Designer Fish

Spawning off of another conversation, I would be interested to hear what people define as 'designer' fish? 

I think it's just breeding in traits that the breeder wants in order to sell them for a higher price. Examples. Picasso Platinum Onyx.
 
On another hand you can say it's designer if you mix a perc and an ocellaris.

RLTW

180 Gallon Mixed Reef

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8

IMO a "designer" fish normally clowns, are usually a  colour or pattern variant that makes them distinctly different from the norm. These are usually selectively bred from a small number of pairs, the latest being the picasso clarkii.
That and of course the cross breds such as Mocha, Photon etc.

Certainly open to interpretation.  CORAL, one of the first places where the term may have come about (going way back to an article Wittenrich wrote if not further), defined it in this issue as:
 
"Animals whose appearance has been altered by man in some way to make them comply more closely with his sense of aesthetics.  Methods include selective breeding and using food dyes to color animals like sea anemones and stony corals".
 
I'd like to just throw out the mention of dyeing, tattooing, and mechanical manipulation as simply inhumane treatment to an animal.  I'd throw in with this category such attempts as environmental manipulation or chemical applications that seek to alter the appearance.  None of these affect the genetic basis of the animal.
 
"Selective Breeding" is perhaps too broad a term, because even when breeding in a captive population for preservation concerns, there is HUMAN selection occuring of mates.  However, CORAL's definition handles this, in so much as it subdefines this as selective breeding with aesthetics as the goal, not species preservation as the goal.  To some extent, I can accept that caveot, as even cichlid breeders will select the most robust, most colorful males to be the parents of their next offspring, EVEN if they are producing and trying to preserve the natural form.
 
So I'd argue that another way to paraphrase the definition is this:  "Designer" fish are those forms that do not normally occur in nature.  Instead, the form has originated in captivity either spontaneously or with direct intent (i.e. intentional hybridization), and has required man's intervention, man's selective breeding, to establish and maintain the new form, or to coax out new traits through compressed, artificial evolution in the form of selective breeding.  "Man" is the "designer", not the natural processes of evolution.

How about naturally occuring hybrids then Matt? Would be interested to know how these would be classified and do you think they should then be "bred on"?
Rare yes,  im thinking the unclassified not neccassarily Thiellei or Leuc.

 
I've said many times over I'd love to breed the naturally occuring hybrid of Paracentropyge venustus X . P. multifasciata.  That hybrid is part of the natural biodiversity and thus, has a place in "preservation".  But here's the rub on that - you can't preserve that hybrid without preserving the parental species  THAT is the very fundamental reason that natural biodiversity (more importantly normal geographic forms / species) should take priority over hybrids...you can always make hybrids LATER if you've preserved the raw materials.  But that's not what the question was about.  It was about how we define "designer" animals
 
Matt

But surely that's the point. "Designer" is a subjective term, whilst it can be defined as "man made", whats a designer to some is an abomination to others. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. All fish were once wild caught, it's what we do to them that makes them designer. Wether they were hybrid or not, they can still be "designer". Cant' They?

 
Indeed, in terms of "Designer", that's the crux of the definition, aesthetic.  Visual.  At the expense of other things.  "Designer", in the CORAL definition, does include things ike injecting glassfish with flourescent dyes, or using genetic modification techniques in a lab to put coral florescence genes into freshwater angelfish.  It also includes less obvious, less egregious examples, like long finned Danios or Sunset Platies or Delta Tail Guppies or Half Moon Bettas.  The freshwater world is REPLETE with "Designer" fish.
 

No, only wild caught fish were wild caught.
 

 
Indeed "designer" encompasses both man-made hybrids and non-hybrid selectively breed groups and any combination thereof.  I never stated otherwise.
 
Matt

So then the suggestion from what I am reading is that designer fish are not necessarily a bad thing.
 
Would everyone agree with that statement? (not looking to distinguish sub levels...the question as a whole..is the question)

 
Not being willing to look at the "sub levels" is not realistic, even I acknowledge the "shades of gray".
 
It also depends again based a lot on how you care to define "designer" - afterall my pursuit of the Lightning Maroon is BOTH an aesthetic pursuit and one of conservation.  I made conservation the priority, which is where a lot of people were disconnected from the project goals (and became critical of my methods and pacing) because for them, preservation of the aesthetic by whatever means possible, as fast as possible, was the priority over any conservation goals.  So, am I creating 'designer fish' or breeding for conservation? In truth, the answer is BOTH.  So on that level, yes, I could almost agree that 'designer fish' are not "necessarily" a bad thing.
 
