# I have just found the most terrifying image known to aquaria



## AnnaFish (Aug 9, 2006)

I have been doing some research in to blood parrots ever since this thread:

http://www.cichlid-forum.com/phpBB/view ... 63#1518563 Where stevezx2002 linked this editorial piece http://www.swmas.org/swam/articles/red_ ... llisch.pdf

I've pulled a lot of resources (no, just the internet. I'm not in college anymore and I don't have the access to all of the journal articles and "real" research I used to) and have been formulating my own thoughts.

While searching for images of Red Devils, Red Sevs, and Blood Parrots to do image comparisons and some other tests, I stumbled across something that disturbs me so much I had to show it to you now.

I must say -- there are a lot of people out there that truly love their BPs. And more power to them for loving something so many of us would rather kill on site (I don't know what side of the fence I am on that one yet, so chill). But what I just found was so horrible and irresponsible that I really think I feel pretty sick...



















And then I realized, after looking at the captions in the photobucket album I found this in, that these are a new hybrid venture "Kirin Parrots" Flowerhorn Parrots.

Flowerhorns, which are all ready the ******* of the deep, are now being bred with the deformed (hybrid or not, the are deformed) blood parrot. And they are being sold in LFSs and on the internet.

My stance on tattoed and dyed fish is pretty strong. No No No. And the fact that my LFS sells them makes me sad.

But my stance on hybrids has always been -- if they are labeled as such, and the buyer is aware (beware) then they have the right to that commerce. Blood Parrots included.

But as I see ID after ID post of unidentifiable malawi mutts, I am beginning to see why so many people think the only good hybrid is a dead one.

I still don't feel that strongly about it. I make all sorts of comparisons to dogs (all of mine are mutts). But then all of my dogs are fixed. The middle ground to having hybrids in the hobby only works on the assumption that the owners are aware of what they own and are responsible enough to keep them from reproducing (or at least responsible enough to keep their offspring to themselves, and out of the "mixed cichlid" bin).

This is only made more improbable by the flood of "designer" hybrids like the blood parrot being produced in mass quantities and stocked in ever commercial and local fish store in the world.

We cannot spay and neuter our fish save for responsible fish keeping. And that is why hybrids in the hobby are not comparable to our beloved mutts on four legs.

I don't really know what my point is or why I am still typing. I literally jumped out of my chair when I saw these images and I just....

word vomit.


----------



## TheFishGuy (Apr 21, 2005)

The best thing to do is not advertise them like you just did...

Any one in advertising will tell you that negative publicity is just as good as positive...


----------



## AnnaFish (Aug 9, 2006)

Well then, can you delete this thread please?

Thank you.

Sorry.


----------



## Darkside (Feb 6, 2008)

Why would blood parrots not make you feel sick while this hybrid does? Honestly they're both hybrids, not all that different from one another. I wonder if they breed true?


----------



## AnnaFish (Aug 9, 2006)

What I meant was while I was not a fan of Blood Parrots, I didn't feel sure about being so belligerent as others are about their sale.

But now I see they have created another strain and so they are perpetuating the deformity to an entirely new set of fish.

I basically don't agree with purposefully breeding a fish that has such an obvious deformity. It was easier to let it pass when it was just the "happy" accident of Red Devil + Gold Severum (or whatever they are). But now it's being spread over to new strains which means even more poorly deformed most likely in pain or discomfort fish looking ugly-cute and begging at the glass for homes.

TFG is right. I shouldn't have posted this. It was stupid and pointless. I'm sorry.

It was late and I work very long hours and it just shocked me.


----------



## Darkside (Feb 6, 2008)

AnnaFish said:


> What I meant was while I was not a fan of Blood Parrots, I didn't feel sure about being so belligerent as others are about their sale.
> 
> But now I see they have created another strain and so they are perpetuating the deformity to an entirely new set of fish.
> 
> ...


There is no way to tell that these fish are in pain or uncomfortable. They all look happy enough to me as long as they don't have any parts of their body cropped I'm sure they behave and feel like most regular fish. Flowerhorns are already a man made "abomination" so I have no reservations about them being crossed back to get the parrot phenotype. Personally I'd never purchase a blood parrot or a flowerhorn (I'm not even a fan of line bred fish), but as long as its obvious that these are designer fish I don't really have a problem with them.


----------



## AnnaFish (Aug 9, 2006)

You're right. There is no evidence that they are in any discomfort. And they do look pretty happy.

*shrug*

Like I said, I was wrong to post this.

:?


----------



## josmoloco (Aug 23, 2008)

Why is this more "disturbing" than i BP or flowerhorn or any other hybrid?

I don't get the point of the thread :?


----------



## Manoah Marton (Feb 17, 2009)

I believe she already said she was sorry for posting. Not to be rude, but give her a break!


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

*AnnaFish*

Personally I do not see anything wrong about the thread nor the topic nor your feelings. 
I share your displeasure at seeing more and more "kyphotic" breeds.

