Cichlid Line Bred vs. Hybrid

[badisbadis101]

I believe the ideal wild type fish looks like what most wild caught fish of that species look like. In addition, the "ideal" fish shouldnt have any torn fins, missing scales, or other injuries. It should be healthy, and not have any obvious deformities, etc. Overall though, they likely are judged on good coloration, etc, even if it isnt a normal characteristic of that species. For example, i would bet that cchhcc's colorful convict would do well in a contest, even if it wasnt a great representation of its species.

That is what i was under the impression of. Correct me if i am wrong

 

[Danger_Chicken]

I don't know if I posted this before...but no where in the ACA's by-laws, web site, or any other official publication....does it even MENTION hybrids. At this point in time the club has NO policy...like or dislike. All things considered it's no different than this gathering of folks here at MFK. Some like hybrids....some don't. The only place that hybrids are even mentioned is in the trading post...as in no hybrids.

That in and of itself sets a policy against, and a clear message "if you like hybirds you're not wanted here". That may not be the intention but it is implied, and implecations can be as effective. The ACA goal "Further the conservation of cichlids and their natural habitats" Also implies a stance against. It's not clear if this is refering to the hobby or nature. The "and" is what causes the confusion here. In comes across as being written with hybrids in mind; however, that maybe due to the nature of this thread.

I agree, although I'm not sure that the ACA can have as much of an actual impact on conservation with a few "purist" members as it could with more members and a more inclusive attitude...

It wouldn't be fair to say the people that like hybirds don't care about cichlids natural habitat (this was mentioned by someone else). The ACA can have a bigger impact by having a larger member base. I maybe misunderstanding you dog, we maybe saying the same thing.

More colorful examples might appeal to (fishkeepers') aesthetics but more colorful examples of fish might make them less well adapted to their environments in nature.

hobbyist are breeding for fish keepers not nature. Attracting more hobbyist can bring more attention to their natural environment.

I'm suggesting the fish are better judges of desirable traits than we are.

but only to them not us (you're gorgeous Con proves that); and fish don't buy fish After all we're not breeding to release in the wild.

Both line bred and hybrids are man made. Both are different than what is found in nature. Both represent a prominent share of the fish sold in LFS and kept by aquarists who keep cichlids...
That's doesn't mean that principles of responsible fishkeeping shouldn't apply to both man made and wild-type fish: accurate labeling, not releasing captive fish into the wild, etc. Passing off wild-type fish as something that it's not is probably MORE dangerous to purity of captive populations of wild-type fish than passing off a Super AAA Kamfa flowerhorn as a AAAA+ Super Kamfa faded flowerhorn (whatever that means)

This is a strong argument to allow hybrids and line-breed into the club. Appeal to the hobby, it is after all a club for and of hobbyist. Education is the key. The larger the member base the more people you can reach and they can reach.

So other than the obvious ends to a means, are the line bred fish (electric blue jack dempseys, long finned oscars, super red severums, etc.) any different than flowerhorns?

Yes, by definition, hybirds: bred from two distinct races, breeds, varieties, species, or genera.

I think the ACA should consider taking baby steps. It seems to be assumed that everyone knows the difference between pure, line bred, and hybrid.
Concentrate on education and accept all forms of fish before you decide what's "good" and what's not.
If you decide that any type of fish is not welcome in the hobby then you're not doing anything different. If anything, you're staying the same and overall, demoting the hobby while enforcing the "clique".

ALL types of fish should be recognized, but only certain types/lines/strains/whatever should be deemed acceptable to show. IMO the ACA should Recognize, accept, educate, and tolerate.

I like this idea of baby steps. Take the fish on one at a time. Many people LOVE Parrots, but there are specific congenital deformities that should make these fish excluded. By doing this the ACA would not be ignoring the fishes exsistance but educating people; and, in time maybe they will no longer be "created". At least with this technique the ACA can excluded a fish based on quaility of life, not a political stance on natural or man-made. Flowerhorns or the other hand don't have these same deformities and can be strikingly beautiful or butt ugly; at least this is personal preference.

 

[Markm0723]

Very well said DC.
As my avatar shows, and my post on my new EBJDs, I have no problem with line-breeding. I personally am not as fond of Hybrids,but I know many are, and more power to them.

