Fish artificial selection ethics (why are albinos apparently not hated here?)

[gulogulo]

First off, this is a great discussion and kudos to all for posting clearly and rationally and not devolving into a flame war which can often happen in posts like this.

I am in agreement with the opinion that man made deformities that clearly affect the fish (balloon body, etc.) are horrible, longer fins are often a matter of degree so I have less of an issue with finnage but by and large I usually avoid long finned varieties, more of a personal preference on that one, I don't have issues with others keeping them.
Dying fish by injecting or tattooing is not good and should not be supported. While to my knowledge there are not yet catfish that have genetically inserted jellyfish genes to create the glowing colors of the glow fish there may be some day. I have gone back and forth on this process and still don't know where I stand but I think it falls in a similar light as hybrids (see below). Natural or line bred color varieties I have no issue with, I think the possible health issues with albinism or other color morphs is minimal, and would we prevent albino humans from breeding because they would pass on the albinism trait? Extreme example, I know, but what is the goal of any fish you may keep in an aquarium (or the wild)? Survive and pass on its genes, why should albinos be prevented from this because their lifespan could be shorter?
And what about hybrids? I used to be categorically opposed to them, I have altered my opinion and now can see the value in hybrids if they are properly labeled as such (unlike many syno hybrids). I heard a talk a year ago about how many people get drawn into the hobby by seeing a pretty fish, often this may be a hybrid (any platy, swordtail, molly, and many guppies, peacocks, etc.). Once they are in the hobby they begin to appreciate the fish, learn more about them and perhaps get involved in conservation, habitat preservation, species maintenance or some other activity that supports the wild places our fish come from. While there are certainly colorful and interesting fish that are not line bred, hybrid, genetically modified, etc. different things appeal to different people and if a hybrid gets someone involved in habitat preservation for your favorite fish, bird, mamal, etc. is it worth it? Or do we shun those who haven't had enough science education or don't know the right questions to ask? What if that person who loves their hybrid fish and was told they can't keep it, is a law maker who thinks all fish should stay in the wild? again extreme reactions but when we try to think from someone else's perspective we gain insight into our own. I went to a very environmentally focused college (we were called treehuggers) and one of the biggest issues I saw with the environmental movement at the time (still exists to a large extent today) is they wanted to save the environment from people without taking the people's needs into account or looking at it from the perspective of the people cutting down rainforests to survive. We all need to look for the balance between what is acceptable and sustainable and what is wrong. I know I broadened the topic a bit but I hope I didn't go to far afield of the original intent of the thread.

Thanks for listening

[AZCatfish]

All this got me thinking. Can anyone name a fish that has had a genetic modification that is "helpful" vs "harmful?"

Is there any dog that is superior to the wolf from which it descended?

Such a fascinating topic!

[Bas Pels]

What do yoou mean by helpful?

Commercial bred fish are often hybrids. Because infertile as they are, they will not spend anergy breeding, and Thuys will be more efficient. A pleasant side effect is, if these fish would escape, they will not harm nature as much as fertile fish could

But if you look form the fishes' point of view, I think all alterations are, at best, not very bad

[fat meloe!]

I have heard that captive raised fishes are often better suited and thrive better than wild ones in tanks. However this does not mean the change is always genetic, they may simply have gotten used to tank conditions.
https://www.bluezooaquatics.com/product ... =1&cid=361
http://www.liveaquaria.com/general/gene ... pagesid=85

Also, in an insect keeping book, it is mentioned that the first captive bred generation of the beetle Eleodes spinipes has a high die off rate during pupation, but later generations survive better. I infer this to be rapid natural selection, because the larvae of all generations are said to be healthy.

I do think we are drifting off topic a bit. The intent was to discuss artificial forms that were not discouraged but still had a negative effect. Maybe start a new topic?

[Bas Pels]

Breeding fish in a tsank obviously is selective. We select fish that breed over those that do not.

Adapatbility to a tank is something that wild fishes have in a certain measue. If you want to breed a hard to breed species, it is therefore a good idea to start with a large group. Imagine that half the fishes adapt well. Than, most likely, 3 out of a group of 6 would breed, but with 3, chances could be there is not a male and a female around. And if they are, it could be they just don't like each other sufficiently to breed. It could, however, also be you are a bit unlucky and have only 2, with far less chanses

If you had 10, normally you would have 4 that breed - and with 4, you have either 2:2 or 1:3 - that is 3 or 4 possible combinations. Much better chances indeed