With your permission, I'd like to leave this thread open.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

*josmoloco*

A self contained problem is always less disconcerting to me than an expanding issue. I can see the value of "A" deformed pet fish. But to see it grow in popularity to balloon rams, ballon flowerhorns, balloon "x" is rather alarming. Don't you agree?

I don't agree that the "slippery slope" one is on means that one cannot object to the downward trajectory. The only way that would be fair is if one were part of creating that downward slope! If annafish had bought a blood parrot and was now objecting to this other then ok, but she didn't. IMHO, she is free to be aghast.

I am...


----------



## jrf (Nov 10, 2009)

I agree. Regardless of the side you're on, it's a topic worth discussion.

I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve ever seen a "designer" fish that I thought was attractive. Nonetheless, I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t really have an ethical problem with those who breed or keep them. I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t see it as being much different than breeding a Chiwawa with a German Sheppard. It may produce some tacky looking offspring, and I certainly wouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t want one, but to each their own. The only time I have an issue is when they are passed off as something they are not.


----------



## AnnaFish (Aug 9, 2006)

If you want to keep it open 6, you can.

I just didn't want to be responsible for a forum hissy fit kindof thing.

But yeah... I have a cherry barb with a crooked spine. I'll love him and feed him and keep him for as long as he lives. If he spawns with the females, I'll probably use the fry as fertilizer. Or keep some for myself.

But I wouldn't trade his fry back to the shop. Even if they all came out looking great. It would be irresponsible of me to hand over fry to an unwitting new owner that might hope to breed them in the future, and find a bunch of curly q barbs in his mix.

Hybrids happen. I've got hybrids in the lake next to my house that happened all by themselves. They taste delicious.

Deformities happen.

But deliberately hybridizing to generate a deformity is irresponsible, and a sick way to earn money.

These frankenfish appeal to the same sorts of people that come into my LFS every day asking for "mean fish" or fish they can put in a tank together and see "who wins."

I saw a gaggle of frat boys buying a jag and a parrot to see if the jock would beat up the "tard."

The blood parrot cichlid is the manifestation of capitalistically encouraged irresponsible fish keeping.


----------



## Manoah Marton (Feb 17, 2009)

Since this thread is gonna remain open...and I'm a debater...

I agree with AnnaFish for these reasons...
1. There are plenty of beautiful fish in their natural form for people to enjoy, without hybridizing species.
2. Hybrids are prone to multitudes of health problems including bullying (both giving and receiving) and back problems.
3. Again, as pointed out by AnnaFish, many of these fish are sold to irresponsible people who do not care about the wellfare of the animals in their care.
4. Hybrids can and will mate with other species and can destroy a species. Think about future generation of fishkeepers who many not be able to get a pure line of fish.

I understand that this is a touchy issue, but I believe that this is just as bad as fish being dyed or mutated.

Manoah Marton (the debater)


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

A large part of the cool-factor for me in keeping fish is the idea I can observe a slice of nature. Not happening with these fish. :lol:


----------



## Darkside (Feb 6, 2008)

Manoah Marton said:


> Since this thread is gonna remain open...and I'm a debater...
> 
> I agree with AnnaFish for these reasons...
> 1. There are plenty of beautiful fish in their natural form for people to enjoy, without hybridizing species.
> ...


I'll bite.
Asthetics, like morality is subjective. When someone purchases a fish its their own aesthetic values that will inform that purchase. There are plenty of beautiful natural fish, but some will be drawn to fish like blood parrots more so than others.
All fish are susceptible to problems (balloon, bent spines, crooked mouths), inbred fish are usually more susceptible than outbred fish.
I'd also be willing to bet that there are far more irresponsibly sold bettas than flowerhorns, blood parrots or this new hybrid. Its like as if the value of a cichlid life has more weight than a betta life. Then again, morality is subjective.
As long as a hybrid is clearly labeled there shouldn't be a problem with concerns of increasing hybridization, at least not on the level often encountered by inexperienced Malawi keepers.

There are very few fish that are "mutated" and I think they are all illegal on north American soil. Dyeing fish is a painful process where a needle is injected into the scales.


----------



## Manoah Marton (Feb 17, 2009)

Okay, thanks for responding. :thumb: 
I'm going to respond to your argument of asthetics. My argument is that asthetics is secondary to the health and happiness of the fish. In other words, it doesn't matter so much if you have a super cool looking big fish if you keep it in a 1 gallon tank, or the fish is purposefully forced to endure a disability. While yes, a certain percentage of all species will have disabilies, these hybrid fish are forced to have these disabilies, and are bred for that reason alone. So back to my point on this argument, health and happiness is more important than the asthetic values of the fish.
Next, I'd like to address your argument of there being more betta's forced to endure poor conditions or irrisponsible behavior. In debate, this is called topicality. We are debating on cichlid hybrids, and while there may be worse problems out there, this is the one we are addressing right now.
And finally, I realize that dying and mutating fish is a different evil, but isn't this just a form of that? Yes, you can breed specific color variants of a species to achieve a certain desired color because that doesn't harm the fish. It looks different, but it is still the same species, and will not suffer and have problems due to it's color. When you mutate a fish, you cut off parts or fins of the fish to achieve a desired body shape. I believe that hybridization is just an expanded form of that. You're changing the shape of the fish by giving it traits that it was not intended to have (e.g. bent backbones, crooked mouths). These do make life tougher for the fish, and should not be promoted because they could end in disease or death.

