gcalberto Posted July 30, 2020 Share Posted July 30, 2020 (edited) First of all, I would like to say that i'll express just my thoughts. I don't think there is an absolute truth to this topic. I would like to hear your opinions about fish that where bred by man to express different characteristics than what you find in the nature. I personally believe that as long as it doesn't affect the fish's it's fair game. Here are the different kinds of modifications that I can think of and my opinions, please share yours! Fish line bred for a different coloration: Perfectly fine! Fish genetically modified to have different colors (Glofish): As far as I know, they don't have any health issues because of that, so fine too. Veil tail fish: Also fine, as long as the tails aren't so large as to really hinder the fish's ability to swim and feed: Also OK (needs some extra care from the owner when choosing tank mates in order to avoid fin nippers. Fish not bred for a specific trait, but that are born with defects (Culls that are not culled). I'm all for that adopting "rants" mentality, as long as you don't actually let those fish breed. Hybrids: There are some which do tend to have a more fragile overall health, like parrot fish and flowerhorns. These i'm against. Otherwise I don't see a problem as long as they are sold as hybrids. Short body/balloon fish: As far as I know those tend to have health issues, due to their bodies being smaller and compressing their internal organs. Also some short body fish have really deformed spines and can't swim properly. I am against those as a general rule. Other various body deformities (i.e.: goldfish): I'm usually skeptical about those, especially in the kinds that are bound to have physical problems (telescope and bubble eye goldfish). Others may or may not have issues throughout their lives, like oranda goldfish when their cap grows over their eyes. In this case, although it might be possible to go to the store and choose some that are less likely to develop those problems, I personally can't help, but feel responsible to being and incentive to breed them in bulk so that I can choose the few that won't have health problems. Fish mechanically modified (i.e.: Love heart parrots): Now those I personally consider animal abuse and think they should be illegal. It's completely immoral to take a fish, cut off its tail, inject dye in its body the water it's in just so that people can have a "heart shaped" fish. I've recently seen love parrots in an online fish store and was horrified when I looked into them, and this is what made me stop and think about all this. What do you guys think? Do you agree/disagree with me? Why? Edited July 30, 2020 by gcalberto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RovingGinger Posted July 30, 2020 Share Posted July 30, 2020 I equate it to plants, and am fine with hybrids, crazy variants, etc, unless it negatively impacts the life of the fish, results in a high deformity rate or involves physical mutilation (I also don’t like dyed flowers, agates, or fish - but ymmv). Granted we aren’t grafting fish like little cacti, I would probably draw the line there too. I wasn’t sure how I felt about blood parrots until I picked one up on impulse from our local petco and now I’ll admit to being fully in love. I also have a soft spot for fat goldfish with ridiculously fancy fins, so I am biased in favor of man-made overall. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDukeAnumber1 Posted July 30, 2020 Share Posted July 30, 2020 IMO our differences of opinion here will lie in our objective or subjective moral groundings which I believe are outside the perview of this forum. Generally speaking I think it's very important to be consistent in our views, That being said, IMO nature is beautiful, brutal, and unforgiving. Wild fish are heavily pressured to be a specific color/shape/ect and nature cares about survival, not comfort. I personally wouldn't draw many lines when it comes man stepping in as the hand of nature and making genetic variants. And the nice thing is most consider fish to be the most beautiful when they are thriving and not suffering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandy Posted July 30, 2020 Share Posted July 30, 2020 I had to google love heart parrots. I wish that did not exist. A fish needs its tail. Removing it has crippled it for life. Surgery like that should be outlawed, IMO. Glow fish, while unattractive to me, are fine. The pigment genetically expressed doesn't hurt them. Selective breeding mostly doesn't bother me either. Fish that are heavily negatively impacted, unable to swim, breed, or feed without assistance, is where I draw the line, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sliceofnature Posted July 30, 2020 Share Posted July 30, 2020 Great topic @gcalberto. This is something that i feel very strongly about concerning dog breeds and have only recently asked myself these questions about fish breeding. Im looking forward to hearing other peoples opinions on this as well. Personally for me i draw the line when basic functions of the animal are impaired i.e. eating, swimming, sight, breeding and also when the breed becomes particularly prone to disease or sickness. If the animal is unhealthy or has trouble just surviving anymore its gone too far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shkote Posted July 30, 2020 Share Posted July 30, 2020 This is a sensitive subject for some, but I don't think it has to be. I had always been indifferent towards man made/hybrid fish. I knew that fish that were physically altered (cut, dipped, dyed, tattooed) were bad obviously, but I never realized people were so passionate about man made or mixed species, until I started reading about them. Like @RovingGinger, I got a Blood Parrot and admit they are really hard not to love. I had read a lot of crazy stories about them not being able to function or swim and eat correctly because they were hybrids. I suspect people saying those things never had one, or maybe there are some out there that struggle. Mine is a perfectly happy, functional, quirky fish and I can't really imagine not having one. I see no harm in man made fish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveSamsell Posted July 30, 2020 Share Posted July 30, 2020 A Comparison: Many things in "societal evolution" are not pure. As an example, look at the GMO's, antibiotics & many other chemicals added just to our world's food supply. I feel, just