Wild Caught?
- Thread starter yokozuna
- Start date
peathenster;3241992; said: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?
even with their current scenario and status of being "weak over-incested AWOL cichlids" in a foreign pond where they now reside, the ones who prove truly weak will vanish immediately and eventually. i highly doubt they ALL will. the stronger specimen will breed, establish, and they must now live as wild animals again. dealing with predators/disease/incest/mishap and misfortune all the same or face becoming extinct in their sector... you sir, are correct.
and to those giving him heat in suspicion of greedy/malicious intent, it takes one to know one. too many people jump the gun on negative foresight rather than observe as it happens. answer the question (the REAL question) and act accordingly to ONLY what is said and done thus far.
one thing to remember is though history can be guided by human hands, nature is very much permanent and unstoppable, always moving.. i do believe the creatures we hold in captivity (if this world lives long enough) will evolve within the confines of humans as we will, and those released over the millenia will also evolve. it is a guarantee that things will mutate no matter what. we simply have no clue what new species will develop at our faults. (look at chickens)
This is crazy. Wild caught African cichlids come from Africa. Wild caught SA/CA don't come from the islands in the Pacific. IMAO
For those arguing that survival of the fittest will occur away from the natural habitat mimicking the true wild population, what about the founders effect (an offshoot of genetic drift)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
Whether certain individuals are "fit" depends entirely on the direction and the level of selection. Under artificial selection, alleles that confer better shape and color, etc. become predominant. Unfortunately, in some cases linked deleterious allels also become fixed - the joint troubles that golden retrivers experience are a good example. In other cases the very traits that are selected for are deleterious (e.g. weird shapes in some goldfish). However, it should be noted that often times the stongest and fastest growing fish are favored in artificial selection as well.
In the wild, the selection pressure is mostly to produce the largest number of viable offsprings to pass on the genetic materials. It just so happens that individuals that are stronger and live longer have a better chance of achieving it. But this depends entirely on the environment. Suppose a group of vegetarian fish are trapped in a small pond where plants grow slowly. The individuals that grow slower and have a slower metabolism may actually be favored, and eventually take over the population.
So NO, of course the end results are drastically different - "natural" and "artificial" selections lead to very different outcomes. But there's really no difference in the underlying mechanisms. Are we not part of nature in a weird way?
My arguments are:
1. Loss of genetic diversity because of a bottle neck effect happens throughout evolution, and in itself should not make a species less "wild".
2. Human capitivity without any genetic consequences, in my opinion, does not make an individual less "wild" either (catch and release?).
3. When artifical selection leads to irreversible genetic consequences, it can be argued that the individuals involved are no longer "wild". But I want to point out that, even in this case, it is the parameters, not the mechanisms, that are different between artificial and natural selection.
Like many issues in hot debate, the central problem we have here is actually the lack of a clear definition of what is being debated. If we can agree on the denifition of "being wild", these arguements should resolve themselves in no time.
In the wild, the selection pressure is mostly to produce the largest number of viable offsprings to pass on the genetic materials. It just so happens that individuals that are stronger and live longer have a better chance of achieving it. But this depends entirely on the environment. Suppose a group of vegetarian fish are trapped in a small pond where plants grow slowly. The individuals that grow slower and have a slower metabolism may actually be favored, and eventually take over the population.
So NO, of course the end results are drastically different - "natural" and "artificial" selections lead to very different outcomes. But there's really no difference in the underlying mechanisms. Are we not part of nature in a weird way?
My arguments are:
1. Loss of genetic diversity because of a bottle neck effect happens throughout evolution, and in itself should not make a species less "wild".
2. Human capitivity without any genetic consequences, in my opinion, does not make an individual less "wild" either (catch and release?).
3. When artifical selection leads to irreversible genetic consequences, it can be argued that the individuals involved are no longer "wild". But I want to point out that, even in this case, it is the parameters, not the mechanisms, that are different between artificial and natural selection.
Like many issues in hot debate, the central problem we have here is actually the lack of a clear definition of what is being debated. If we can agree on the denifition of "being wild", these arguements should resolve themselves in no time.
Dmaan.;3240867; said:
as usual, another stupid comment from the high school peanut gallery...
as far as being wild caught...
If Im fishing in Florida and I catch a 16 inch Jag (that was not just released from an aquarium), its wild caught by dictionary definition...same goes for any other species of animal. Just because its not from a region and lives there now doesnt mean it isnt wild.
Ever seen wild cats? They werent from this continent but they damn sure are wild and will kill any house cat in seconds, and most domesticated dogs. As far as the "weeding out of the weaker and incapable fish"...the wild caughts that get brought back and sold arent necessarily the strongest of the fry, especially when small for the simple fact they havent been able to have the opportunity to be weeded out at the smaller sizes.
Some wild fish caught these days werent originally from the areas they are found now. Regions dont have much to do with it. Eggs get transferred in storms, by birds legs from pond to pond, lake to lake etc. They are regurgitated by birds that fly hundreds of miles that had previously eaten the eggs elsewhere and so on. That doesnt make those fish not wild, just because they werent from where they were laid.
If I let 2 dogs go on an island and come back a year or 2 or 3 later, arent the puppies they have wild? and fish are 1000x less domesticated than cats or dogs could ever be. I have had fish that have been domesticated for probably 30 generations by humans and they still are spooked by loud noises and rapid movement in front of a tank.
If I bought a peacock, jag, oscar etc that had been caught in a ditch in florida and wasnt a 1st generation aquarium fish let go, its wild. Its had the same trials and tribulations it would have had where it was originally geographically from, IMO.
I do think though, that if its sold as wild, it needs to be made known that it was a florida wild caught (or wherever it was caught that wasnt its currently recognized geographic location).
So your definition of "wild" is all about the location, regardless of the fish themselves as long as they are one generation removed from an aquarium.
I do have some concerns, but let's hear some other definitions first....anybody?
I do have some concerns, but let's hear some other definitions first....anybody?
VRWC;3253149; said:
VRWC;3253149; said:
Wild and feral are two different things. When I lived on Hawaii we had domestic house cats that bred all over the place. Same with rats and mongoose. They're not wild, they're feral.
