AKC style for W/C Cichlids and there Generations

[Otherone]

After reading an extemely long closed out recent thread I was left with a few question marks about wild caught fish and fish vendors.
What 1st came to mind was the grading system it's self - F1 meaning the 1st generation of spawn produced by 2 fish that caught in the wild never being captive breed. 2nd thing was the USA's Rainbow trout - farm raised and released into the wild. 3rd was the import/export papers used to obtain and ship wild fish. 4th was the expense to collect import and sell the fish and their seemingly increasing demand.

My conclusion - the system is flawed. Just because a fish was obtained in the wild doesn't nessasarily mean it was born there - case and point Rainbow trout senario. They've been breed in captivity for many years and released. I'm not even sure genetic testing could show the difference. Thus leaving the actual grading system in the capable hands of any or all human beings - It is because I say so.

Perhaps then F0 should be sold with the import/export paper copies and or given an SS type number. The number would class it's species, date of collection, and it's location. An "AKC" type of tracking system thus warranting higher prices and perhaps demand. This might be too complex but with this hobby growing and it's demands it could be on the horizon.

 

[BigPic]

Your post brings forth yet again the need for this hobby to STOP using the F system. F0 does not mean wild, it refers to the original breeding stock - wild or otherwise. Your trout example brings to light how this F# system doesn't work with the tropical fish hobby.

 

[cchhcc]

Good post Otherone. I agree with your assessment. The rainbow trout / genetics comment points to the folly of a lot of the "wild craze" altogether.

I'd love this thread to continue along these lines and not get derailed. (fingers crossed smiley not found!)

 

[dogofwar]

In an ideal world, this would be possible. But it's just not feasible in reality. Too much cost. And dishonest people will continue to be dishonest.

For people who want to maintain a provenance back to wild fish, it's pretty simple: find out who collected the fish, from which location...and only breed your fish to fish with known provenance.

The bigger issue is why people feel that they must have wild or F1 fish. Apart from being able to show them off here, the less that we rely on having to actually get fish from the wild, the better.

This relies on people - who seek to maintain wild-type fish - being responsible in their breeding practices. And people coming to the realization that captive fish can provide all of the fun of wild ones...with less expense and complication.

This mindset is pretty much the mindset in the reptile / snake world...not so much in the fish world.

Matt

 

[irishfan]

Im with you on this Matt. I dont have any WC fish and have no desire to buy one. I understand how people are intrigued by them and like them, but its not for me. I dont like the idea of someone taking fish from south america, bringing them to florida, and pretty much running a puppy mill underwater, and then charging an extremely high price for them.
To me, my fish are all beautiful...tons of water changes and different healthy foods make them have colors that cant be easily beat. Maybe if I were a more serious keeper, had more funds to devote to the hobby, I would be more intrigued by this WC thing. If we didnt have the internet, would many still buy them if they could not post monthly updates and sell fry?

 

[cchhcc]

Don't count out the economic importance of wild collections. If the collection of a wild species offers economic advantages to its host community that community has a reason to maintain the habitat of that species. Absent such economic realities and there's no reason for a community not to resort to slash & burn methods that kill habitats through sedimentation runoff, etc.

So, in that spirit, we should work for a situation where wilds carry very high price tags. The "same" fish could be had more cheaply ina captive bred, but those who HAVE to have wilds would be better supporting the native economy.

Too bad that doesn't work so well in actual practice. There's a long way to go until most CA people view their native species as anything but food and their native habitats as anything other than disposable.

 

[BigPic]

Im with you on this Matt. I dont have any WC fish and have no desire to buy one. I understand how people are intrigued by them and like them, but its not for me. I dont like the idea of someone taking fish from south america, bringing them to florida, and pretty much running a puppy mill underwater, and then charging an extremely high price for them.
To me, my fish are all beautiful...tons of water changes and different healthy foods make them have colors that cant be easily beat. Maybe if I were a more serious keeper, had more funds to devote to the hobby, I would be more intrigued by this WC thing. If we didnt have the internet, would many still buy them if they could not post monthly updates and sell fry?

I have to say, you can't have it both ways. There have to be wild fish involved somewhere along the line, without the wilds, there is no hobby, period. As a hobbiest, the only wild fish that I am truly interested in keeping are the ones that I collected myself. As long as the the fish I am looking at buying and keeping are good quality and a good representation of the species, I don't care how far removed they are from wild.

 

[fish_n_vw]

What a great thread. I love the debate over this and have never looked at it from both sides. Personally I like the idea of being able to add "new blood" to my breeding stock. And I have never eally looked at this as anything more. I will follow this thread and see where it takes us.

 

[irishfan]

Oh I understand the need for wild fish in the hobby. Just not something that I am into..dont have time or money to spend on them, or wait for fish in mail, or deal with parasites, or deal with them not eating pellets, or deal with the fact that their personalities might suck or they might be wayy too aggressive for some passive fish that are tank raised.

What bothers me is looking at vendors...seeing how often they get in new fish, how many different kinds. I could care less about people, they have brains and the ability to take care of themselves...im an animal person and just feel for the fish. Maybe I am naive or just dont know, but I have seen so many good looking fish come from even petco or an lfs that are not near WC or F anything.

cchcc-oftentimes the places that have the best animals/ecosystems are the ones where the people could care less.

 

[dogofwar]

This is a really good point, Chris.

I'd really like to see developing local sustainable collection operations, ecotourism and the like become a way that our hobby can support its desire for wild stock and - at the same time - conserve / preserve habitats and support local economies.

So much of the focus on wild fish in our hobby is about having them and showing them off... Too often a collection location is just a cool name to add to aquatic "bling" vs. a place that can be gone forever without proper management and local economic incentives for conservation / preservation.

Matt

Don't count out the economic importance of wild collections. If the collection of a wild species offers economic advantages to its host community that community has a reason to maintain the habitat of that species. Absent such economic realities and there's no reason for a community not to resort to slash & burn methods that kill habitats through sedimentation runoff, etc.

So, in that spirit, we should work for a situation where wilds carry very high price tags. The "same" fish could be had more cheaply ina captive bred, but those who HAVE to have wilds would be better supporting the native economy.

Too bad that doesn't work so well in actual practice. There's a long way to go until most CA people view their native species as anything but food and their native habitats as anything other than disposable.