like the unknown long-term effects on fish with it's specific research & implementation, the other shoe still hasn't dropped on the effects on us, with our possible health concerns. Just because technology can accomplish a task, doesn't necessarily mean it was the best choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RovingGinger Posted July 30, 2020 Share Posted July 30, 2020 1 hour ago, DaveSamsell said: A Comparison: Many things in "societal evolution" are not pure. As an example, look at the GMO's, antibiotics & many other chemicals added just to our world's food supply. I feel, just like the unknown long-term effects on fish with it's specific research & implementation, the other shoe still hasn't dropped on the effects on us, with our possible health concerns. Just because technology can accomplish a task, doesn't necessarily mean it was the best choice. If we look back further, altering nature has always been a part of what we do. Landscapes, agriculture, corn, bonsai trees, potted plants, aquariums, animal domestication, pest control... all starting at least a few hundred years ago. Most of those were low-or-no tech changes (wiring a tree, moving trees and boulders, rotating crops, breeding corn, etc) but some have still been disastrous (introducing wildlife to Australia or Hawaii). I don't have a real moral line in the sand here myself but I think it's interesting that it seems to be in our nature to mess with nature. 🤷♀️ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveSamsell Posted July 30, 2020 Share Posted July 30, 2020 13 minutes ago, RovingGinger said: If we look back further, altering nature has always been a part of what we do. Landscapes, agriculture, corn, bonsai trees, potted plants, aquariums, animal domestication, pest control... all starting at least a few hundred years ago. Most of those were low-or-no tech changes (wiring a tree, moving trees and boulders, rotating crops, breeding corn, etc) but some have still been disastrous (introducing wildlife to Australia or Hawaii). I don't have a real moral line in the sand here myself but I think it's interesting that it seems to be in our nature to mess with nature. 🤷♀️ I agree. Many people try to play 'God' , at many levels. Unfortunately, money is often the driving factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael's Fish Room Posted July 30, 2020 Share Posted July 30, 2020 Great topic! I think as long as it doesn't interfere with the health or life span of the fish, it is fine. When I first saw glofish, I was like "No WAY!", but then after thinking about it, if it helps get people in the hobby, then it is good. (As long as the fish are healthy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted July 30, 2020 Share Posted July 30, 2020 8 hours ago, TheDukeAnumber1 said: Generally speaking I think it's very important to be consistent in our views, Unfortunately I have never been able to meet this standard and this point have given up even trying. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Smith Posted July 30, 2020 Share Posted July 30, 2020 I think one of those "impairments" to think about is also the genetic weakness that can often result, and the risk that can cause to the species if those variants get back into the main gene pool. I mean, GloFish turned zebra danios into a hard-to-keep fish! what gives?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted July 30, 2020 Share Posted July 30, 2020 4 minutes ago, Bill Smith said: I think one of those "impairments" to think about is also the genetic weakness that can often result, and the risk that can cause to the species if those variants get back into the main gene pool. I mean, GloFish turned zebra danios into a hard-to-keep fish! what gives?! Not much a risk of GloFish zebra danios going native again though right? Old Mr. Darwin would see to it that those were speedily weeded out of the gene pool. But sharks with frickin laser beams attached...that could be a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gcalberto Posted July 30, 2020 Author Share Posted July 30, 2020 4 minutes ago, Bill Smith said: I think one of those "impairments" to think about is also the genetic weakness that can often result, and the risk that can cause to the species if those variants get back into the main gene pool. I mean, GloFish turned zebra danios into a hard-to-keep fish! what gives?! I have thought about the risk of mad made fish getting back to nature and taint the genes from the wild population. I came to the conclusion that pretty much all man made fish have characteristics that would make them a lot less likely to survive in the nature anyway, so natural selection should take care of this issue. However, I never looked for any scientific studies to prove/disprove my theory, so I could be dead wrong in this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Smith Posted July 30, 2020 Share Posted July 30, 2020 (edited) Yeah, fair points both. Stands to reason! I guess maybe the bigger impact of that particular kind of modification is not so much to do with the gene pool, but what it does to the hobby. Hard-to-keep GloFish aimed at kids could become a barrier to those kids enjoying the hobby... Edited July 30, 2020 by Bill Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RovingGinger Posted July 30, 2020 Share Posted July 30, 2020 Man-made fish getting back to nature seems like less of an issue than just normal fish being released into the wrong environment. Giant plecos in lakes, etc. We've had a few giant goldfish turn up in the lakes of MN, including one that was estimated to be over 100 years old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gcalberto Posted July 30, 2020 Author Share Posted July 30, 2020 22 minutes ago, RovingGinger said: Man-made fish getting back to nature seems like less of an issue than just normal fish being released into the wrong environment. Giant plecos in lakes, etc. We've had a few giant goldfish turn up in the lakes of MN, including one that was estimated to be over 100 years old. True, exotic fish being released into the wild is a huge problem in and of itself, unfortunately Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveSamsell Posted July 30, 2020 Share Posted July 30, 2020 18 minutes ago, gcalberto said: True, exotic fish being released into the wild is a huge problem in and of itself, unfortunately Or should the title be "Man modified by fish"? 🤔 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now