Hybrid discussion from Mo's thread....
- Thread starter Mr.Firemouth
- Start date
What was your point? That proving the purity of what LFS / chains sell is too much?
I couldn't agree more.
My point is that I'd don't think that ANYONE (today or yesterday) puts great faith in the purity of fish sold by LFS / chains...or that they'll even label them correctly if they are pure fish. It pains me to bring F1 fish to LFS for credit, give them a piece of paper with the scientific name, collection location, and that they're F1... and for them to write the incorrectly spelled common name on the side of the tank. No more fish from me to that store!
Perhaps the ACA should look into a LFS / store certification program and other outreach efforts to recognize stores/retailers that go the extra mile to be conscientious / responsible (of course, in their sales of wild-type fish and hybrids / flowerhorns)
I couldn't agree more.
My point is that I'd don't think that ANYONE (today or yesterday) puts great faith in the purity of fish sold by LFS / chains...or that they'll even label them correctly if they are pure fish. It pains me to bring F1 fish to LFS for credit, give them a piece of paper with the scientific name, collection location, and that they're F1... and for them to write the incorrectly spelled common name on the side of the tank. No more fish from me to that store!
Perhaps the ACA should look into a LFS / store certification program and other outreach efforts to recognize stores/retailers that go the extra mile to be conscientious / responsible (of course, in their sales of wild-type fish and hybrids / flowerhorns)
dogofwar;2155015; said:What was your point? That proving the purity of what LFS / chains sell is too much?
I couldn't agree more.
My point is that I'd don't think that ANYONE (today or yesterday) puts great faith in the purity of fish sold by LFS / chains...or that they'll even label them correctly if they are pure fish. It pains me to bring F1 fish to LFS for credit, give them a piece of paper with the scientific name, collection location, and that they're F1... and for them to write the incorrectly spelled common name on the side of the tank. No more fish from me to that store!
Perhaps the ACA should look into a LFS / store certification program and other outreach efforts to recognize stores/retailers that go the extra mile to be conscientious / responsible (of course, in their sales of wild-type fish and hybrids / flowerhorns)
The Marine Aquarium Council is trying to convince LFs's, wholesalers, and collectors to become unified and sell MAC certified SW livestock. Why it does not work is there is no enforcement. They have made some progress, however their costs are higher. So, who will pay more for certified fish?
IMO, MAC is not very popular but well intended.
Furthermore, look at who attends MAC meetings. Politicians for one. Do you want your hobby to be legislated?
The Dept.of Agriculture licenses all stores that sell wildlife.
Want a store to have cleaner fish tanks. Take a water sample, have it professionally tested by an E.P.A. accredited lab, take pics of conditions, and submit a written formal complaint at the DOA office in your area. You will get a response from the DOA. They will come out discuss their distaste for the situation and threaten to pull the license if they don't improve conditions.
Guess what, 3 months later you will need to follow it up. Stay on it and you can get the guy in trouble, but for the most part the DOA does not do enforcement of LFS's.
There is no way for the ACA to liaison such a plan. I would be happy just to see the ACA say this product or that product is approved/favored by the ACA
to increase ACA exposure. But even that is not an option because they would not want to make another sponsor upset or get involved with commercialism. Can't blame them can you?
The only people that can regulate the hobby is the government(snakeheads?) and the hobby! It would take serious aquarists to pioneer a movement that the industry would listen to.
But the topic is about hybrids, not all this.
There's a difference between regulation and (private) certification.
The ACA isn't the gov't. But it is 1200 people. Hopefully more soon
Good Housekeeping puts their "seal of approval" on things. People can choose to buy products without the seal or poorly rated by Consumer Reports. But consumers place some degree of credence on the ratings...and make purchasing decisions accordingly.
I'd be interested to find out if people on MFK would seek out a "certified" store.
