Designer Fish

 
I can tell you my breeding capacity is not infinite..   I also don't think there is blame to be thrown around.. We can waste our time blaming hydrocarbons for global warming, or better yet america.. But I just don't see the point. 
 
The captive breeding of wildtype clowns will catch up in time... I personally do no think the situation is anything to really worry about, which is probably why we differ so much in our opinions of the breeding of designers. I also loved the maroon/occy hyrbid... great fish!  I think that we are also learning how common wild hybrids really are. 
 

 
Points to an interesting conundrum.  Genetic weakness doesn't occur in a generation or two..it takes several generations of intentional line breeding to bring that about.
 
Far more likely is the simple case of obtaining broodstock from questionable sources, which is why so many breeders of FW fish tend to want what they call FO (wild) or F1 (first generation from wild parents) stock for broodstock.  They're not simply trolling their average LFS for those fish either.  I'm as guilty as everyone else of having to sometimes "make due" or being seduced by the "shortcut".  I.e. good look finding any believeable F1 or F0 black ocellaris...I've not found a credible source yet.  The best you could do is to get hopefully unrelated fish to form your pairs (i.e. buying from multiple sources, presumably multiple breeders).  And of course, my ocellaris pair...just some random pair I got from a local hobbyist who had them spawnign for years...no way to tell if they were wild, CB, related or not.  Hardly the gold standard for broodstock.  There's a reason I don't have 'em anymore.  Conversely, my Sunrise dottyback pair was also of relatively unknown origins. I got the original pair as two juvies, judging from size CB, likely from C-Quest at that time.  Lost one, repaired later with a fish of downright questionable conformation (i.e. funky face and something not quite right around the tail..i.e. maybe had it bitten off at one point) and yet, that misfit pair produced stunningly perfect offspring, all of which even developed little extensions on the top and bottom of the tail (lyretail designer Flavivertex in the making, or is that a natural trait that can manifest in this species???).  Probably was a good outcrossing of unrelated fish, but no way to know. Still, from a conservation standpoint, these weren't the ideal broodstock. They were good, but better could've been found.
 
This is why ultimately, we really want wild caught fish with known collection locations - they do represent the safest genetic base for captive bred lines.  You go buy some random Ocellaris these days and you may well be getting a Percularis afterall (case in point how hybrids can be problematic).  Of course, here's another bit of ammo - for anyone who says that breeders are encouraging the shutdown of wild caught fish so that breeders can corner the market - obviously incorrect thinking because at this point in time, we still NEED that broodstock that can only be had from wild sources.  Even the FW breeder STILL relies on WC fish now and again because they're available and genetically better to what most CB fish may represent (keep in mind generation times on clownfish can be fairly long compared to some FW fish - thus harder to inbreed a clownfish than a Victorian Cichlid).  In yet another good example of how careless breeding can screw things up...
 
Here's what you might expect to get if you order an Electric Blue Johanni from a random fish breeder (note these are males AND females)
http://www.ratemyfishtank.com/photo-main.php/13909
http://www.ratemyfishtank.com/photo-main.php/16289
http://www.ratemyfishtank.com/photo-main.php/24080
http://www.ratemyfishtank.com/photo-main.php/25143
 
After some 20 or 30 years in the hobby, that's what the species looked like.  Your average hobbyist in the store would assume that was normal and would be all too happy to purchase that fish for $10.
 
Now, step back, because in reality, there are two species that share the name "Electric Blue Johanni", one is the actual Melanochromis johanni, and the other is Melanochromis cyaneorhabdos.  They come from different areas in Lake Malawi.  At one point, science probably considered them to be the same species.
 
Here's what Melanochromis johanni ACTUALLY looks like in the wild:
http://www.aquariumlife.net/profiles/cichlidae/electric-blue-johanni/100038.asp
Note the coloration of the female vs. the male.
 
And here's what Melanochromis cyaneorhabodos looks like in the wild:
http://www.cichlidlovers.com/m_cyan_maingano.htm
(both males and females)
 
Now, seeing that, what do you think happened to the captive bred (for rhetorical purposes, the "designer") population of "Electric Blue Johanni"?  Why do they look the way they look?
 
if I said you could have the "designer" fish, which would be the commercially cultured "Electric Blue Johanni", how manyof you would want that?  How many of you would rather, instead, have either the wild Melanochromis johanni or the Melanochromis cyaneorhabdos?
 
Now what would you say if I told you that for a decade or longer, you ONLY could get the farmed "Electric Blue Johanni"?  Do you think we could get back to either natural form?  And what if those natural forms had been lost along the way?  Is it "OK"?
 
I can tell you without a doubt that any serious breeder who want's to breed an Electric Blue Johanni these days is going back to the wild fish because breeders before them "got it wrong".  And yet, the captive population shown first still exists and continues to be produced.  I'd argue that there's virtually no place for that and breeders who continue to work with it really need to start over and get it right.  But that's not going to happen.
 
So how is Ocellaris going to look 20-30 years from now?
 
 

Since Platinums seem to be getting picked on a lot here I thought I'd offer my thoughts.
 
I'll admit that when another person came to me and offered a breeding "partnership", of sorts, with his pair of Picassos, I took him up on it. The pair is one of the originals that ORA produced. The prospect of making more than $7-$15 for a fish was appealing. I'm not trying to get rich by any means but making some money has it's benefits.
 
That being said I was surprised when the pair started producing Plats. Matt may remember the first one that showed up... I was freaking out with white colored larvae in the first batch and posted pics. Mat replied with something like "Dude, you got Platinums!" At that point I didn't even know where Plats came from, lol.
 
Since that first clutch I've been getting more Plats in each clutch with no intervention on my part. I haven't done the best job of recording actual numbers but, I'm now getting about 30% Plats. I see this as something that just happens since I've done nothing to make it happen, that I know of.
 
I will also say that I have kept a pair of Plats for breeding purposes. Not with the intent of making a profit, more to satisfy my curiosity about what that pairing will produce.
 
 

http://www.fishtalpropagations.com/#!home/mainPage
"Making captive breeding easier."

But I'm still not sure you understand, because it's not only about saving the species.  And it's certainly not about climate change or global extinctions either, as it's just as much about the external groups who are continuing to try to shut down the trade in wild marine fish for any number of reasons.  It is more likely that long before whatever global calamity wipes out the reefs, we're going to lose our ACCESS to wild fish for political or "conservation" minded reasons.

That biodiversity has tremendous value to both the conservation minded breeder AND the "designer" minded breeder.   I'm going to cut straight to the bottom to pull a quote, and maybe you'll understand the point of view.



The only way we get to have that hybrid, to enjoy that hybrid, is to make sure we have the parental species it requires to MAKE IT.  So even if you're ONLY concern as a breeder was to do nothing but hybridize fish - guess what - you STILL benefit from, and need, conservation minded breeding to happen.  And if you're not doing it yourself, you're asking someone else to preserve the raw materials you need to do what you want to do.



