Hybrid discussion from Mo's thread....

[Mr.Firemouth]

Here is Mo's thread/poll....
http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161839

Please discuss why you think the ACA should or should not allow HYBRIDS into the ACA.

I would like everyone to stay very civil.
This is an important topic to the country's largest cichlid organization.
Your input will be heard and forwarded...

I myself have line bred fish ever since I began keeping fish. I have had Angels and tons of livebearers and I line bred my FM's to intensify the colors and hope for an albino mutation.

This hobby is something different to everyone. But what does the ACA represent as a National Organization?

Is allowing a Hybrid Class in the ACA benefiting the ACA?

I am unsure. I therefore am leaning to exclude Hybrids from shows and sales and concentrate on wild type fish.

Angels and Discus were accepted a long time ago and have now become cornerstones in the cichlid hobby.

So what say those who are biting their tongues?

I am also curious as to how the many African Cichlid breeders feel?

 

[Bderick67]

As I really have nothing against flowerhorns or the other intentionally created hybrids. But I don't think they belong in the ACA. There is already enough of a problem of unpure lines of fish polluting the LFS.

 

[Natalie]

I like and keep hybrids, but I don't think there needs to be a hybrid category at the ACA. It doesn't seem to be the place for it. There are plenty of stunning species already at the ACA; maybe there could be an annual Flowerhorn and Hybrid convention (maybe there already is!).

It's sort of like the Westminster dog show. There is absolutely nothing wrong with mutts and mixed breed dogs, but they would seem out of place at an event that showcases the highest tier of quality pure breeds. Wow, I sound like an elitist. But as I said before, I love and appreciate hybrids...

 

[dirtyblacksocks]

I personally think the production of hybrids with the intentions of making a line bred strain of fish with the intentions of profit should be discouraged as much as possible - the ACA is one of the largest entity's within the fresh water fish industry amoung hobbyists, and the statement it makes by steering clear of hybrids helps to encourage purists and preserve the information needed to continue keeping fish pure down to their locality.

The acceptance of hybrids degrades the hobby in that it encourages sellers to go with what makes money, and does little to discourage fraudelant claims upon a fishes origins. For instance, we see the true parrot cichlid very little in the hobby anymore, in it's place is the blood parrot. Trimacs aren't even close to common due in part to the production of flowerhorns and their almost identical appearance at a young age. Red devil and midas cichlids that are commercially bred are almost a guaranteed hybrid of the two fish, even though there are distinct differences between the two.

I'm not against mutt fish, I can understand breeding fish with the intentions of learning about things like line bred traits - or an accidental pairing of fish and keeping the offspring to rear.

What I don't condone is commercially engineering fish with the intentions of profit, most notably what is being done with flowerhorns, and the "short bodied" genes we see being line bred out of certain fish.

In the end it all comes down to personal preference, and anyone who says they're in this hobby for conservation or the fishes benefit is full of it. But there is a time and a place for everything, and I think the ACA should focus on the already huge array of naturally occuring fish in order to preserve historical fact.

 

[rallysman]

I've been biting my proverbial tongue.
The ACA needs to accept the fact that "hybrids" are not going away.

Rather than pretending that hybrids don't exist (or forcing the opinion that it's not ethical to keep said fish), the club should educate in a non biased manner and encourage the hobbiest to be responsible.

I currently want nothing to do with the ACA because of the attitude of attendants during the convention that I attended. I know that others feel the same way. I heard someone mention "flowerhorns" and he was told to not say that word. For me, that flipped the switch to the "off" position, and I left with a really bad taste in my mouth. If the ACA wants to grow, (let alone survive) then changes need to be made.

Should hybrids have their own category? (IMO) no
Should the ACA offer non biased education about hybrids and how they impact the hobby? HELL YES!

I'm tired of the bashing, I'm tired of fish snobs, and I'm tired of the "debate".

I will always like hybrid fish, and I will never like the thought of pulling a fish out of the wild because it's "pure". Why does that really matter? I understand the there is a lot to learn from fish being "plucked" from the wild, but I will never understand why people are encouraged to remove the fish from their natural habitat for nothing more than bragging rights.

I honestly believe that the ACA means well, does a lot (read: metric ****load) to promote the hobby, and tries to educate. However, if someone is drawn into the hobby by a hybrid fish, the last thing that they should hear is that they're supporting a negative impact. When a "noob" hears that they're "ruining the hobby" by keeping a hybrid, their ears will close and you're arguing a moot point. Once the person is flamed, whatever is said later is going to go in one ear and out of the other.


I would love for hybrids to become more widely accepted. I think that once people are not afraid of selling a hybrid then they'll be less likely to mis-label it. As long as people are scolded and flamed for selling fish that' aren't "pure" then you're going to have issues.

On top of all of this, it floors me that people think that the fish that are labeled as pure just happened to show up without prior engagement.