Two final things in closing. One, I'm not an animal activist who's obsessed with animal rights and what have you. I just like to debate, and believe that this is something that I feel strongly on and needs to be addressed.
And two, I harbor no hard feeling toward anyone with opposing opinions. You are entitled to your opinions as I am mine. I've had seriously intense debates with some of my best friends...and their still my friends!

Thanks for reading, and if I do at any point go overboard...please, please let me know, and also know that it wasn't my intention.

Manoah Marton


----------



## jrf (Nov 10, 2009)

> 1. There are plenty of beautiful fish in their natural form for people to enjoy, without hybridizing species.


I agree. Personally, behavior interests me more than any other aspect of keeping fish. But, I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t expect anyone to keep fish for the same reasons I do.



> 2. Hybrids are prone to multitudes of health problemsÃ¢â‚¬Â¦


IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not sure about this - IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve never seen anything suggesting that they have more issues than pure breeds. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not saying youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re wrong, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve just never personally run across any information suggesting this.



> 2. Ã¢â‚¬Â¦including bullying (both giving and receiving)Ã¢â‚¬Â¦


I have read that they are more unpredictable, but IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve also seen quite a few people post about uncommon aggression issues in a pure species. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d agree that itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s harder to plan out tank mates if youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re dealing with hybrids. But even with pure breeds, you better have a backup plan if it isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t working out.



> 3. Again, as pointed out by AnnaFish, many of these fish are sold to irresponsible people who do not care about the wellfare of the animals in their care.


I agree, but that problem isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t exclusive to hybrids, and the stores contribute to this problem IME. I have yet to find an LFS that recommends fishless cycling. In fact, most donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t even seem to know what it is. When I was starting my first tank, every single one I went to wanted to sell me Danios to cycle with.



> 4. Hybrids can and will mate with other species and can destroy a species. Think about future generation of fishkeepers who many not be able to get a pure line of fish.


This happens more when inexperience aquarists mix together a bunch of fish that can and will hybridize - not so much an issue that's caused by designer fish. The bottom line here is only to buy from sources you can trust.


----------



## Manoah Marton (Feb 17, 2009)

Thanks jrf. You pretty much summed it up. Your points were very clear, and I agree with just about everything you said.
But at the end of the day, I think that all purposeful hybridization should be stopped, or, if people do deceide, against the reasons I've already stated, to purchase a hybrid fish, it should be done very carefully. That's the heart of the problem. The people who hybrids MOSTLY appeal to is people who like their ugly mean looks and keep them in horrible conditions, and with unsuitable tankmates.

Manoah Marton


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

Darkside said:


> All fish are susceptible to problems (balloon, bent spines, crooked mouths), inbred fish are usually more susceptible than outbred fish.


Not true. As National Geographic says... predatory pressures keep populations of cichlids in Lake Malawi relatively reef bound creating large inbred populations.

Now along comes Number6, the avid Malawi breeder in his time, and I keep inbreeding them. No issues are happened. Why not?

Yet, I can take a peacock and outcross to another peacock of the same species but a totally different population from the lake. Fry come out showing some odd balls. Why? Things go downhill from there if I inbreed some healthy looking fry from the outcrossing. Funny headed fry, one runt.

JRF, here's the tie in to your post. Outcrossing may (or may not) be harmful by introducing alleles that are incompatible with the genotype you had prior. Out-breeding depression is every bit as real as inbreeding depression but overlooked far more often. Add to this the common (though far from a golden rule) oddity about hybrids that they tend to be more aggressive than their pure counterparts and you end up with a challenge. It has also been found that inbreeding following an out-crossing produces (statistically only of course) the highest frequency of deformities in cichlids and couple that with the issues that you can't keep re-hybridizing non-siblings for your hybrids to mate with and the result is a recipe for a large number of deformities cropping up.

Now the tie back into this fish in the pics...

now imagine a world where the deformity is viewed as "cute".

What's next? the bug eyed Malawi?

The gill cover-less albino?

I'll sell them all to you at a mere fraction of what the natural species costs... let's say 8/5 ths of the normal cichlid's usual price tag! :lol:


----------



## TheFishGuy (Apr 21, 2005)

I do not like hybrids. But I like fish. We have a blood parrot here and a flowerhorn, and various vieja hybrids that have God knows what in them. We also have a snomack, snook/trimac and a ton a RD/midas???

I do not like hybrids, but I can tell you that the vieja hybrids and the RD/Midas that are here will never leave this house alive.

The others were rescues and it's almost painfully obvious they're hybrids.