Funny you say that - I think commercial breeders might suggest that it's better for both you and them if you worked with some OTHER variety of fish altogether.  Because yeah, if you take their designer fish and start making more of the same designer fish then you are competing with them for market share on that designer fish, thereby dropping the price on that new variety (classic supply and demand) and thus, hurting their bottom line and reducing the profits they earn on something THEY first developed, as well as reducing your own bottom line (by expanding a price war).  And since to them, breeding is their livelihood, and for you, it's not, it's simply twisting the knife to boot.



Again, that's the point.  There's really no breakthroughs in larval nutrition for CLOWNFISH either...we have the necessary tools and skills to preserve every form of clownfish already.  Talented breeders wasting their efforts on designers is lost potential.  That's not to say we know EVERYTHING about clownfish breeding, far from it.  It is to say that clownfish breeding isn't advancing the breeding of anything else.



Only fish I've ever seen kill a mandarin is another mandarin.  Why?  Mandarins are purported to have toxic slime...my experiences house mandarins with other fish tells me that the other fish tend to leave the mandarins completely alone.  While I've never mixed one with a predatory fish, I do wonder if, let's say a lionfish, might spit out a Mandarin after initially taking it in.  Even the clownfish I kept with mandarins disliked nudging them around.

Not calling you a liar, I'm sure you have a dead mandarin.  But did you actually watch the Mcc's tear it limb from limb?  And what were the circumstances of that?  Did you just drop it into the tank?

Or is one of those classic cases of assuming "the fish killed it" when in reality the fish may have died for some other reason, perhaps got a bit nibbled on, and viola...going from point a to point c without ever passing through point b (which prevents you from getting to point c).  If MCC's were these intensely murderous fish, well, experiences are small but I know of one other individual who houses them with a myriad of other fish without issues.  We know they're mean with each other, but heck, MANY other fish species exhibit strong interspecies aggression while leaving most other fish alone.



Not a jab, just meaning to say that initially we're given to believe that Percs are peaceful like Ocellaris, when in fact they are far more aggressive with each other than Ocellaris are, but it takes some digging (aka. doing of homework) to find that information.  They are more defensive of their nests too, but really, again, there's a question of aggression - can we fault a species for being aggressive during reproduction?  I think that circumstantial aggression gets overlooked, or rather lumped into the overall "aggression profile" for a fish..at least when we're talking about clownfish.



I kinda chose not to.  I've seen breeding nigripes and they're timid.  I have a pair of Vanuatu Perideriaon who could care less about anything else in the tank.  I'm not saying it cannot happen, but I'm saying that these are fish that are notorious for being downright SHY.  My experiences with them suggest nothing but passiveness.  of course, I will throw out another aggression caveot - if we're talking clownfish thrown into a reef and underfed for the benefit of the reef (and maintaining low wastes) all bets are off.  I'm sure you could make ANY marine fish meaner than normal simply by keeping it hungry.  One of the strongest motivations behind aggression is the need for sustenance.  It's why cichlid keepers keep their fish in large groups and feed them often - numbers to disperse aggression, and food to dial back the hunger-motivated aggression.  I bet the right tank, and the right circumstances, any of these mean skunk-complex fish you're familiar with could be turned around.



And thus, the scenario as you see it is a very pro-designer set of circumstances.  Correct?



Indeed, that is the message I am repeatedly conveying here.

 
Indeed, it's looking pretty compelling that the breeding of a good picasso to a good picasso will produce a portion of platinums.  What you did was simply be one of the first to get lucky.  Who knows what Lightning X Lightning might produce?  I'm sure someday we'll find out.  Will it be more lightnings (what I would perhaps hope for), or will we see Platinum Maroon clowns?  Or something else fundamentally different.  Indeed, that's an unanswered question for me and the Lightning Project...i.e. I'm preserving a natural form, but also opening up the window to the pursuit of other new forms, and that part frankly I'm somewhat opposed to.  I'd love to see the wild mutation preserved, but there is truly no way to preserve it without opening up the possibilities to other breeding efforts I wouldn't want to see.
 
Tal, you gotta keep GOOD records, because exact numbers can really help nail down the genetics at play.  Then we can learn something.  There's always some redeeming merits to any breeding, that much is true.  We learned a good deal about the hybridization of Perc X Ocellaris when Sanjay heavily documented it, and how the offspring developed.  Still, all it takes is one Black Photon to get passed off as an Onyx and a breeder's project is potentially screwed up (but only if that other breeder's project was conservation minded, although it would still throw off the expectations of a designer project a bit).
 
 

OK, Matt, let me ask you a simple question....why is this topic so passionate for you?  I hear your arguements, agreed or not, and all make some sense....but mostly because I personally see your passion, not because I believe your arguments are sound.
 
Why is this so massively important to you?  I am really trying to understand your core motivation for your responses.  I can deduce, but I would rather hear from you directly exactly why this topic is so passionate to you.

I'll do a better job with record keeping on the next batch.

http://www.fishtalpropagations.com/#!home/mainPage
"Making captive breeding easier."

 
Very simply put - as a whole, we're arguably headed down the wrong path, repeating the mistakes that other people propagating other things have made.  For everyone one person that really "gets it", there's two more who'd like to think that somehow the notion of captive breeding in marine fish is independent, unique, and new, and therefore look at breeding as a free for all without thought or care to the long term consequences of their actions.  This is no different than the folks who felt (and still feel) that Cyanide is OK for collecting fish. (edit - and for the record, these are not hypothetical breeders.  I've met these careless/carefree breeders in every circle, and they are even more prevalent in the marine breeding arena because it's so new to most people)
 
Throw out the last 30 plus years of breeding, because in the grand scheme of things, it really wasn't until the 2000's that things started picking up, and the latter half of the first decade really saw the first big bump.  So we are looking at a core group in it's infancy.
 
But we are stuck in a terrible time.  The reefs are gone in the next 10-50 years...if you believe the forecasts.  I don't see how people can turn a blind eye to it and I certainly don't see the efforts required to prevent it.  Even if you fail to acknowledge these forecasts, we are also facing external pressures who for any number of reasons would like to see the trade in wild fish brought to a halt.  That is not 10-50 years away, that is an ever-looming, omnipresent reality.  In the last 12 months we almost lost access to Hawaiian fish, and at one point, our entire hobby was on the chopping block on the insane grounds of our fish being "exotic / non-natives".
 
Too many people are willing to stick their heads in the sand and go about business as usual.  But like it or not, we are in a time crunch.  I believe do not have the luxury of decades or centuries of access to wild harvested fish.  So in the spirit of the good 'ole Boy Scout's motto of "Be Prepared", well, we need to get our acts together and be prepared.
 