Just some thoughts on a process:
To certify, a store must fill out a form. They receive a preliminary score. Someone designated by the organization would visit the store to verify and make recommendations for improvement. Based on the score, the store would receive a "certified" or "not certified" rating. "Not certified" stores would be given an additional opportunity to pass muster. ACA could charge a small fee to cover the administrative and logistical costs of certification and validation. And maintain a list of certified stores on the web...and give the stores an "ACA certified" sign.
Let's say certifications are good for two years. Stores must re-certify to maintain their certification.
Enforcement could work this way: Stores that achieve certification keep it for the term of their certification (2 yrs) unless they receive X number of complaints. Complaints could come via mail, email or through a web reporting form that the ACA sets up (probably on the same page as its. No more than (some small number) of complaints could come from any single person. Stores in danger of loss of certification would receive notice and the opportunity to correct deficiencies.
A key question is: what should the certification cover (scope)? Demonstration of responsibel fishkeeping? Stocking of rare species? Cleanliness? Customer service? Etc?
For example, could a store that demonstrates and encourages RESPONSIBLE FISHKEEPING but smells like the cat's a*s and has poor customer service be ACA certified? Or could a really clean, nice one with great customer service that is IRRESPONSIBLE (e.g. mis-labels, etc.) be certified?
Just thinking out loud...
The ACA isn't the gov't. But it is 1200 people. Hopefully more soon
Good Housekeeping puts their "seal of approval" on things. People can choose to buy products without the seal or poorly rated by Consumer Reports. But consumers place some degree of credence on the ratings...and make purchasing decisions accordingly.
I'd be interested to find out if people on MFK would seek out a "certified" store.
Just some thoughts on a process:
To certify, a store must fill out a form. They receive a preliminary score. Someone designated by the organization would visit the store to verify and make recommendations for improvement. Based on the score, the store would receive a "certified" or "not certified" rating. "Not certified" stores would be given an additional opportunity to pass muster. ACA could charge a small fee to cover the administrative and logistical costs of certification and validation. And maintain a list of certified stores on the web...and give the stores an "ACA certified" sign.
Let's say certifications are good for two years. Stores must re-certify to maintain their certification.
Enforcement could work this way: Stores that achieve certification keep it for the term of their certification (2 yrs) unless they receive X number of complaints. Complaints could come via mail, email or through a web reporting form that the ACA sets up (probably on the same page as its. No more than (some small number) of complaints could come from any single person. Stores in danger of loss of certification would receive notice and the opportunity to correct deficiencies.
A key question is: what should the certification cover (scope)? Demonstration of responsibel fishkeeping? Stocking of rare species? Cleanliness? Customer service? Etc?
For example, could a store that demonstrates and encourages RESPONSIBLE FISHKEEPING but smells like the cat's a*s and has poor customer service be ACA certified? Or could a really clean, nice one with great customer service that is IRRESPONSIBLE (e.g. mis-labels, etc.) be certified?
Just thinking out loud...
Let's talk more about why hybrids aren't accepted.
The biggest reason for me is the lack of a database or science to control the hobby from just being a free for all.
Let me use designer guppies as an example...
Why do I feel it is OK to design the color patterns and fin types of a guppy but not a cichlid? One reason is the lack of any protocols to do it.
Right now the hobby is just cross this fish with this fish and see what happens.
There aren't fixed strains of hybrids that are breeding true to the parents that I am aware of.(Meaning if I buy 2 Red Texas and breed them will I get 100% Red Texas fry?)
Here is a website that is very smart.
It is about guppies. The owner catalogued all the data you need to maintain the genetic strain, understand the genetics, and shows you the myriad of choices in guppies. The owner of the site then charges a membership fee to use the data to pay him/her for the work that has been committed.(very understandable and fair for the knowledge gained if you are into guppies and designing fish thru breeding strategies)
http://www.guppydesigner.com/
The owner of this site is trying to educate the visitor by explaining the details and is thus using standards within the hobby to complete the task.
