I'm not going to argue the ethics of albinism in fish breeding, my main point is a true albino betta is incredibly rare. They have been documented twice, in 1927 and 1953, with an unconfirmed claim in 1994.
wow, talk about irresponsible. I can't believe the breeder would sell her in the first place. Albinos come with so many genetic problems, and most become blind. To breed for albinos is horrible, and it definately doesn't help the breed as a whole. Albino fish honestly should be considered culls, or be sold as pets.
OMG, I could not agree more!!!! It has no right to exist, and should be stoned to death in front of it's friends, family, and every peer group it has ever intersected with...
Yeesh, I sure hope your bettas are wild type, talking like that. Funny thing about ethical standards is how easily they can make people look hypocritical. Fact of the matter is, the albinism is an entirely natural genetic mutation, and one that serves the evolutionary purpose of spreading one's genes extremely well (at least in the captive setting). This fish's "defect" as you view it, has actually won it much better care than most of it's brood mates, I am sure. As such, it's albinism is an evolutionary advantage given it's current situation. Enjoy living up to your own standards, JK. I for one have no interest in such high minded rhetoric, especially when it almost always ends with someone putting their foot squarely down their own throats.
Would a fish with a severly bent spine that occured as a genetic mutation be sold for 2,000... would the breeder pretty much say "Look at this awesome fish, it has a rare medical condition, you'll love it. It's worth a fortune, and it's show quality and everything"... Would it be a cull, or be adopted out? Probably
I understand where you are going with this, and I understand that yes, this fish will probably receive amazing care (If someone decides to spend a small fortune on what may just become a sick fish). I understand betta splendens in general can hindered by their extremely long tails, and in some points of views the long tails, bright colors, and aggression can be defects, but if bred correctly, it is not.
Unless this breeder is a freaking genius who has figured out how to breed albino bettas but make sure they won't have other genetic issues that will pop up over the months/years, then chances are the bettas are going to have worse issues than long fins.
Sploke said:Not necessarily....do a search for short-bodied cichlids or short-bodied bichirs. For that matter, look at some of those crazy fancy goldfish. Those are also random (or selectively bread, in the case of orandas, ryukins, etc) genetic mutations that people pass off as unique, show-quality, and worth a fortune. Or, look at genetically mutated turtles born with two heads. They appear periodically, it is documented that they don't survive very long, yet any time you see one for sale its going to be for an exorbitant price.
Sploke said:This downside is well documented in any species that is heavily selectively bred for certain characteristics. It is not unique to fish; many animals that are bred for certain (usually aesthetic, but not always) traits often end up with genetic health problems as a result. Certain dog and horse breeds are the first that come to mind.
Sploke said:So you're saying that selectively breeding for long tails, which hinder the fish's movement, if "bred correctly" is not a problem? I'm not sure I understand you here.
Ah, but even the ones with more modest long finnage have more difficulty getting around than those with natural fin types. At the end of the day, even you, with all your "concern" for the lives of the poor bettas, are still asking those fish to trade quality of life for little more than your aesthetic enjoyment. As has been said many times, it is up to each of us to draw our own lines in the sand, and be the arbiters of what we personally can live with. What is definitely wrong however, is moral posturing over how this mutation affects quality of life, while being perfectly fine with the progeny of other mutants who's traits also affect quality of life.
I was born with very poor eyesight. Should I remove myself from the gene pool now, and do everyone a favor? God forbid I send my detrimental genetics on to another generation of unsuspecting progeny.
What is definitely wrong however, is moral posturing over how this mutation affects quality of life, while being perfectly fine with the progeny of other mutants who's traits also affect quality of life."