybridizing topic, now you're saying don't catch wild fish to preserve them. My comment to that is if people were more responsible about their fish and would not deliberately hybridized them then we wouldn't have to worry about ordering wild caught fish to get something pure because all the fish would be pure. No ifs ands or buts about it.

I do have a couple if's, and's or but's about this, actually.

If we only got "pure" specimens from home-bred fishes, the genetic pool would quickly dwindle, and there would most likely be many more severely inbred and deformed fish than there already are. See the goldfish.

And, the fish might be "pure," but they wouldn't be the same as what you find in the wild. See my previous post, the part about animal husbandry and environmental pressures on a species.

But, of course, we could solve all these issues if we could be bothered to care more about saving the actual environment these fish come from, but that is too hard. It's easier to just keep them in your house and think to yourself, "I am really helping to conserve these fish!!"

But then you're only fooling yourself.

One more: and, if we could be bothered to save the natural environments of these fish, catching wild specimens wouldn't be a problem because they would be thriving in larger numbers.

I agree with you, on most parts.  Unfortunately for us to have any affect on saving their natural environment would be a miracle.  The La Cieba Freedies can not be found anymore because they built, (I believe) a hotel or resort right where the lake was.  We can only do what we can, and to say a fish isnt line breeding in the wild is unknown.  

The original topic, hybridizing, in my opinion causes more issues than it is worth.  Before you know it our fish will have to come with papers proving its purity.  

Hybridizing or pure is a completely separate topic from conservation and protecting our species.

Hey Wes, if this is such a concern start another thread regarding that subject, and I will move a lot of this talk regarding it, over to the new thread.  Its not that I dont want to talk about it, but both of these topics are great topics to discuss and if we keep them together one or the other may get lost.  

 

[dwarfpike]

I sort of agree with the conservation part of your posts LA ... while I still think the CARES program is very laudable, it is not 'true' conservation. It is more for our hobby than anything, to make sure those endangered fish will still be available for the next generation of aquarist. I doubt scientists will use our CARES species to ever repopulate anything.

Keep in mind inbreeding is not as bad in less complex organisms than it is in higher ones. Studies have been shown in fish that it can be several dozen generations on inbreeding before problems occur, while in humans it's usually as soon as the second or third before issues arise. Inbreeding is an issue in our hobby, I just don't believe it's as big of an issue as people assume.

Though I agree line breeding and hybrids are both 'playing your deity of choice', there to me is a huge difference between the two. Line breeding is generally (though not always) done within the same species, trying to bring out the traits you want using inbreeding most of the time. It doesn't always involve crossing species. I am not fond of most line bred strains, as I prefer pattern over color so I find wild discus and angels far better looking than their solid colored line bred strains. Same with electric blue rams and electric blue acaras. But to me they aren't as bad as hybrids.

I look at the difference like this ... if I want a child with blue eyes, I would need to marry a woman with blue eyes to have a chance of this because of the recessive nature of them (and the odds wouldn't be good even then). That would be a form of line breeding. If I were to have a baby with a chimp, that would be a hybrid. DON'T SLEEP WITH THE MONKEYS!!!!

I do agree we as a hobby need to help those very very few organizations that are trying to conserve the natural habitats for the fish we love. The problem comes down to money. Firstly, while some people are more than willing to spend obscene amounts of money on the hobby, they for some reason seem unwilling to donate even a fraction of that to help keep those places the fish come from intact. Second, in a lot of the counties, let's face it ... the people are far more concerned about making the money to feed their families than they are about what the crazy americans, japanese, and germans think about a tiny fish in a stream by their village. And honestly I can't blame them for that. Until that changes though, our hobby is doomed. Not in our generation or our children's ... but soonish.

 

[hyp3rcrav3]

I can see a time, when there is more funding for Scientific projects, that Scientist ask hobbyist to raise certain stocks with the intent of reintroducing them, or buying the stocks from us so they can. Breeding stocks and reintroducing to the wild worked for some salmon (although they had a larger gene pool to work from). I wonder why the white cloud is extinct in the wild.

 

[LuminousAphid]

I do agree we as a hobby need to help those very very few organizations that are trying to conserve the natural habitats for the fish we love. The problem comes down to money. Firstly, while some people are more than willing to spend obscene amounts of money on the hobby, they for some reason seem unwilling to donate even a fraction of that to help keep those places the fish come from intact. Second, in a lot of the counties, let's face it ... the people are far more concerned about making the money to feed their families than they are about what the crazy americans, japanese, and germans think about a tiny fish in a stream by their village. And honestly I can't blame them for that. Until that changes though, our hobby is doomed. Not in our generation or our children's ... but soonish.

Yeah, I would like to say that if I had the money I would send some of it to help save the habitats of wild fish, but honestly I probably wouldn't. I'm not trying to say that everyone should do this either; just pointing out that if hobbyists were really concerned about conservation purely for the sake of conservation, their money and time would be better spent in some way to preserve/restore the fish's natural environment rather than breeding them in your home. What we are concerned with is creating nice looking fish, not conserving the species as it would be in nature.

Here is a good example of an actual conservation effort for a wild specimen, right here in the U.S.: The Devil's Hole Pupfish, though it doesn't seem to be going very well...

