FishProfiles.com Message Forums

I wasn't sure where to put this, and, given that the content will be in parts more than a little polemical, I suspect that the Recovery Room will be the best place for this post, unless someone decides to move it into one of the 'proper' fish related forums. For a post devoted to fish issues, the Recovery Room may seem an unusual choice, but the subject matter will arouse some strong emotions among those who read it. Hopefully this post will not incite any flame wars, but I warn my readers beforehand that some of the views expressed here will be done so resolutely: no-one will be left in any doubt where I stand on some matters.

This post was inspired by a perusal through one of my back numbers of Today's Fishkeeper, in particular the readers' points of view section headed by Mills (February 2004 issue, pp 44-45). This column contained some statements that should make responsible fishkeepers react in much the same way as I did - namely, vent steam from the ears. The reasons will become apparent all too soon.

Mankind has, let us say, a somewhat chequered history with respect to planetary husbandry. On some occasions, humans have done pretty well. On others, considerably less so. And, the world of fishkeeping has not escaped the human propensity for foul-ups, both of the well-intentioned but ignorant variety, and the more mercenary sort motivated by a blinkered and obsessive pursuit of the bottom line at the expense of any other considerations. For example, the use of fishes such as Gambusia for mosquito control was no doubt given some long, hard thought prior to its implementation by the United Nations, motivated by a genuine humanitarian desire to relieve the colossal suffering inflicted upon the Third World by malaria each year. Those like myself who have the good fortune to live in a malaria-free country would doutbless agree that tackling this issue with at least some ecologically based thinking, is preferable to the mass use of insecticides such as DDT, whose consequences became all too readily apparent in the 1960s and 1970s. The idea of using a fish to devour millions of potential mosquitoes in the larval stage, before they become adult and go on to spread infection far and wide among humans, seemed like a good idea at the time: no dangerous toxins unleashed in the environment, and of course, the fish would be efficient at their task, because that's how they make their living. As I said in a previous post on this Board on the subject of snail control, using a fish that eats the problem snails is a smarter solution than adding toxic chemicals, and an analogous thought probably occurred to those planning mosquito control using Gambusia.

But, this brings us to the vexed question of alien introductions. Residents of Florida will have a sheaf of papers full of anecdotes of their own in this regard. Even discounting the hyperbolic press cuttings accusing the Walking Catfish, Clarias batrachus, of leaping out of the water and swallowing pet dogs whole, the simple fact is that alien introductions into a biotope have the potential to unbalance that biotope. Among the sadder instances of this have been the imperilment of the American Desert Pupfishes of the Genus Cyprinodon, at least one species of which has become so endangered as a result of careless dumping of unwanted aquarium tropicals into its waters, that those waters have become incorporated into a military base to protect them. It is safe to say that humans have messed up in a big way, if a fish needs to be guarded 24 hours a day by armed soldiers and mechanised infantry in order to halt its slide toward extinction. Even more lamentable, particularly from the standpoint of those fishes involved, has been the case of Lake Victoria, which has played host to a Man-made extinction of something like 300 species of Haplochromine Cichlid. One of these, named Haplochromis macrognathus, is now known only from preserved museum specimens. Whoever thought introducing Nile Perch into those waters in in need of educating with a big stick. And, while the motives of the UN personnel involved were honourable, using Gambusia to control mosquitoes in alien waters has proven to be less than the optimal solution hoped for. While armchair hindsight is a wonderful thing, it should have occurred to those experts that this idea contained its own potential ecological time bomb, because past precedent with respect to alien species introductions around the world already existed. Ask Australians whether they think having rabbits in their country is a good idea. Likewise, mink do not belong in the UK, but they are here now, and causing their own collection of headaches after so-called 'animal rights' protesters turned them loose from fur farms.

Now, however, I read in the above-cited magazine column that Singapore is facing its own alien introduction headache. In the form of unwanted Flower Horns. Originally commanding high prices as supposed 'Feng Shui' fish, the Flower Horns have lately suffered a less than happy downturn in their popularity. Part of the problem being that ill-conceived experiments to breed fishes with impossible combinations of features has led to the appearance of some fairly hideous malformations among the offspring of these experiments, which have then been dumped in streams, rivers and reservoirs. This despite the presence of severe criminal penalties for such actions. One Singaporean dealer, who regularly receives dumped Flower Horns in buckets left outside her store overnight, said the following:

Nobody wants them anymore. They're being chucked into dustbins like those unwanted babies in China.

This says an awful lot about our species, doesn't it?