HOWEVER.  Your very question's wording precludes the shades of gray by eliminating "sublevels", but then again throws those shades right back in when you say "not necessarily a bad thing".  Highly confusing, and somewhat of a rhetorical trick.  You are trying to lump truly damaging fish in with fish that may not have such dramatic impact.  You're arguably trying to lump things together that should not be.  You're doing so that by lumping the bad with the not-so-bad, the only way to answer the question is to make the truly "bad" into "not so bad" or even "OK".   You can't have shades of gray in one portion of the question while eliminating them in another).  It's an extremely poor question that precludes any practical answer.  To paraphrase your actual question, you're saying "So can we agree that criminals are not necessarily bad (not looking to distinguish between litterbugs and ax murders here)?"  Do you see that no matter how you answer this question, reality is out the window? 
 
So I'm now going to formulate my answer on the black and white version of what you're asking about, because for me you can't have a "gray" response unless the question itself allows for the "gray" parameters.    For the "black and white", "all or nothing" view, I will formulate my answer on the cost/benefit ratio as I perceive it to be based on my experiences and my opinions of what the overall breeding community's priorities should be.  Based on THOSE qualifications, my answer is:
 
My answer - No, I cannot agree.  In a black and white, all or nothing set of choices, designer fish are not a good thing in my opinion.  If I was forced to choose to either have designers or to not have 'designers', I would chose to not have them.  The risks and costs are not justified by the new versions of things we've already done hundreds of times over.  'Designer Fish' distract from more critical goals.
 
Matt

I think it is essential that one start at the top and work their way down to find where the questions are.  There are way too many conversations out there where everyone lumps everything together and makes a discussion impossible. 
 
The quesiton at it's most rudimentarly level is...are designer fish ok? at least as suggested in this context.  Yes there are sub levels, and yes, those sublevels should be questions at their level, but not in the context of an overall question.
 
To start from the bottom, or worse yet, as often is the conversation (all levels) no real conversation can ever really exist because everyone is talking 'apples and oranges'.
 
So as a simple question...are designer fish an ok thing?
 
Based on the responses I see above (including yours) I would suggest the answer is yes, but at the sub-level you can break down each of the individual thoughts.  Allowing you to have a real discussion on each part of the sub level.  
 
I will give an example....(and please take this as an example...and not as some open conversation for philisophical debate)
 
Is murder ok?
Of course the answer to most is no...
but then you break down the question to
is capital punishment ok?
is war time death ok?
is shooting an unarmed man ok?
 
You have the capacity to start breaking down the question....everything above indicates to me that most agree that designer fish are ok....but maybe not the questions that fall below it.
 
Matt, I totally understand your point, and that is the very context of the question, do you view the question is exclusive or inclusive.  Again a view of the individual and they way they assess things.  There are a great many factors that effect the way we evaluate things and I have yet to see a conversation around this topic that digs into the actual questions.  We all perceive things the way we carry the world in our minds and it sometimes makes it very difficult to understand the responses of each other.  So it is my hope to break down a few questions as simple as we can ask them.  I am 100% certain that every level of question I ask will be met with the same 'world view' that you just presented.  But I am truely interested in seeing how each questions and corresponding sub question gets answered.

 
Ah, but you also see three different definitions of what a designer fish even is, and you're inferring opinions that neither Duck or rgrking were asked to express when they gave their definitions.
 
So really, the only opinion expressed on whether "designer" fish are OK, or not, would be mine.  And I was pretty abundantly clear - in the simplified, black and white concept of the question, if I am forced to oversimplify the true nature of things, then designer fish are "not" OK.


 
But that's the opposite of how you approached this topic.  
 
To use your metaphor, you asked for a definition of murder and you got 3 different definitions, some of which acknowledged the fact that murder may have various incarnations, and what one person might call murder another person might call justice.    Next, you throw out the gray shades of murder to frame it as a black and white issue, the base issue of murder and ask, "ignoring the various incarnations, is murder perhaps sometimes OK?"  You ask that it be looked at in black and white terms and yet condoned in gray terms?  
 
From that, you got one answer.  The answer was - if we cannot look at the various conditions that may or may not be murder, if your question defines murder as one simple concept, then all the shades of murder must be classed simply as murder.  Then I can hardly condone murder as your question defines it and thus no, murder is not OK.
 
And from all that, you derive that the overall group opinion is that murder is OK?! (eg. "Based on the responses I see above (including yours) I would suggest the answer is yes")
 
I'm having a hard time dealing with the lack of logic that's driving this line of thinking.  It really makes me think that you're just going down your own line of thinking, comprehending only portions that seem to indicate the outcome that you perhaps hope for.  I say that, because how else does a single final no vote turn into a group yes vote?


 
Please elaborate.
 

 
This seems a bit rhetorical and slightly confusing - my takeaway is simply this - we all have different points of view, and our different points of view make it difficult to see the point of view of another.  Is that the jist here?
 

