Balloon Red Eye Tetras

Goldfish color mutations have been in domestication for close to 2000 years now. The history of double tail and body mutations goes back about 700 years. Without them, the aquarium hobby as we know it today simply would not exist. Honestly I don't see what the ethical issue is with balloon fish is. They are natural mutations that we just happened to select for. Framed in that way, the fact that the mutation is appealing to some actually means that it facilitates the forward movement of the genetic line and ultimately the species itself. If one is to argue based on the health issues that come with the mutation, then long finned fish, many black livebearers, and basically albino everything goes out the window too. Not liking the aesthetics of balloon fish is one thing, but the vast majority of fishkeepers cannot ethically oppose naturally mutated balloon fish without suffering from some degree of hypocrisy. Phew. Rant over.
 
Inka4040 said:
Goldfish color mutations have been in domestication for close to 2000 years now. The history of double tail and body mutations goes back about 700 years. Without them, the aquarium hobby as we know it today simply would not exist. Honestly I don't see what the ethical issue is with balloon fish is. They are natural mutations that we just happened to select for. Framed in that way, the fact that the mutation is appealing to some actually means that it facilitates the forward movement of the genetic line and ultimately the species itself. If one is to argue based on the health issues that come with the mutation, then long finned fish, many black livebearers, and basically albino everything goes out the window too. Not liking the aesthetics of balloon fish is one thing, but the vast majority of fishkeepers cannot ethically oppose naturally mutated balloon fish without suffering from some degree of hypocrisy. Phew. Rant over.
Click to expand...

Good point but there is some difference between color morphs and deformed bodies.

Colors (usually) don't cause harm to the fish and don't shorten it's lifespan. This is the same (as far as we know) for longfin fish.

I agree that the aquarium hobby may not have been created without these fish but that doesn't mean we cannot change the hobby.

These fish aren't always natural mutations. Goldfish for example were created by selecting shorter, fatter fish from a population and breeding them. This is then repeated over and over creating fish that would never be able to survive in the wild thus, creating a gene pool that cannot ever help the species if the wild populations were to go extinct.

Basiclt, IMO, if a fish at a store cannot ever survive in the wild, it shouldn't be brought home to my tank. This includes balloon mollies, platies, tetras, rams, cons and blood parrots.
 
Sorry Razzle, but I'm gonna have to disagree with you on all counts. First off, the extra weight associated with veil finnage greatly decreases mobility, and causes the fish to have to expend much more energy to move compared to a short finned fish. Albinism tends to greatly increase the risk for blindness in animals as well as people, and black in xiphophorus is actually produced by cancerous cells covering the body. That's why berlin swords that are entirely black throughout both body and finnage are doomed to death. Beyond that, how do you judge the fitness of a human selected mutation in the wild? Given the myriad variabilities that come into play, can one ever really say for sure whether a mutation will be a boon or a hindrance?

As for goldfish being man made creatures, given that the fish were not chemically treated or genetically engineered through artificial means, the possibility for the short body form exists within the fish's genetic code regardless of our tampering, making it an entirely natural mutation.
 
Last edited:
Inka4040 said:
Sorry Razzle, but I'm gonna have to disagree with you on all counts. First off, the extra weight associated with veil finnage greatly decreases mobility, and causes the fish to have to expend much more energy to move comparably to a short finned fish. Albinism tends to greatly increase the risk for blindness in animals as well as people, and black in xiphophorus is actually produced by cancerous cells covering the body. That's why berlin swords that are entirely black throughout both body and finnage are doomed to death. Beyond that, how do you judge the fitness of a human selected mutation in the wild? Given the myriad variabilities that come into play, can one ever really say for sure whether a mutation will be a boon or a hindrance?

As for goldfish being man made creatures, given that the fish were not chemically treated or genetically engineered through artificial means, the possibility for the short body form exists within the fish's genetic code regardless of our tampering, making it an entirely natural mutation.
Click to expand...

To an extent this is correct but the difference is that these fish at lease stand SOME chance of surviving in the wild. Long fins do add weight but it isn't directly causing harm to the fish's overall health in the wild or in our tanks.

Albinism and blindness are linked to some degree but not ALL albinos are blind and not all blind animals are albino. The main problem with albinism in the wild isn't sight but how much it stands out.

Black coloration is not caused by cancerous cells covering the body. Honestly, I would like to know where you got this. Black coloration is caused high concentrations of the dark brown pigmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigment melanin. I see how this word can be linked to melanoma (skin cancer) but isn't cancerus cells. As for swords being doomed to death...... One of the characteristics of all living organisms is death.

When I am deciding if they will survive it comes down to how close they are to the wild variations. Take mollies for example, the body shapes of the "normal" finned fish are almost exatcly like the wild ones so I figure they at least stand a chance of surviving unlike their ballooned cousins.

Goldfish aren't natural mutations. While a shorter body shape may be in the DNA, deformed fish would never survive long enough to pass on their genes and so the trait would never be spread thus making our fish "man made". The shorter bodies have been exacerbated by the breeding of specific fish. This would never occur in the wild because the "normal" fish in the gene pool would counteract the short mutation.
 
Hey. Just cause you've never head of it doesn't mean I'm wrong. Do some preliminary research before trying to snark out on someone and condescend about where I'm getting my facts.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=xiphophorus+black+cancer

There exists a vast amount of information and research concerning the link between black pigment in xiphophorus (which I expressly specified in my example) and cancerous cells. Again, I mentioned berlin swords specifically because there is an established connection between black pigment coverage and the probability of untimely death.

As for your charge that short bodied goldfish would never survive in nature; last I checked, we were part of nature, and the fact that that body shape appeals to some of us means that it obviously has served the fish very well in terms of the survival of the species.
 
Alright I have seen both sides of the black pigments and cancer link and it seems no one knows for sure so I'm done with that.

As for the goldfish being a part of nature, you go out into the Asian wilderness, find a balloon goldfish and then come back and tell me.

We aren't going to come to an agreement on this anytime soon so lets just go back to the original question.

I disagree with ballooning fish and personally would never buy one. If you choose to do so, then so be it.

PS: I am sorry if I offended you, I truly didn't intend to make this a heated argument but rather a civil discussion.
 
Hey, no hard feelings. I enjoy a heated debate, and my concept of where the line of civility ends might be a bit different than others. Rest assured though, I don't ever come out of one of these things feeling offended, and actually relish snarky replies because it means I get a wider berth in answering them. It seems you're right, and the closest we can get to a consensus on this is agreeing to disagree. We seem to approach this whole fish keeping thing from entirely different viewpoints, but hey, isn't that what makes any discussion interesting? My take on the ethics of the aquarium hobby stems from my belief that the fish are there for my enjoyment. That doesn't mean that I don't take as good care of them as possible, but lets face it. At the end of the day, most fish would probably choose their natural habitats over living in captivity with us. As such, one can never really claim that their main goal in keeping fish is the enjoyment felt by the fish. When it comes down to what is acceptable vs cruel, you have to ask if anything could be crueler than depriving fish of their freedom in the first place (maybe playing devil's advocate just a smidge here). For me, balloon fish are entirely acceptable, but painted and tattooed fish aren't. For you, it seems to be fish only in their most natural forms, and I can respect that, but would never choose to limit myself to it.

Oh yeah, about finding balloon goldfish in natural waterways... Given that most of the major goldfish breeding regions of the world are also regions prone to extreme seasonal flooding, don't be so sure it doesn't happen with stunning regularity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
AquariaCentral.com
Top Bottom