Now I am not a fan of Flower Horns. Why bother turning out a weird mutant hybrid when there are something like 1,300 Cichlid species available from Nature? Anyone who thinks that Nature needs 'improving upon' obviously hasn't seen Aulonocara species in full breeding dress, or the little jewel that is Papiliochromis ramirezi. For crying out loud, natural colour scheme Venezuelan Rams are up there with Centropyge marine Angels in the beauty stakes! Who needs to create a grotesque teratomic mutant when we already have these awaiting an appreciative eye?

Then of course, we have the infamous 'Disco Fish'. Take a perfectly good, healthy Chanda lala Glassfish, then subject it to traumatising abuse, just so someone can fill a tank full of them bearing garish colours, with a suitably tacky name attached, all the better to dangle like trinkets before the paid-up members of the channel zapper culture of the age, at an inflated price of course. Someone should again educate those responsible with a large stick, and tell them that a fish is a sensitive living creature, and not a canvas for some warped Trinny & Susannah makeover project. What next? Nuchal hump implants for Midas Cichlids that aren't up to scratch? Still, it would be in keeping with the way in which women are constantly subject to psychological warfare along the lines of "Oh, if you can't slip into a size 8 dress and don't have a face that looks good on a celebrity magazine cover, then you're worthless ...". If we're capable of doing that to our fellow humans, then it's no surprise that the fish are in for a rough ride. Taking a tangential diversion for a moment, I've seen nine year olds with anorexia trying to live up to impossible images of perfection, brainwashed into believing that they have no intrinsic worth except as clothes hangers for the 'right' labels, and that as they grow older, fulfilment comes from being a 'babe' getting her kit off in the pages of Loaded.

Basically, we don't need 'designer' organisms. Nature has done a marvellous job over 3½ billion years covering this planet with a wealth of diverse, exotic and fascinating creatures that should leave any half-way decent sensitive soul singing with delight at their existence. Anyone who tells me that a Royal Empress Angel somehow 'isn't good enough' belongs in the playpen awaiting mental potty training while the grown-ups appreciate it for the wonder that it is. In the same magazine I've cited above, there's a wonderful picture of a fish I've written a post about, a full-page photo of the Orange Spotted Sunfish, Lepomis humilis. It may have been given the name humilis, but before it, it's us that should show a little humility: look at this and become convinced that Centrarchid Sunfishes really are temperate America's version of the Cichlids farther south, because this thing is gorgeous. Who needs some airbrushed freak when we have this waiting and practically begging for someone to come and marvel at it? Who needs abused and tattooed Corys when there's 200 perfectly adorable natural ones to choose from, including my utterly lovable Pandas?

Right. Now that I've vented some steam, I'll let you all read it






Last edited by Fallout at 28-Jan-2005 19:25

Panda Catfish fan and keeper/breeder since Christmas 2002

Very well worded

In fact, the whole thing was. I just never seem to get the right level of vitriol when writing polemics, and it comes out all wrong!

Last edited by Fallout at 28-Jan-2005 19:26

-------------------------------------------------
I like to think that whoever designed marine life was thinking of it as basically an entertainment medium. That would explain some of the things down there, some of the unearthly biological contraptions

I agree 100%, in fact, I wrote a 6 page English 102 essay about this topic last year. Too bad I didn't have you as a refrence.

Anyway, great write up.

OK, i agree that we go to far, but where is the line?

is it at goldfish? because lets face it, they are severely mucked around, but do we dislike the poor celestial, or go all the way back to the fantail?

Dogs? not thought of as a designer dog, but anyone who has ever tried to breed chihuahua or some of the other boofy headed dogs knows that they more often than not nead a C section for birthing because their birth canal cannot physically fit the head size! what are we thinking continuing to breed the things???

What about guppies? should we forego colour strains? or should we allow colour strains but ban the large tails? or should we allow both and just make the body bigger? or should we cull all current fancy guppies because they must be uncomfortable?



Its such a hard area. So much lies with individuals ethics and if they can see the big picture or not.



I will stand up here and now and say that i'm moving onto short-tailed bettas and wild species, as i am getting very upset at the length of the tails.
they are very heavy for the fish to carry, and its depressing to see the difference in aging from a short tail to a long tail, the short tails seem far far happier, and well, they don't need the extra tail lenth to be a good pet to me, so why should i impose it on them?
This is where my ethics kick in. not at colours or strains, but at comfort and well-being. I'm STARTING to become a little more active when it comes to preserving species (not interbreeding betta species and not having thai farmers release fancies into the waterways so the original is lost but that isn't that bad, as the fish themselves are not in any distress.

And the flowerhorn thing... they are common for culling bettas and as a food fish now. How bizarre hey?



Last edited by Callatya at 31-Jan-2005 11:52

For animals, the entire universe has been neatly divided into things to (a) mate with, (b) eat, (c) run away from, and (d) rocks. - Terry Pratchett