I know I've said it for years now - once we've lost access to wild caught fish, we will be stuck with whatever we can produce in captivity.  At that point, so long as we maintain our foundation stock, those species we've managed to "ark" for our future hobbyists, then by all accounts, feel free to hybridize and chase down the designers, so long as those foundation stocks are secured. The reality is that we can ALWAYS make something new through our selective breeding and hybridization (and GMO even) - but we can't go back and get the original wild form if it is lost.  In truth, designer forms will even be "lost" in the future too, but they'll be replaced by the next latest and greatest thing anyway, and that's what "designers" are really all about anyway. 
 
So, when I look at the issue of WHAT we breed, and how we choose to use our collective breeding resources, I realize this is largely an issue framed against TIME.  The race to preserve the natural biodiversity, that diversity that we cannot go back to once we LOSE access to it, is race that has two possible ends.  We don't know when, or how, that end will be.  So we must assume the end is coming at any moment, and therefore we either complete every last challenge and claim victory ourselves, or we get as much done before someone else tells us that time is up.
 
And nowhere along the way have I seen evidence that proves that we NEED designers and hybrids to pave the way to preserve our natural stocks, but nevertheless, that is what we are told the market dictates.  And yet, there are abundant examples pointing to both the good, and the bad, of these "designer" animals (and plants) from other circles.  I know the lessons because I've traveled in those circles while most marine breeders are recent hobbyists and don't have those diversified viewpoints. 
 
Yeah, I'm passionate.  I want the hobbyists and breeders that come after me to have every tang, angelfish, batfish, goby, you name it, available to them.  I do not want the legacy of marine breeding to be 30 clownfish, of which 20 are not found in nature, along with a handful of dottybacks, gobies, blennies and seahorses.
 
Would YOU be happy with your choices if tomorrow you woke up and the only fish you could get were what as offered captive bred right at this minute? 

Now that response I can respect, in every aspect.  Many of your previous arguements left me wondering and thus I asked.  I have countless paragraphs ready for argument against many of your points....again, as your arguments make some very strong assumptions.  But in your responses you made some very key admissions and I thank you for those.
 
What you just wrote helps me understand your passion much better...thus argument dropped.
 
Thanks, Matt.

 
Challenge those assumptions so I can show you why they're not
 

 
Like what?  Much of what is up there has been said countless times before (in this thread and many tohers too).  All of that above is what drives the logic.  I'm not claiming to be the expert here, but I'm willing to stand up with a strong viewpoint and back it with critical thinking, anecdotes and/or facts.
 
This isn't a moral issue, but it is perhaps an attempt to establish some ethical baselines for breeders (no different than encouraging breeders to cull fish vs. sell bad fish because of the damage bad fish do to all of us).  And it's certainly a pragmatic approach because the problems are certainly quite real and have played themselves out before in other arenas.  I know I've mentioned it somewhere, but I very much think that as breeders we have a responsibility to think beyond ourselves and our immediate gain - whether we want the duty or not, we very much are the stewards of the future hobby.  What we do will be judged by outsiders, and those that come after us. 
 
As such, things like the intentional sale of Percularis as straight up Ocellaris beyond really gets me ticked off on so many levels because I can't think of a more greedy and selfish act as a breeder.  That's puppymill breeding yo, and if I had thought to save it when you admitted it, I'd be NAMING YOUR BUTT right now (of course, 99% sure he/she is not reading this anyways).
 
That's what we're up against.  That's why this isn't a trivial debate or ideological exercise.
 

 
Understanding the passion is one thing, but if you don't agree, don't give up.  You owe it to yourself to make me see YOUR viewpoint as much as I try to make you seen mine.
 
You're welcome,
 
Matt

O, we get down to fundamentals to start argueing.  And I don't see any reason to try to move the world away from acceptance of practices and view points.  That is futile. 
 
As I have said before, I do not have an actual point of view on this topic, I am listening (reading) as everyone expresses their point of views.  I naturally ask why..and that leads me down to core questions as a point of 'logic'.  In the most simplest of expressions, you often refer to geographical boundaries as a means of measuring conservation, yet at the most fundamental level, geography is a product of time and environment, not location, which is often the case you make.
 
To argue that location and durations of physical radius is not a logical argument as that is broken down with changes in time and environment.  At it's core it is a flawed argument and relies heavily on the argument that now is all that matters.

 
What you're trying to say is that you don't believe that geography plays a role in individual populations and the creation of diversity within a species, and wow you couldn't be more wrong.  It's why salmon conservation is forced to consider the population of each river separately, because each population has evolved with different run timing and drives upstream due to the unique geography and environment that each river offers.  When preservation efforts fail to consider these geographical variations, it's no surprise that restoration efforts FAIL.
 
Every island / reef in Malawi and Tanganyika hosts different races of species, caused by highly infrequent gene exchange between these populations.  Taxonomists have a horrible time trying to figure out which race belongs to which species sometimes, but the reality is that while the taxonomical definitions can change, the geographical location of the population DOESN'T.  And in the case of these races, each is phenotypically unique to boot.  What are currently 6 species today were 4 last week and could be 28 the next.  But the yellow and black Tropheus from Kiriza will still be the yellow and black Tropheus from Kiriza regardless of what species it is allocated to.  It is unique, and distinct, and part of the naturally occuring biodiversity in Lake Tanganyika.
 
And I'm certainly not making this up - this is all quite real - here's a map with many of the Tropheus races on it,all from the same lake, and all different.  - http://www.biomedcentral....1-2148/7/137/figure/F1 - and note that they've even foregone the use of species names altogether, arguably because the taxonomy is so darn confusing but the GEOGRAPHY is not
 
Now, not all marine fish share such geographical distinctions, but clownfish are one that it turns out do...perhaps not quite to the extent of African Cichlids, but they are related and the gene flow is much more restricted than species that have longer larval durations (and thus can disperse to more distant reefs).  What happened in the African Cichlid world is that initially, breeders were not aware of these geographical differences, which resulted in all sorts of random pairings and created often less than ideal captive surrogates (i.e. see the Eletric Blue Johanni examples above).  Thankfully, that community was given a second chance...those natural geographically-distinct forms were still present, breeders could get their hands on them with the appropriate information this time, and the forms kept separate (and far more attractive as well).  If Cyaneorhabdos was somehow extirpated from the wild, it is conceivable that the proper fish exist in captivity.  15 years ago, that wouldn't have been the case.  So long as people keep up responsible breeding programs, that one variety is preserved.
 

 
I'm pretty sure that's just bunk too, but I get the point you're trying to make (you get it it in a few more sentences).  Still, while I acknowledge that Wikipedia is not the BEST reference, I will offer this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography - look for occurrences of the word "time" on this page and you'll note that when it does occur, it literally has nothing to do with "geography".
 
