F What?

[longstocking]

I have in the past gotten involved into these conversations. Not so much in the past few years...

Personally, I would rather a TR fish over wild. The problem for me and others is that sometimes the fish isn't available as TR. So I sometimes buy wilds.

Another problem I see is that true scientists don't understand our system or know about it. Some of them are in the hobby. So IMO that is actually where some of the problem lies. two groups of people in the hobby using two different systems.

I actually had to explain it to a friend of mine.... to a scientist it doesn't make any sense :lol:

 

[DiscusnAfricans]

I have in the past gotten involved into these conversations. Not so much in the past few years...

Personally, I would rather a TR fish over wild. The problem for me and others is that sometimes the fish isn't available as TR. So I sometimes buy wilds.

This is the second forum I started a similar conversation about. On both forums, I was hoping to hear from the people who kept WC fish or line bred fish, but it seems like they are the last people to offer an opinion.

I think those people believe that this topic has a negative connotation towards keeping wild caught fish. That is not the case. I keep a few wild caught fish for the same reasons mentioned above. I'm more curious to hear the contrasting opinions of what people prefer.

I'm sure there are people that own wild caught fish that don't realize it. I didn't know until a few years ago that the majority of cardinal tetras found in the hobby (including LFS and box stores like pet smart) are wild caught. Its interesting to learn that its cheaper to collect the fish and ship them across the world than it is to captively breed them. Stores can sell them for a couple of dollars a piece because they can be collected in the thousands due to their reproductive fecundity.

That also goes back to the cost vs. value debate. Its amazing the percentage of the cost of a wild caught fish that actually represents the cost it takes to catch them. I don't know the exact figure but I believe less than 10% of the cost of a wild caught fish actually goes to the person who caught it. Shipping costs, import/export fees, and profit account for the majority of the cost.

 

[mrkillie]

mrkillie: Someone just said it one day and it caught on, but it doesn't make it right.

Avatar: but the bottom line is that on this one, "the train has done left the station and it's not coming back".

Pretty much what I said, but thanks for the long explanation anyway. Still don't make it right, and I will always refer to wild caught fish the proper way, as wild caught.

 

[Avatar]

Well then...

...to respond to the original intent of the question: I personally like captive bred fish because -

- their acquisition generally doesn't run as much risk of introducing weird pathogens/parasites into my tanks;

- they are generally far better adapted to tank conditions and less likely to live in abject terror the rest of their lives meaning I get to see a lot more of them in my tanks;

- for the species I like they're generally far less expensive;

- there's zero ecological liability or unresolved wonder/concern regarding consequences of capture on the natural environment;

- I like to reward/reinforce folks/efforts investing the time and energy required to raise viable offspring;

- I get to share with (and 'select') for folks that are really into it.

"To own is human, to spawn divine".

 

[illpoet]

Its interesting to learn that its cheaper to collect the fish and ship them across the world than it is to captively breed them.

when i first got into the hobby in the early 80's i was told that all common pleco's were wild caught bc they were impossible to captive breed. i don't know if this was true back then (i was 8 and pretty gullible). But i know that plecos are some of the easier species to breed now. Also things like peacocks either didn't exist at the lfs or were very rare and expensive. now you can get them inexpensively and everywhere. THis is the result of ppl who know what they are doing breeding wild specimans. i still prefer tank raised but understand completely when it comes to hard to find fish. with dedicated breeders acquiring wc specimans for breeding it opens the door to future species being stronger/more available for the aquarium.

 

[DiscusnAfricans]

who know what they are doing[/I] breeding wild specimans.
with dedicated breeders acquiring wc specimans for breeding it opens the door to future species being stronger/more available for the aquarium.

I know there are SOME plecos that are very easy to breed, but I think the majority of plecos are still imported if you discount bristlenose, gibbiceps, and clown plecos. These are the only types I see in most LFS that can be purchased small and inexpensive. There are still a lot of undescribed plecos that are beginning to be bred, and new species being discovered. Hobbyists are just beginning to see the production of available line-bred species such as the calico, long-fin, and various color morphs such as super red varieties of a few species.

There are many people trying to breed the L-046 zebra plecos, but I wouldn't say they're easy to breed if F1 juveniles are still going for over $100 each. "Knowing what you are doing" can only come from previous experience or research into other people's experience. I'd say a few people know what they are doing, and the rest are trying to model their practices if possible. I agree breeding wild specimens will lead to greater availability of tank raised fish to the hobby, and its especially important for regions where the fish are in danger of extinction from outside sources.

