Another genetically altered fish

James0816

James0816

AC Members
Feb 14, 2007
3,413
3
38
so while at petco yesterday...i saw glow fish. nice red and orange ones. haven't seen them before and thought they were odd for a freshwater fish. so i asked about them. turns out they are a genetically altered zebra danio. science (this type) needs to stay out of the hobby! :rant2:
 
They have been around for quite a while. Most folks are pretty evenly split on them. It is a discussion that rarely remains civil. As long as folks keep buying them, they will be produced.
 
There is a very strong debate going on about these kinds of fish. Why is the genetic splicing bad? The fish actually aren't any less healthy, they aren't injured in the process as they are spliced as single egg cells and then led to free reproduce. It's better then the Painted Glass Fish, which are injected, in my opinion. I honestly wouldn't buy one just because they aren't colored naturally, but some 3yo would love them in a tank with neon sand and plants. I'd actually like to hear people's reasons on why they are against this...

Edit: Keep in mind, any hybrids or special fin breeds are also just genetic splicing, just not done in a test tube.
 
I have no problems if the fish that are healthy and happy.
If they are not happy and or healthy, then I dislike it. Doesn't matter if it came from natural breeding, hybridization or whatever else.
 
I thought it was kind of weird myself when I first heard about it. When I think about it though, maybe this will someday be an alternative to dying fish. If anything has the potential to get that crap out of our hobby then I'm all for it.
 
as far as i'm concerned, as long as it stays in the HOBBY and out of the wild, they're fine. no pain or suffering is inflicted upon any fish, and their lifespan is not affected.

the challenge though, is keeping them out of the hands of people who would release them into the wild.
 
J double R said:
as far as i'm concerned, as long as it stays in the HOBBY and out of the wild, they're fine. no pain or suffering is inflicted upon any fish, and their lifespan is not affected.

the challenge though, is keeping them out of the hands of people who would release them into the wild.
Click to expand...

Even if they did show up in the wild, they would be eaten immediately. no camouflage means short life. and because its genetic, it wouldn't be toxic. No harm done. Nature keeps things its own way.
 
spudjnr123 said:
Even if they did show up in the wild, they would be eaten immediately. no camouflage means short life. and because its genetic, it wouldn't be toxic. No harm done. Nature keeps things its own way.
Click to expand...

ideally, yes. but who's to say they wouldn't be introduced to an area where there was no predatory species, and they proliferate and crowd out the other non-predatory species of fish/aquatic life?
 
Okay, place them in a place with no predators. They are still completely dissimilar to local species. These species have such a large population already, it would be really hard to think that 2-3 fish could reproduce fast enough and efficiently enough to over take them. I realize danios are extremely hardy, and probably could take over an area slowly, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate. Releasing fish into the wild is just bad practice. Other problems can happen too, i.e. bacterial and parasite migrations, all kinds of issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
AquariaCentral.com
Top Bottom