No Flaming Permitted
- Thread starter Amber
- Start date
Flaming is useless comments that are directly insulting to the poster.
If somebody says 'I'm going to get 6 blood parrots for my 20 gallon tank':
A constructive post would explain how even one parrot is too big for this tank and they're territorial, blah blah blah.
A flame would be more like: "how can you expect 6 parrots to live like that you'll kill them you idiot"
If somebody says 'I'm going to get 6 blood parrots for my 20 gallon tank':
A constructive post would explain how even one parrot is too big for this tank and they're territorial, blah blah blah.
A flame would be more like: "how can you expect 6 parrots to live like that you'll kill them you idiot"
) 
GuppyDude
Stephen
i believe "no flameing" has be put on teh description as many fish keepers are a bit "touchy" about the whole cross breeding thing, and there used to be alot of argueing here that led to immature, violent threats.
Miss Dib Dabs
Loony.
Seriously? 
That's daft. Mutations in the gene pool are natural. The fact that some fish can cross breed means that they would probably do so in the wild, given half a chance. That'd be like objecting to people of different countries or skin colour interacting at that level. Far better that then too much interbreeding and ending up with so many weak and deformed young that the species itself is put at risk.
Hugs,
P.
That's daft. Mutations in the gene pool are natural. The fact that some fish can cross breed means that they would probably do so in the wild, given half a chance. That'd be like objecting to people of different countries or skin colour interacting at that level. Far better that then too much interbreeding and ending up with so many weak and deformed young that the species itself is put at risk. Hugs,
P.
Griz
Fish Herder
Flaming = netspeak for inflamatory.
pica_nuttalli
don't be a twit
Seriously?
Hugs,
P.
Sorry to burst your bubble but there are several flaws with the arguements you just presented. For a more direct explanation, I suggest you read the long thread FREE to good homes Mbuna (Ice blue x Kenyi) paying careful attention to the posts by FreddyK especially. Freddy is one of the members more strongly opposed to hybridization, but that doesn't make his arguements or information any less accurate.
There are many good reasons not[/i] to hybridize, especially as an amatuer. However for many uniformed or thoughtless people, the arguements against hybridization boil down to "don't play God"--some people use that as their only arguement.
These same people also tend to violently attack fishkeepers who own any sort of hybrid; Synirr, for example, would not be welcome on some boards because she rescued a sweetheart parrot. The facts that Synirr is a devoted betta fanatic, keeps her parrot with an oscar in an 80g tank, and is just overall an excellent fishkeeper would be completely lost on these people. If you saw any of the more irrational feeding-frenzies that occured in "Bettas" this summer, that's how some boards are towards hybrid keepers.
My personal stance is that hybrization is a complex topic and requires much consideration before attempting. I find nothing wrong with informed ownership hybrid fish, but its not something for everyone. I doubt that I would ever encourage someone to continue with hybridization that produced the first batch by accident. None of this gives me the right to attack someone's intellect, sexual orientation, or final destination in the afterlife because they disagree with me.
It also doesn't mean that I can't keep arguing with them until they give in and admit that I'm right. 
Establishing this area as a special place to discuss hybrid fish is a protection of the hybrid owners and those of us who enjoy chasing around the great debate on hybridization. It also helps ensure that the newbie with the parrotfish emergency won't be randomly attacked for owning his fish when he really needs to hear a way to keep it alive.
Miss Dib Dabs
Loony.
Hmmmm well I have to agree that breeding, in any circumstance, is not something to taken lightly. I never had any intention of hybridizing simply because I didn't think they would in the first place. It was merely on the actions of my male that made me wonder if they could or not, not because I wanted to cross breed. I'm still at early stages with regular breeding with some fish so wouldn't dream of doing something much more specialised for the forseeable future.
There are a great many good reasons not to hybridise and I understand them perfectly well. But fish can and do cross breed in the wild. I'm not suggesting people start gene splicing or trying impossible variations. Obviously.
But it is also the case that if the blood lines are kept 'pure' eventually you will end up with problems and inbreeding. Having witnessed it first hand it isn't nice. It's mutations within the gene pool that allow species to evolve and cope with the living enviroments.
