I asked the question on my Aquamojo FB page (
http://www.facebook.com/aquamojo) as well, with some interesting responses. Here's two that I think are worth repeating:
From Mats Pederson via Amazonas magazine FB page:
Since there's two ways that filials get applied, this is even a more complex question.
Technically, F0 in the greater scientific community simply is used to describe mates in an outcross, F1 being the progeny of that outcross. As such, these "Florida-caught" cichlids would fully qualify as F0.
If we use F0 in the way most aquarist use it, to define a fish as wild-caught, I could go either way on this. We are technically making an assumption that a wild-caught fish represents a genetically diverse and healthy population; is that the case with a wild-caught fish out of Florida waters? Possibly. The information from FAO on genetic maintenance of a species and bottlenecking suggests that a population can be founded by as little as 5 specimens, provided it quickly blooms to a much larger size. So that means if all the wild Oscars in the canals of Miami were founded by as little as 5 fish, they might still be genetically diverse enough to be "healthy". Look at all the Lionfish in the Caribbean; my understanding is that genetically, they all share ancestry with only 3 females?
Of course, when we talk about a species like the Oscars in the canals, since the wild Oscar might not be one species but several, and since we don't know which type(s) were released to create the population we now see, it's difficult to say whether there is a pure species there or some new cocktail of genetics.
F0 fish out of Florida's canals - I think so, but with the caveat of geographic provenance and potentially dubious species purity in some cases.
And from Dr. Paul Loiselle:
Interesting question. Strictly speaking, the Florida populations in question are feral rather than wild, since they spent at least a couple of generations in captivity before getting into Florida waters. Given the (presumably) limited number of founders, it would be interesting to compare a couple of these naturalized species genetically with representative wild populations. I tend to agree with you that for practical purposes, fish brought back into captivity from these naturalized populations should be considered F0.
From Mike Tuccinardi (Segrest Farms):
Plenty of predators in Florida waters but I do think there might be an overall lack of genetic diversity on a lot of these introduced species. Of course this can just lead to rapid speciation so it will be interesting to see what happens in these populations.
From my friend, David Estes, Florida Fish Farmer:
[Non native fish caught in Florida are not considered "wild caught" because the invasive species status trumps all other status. Most invasive fish in Florida come from a rather narrow gene pool and should not be used for anything in a breeding program. You can not label it a F0 either because of the invasive species status. The state of Florida's stance on this is kill every invasive species that you catch.
Seems like the consensus is "F0"...but the majority agree that the stock...or in this case lack of...that literally started what is there could be weak. The other unifying opinion...is that it's a difficult question to answer.
Hope this helps.
Mo
. Glad I asked it. I know these fish have been out there for many generations. And the pictures I've been shown of other fish my friend has caught look amazing. All this makes me even more exited to get them. I know oscars and peacock bass where brought in for sport fishing. I'm curious to see what they look like being a mix of wild and the more colorful farm raised ones. 