So pull up geography on Merriam Webster and again, nothing relating to "time" - http://www.merriam-webste.com/dictionary/geography


 
Yes, under normal circumstances, geography does change on a timeline measured in millenia and larger units.  Once in a while relatively rapid changes occur (i..e an island forming due to volcanic activity) but even these "fast" changes often take decades (except maybe catastrophic destruction of a mountainside like Mt. St. Helens).  More often, the real fast changes are the direct result of MAN.  If the Solomon Islands are going to disappear in the next century, it's not going to be normal planetary forces at work.
 
But seriously, to take the implication here to it's logical conclusion you are basically saying "because geography will change at a plantery pace, eventually, sooner or later, these species and geographical varieties you wish to preserve will someday no longer exist anyways and thus, the very notion of trying to preserve today's natural biodiversity is a futile and pointless effort and your arguments for it are baseless".  What a terrible excuse and terrible argument to make.
 
In truth, "now" is indeed what matters because we cannot change the past, and we can only predict the future.  "Now", and the near future, are indeed at the heart of conservation and preservation.  I'm not worried about whether Ocellaris will be around 100,000 years from now, or even 25,000 years from now, I'm worried about the next century.  I'm worried about within-my-lifetime.  I'm worried about the aquarist who wants a regular old nemo 20 years from now. And if ocellaris disappear today, whatever they were "supposed" to be, or whatever they "could have been" in the eons to come, is ALSO lost.  That's the same argument as to why even "designer breeders" need to wake up and realize that if they don't secure the naturally diverse forms of wild fish now, they actually rob themselves of the valuable raw materials they need to create their new designer forms in the future.
 
It very much would've been reasonable to assume that were it not for man's interventions, the species (and many others that we've already wiped out) would STILL BE HERE for many lifetimes to come.  Sure, we could all get hit by a meteorite that kills everything on the planet next week.  But the odds are kindof against it....historically speaking.  And in the end, such misplaced justifications or "logic busters" really aren't anything more than excuses.
 
 

One more interjection on the overall topic, another tangent.  For a long time, I used to subscribe to "Cichlid News", and in it, the last page was "What's new".  Every issue, new Cichlids being touted.  Now, where are all these new varities coming from?  The WILD.  In no small part, the thirst for the natural, wild forms pushes further exploration and discovery, and brings those new natural forms to market.  There is truly no shortage of "new" in the Cichlid world, and it had nothing to do with designer breeding.
 
It's all about collective priorities.

 
 
You just surround each section that you want to quote with quote tags. Removing the groups of text from the first post just leaving the replies.So what starts out as this:

 
[quote=mPedersen]
 
[quote=De Angelr]
 You Original Text
 [/quote]
 Reply to quoted text from you
  
 [quote=De Angelr]
 More Original Text
 [/quote]
 Reply to more Text
  
 [quote=De Angelr]
 Yet more of Your Original Text
 [/quote]
 And another reply
  
 [/quote] 

Turns into this:

 
[quote=mPedersen]
 Reply to quoted text from you
 [/quote]
 Your reply to this point
  
 [quote=mPedersen]
 Reply to more Text
 [/quote]
 Your reply to point #2
  
 [quote=mPedersen]
 And another reply
 [/quote]
 And this it in reply to #3
 

 
Which looks like this:

Your reply to this point
 

Your reply to point #2
 

And this it in reply to #3


 

Chad Penney - MBI Council
Agis quod Adis

 
Testing reply..

 
Thanks... is there a button for the quote tags, or do you have to write "[/q u o t e]"?


 
You don't see it in the quick reply box but on the full size reply you get by clicking the "Reply to message" button in the upper right of a post you will see a button that looks like: that will insert the tags.
 

Chad Penney - MBI Council
Agis quod Adis

Ok thanks,  I haven't seen a quote button that looks like that.. of course im too lazy to hold the cursor over them and figure it out.. Thanks again!

I am speaking in terms of mellenia....what you are working to save is the product of countless generations of adaptation, that is a result of time and environment.  Geography simply indicates a position within those two elements.  It is not illogical at all to argue these aspects, it is illogical to ignore them and scoff at them because they do not match your view on the topic.  One does not need to make many references in order to show that time changes the environment and the surviving species in a given area.  For terms of implementing conservation efforts such as repopulation, yes what you are stating is correct.  But most of us are not speaking in terms of conservation from that point of view.  Relieving ocean demand is the more pressing question for many of us. 
 
You will note I do not scoff at your arguments,  If we followed the line of picking out the individual questions and asking how did you come to such a conclusion, you will eventually wind up at the same result.  Logic does not change just because you do not like the result.  This is where personal morality and beliefs comes into play and it is the only variable that can alter the outcome.  That is the greatness and power of logic and mathmatics, the result is always the same, it requires and demands it.  Anything outside of equalizing the equation results in false logic.

 
IMO opinion designer fish don't have an impact on wild type clowns, par-say in the wild. However they do impact wild types is in the estimation of the hobbyist as everyone seems to want to crossbreed to have "something different". As we live in a free market where money talks, designers with higher price tags will always be wanted because their new, different and in some cases aestetically pleasing. 
 
If we could inform others of the colour variants different species have given location, and develop the same interest and publicity designers get then we have a chance of making geographical types "sort after" and indeed bred for the type they are. We need
more specialist breeders (like you De Angelr) to continue to promote and educate the wider general public, and indeed lfs's to stock, promote and identify geographical differentiation. ......... A pipe dream? Possibly but one worth pursueing IMO.
 
If you haven't already maybe you could put your 2 cents worth on this thread regarding documentation and control. You have some very good experience with breeding clowns and I would be interested in yours views.
 
Here's the link. http://www.mbisite.org/Forums/tm.aspx?m=54417

 
I certainly agree with you on that, the "par-say in the wild".. I also understand Matt's point of a limmited broodstock supply and having collection closings..
 
I also agree that there are some beautiful variation in a variety of species, especially the clarkii.. These variants for the most part, are impossible to come by. Not only that, but in the case of fish like clarkki variations, they are not really worth anyting extra to the regular hobbyist. Only the super clown geeks would know they are unique and that market is a very very very small one..  Most people go for designer clowns IMO, beacsue they are so stiking visually, all white, all black, a maze of patterning inbetween..
 

 
I feel similarly ..But I also fear again, that only the real clown geeks care about where there clowns lineage is from, or how rare that lineage might be.  I think everyone here is on the same page that we need to do a better job of encouraging buyers to appreciate the variations, and to pay the $$ that they are worth..  Especially in larger tanks... I would much rather see larger clowns in tanks over 100g than Occy or Perc.. That should be encourage..


