Just to clarify on my point, my statement of wild vs captive health was more targeted at line bred morphs like fancy guppies, electric blue dempseys, etc....I do think you need to add genetic diversity from time to time though, whether from different captive lines or added wild.
Totally agree up to the inbreeding comment...Asian breeders have completely ruined the Silver Arowana with inbreeding resulting in a eye droop issue that won't go away until the greedy bastards that intentionally breed defective stock go away. And on that note I believe my Danners may have just popped a seam.
I didn't mean to imply that inbreeding or otherwise poorly-thought-out practices aren't harmful; they surely are, and that example of Silver Arowana is a perfect example. Thanks for posting that, I was blissfully unaware of it.
My point was rather that every Tom, Dick and Harry who can't keep a pair of guppies alive for more than a week seems to enjoy shrilling about "poor genetics" as an excuse for his/her ills. No question that bad breeding is a major problem, but it's not always or even usually the root cause of most of our problems.
Danners aren't inbred; they're just overhyped and silly. They're the Flowerhorns of the boot world.
A world famous salamander?...I feel that the question of wild caught versus captive breed is deeper than it might seem.
Bravo! I wish that more people would choose their actions based not only upon hard science but also by considering the morality of them. Can I keep this critter alive and healthy? If that's not likely...should I even try?
Has anyone noticed how often we read and hear about "doing" this or that or the other fish or fish habitat? An aquarist has a spare tank...or goldfish bowl...or brandy snifter...and they're not sure if they should "do" a betta or some shrimp or a colony of shell-dwellers or whatever? They don't
keep or
maintain or
raise the fish in question...they
do them, much like my wife will
do a new colour during her endless repainting and redecorating. I've always thought there was something vaguely Freudian about that term...
This topic is a good one to meditate on. I was reminded of a dissertation presented by Matthew Acre concerning the Blue Sucker and its place in the major rivers of North America. The population of Blue Suckers is not related to the aquarium hobby but to the construction of dams.
Acre, Matthew Dissertation Defense: Blue Sucker - YouTube
Thanks for posting this; I'm embarrassed to admit that although they are practically in my backyard, I've never even heard of these fish.
There are people who would pay any price to buy an endangered species just to be able to say they own it-that is unconscionable and defines selfishness. On the contrary, in some cases a dedicated aquarist or reptile keeper maintains and breeds a species that may be drab in color, mundane in behavior or otherwise unremarkable, but is rare and needs protection; their breeding efforts are laudable and may well help save a rare species...As previously stated, many more fish are rare because they taste good or had the misfortune to live in a habitat that people modified or polluted than became rare due to over-collection for the aquarium hobby.
Good point, and well stated. The strident protestations of anti-hunters, anti-fishermen, anti-aquarium-keepers...most anti's, in fact...are all intended to make it sound as though hunting, fishing, aquarium-keeping
et al are the principle danger faced by the animals concerned. This is virtually never the case; habitat destruction, pollution, development, invasive species...these are almost always the major perils, but of course the anti's can't trumpet that because then the problem would be their fault as much as anyone else's. Much more satisfying to take the moral high ground and snipe at those on the lower slopes from a position of safety.
