|
|
|
|
#26
09/05/2006, 10:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think they should work on raising more variety of fish than making Hybrids. To many fish are still not captive breed that they should work on. I have seen some hyrids in LFS and they are cool and I almost got it and still maybe for someone to go out and do it on purpose I would not support that when other advances in the hobby need to come first
__________________
U.S.M.A.S. founder NOTE: The author assumes no responsibility for any consequences that may arise from the use of this information. |
|
#27
09/05/2006, 11:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It seems like all he did was bring 2 species that don't normally co-exist together. We've been doing the same thing for thousands of years. I don't see any genetic engineering going on here or anything that makes it "unnatural".
|
|
#28
09/05/2006, 11:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Many people view human intervention in, well, 'natural' affairs to be unnatural. That is one of the foundations of 'naturalism.' But I don't think most people object to hybridization in nature (i.e. Holocanthus cililaris x H. bermudensis, etc) and mimicking that, rather to completely atypical hybridizations of isolated or distinct species. I can agree that we, as humans, have been doing this for quite a while, but that doesn't necessarily mean that people have to agree with it. Many people want to preserve the distinctness of species.
__________________
You've done it now, haven't you? |
|
#29
09/05/2006, 11:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jerryz- I do not agree with your argument. The animals you have listed are domesticated over hundreds and nudreds of years. Should it have been done back then- maybe or maybe not. They had different purposes, though. Domestic livestock were bred for food, and domestic companions were bred as work animals. What wild cows are out there that aren't feral? Same with horses and dogs? There are none. They are different species. Give back our cats and dogs? To where? Where do poodles and tabbys occur in the wild? And as for your conclusion, I never once said captive raising fish is bad. In fact, I quite promoted the practice. I think intentionally hybridizing animals for profit is improper. And for the record, I do not have a bad impression of this business as a whole. If I had the incliniation for a drawf angel, I believe he would be a top source. I just don't agree with RCT's choice in this pairing.
Angel-fish- The pairing RCT is creating is NOT natural because one is a Pacific species, and one is an Atlantic species. If he were re-creating something that did happen naturally I would have a far better opinion of it. One final point I would like to make of this. On their website, the even go as to say the Resplendant angel is an IUCN redlisted animal. For those who don't know, that means it is CITES I- the highest rating of endangerment given out to any species. Should wild collection be forbidden- absolutely. Should these fish be captive bred- absolutely. Should this fish be used for breeding hybrids- absolutely not. If the international conservation groups consider this animal so endangered to make it CITES I, I think it should be being bred with another Resplendant, not a Fisher's, making hybrids. This is all just my opinion, and I would be quite happy to respectively discuss it with anyone who would like. Please feel free to contact me personally if you have any complaints, issues, or other comments. |
|
#30
09/05/2006, 12:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Just curious, why would your opinion be more favorable if they were hybrids that naturally occur - I'm not being argumentative - I really want to understand 
__________________
Marie So long, & thanks for all the fish! __________________________ |
|
#31
09/05/2006, 01:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marie- I certainly would be more understanding if it did naturally occur. As RCT mentioned, many drawf angels hybrids occur naturally in the wild. When this occurs in the wild, nature has a way of dealing with it. Whether it be the fact that they are likely sterile, or perhaps they have some environmental advantage, and thrive. Maybe they themselves become a new species over time. Whatever happens, nature has taken account of it. This has happened for over 100 million years.
The issue I have is that RCT is trying to accomplish this in a mere few years. This situation never occurs naturally- why? Because of geographic differences only? Perhaps. But for whatever reason, nature has decided it is not meant to be. I believe your question is- if RCT had a pairing of Flame angels and Potters angels, would that be ok? I still dont think I would buy one, but I would be appreciative of the effort, because they are not making a fish that is previously unknown. Overall, I think artificial and purposeful hybridization is a bad ecological concept. |
|
#32
09/05/2006, 01:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I agree completely with you, jmaneyapanda. When hybrids occur in the wild, it is for a reason. Artificial hybridization benefits neither specie involved, especially if the species are from different oceans.