Mark

 

[dogofwar]

I agree - well said DC.

One quibble, though: "Many people LOVE Parrots, but there are specific congenital deformities that should make these fish excluded."

Congenital deformity is in the eye of the beholder: goldfish have been manipulated like that for years. I really don't think that it's possible to make consistent judgements for against...

 

[Danger_Chicken]

I'm referring to the deformities that have been propogated by line breeding that are a hinderence to the fish like the parrots mouth, bubble eyed gold fish and intestial disorders from their short-bodies, some so distorted they can barely swim.

I'm thinking more along the lines of quaility of life then eye of the beholder.

 

[Aquamojo]

So I am trying figure out what are the largest arguments against hybrids/line breds? You say judging compared to the ideal wild fish. But haven't we already decided what the ideal wild fish is? I mean we already pick the nicest looking one that we catch in the wild and say ok to have a good fish it must have ___ color, __ fins, __ size, whatever. So then with hybrids/line breds don't most of them have some ideal fish? IE flowerhorn Large hump, great color, personality... German reds obviously color, fins.

I am just confused on how we can easily say what an ideal wild caught fish is, but we can't say it about line bred/hybrids. (Heck in my mind it would be easier, the fish can only have what we would concider good traits.)

(Just fyi, I personally am not a breeder of hybrids, I will buy a few males for show tanks but that is it.) It is just that the more I think about this question, the more I come to realize they are here to stay what is the best way to include them in the ACA.

If I am reading your post correctly, you are talking about how a fish is judged. Currently all of the fish are judged against the standard for the species. With a FH...there's no standard for the species. It's either cichlid A or cichlid B.

That in and of itself sets a policy against, and a clear message "if you like hybirds you're not wanted here". That may not be the intention but it is implied, and implecations can be as effective. The ACA goal "Further the conservation of cichlids and their natural habitats" Also implies a stance against. It's not clear if this is refering to the hobby or nature. The "and" is what causes the confusion here. In comes across as being written with hybrids in mind; however, that maybe due to the nature of this thread.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Nothing is implied. The mission statement doesn't have any hidden messages or meanings. We have made thousand of dollars worth of grants to students for cichlid research and conservation programs....projects like the Stuart Grant conservation project for anti netting devices around the Malen islands in Lake Malawi...the CARES conservation program for breeding endangered species.

I've read a lot of posts across several forums on this very topic. Yours was the first post that made me stop and shake my head. The mission statement of the club was formed long before Flowerhorns were even a glimmer of an idea. Sorry....just wrong.

Yes, by definition, hybirds: bred from two distinct races, breeds, varieties, species, or genera.

Yes...well aware of the definition of a hybrid. The point that was lost was that both Line Bred for specific traits and creating a FH were done for aesthetic reasons. In my opinion, it's the same thing...regadless of the path taken to get the end result.

 

[Markm0723]

Aquamojo,

I am not a member of the ACA, so I don't know the answer to this. Does the ACA allow the various "strains" of Oscars, Angels, Discus, and regional races, such as Herichthys carpintis "Escondido"? Because if they do, then they are already accepting line-breeding. Otherwise none of these varieties would exist in the aquarium trade.

Mark

 

[terminalMTS]

for the flowerhorn judging, you could talk to flowerhorn experts and find out how they judge them. there seems to be many types of flowerhorns. i don't have any idea how many or what zz or kamfa mean, but even on this site, there are alot of people who do know. some of the fish that i have seen here are amazing and a growing number of people are either getting into fishkeeping because of them, or already fishkeepers who are newly interested in them.

 

[Danger_Chicken]

If I am reading your post correctly, you are talking about how a fish is judged. Currently all of the fish are judged against the standard for the species. With a FH...there's no standard for the species. It's either cichlid A or cichlid B.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Nothing is implied. The mission statement doesn't have any hidden messages or meanings. We have made thousand of dollars worth of grants to students for cichlid research and conservation programs....projects like the Stuart Grant conservation project for anti netting devices around the Malen islands in Lake Malawi...the CARES conservation program for breeding endangered species.

