VOTE for NEO FOR ACA BOT

[ewurm]

Controversy may sell, but it rarely informs.

Informs of what? Controversy can absolutely be a vehicle for information. I believe the statement is based on the fact that this "controversy" is undesirable to some members of the ACA. The most informed people are the ones that care the most about the subject, and usually this leads to the people who care the most leading the way in arguing about a controversy.

 

[Nic]

the politics im basically reading involving flowerhorns and other cichlid hybrids is funny.... its shouldnt even be a question of what are your thoughts on hybrids...IF YOU DONT LIKE A FISH DONT KEEP IT... its funny the "CONTROVERCY" seriously Li would be prob the best choice... look at what he did to fish forums... but nope people gotta think of the controvercy of hybrids....

 

[ewurm]

Ahttp://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161839



Today, people who like flowerhorns aren't welcome at the ACA. Ask people who like hybrids and they'll tell you. This is closing off a significant source of NEW MEMBERS for the ACA.

I have yet to be convinced that the EXISTENCE of intentional hybrids (like flowerhorns) in the hobby is a leading cause of what ails pure-bred cichlids (either in the wild or in the hobby). It might be harder to find a "pure" Trimac than it used to be, but irresponsible breeding/distribution of wild-type fish (e.g. two geographic varients of peacocks sold as "pure") seems much more likely to impact the "purity" of captive stocks of fish. And I've yet to understand how flowerhorns are a leading threat to wild cichlid habitats.

It also seems hypocritical for the ACA to be "against" hybrids (i.e. flowerhorns) but be OK with line bred fish, fancy angels and discus (that are most likely - depending on taxonomic opinion - hybrids) and other cichlids that are different from what is found in nature. Different from nature is different from nature, in my opinion.

Mo and Rich hosted a great, constructive thread on the ACA position on hybrids issue in the Central and South American cichlid forum: http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168415&highlight=mo's

In closing, I believe that Li would be an excellent member of the ACA BOT because he has proven success in building bridges among fishkeepers and leading what is probably the #1 source of aquarium education in the country. These skills directly support the ACA's goals of fellowship and education. And the ACA has a lot to learn in these areas, especially outside of "the converted"

"Conservation" of cichlids and their habitats is an issue much broader than whether people who like hybrids are welcome in the ACA. What matters, however, is the resources that the ACA has to address conservation. The more member, the more reach, and the greater ability to impact this issue.

There will be a lot of resistance to change in the ACA. People have strong feelings. But constructive discussions - that include people on all sides of the hybrid issue - will prove more useful in promoting the hobby than accusations and incorrect assumptions that arrise from small cliques who see themselves as "against" each other (but who probably have a lot more in common than they think they do).

Excellent post. I think that we need to forget our differences of opinion. An organization that is as important to the cichlid hobby shouldn't even bother worrying about hybrid fish. They should be focusing their efforts on the destruction of habitat and resulting restrictions that will be placed on the fish we keep. I find this stance on hybrid fish completely unproductive. It alienates anyone with an opinion on the matter, and cuts your membership right down the middle.

 

[jcardona1]

Excellent post. I think that we need to forget our differences of opinion. An organization that is as important to the cichlid hobby shouldn't even bother worrying about hybrid fish. They should be focusing their efforts on the destruction of habitat and resulting restrictions that will be placed on the fish we keep. I find this stance on hybrid fish completely unproductive. It alienates anyone with an opinion on the matter, and cuts your membership right down the middle.

even better post. 100%. this debating does nothing to advance the hobby. just a bunch of bickering back and forth like middle school kids about whos fish is cooler

 

[Nic]

even better post. 100%. this debating does nothing to advance the hobby. just a bunch of bickering back and forth like middle school kids about whos fish is cooler

basically thats all that politics are a mine is better or mine is bigger childish bickering.... it should not matter who likes a FH or other cichlid hybrid fish... i think most need to stop crying and consider they are never going to get rid of them even if they educate every person in the world about how "BAD" they are... and accept them in the hobby dont like them dont buy them.... Li will do for the ACA the same he did for fish forums and bring it to the next level...

 

[neoprodigy]

If I recall correctly, the TFH issue dedicated to cichlids this year - the one that prominently featured the ACA's upcoming convention - had a very nicely done ad by MFK featuring ALL flowerhorns. MFK may represent a change in the attitudes of fish keepers, but it has also prided itself as quite controversial, to gather from attitudes expressed in the thread that celebrated said advertisement. I appreciate Li's sentiments in that thread, stating "{I} don’t care if you keep feeders to exotic Asian arowanas to flowerhorns... we are all fish keepers... Monster Fish Keepers!!!" and how open and inclusive MFK is, but I cannot help but find such an attitude worrisome when expressed by a potential ACA BOT member. The ACA has not formulated an exact opinion on "the hybrid menace", but it has expressed strong statements about their unsuitability in ACA shows and bans them from the ACA Trading Post. The continued prop of claiming education will eliminate the worrisome (and already present) dilution of precious cichlid gene pools, while offering up the false platitude that flowerhorns are here to stay, skirts the issue.

This also alienates any cichlid fish keepers and potential members who keep/breed hybrids. Offering education as gives us the opportunity to help those who may want to preserve the gene pools you reference. Ignoring the issue does not make it stop happening.

Li, should the ACA recognize hybrids, in shows, the Trading Post, or some other format that would draw interest into the ACA and increase membership? And if yes, how does that fit in with the stated goals of the ACA?

