Change Page: < 1234567 > | Showing page 5 of 7, messages 81 to 100 of 122 - powered by ASPPlayground.NET Forum Trial Version
Author
|
Message
|
Re:Designer Fish
Monday, August 15, 2011 9:25 PM
( permalink)
 Originally Posted by mPedersen How is it presumptuous to propose that we should start thinking about "saving" the 28 species (and numerous additional geographical variants) of clownfish? Afterall, while I most routinely look at the generally accepted forecasts of climate change and ocean acidification as the ultimate reason these fish will not be available to us, the truth is that far sooner we will see governments restrict if not shut the wild fish trade down. Being a broken record here, but it's already happened with the wild bird trade. Individual fish or countries are already off limits. Because of the expense and effort it takes to breed fish.. Along with the commitment of space and resources. I don't see saving the clownfish as a moral dilemma. For me it is just that they are enjoyable.. It is far from assumptive, or presumptive, but in fact, it is smart planning to start working now towards conserving ALL our natural biodiversity. That means for people breeding clowns, focusing on the natural forms in all their diverse glory. But that also means getting out of the rut of simply breeding more clownfish, and instead doing other things. Again, Biodiversity is something I will not try to put a value on.. I would rather focus efforts on reduction of anthroprogenic climate change.. habitat loss.. etc.. But its not a battle of morals I care to get into.. I understand where your coming from, save the species.. But I just don't share the same passion for species conservation...
Originally Posted by De Angelr Yes, of course the total economic costs of produce variants such as platinums in large attainable number has been extremely expensive. The costs to industry as you mentioned are huge. Similar to the costs with your Lighting clown if it were to go down the same route.
I am not referring to this market. I am speaking from the perspective of a small independent breeder. the cost to the breeder (not the industry) is much cheaper.. First of all, it is easy to get a platinum, Onyx, or Picasso clownfish. A few months wait at the most and you will have the fish of your choice. For most casual clownfish owners, even breeders, they just want a unique fish as reasonable expense. The rare fish takes extreme patience to acquire, and often at astronomical costs (as far as $ out of the pocket). Then, since your fish are all the same looking (hopefully if you are culling culls, and breeding them to your original holotype), sell about 100 of them and your selling fish for 1/100 of the value you bought them for. I wouldn't call this home free. It doesn't even support the hobby and passion of breeding the super uber rare... First, you'll note that you simply elaborated on my own acknowledgement of WHY you perceive it to be "cheaper". There's no innovation in a breeder getting a platinum pair or picasso pair and simply making more. If you are "independent", I assume you mean to suggest a part-time for profit venture? As an independent breeder, you're leaching off someone's hard work and competing against them. Your right to do so, but don't expect me or the people who invested their time to develop these forms to be enthusiastic about it. Granted, I still say focusing on creating new designers is "lazy" innovation because again, there is nothing actually "innovative" about it...it doesn't move us all forward, it largely is a commercial venture and I don't really believe that the profits are going to funding actual innovation. I of course could be wrong, but I haven't seen much to truly suggest it. I didn't elaborate on anything.. The words I type are a steam of consciousness, that is what came to my mind reading about all the different expansive costs.. I understand how it works.. I am familiar with the expanding costs beyond the buyer.. Past the importing.. Past the collector.. Yes, producing the entirety of the "platinum" variant is very costly to the industry.. I never said there was anything innovative about getting a platinum.. When I say independent I mean I am not affiliated with anyone or any business. I breed/try to breed clownfish as a hobby. I do it for fun. leaching off of someone else work? I do not see it that way.. If we had a representative of ORA and I told them I was breeding their platinums, you think they would be dissapointed..? I would hope they are happy and excited to see it.. I am not sure what you mean when you say innovation.. So far we are talking strictly clownfish here. I don't really see that many innovative breeding going on, outside of maybe larval nutrition...