This is incredibly responsible. It is well documented work.(Not just cross this with this who wants fry?) It is also a proven set of strategies that allows you the end user to recreate the same fish.
Is their a program anywhere for cichlid hybrids where you could do the same thing?
All this talk of LFS regulation is nonsense because the LFS does not have to participate. The MAC work is proving that and is why the seek legislation to achieve their goals.
The work done with Bettas and livebearers is the work of hobbyists. It is the same for hybrids. It needs to be controlled by a group of hobbyists with commitment to see it thru.
I for one would be much more opened minded if there was rules, guidelines, and protocols like the website cited for the livebearers.
The American Livebearer Association also helps people understand the secrets of linebreeding but not at the level of the Guppy Designer website.
Until a system was in place, why would the ACA want to accept hybrids without controls or standards. I do not believe it is as much of "because I don't like hybrids" thing from closed minded elitists as it is about how on Earth could we control it?
The control is necessary to create protocols for proven methods of breeding. It allows the science of genetic linebreeding and hybrid crossing to be woven into the hobby for responsible work to be done in this field.
Would the proponents of Hybrids not agree? Would it not better the situation if the initiative was taken?
The biggest reason for me is the lack of a database or science to control the hobby from just being a free for all.
Let me use designer guppies as an example...
Why do I feel it is OK to design the color patterns and fin types of a guppy but not a cichlid? One reason is the lack of any protocols to do it.
Right now the hobby is just cross this fish with this fish and see what happens.
There aren't fixed strains of hybrids that are breeding true to the parents that I am aware of.(Meaning if I buy 2 Red Texas and breed them will I get 100% Red Texas fry?)
Here is a website that is very smart.
It is about guppies. The owner catalogued all the data you need to maintain the genetic strain, understand the genetics, and shows you the myriad of choices in guppies. The owner of the site then charges a membership fee to use the data to pay him/her for the work that has been committed.(very understandable and fair for the knowledge gained if you are into guppies and designing fish thru breeding strategies)
http://www.guppydesigner.com/
The owner of this site is trying to educate the visitor by explaining the details and is thus using standards within the hobby to complete the task.
This is incredibly responsible. It is well documented work.(Not just cross this with this who wants fry?) It is also a proven set of strategies that allows you the end user to recreate the same fish.
Is their a program anywhere for cichlid hybrids where you could do the same thing?
All this talk of LFS regulation is nonsense because the LFS does not have to participate. The MAC work is proving that and is why the seek legislation to achieve their goals.
The work done with Bettas and livebearers is the work of hobbyists. It is the same for hybrids. It needs to be controlled by a group of hobbyists with commitment to see it thru.
I for one would be much more opened minded if there was rules, guidelines, and protocols like the website cited for the livebearers.
The American Livebearer Association also helps people understand the secrets of linebreeding but not at the level of the Guppy Designer website.
Until a system was in place, why would the ACA want to accept hybrids without controls or standards. I do not believe it is as much of "because I don't like hybrids" thing from closed minded elitists as it is about how on Earth could we control it?
The control is necessary to create protocols for proven methods of breeding. It allows the science of genetic linebreeding and hybrid crossing to be woven into the hobby for responsible work to be done in this field.
Would the proponents of Hybrids not agree? Would it not better the situation if the initiative was taken?
The ACA can't and doesn't need to "control", catalogue, or come up with guides or protocols for establishing stable lines of hybrids...
The ACA can and should, however, engage hobbyists and vendors on responsible fishkeeping of both wild-type and man-made cichlids.
Fishkeeping IS CURRENTLY a free for all. The store certification process and the guides / focus on responsible fishkeeping that I've described / proposed are ways to differentiate / educate / assist those who CHOOSE to be responsible from those who don't care.
This isn't REGULATION. It's totally voluntary. The question is (and I'm going to start a poll):
Do hobbyists care to purchase from a responsible store (or get fish from responsible fishkeepers)?