 
Thank you, I will check it out..  With FY2011 coming to a close and superfund money closing out.. I am finding way to much downtime at work to spend bantering on the boards about clownfish..

 
First, let's frame this back on the topic at hand as we're not talking all species on this planet, we are talking about the coral reef fishes that we keep.  How is it not fruitful to ensure that we can maintain this biodiversity in captivity?
 

 
Two questions.  If you don't care like "I do", then how DO you care?  What is your level of "care", and can you explain and/or justify why that level of "care" is appropriate?


 
But that's the whole point. In order to have the designers (and all the future potential designers) you have to have the SPECIES to work with in the first place.
 

 
Who said that designer clownfish were putting pressure on WC clowns?  They're not.  I never said that, and I don't think anyone here has.  What HAS been argued is that Designers create problems for conservation / preservation efforts, and they displace the natural forms within the hobby.  A very different argument than "designer clowns put pressure on WC clowns".
 

 
I am not so sure I can make that assumption - I'd argue that the people who keep clownfish are going to keep clownfish no matter what, and the people who breed clownfish are going to breed clownfish no matter what.  It is far more likely that a Platinum Perc is simply displacing a Picasso Perc, and a Picasso in turn displacing an Onyx Perc etc.  I say that, because that's how it IS in the FW hobby.  I have a basis for that line of thinking - it's not simply rhetorical speculation.
 

 
But that's never been the argument...trying to change the argument to something new doesn't work here.  And it's not each platinum or midnight, it's ANY captive bred fish purchased is displacing a slot that otherwise would be filled with WC stock.  So this "redeeming merit" being assigned only to designers is bunk.  A run of the mill CB clarkii does the same exact thing.


 
And without directly quoting anyone or attributing anything to anyone, and thus dragging them into this debate, I'm imploring you to consider that this is hopeful, wishful thinking, and isn't the reality on the ground.
 

 
Go for it!


 
You know who came up with the concept behind TDO and SA's food?  Hobbyists.  Neither of these companies can take credit for the idea of coating Otohime with additional ingredients.  Hobbyists have been doing it for a LONG time.  The breakthrough, the advancement, is that now these things are commercially available so hobbyists don't have to do the work themselves.



All my clown pairs exhibited the same behavior towards their mandarin counterparts.  That's not going to kill your mandarin unless there's basically no room left to go about it's business.  My GSMS do this to my ORA Spotted Mandarins in a 37 gallon tank.  Everyone's happy, everyone's breeding.  Would it work in a 10 gallon?  Maybe not.


 
If everything you read on the internet was true....


 
You're mixing two different ideas together, one of which isn't the argument at all (that captive designers impact wild populations) and the other of which is proven many times over (that designers can wreak havoc on conservation/preservation-minding breeding and the genetic integrity of a species or variation in captive culture).
 

 
I'm not lumping ALL breeders into one category here.  Your hobbyist example is a bit of chicken vs. egg, and in the end, breeders do have the final say over what they choose to breed.  That means they are responsible for their breeding.  If they breed something that is harmful to the efforts of other breeders, I would suggest that avenue to be a bit selfish and inconsiderate, and is NOT an ethic I would condone or promote.
 


Yes it is, because the timeframes you care to bring up are wholly inapplicable to the here and now and the short term future.  The here and now has a tremendous impact on both the short and LONG term, millennial future timeframe you're bringing up anyway.  That somehow seems to be escaping this line of questioning "time" as some means of debunking a position.



I didn't ignore them, I showed you how it's not relevant to the topic at hand.  It's a classic strawman.



Exactly.



Again, this is simply looking at only part of the issue, one problem.  If you narrow it down only to this one simple question, then by all means you came make the case that "any" CB fish keeps a fish in the ocean.  The problem is that the issue is much larger than simply curtailing wild imports and in fact, there IS a fair amount of equally logical thinking that insists we consider that "relieving ocean demand" is NOT the answer, not the goal, and is not the problem in the first place.  SHIFTING demand, changing who buys what for how much and why, is much more at the heart of issues today than the ideological move away from WC fish altogether.  We can't DO THAT now, and we can't do that because breeders have not figured out HOW to yet.  And thus, we cycle back to concerns over wasted efforts, duplication of efforts, lost capacity and diverted interests.



If you look at the scientific data, it is logically suggesting that we're going to wipe out coral reefs as we know them, and with that, the fish go too.  We rely on these wild stocks for somewhere between 95 and 99% of our fish.  We can only breed maybe 10-20% of the naturally occurring species.  And if the science is still wrong, the aquarium industry is still being made a scapegoat anyway and through political means, we could just as easily lose access to these stocks TOMORROW.

There's nothing about belief or morality in there.  There's also simply no relation to the planetary timescales you're referencing to try to shoot holes in the logic of my arguments.  Those are the facts.  What we choose to DO with those facts, how we choose to act in light of those facts, are at the crux of this "conservation vs. designer" debate.

Fair....I think this emphasises the underlying assumptions going into this conversation.  I was not including a political context in this discussion, but it certainly adds another factor of large importance.

 
There's a very simple truth that is used to drive conservation and preservation and things that benefit us.  If we do not value something, we have no qualms about destroying it or losing it.  Unfortuantely, too often we only learn later that perhaps we SHOULD have valued something more than we did, and worked harder to not destroy it in the first place.  And it's not just biodiversity.  I.e. don't value clean water?  Then we won't have it.  Don't value the healthy trout stream flowing through a pasture?  Then no one will complain when fertilizer and runoff chokes the life out of that stream.  Of course, clean water and dead streams can be fixed, they can be regained.  The same cannot be said for the biodiversity of our reefs.  I've only focused this argument on fish of course, because I am a self-admitted fish head.  I honestly could care less about the corals and inverts (by comparison) but guess what, someone still needs to preserve our cleaner shrimps and peppermints and everything else.  I realize that in the scheme of captive preservation we simply likely do not have the resources to "save it all", so just like everything else, we will save what we value first and foremost, but because we only get one shot at it, we should not sit on our early successes and say "this is enough".

I might suggest when discussing this topic that your focus be on substantiating those two assumption and validating them.  Most of your other arguements highly subjective and can be scruitinzed.  But regardless, if you can substantiate those points as valid the rest becomes a distraction and uncessary conversation.
 
1) At some point in the near future we will loose access to current natural wild stock.
2) Current natural livestock preservation is necessary for X (whatever the case you wish to make).
 
Bringing this back around to the main topic of conversation here, if X=it is necessary to maintain wildstock in order to keep viable broodstock for healthy breeding practices.   My point is focusing on those stances will help people like me be more clear on your view. 
 
Now maybe I am still completely missing your view, as I still do not see how that argument applies to hybrids being good or bad.