Originally Posted by De Angelr Many many aquarist have reported skunk clowns to be extremely finicky if not down right aggressive. I would not call any of the skunk class "easy" fish. And from what I can tell, If you want a CB pair of peri's, sandar's you can get them... I know Nigripes are also CB, but they are notoriously difficult shippers and also finicky. Pac's are bran new, they will be CB soon. (Especially if I can get some  ) Aggressive? See, here's the thing with clownfish. They ALL can be aggressive in certain circumstances. You want to know who my most aggressive clowns are? It's my Onyx Perc pair. And percs actually do have that reputation if you go do the homework. Meanwhile, I've never ever ever heard of an aggressive fish out of the skunk complex. "Finicky"? Finicky in what fashion? As breeding material? Or as fish for a hobbyist's tanks? No, concerning the Mcc's, I certainly mean they are aggressive and the meanest fish I have ever seen TOWARDS OTHER FISH AND FOREIGN OBJECTS IN THEIR ENVIRONMENT. They just about killed a mandarin and I would not put my hand in the tank.. If I go do the homework..? not sure what you mean by that either.. I would think that everyone reading this thread would know I have done my homework.. Never heard of an aggressive skunk complex..? Well I am telling you I have. Several times.. I don't need o say anymore than that. You can believe me or choose not too.. I am speaking from my own personal knowledge and experience of many others. If I can extrapolate the "selling points" you're offering on a pro-designer clownfish point of view, here's what it's starting to boil down to. Ocellaris and Percs are peaceful, easy to breed, and thus, that's why they're popular. And we should focus on them because they're easy to breed and people generally like them and we're starting to get all these cool forms...anyone can buy them and make money. Well, starting to sound a lot like guppies. Do we want a marine aquarium hobby that is reduced largely to guppies? You want to breed guppies, I can't stop ya, but there's more to life, and more to the world, than guppies. I am not creating selling points, nor am I pro designer clownfish.. I am most certainly in favor of WC rare clownfish... Are these points you state above supposed to reference my points of view? If they are, then my words have missed the point.. I think you are confused, I was illustrating the scenario for what it is, not what it should be.. I see myself as totally the opposite.. My argument is that we can't and shouldn't blame anyone for the glorification of the designer clowns... Time and energy spent in detest of designer variants just doesn't make any sense to me. We should instead focus on sharing the beauty of wildtype clowns, encourage others to be patient in pursuit of truly unique fish to own and breed..
Originally Posted by De Angelr
What misinformation? I have no experience with ephippium.. Most people say they are very fiesty or aggressive. I know that my Mcc are downright the meanest fish I have ever seen... I would assume them similar to other tomato complex clowns (could be a bad assumption). Some say the same about Maroons, and yet none of mine that share tanks with other fish have had ANY.. My maroons were sweathearts as well... Frankly that assumes that people would "make the room". I really view breeding capacity as a relatively finite thing, and breeders make tough calls about what they're going to work with. Not only the industry, but the hobbyist too. To say it's no one's fault...I can't agree. You traded your Maroons for Platinums. Someone else made the conscious decision to do X instead of Y. This breeder and that breeder said you can't make money on Banggai cardinalfish (which is why they're not done commercially) when in fact hobbyist breeders can make quite a bit of money...more than they could with clownfish in fact...and yet no one seems to take up the challenge (I don't because frankly, I'm just not INTERESTED in breeding them...I'm worried on Butterflyfish, the Lightning Maroon, and a few other projects). We are all responsible for our choices, and we all vote with our wallets. To say we're blameless and faultless denies the collectively glaring truth. And, to some extent, we're all a bit sheepish and part of the crowd and consumer society that is driven towards a Platinum Perc or Tomato X Perc hybrid even though the latter is just about as ugly of a fish as one could hope for. 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.
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Monday, August 15, 2011 9:29 PM
( permalink)
Originally Posted by Duck but I also have concerns at the imports I now see coming in from the far east, as I don't believe quality control is as tight as it should be which could lead to genetic weaknesses in the various species. I would consider this probably a greater threat than designers. 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?
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Monday, August 15, 2011 9:38 PM
( permalink)
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.
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Monday, August 15, 2011 10:04 PM
( permalink)
Originally Posted by De Angelr
Because of the expense and effort it takes to breed fish.. Along with the commitment of space and resources. I don't see saving the clownfish as a moral dilemma. For me it is just that they are enjoyable..
Again, Biodiversity is something I will not try to put a value on.. I would rather focus efforts on reduction of anthroprogenic climate change.. habitat loss.. etc.. But its not a battle of morals I care to get into.. I understand where your coming from, save the species.. But I just don't share the same passion for species conservation... 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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr I also loved the maroon-occy hyrbid... great fish! I think that we are also learning how common wild hybrids really are. 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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr leaching off of someone else work? I do not see it that way.. If we had a representative of ORA and I told them I was breeding their platinums, you think they would be dissapointed..? 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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr I would hope they are happy and excited to see it.. I am not sure what you mean when you say innovation.. So far we are talking strictly clownfish here. I don't really see that many innovative breeding going on, outside of maybe larval nutrition... 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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr No, concerning the Mcc's, I certainly mean they are aggressive and the meanest fish I have ever seen TOWARDS OTHER FISH AND FOREIGN OBJECTS IN THEIR ENVIRONMENT. They just about killed a mandarin and I would not put my hand in the tank.. 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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr If I go do the homework..? not sure what you mean by that either.. I would think that everyone reading this thread would know I have done my homework.. 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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr Never heard of an aggressive skunk complex..? Well I am telling you I have. Several times.. I don't need o say anymore than that. You can believe me or choose not too.. I am speaking from my own personal knowledge and experience of many others. 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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr I am not creating selling points, nor am I pro designer clownfish.. I am most certainly in favor of WC rare clownfish... Are these points you state above supposed to reference my points of view? If they are, then my words have missed the point.. I think you are confused, I was illustrating the scenario for what it is, not what it should be.. And thus, the scenario as you see it is a very pro-designer set of circumstances. Correct?