The ACA can and should, however, engage hobbyists and vendors on responsible fishkeeping of both wild-type and man-made cichlids.
Fishkeeping IS CURRENTLY a free for all. The store certification process and the guides / focus on responsible fishkeeping that I've described / proposed are ways to differentiate / educate / assist those who CHOOSE to be responsible from those who don't care.
This isn't REGULATION. It's totally voluntary. The question is (and I'm going to start a poll):
Do hobbyists care to purchase from a responsible store (or get fish from responsible fishkeepers)?
As said, MAC has done this with SW.
http://www.aquariumcouncil.org/Aquariumindustry.html
I am unaware of any MAC certified retailers in my area.
They are out there, but they are volunteer and far and few between compared to the over all American markets.
Why?
Because there are added expenses. Both for the retailer and the hobbyist.
It is a good well thought organization.
But if this is not working and many of the collection sites are MAC certified, then why is it not more popular?
Because people care about $$$.
I also do not want the ACA and would never ask the ACA to form the guidelines for hybrids as the ALA and Betta groups have. It would need to be established by a Hybrid Association.
It is not the focus, goals, or within the abilities of the ACA to do any of this.
Sanctioning show fish is though.
To sanction the fish there has to be standards.
The current standard for judging a wild type is against the "Norm".
The ACA already promotes responsible fish keeping at every aspect they can.
They offer good advise, present speaker presentations at shows, help fund local clubs with speakers, promote CARES, and do research and conservation grants!
What I am saying is how can the ACA accept a hybrid class into the show for judging without something to judge it against?
How is keeping a hybrid in pristine conditions, with a great diet, by a fishkeeper that is honest about labeling and discussing the fish able to allow it into the shows?
That is what these discussions are about.
How can we include FH owners in the show if we can't answer the basic of questions?
It is not about elitism or about shunning folks.
There just isn't a way to be fair.
Without the standards, how does the judge even judge the fish?
This is why I keep pushing the need for standards.
You have to understand the problem the ACA is faced with.
http://www.aquariumcouncil.org/Aquariumindustry.html
I am unaware of any MAC certified retailers in my area.
They are out there, but they are volunteer and far and few between compared to the over all American markets.
Why?
Because there are added expenses. Both for the retailer and the hobbyist.
It is a good well thought organization.
But if this is not working and many of the collection sites are MAC certified, then why is it not more popular?
Because people care about $$$.
I also do not want the ACA and would never ask the ACA to form the guidelines for hybrids as the ALA and Betta groups have. It would need to be established by a Hybrid Association.
It is not the focus, goals, or within the abilities of the ACA to do any of this.
Sanctioning show fish is though.
To sanction the fish there has to be standards.
The current standard for judging a wild type is against the "Norm".
The ACA already promotes responsible fish keeping at every aspect they can.
They offer good advise, present speaker presentations at shows, help fund local clubs with speakers, promote CARES, and do research and conservation grants!
What I am saying is how can the ACA accept a hybrid class into the show for judging without something to judge it against?
How is keeping a hybrid in pristine conditions, with a great diet, by a fishkeeper that is honest about labeling and discussing the fish able to allow it into the shows?
That is what these discussions are about.
How can we include FH owners in the show if we can't answer the basic of questions?
It is not about elitism or about shunning folks.
There just isn't a way to be fair.
Without the standards, how does the judge even judge the fish?
This is why I keep pushing the need for standards.
You have to understand the problem the ACA is faced with.
Mr.Firemouth;2158345; said:
Don't have a show for hybrids.
The red text is what I have an issue with.
People don't need a place to show off their hybrids, they need a place that will teach responsibility of keeping them, while allowing the people who enjoy them to feel welcome to discuss the main fish that the ACA should focus on.
You don't need to turn 180 degrees, but you need to make others feel that the club is something that everyone can benefit from.
Maybe down the road you can have a show or form standards, but the progression can (and IMO should) be in baby steps.