__________________
Rachel **New avatar: me and the Philly Phanatic** |
|
#33
09/05/2006, 01:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Or that they will take over an island and kill anyone who comes there? Sorry - j/k - I love those Jurassic Park movies  - That would make a good movie - ~Killer Mutant Centropyges~ They're cute, but they're killers! 
__________________
Marie So long, & thanks for all the fish! __________________________ |
|
#34
09/05/2006, 02:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
No, my concern is not that they will take over the world. My concern is purely ethical. And, of course, ethics vary from one person to the next.
Along those lines, though, we can all agree that releasing non native fish can and will cause ecological unbalance, correct? Why is this? Because nature has selected against those fish being there, sometime historically. The same way nature has selected for these two fish not to breed. I know, it is a dissimilar topic, but the same principal. If we can create these hybrids just because we can, then why can we redistribute the species, just because we can? Yes, JP was a good movie, especially for someone with a background in evolutionary biology. Some things were quite ridiculous, and yet some things so dead on! Jeff Goldblum did his homework- he said some true things. |
|
#35
09/05/2006, 02:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hmm not even sure where to dig into this discussion. So many of you make good points about hybridization. Ultimately though, as long as there is care to prevent release (which I am sure is present at RCT's facility), I dont see what the huge fuss is. Any animal kept in captivity is ecologically dead as long as it stays captive. Anyone who pays 800.00 for a fish is likely to want to keep it captive one would think. The very small possibility does exist that it will escape/get freed somewhere where it (one tiny site-specific fish) will have a chance to interbreed with existing Centropyge populations. In this context, I think that the potential for the more commonly exported Pacific species to intermix/interbreed with Atlantic species is a much greater threat to genetic/ecological stability than any one-off manmade hybrid is.
The whole issue is very similar to what reptile hobbyists faced a number of years ago with mutations, hybrids and freaks in that hobby. Some folks love em, some dont, the market rules and as far as I know, no one is/has been releasing their bubblegum cornsnakes or jungle corns in the wild to deleterious effects.
__________________
It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others.... |
|
#36
09/05/2006, 02:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
jmanyapanda,
You make a good point here. Ethics aside, it has been historically shown that introduction of totally new, unrelated species is typically much more damaging than genetic drift/pollution caused to populations from hybridization. In some cases, a population was even saved by that very thing happening....Though some would argue that the resulting population was no longer a valid one (ie "red wolves" and cheetahs).
__________________
It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others.... |
|
#37
09/05/2006, 03:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
After reading all of this...
I think the best point made was that with Resplendants being on the CITES I list... it DOES seem tragic that the small amount of captive stock is being squandered on hybridization rather than repopulation efforts. How many of you know what a California Condor is? I wonder if anybody would have thought it acceptable to cross a Ca Condor with a turkey vulture. Oh, they look similar enough... even occupy the same space. But why do that when you could just breed condors again and possibly someday release them back to their habitat? There is the argument that even if we captive breed endangered species, they can't return to wild because of pathogens encountered in captivity. Yet, what is quarantining for? Is this not what we do to bring things from the wild to our aquarium? Which is more important... economics, aesthetics, or recovering our rapidly deteriorating natural resources? Possibly even... rejuvenating our wounded earth? I know where my money would go. |
|
#39
09/05/2006, 04:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Meisen- yes, you are correct on many points. Ecologically- these new hybrids are likely no great danger. My objection is ethics. What do we do when it is commonplace to breed these hybrids (such as with clowns or freshwater fish)? Will it be a problem then? Furthermore, what is the value in these hybrids, except profit in RCT's pocket? I am not a hater- more power to the entrepeneurs who can make a buck, but they need to be ethical.
Zuzecawi- my point exactly. |
|
#40
09/05/2006, 06:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Zuzecawi's points - Do we even know that Bensch is not also trying to breed the ones on the CITES list to each other? And if he's not, who knows? Maybe it's because so far he's only been able to obtain a single fish or something?
Seems to me a little more info is needed before the bashing begins. Quote:
And I liked Goldblum's line that went something like, "Life will find a way" .
__________________
Marie So long, & thanks for all the fish! __________________________ |
|
#41
09/05/2006, 06:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 That may seem cynical, but economics often is a very powerful "selector" in our species.