 

[longstocking]

I think the reason some of the people that keep WC don't chime in is that this conversation happens a lot. Now, a few years ago it would end up in a nasty argument on most forums. I knew CCA wouldn't go that way so I joined in. The way these posts have gone in the past... old timers don't like to chime in for the most part.

One valid point is that New World species gene diversity is much great than Old World gene diversity... at least from what I have read. So, new blood does need to be brought in from time to time with Old World's... or you can end up with deformed fry. Perfect example is sand sifters. For some reason, this group of fish deforms badly unless you mix up the blood lines. Now it doesn't have to be wild.... it could just be another source.

 

[UNCLERUCKUS]

THIS IS ONE OF THOSE TOPICS LIKE RELIGION...NOBODY IS RIGHT AND NOBODY WINS.

 

[verbal]

THIS IS ONE OF THOSE TOPICS LIKE RELIGION...NOBODY IS RIGHT AND NOBODY WINS.

except Charlie Sheen he is always winning lol

 

[verbal]

One valid point is that New World species gene diversity is much great than Old World gene diversity... at least from what I have read. So, new blood does need to be brought in from time to time with Old World's... or you can end up with deformed fry. Perfect example is sand sifters. For some reason, this group of fish deforms badly unless you mix up the blood lines. Now it doesn't have to be wild.... it could just be another source.

With harem breeding species, it seems that a combination of Wild males and Tank Raised females could provide a lot of benefits of both. If you take the males only, the impact to the wild population is less. Also since males will breed more, they increase the genetic diversity of captive stock with fewer fish collected.

 

[Avatar]

I think the reason some of the people that keep WC don't chime in is that this conversation happens a lot. Now, a few years ago it would end up in a nasty argument on most forums. I knew CCA wouldn't go that way so I joined in. The way these posts have gone in the past... old timers don't like to chime in for the most part.

One valid point is that New World species gene diversity is much great than Old World gene diversity... at least from what I have read. So, new blood does need to be brought in from time to time with Old World's... or you can end up with deformed fry. Perfect example is sand sifters. For some reason, this group of fish deforms badly unless you mix up the blood lines. Now it doesn't have to be wild.... it could just be another source.

Due to a massive drought, many of the Rift Lake species are derived one or two progenitor species that rapidly diversified within what is from an evolutionary standpoint an extremely brief timeframe (see: http://www.deccanherald.com/content/156509/megadrought-demystified.html).

For that level of speciation to occur, these 'new' species were basically inbred to begin with as there's really no other way to credibly explain the high degree of apparent diversity within such a short period of time except through isolation/compounding of genes (read as 'inbreeding') among initially limited numbers/groups of individuals. Since the Amazon didn't similarly require colonization/re-population from an initially limited number of species (at least not in recent geological times), there's far greater resident genetic variation within and among species which may have a great deal to do with tolerance among New World species to inbreeding.

Thus do I imagine.

 

[Avatar]

Not bad.

With harem breeding species, it seems that a combination of Wild males and Tank Raised females could provide a lot of benefits of both. If you take the males only, the impact to the wild population is less. Also since males will breed more, they increase the genetic diversity of captive stock with fewer fish collected.

Makes sense, although I don't really understand what you men by "since males will breed more".

 

[DiscusnAfricans]

The topic of genetic diversity and the timeframes of evolution for New World vs. Old World is very interesting. I can't remember where I read it, but the rift lakes used to be one common body of water and all of the rpesent day cichlids all evolved from one common ancestor.

I'm interested to see what happens when they are able to export from countries that don't allow exporting at the moment. Currently the Congo and Brazil have a lot of restrictions on what can be exported and hopefully species will not be lost in the meantime.

 

[verbal]

Makes sense, although I don't really understand what you men by "since males will breed more".

Since the male breeds with multiple females, he will contribute more genetic material to the population than a single female.

 

[Avatar]

Yes and no...

...still the same amount as a male from any other source - more not being the same as different - but relatively speaking more than any one female assuming multiple spawns. In terms of difference, not necessarily as much as multiple females which are not genetically identical even if they come form the same parents, but more difference than any single male or female from the captive stock.

Good idea but think I'm ready for a new topic.