 
Please explain the "world view" that you feel I've presented. 
 

 
But what does that mean exactly?  If you simply mean you'd like more opinions, great.  
 
However, if you hope that by examining the gray areas you can come up with a final, definitive endorsement for all designer fishes (i.e. using the logic of your metaphor - if murder isn't OK then capital punishment isn't OK, or if capital punishment is OK then murder is OK on the whole), you're really chasing a fantasy.
 
Early on, I probably said that "Designer Fish" were 100% bad, that's probably the extent to which I explained my stance on the matter.  That may have framed it as black and white, and the younger Matt probably looked at it largely in that way.  Of course, I'm older, "wiser"?, and well, I do acknowledge that this is not simply a black and white issue, but overall, I still believe that based on the generalized and semi-mis-informed views of general hobbyists, what are generally thought of as designer fish bring more costs than value to the table.  No matter what I would like to see happen, people ARE going to pursue them, and thus, why my next talk is already taking shape on being a responsible fish breeder whether pursuing one line of breeding or another.
 
 

No disrespect intended, but I am not going to respond to your responses...
 
I posted this thread because I am curious and just the handful of responses above spawned several additional questions in my mind and I am interested in reading more...
 
I am not attempting to black and white anything...very rarely is anything in life black and white.

Let me ask this then. If designers were also breeding in good characteristics of a species and breeding out the bad parts, as in how easily they get diseases, birth defects, how fast it grows, would the designer be ok then?
 
I see both sides. I like the color in the designers, but if it hurts the species by breeding the strength out of them then I say no.
 

RLTW

180 Gallon Mixed Reef

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8

 
Same line of thinking that I was critical on for the above - you can't tie the two together and get an answer that makes sense.  The one goal of breeding does not condone nor condemn, nor redeem the other.

I will throw out this interesting side note - from a conservation minded standpoint, the very act of breeding in captivity at all is considered to have some deleterious effects in the first place.  I.e. breeding for faster growth, or disease resistance not found in the wild population - when reintroduced to the wild, such a fish would be fundamentally more competitive than it used to be.  Is that a good or bad thing?  Well, it's good for the captive population, and perhaps increased vigorous traits might be REQUIRED to reestablish a species that was compromised to the point of collapse in the first place.  I.e. I'm thinking of isolated populations of wolves where inbreeding occurs, so game management actually has to come in and introduce unrelated animals to keep the local geographic population from undergoing genetic collapse.
 
So, I think that in captive propagation from a conservation standpoint, there is again simply a priority that trumps the other issues.  I.e. to have a slightly altered captive-based population is better than to have none at all.


 
The general thinking is that pursuit of designers does come at other costs.  I'd say that good breeding practices can prevent that.  Again, referring to the ACK and how some breeders use their understanding of genetics to avoid congenital, hereditary problems through careful selective breeding, while other breeders run puppy mills that turn out dogs of perhaps very questionable quality.
 
I'll further say that, in my very generalized experience, the types of hobbyist-level breeders, the "amateur" breeder if you will, is not thinking about the long-term consequences when pursuing designer-type breeding.  Part of that stems from the profit motive (short term gain) and part of that stems from being mis or uninformed, but mostly, when I ran into people who were implementing questionable breeding practices at the non-professional level, they were really doing it for personal gain (monetary or other), and weren't terribly concerned about anything else.  And heck yeah, I was terribly excited when I discovered the Albino Zebra Obliquidens in our hatchery over a decade ago.  And now that's a fish you can find, with some patience and persistence.  But that fish falls into a category of "designer" fish that don't seem to present the same types of problems that others do.
 
I should probably set up some sort of "designer ranking" - heck I'm going to do that right now.

However you ask the question it is still subjective as the definition means different things  to different people. The question is at such a high level and unspecific, I think it is inevitable you will get debate on even "what is a designer fish" from asking the question "are designer fish ok" from such an informed group.
 
Matt's view IMO is very conservation minded and concerned with maintaining genetic bloodlines. No bad thing.
 
I don't think it is possible to get an easy yes, no concensus on such a question IMO.

 
In fact, I'd argue the top priority viewpoint because IF we put conservation first, BOTH the conservation minded breeder, and the ornamental/designer-minded breeder, benefit.  How?  Simple.  The more species we preserve, the more we preserve our natural biodiversity (a win for conservation-minded breeding) AND the more "raw materials" we preserve for the long term  pursuit of designer breeding (including intentional hybridization).
 
The flipside scenario, everyone loses.  That's why, in the "black and white" framing of "are designer fish sometimes OK", I can't answer any way other than no, because to say "yes" is to greenlight a damaging set of priorities.  Even the albino, one of the most fundamental genetic mutations that occurs with some degree of regularity and is highly understood, does present problems IF it were to get muddled into a conservation minded breeder's operation.  The damage is less than other things, but still, there is damage. 
 
