Meh imo once a fish enters one's tank, then one can do whatever with it. And rather, that's all anyone does to their fish, take care of 'em however they so choose.
Purists tend to be anti-hybrids, and one of the main reasons they give is so that the can preserve the wild forms of this fish. But yes, the moment you start selectively breeding fish, you're not keeping the wild forms anymore. Electric blue in Jack Dempseys, albinism in a huge amount of fish, or even just breeding for more coloration or the likes. So yes it's an odd line that one draws at times, and I do find it quite funny. I agree with the article, in that the only way to keep a 'wild-type' fish is if it's from the wild itself. As stated once it gets into the next generation, it's us humans who are selecting for what lives and what doesn't, deciding the fate of the next generations of fish that we own. And so yeah, how do we determine that we are actually 'doing what's good for the fish'? I mean, is it even really 'selecting for the strongest and healthiest fry' as the article suggests, is that really still what we 'should' be doing? Who's to say that having too 'good' of a fish is actually good? In the wild, who knows, due to scarcity of food perhaps it may be better if fish was more sluggish and seemingly weaker, but require less energy to operate so that they don't consume as much food... just a hypothetical example of course, but who really knows? So imo really once a fish enters the hobby, there's no point in trying to 'preserve' the species because chances are we, unknowingly in many a cases, are not doing what's 'best' for the species, not actually doing what 'should' be done.
No doubt there are professionals out there, ecologists who study cichlids in extreme detail to understand so much about a fish that they can actually say, and are, preserving fish in the 'wild state', but for most of us, we're really not doing them any good keeping fish in our tanks. For it's illegal for most of us to actually release the fish anyways, even if we want to help.
More importantly, it is true that we all keep fish for different reasons, and to be honest, it's all for our own gain, regardless of what the reason is. Whether it be for financial gain, for our own enjoyment, for our ability to say 'I got this rare fish!', or even to spread 'good' fish around (in other words to satisfy our belief that certain species should be more widely present). So I think all that we should do is simply respect the fact that everyone has their own reasons to keep fish, their own likes and dislikes, and let it be.
I'm a hybrid keeper, and I have no reason to deny the fact that I love hybrids. But on the same token, I love purebreds as well, and I keep both under the same roof (and often, in the same tank). Some people only like purebreds and keep singular Doviis in their own tanks and that's all they do. Some only like hybrids and keep singular Flowerhorns in their own tanks and that's all they do. I personally have no issue with either. Everyone is different, and in my opinion everyone should respect that. On that note though, I would so prefer a 'quality' Dovii over a 'quality' Flowerhorn, because a 'quality' Flowerhorn most likely will have a gigantic nuchal hump, which I think is extremely ugly. Though I did state that I love both hybrids and purebreds, because not all hybrids are the same, nor are the purebreds. As on that token, I do dislike Africans - the only one I truly like is the Electric Yellow Cichlid, everything else I don't have much love for at all. No one sees me going about telling people to burn their Africans tho (gee that sounded racist), because whilst I may personally not keep them, I don't see an issue with others keeping them.
I think it's this sort of healthy respect is the most important for the hobby, that we realize that everyone is different and that we have enough respect to let it be and just have fun with what one loves and in the worse case scenario, just ignore what they hate, if they hate those fish that much, regardless of what said fish is.
So how does this tie in with the article and this discussion in particular? Simple. Is it hard to draw a line as to what's 'fine' and what's not? Yes, absolutely. At what point should we draw a line? No where. Why should there a need to draw a line as to when keeping a certain fish is alright, and when it's not? Even with defective fish. After all, take a look at EBJDs and Blood Parrots. Both start out with defects - EBJDs have a weak physiology and can be very weak and fragile, not to mention their inability to reproduce with other EBJDs. Blood Parrots obviously have a deformed mouth. Yet most people have no issues with keeping EBJDs, whilst they do with Blood Parrots solely based on its deformity. Which is odd, because they both have very bad deformities. Yes, people are breeding 'stronger' forms of EBJDs, but in the same token, people are breeding 'better' forms of Blood Parrots as well. Needless to say, that still doesn't prevent the existence of this fish. One might obtain really active, relatively disease free EBJD eventually, but that still doesn't stop these weak forms of EBJDs existing in between. Same with Blood Parrots. So is it alright then, to let these obviously defective fish live, just because they are being breed to be better? Is that where we draw the line? What if it takes 20 generations for the problem to just be partially fixed? Should we let 20 generations of defects live just so that eventually we'll get a 'good' fish? Is that really ethical?