 

[SubMariner]

...to respond to the original intent of the question: I personally like captive bred fish because -

- their acquisition generally doesn't run as much risk of introducing weird pathogens/parasites into my tanks;

- they are generally far better adapted to tank conditions and less likely to live in abject terror the rest of their lives meaning I get to see a lot more of them in my tanks;

- for the species I like they're generally far less expensive;

- there's zero ecological liability or unresolved wonder/concern regarding consequences of capture on the natural environment;

- I like to reward/reinforce folks/efforts investing the time and energy required to raise viable offspring;

- I get to share with (and 'select') for folks that are really into it.

"To own is human, to spawn divine".

I concur with Sam on this one...He's right on the money!

Nevertheless, my preference will always be F1's and F2's and even F12's if I know their provenance like Matt had stated.

 

[SubMariner]

Excellent discussion while it lasted...

 

[dogofwar]

We're mixing quite a few issues together here...but

I believe that the focus on vendors labeling fish "wild" and "F1" is both in reaction to the desires of hobbyists (a small % of people who buy aquarium fish) wanting "pure" fish and the opportunity to sell these fish at a premium.

The problem is that simply labeling fish "wild" or "F1" shouldn't be good enough in the eyes of prospective purchasers. I don't believe that fish are wild or F1 if there isn't clear provenance to the wild. Collection locations should make sense, both in name and legality. If a fish is really difficult to capture in the wild (raging rapids, extremely rural location...the stuff that TFH articles are made of), then there should be some explanation. In other words, if someone is selling wild fish (or alleged descendents of wild fish), the more tansparency the better...

There are lots of good reasons to keep wild fish (and even more to keep tank raised ones with provenance to wild fish). Some fish just aren't available in the hobby as tank raised fish. I do my best to breed and distribute wild fish that I own or collect (And make sure that they're properly labeled...). And I won't buy fish that come from places that are protected or I believe have been smuggled. The inability of a 3rd world country to prevent destruction of habitats or illegal exports of its wildlife doesn't make exports of its fish legal.

This brings me to my final point:

One of the great values of a club like ours is in education. Through wild fish (and fish with a provenance to the wild), I feel like I have a connection to that place. To have a fish that is threatened or endangered in the wild, I hope, makes us want to learn more about the fish, its habitat, etc: WHY the fish is endangered...and what we can do to have an impact.

There is also a great opportunity to educate on collecting techniques and practices that don't adversly impact local populations. I believe that developing local ecotourism businesses is a great way to support local economies and help governments understand that fish hobbyists CAN be a force for positivity (vs. theft, hoarding, habitat destruction, etc.).

Fish clubs can also be great sources of education around building the skills to breed and maintain quality stock over many generations. The more that we can demonstrate that F5 fish are good quality fish, the less that there will be a perceived need to only keep wild or F1 fish.

Sorry to ramble,
Matt

 

[George]

Well I am very late to this thread but I have sold some of you F1 Apisto "Pevas Blues". By F1 I meant that they were wild caught in my basement as opposed to their parents who were wild caught in the tributaries of the Amazon. It was a devil of a time over many trips and many years to get the F0s to breed.

The F1s have proven easy to breed. Did I feel good finally getting the F0s (sorry to use this term that obviously insults some of our more studious members) to breed finally. You BET. Do I wish that someone had given me F1s so I would have an eaier time? You BET. Genuine F0s are often less tolerant of aquarium conditions and I guess the person selling F1s wants you to be aware of this. They may have actually accomplished something. Should you pay for it? I do not think so. Just say thanks.

Now I am putting some sucker mouth cats in tomorrow's auction that are wild caught (F0). The significance here is that they are hard to identify and may even be unique. Do I expect you to pay a bunch for that? Not really, but it would be OK if you did. I like money as well as the next guy.

When I go to Peru, the reason I bring home F0s is not that I have wild caught fish just like everyone else's F99s. I have unique fish that you cannot buy - PERIOD. To me, that is F0 and maybe I am sick but that is fun.

Come with me summer of 2012 and you can bring home REAL F0s.

George

 

[Avatar]

I'll go if we're in range of these:

- in all their 4"-5" girth and glory or some of their giant shovel-nosed kin. What do you say?

You can relax George - it's guys like you that make the rest of look good (by association - not comparison ). In technical parlance - I believe you qualify as the "real deal".

Corydoras 'super' arcuatus