Wild Caught?
- Thread starter yokozuna
- Start date
nc_nutcase;3241358; said:
your opinion that captive raised species are genetically inferior to wild, doesnt change that the animals are living free from humans.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-392292/The-superlions-marooned-island.html
also consider the article above that the lions marooned on that island have become bigger and developed a couple of other differences between the lions on the mainland.
now does this mean that those animals are more wild then there mainland relatives? No of course not. the genes and health of the animals matter very little in determining if a animal is wild or not.
I agree with Modest Man, and believe that catching the feral cichlids and taking them out of many introduced habitats is probably a good thing.
There are organized groups that spend weekends trying to rid waterways of contaminent species in many states.
In Florida getting rid of introduced species is encouraged except for a few, Cichla and Oscars have become so intrenched, they are part of the game fish industry.
There are organized groups that spend weekends trying to rid waterways of contaminent species in many states.
In Florida getting rid of introduced species is encouraged except for a few, Cichla and Oscars have become so intrenched, they are part of the game fish industry.
yeah...just wondering....this is a question that i always had. no more than that. just thought that the forum might give provide some answers.duanes;3241154;3241154 said:
(there are a bunch of cichlids here in the islands that are abundant in the water systems.)
Yokozuna is catching a lot of heat for this question. No one knows what he plans, but thats not the question at hand anyway.
You cant get all high and mighty telling me I cant grow drugs just cuz I ask about hydroponics.
As far as if they are wild or not, not at all. By the term "wild caught", the literal meaning might be true, but the implied meaning in the hobby is not the same. As mentioned earlier aquarium breeding allows all genes carried by the parents to exist in each fry when in the wild it is likley that some of these genes would have been selected out of the population. You can release electric blue jds in a canal safe from predators. Just because they thrive does not mean they are the same as "wild caught" jds.
Hawaii is full of convicts. Those who live there should pull some out and compare them to the ones that FishFarm has. Some differences might be evident, yet others exist without being noticed... behavior, life span..
You cant get all high and mighty telling me I cant grow drugs just cuz I ask about hydroponics.
As far as if they are wild or not, not at all. By the term "wild caught", the literal meaning might be true, but the implied meaning in the hobby is not the same. As mentioned earlier aquarium breeding allows all genes carried by the parents to exist in each fry when in the wild it is likley that some of these genes would have been selected out of the population. You can release electric blue jds in a canal safe from predators. Just because they thrive does not mean they are the same as "wild caught" jds.
Hawaii is full of convicts. Those who live there should pull some out and compare them to the ones that FishFarm has. Some differences might be evident, yet others exist without being noticed... behavior, life span..
Simply released cichlids would be just that,
but I would imagine that after a few generations, the natural selection process would take effect and weed out the unfit, and the ones that survive would have some, maybe many, wild caught traits. I have seen adds for, "wild caught in Florida" Mayan cichlids.
but I would imagine that after a few generations, the natural selection process would take effect and weed out the unfit, and the ones that survive would have some, maybe many, wild caught traits. I have seen adds for, "wild caught in Florida" Mayan cichlids.
I'd use the term feral or pond raised, and reserve wild for fish caught in their native habitats.
OK folks - we have two issues at hand that should be discussed separately.
1. Whether a species has undergone a genetic bottle neck due to a massive die off, or geographic isolation of a few individual from the rest, among other reasons. The genetic diversity is severely reduced. For example, if a pair of wild fish get trapped in a pond by drought, and breed for generations - would anybody question their (and the progenies') status of being wild?
2. Whether an individual has been in human captivity. What if you catch a wild fish, raise it for a while, then release it back to the wild? Do you consider it wild? Similarly, if you catch a wild, unrelated pair, their F1 progenies would be genetically identical to those that would have been produced in the wild. If you release them to the wild, do you consider them wild? This is where I believe people may disagree the most - human activity is involved but with no genetic consequence.
3. What if the fish have been subject to inbreeding in human captivity for generations, and then released back to the wild. I believe this is what was asked in the OP. The genetic diversity is essentially lost forever, as mutations rarely happen in the time scale of our lives - the rate of sponteneous mutations varies a great deal but roughly in the ballpark of one percent nucleotide substitution per one million years. These released individuals might find a new nitch and thrive. A perfect example are the dingos.
Are dingso wild?
1. Whether a species has undergone a genetic bottle neck due to a massive die off, or geographic isolation of a few individual from the rest, among other reasons. The genetic diversity is severely reduced. For example, if a pair of wild fish get trapped in a pond by drought, and breed for generations - would anybody question their (and the progenies') status of being wild?
2. Whether an individual has been in human captivity. What if you catch a wild fish, raise it for a while, then release it back to the wild? Do you consider it wild? Similarly, if you catch a wild, unrelated pair, their F1 progenies would be genetically identical to those that would have been produced in the wild. If you release them to the wild, do you consider them wild? This is where I believe people may disagree the most - human activity is involved but with no genetic consequence.
3. What if the fish have been subject to inbreeding in human captivity for generations, and then released back to the wild. I believe this is what was asked in the OP. The genetic diversity is essentially lost forever, as mutations rarely happen in the time scale of our lives - the rate of sponteneous mutations varies a great deal but roughly in the ballpark of one percent nucleotide substitution per one million years. These released individuals might find a new nitch and thrive. A perfect example are the dingos.
Are dingso wild?