 

[bigspizz]

I keep hybrids not because they are, or are not hybrids, but instead, because they are FISH. I would love to observe every species on earth at some point. If I had to choose one hybrid, it would be a blood parrot. I absolutely love my blood parrots. Their (blood parrots) behavior alone is reason enough to love them, but lets not even get started on their versatility. I "save" every BP I find.




That said, I also keep "pure" fish. I buy what I like, and, what I can house. When I research something NEW, and it captivates me, I make it happen. This HOBBY contains various elements....I do not limit myself in any way, I end up regretting it every time.



Lastly, I would like to say, that it is an absolute pleasure, that conversations like this, can happen. Hats off to both sides, this, is what the "next level", is all about.

 

[byeung]

I have friends who i have rubbed off on to become small fishkeepers of their own. However they'll bring home african hybrids from walmart and will rave how awesome their fish is. I think there is room to expand by allowing hybrids. Hybrids are unique and interesting to the right crowd.

 

[dogofwar]

The question is less about whether the ACA should or should not allow HYBRIDS into the ACA (show) and more about whether the ACA should seek growth by welcoming people who have an interest in hybrid cichlids. This is about cultural change / attitudes in the organization vs. discrete tasks.

The ACA could have a class or set of classes for hybrids...and - done poorly - the experience could result in the flowerhorn keepers and others who bring excellent quality hybrids to be made to feel uncomfortable...and never wanting to interact with the ACA ever again. Mission accomplished! (not)

From my perspective, flowerhorns, blood parrots, etc. were developed to be what they are: super-natural cichlids. They're not contaminants. They're not random. They're not "mixed africans" for $2.77 at Wal-Tard. They're not the end of "pure" cichlids in the hobby. They're the result of lots of skilled work and patience by amazing breeders. Kind of like fancy goldfish varieties or betta varieties or discus varieties: intentionally super-natural.

The ACA isn't accomplishing its mission/goals as widely as it could if it remains a relatively small, insular organization...that isn't welcome to (from Mo's poll) about 50% of dedicated cichlid keepers. If half or more of the hobby is turned off, then these people aren't learning from (or sharing with) the ACA. They're not supporting the ACA's conservation program's either.

Promoting fellowship among cichlid hobbyists means respecting that everyone doesn't have the same taste in cichlid keeping. I've kept all kinds of cichlids and I always come back to medium CA and SA. Some of the others just don't interest me. That doesn't make them bad. They're just not my interest (right now at least). But maybe I'll see something that will inspire me and get me back into, for example, Tanganyikans or mbuna.

The ACA can have the biggest impact by encouraging responsible fishkeeping: proper labeling, not introducing captive fish into the wild, understanding scientific naming and other conventions, etc. In my experience of 25+yrs in the hobby, I've seen just as much or more irresponsible fishkeeping from people who are into "pure" cichlids as I have from those who are into hybrids.

I've yet to hear a valid argument (beyond trimacs) that flowerhorns are impacting the availability of any wild type fish in the hobby. The availability of wild-type fish in the hobby (without having to actually have wild fish) is dependent on the people who keep them responsibly breeding and distributing them. Which has nothing to do with flowerhorns, blood parrots, etc.

Changing attitudes / culture will depend on strong leadership by influential people at the ACA (or maybe more broadly). Props to Mo for diving into this and all of the people on this and the previous thread for being civil and constructive

 

[cichlaguapote]

There is already enough of a problem of unpure lines of fish polluting the LFS.

But do we blame that on hybridization as a whole or irresponsible fish keepers, breeders and vendors trying to make a quick buck? Which one is it better to curve?

ACA is an organization with it's own goals, I understand that. But at the same time people need to change their conservative thinking and get over it. By having a negative stance on hybrids, or allowing it to be out there by it's members they are excluding a large segment of population that might otherwise join the ACA and/or attend ACA events.

I'm not saying you have to make a Hybrid class, but acknowledgment of at least higher class hybrids, and making "Flowerhorn" not such a dirty word would yeild better growth in the coming years.

 

[darthodo]

I think I'm on the same page as dogofwar. Some fish just don't interest me so far as my personal collection is concerned. I've tried Africans, dwarves, some SAs, but I keep coming back to the larger, more personable CAs. That being said, flowerhorns are a lot like the larger CAs b/c they were developed from them. I just like knowing what breed I have. I have a registered cat and a registered dog. That's just how I am. I like looking at flowerhorns and many of them look fantastic, I just don't want to own one myself. I'll buy a wild-caught fish if it looks good and seems to be a nice fish. I'll buy a tank-bred one just as fast. I own more tank-bred fish btw. If someone imports a wild-caught fish that looks good and that I can't find otherwise, I'm gonna buy it. I tell people it is wild-caught in threads b/c I think it's important to be informative about the origins of the fish, not because I'm bragging. I see that as no different from saying that you got your fish from Rapps or Ken Davis.