----------



## jrf (Nov 10, 2009)

Number6 said:


> It has also been found that inbreeding following an out-crossing produces (statistically only of course) the highest frequency of deformities in cichlids and couple that with the issues that you can't keep re-hybridizing non-siblings for your hybrids to mate with and the result is a recipe for a large number of deformities cropping up.


Interesting. That's not something I was aware of and it does cause me to reconsider my position. Introducing deformities for fun or profit isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t something I can stand by.


----------



## AnnaFish (Aug 9, 2006)

That's the heart of the issue for me. The fact that these fish are hybrids is largely irrelevant. They are deformed and they were selectively bred to be that way to turn a profit.

Then again, we can always open the can of worms, "would you steal a loaf of bread to feed your family?"

The main breeders of this fish aren't exactly livin' at the ritz.


----------



## Darkside (Feb 6, 2008)

Number6 said:


> Darkside said:
> 
> 
> > All fish are susceptible to problems (balloon, bent spines, crooked mouths), inbred fish are usually more susceptible than outbred fish.
> ...


Malawi cichlids aren't a majority of fish species. I'm well aware of inbreeding and out breeding depression, which is why I said inbred fish are USUALLY more susceptible. If you keep inbreeding shelldwellers they come out with all kinds of deformities. In fact I have a "Balloon" Telmatochromis temporalis.

*Manoah Marton*

Also the argument that aesthetics is secondary to the welfare and happiness of fish is unfortunately also subjective. Its also very difficult to tell the overall health and welfare of any fish, because they don't communicate very effectively. To you the most thing is the welfare of the animal, but remember that's subjective, as it may not be the most important aspect to another individual.

If you're going to debate cruelty in fish keeping practices it may be convenient to overlook other species, but my point stands. There are far more bettas that are mistreated than hybrid cichlids. Most people who purchase flowerhorns know exactly what they are as they wouldn't foot the bill for them otherwise. The same goes with blood parrots.

As far as mutating fish, that requires a lab and is a long difficult process. I've done it before with just bacteria and it took me several goes just to get my desired result. Also, my mistake, I guess you can purchase genetically engineered fish in the States, we just can't get them up here. I can't imagine the amount of work put into the glofish (I made glo-E. coli). Once again you cannot know that blood parrots have a reduced quality of life because of their physicality. In good conditions they're just as robust as most other cichlids.

I'm not an animal activist either, nor to I keep any hybrid fish. I just want to point out that its not possible to ascertain the quality of life experienced by a fish if its given proper care. Blood parrots and flowerhorns can likely be just as "happy" as my Tropheus or my plecos or whatever else I'm keeping.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

Darkside said:


> Malawi cichlids aren't a majority of fish species. I'm well aware of inbreeding and out breeding depression, which is why I said inbred fish are USUALLY more susceptible. If you keep inbreeding shelldwellers they come out with all kinds of deformities. In fact I have a "Balloon" Telmatochromis temporalis.


What I said still stands for EVERY species of fish on the planet including salt water fish. Inbreeding does not "make" a fish more susceptible to problems. There are too many errors in that suggestion, but even if one takes it loosely then the more correct statement would be to say that hybridization (aka outcrossing) makes a fish population more "susceptible" to having fry with problems and your shelldwellers are an example. Inbreeding can result in deformities in shell dweller populations VERY quickly and the reason why is the regular volume of outcrossing and hybridization events in Lake Tanganyika for this group of fish species.

I still don't agree with the above statement even after I flip it around, but I hope you get what I'm trying to convey by my flipping it around.

The short version of all of the above is that (as you said) all fish may have deformities crop up in their offspring and certain breeding styles can increase or decrease the frequency of those deformities.

My style? Always allow fish to choose their mates from as large a pool of candidates as I can gether and the frequency of deformities has dropped significantly!

It's almost like the fishes genes program them to select mates that help them have healthy offspring. Just one more reason IMHO to not interfere and produce more "deformed pet" cichlids.


----------



## Darkside (Feb 6, 2008)

:lol: I'm pretty sure now that we're arguing different points. I was aiming my argument of inbreeding more towards line bred fish. Or some of the TR fish that you see in large stores. Line breeding can result in all kinds of issues that crop up in an inbred line, the same goes with genetic islands. In a lot of cases outcrossing populations of the same species can alleviate that.

Also as a Malawi keep you're well aware that if you let your fish choose they're own mates freely that they are just as likely to choose to spawn with a species that looks similar to them and totally ignore their own kind. That's why everyone is so careful about how they stock their lake Malawi aquariums because hybridization will and does occur. There is a paper published on this phenomenon somewhere. Its probably geographic isolation that keeps this in check in the lake. The fact that you let your fish choose from a pool of candidates will help to alleviate the problems seen in human selection of fish and line breeding. Although you wouldn't give a yellow lab you owned a chance to spawn with a red zebra would you?