Originally Posted by De Angelr I see myself as totally the opposite.. My argument is that we can't and shouldn't blame anyone for the glorification of the designer clowns... Time and energy spent in detest of designer variants just doesn't make any sense to me. We should instead focus on sharing the beauty of wildtype clowns, encourage others to be patient in pursuit of truly unique fish to own and breed.. Indeed, that is the message I am repeatedly conveying here.
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Monday, August 15, 2011 10:12 PM
( permalink)
Originally Posted by Fishtal 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. 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).
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Monday, August 15, 2011 10:39 PM
( permalink)
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.
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Monday, August 15, 2011 10:41 PM
( permalink)
I'll do a better job with record keeping on the next batch.
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Monday, August 15, 2011 11:02 PM
( permalink)
Originally Posted by Caesra 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.
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?
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Monday, August 15, 2011 11:10 PM
( permalink)
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.
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Monday, August 15, 2011 11:26 PM
( permalink)
Originally Posted by Caesra I have countless paragraphs ready for argument against many of your points....again, as your arguments make some very strong assumptions. Challenge those assumptions so I can show you why they're not 
Originally Posted by Caesra But in your responses you made some very key admissions and I thank you for those. 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.
Originally Posted by Caesra What you just wrote helps me understand your passion much better...thus argument dropped.
Thanks, Matt.
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
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Monday, August 15, 2011 11:39 PM
( permalink)
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.
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 12:57 AM
( permalink)
Originally Posted by Caesra In the most simplest of expressions, you often refer to geographical boundaries as a means of measuring conservation 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.
Originally Posted by Caesra yet at the most fundamental level, geography is a product of time and environment, not location, which is often the case you make. 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
Originally Posted by Caesra 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.
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.
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 1:12 AM
( permalink)
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.
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 6:42 AM
( permalink)
Originally Posted by mPedersen 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. I don' think my points are hitting home again... For me it is not about saving the species, and never was or will be... efforts trying to conserve all species on this planet don't seem all that fruitful for me. Again, this is an area we clearly have differing opinions.. When I threw out things like climate change or habitat loss... I wasn't inferring to clownfish or reefs at all.. Just a general statement. Of course we will one day lose access to wild fish.. One day the reefs will be gone.. I see this coming just like the rest of the world.. Its not that I don't care... I just don't care like you do .
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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr I also loved the maroon-occy hyrbid... great fish! I think that we are also learning how common wild hybrids really are. 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. Again, conservation of the species.. Its not where I really focus... My whole initial argument on this topic is that I certainly don't see breeding designer morphs as putting pressure on WC clowns... I see it the other way, as do many others in the hobby and sciences alike.. Clownfish in the hobby are one of the few fish that are CB.. Remove all the designer variants and I am sure that statistic would change.. Each Platinum, or Midnight and aquarist can get excited about is another fish left in the ocean... THIS IS IN MY OPINION.... It doesn't look like either of us have any great empirical evidence on either side of the argument.. I get that.
Originally Posted by De Angelr leaching off of someone else work? I do not see it that way.. If we had a representative of ORA and I told them I was breeding their platinums, you think they would be dissapointed..? 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, I am not working on anything new here.. If new fish become available I quickly snatch them up. My platinums are not and never have been my breeding priority.. I still stand by my earlier statement.. If an ORA rep. were to chime in, I would assume and hope that they would be ecstatic to see hobby's breeders breeding their fish.. Yes, of course I see how this can lower the price of the fish, but that pushes the industry on to new avenues.... I do not see this as a difference in interest between myself and ORA... I will call them today to try and get a more factual opinion.
