I'm well aware about encroachment and other factors I didn't imply(not intentionally anyway) that breeding wild forms would be the sole reason for the survival of wild populations. Merely stated I'm surprised it isn't a consideration for these discussions. Also there are plenty of cases(maybe not in the hobby) where captive animals where the reason for the survival of a species despite being kept in a unnatural environment(your little glass boxes) and reintroduced to the wild so I think those facts make my point valid. When it comes down to it most of the other arguments are subjective and what's the point in arguing personal preference? In that regard we're free to choose what we prefer so how complex can the discussion really be, it's a kin to arguing why someone would like sports cars versus SUV's. Personal preference is personal and shouldn't be subject to anyone else's approval.
Meh, it's alright I forgive you cause that's the kind of guy I am.
I mentioned it above in my response to dogofwar I merely mentioned a alternative argument. Also as dogofwar stated we aren't the primary reason for the loss of wild populations, I just suggested perhaps we can do something to help preserve wild forms and that discussion would be more beneficial. Part of the reason you maybe misunderstanding my point is because you haven't read my previous posts. I'm not a purist just someone who wondered why the discussion gravitate toward personal preference when that shouldn't really be debatable as we're entitled to our preferences.
Also I'm not sure why me stating being responsible by keeping track of lineage wouldn't make sense to you as that's the only other point I mentioned I belive. How do we know what we're getting if we don't and be responsible to ourselves, fellow hobbyists and our fish?