----------



## Manoah Marton (Feb 17, 2009)

This is what I'm trying to say. Fish should not be created through hybridization that promotes mutant features. It IS cruel to the fish (I can't see how having a crooked spine, and bent mouths could in anyway be humane or comfortable) they will never lead normal lives because they have trouble swimming upright, among other things. If you don't believe me, just visit your local Petsmart and look at their Parrot Cichlids. They wobble and wiggle because their spines are so bent and their stomachs are so bloated they have trouble swimming and even staying in one place. 
That's the heart of this issue and the problem. Not that the fish are hybrids, but that they are forced, for the reasons of asthetics to be mutant and deformed.
From other posts, I think this is what jrf, AnnaFish, and Numbers 6 also believe (please correct me if I'm wrong)...therefore, unless you bring forth evidence that mutant fish (blood parrots, ect...) do not suffer in any way, and will not have problems leading normal lives, we win this debate.
Thanks,

Manoah Marton


----------



## Darkside (Feb 6, 2008)

There is no way for you (or anyone) to prove that these fish (i.e blood parrots) are chronically suffering. You can't give a call for evidence if you can't produce any evidence on the contrary. You're projecting your own views on a fish with a crooked spine. Just because it can't swim in a regular fashion doesn't mean its constantly suffering. Do people who have missing limbs or scoliosis lead unfulfilling lives because of their conditions? 
No fish we keep in an aquarium leads a normal life. We put fish in small glass boxes for our own entertainment. This is a moot point.
As well these fish aren't mutants, this is the wrong terminology, I'm not sure what you're trying to convey here. What your doing is drawing observations based on your own view of what's normal, this is of course subjective and is no grounds on which to structure a solid argument. There is no conclusive evidence that fish like blood parrots are constantly suffering. It wasn't even 10 years ago when science discovered that fish were actually able to feel pain sensations.
I'm not arguing for the production and sale of hybrid fish, as I stated before; I don't keep hybrids, I don't breed hybrids and I certainly wouldn't buy them. But just because they look, behave and move differently from their wild type parents doesn't mean they won't enjoy the same quality of life.


----------



## Manoah Marton (Feb 17, 2009)

But their being forced to have these imperfections when they don't have to! Surely you can't believe that a child with, lets say, missing limbs would lead a normal, happy childhood?! Yes, they would probably catagorize that they were happy at times, but they would never be able to engage in activities as other normal children. Therefore, their version of happy is not going to be the same (or possibly as good) as a child who was normal. Another example. You were locked in a room for most of your life. You were given food and water, and kept alive. You didn't know any different. When you were allowed out for a few minutes once every 10 years, you would be overjoyed. But that same person, given different circumstances, would have a much different view of happy if they were allowed to lead a normal life.
The same applies to these fish. Yes, they could catagorize themselves as happy and healthy (not in pain, and in good conditons) because possibly they would have never know the difference! The same fish, not presented with the difficulties of disabilites and given ideal conditions would truely be happy and healthy. Do you see what I'm saying? It's not that they're not happy and healthy, but that they don't truely know what that is, because they haven't ever experienced it.
Thanks for reading,
Manoah Marton


----------



## exasperatus2002 (Jul 5, 2003)

As far as bloody parrots are concerned whether the original or these, you might as well just clone the elephant man and sell them at the circus. Same thing. Something grossly deformed that shouldnt exist let alone be produced. Thanks for letting us know theres a new version on the market. Sadly, posting it here wont help much since most people who buy these creatures are the ill informed and dont do their research before buying. I speak from experience. I managed a petshop for several years.


----------



## Darkside (Feb 6, 2008)

Manoah Marton said:


> But their being forced to have these imperfections when they don't have to! Surely you can't believe that a child with, lets say, missing limbs would lead a normal, happy childhood?! Yes, they would probably catagorize that they were happy at times, but they would never be able to engage in activities as other normal children. Therefore, their version of happy is not going to be the same (or possibly as good) as a child who was normal. Another example. You were locked in a room for most of your life. You were given food and water, and kept alive. You didn't know any different. When you were allowed out for a few minutes once every 10 years, you would be overjoyed. But that same person, given different circumstances, would have a much different view of happy if they were allowed to lead a normal life.
> The same applies to these fish. Yes, they could catagorize themselves as happy and healthy (not in pain, and in good conditons) because possibly they would have never know the difference! The same fish, not presented with the difficulties of disabilites and given ideal conditions would truely be happy and healthy. Do you see what I'm saying? It's not that they're not happy and healthy, but that they don't truely know what that is, because they haven't ever experienced it.
> Thanks for reading,
> Manoah Marton


This is a very slippery slope and I have to disagree with you. I don't understand the qualifications you make for the quality of life, when you never defined the term in the first case. The only thing these circumstances that you reinforce through these examples is that we mistreat our fish by keeping them in aquariums to begin with. :lol:
Fish can't categorize themselves as anything because fish are not self-aware. :thumb:


----------



## Manoah Marton (Feb 17, 2009)

Oh. Now that you put it that way...  
Well, where we're at now...we don't really have much to debate about. I mean, we both don't support hybrids...so the only thing we were debating on was whether or not they are experiencing pain due to their various deformities. And...since we disagree, there is technically something to debate about, but since there isn't any evidence that they do or don't because we can't communicate to them, I guess this is a draw. An 'agree to disagree' type of thing.
Thanks, and btw, this was , imo, kinda fun...because it's a little different than debating Petsmart asscociates about 'sicklids' in goldfish bowls :lol:

Manoah Marton


----------



## TheFishGuy (Apr 21, 2005)

What really ticks me off is...