Originally Posted by De Angelr I would hope they are happy and excited to see it.. I am not sure what you mean when you say innovation.. So far we are talking strictly clownfish here. I don't really see that many innovative breeding going on, outside of maybe larval nutrition... 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. The hobbyst breeder like myself, isn't really out there to advance anything.. Maybe some day soon I will give go at angles and other more challenging pelagic spawners. For now, its just clownfish.. I do it for fun, to hone my current techniques.. Not for profit, or to be innovative.. As far as larval nutrition I didn't say I saw anything that would break the bank.. But for the most part it seems like the new food TDO, SA food, are tested and prefected rearing clownfish.. I would call these subtle advances at least.
Originally Posted by De Angelr No, concerning the Mcc's, I certainly mean they are aggressive and the meanest fish I have ever seen TOWARDS OTHER FISH AND FOREIGN OBJECTS IN THEIR ENVIRONMENT. They just about killed a mandarin and I would not put my hand in the tank.. 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. They didn't kill it.. I got it out and put in in another tank... I have been struggling to pair mandarins lately.. They were going after it with their tail... Anytime the madarin ventured within sight distance of the female she would shoo it away very aggressively to the other side of the tank. This is not the only clown species that I have had that has had problems with mandarins.. 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. Mine are currently in a smaller tank.. I suspect this is why they are so aggressive.. Their territory is really 4/5 of the right side of the tank.. Like you mentioned earlier, each fish is different.
Originally Posted by De Angelr If I go do the homework..? not sure what you mean by that either.. I would think that everyone reading this thread would know I have done my homework.. 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 agree with that.. I would still also use caution when introducing some of the large complexes into any mixed reef or fish environment.. 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. My point isn't that I don't like or the skunk complex.. I love them.. There is of course a place for skunks in the aquarium.. Again, I was just illustrating the scenario.. Occy's and Perc's are IMO/IME the most suitable tankmates of all the clown species. They are also the easiest (IMO) clowns to reproduce.. Check out the RC threads for skunk aggression and you will find some.. This is why we see such proliferation of Occy/Perc.. I honestly am starting to detest them a little like you do designer clowns.. Every tank in america seems to have a Perc or Occy in it.. Drive me nuts..
Originally Posted by De Angelr I am not creating selling points, nor am I pro designer clownfish.. I am most certainly in favor of WC rare clownfish... Are these points you state above supposed to reference my points of view? If they are, then my words have missed the point.. I think you are confused, I was illustrating the scenario for what it is, not what it should be.. And thus, the scenario as you see it is a very pro-designer set of circumstances. Correct? Yes, the way the market, fish breeding, tank suitability. This is pro designer. not me.
Originally Posted by De Angelr I see myself as totally the opposite.. My argument is that we can't and shouldn't blame anyone for the glorification of the designer clowns... Time and energy spent in detest of designer variants just doesn't make any sense to me. We should instead focus on sharing the beauty of wildtype clowns, encourage others to be patient in pursuit of truly unique fish to own and breed.. Indeed, that is the message I am repeatedly conveying here. Your message is also, that you think designer clownfish have vast negative impacts on wildtype clowns and their preservation.. I disagree with you on that. You also seem to put a lot of blame on the breeder (reading more I think that you really mean the industry breeder), I certainly would not fault or hold breeder responsible.. Breeders (hobbyist breeders) will breed whatever cool fish they can find.. When some of the harder to get species can become more available... They will be bred..
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 7:27 AM
( permalink)
Originally Posted by De Angelr
Can someone expain how to do the quoting correctly on this site? Thanks!
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:
Originally Posted by mPedersen
Reply to quoted text from you
Your reply to this point
Originally Posted by mPedersen
Reply to more Text
Your reply to point #2
Originally Posted by mPedersen
And another reply
And this it in reply to #3
Chad Penney - MBI Council Agis quod Adis
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 8:04 AM
( permalink)
Originally Posted by cmpenney Which looks like this:
Originally Posted by mPedersen
Reply to quoted text from you
Your reply to this point Testing reply.. Thanks... is there a button for the quote tags, or do you have to write "[/q u o t e]"?
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 8:28 AM
( permalink)
Originally Posted by De Angelr
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
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 8:38 AM
( permalink)
Originally Posted by cmpenney
Originally Posted by De Angelr
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. 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!
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 9:34 AM
( permalink)
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.
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 9:39 AM
( permalink)
Originally Posted by De Angelr
Your message is also, that you think designer clownfish have vast negative impacts on wildtype clowns and their preservation.. I disagree with you on that. You also seem to put a lot of blame on the breeder (reading more I think that you really mean the industry breeder), I certainly would not fault or hold breeder responsible.. Breeders (hobbyist breeders) will breed whatever cool fish they can find.. When some of the harder to get species can become more available... They will be bred..
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
|
|
|
|