 
Ah, but both of these have already been addressed many times over at this point. They are substantiated already.  All those other tangential issues thrown up by you and others have also been chased down and dealt with.  So really, if at this point someone is seeing not to see this issue, it is not a decision based on the facts at hand, it's a decision to be blind to reality.  You can't convince someone of the facts if they're refuse to acknowledge them in the first place.  I call shout and prove every which way that 2+2 = 4, and yet if you really don't care to see the truth that 2+2 = 4, you won't.
 
1 - has happened in every other interest group and has even started happening in our own.  Good luck getting Caribbean SPS in the hobby now.  Banggai Cardinalfish remain on the IUCN Redlist as an endangered species.  Certain seahorses are off limits due to CITES regulations.  Look up snorkel Bob.  And these are all just man-imposed access restrictions.  Bit by bit it is already happening.  Wild bird trade....what wild bird trade?  It's GONE, and many would argue that it's for the better.  CITES-regulation on orchid species?  Yeah, can't go get any wild Paphiopedilum these days.  The truth is that we see this happening all around us, and we can either be "caught with our pants down" or not.  I argue it's better to prepare.
 
2 - I believe the most compelling arguments can be made when we talk about legacy and big picture, and I've already made those arguments.  Wild Diversity first = a win for BOTH CAMPS of breeders and aquarists down the line - we get our cake and eat it too.  But, if the audience is like many who refuse to look beyond their immediately timeline on this planet and their day in and day out pocketbook, again, the reasons to "care" are falling on the ears of people who can't be made to care.  It's like my best friend, the staunch republican who believes that climage change simply doesn't even exist.  Ironically, even he can concede that alternative energy that is renewable and sustainable will work and is in our best interests because even he can acknowledge the oil won't flow forever.  The difference in our thinking is that he would wait to make any changes.  He will put it off, procrastinate.  Didn't our entire country just go through a nice big 'ole debacle that demonstrates the consequences of procrastination, of putting it off 'til the very last second, only do do what could've been done weeks or months before?
 
We have finite resources, and while a hobbyist breeder can be doing something just for the fun of it, that's no excuse to not think beyond only the personal enjoyment derived from the activity.  Why not do something "better", something you can still very much enjoy, while at the same time ALSO helping further a larger effort and being considerate about the efforts of other breeders as well.

 
I can't justify my "level of care" I just don't see the value in making sure that after collection permits are revoked, or the reefs melt away, that we have all 28 species of clownfish in captivity.. or number of other reef fish for that matter.. I aspire to be invovled in conservatoin reserach on a larger scale than species conservation.. Doesn't mean one is beter than the other.. I am glad someone is working on getting our broodstock population in check.. its just not me
 


 
In the long run, our broodstock will be set.. the genetic pool will be widdled down and what we have left might as well be hybrids or designers. Their genetic makeup will not be at all representative of what was once available.. The only way to keep its integrity is the periodic colleciton of more WC clowns.. which is basically where we are at now anyways.. Regardless of what they look like.


 
I undesrtand you argument.. The more designers are bred the less good broodstock is available for captive breeding.. I personally disagree. I feel that we will always rely on WC speciment to perserve genetic integrity.. Honestly I am not concerned about the long term viability of collection permits or reef health in general like you  are..
 

 
 Thanks, That is why I will do what I can to get in contact with a rep.. I would like to know the answer to this question definitivley for myself.. Seems easy enough to come by.. I will let you know how it turns out..



Seriously.? How does this contradict anything I have said above.. ?

 
Being a mandarin is pretty energetically expensive right? The reason they have their slime coat, their behavioral eating patterns is to ensure their ability to consistently gather food.. I do not want my clowns spending hours everyday harassing the mandarin, whether it kills it or not.
 


 
Seriously dude? I dont need to name drop to bring out the individuals involved but this information is very credible and from multiple sources.. I know you do not care for RC, but there are a lot of experience knowledgeable hobbyist AND scientist sharing information there.
 

 
The only thing that wreaks havoc on the preservation/conservation and genetic integrity of WC fish is the fact that they are going extinct.. I do not buy for one second that it is the hobbyst or breeders responsibility to ensure quality broodstock in CB populations, in you freshwater scenario or anything else.  Conserve the habitat. Conserve the climate.. Conserve the species.. I do not think it is too late at all. 

 
Not sure what you mean by this? Breeding something harfull to other breeders? Like breeding platinums or picasso's when you go them from someone else?


 
I feel like you don't understand my argument in the slightest..   For me, I dont see the breeding of designer clowns as having any effect on the genetic pool of broodstock.. I dont see breeding designer clowns as threatening the biodiversity either in the wild or captive over time.. You have not shed light on anything new for me in his debate..
 


 
The statistics are interpretable, but our reefs are in peril no doubt.. I do not feel like it is too late to slow down habitat change enough to allow the natural evolutionary potential of the reef to cope with the change. Birds provide a great example.. Some have figured out how to fly north sooner, lay eggs sooner and increse their survival rates in reaction to global climate change.. Others go extinct.. I am not goin to sit up here and say that we need to catch and breed all the birds threatened with extinction..

 
Beating a dead horse here - not all hybrids are "bad", although some are potentially very damaging. Tthe problem is that not all hybrids are readily apparent as such.  I dare you to be able to sort, with any accuracy, a mixed up batch of Onyx Percs and "Black Photons".  You can't pursue the wild Solomon Island Onyx Percula variation if you get broodstock passed in as such by some careless source who's actually just handed you a mix of many different things that look outwardly similar.
 
The same problems occur in the Orchid world, which is why any plant that loses its ID tag is culled.  Could be a $1,000 plant...but you have no way of knowing once that tag is gone. And since there are many similar hybrids and some that are similar to species, well, all the more problematic.  I'm sure not every orchidist out there follows this ethic, but you can bet that when they don't, and they get caught, they are cast out pretty darn quickly.  You don't earn a good reputation by screwing people over.
 
And the same problems occur in the Cichlid world, as illustrated many times over in this thread already (go back and look at the Johanni example)
 
Frankly, we're starting to just go around in circles with the same proofs being given.  I stand behind those examples...they're not assumptions, they're facts.
 
I don't understand why we can't acknowledge the history or why we must think that marine breeding is somehow different from the breeding of FW fish or Orchids etc.   The only justifications that I see coming about that have merit seem to be motivated by profit.  We will hunt a species to extinction, for profit, if we are allowed to do.  In the end, that's why someone ELSE has to always wind up stepping in and saying "sorry, nope".  Ironically, the aquarium industry may find itself being on the receive end of that political intervention if climate issues don't remove it anyways.
 
Seems like this debate has more than run it's course.

 
But if not you, the breeder, then who?  If we all say "it's someone else's problem" the problem won't be resolved.