THIS IS A PARROT CICHLID!!!!!

http://www.u2u.idv.tw/stone/photo/BIG/H ... us-003.jpg


----------



## AnnaFish (Aug 9, 2006)

Oh yeah. And they look AWESOME and I want one


----------



## TheFishGuy (Apr 21, 2005)

I've got six 6"ers in a 125


----------



## AnnaFish (Aug 9, 2006)

> Before Long they had reached the edge of the settlement and made their way beside a sluggish stream through bare-twigged scrubby bushes. Occasionally they would hear a harsh croak or a splash as some amphibian was disturbed, but the only creature they saw was a toad as big as Will's foot, which could only flop in a pain-filled sideways heave as if it were horribly injured. It lay across the path, trying to move out of the way and looking at them as if it knew they meant to hurt it.
> 
> "It would be merciful to kill it," said Tialys.
> 
> ...


Let's break it down a little bit:

1. Blood Parrot Cichlids are Hybrids (presumably a Red Devil and a Gold Severum)

Many longstanding aqua-hobbyists do not approve of the distribution of hybrid fish. Hybrids are, traditionally, an accident and to profit from them means profiting off of the pollution of the standard parent fishes' genomes. Additionally, Hybrids are often sold mislabeled as something else (or not labeled at all). This more often than explicit hybrid production and sale, leads to unintended and undesired genetic mixing as unaware fish keepers wind up with mystery fry that they may think are pure, and distribute as such. etc.

There are also hybrid fish, particularly in the African Cichlid category, that are not advertised as such. It is also true that many Discus you buy have been hybridized to create "breeds" of Discus. Most Discus color variants were not produced by line breeding, but instead supplemented by the addition of S. aequifasciatus parents.

Explicitly sold hybrids (aka Designer Fish) include the rainbow of Flowerhorn variants, Blood Parrots, and others. The fact is, they aren't really explicit. But the word is pretty much out, at least in most LFSs, that these fish are hybridized, though it isn't identified as being "bad" or "good" because, well, they are trying to sell the fish, obviously.

There are actually quite a few Explicit Hybrids in the food fish industry. This is, unfortunately, also a source of the bad connotations "aquaculture" receives. (I could write a book about this tradgedy, starting with a definition of aquaculture and how most "farmed" species of seafood do not qualify. But I digress.) An example is the Georgia Giant which is a Blue Gill crossed with (I believe) a green spotted sunfish. The resulting offspring are larger and grow faster (according to legend) than their parents combined. Unfortunately for the breeders of this fish, they cross back to tiny useless non-edible wusses.

Hybrids -- For (not to be mistaken with my own opinions):

* Hybridization creates a fish not available otherwise, and can have an interesting shape or color that is an amalgam of its parents or entirely unique.
* Hybrids can (more commonly in mammalian hybrids) express "hybrid vigor" constituting a better physical condition (subjective to the breeder) and a robustness under duress the parent species lack.
* Hybrids are "cool" and new and unique and they produce a lot of wow factor (even if they are unattractive) because for centuries our species has been enamored with the bizarre.
* These things make Hybrids worth more money (when speaking in the sphere of new or inexperienced or "casual" fish keepers).

Hybrids -- Against:

* Hybridization can pose a danger to the parent species purity, especially if the offspring are not easily identifiable as a hybrid.
* If a hybrid is not infertile, it often does not breed true, constituting batches of fry that do not exhibit the desired traits. This is frustrating for those wishing to keep hybrids.
* Hybrids have a (justifiably) bad reputation amongst experienced fish keepers for their potential impact on other species genetic purity.
* Hybridization can produce deformed or maladjusted offspring which may be undesirable or unpredictable.

Hybridization is a do or don't action. You can't "kindof" hybridize. Because it is a yes or a no, it is easy to make it into an inflammatory subject.

2. Blood Parrot Cichlids are deformed.

Blood Parrots have swollen and non-uniformly fleshy mouths and gill areas that cause them to be unable to properly use their mouths and sometimes limit gill function. They also have acutely curved spines. Some variants are even coming out without tails (not just caudal fins, but missing tails). Others have been bred to exhibit the flowerhorn balloon.

As the above quote illustrates, we cannot know whether or not this fish is in any pain. Even if it were, it would not be up to us to eliminate the specimen.

I have scoliosis. Do I want someone to put me out of my misery? Certainly not. This isn't Gattica, so thankfully, I don't have to worry about that.

However, Gattica brings me to the heart of this argument (for me) --

3. Blood Parrots are bred (hybridized) to be deformed.

If this were Gattica (and if you don't get the reference, by now you should have looked it up), and my parents could choose to make me the very model of genetic "perfection" I would hope they would not. However, if my parents went into the genetic composition room and specified that they would like me to be cross eyed, hunch backed, with some sort of atavism, I think people would be pretty enraged.