A lot of this damage can be prevented, but given the current status of how we handle livestock ID in the chain of custody, and given that the majority of hobbyists still can't really tell the difference between A. percula and A. ocellaris, breeders really have to step it up and recognize what we're collectively up against.  It is very tough to set aside short term goals to have the big picture in mind, but that's what I believe we all have to do.

I would have to agree. The better we control and document importation through to the end user, the better placed we will be to ensure, geographical bloodlines are continued. Therefore designer fish will be far less of a threat to conservation and endangered species.

Some might argue that designer fish finance more critical goals.
 
Jeff

I'm kinda with you on that Jeff. They certainly can help to offset the expenses of researching less cost effective species in the short term.
 

Chad Penney - MBI Council
Agis quod Adis

 
I kinda feel this to be a pretty tired argument.  It'd be like saying "lets build more nuclear power plants because they help fund research in solar".  OK, so that's a bit extreme and rhetorical, but here's how it pans out. 
 
First off, the only real designer fish we're talking about are in the clownfish realm, so you have to apply clownfish parameters to this discussion.  In general, each tank can hold one adult pair of clownfish.  Thus, when the average uninformed hobbyist goes out to buy their pair of clownfish, that's one shot.  A one time purchase unless they kill them.
 
The existing situation is such, that sure, buying a pair of Platinum clownfish will cost you more than a pair of Ocellaris.  No argument there.  That single pair of clowns makes more money.  But that single pair of platinums also potentially displaced the home of a very nice pair of regular ocellaris.  However, it could have also displaced the home of a pair of Allardi, Saddlebacks, Sunkist Skunks, Latezonatus, Tomatos, Cinnamons, or any other of the 28 species clownfish species ,not to mention the many more dozens of really spectacular geographical variations on those species.
 
The TRUTH is that the person who has the money to spend on a pair of Platinum Clownfish also has the money to spend on a higher end pair of a natural species or variety like Latezonatus or Onyx Perc (which, is both a man-made and natural fish...another story).  And the person who can't afford a pair of Platinum Percs isn't going to instead buy Latezonatus...no, they're going to get whatever fits in their budget.
 
Therefore in order to really justify the notion that "Designers" can fund R&D into other species, you have to overall make the case that "Designers" expand the market, and frankly that is NOT the case in my opinion.
 
Instead, "designers", being the new and rare, take up the same spots that a new and rare regular clownfish would potentially hold.  You could just as easily make a good buck with Latezonatus, Chrysopterus, Allardi, Chrysogaster, and many other of the rarer species. 
 
Arguably, the breeders would say otherwise.  I believe that commercial breeders are simply responding to a market that they believe would otherwise not exist.  Perhaps that's true...but perhaps the other is true.  If we have finite production, and we argue that creation of designers draws up the market, and may entice people in who otherwise would simply go without, I'd say the exact same thing hold true for any never-before-seen wild form of clownfish too.  I would also argue that it is easier to continue to breed what amounts to just another Percula or Ocellaris rather than trying to tackle a new species, even if it's just a new clownfish species.  Regardless, there's a reason we have Platinum percs and Color-Changing Ocellaris but no Chrysopterus or Chryosgasters still.
 
So I ask you, which would you prefer to have around?  Latezonatus..or Platinum Percs?  Because that's really the fundamental question.  Currently, it is quite clear that far more designer fish are being produced than introductions of wild clownfish species into the marketplace.  Is it the breeder's choice?  The consumer's choice?  I'd argue both.  What's being left behind is the natural biodiversity that we can't get back if we lose it. 
 
Classic example of one thing being displaced by another.  Classic slight-of-hand diversionary tactic....you don't notice what you're losing because you're distracted by the "new" things you're being offered.  And I really, truly believe that it doesn't have to be that way.  But ultimately it's going to be up to the breeders, and the consumers, to make that decision.
 
FWIW,
 
Matt

Breeders Play some role in this but the major player here and the one that drives this is really the consumer.  When it comes down to it commercial breeders are in this because they are in it for profit. So they are going to do whatever is going to give them the greatest returns. Hopefully if they are smart they will invest both in short and long term returns so as to not put all their eggs in one basket.  If the consumer didn't want the designer fish then commercial breeders would move on to something else. You can't really blame them too much for producing products that make money
 
The market right now is still pretty narrow for some of the more rare clownfish. The prices are still a bit high for them as well even compared to Platiums. I just did some searching and had a hard time finding anyone with any Latz for sale at all. The reason? I'm not sure but I suspect that people find that off-loading them in a local market is next to impossible.

