FishProfiles.com Message Forums

I've just returned from browsing the Practical Fishkeeping website (I'm a subscriber), where the latest poll has asked the question, "Should breeders create fancy strains to increase sales?"

It should come as no surprise to those among the FPilians that know me well, that I voted 'no'. For the newcomers, who are wondering why I voted 'no', here is my answer.

Take a look at the thousands of fish species that Nature has provided us with. From the Angel Fish to the naturally occurring Venezuelan Ram, through the Cardinal Tetra to the glories of the reef, Nature has provided us with an impressive and resplendent array of beauty that should, by rights, leave anyone with eyes to see and a soul to appreciate literally trembling in awe. Can anyone here honestly say that when they first saw a Venezeulan Ram, in natural colouration, they weren't utterly trasnfixed by its iridescent jewelled splendour? Or that fishes such as Paracyprichromis nigripinnis from Lake Tanganyika are breathtaking to behold?

All in all, I'd say that Nature has bestowed upon us a glittering array of treasures that should, by rights, be more than enough to satisfy even the most rarefied aesthetic sense. Does anyone here doubt for one moment that, for example, Centropyge Dwarf Angelfishes from the coral reefs of the world, or the utterly incandescent Mirolabrichthys tuka, the aptly named Purple Queen, are absolute pinnacles of piscine glory?

Lamentably, however, there are some breeders, driven by a particularly distatesful combination of commercial myopia and MTV-mentality ennui, who seem to think that the way forward is to turn out what I can only describe as 'designer fishes'.

That very term - 'designer fishes' - should result in shudders of abhorrence in sensitive fishkeepers everywhere. The legacy of Man's past tinkering with all manner of creatures in pursuit of supposedly 'better' specimens, as judged by a set of criteria that owe more to the ephemera of fashion than to lasting values, is chequered to put it mildly. Anyone who has a passing familiarity with pedigree dogs will know, for example, that some breeds possess their own genetic weaknesses, resulting from the unwise and in some cases plain bad application of science and husbandry in pursuit of conformity to a blueprint to the exclusion of other concerns. The same woes are starting to appear among some of our fishes - Flowerhorns being a classic example - and I for one consider it repugnant that we humans should be breeding other creatures that possess inherent faults that impinge upon both the quality of life and the lifespan of those creatures.

Let me apply this argument elsewhere. Let us imagine, for one moment, that in a fanfare of advertising publicity, I announce the existence of a company that promises to produce 'designer women'. Now the idea that I (even aided by a battery of geneticists) could improve upon Scarlet Johanssen should evoke, in equal measure, hoots of derisive laughter and a fair degree of moral outrage. One does not need the pen of the science fiction author Stanislaw Lem to see where that little exercise would end up if - and what a dark day that would be - this exercise ever became reality. You can imagine the advertising - "Not satisfied with your present wife? Let us produce a hottie tailor made for YOU!"

Just as we have no need for 'designer women' (and the female members of this Board should be gnashing their teeth in fulminating rage at the very thought), we don't need 'designer fishes'. Certainly not when the entire exercise is driven by a lurid combination of the accountancy mentality and the ethics of the catwalk. After all, look what happens to last year's fashions - discarded with as much forethought as discarding a sweet wrapper. Do we want to discard living creatures in the same manner, just because they're no longer the 'hot ticket'?

Nature has had a 400 million year head start on us. The idea that we can do better in 10 years should be laughable. We don't need to tinker with living creatures for ephemeral amusement, and the arrogance that asserts otherwise will, in due course, be woefully and wonderfully surprised. Just as, in the not too distant past, that same arrogance on the part of despots who abrogated to themselves the right to reshape people to fit a particular mould was woefully and wonderfully surprised.

Now there's a New Year resolution for you. Be satisfied with what Nature has provided, and grateful for her bounty.

And with that, I shall let you all peruse my 'editorial piece' and dwell upon my polemic ...


Last edited by Calilasseia at 31-Dec-2005 20:24

Panda Catfish fan and keeper/breeder since Christmas 2002

I have to totally agree with you on that one, cali!

It's kinda like dying fish to do the same thing... but a lot less painful

I can see selective breeding being good for things other than sales. For example, betta fighting in Thailand--they're after more than just pretty colors. But selectively breeding fish to create fancy strains w/nifty colors is dumb, IMO

IMO, tail shape is something totally different... I love DT, CT, and HM bettas Yea, there's a lot of really cool looking fish out there, but nifty tail shapes are something that's really different, and can't be found in nature (not that I know of, at least)

I only managed to browse through the article, but anything with Scarlet Johanssen in it is an instant win.

mixed opinions. personally, my opinion wont matter to the people breeding the fish. i am perfectly satisfied with the beauty and colors of the fish we have. thousands of species...more than enough for an aquarist.

but, my only hope is that if they do selectively breed that they will do it without it resulting in genetic side effects. my experience with fancy bred fish has been that they tend to be e to illness and infection, or other health problems, much the same as dyed fish.

dunno.

Damn fine article there cal, I wholeheartedly agree.But then you already knew that

As if to reinforce my point, look what someone has done ...

Scroll down a bit and you'll find that someone in Indonesia has decided that Panda Corys aren't 'good enough' as they are ... sigh ...

That poor fish looks as if it's saying "What did I do to deserve this?" ...

My Pandas are organising a protest march as I type this ...


Panda Catfish fan and keeper/breeder since Christmas 2002

Blegh. How ugly.

______________
Cake or death?

Panda's are very beautiful as they are. I agree with you Cali & in Malta we are trying to do something about Dyed Fish that are being sold in LFS.



http://uk.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/s8xi5heh/my_photos
http://www.geocities.com/s8xi5heh/classic_blue.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/buzaqq/
http://www.deathbydyeing.org/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/corydoras/
Member of the Malta Aquarist Society - 1970.
http://www.maltaaquarist.com

If that's the case Jason, then more power to your elbow over in Malta ... perhaps you can teach the rest of the world an object lesson in the process!


Panda Catfish fan and keeper/breeder since Christmas 2002

I like MTV

But I agree, Fish should just evolve naturally

Id hate to be a fish Having to breed all the time Just to create beutifull children ]

Hopefully we will start our campaign very soon, by educating all the Malta Aquarist Society Members, by doing talks & give them information in our monthly magazine & then pass on to LFS & hope that they will see the fish side of the problem.



http://uk.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/s8xi5heh/my_photos
http://www.geocities.com/s8xi5heh/classic_blue.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/buzaqq/
http://www.deathbydyeing.org/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/corydoras/
Member of the Malta Aquarist Society - 1970.
http://www.maltaaquarist.com