You see, all aquarists are playing god. We set up a little microcosm in our homes and transplant fish that (at some point in there genetic history if not in their lifetimes) came from the wild so that we could enjoy them and observe them and have them display for us the behaviors and relationships we can't easily observe in their natural habitats. Some fish keepers aren't after natural observation, per se. They just want a pet, or something to look at, or whatever. But they are still playing god.

As a mini god, I choose not to create, or support the creation, of deformed fish. Is their quality of life worse off for being deformed? Unknown. Is it responsible, logical, or necessary to breed a fish I know will have a deformity? I feel, absolutely not.

4. The breeders of Blood Parrot Cichlids deliberately hybridize fish they know to provide deformed offspring, and sell them at high prices

From a business standpoint, this is not only illogical (in the long term) but unethical (from the Gattica argument).

Why do the breeders do it?

In order to compete with aquaculture heavy US states like Florida, they have found it profitable to create previously unknown variations of fish, keep their production secretive, and exploit (in the monetary sense, not the moral sense) demographic of fish keepers that are inexperienced, uninformed, unconcerned, or oddity lovers (They outnumber us 9 to 1 no doubt). They are attempting to distribute fish from asia to the Americas (and UK and Europe and Australia and whatever), and compete with breeders and farmers (like those in Florida and California, etc.) that have more resources and less shipping costs.

Why shouldn't they do it?

They pollute the gene pools of the parent species required to create their designer fish. Their designer fish are not sustainable, not because they do not breed, but because they tend to have low fecundity and their offspring do not exhibit all of the characteristic traits the originals are bred for. Eventually their criss-crossing modalities will collapse. Either they will push the intentional deformities too far (out of desperate necessity to create something new, or by happenstance) and alert the previously unwitting public to the strangeness of it, or (as is found with many flowerhorn variants) they will fall out of fashion. (This last bit isn't that likely. They hit on something special with the ugly cute BPs).

Many of the breeders of this fish are in regions like Indonesia. There are so many unique fish to that region that are not in the trade and they could be! One of my favorites, the Bumblebee Goby, is not that easy to find. There are others that are impossible.

****, start breeding the REAL Parrot Cichlid for christ's sake. It's AWESOME.

Blah blah blah something about how dying and tattooing fish (common for BPs) is ****...

I ran out of steam. I think my pleco is dead and I didn't eat dinner and I have decided that none of this makes any sense.

poop.


----------



## Manoah Marton (Feb 17, 2009)

None of this makes sense????!!!! You have a different defintion of sense than I do. This is PERFECT!!! You gave us...
1. Logical arguments that Hybrids are produced for their deformities
2. You gave some SUPER illistrations and analogies.
3. Explained the deformities in Blood Parrots, and showed us (or at least me) how these could affect the fishes life.
4. Gave us a deeper insite into why and how breeders of hybrids do what they do, and why they do it.
I think it's brilliant! 
Also, read your other thread about the pleco...sorry about that.  
I also went to the LFS today, and ...grrr... I saw the Blood Parrots they had there...and almost threw up. Did you know that they can't breathe without flaring their gills and extending their mouths open as far as they can because their gills and mouths are SO deformed, they have trouble getting water flow to their gills? It's pathetic to watch.
Anyway...nice job, and sorry about the pleco.

Manoah Marton


----------



## Darkside (Feb 6, 2008)

A lot of that is common knowledge for those who have been in the hobby for some time. Up here in Canada we do a lot of imports from over seas, the fish are just much cheaper. We also get a lot of fish directly from SA. Its mostly the run-of-the-mill Malawi cichlids that we bring up from the states.

As far as bumblebee gobies go. Here they're quite common, I've seen both the FW and the brackish version for sale in the last month. They are almost exclusively collected from the wild, and to the collecter probably worth $0.01 each, maybe less. For the work involved the incentive isn't there. You can compare this to the exportation of neon and cardinal tetras which is a more viable situation.

There is a cultural reason behind the practices of Asian fish producers as well and its not really worth getting into. Suffice to say if they can make a buck at it they will. Compared to the Asian market, ours (Canada's) is a drop in the bucket. Most of the fish produced in Asia have Asia as a destination as well, the import the overflow to NA and Europe, but these markets are drastically different.

Why they shouldn't do it is all subjective. I will say one thing, almost all fish fall in and out of fashion. The hobby is cyclical. What hot today will be common place tomorrow and the day after will be gone from circulation. A few years later they'll come back into fashion. This is especially true of cichlids. :lol:


----------



## dogofwar (Apr 5, 2004)

Fancy fish - bred to be aesthetically pleasing and different than what is found in the wild - have been around since about 200 AD....