Anyway, to get back on topic.... I don't really see any moral downsides to hybridizing, as long as the fish can live a normal-ish life (no crazy deformities that keep it from getting enough food, etc.) Sure, you could say crossing a convict with a jack dempsey is like crossing a human with an ape- but it's not, really, in my mind. The fish and its tankmates don't have to struggle with social issues like human-hybrid rights, how to (or not to) fit into society, things like that. They are just fish, they don't care.

I think it simply comes down to personal preference. If you feel better about keeping a pure strain, then do it. If you want some cool hybrids and don't have moral qualms about it, then do it.

I do think it is an important point to be responsible about distributing them, though. At the least breeders should inform the recipient that the fish are hybrids, and ideally should be able to describe their genetics so that there aren't unintentional or unknown crosses being created.

edit: didn't see that the two topics had been separated, my bad!

 

[cichlid-gal]

I can see a time, when there is more funding for Scientific projects, that Scientist ask hobbyist to raise certain stocks with the intent of reintroducing them, or buying the stocks from us so they can. Breeding stocks and reintroducing to the wild worked for some salmon (although they had a larger gene pool to work from). I wonder why the white cloud is extinct in the wild.

From the reading I have found the White Cloud Minnow is no longer believed to be extinct in the wild.  Here's an excerpt from one article

In 1980 the White Cloud Mountain Minnow went unrecorded in nature, leading everyone to believe it had completely gone extinct in the wild. In 2001, they were rediscovered by a native population in the province of Guangdong. In 2007, a small group was found on Hainan Island. Since then, efforts have been made to reintroduce captive-bred White Cloud Mountain Minnows to areas they previously inhabited. They are still registered as endangered in Chinese government agencies and are in the China Red Data Book of Endangered Animals, listed as second-class state protected.

However, these fish are unlikely to face extinction again, as their numbers are thriving in North America from people releasing them into the wild. This is not particularly a good thing, as introducing a species to an area it is not native to can create environmental issues. Thankfully, due to their peaceful nature, they have not created many problems.

I don't see how there is a real difference between "line breeding" and "hybridization." We are playing god in both cases.

And also, please don't try to claim that you're practicing "conservation" by not hybridizing. If you were really that concerned about conservation, you would be out working to save the natural habitats of these fish so that they can continue to survive in the wild. Continuously line breeding and back-breeding just a (relative to nature) few specimens from a single collection point is most certainly not conservation. You might be able to claim it's preservation in a certain sense, but even that is a stretch.

What you're doing is animal husbandry. You are breeding and selecting for traits that you think are "natural," and then discarding those which don't make the grade. Compared to your average home aquarium setting, there may be (and most likely is) a completely different set of pressures on a species in the wild, and breeding them without these pressures is probably progressively making the species weaker, if anything. You cannot call this conservation.

I am in a very rant-y mood today

Just to clarify...the wild caught group of Metriaclima sp. "zebra gold" that I have has 9 fish in it currently.  Of those 1 male and 3 females came to me in one shipment (from one collection) and another 2 males and 5 females came to me from a later collection.  It is extremely and highly probable that my fish are not related genetically (I think that would make sense although I am not a geneticist).  I do not keep my F1 fry to breed back to my wild population although I have been told by some very well known breeders that that is actually OK to do that.

I would agree that conservation and hybridization can be two seperate subjects but that doesn't mean they can't go hand in hand.  

Conservation is defined as
The protection, preservation, management, or restoration of wildlife and of natural resources such as forests, soil, and water.

I see protection and preservation coming into play in regards to hybridization of a species if it is being done purposefully.  I.E.  If you are purposefully hybridizing a species that needs protection and preservation you are not "conserving" that species.

 

[Madness]

OK, I separated the Hybrid discussion from the wild caught species discussion. I know that you made a connection between the 2 of them, but from here out lets keep the hybrid talk on the other thread and the other discussion on this thread.

Thanks for your help on this. It allows for 2 great discussions instead of 1 bouncing back and forth.

Thank you

 

[cichlid-gal]

Sorry Madness...as you left Luminous statement about conservation and hybridization in this thread that is where I replied.  

And again to clarify...my zebra golds are not an at risk species but they are a WILD collected group

My comment on conservation/hybridization went more towards speaking of CARES fish or IUCN red list fish.

 

[Chiisai]

So many good points of view. Here are my thoughts. Everyone wanting WILD isnt a good thing. Look at coral mining in the early 90's it almost completely decimated many island reef systems. On the other side of the coin getting fish that are so line-bred/inter-bred that they dont really resemble the original species(guppies, todays canines, ect) makes me sad. Most of the hybrid fish around today are because someone thought the natural fish patterns/colors were amazing. as far as PETA goes.... thats a terrible company to support or quote. They have yet to save 1 animal and kill thousands every year. You can look up PETA+FDA and see the reports. I think its a tough sell either way you feel about it. I think we just have to follow our instincts on what we feel is the right thing to do.

 

[Anonymous]

:wall: 

 

[cichlid-gal]

I am not a supporter of PETA ... LOL ... I was trying to show how extreme things can get in some cases.