Chad Penney - MBI Council
Agis quod Adis

 
"Still a bit high for them as well even compared to Platinums" - ah, but that's kindof my point Chad.  While the designer market and the "rare wild" market are not the same market, but there is probably a fair amount of overlap.  Breeders choose who you cater to.  You can make money doing either.  You have finite tank space.  So there's really only two justifications that can be made in favor of designer fish.  #1.  They're easier to do.  #2.  It's what we prefer to do.  That's it.
 
The local market in most places can be saturated with almost anything if it's overproduced, and on the flipside, these fish don't move at the local level they way they do on a more national scale.  You want CB Latezonatus, hop onto Pacific Island Aquatics (a partner with Aloha Corals) and there's Karen's, shipped to your door.  "Rare" and "Expensive" fish are always the purvue of a larger market simply by virutue of needing to find your consumers.  It's why LiveAquaria is now probably the undisputed king of "rare" fish in the US.  They can have them on stock because they can reach the customers that will buy them.  Try bringing in a Conspiculatus Angelfish to your LFS and see how long that $2500 fish sits there..
 
Maybe I'm totally wrong here.  Maybe it is 110% that new hobbyists are being brought into paying more for CB fish ONLY through Designer fish.  Maybe this really is a case of consumers buying either "Normal Nemo" or "Platinum Perc".  In that case, there would be a monetary argument to be made, as well as a growth case to be made in a for profit setting.  That makes it even more important for hobbyist breeders to not pursue the designer morphs, and instead provide a safe haven for our precious naturallly occuring biodiversity since, in the for profit model, it makes no sense to devote tankspace to preserving A. barberi if you can instead raise another 4 batches per year of Platinum Percs.
 
Of course, what happens when the currently hot designer fish prices collapse?  At some point, we are going to have to actually innovate...right now we're seeing a lot of "cover songs" on the same old same old thing.

IMO, there are 2 reasons designers all catch the limelight over rarer clowns;

• Designers are exactly the same in any industry. Their "in vogue" and "must have" (at that moment in time) fish for any reefer that wants the bragging rights and has the cash. Plus all his buddys will know what it is and will be envious.
• Designers are much more available and are more likely to be bought from the wholesalers by lfs's for the reasons given above.

Rarer clowns however are very misunderstood  and easily misidentified unless you are an officianado of clowns. How many people could actually pick out a Chrysogaster against an Allardi? My guess is not many. I have been trying in vain for the past year almost to get a pair of gasters. I have even got a wholesaler who has met and buys from a diving family in Mauritius and still no gasters! If I do ever find any they will be very expensive, and I know most of my friends will say that's an Alfrican clown isn't it? I can buy Allardi for $15 a pop, large pairs at $35. So most would say it's not worth the price of a Gaster.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Until we educate and inform people of the natural diversity, beauty and fragility of our wild clown populations, the big bucks will always go on the designers. It's also getting our local lfs's to better communicate and ensure THEY have an understanding of variants and geographical locations of species and variants. IMO.
 

 
This is one of the reasons why Latezonatus are up there, and from a species standpoint, of those viewed as "obtainable", they still are probably one of the most desirable.
 

 
Well, but they're more available because people are choosing to breed them in the first place, and if anything, it is easier to take a platinum or color-changer out of existing CB stock than to try to nail down Amphiprion fuscocaudatus.
 

 
Which most don't.  How many LFSs still get in "Sebae" clownfish that are nothing more than A. clarkii?  All due respect, out of most all LFSs I worked at and sold to, none ever understood even the most basic differences.  It's why Cebu Black Saddleback Clownfish get sold into the trade as "Black Percula", but also so do Darwin Ocellaris and "Onyx" Percula.  Quite frankly, at least stateside, and heck, looking around my local neighborhood, it is not surprising to understand why the average hobbyist is so ill-informed.  I don't shop at any of my LFSs in the area, although I will occasionally pop in to the coral farmer here...has nice corals, but probably wouldn't know what a Latezonatus was even if I showed it to him and asked.
 
What we will likely see out of all this is the "mainstream" casual hobbyist simply buying whatever suits their tastes, and the die-hard hobby breeders doing the bulk of conservation minded breeding stemming from a deeper appreciation of the natural forms, combined with a failure on the part of mainstream commercial producers to procure and preserve those natural forms.  That IS how the FW industry works, and it is not surprising to watch the SW industry go the same route.  
 