In the end it comes down to a lot of us just wanting the nice traits - be it the coloration of the EBJD or the shape of the Blood Parrot, and really there's no stopping people going for it, even if they're still riddled with defects. And to be honest, why shouldn't they? Everyone keeps fish for different reasons, and is one reason ever really 'better' than another? No, not really. It's just different viewpoints, different goals, different loves.
So yeah in the end, why should there be an arbitrary line we must draw and enforce? We are keeping these fish out of the wild anyways, playing god as we stuff them into boxes in whatever way we like, doing whatever we like with them - and really, why shouldn't we be able to do this? We're an intelligent race of beings, given the ability by nature to control this world, and what lives within it. So we should just do our best to do so without well, destroying ourselves in the process, somehow. Keeping fish probably won't come to that tho. Well we do release fish into the wild and they kill off entire habitats and stuff like that tho.
Which brings us to my final point. Whilst we should respect what each other keeps and all that, we need to remember a few things and follow a code of practice that ultimately benefits everyone, practitioners included. This is your stock standard code, i.e. 'label all your fish properly', 'don't release aquarium-kept fish into the wild' (illegal in many countries anyways) and well that's pretty much all there is to it. If we all follow that two simple rules, I see no issues at all with people keeping or breeding or distributing whatever fish they like. And I think that's the best way to go about it. Respect other fish keepers, and follow those two simple guidelines. Worse comes to worse, just ignore the fish you don't like. Unless you're in a real life gathering of course, but hey. Chances are someone there may not be all too impressed by your fish either.
Purists tend to be anti-hybrids, and one of the main reasons they give is so that the can preserve the wild forms of this fish. But yes, the moment you start selectively breeding fish, you're not keeping the wild forms anymore. Electric blue in Jack Dempseys, albinism in a huge amount of fish, or even just breeding for more coloration or the likes. So yes it's an odd line that one draws at times, and I do find it quite funny. I agree with the article, in that the only way to keep a 'wild-type' fish is if it's from the wild itself. As stated once it gets into the next generation, it's us humans who are selecting for what lives and what doesn't, deciding the fate of the next generations of fish that we own. And so yeah, how do we determine that we are actually 'doing what's good for the fish'? I mean, is it even really 'selecting for the strongest and healthiest fry' as the article suggests, is that really still what we 'should' be doing? Who's to say that having too 'good' of a fish is actually good? In the wild, who knows, due to scarcity of food perhaps it may be better if fish was more sluggish and seemingly weaker, but require less energy to operate so that they don't consume as much food... just a hypothetical example of course, but who really knows? So imo really once a fish enters the hobby, there's no point in trying to 'preserve' the species because chances are we, unknowingly in many a cases, are not doing what's 'best' for the species, not actually doing what 'should' be done.
No doubt there are professionals out there, ecologists who study cichlids in extreme detail to understand so much about a fish that they can actually say, and are, preserving fish in the 'wild state', but for most of us, we're really not doing them any good keeping fish in our tanks. For it's illegal for most of us to actually release the fish anyways, even if we want to help.
More importantly, it is true that we all keep fish for different reasons, and to be honest, it's all for our own gain, regardless of what the reason is. Whether it be for financial gain, for our own enjoyment, for our ability to say 'I got this rare fish!', or even to spread 'good' fish around (in other words to satisfy our belief that certain species should be more widely present). So I think all that we should do is simply respect the fact that everyone has their own reasons to keep fish, their own likes and dislikes, and let it be.