Of course too much mutation will lead to just as many problems. Has to be a fine balance. The fact that nature gets it wrong on occassion means that when we start interfering we're more likely to do more harm than good. But one could then argue that the mere action of taking the animal out of it's natural enviroment is interference and changing the behaviours of the animal.
In short, no matter what we do, short of leaving them well alone and their enviroments then we have an impact on their lives. More so by keeping them in tanks in our homes. Same applies to all types of animals. It's a never ending debate that ppl far more intelligent and knowledgeable then myself having been involved in. In the end we all go by what we percieve as the right thing or, in other cases, what we want. And in consumerism, what will sell. More often the not, very little thought goes to the fish themselves. With the probably exception of the more regular keepers such as you or many members of these forums.
Anyway. I'm blathering pointlessly now. I have no problems with those that take prodigious care of their fish. I only get wound up when little to no thought is involved for the fishes wellbeing. I'll shut up now.
Hugs,
P.
There are a great many good reasons not to hybridise and I understand them perfectly well. But fish can and do cross breed in the wild. I'm not suggesting people start gene splicing or trying impossible variations. Obviously.
But it is also the case that if the blood lines are kept 'pure' eventually you will end up with problems and inbreeding. Having witnessed it first hand it isn't nice. It's mutations within the gene pool that allow species to evolve and cope with the living enviroments.
Of course too much mutation will lead to just as many problems. Has to be a fine balance. The fact that nature gets it wrong on occassion means that when we start interfering we're more likely to do more harm than good. But one could then argue that the mere action of taking the animal out of it's natural enviroment is interference and changing the behaviours of the animal.
In short, no matter what we do, short of leaving them well alone and their enviroments then we have an impact on their lives. More so by keeping them in tanks in our homes. Same applies to all types of animals. It's a never ending debate that ppl far more intelligent and knowledgeable then myself having been involved in. In the end we all go by what we percieve as the right thing or, in other cases, what we want. And in consumerism, what will sell. More often the not, very little thought goes to the fish themselves. With the probably exception of the more regular keepers such as you or many members of these forums.
Anyway. I'm blathering pointlessly now. I have no problems with those that take prodigious care of their fish. I only get wound up when little to no thought is involved for the fishes wellbeing. I'll shut up now.
Hugs,
P.
Well, I don't think this is the place for the debate to start again, but I do want to address this comment.
You are absolutely right. Cichlids do hybridize in the wild in some locations (mainly lake Malawi). In the wild though, it happens very infrequently - what we see is over thousands of years of evolution. There is such a thing as natural selection - every fish that has become a species from the crossbreeding of other species has proven it's worth in nature, surviving against all odds, and thus earns the right to it's own scientific lable. This is a touchy subject and comes down to no nothing more then personal theories (the reason it becomes an endless debate that usually deteriates to flaming), but hopefully you understand my point, even if you don't agree.
Miss Dib Dabs
Loony.
^No, I agree with that completely. 
Hugs,
P.
Hugs,
P.
jacob
Fish Fanatic
I feel that in some instances, hybridization (word?) is neccessary. Here in Washington, thinking it was a good idea, people plant what we call squawfish aka northern pikeminnow to reduce levels of some fish. Unfortunately, these fish eat every baby fish they can find, not making it good for bass and trout populations. To get rid of these fish, something was needed that can't breed so a certain number of these fish go in and when they are gone they are gone. Well, a hybrid was used. Technically the hybrid was a mix between a muskie and pike called a tiger muskie. These fish go in, do their duties, and plus more most likely. Anyway these hybrids are used as a tool to get rid of a potentially deadly fish to other fish populations. I do not disagree with hybrids however there are only some good points with them in my opinion and that is a strong one.
pica_nuttalli
don't be a twit
indeed, hybridization is not uniformly bad or good! a great example, jacob 
Similar threads
Most reactions
-
467 -
312 -
238 -
220 -
215 -
180 -
174 -
169 -
161 -
138 -
130 -
112 -
111 -
96 -
84