There's a reason you can't get the actual Metriaclima estherae 'Minos Reef' as it *should* be if you purchase it from a Florida Fish farm as a "Red Zebra', which is why if you want the real deal, the only place you'll get it is from a specialty supplier or breeder.  Why?  Simple - Florida Fish farmers decided to breed a rarer color form from this polymorphic species, and now all they produce is the "rare" color form, and in the hobby, it is the NATURAL color form that is rare.  The strain breeds true, so that you don't get "throwbacks"...it's selective breeding to weed out the natural state entirely.  Ironically, the natural color form consists of sexually dichromatic blue vs. orange with polymorphic variants including orange and orange blotched morphs in both sexes.  Can't find the actual OB Red Zebra at a fish farm either because given how the Florida farms tended to work, that OB Red Zebra may well be a hybrid.  In the end, the casual hobbyist only knows the Florida farm version of a "Red Zebra".  Only those 'in the know' realize the situation.
 
Imagine an industry where a normally barred plain orange, white and black A. ocellaris is a rarity or can't even be found.  That's what happens if we just say "f it" and run rampant with the "Designers".  Oh, that can't happen?  I swear it will..when Snowflakes and Black Snowflakes and Nakeds and Wyoming Whites and albinos and all the other variations are overproduced and the prices come down, all those people who were kept out of them on the basis of price will rush in, and in turn, the designer becomes the norm, displacing the natural form.
 

I have not abandoned this topic.  I am debating writing something up, that sets forth my opinions on the topic.  I may be new to breeding, but I am not new to equalizing unequally applied stances. 
 
Time is my limiting factor, but I feel in order to appropriately respond to view points, such as Matt's the assumptions have to be laid out and the arguments pursued with those assumptions defined.  This has been the key point I have been driving towards with these conversations.  There are alot of personal ethics, translated into unspoken assumptions that are driving the view points.
 
I am completely aware that this is not a black and white topic, but balanced against other topics that seem to be accepted as black and white, the lines become a bit clearer to me, even if not accepted by others.  The only appropriate way is to draft an analysis, which time is preventing at this point.

Matt, I hear you on the uninformed LFS issues. The whole Clarkii vs Sebae issue drives me nuts and it's one that I see at almost every store I walk into. The problem I think stems from the fact that many LFS are started by people that are or were hobbyists and often by ones that tend to jump at things rather than think them through. I mean they did just decie to open a LFS out of the blue?  The failure rate of petstores in our area at least is darn near 100% in 5 years. They are usually poorly planned and almost always staffed by people that don't really know anything about what they are selling. I've heard so much bad advice coming from people at stores it sometimes makes me sick. 
 
That said I have no idea how to address the problem. Stores are going to continue to purchase the stuff that they can move the easiest, at the highest margins, and the quickest turn arounds. Most often they'll do whatever they can to achieve that. So that means designer clowns in many cases. As hobbyists sure we can and should focus primarily on preserving natural forms. As you stated earlier, what happens when a form is no long in vogue?  It's been stated in another thread and by you, yourself Matt that the key to being successful long term as a breeder with the goal of selling what we produce is to diversify. So what's wrong with producing a design form as well as one of your offerings?  Especially when that income can make it possible for you to afford to get that pair of Latz or McCullochi?
 
BTW it's my goal to get a pair of Latz now before year's end!

Chad Penney - MBI Council
Agis quod Adis

Matt, you mention that we need to breed the rarer forms, but from this side of the pond that's virtually impossible! Mentioning fish like Fuscocaudatus, I've never seen one let alone a price for one. Nor Latifasciatus, Chrysogaster, Omanensis....... If I want one I think I'm going to have to go and get it myself. Wholesalers don't seem in the slightest interested in bringing these in due to potential for disaster and loss of cash, besides then having to find a buyer.
You are probably aware, the only supplier in Europe that does occasionally get rare clowns is Arie Dejong and I am in contact with them every other week. They have been looking out for 6 months to get some of the rarer species for me with no luck. The only reason I got the Thiellei, Leuc is that they had them 2 years and nobody was really interested in them.
 
Regarding Latz, A shop in the UK recently bought in 10 that were almost certainly Karen's clowns as I know they came from Hawaii because I told them where to get them. They didn't fly off the shelves as I expected, presumably because the public still don't know how rare and magnificent these fish are as adults.
 
Yes we need to make these fish more available but I'm not sure if the public will pay a premium for them until we overcome the education issue with lfs's and the general public.
 
First step find and purchase them. Then we might be able to do something.

I have what might be a stupid comment, but why does the public NEED to pay that much of a premium? Sure we should bump the price up a bit especially considering that they are captive bred but asking $100 a fish for a clown, it's no wonder that nobody can sell them. I realize that it's expensive to buy them in the first place and it will take a bit longer to recoupe costs but why not sell Juv's for around $20 ea? Price them one the high side of what an average hobbyist can still afford and you could very well create a market for them.  Even with the designer fish that are considered in demand it takes a while to sell them, Just ask Tal how long he has had this last batch of Picasso's!