 
Such a pessimistic view of the future is ensured in large part by folks like you  saying "we can't do it, so why bother trying", which again is just another excuse to then go do whatever you want because "it doesn't matter".
 
And, the fact is, you're wrong on the maintenance of genetic integrity.  I know I've already cited this too - http://www.lightning-maroon-clownfish.com/?p=1143
 
5 foundation fish may be all it takes to start up a viable, self sustaining, long term captive population.  Yes, that population needs to be larger in subsequent generations, but we *almost* could pull it off Noah's ark style to start with.


 
Wait, that entire statement conflicts itself.  Here's how:
 
1.  If the worldwide capacity for broodstock pairs remains stable, and we see a constant uptick of designer clownfish being produced, and thus, designer-based pairings, something else MUST be pushed out.  Disagree all you want, but unless we are constantly setting up more and more broodstock capacity, and provide none of that new capacity is going to designer fish, you can disagree all you want but the logical conclusion is only supports the forcing out of the natural forms.  And in a lot of FW fish breeding, that's EXACTLY what has happened.  So not only is it theoretical, but it's also proven by history.
 
2.  If as you say, we will always rely on WC fish to preserve genetic integrity, how can you NOT be concerned about the viability of collection permits or reef healthy?  Where else are we going to get the WC genetics you say we need if we can't collect from the reefs or if the reefs are wiped out altogether?


 
A "rep" doesn't make policy or choose the direction of the company...so...just keep that in mind if you think you got an answer that backs up your wishes



 
Since I can't search on ReefCentral for your examples, why not bring up the links and put 'em here?  No one is stopping you.  But I suspect, just as your mandarin situation isn't exactly as you initially made it sound, so too, these "multiple aggression issues" in the most shy complex of clownfish really have me thinking these are classic examples of things not really being what they seem.  For ever "expert" on RC, there's probably 500+ newbies running around there too.
 
Show me the references and I'll certainly respond to them.


 
Go for it then man, and while you're at it consider that if your efforts fail, we need a fallback.  Captive breeding, captive populations, are our last failsafe.  So please don't screw up the failsafe by contaminating it.
 
That said, if it's NOT a breeder's responsibility to ensure quality broodstock, I don't even know how to respond to such a statement.  Every other breeding endeavor out there requires that you strive for quality (unless you're running a puppymill).  You don't get quality offspring from crappy broodstock.  So unless you're going to advocate for careless, carefree, breeding, I think it is ENTIRELY a breeder's responsibility to choose the best broodstock you can get.  Even if you only are looking at this in a for-profit standpoint, throwing all those other considerations out the window, you STILL need the best broodstock you can get.


 
It can mean any number of different things to different people.  It could mean choosing to not produce the designer fish that someone else did produce soas to let them "reap the rewards" of their hard work.  It could mean NOT producing hybrids that are difficult to discern (i.e. Percularis) for fear that they can get injected into the breeding efforts of someone else.  It could also mean even something more basic, i.e. NOT spreading misinformation in an effort to get a "leg up" on the competition.  It could mean making sure to cull your fish and NOT sell substandard fish that drag down the reputation of Captive Bred fish as a whole (and thus push hard earned business back towards Wild caught fish).
 
There are a LOT of things that breeders CAN do that harms OTHER breeders.


 
Where is everyone getting this "threatens diversity in the wild"?!  I must have used a poor choice of words by referring to the naturally occuring biodiversity as wild biodiversity or something.
 
Beyond that, I've explained it and shown it with countless examples.  You're free to remain unconvinced.  Remember, "hybrids" are part of that "designer" issue, and that if you displace the natural form with Designers, the captive preservation of the natural form is displaced and doesn't happen...and when we lose access to the wild form, for whatever reason, that natural form is lost.  That's how the "biodiversity" is threatened.  It's a very logical chain of events.
 

 
And therein lies the truth, and why no matter what I can say, the position remains unchanged.  You simply don't value that biodiversity, so why WOULD you care to protect it?  It's a very callous and perhaps selfish viewpoint you propose.  Have you stopped to consider that while YOU don't value that, someone else does?  Have you considered the impact of these changes you're advocating to simply let occur?  Have you considered the unknown potential, the greater good, that could be lost, simply by letting the loss occur?  Have you thought about what such a carefree attitude will mean for our children?
 
We as a race are far from perfect, and this isn't a discussion about birds or the world in the end.  It's all about choices for the future.  It's about not shutting the doors on future possibility.  It's about making sure we have more than 50 species of fish in the hobby 20 years from now.  No matter what I say or do, I can't make you care about that if you simply don't want to.  It's the old "you can lead a horse to water...."

You confused my quotes for caesra, just to clear that up..

For me, the desinger fish, hybrids and new variations will always have a place in breeding..   As always, I am up to date on your Lighting blog. I did read the referecnce a little while back... I think it presents some great info..
 
I personally do not see the beauty in convservation of a species that solely lives in captivity.. If we kill off the reefs, then so be it.. Clownfish and other beauties will go with them.. Dont get me wrong.. I will do whatever is necessary to prevent this from happening.. I feel like you are judging me for ignorant or not caring becasue of I do not hold your same values in species conservation..
 
I do aggree that when circumstances of re-introduction can apply, then that organism should be captively bred in order for re-introduction.. Again, I just dont feel like saving fish species in our zoos or aquairms does the world much good.. Save the habitat, save the reef, then the species will remain..
 
And trust me.. I am after the best broodstock I can get. Whehter available or unavailable.. Whether hybrid, designer, or holotype.. They all have equal footing in my book..
 
Again, another fundamental difference between your view and mine is that I see this as a trending fad.. Eventually (if WC stock can be obtained) the reefing world will grow tired of designers and seek nature's finest.. I would guess that 5-10 years from now designers will hardly be coveted like they are today.  It seems you fear that they will take over the breeding world.. And thus are on a mission to stop it.. Again, we are only talking clowns here, and if WC broodstock were available to breeders then we would breed them.  Many of the fish I would like are already in no collection zones already.. I like it this way.

 
My bad, let me go back and fix any that were mis-attributed.

I think all of us can agree that Designers are neither black and white good nor bad. While they do have the potienial to muck things up by introducing hybrids and the like into breeding efforts and diverting efforts from working on harder species and new techiques. They do also allow some commercial/hobbyist breeders to be more profitible and perhaps their biggest plus is that really draw attention to and create demand for captive breed fish.  Hopefully in time that alters the perception of consumers and the public to view captive breed organisms as a plus, something to even brag about.
 

Chad Penney - MBI Council
Agis quod Adis

 
Indeed, they have a place, but it's also a place in time.
 

 
I think the real takehome message is that the FAO doc is only a starting point, but hey, 5 fish is sufficient for a foundation population?  I suspect it's more involved than those generalizations, but that alone already has me planning for another PNG maroon pair from the forthcoming PNG imports, because 2 pairs doesn't even hit that general 5 fish recommendation.  Time to up it unless other folks ALSO start keeping dibs on their locations better.
 

