petition against the Flowerhorn

I agree with OrionGirl. It's like, way harsh, but there isn't much that an on-line "petition" will accomplish except to get some Flowerhorn fans in an uproar. That's the kind of pragmatism that comes from living in Wyoming, I guess, where you have to drive a day and a half just to meet your next door neighbor (and so you want to make sure you're not wasting anybody's time).

Discussing the environmental implications of Flowerhorns, or their genetic instability, or the danger that they will be crossed back to pure species with a concomittant degredation of the bloodline, are all valid topics for review, however.

But RTR, of all people, how can you be confusing the hybridization of species to make Flowerhorns with the process of line breeding that produces dogs, koi, fancy goldfish, etc. (I don't know enough about corn to include it here)? Genetically, hybridization and line breeding are not the same thing at all.
 
Last edited:
im afraid i have to disagree oriongirl...

the majority of Flowerhorn sales at the moment are being carried out on lack of knowledge that this fish is man made. This post informs people, and if less people buy the flowerhorn, then the industry will realise that there is little point in manufacturing such a thing.

I believe alot of you are getting confused. This is not natural hybridisation i am on about...two or more different species of fish were made to breed through use of artificial hormones. Of course, this Flowerhorn is not as deformed as the parrot cichlid was, but that doesnt make it any more right. We are abusing our knowledge and are creating whole new forms of life....
 
here's a CLUE: it's called SUPPLY & DEMAND. if there is a demand, it will be supplied. a pet store will NOT continually stock fish dat do NOT sell.... including pure breeds.
Here's another clue: FHs are NOT the 1st hybrid fish NOR will it be the last. why hate on only 1?
yet another clue: FHs AREN'T CHEAP!!! u FH haters need not panic, most of u won't/can't afford to buy them. your "pure" fish will be a LOT cheaper, I know.
last clue: GET A CLUE!!! a "petition" isn't gonna do SQUAT!!! only thing u can do is to NOT buy them (see previous clues). and lastly, who exactly r u gonna give the petition to??? the president??? no 1 gives a **** about a pet fish. pet stores could care less, they stock whatever sells.
 
Last edited:
I assure you, thom336, I know very well what flowerhorns are. And if you spent any time reviewing the multitude of threads on this board, you'd find several threads discussing, defining and beating into the ground the entire concept and industry.You haven't brought up any new information that hasn't been previously posted.

Do not assume ignorance when someone doesn't agree.

My point is that a thread of this kind is not a petition. It will not change anything ITRW, and bringing it up just to cause problems is viewed in a poor light.
 
Harry - no, the circumstances are quite similar. There is and has been plenty of outcrossing in the development of all the creatures I named. Their genes are not "pure" - whatever that means.

Some outcrossing requires fairly simple manual assistance, some calls for fairy sophisticated laboratory processes - remember the glowing fish news a while back? But even with dogs, outcrosses are around curently. Those may or not disappear from the gene pool. Koi historically were outcrossed to bring in the large scale paterns. The concept is old, not new and shocking.

Yes, for emphasis I was arguing the extreme, but that is also a standard technique.

The point was really that the concept of a petition to change the practices of the world is unrealistic and unlikely to have meaningful or significant impact - but others have made the point better. It is full of sound and fury and signifies nothing.
 
Well...

If we're going to boycott the FH's because they are a cross of two different varieties of fish we should DEFINITELY make some petition to outlaw injecting DYES into fish to make the unnatrual colors, right?

At least to my knowledge of them the FH's can breed. Tell that to the poor crosses that are inherently sterile.

Or how about weakening a strain of fish through line breeding because it happens to produce the exotic colorful finnage that people like in guppies?

Specifically line breeding to produce conditions that are a rarity in nature perhaps? (like that albino severum you have?)

I won't even go into Discus....

Virtually all fish in aquaria that are not wild caught are bred specifically for traits such as color , finnage, or other characteristics. Many of these would not occur in nature. If you want to be appauled by someone tinkering with natrures design be fair and be appauled by all of it please.
 
of course i am dead against the dying of fish...and hav you heard of these 'glow in the dark' zebra danios? apparently they glow when there is a problem with your water quality....
I personally do not have a problem with new strains of discus, and to a degree accept fancy guppies (make note of the 'to a degree'), as these are just fish bred, like you say, through line breeding and not under extreme conditions of crossing fish species and using artificial hormones. I agree that the finnage on guppies these days is becoming over-exagerated, and that there is absolutly no need for it. I was aiming what I was saying at the flowerhorn, as that was what was on my mind.
 
Originally posted by O-man21
Yea, but those were bred for useful purposes, the flowerhorn is just for looks to sell.
Click to expand...

uh, Koi were bred for looks.

Fancy golffish were bred for looks

Bettas were bred for looks

Green tiger barbs, red tiger barbs, albino tiger barbs, balloon mollies, dalmation mollies, lyretail mollies, fancy guppies, and so-on are bred for looks

most cat breeds were bred for looks

while the origin of most dog breeds was for a working purpose, the professional breeders in this country now breed them strictly for looks, and to conform with a set standard.

What about roses? They are often made by grafting one bloom onto another stem. That's definately for looks!
Heck, flowers in general - bred for looks.

Hey, even us humans - we breed ourselves for looks ;) :eek:

Gee, we'd have to change alot if we excluded things simply because they were bred for appearance.

I, personally, don't see the problem in simply creating a hybrid fish. What is it hurting? (this is assuming it is NOT released into the wild!!!) The place to question things is beyond the act of creation, in what is being created...
Now, the blood parrot, I am opposed to because from what I have heard they are deformed internally, and not able to carry on a normal life. In that case, one must question the morals of the breeders choosing to bring this fish into existence when they know it will not be able to lead a normal life. They are, in essence, dooming the fish to a life of misery simply by the act of creation.
OTOH, if the fish that is created IS able to lead a normal life, is free of internal deformities and problems, what's wrong? It will be able to go on and lead a happy, normal life. Let them be.

Oh, one other point - I've read that guppies, platys, and swordtails can all interbreed. That's definately a hybrid there. Would these species interbreed in the wild? Dunno, but it seems that having a limited number of potential partners, and being stuck in a relatively (compared to a stream) small space in the aquarium, that the possibility of their interbreeding is made much more likely - by the direct intervention of man!
Whoops, guess you can't keep them together anymore - is there a petition against that as well?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
AquariaCentral.com
Top Bottom