Change Page: < 1234567 > | Showing page 6 of 7, messages 101 to 120 of 122 - powered by ASPPlayground.NET Forum Trial Version
Author
|
Message
|
Re:Designer Fish
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 10:23 AM
( permalink)
 Originally Posted by Duck
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. 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..
Originally Posted by Duck
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. 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..
Originally Posted by Duck 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 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.. 
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 10:47 AM
( permalink)
Originally Posted by De Angelr
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. 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?
Originally Posted by De Angelr 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 . 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?
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.
Again, conservation of the species.. Its not where I really focus... 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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr 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.. 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".
Originally Posted by De Angelr 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.. 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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr 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. 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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr 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.. 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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr 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. Go for it!
Originally Posted by De Angelr 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. 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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr 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.. 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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr 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... If everything you read on the internet was true....
Originally Posted by De Angelr
Your message is also, that you think designer clownfish have vast negative impacts on wildtype clowns and their preservation.. 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).
Originally Posted by De Angelr 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.. 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.
Originally Posted by Caesra 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 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.
Originally Posted by Caesra it is illogical to ignore them and scoff at them because they do not match your view on the topic. I didn't ignore them, I showed you how it's not relevant to the topic at hand. It's a classic strawman.
Originally Posted by Caesra 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. Exactly.
Originally Posted by Caesra 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. 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.
Originally Posted by Caesra 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.
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.
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 11:27 AM
( permalink)
Originally Posted by mPedersen
Originally Posted by Caesra 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.
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.
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 11:59 AM
( permalink)
Originally Posted by Caesra 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".
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 12:34 PM
( permalink)
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.
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 1:00 PM
( permalink)
Originally Posted by Caesra I might suggest when discussing this topic that your focus be on substantiating those two assumption and validating them.
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).
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.
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 1:07 PM
( permalink)
Originally Posted by mPedersen
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?
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
Originally Posted by mPederson
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.
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.
Originally Posted by mPederson
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.
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..
Originally Posted by mPederson
Originally Posted by De Angelr 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.. 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. 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..
Originally Posted by mPederson
Originally Posted by De Angelr 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. 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. Seriously.? How does this contradict anything I have said above.. ?
Originally Posted by mPederson
Originally Posted by De Angelr 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.. 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. 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.
Originally Posted by mPederson
Originally Posted by De Angelr 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... If everything you read on the internet was true.... 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.
Originally Posted by mPederson
Originally Posted by De Angelr
Your message is also, that you think designer clownfish have vast negative impacts on wildtype clowns and their preservation.. 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). 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.
Originally Posted by mPederson
Originally Posted by De Angelr 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.. 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. 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?
Originally Posted by mPederson 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.
Originally Posted by Caesra it is illogical to ignore them and scoff at them because they do not match your view on the topic. I didn't ignore them, I showed you how it's not relevant to the topic at hand. It's a classic strawman. 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..
Originally Posted by mPederson 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.
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..
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 1:11 PM
( permalink)
Originally Posted by Caesra 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.
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.
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 1:45 PM
( permalink)
Originally Posted by De Angelr 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 But if not you, the breeder, then who? If we all say "it's someone else's problem" the problem won't be resolved.
Originally Posted by De Angelr 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. 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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr 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.. 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?
Originally Posted by De Angelr
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.. 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 
Originally Posted by De Angelr 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. 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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr 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. 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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr 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? 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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr
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.. 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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr
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..
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...."
<message edited by mPedersen on Tuesday, August 16, 2011 2:25 PM>
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 2:14 PM
( permalink)
You confused my quotes for caesra, just to clear that up..
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 2:23 PM
( permalink)
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.
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 2:23 PM
( permalink)
Originally Posted by De Angelr You confused my quotes for caesra, just to clear that up.. My bad, let me go back and fix any that were mis-attributed.
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 2:28 PM
( permalink)
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
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 2:53 PM
( permalink)
Originally Posted by De Angelr For me, the desinger fish, hybrids and new variations will always have a place in breeding. Indeed, they have a place, but it's also a place in time.
Originally Posted by De Angelr 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 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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr 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.. 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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr I do aggree that when circumstances of re-introduction can apply, then that organism should be captively bred in order for re-introduction.. But how the heck are you going to reintroduce anything if you've never bothered to ark it in the first place?
Originally Posted by De Angelr 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.. But if and when that fails to come to pass, what then?
Originally Posted by De Angelr 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.. 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?
Originally Posted by De Angelr Again, another fundamental difference between your view and mine is that I see this as a trending fad.. "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).
Originally Posted by De Angelr 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. 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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr It seems you fear that they will take over the breeding world.. And thus are on a mission to stop it.. 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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr 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. 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)
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 3:12 PM
( permalink)
Originally Posted by De Angelr
Originally Posted by mPederson
Originally Posted by De Angelr 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.. 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. 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.. 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:
Originally Posted by Vrado in MOFIB
(...)
There is a much bigger issue at stake here though, and that is that I do not believe that those who breed only designer species they did not develop themselves are not doing the industry, the hobby or the advancement of breeding one bit of good.In fact it's harmful. They are taking money from the research and development of larger hatcheries and academics that are far more likely to get new species to market. The money a hatchery may make, and it isn't all that lucrative, is vital to buying equipment, building hatcheries and paying biologists who will noy only breed new species, but will also get them to market. That's the only thing that counts.
If people want to see aquaculture one day replace wild caught, as I do, we should all buy the brands that will lead us to that future. Posted at http://www.marinebreeder....=263&t=9697#p85359
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 3:43 PM
( permalink)
Originally Posted by mPederson
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.
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.
Originally Posted by mPederson
But how the heck are you going to reintroduce anything if you've never bothered to ark it in the first place?
I was thinking along the lines of stealing the genetics from other locations. (understanding they would not be the same genetic match)
Originally Posted by mPederson
Originally Posted by deangelr 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.. But if and when that fails to come to pass, what then? Unfortunately, we then lose them forever.. They follow the fate of thousands of other anthroprogenic extinctions..
Originally Posted by mPederson
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? 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.
Originally Posted by mPederson
"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). Since it is really just clownfish we are seeing, I honestly dont see it gettin to the point of FW
Originally Posted by mPederson
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.
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.
Originally Posted by mPederson
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. 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)
Originally Posted by mPederson 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) 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..
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 3:56 PM
( permalink)
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.
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 4:28 PM
( permalink)
Originally Posted by De Angelr
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?
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 5:32 PM
( permalink)
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..
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 9:59 PM
( permalink)
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.
|
|
|
|