I've read a lot of posts across several forums on this very topic. Yours was the first post that made me stop and shake my head. The mission statement of the club was formed long before Flowerhorns were even a glimmer of an idea. Sorry....just wrong.

Yes...well aware of the definition of a hybrid. The point that was lost was that both Line Bred for specific traits and creating a FH were done for aesthetic reasons. In my opinion, it's the same thing...regadless of the path taken to get the end result.

The part of the mission statement posted in this thread is the only part I've seen, and the only time I've seen it; as I stated the meaning of the mission statement my seem skewed by the nature of this thread. However, the meaning of the Trading post is not. Before calling me wrong please consider the context as I did.

Your point on Line-breeding and hybridization was not lost, they are both done for the asthetics but that does not make them the same thing. Nor is the out come the same. Genenitcally, line breed is the same species and hybrid is not. This is a drastically different out come. It's not prudent to lump them together because you don't like them. Hate them both if you choose, ban them both if that's your goal, but keep them separate.

I'm not a Flowerhorn enthusiast but I believe they're are standards for judging them (fins, kok, pearls, plums, etc).

I'm not that fimialar with the ACA, what is the purpose of the group? The hobby or the wild (this part is clear from your last post)? If it's both then concessions need to be made to promote both. You asked us to "put personal feeling aside", as a board member it's MORE important that you do; it's not just important, it's your resposibility to be unbaised. If you can't, you can actually hurt the hobby (if a goal of the organization is the hobby as well as the natural habitat). If the promotion of the hobby is not a goal than none of this needs to be discussed - ban them!

 

[Aquamojo]

The part of the mission statement posted in this thread is the only part I've seen, and the only time I've seen it; as I stated the meaning of the mission statement my seem skewed by the nature of this thread. However, the meaning of the Trading post is not. Before calling me wrong please consider the context as I did.

Your point on Line-breeding and hybridization was not lost, they are both done for the asthetics but that does not make them the same thing. Nor is the out come the same. Genenitcally, line breed is the same species and hybrid is not. This is a drastically different out come. It's not prudent to lump them together because you don't like them. Hate them both if you choose, ban them both if that's your goal, but keep them separate.

I'm not a Flowerhorn enthusiast but I believe they're are standards for judging them (fins, kok, pearls, plums, etc).

I'm not that fimialar with the ACA, what is the purpose of the group? The hobby or the wild (this part is clear from your last post)? If it's both then concessions need to be made to promote both. You asked us to "put personal feeling aside", as a board member it's MORE important that you do; it's not just important, it's your resposibility to be unbaised. If you can't, you can actually hurt the hobby (if a goal of the organization is the hobby as well as the natural habitat). If the promotion of the hobby is not a goal than none of this needs to be discussed - ban them!

My personal feelings have been shelved. I also don't keep either line bred or hybrid fish. I can appreciate the fact that you don't know more about the club...more importantly in addressing your comments about personal feelings...you don't know much about me. My stance on Hybrid fish has been "I love my flowerhorns...blackened with a side of salsa." Trust me when I tell you that if you would have told folks a few years ago that I would be leading the charge to discus the topic and chair a committee to determine the position of the club on the topic....they would have laughed out loud. Wide open baby. Ask around....

One of the recommendations we are going to make is that the words "...and in the hobby" be added to the segment of mission statement to read: [FONT=&quot]Further the conservation of cichlids in both their natural habitats and within the hobby. [/FONT]Unfortunately this is something that has to be ratified by the club and not simply voted on by the BOT. I think this brings the things we do down to a more base level for hobbyists.
The problem I had with your previous statement was that you said the latter "implied" against. Using the same thought process you could say that the fact that FH enthusiasts don't have an organized group and no formal goals, that would "imply" that they have no interest in cichlid conservation since nothing is mentioned about either the hobby OR in their natural habitat. Now...I happen to know folks who do keep the fish and know that this isn't accurate. Lot's of folks do and are members of the ACA.

I'm certain that there are ways that FH's are judged in shows. But the way shows have been run...at least for the twenty or so years I have been showing fish...is that categories are established for entries and the fish is judged against the standard for the species. I have no idea how they would be judged. Koks. pearls, plums??? Yeah, I guess.