Chad Penney - MBI Council
Agis quod Adis

Premium is subjective, but I get the rational. I would charge what the market would bare. No sense in giving away a rare fish to have others then lower it even further once they are more available.
 
Balanced is the word I would use.
 

I'd argue that Rare is also subjective. While around the country/world it may be hard to find a specific species but I'm producing 200 a month. In my area I'd say that they are far from rare.

Chad Penney - MBI Council
Agis quod Adis

Touche Monsieur Penny..
I don't think you will find anybody even close to breeding any that I mentioned, let alone 200 a month!

LOL... I know.. That circumstance is pretty rare right now. But I guess I'm saying should it continue to be?
 
I'm not against designer fish, they have their place and as long as the market wants them someone is going to produce them. It's marketing 101. Sure we may end up with no true wild forms in captivity but is that really so bad? It could be stated that is the ultimate form of conservation. You have effectively removed any need to remove fish from reef, right? Ok so maybe that is a bit extreme and unrealistic but if you look at dogs as an analogy we have all these designer canines in our homes and the wolves and jackels are left in the wild where they should be.  While that might not be the perfect outcome with regard to fish I pose that it could be much worse!
 
Think about that for a while

Chad Penney - MBI Council
Agis quod Adis

 
In theory that all sounds great, and that's the argument / stance that many breeders take.
 
In reality, this isn't really happening.  And when you compound that with the potential damage that designers & hybrids can inflict upon conservation-minded breeding, and how designers push out the natural forms.  I'd even go so far as to suggest that the above "theory" is the ideal that commercially-minded breeders aspire to, but when you ask them if they're making money they always say "no, we're not".
 
So arguably, a much more believable scenario might be "designer fish" are helping us stay afloat right now.


 
And you know where to get 'em, and relatively "cheap" too!  PIA all the way!

 
 
 
Indeed, just a foretelling of where the price will head as people start to tire of Picassos and then Platinums.  Price can only go down unless people stop breeding them.
 
Ironic that the whole time, the natural form of Black Ocellaris has held relatively firm on its value for years now.
 

 
Chrysogaster has come around numerous times here in the US.  Yes, Fuscos, Latifascaitus, Chagosenis, and Omanensis are relatively unobtainable, but there are Mcc's, Latz, and countless variations Melanopus, Clarkii etc.  
 
Of course, here's the real deal - why must people only be breeding clownfish.  Oxymonacanthus longirostris is well within the reach of solid fish keepers.  Why are there still no commercially available CB Harlequin Filefish?  And yet we have Color-Changing Ocellaris and Black Snowflake Ocellaris as new introductions in the last week?  The argument doesn't even have to be on a clownfish vs. clownfish level - I can take it to a fish vs. fish level and it's even more apparent.


 
Or perhaps because they're overpriced? Price is a huge factor.  10 is a huge number to bring in too..i.e. most stores can only handle a couple pairs of Picassos or Platinums at a time at best.  And it also takes getting the word out - i.e. people who want Latz have to know the store has them.  I would be shocked if my LFSs in Duluth could move either Platinums or Latz at the prices they normally carry.  There is more here than simply buy something rare and it will just sell.  It's that limited upper-end market.
 
If it's as you suggest, the store should put up a picture of the adult right alongside.  Or get a copy of the latest issue of CORAL from the US with my article on the species - tons of great images there.  When selling African Cichlids, we'd retail $25 brown fish, and we'd sell them like hotcakes.  Why?  Because I took the time to explain that this nondescript, ugly little fish is a baby, showing baby colors.  Then I pulled out Teapot's books or any of the other good cichlid books, and showed the adult forms.  Oh, and then I had the adults on hand too (with their often $100+ pricetags).  Indeed, "education" is one of the biggest things out there, and it's why a $25 brown fish can be sold for $25 in the first place.


 
There certainly is some truth in that the public's perception of a fish is what will drive the premium they're willing to pay.  If people think the Mcc is an ugly domino damsel, well, it's never gonna sell here in the US.  And yet, in Japan, it supposedly flies off the shelves.

 
A few big gaping holes in that argument.  Climate Change.  Ocean Acidification.  Coral Reef Extinction.  Not keeping them going in captivity virtually ensures they're gone in the future if the science and resultant forecasts are right.
 
And on the topic of dogs and cats - why are they breeding dogs with wolves?  Where did Bengal Cats come from?  We couldn't have Bengals were it not for the wild forms / species being around, and so too, you lose the base building blocks (the natural biodiversity) you eliminate a great amount of potential from what designers CAN do in the future.  I'm not against designers either, I've hybridized orchids, most all the hostas in my back yard can't be found anywhere in the wild, but the reality is such that it's highly inappropriate to be disregarding the importance of our wild biodiversity at this point in time.  It's very much a time-related issue in my mind.  There's a right place and a right time for designers - it's after the wild biodiversity is tackled.
 
