VOTE for NEO FOR ACA BOT

[Mr.Firemouth]

My position on the matter reflects my own opinion. I haven't changed my position, I don't own any hybrids. I genuinely think that MFK represents a change in the attitudes of fishkeepers. There are too many boards out there that are highbrow bashers of anything that they don't approve of. I don't have a master that feeds me, I could afford microwaveable burritos long before I became a member of MFK, before I accepted a non-paying job on this site. My only payment is the knowledge I gain from the members here. I didn't agree with Li in my statement, I expounded upon his post. I think my stance was much more detailed and straight forward. I think the majority of the fish clubs suck. He may or may not agree with that, and I don't care. That's my position, not his. I think that he would represent a potential change in the way people think about the fish world. I'd be interested in membership in an ACA that does not adopt policies that I don't agree with. If there is another candidate that wants to tone down the rhetoric, please let me know. We all share a common interest in the hobby, even if we don't share a love for the same fish. The political rhetoric is what causes a loss of enjoyment for me.

Unfortuneately, anytime we mix people with power/cash we have poitics.

If you actually become a member of the ACA, you will find some interesting threads in the member only section about the progression of the website, the perceived view of the ACA, and about change. These threads date back to the end of 2006 to the present and have myself, Li, and Mo Devlin leading the pack for change.

Change is always something that others will be resistant to as they have become complacent rather than progressive. So if Li can get enough votes he will have his hands full.LOL

Sucky-ness aside,(as all clubs have some kind of drama) the ACA does a lot of good for the hobby and the cichlid community!
Li will be an asset!

 

[andregurov]

I genuinely think that MFK represents a change in the attitudes of fishkeepers.

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 fishkeepers, 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} dont 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.

Li, should the ACA recognize hybrids, in either 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?

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Gather, organize and disseminate knowledge of the family Cichlidae [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Further the conservation of cichlids and their natural habitats[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Promote fellowship among cichlid hobbyists[/SIZE][/FONT]


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 judgements 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?

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?

 

[CHUD]

Vote for Li....This is CHUD and I approve this message.....

 

[KurseD]

go Neo!

 

[ashaegyee]

I will vote for u Li.

 

[dogofwar]

A recent poll on MFK found that nearly half of all cichlid-keepers keep hybrids: http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161839

Even though I don't keep hybrids myself, I respect that flowerhorns and parrots are frequently the first cichlids that many people keep. That's not going to change. What can change, however, is that these same people can learn the (more sublime) beauty of wild-type fish. For example, I started - back in the day - with fancy bettas...and through fish clubs and the IBC expanded my interests into wild-type ones. I found that the more that I learned about habitats, geographic variations in the wild, etc...the more I wanted to know.

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%27s

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).

 

[Mr.Firemouth]

Please let me clarify some things....

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.

This statement is NOT true!
There is a major misunderstanding of stating that hybrids are frowned upon for a myriad of discussed reasons and saying that another responsible fishkeeper is "NOT WELCOME AT THE ACA". NO ONE HAS EVER BEEN TURNED AWAY FROM MEMBERSHIP!
Everyone is welcome whether you keep hybrids or not. There are 2 BOT right now that have hybrids!

If Li gets enough votes he could help with this issue.

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 variants 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.

The threat to conservation with Flowerhorns is their popularity that is forming a sub-culture that promotes making hybrids.(Mainly for sale and money).
The second threat hybrids pose is to captive stocks of wild types. There are many African cichlids right now that are on the market as specific geographic varieties which are actually hybrids being sold as wild types.
Some of this is due to misinformation and some is due to unscrupulous sellers.

The ACA does not claim that Flowerhorns are the leading threat to cichlid habitats. The leading threat to those habitats is deforestation, pollution, Dams, and poor agricultural practices.

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.

"BUSTED"
You are completely correct with your statements.

I also agree with the rest of your post and greatly appreciate your views.
Rich

 

[Lisachromis]

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.

There is a difference here. Line bred fish may not look like the wild fish anymore, but they still the same species. Just making a fish "fancy" doesn't mean it's not the same fish. I don't see how it's hypocritical of them to allow "pure" species no matter what they look like. I have my opinions of linebred fish and also hybrids. Does that mean I'll bash someone who doesn't agree with me? No. It just means that we disagree.

If someone keeps hybrids and wants to join ACA, then I say "go for it". The more the merrier. I've never seen anyone not allowed to join ACA. The person who mentioned ACAers being fish snobs seems to be a snob of their own. Being Anti-ACA seems to be elitist in it's own way too. If you don't like the ACA, don't join. If you want to join, then join. You can't change an organization from the outside.

 

[dogofwar]

First, I'm a member of ACA and other clubs. And I don't keep or enjoy hybrids. Not my taste. My wife tells me that my taste in brown and gray fish is bad.

I agree that there is no - explicit - rule from keeping people who enjoy hybrids (flowerhorns) out of the ACA... but I've heard from numerous folks who are into flowerhorns (in person and on boards) that they don't feel welcome. Maybe calling the fish that they keep (tongue and cheek or not) a "menace" would have something to do with it. I've yet to see any kind of an olive branch to this community of dedicated and skilled fishkeepers (Yes - developing good strains of flowerhorns is not easy!).

A sub-culture of fish-keepers that creates colorful and desireable/marketable fish is bad why? Sounds like the foundation of our hobby from the dawn on time: fancy goldfish, colored koi, fancy livebearers, fancy bettas, etc., etc. These fish weren't developed to be authentic to wild fish...but to be super-natural. And a lot of people like them. Does the existence of any of these fish proclude the existence of wild-type ones (either in the hobby or the wild)? No.

Too many threads devolve into hair splitting around "hybrid" vs. aquarium strains of fish that are different from what's found in nature but probably - given current taxonomy - aren't technically a hybrid. As I said, authentic to nature is authentic to nature. And different from nature is different from nature.

Look at the wide array of folks that Li has brought together on MFK. That's a good thing.

 

[Mr.Firemouth]

Lisa,
hopefully Li gets elected and can use the M.A.N. to help spread the word about education, conservation, and ACA programs.

I think the point Dogofwar and myself make about the hypocrisies is that the fish are judged against the "norm", which conveys "wild type" for our shows and sanctioning requirements.

To say any "fancy" fish, or even "improved" fish like my own line-bred Firemouths is the same as "the norm/wild type" would not be accurate. The ACA has set a precedent with "fancy strains" of Angels and Discus. The argument about hybrids is that they are not "pure" and can not be judged against the "norm".(1 of many arguments) They have indeed contradicted their own rules here.

Fear not though, the ACA has formed an excellent committee to address this issue and the new BOT will go from their recommendations.

Again, if Li is to win, we NEED to support him!