Gather, organize and disseminate knowledge of the family Cichlidae

Further the conservation of cichlids and their natural habitats

Promote fellowship among cichlid hobbyists

Are flowerhorns, and indeed all hybrids produced by the union of cichlids, cichlids? The ACA is a society founded upon mutual interest in cichlids. We can try to spin that into an all-inclusive community, but it simply isn't. Value judgments MUST be made according to what promotes the keeping of cichlids in the hobby, and what reduces the careful keeping of cichlids in the hobby. I am not swayed that hybrids are value-neutral. Can you, Li, convince me?

Under your leadership MFK has grown tremendously. It has prided itself (see above) in being on the cutting-edge and, frankly, on taking controversial, perhaps even nose-thumbing (again, reference the TFH ad) positions. How does that translate into making the ACA into a vehicle for cichlid-keeping? Controversy may sell, but it rarely informs. You mention "My goal as an administrator and as a BOT is to take the hobby of fish keeping to a new level for future generations of fish keepers all over the world." I fear I am confused. I don't want the ACA to bring the hobby of fish keeping to a new level ... that is what MFK is for. The ACA has 3 stated goals. Shouldn't they take precedence?

Controversy does not in itself necessarily inform, however controversy does garner attention and gain membership. Once members are on site, they search, browse forums, read articles, take part in discussions which further educate them and interest them in new areas of fish keeping and husbandry. So although the controversy itself does not educate, it does provide a vehicle to help motivate and expose them to more information and a better grasp of the hobby through the visibility of MFK and the broad spectrum content of the site.

Out of all the ads we did only 2.631% (1/38) are "considered" nose-thumbing or controversial. I prefer to call it "thinking outside the box". That is how we run Monster Aquaria Network and that is how we design our ads. Never a dull moment.

Finally, as an ACA Trustee, in what ways would you use the engine that is the Monster Aquaria Network to encourage cichlid habitat conservation, and raise the profile of the ACA?

I can tell you I don't have ALL the answers, or else this "hybrid cichlid issue" wouldn't be an issue. My view still stands, "leave no cichlid behind" but we should work together to find a way to balance the goals of ACA and offer inclusion.

You mention "My goal as an administrator and as a BOT is to take the hobby of fish keeping to a new level for future generations of fish keepers all over the world." I fear I am confused. I don't want the ACA to bring the hobby of fish keeping to a new level ... that is what MFK is for.

Members will get old. Technology will get old. The ACA cannot use the same methods they used back in 90s, 80s, 70s, or 60s to attract new and future generations of fish keepers. "Look Around Old Folks" is what I told the BOT at their annual meeting. My goal is to help increase membership and visibility to ACA as it’s something I strongly believe in and support. New members and younger members will help to ensure the future of the hobby and its continued growth and support. I have a wide base of these members exposed to ACA and cichlids through my network.

 

[andregurov]

Informs of what? Controversy can absolutely be a vehicle for information. I believe the statement is based on the fact that this "controversy" is undesirable to some members of the ACA.

Arguing is nice and all (where would half the fish boards be without arguments? ), but at some point consensus must be reached on an organizational level. Li mentioned his success in running a group of on-line forums, and I think it is a pertinent point to ask a few questions about it. I think MFK is a vehicle for education and entertainment; of that there is no doubt. The ACA is as well, despite your inclination that it is possessed of philistines (or elitists, for that matter). But I would not like the ACA to approach advertisement and content in the same manner as MFK.

I've never had any problem with individuals keeping hybrids. I can declaim it as an unfortunate development without judging the keeper (contrary to what many attest). My query to Li is aimed at establishing what he thinks the ACA (as an organization) should do with the hybrid issue, not to criticize his view. I'm a voter in the ACA like all members, and it does me no good to pre-judge any candidate for BOT. But I do have the right to ask questions.

ewurm, thanks for your input. I hope the ACA is able to demonstrate to you and others that it is a fantastic community for all of us who celebrate cichlid diversity and wonder. I certainly feel it is, and these are very exciting times to be part of it.

 

[fishfarm]

Joining ACA today will allow more votes for Li. Join ACA.

 

[Aquamojo]

Personally, I don't necessarily think that hybrid cichlids need to be embraced by the ACA, I'm just tired of hearing the doomsday stuff regarding the keeping of hybrids. I think the ACA could first take a look at having the stance that hybrids are not recognized species, so they don't need to focus on them, but they don't need to put out the message that keeping hybrids is irresponsible. The debate will remain no matter the stance taken by the ACA. Just stop please with the rhetoric. I don't even own a hybrid fish, but if I found the right one I would consider it. I think Li offers a fresh perspective on keeping fish. I don't know any of the other candidates, but I do know what MFK has done for me, and that's enough to pay the $25 for a membership and a vote.

Very well said. I'm chairing a committee as we speak regarding the ACA and it's position on hybrid cichlids. As someone pointed out, it's not a black and white issue...lots of grey. Suffice to say we are deep in discussion and very open minded.

I don't mean to drive this off topic, when I sent Li an e-mail suggesting that he run for the board, in the back of my mind I knew that he would offer a different perspective on the hobby. I think he would make an excellent addition to the board.

You do have to be a member to vote. Your $25 gets you membership...and with that a subscription to a high end publication called the BuntBarsche. Great magazine, lots of up to date information about cichlids in the hobby and the wild.

 

[Liam]

I'd vote, but I'm not American, so I don't benefit from it.