I'm a hybrid keeper, and I have no reason to deny the fact that I love hybrids. But on the same token, I love purebreds as well, and I keep both under the same roof (and often, in the same tank). Some people only like purebreds and keep singular Doviis in their own tanks and that's all they do. Some only like hybrids and keep singular Flowerhorns in their own tanks and that's all they do. I personally have no issue with either. Everyone is different, and in my opinion everyone should respect that. On that note though, I would so prefer a 'quality' Dovii over a 'quality' Flowerhorn, because a 'quality' Flowerhorn most likely will have a gigantic nuchal hump, which I think is extremely ugly. Though I did state that I love both hybrids and purebreds, because not all hybrids are the same, nor are the purebreds. As on that token, I do dislike Africans - the only one I truly like is the Electric Yellow Cichlid, everything else I don't have much love for at all. No one sees me going about telling people to burn their Africans tho (gee that sounded racist), because whilst I may personally not keep them, I don't see an issue with others keeping them.
I think it's this sort of healthy respect is the most important for the hobby, that we realize that everyone is different and that we have enough respect to let it be and just have fun with what one loves and in the worse case scenario, just ignore what they hate, if they hate those fish that much, regardless of what said fish is.
So how does this tie in with the article and this discussion in particular? Simple. Is it hard to draw a line as to what's 'fine' and what's not? Yes, absolutely. At what point should we draw a line? No where. Why should there a need to draw a line as to when keeping a certain fish is alright, and when it's not? Even with defective fish. After all, take a look at EBJDs and Blood Parrots. Both start out with defects - EBJDs have a weak physiology and can be very weak and fragile, not to mention their inability to reproduce with other EBJDs. Blood Parrots obviously have a deformed mouth. Yet most people have no issues with keeping EBJDs, whilst they do with Blood Parrots solely based on its deformity. Which is odd, because they both have very bad deformities. Yes, people are breeding 'stronger' forms of EBJDs, but in the same token, people are breeding 'better' forms of Blood Parrots as well. Needless to say, that still doesn't prevent the existence of this fish. One might obtain really active, relatively disease free EBJD eventually, but that still doesn't stop these weak forms of EBJDs existing in between. Same with Blood Parrots. So is it alright then, to let these obviously defective fish live, just because they are being breed to be better? Is that where we draw the line? What if it takes 20 generations for the problem to just be partially fixed? Should we let 20 generations of defects live just so that eventually we'll get a 'good' fish? Is that really ethical?
In the end it comes down to a lot of us just wanting the nice traits - be it the coloration of the EBJD or the shape of the Blood Parrot, and really there's no stopping people going for it, even if they're still riddled with defects. And to be honest, why shouldn't they? Everyone keeps fish for different reasons, and is one reason ever really 'better' than another? No, not really. It's just different viewpoints, different goals, different loves.
So yeah in the end, why should there be an arbitrary line we must draw and enforce? We are keeping these fish out of the wild anyways, playing god as we stuff them into boxes in whatever way we like, doing whatever we like with them - and really, why shouldn't we be able to do this? We're an intelligent race of beings, given the ability by nature to control this world, and what lives within it. So we should just do our best to do so without well, destroying ourselves in the process, somehow. Keeping fish probably won't come to that tho. Well we do release fish into the wild and they kill off entire habitats and stuff like that tho.
Which brings us to my final point. Whilst we should respect what each other keeps and all that, we need to remember a few things and follow a code of practice that ultimately benefits everyone, practitioners included. This is your stock standard code, i.e. 'label all your fish properly', 'don't release aquarium-kept fish into the wild' (illegal in many countries anyways) and well that's pretty much all there is to it. If we all follow that two simple rules, I see no issues at all with people keeping or breeding or distributing whatever fish they like. And I think that's the best way to go about it. Respect other fish keepers, and follow those two simple guidelines. Worse comes to worse, just ignore the fish you don't like. Unless you're in a real life gathering of course, but hey. Chances are someone there may not be all too impressed by your fish either.