Let me frame it one other way - all this pursuit of designer fish is the "lazy" way to innovate.  Again, why are there no CB Harlequin Filefish out there?  I put the exact techniques used for success out there in print for anyone to follow...and yet nothing has come of it.  But since then no less than a half dozen, maybe even a dozen, new variations on Percula, Ocellaris, and their hybrids, have been released.
 
It seems to me like the commercial-breeder's stance really is "let someone else worry about it".  The R&D we really need isn't happening at the commercial level...it's happening with hobbyists and institutions.  I think we can all collectively do far better than we're doing.

Just to throw a wrench in: Mutualism is also a mechanism of evolution. Two species throw in together and their evolutionary fates, to some extent, depend upon each other and both do better than either would do without the other, leading to spreading those specific sets of genes farther than either set would do on its own. Flowering plants and bees. Clownfish and anemones. Etc. Tons of examples.
 
So, what are the most successful examples of mutualism? In birds, the chicken/human combination. Chickens are enormously more successful than they should be because of their relationship with humans. (I've raised chickens. I don't know how they lasted until humans came along.) In mammals, the dog/human combo.
 
In fish? Certainly have to go fresh water here first, probably food fish but the freshwater aquarium industry is pretty successful. Someday clownfish? Maybe. Even with the meager beginnings we have in raising clownfish, I think it's quite possible that there are more clownfish in the world right now than there would be without their association with humans. In that sense (and if that's true), clownfish have already benefited immensely (evolutionarily) from their association with humans.
 
Looked at in that way, any selections (and that's what we're talking about: selection for desired characteristics, breeding) that make them more desirable to humans and increase the likelihood of a continuation of the mutualistic relationship make the species more successful.
 
All that said, I have no doubt that we should be preserving species lines. It just makes sense from a breeder's perspective. Once a bad characteristic is bred into a line (for instance, flared gills), it's extremely difficult to get rid of. Having something akin to the original genetic pool to go back to is extremely important.
 
Notice that I say "akin to the original genetic pool." The gene pool is not static. Every generation introduces changes. Even something as simple as "fit to survive in captivity" is a huge selection pressure and veers the gene pool off in a different direction over many generations.

--Andy, the bucket man.
"Not to know the mandolin is to argue oneself unknown...." --Clara Lanza, 1886

I agree with some of what your saying, but until we have the equivalent of the RHS seedbank., are'nt we being a little premature with crossbreeding?

All very valid points Andy.
 
Duck, does the RHS have a seedback for the Orchid species?  If so, I was unaware.  My view of the Orchid industry is this - 100+ years old, well established ethics / protocols based on logic, an exceptionally high degree of documentation, scrupulous ethics regarding ID preservation and disclosure, driven towards species preservation because wild orchids are, in many aspects, completely off limits, which leads to a very fundamental understanding of preserving the base, natural biodiversity first and foremost.  It is a MUCH larger interest group that marine aquariums.  I'm not saying the Orchid industry and hobby is perfect, but it provides an exceptional comparative model for what the marine fish/invert/coral hobby and industry could look like 50-100 years from now.  First, we need to nail down the next 10-20 years.

Sorry Matt, I misquoted I meant to say Kew gardens not RHS. It's the largest project of it's kind and concentrates on collecting seeds from the most endangered species of plants and those most useful in the future. There was a BBC documentary on it a few years ago, but I can't remember what it was called. The seed library's are amazing.
 
Here's a link to the site. http://www.kew.org/science-conservation/save-seed-prosper/millennium-seed-bank/
 
IMO it's one of the most worthwhile conservation projects ever! They are already using seeds to repopulate areas that have been stripped of natural species.

I'm in complete agreement on the seed bank, but there's not really an equivalent for animals. The only way to keep the gene pool in animals going is to get a breeding program going that makes every effort to keep the pool as large as possible with as much cross-breeding and rejuvenating with wild genes as possible. The idea is to try to keep the line breeding to a minimum within the "seed" population to try to avoid letting bad mutations reinforce themselves. To do it, you need as many people as you can get to devote some space to the project, record-keeping so you know what animals should (and should not) be matched, and for all the breeders to be aware of each other so it's easy to share populations.
 
Basically, marine fish breeders need to do what the good breeding zoos already do. I'm fortunate to have a very good breeding zoo nearby (the Denver Zoo is excellent), so I see and hear a lot about their breeding programs.

--Andy, the bucket man.
"Not to know the mandolin is to argue oneself unknown...." --Clara Lanza, 1886