Omg Glow In The Dark Fish!-what The?
- Thread starter DeBree420
- Start date
You misunderstand me debree.
the flourescent danios are, indeed, as you describe. I made no contest to that.
At the newport aquarium, they have a display of cave fish that naturally sparkle and flash, for lack of a better word. Much like the deep trench fish in the ocean, they have the ability to emit light. That's what I was pointing out. The fish at the newport aquarium are, indeed, naturally occuring cave fish that have developed the ability to make their own light.
The danios are, indeed, a science experiment, and as I pointed out, can be bought at most walmarts, as well as other fish stores.
the flourescent danios are, indeed, as you describe. I made no contest to that.
At the newport aquarium, they have a display of cave fish that naturally sparkle and flash, for lack of a better word. Much like the deep trench fish in the ocean, they have the ability to emit light. That's what I was pointing out. The fish at the newport aquarium are, indeed, naturally occuring cave fish that have developed the ability to make their own light.
The danios are, indeed, a science experiment, and as I pointed out, can be bought at most walmarts, as well as other fish stores.
The glofish look great under atinic (spelling) light also.
You don't have to be stoned to enjoy these fish.
I like mine a lot.
You don't have to be stoned to enjoy these fish.
I like mine a lot.
All fish are fun to watch while stoned, glowing or no. I love my glofish and I plan to get more of them as soon as I can find some of the green ones.
I dislike the dyed fish, as that is proven to be harmful, and I understand that many hybrids are deformed and live poorly. That's bad because the fish is suffering. Glofish are just a different color (no I can't prove it, just like you can't prove that none of your fish are suffering).
If your problem is simply that it is unnatural then get rid of your fish tank. Keeping fish taken from the wild and putting them in a glass box is a hell of a lot more unnatural than keeping genetically modified fish, I don't care how big your tank is. If you are so hung up on seeing natural fish then become a scuba diver, and you see a much greater variety of life than you will in any tank.
Mainly I think that there are bigger problems to get upset about. Sure it could be bad to let them into the wild, but not nearly as bad as say a lion fish. These are not uncommon to see near Florida now, and they are much more likely to upset the ecosystem than a fish with a different color. Not only will it make them easier targets for predators, but it is likely to prevent them from breeding as most animals use color to attract mates, and the more 'typical' the colors the better.
It is the march of progress, and there is no line to be drawn. If you draw a line then someone else will just cross it. Now that the knowledge is out there, it will not just go away. Neither will dyed or tattooed fish. Boycotting them might make you feel better, but it will not make them disappear.
oops
sorryi think it is terrible that idiots put lionfish back into the ocean, goldfish into natural streams and dump cats in a park....etc etc etc ....
i never said these things are not as bad as glofish, however all these things pose a serious risk, my point is releasing glofish to the general public (something that has not been studied properly) is probably not the greatest idea (proven by the posts about lionfish, goldfish etc) here in Australia we have heeps of problems with carp, Tilapia (Mozambique mouth brooder) and gambusia (mosquito fish)
all in all humans have been keeping fish in confined or artificial environments for thousands of years. in Medieval Europe, carp pools were a standard feature of estates and monasteries, Similarly, throughout Asia there is a long history of stocking rice paddies with freshwater fish suitable for eating, including various types of catfish and cyprinid. even ancient Sumerians were known to keep wild-caught fish in ponds...
whilst genes on the other hand were only 'discovered' by humans in the 1860's when an Australian priest named Gregor Mendel noticed genetic 'traits' in pea plants- though he did not use the word 'gene', he called it 'inherited characteristics'
we know very little about genetics, so many things about it are up in the air, and so many things people take for fact are actually just theory...
unleashing something so unknown on the public seems to me like possible disaster... especially when so many people seem to think there is NO chance they would survive in the wild...
thats just the kind of thought stupid people need as an excuse to why they dumped their glofish in the pond when they had to move...
we need people to know there IS a chance they will survive, and do something possibly bad to the environment, and to severely push the idea that flushing or releasing ANY aquarium fish into the wild is a BAD BAD plan
well i beg to differ, i have seen, first hand boycotting ...actually work *shock*
we had one out of the 3 lfs have dyed fish, and we put up flyers, and informed people of what made the colours, and you know what...?
the lfs that had them stopped getting them...
the same way as Glofish being illegal in the UK... people petitioned, informed people, and a vote was held to pass it...
of course it is not an 'instant fix', and is not a definite answer, but it is a start, you can either be a part of the solution, or part of the problem, your choice...
Has anyone took notice of the glofish's health conditions? A person in another forum asked why the ones he tried appear weaker than the regular ones. I confirmed an affirmative based on my observations with the glofish here. It appears the way people have fiddled over their genetics, they appear seemingly less resistant to various factors compared to the regular ones.
Most likely due to inbreeding. My friend actually had glowfish. They did fine in her tank compared to the sad inbred neon tetras. Thats what happens when you have fish that are easily bred in the home aquarium and are in high demand in the hobby.
I personally dont like them as they are unnatural and tacky, but i've no ethical issue with them. the fish are perfectly healthy and lead normal lives, and we've been genetically modifying the food we stuff in our mouths for years. however... the prospect of them escaping is troubling. they are subtropical fish, and could easily survive in places in the southern US where the water doesnt drop much below 60 and hawaii.
My glofish are very healthy and have been living very well. I have had long finned zebra danios in the past and the glofish are looking better than they were. Granted I know a lot more about caring for fish now (thanks to the AC community), but they still look great. When my tank got an ich infection, the glofish were the only ones that never got any spots. When a power outage and temperature crash killed three neons, the glofish were unshaken.
I guess I shouldn't come down on people about this. You are, after all, entitled to your opinions. There are definitely unknowns about what could happen if they get into the wild, but I do not think that it is cause for any more concern. What I mean by that is that it poses no more risk than any other introduced species. Whether it is kudzu in the American southeast, zebra mussels in the great lakes, or glofish in the streams. We shouldn't single out any one species since they all pose the same risk, although your concerns are valid. I wasn't trying to be mean with the boycotting comment, just saying that until you get rid of the demand (informing customers, and passing out fliers is a good way to do that) there will be stores selling these fish.
To be honest, I had no idea what they were when I bought them. It would have been nice to know what I was getting from the start, even though it would not have changed my mind. Then again Petco is not known for properly informing customers about how to care for fish.
I do think that we will only see more GM animals appearing as pets and elsewhere in the years to come. The procedures are becoming easier and more routine, and there will always be people who want them. Now that the knowledge is out there it is too late to go back.
And for the record, Mendel was an Austrian priest, not Australian. Not important though.
I guess I shouldn't come down on people about this. You are, after all, entitled to your opinions. There are definitely unknowns about what could happen if they get into the wild, but I do not think that it is cause for any more concern. What I mean by that is that it poses no more risk than any other introduced species. Whether it is kudzu in the American southeast, zebra mussels in the great lakes, or glofish in the streams. We shouldn't single out any one species since they all pose the same risk, although your concerns are valid. I wasn't trying to be mean with the boycotting comment, just saying that until you get rid of the demand (informing customers, and passing out fliers is a good way to do that) there will be stores selling these fish.
To be honest, I had no idea what they were when I bought them. It would have been nice to know what I was getting from the start, even though it would not have changed my mind. Then again Petco is not known for properly informing customers about how to care for fish.
I do think that we will only see more GM animals appearing as pets and elsewhere in the years to come. The procedures are becoming easier and more routine, and there will always be people who want them. Now that the knowledge is out there it is too late to go back.
And for the record, Mendel was an Austrian priest, not Australian. Not important though.