 
There is a definite message and ethic that preserving the whole is better than preserving a piece.  But still, preserving a piece is better than preserving nothing at all.  Of course, someone could just as easily argue that for all our captive preservation, we're adding more "carbon to the problem".  There simply isn't any cut and dry response.  We could argue that the destruction we've ravaged on our planet 100 years from now means that all this talk about keeping aquariums is a moot point because we're all dead ourselves.  Or we can stop worrying about all these what ifs and put our noses to the grindstone and start working towards a realistic goal of a failsafe.  Stiil, seeing the big picture better helps you understand how you can play your role within it.


 
But how the heck are you going to reintroduce anything if you've never bothered to ark it in the first place?
 

 
But if and when that fails to come to pass, what then? 


 
And I'm arguing that based on the questions I've posed above, and all the pages of posts before, that hybrid and designers are NOT AT RISK so long as we preserve the holotype as you call it.  Designers aren't natural from the get go, and we already know that the primary purpose of designers is to beget and further more designers.  Designers, by their very nature, come and go and evolve.  "Loss" of that biodiversity isn't the same...it's expected and accepted.  Meanwhile, if we don't preserve the species that makes the hybrid, we lose both the species AND the hybrid.  I feel like that simple truth is being lost...are you really understanding the cause and effect here?


 
"this" meaning designer fish?  Perhaps, but then again, it's not a FAD in the FW industry.  It certainly WAS a fad in HOBBYIST breeders but that changed.  However it remains every present in the commercial hatchery system (it's why we have glow in the dark angelfish forthcoming).
 

 
Slightly alternate point of view - TODAY'S designers will hardly be coveted in 5-10 years.  It will be some OTHER new designers that have taken their spot.  Everyone moves down the list of priorities.
 
 

 
Incorrect, I've already laid this out very clearly.  The fear is not a fear, as much as an observation of history and the current situation.  Designers DO displace wild types in breeding efforts, and they do pose problems for people who are working on conservation minded projects.  These aren't fears, these are facts.
 

 
You like it this way because you assume that means they'll persist going forward?  MPAs and Sanctuaries don't stop climate change and ocean acidification.  Example - what's happening to all the glaciers in glacier national park?  Did the fact that they're "protected" in a "sanctuary" save them from their plight, or move our governments any closer to enacting real changes required to "save" them? (edit - adding a link as a reference - http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov...h/glacier_retreat.htm)

 
 Vince Rado works for ORA and he has already talked a little about this over MOFIB in that thread you posted on the trademarks.
Check it:
 

Posted at http://www.marinebreeder....=263&t=9697#p85359

Anderson.

 
Again, we differ here. I do not see the value in wasting energy and efforts settup up breeding facilities to keep 28 species of clownfish and countless other reef fishes for a broodstock pool for captive breeding.. Does this make me  bad person? or someone who doesnt car about our environment? I would rather depend on wild populations for broodstock genetics.. Whether that lasts 5, 50, or 5000 years is up to us..
 
Back to the bird example for sec.. Should we go out and catch every last endagered species of bird and start captive breeding projects to conserve their biodiversity?  I personally believe this would be a waste of time.. The real beauty of biodiversity is the natural envrinement for me.
 

 
I was thinking along the lines of stealing the genetics from other locations. (understanding they would not be the same genetic match)
 

Unfortunately, we then lose them forever.. They follow the fate of thousands of other anthroprogenic extinctions.. 

 
I do not think anyone would say designers are at risk.. Preservation of the holotype belongs to the environment.. This road has been argued countless times before.. Siberian leopards..? should we put them in captivity and try and save them, or let the last few die out in the wild.. My view is pretty clear at this point, let them die in the wild.. Of course fish are different becease leopards cant be pets, but I think the point remains.


 
Since it is really just clownfish we are seeing, I honestly dont see it gettin to the point of FW



Ahhhh, I disagree.. I do not think any sort of hybrid will be coveted. I can already see their favor fading in buyers, breeder, etc... The new releases do not garner anywhere near the attention that new releases once did, even though it was just a few years ago.


 
How is this fact? As I have already said several times, we are talking about clownfish.  If wild types were available to breeders they would be bred.. For the most part you can get skunks, percs, occy's clarki, maroon, polymnous, allardi, bicinticnus, , allak, melanapolus, frenatus, are already being bred..
The ones available that are not available CB are limmited.. tricinctus, sebae, nigripes.  IME/IMO most if not all of the clownfish that are not CB are not available to breeders.. 
 
The reason you don't see or know about these CB availabilities is because the average aquarist doesnt care for them. They are sometimes difficult to locate, and take patience to acquire..  It is for these reason that I disgree when you say "Designers DO displace wild types in breeding efforts"  this is certainly not a fact (at least referring to clownfish)


 
LOL, not at all.. I like it this way because it means they will take true dedication, determination and patience to get.. And, if acquired will present the breeder an opportunity to sell a fish for more than $10, therefore making the breeding hobby something that I can continue to do without pumping in money from my real job.. That will not last forever..

Funny you posted that comment by Vrado.. I PMed him this morning right after I spoke with ORA..
 
The ORA rep told me this.. He says that there are differing opinions within the organization.. With equal footing on both sides of the argument..  But he said it really boils down to this..
If you are a commercial breeder, or hatchery... Come up with your own variations.. If you are a hobbyst, feel free to breed our variations at will. 

Heh, coming in from the sidelines as a simple viewer.  ORA's response sounds like "if your a competitor try and compete but if your a hobbyist buy our stuff".  What kind of rep did you speak to (i.e. who?)  Was this person qualified to give you the actuals on how people there feel or was it a sales rep answering the phone?
 
I find it funny how people tend to lump organizations feelings with a singular reps feelings without doing research.  I for one think designers are a waste of time and a primary effort for hobbyists to overly commercialize while straying from the original reason for breeding.  But then again I'm an entrepreneur and think profitably most days.  This discussion has seemed to be going in circles with no new information thus turning into more of an argument.  Perhaps we should shelve the argument and talk of ways both camps can proceed?

Pelagically yours,
~J      

No he was just a guy on the phone.. I didn't take it as anything.. I didn't post it as evidence.. Just information..   The guy repeatedly said, well, ya know we do not really have a position on this.. This and that, This and that. But I agree with you.. 
 
BUY OUR STUFF!~
 
Shelve the argument.. yes.. Although I think it for the most part an amicable as arguing can be..  

I think we can  be clear on one thing. We all see things in a slightly different light.....
 
Never have truer words been spoken than by this amazing man.
Quote;
"You must be the change you want to see in the world". Mahatma Ghandi.