__________________
Marie So long, & thanks for all the fish! __________________________ |
|
#42
09/05/2006, 07:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Angelfish, FWIW, I think that he has bred pure resplendents several times before. Nothing wrong with letting economics help to drive science and conservation in my book. They need all the help they can get IMHO.
jmanyapanda, I see what you are saying. I guess we just fall on different sides of the line. My take is the hobby is already killing (or removing from the gene pool) millions of animals a year and certainly having a significant and measurable impact on the marine ecosystems. What people do with those animals from a ecological standpoint is moot. I personally am much more concerned with that issue than what people do with captive animals. If breeding freaks helps RCT stay solvent, and thus continue reducing collection pressure and advancing the science of captive breeding, I say bully for them. Personally I wouldn't buy one, natural-type specimens are more appealing to me. Probably for the same reasons you have JMP.
__________________
It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others.... |
|
#43
09/05/2006, 07:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Marie So long, & thanks for all the fish! __________________________ |
|
#44
09/05/2006, 08:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The risk to the environment is miniscule. Anyone that pays $800 for a fish is very unlikely to chuck it in the ocean when they tire of it.
Also, I could care less what they charge for any fish. If they can get $10,000 for a captive raised Centropyge, good for them. I just don't like where I see this going. Googlely eye clownfish, fantail angelfish, red and black humbug damsels (due to painting of course), and all the other freakish things people have done to freshwater fish.
__________________
Steven Pro, yep that is my real name. 19th Annual Marine Aquarium Conference of North America (MACNA) in Pittsburgh, PA September 14-16, 2007 |
|
#45
09/05/2006, 10:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
With you on that Steven,
But its our pocketbooks that will vote on that one just as freshwater hobbyists have voted for freaks. I do have to say I draw the line at painting (ie glassfish).....PETA should get in on that case (and in our hobby, some anemones and corals). If they could drop the fuzzy wuzzie bunnies for a moment that is...
__________________
It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others.... |
|
#46
09/06/2006, 07:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Meiseni- I disagree- animals are being lost to the gene through natural processes all the time- ie- natural death, consumption by a predator, natural disaster, intraspecific competition, HUMAN INVOLVEMENT. These are all part of nature. Does the fisherman who catches an angelfish and feeds it to his family bear any less responsibility than the fisherman that catches an angelsfish and sells it to feed his family? Any different from the shark that eats the angelsfish? In all cases the fish is gone from the gene pool, and this is was selection of the fittest is all about. Certainly humans have an advantage, and moral responsibility, which is why laws are in place. But to say, or more correctly phrased- imply, that husbandry of captive populations is a non-factor in wild ecology is bad inference. Because of captive husbandry and its ethics; zoos, aquariums, and even private aquarists have strived to keep better care of their animals, and unnecessary death and waste in the hobby has decreased in the past 20 years. Would you agree?
Angel-fish- as stated, RCT has captive bred Resplndent angels true to the species. That still doesn't validate him using one for hybrididzation. The significantly issue I am admitting I did not think through or know is, how was this unnatural pair created? Was it accident or purposeful? If RCT did not intend to create this hybridization, I will accept the accidental occurance. However, I am speculating it was purposefully created. Regarding ethics vs. economics- that is not a dead issue. There is a reason aquarist groups attack people who try to keep those gorgeous obligate crallivore butterflies in fish tanks. Same as goniopora corals and pinnatus batfish and nurse sharks. The aquraium community wants to be responsible, despite the economics of it. This is where ethics beats economics. However, I am curious to see where this road leads with the hybrid centropyges. |
|
#47
09/06/2006, 08:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steven Pro- with you too- 100%. However, the situation you're describing is likely from inbreeding to prolong a "desireable" mutation, not hybridization. This too gets my hackles up- especially when people talk about them being a "different" species. Oh, no no no!! Siegfried and Roy would also talk about conservation of their endangered white tigers. They're just sisters bred to brothers bred to mothers bred to sons and so on. Like they dont have serious medical issues because iof it (and I'm not even talking about Roy!
 I know, bad taste.
|
|
#48
09/06/2006, 08:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
http://www.reef.org/exotic/index.html
__________________
I do not intend to tiptoe thru life only to arrive safely at death. Rick |
|
#49
09/06/2006, 10:22 AM
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
The amount of effort that Frank and his wife put into their business is unbelievable. People speak above as if he woke up one day and said "I'm going to create a Hawaiian resplendens today!". For every fish that Frank has available at RCT there are dozens behind the scenes that prove fruitless. When Frank does have larvae the schedule raising the fry when we spoke reminded me of when my now 1 year old boy was a newborn, around the clock... He's a fascinating man with a passion, using aquarium sales to fund his research and facility (which consists of his basement and garage in his perfectly modest house). If money were his mission as many imply above, he could use his education and smarts to make much more money with much less time invested elsewhere. Hybridization occurs very rarely in nature in Centropyge, usually where one species is very scarce and the other is common, and is that much tougher to recreate in captivity. Producing a captive raised hybrid is a tremendous advance in science and in Frank's research, and without going into detail, resulted from lots of work with other pairs. Should Frank destroy the young and not profit from these simply because they don't naturally occur and some people find objection to it? Frank is meticulous in documenting every step of the way and this success will go a long way in the eventual successes of naturally occurring hybrids. The profits made from this fish go to AN EXCELLENT CAUSE, not to a new Ferrari. It's very easy for people to critique and bash, yet these fish, the first produced in a while, will allow Frank to continue to support his research and modest living. That makes this worth it. Again he cannot just say "Fish produce!". He has a tremendous demand that he just cannot supply. Quote:
Quote:
  Quote:
Quote:
__________________
- John Attention to detail! Just say NO to detritus What is recommended to the novice and what experienced reefers do are two different things. |
|
#50
09/06/2006, 10:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
John- thanks for the reply. As you mentioned, no one has any issues with Franks abilities, devotion, or means of living. As with any business, you need to have capital to operate. I did not mean to imply that Frank is solely doing this to put a hot tub on his deck. I see how what I said could've been taken that way, so I do apologize to Frank and anyone else who felt I was out of line.
Perhaps you can help shed some light for me. How and why was this pair created? Was it to study the breeding habits of these species? Was it accidental? Personally, I do NOT think it is as difficult as you say to create artficial hybrids in captivity. In fact, I think it may be easier. As you stated, these fish hybridize in the wild naturally when there is a limited population of one species. So putting a male of one species and a female of another fails to replicate this how? These fish do not need huge groups to reproduce, as Frank has shown. Pairs will suffice. But as I mentioned, I fear my ignorance into the history of this pair is clouded. Were they put together to specifically breed? Secondly, perhaps you can tell me how creating these hybrids is a tremendous advance is science. I do not understand that. Whjat has been learned? How can this be applied to other species? I agree has been able to figure out a huge step in captive rasiing with centrpyge by cultivation of food sources, but how is it different with this pair than with a true pair of any centropyge species? Frank should not need to destroy these hybrids and not profit, but Frank shouldn't have done it in the first place in my mind. as I mentioned earlier, if it happened through ignorance, then I am appeasable. I have done many things through ignorance, and sometimes they even worked. That doesn't make it right, and that doesn't mean I can or should keep doing it that way. As for the IUCN list, I fear you are not looking at the whole issue. They are put on the list because they are solely a localized population, and ANY localized population of any animal is at risk, no matter how numerous they may appear. Passenger pigeons once numbered in the billions and were a rather localized species. In about 11 years they were wiped out completely. I know you are not arguing this, but I dont think it's as off base as you say. To argue the validity of inclusion on an endangered list to justify means of utilizing the species is a rather weka argument. I am not saying they cant be kept or bred in captivity, but that responsibility should merit them not being used to create novelties. In regards to cost issues- a wild flame angel costs about 60 or 70 bucks. How much does Frank charge? That is my point. I understand he is not gouging, and this is a reasonable cost for the effrot and product, but as Angel-fish said, sometimes economics will beat out ecologics. Once again, please understand, I hold RCT as a pioneer and truly reveolutionary facility for being able to accomplish what many thought was not possible. I just not agree that Frank has benefitted his research and reputation by creating these hybrids. |
|
|
Linear Mode