Fancy guppies are deformed. Fancy goldfish are deformed. Fancy discus are deformed. Fancy bettas are deformed. Lots of fish in the aquarium hobby are deformed. None of these fish would make it in the wild. Nor would albino fish, line-bred "German Red" peacocks, koi angels, victorians, triple red apistos, etc, etc. All of these fish have been bred - for hobby and/or profit - to be aesthetically pleasing to people who keep fish in glass boxes (or ponds).

While they're not my cup of tea, I just can't get upset about blood red parrot cichlids or parrot flowerhorns and the like...unless they're sold as something that they're not. If people like them (find them attractive or interesting), then they will continue to be produced, stocked and sold. So be it.

The idea that people only breed hybrids for profit is as incorrect as anyone only breeding any fish for profit. Some do. Some don't.

There are a variety of mis-perceptions and myths that color too many discussion of hybrids. Thinking critically about these issues often reveals that hybrids like parrots and flowerhorns are really no different than the other fancy fish that have been the bread and butter of the fish hobby..since people started keeping captive fish....of course other than they tend to get people of fish websites' panties in a bunch.

Matt


----------



## TheFishGuy (Apr 21, 2005)

I agree with Matt... I just don't like the fact that the Trimac is now hard to find... And that 3/4 of the vieja in my tanks are hybrids being sold as somerthing else... That makes me MAD.


----------



## AnnaFish (Aug 9, 2006)

Matt, what you say is very reasonable.

I guess for me, line bred deformities like fancy tails and such are more akin to dog breeds and cat breeds. While mixing species ...

You know, it's all so relative and complex. Compounded by the sheer overpowering fecundity and ease of interspecies mixing possible in simpler organisms like fish.

When I realized if I wanted to keep discus I had to think differently about hybrids (realizing they weren't just line bred to mak breeds) I started to understand I had been extremist. If you know what you are buying, than you have made that choice.

And of course (and I was tired at the time and hadn't finished all I wanted to say, and came off quite single minded) the breeders of any of these strains, including the creators of BPs and flowerhorns could not possibly all be slapped with the sick, selfish, money grubbing label. That would be a barbaric presumption on my part and I am sorry to have left it sounding that way.

Still, when I look at a blood parrot, I cant help but feel a more beautiful, less absurdly mutated breed of fish could have been created with all of that effort. There is something macabre about the whole thing.

It's not just about properly labeling fish for sale, it's that this hobby appeals to the compulsive and the Collector and the observer. When we start in this hobby, we aren't encouraged to make informed decisions about our purchases. We are
Encouraged to learn the hard way, make mistakes, kill a few tanks of fish. And then if you are arrogant enough to try again, you start to try harder.

I was just sitting here petting my dog (one of three) and thinking all dog breeds are line bred, and all mutts (like my dogs) are intraspecies hybrids. Of course, no one made a profit off my dogs. And my dogs will never procreate. But two of my dogs are short and elongated, and will have hip problems when they get old. My old boss has a pug. Now that's a cruel purpose bred deformity.

I guess what I'm saying is -- is purpose bred deformity wrong? Maybe. But I feel a lot less right being angry about it now that I have thought it through.

The truth is, animal husbandry is largely selfish. But vilifying those that do it differently from you is just as selfish, arrogant, and base.

I will try not to participate in deformitive animal husbandry, but I will not call you a monster for doing so.


----------



## AnnaFish (Aug 9, 2006)

That being said, that **** BP/Fh cross looks like something out of HP Lovecraft and it gives me the screamin' willies:


----------



## dogofwar (Apr 5, 2004)

AnnaFish said:


> That being said, that darn BP/Fh cross looks like something out of HP Lovecraft and it gives me the screamin' willies:


Any more so than a goldfish with sacs of fluid hanging from its eyes?


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

dogofwar said:


> AnnaFish said:
> 
> 
> > That being said, that darn BP/Fh cross looks like something out of HP Lovecraft and it gives me the screamin' willies:
> ...


Just about the same amount actually. :lol:


----------



## dogofwar (Apr 5, 2004)

It's frustrating...but ultimately the responsibility of the relatively small community of aquarists/vendors that value "pure" fish to be rigorous about maintaining "pure" lines with provenance back to wild stock / collection locations...

There are good sources for "pure" trimacs and Viejas... unfortunately your (and my) LFS don't tend to order from those places...and chains really don't care.

The problem of mislabeled fish in the hobby isn't so much a plot by flowerhorn breeders to sell their culls as much as a breakdown of responsibility, ethics and and knowledge at a lot of levels, including - unfortunately - some people who participate in fish club auctions...

Matt



TheFishGuy said:


> I agree with Matt... I just don't like the fact that the Trimac is now hard to find... And that 3/4 of the vieja in my tanks are hybrids being sold as somerthing else... That makes me MAD.


----------



## dogofwar (Apr 5, 2004)

Hi Anna,

I appreciate your thoughts  Too often this is an emotional instead of logical issue.

Although I don't keep fancy fish (full disclosure: I have a koi veil angel that a buddy of mine gave me), I have come to appreciate that some of the people who keep and breed them are really skilled, passionate aquarists.

As in dog breeding, you have people who know what they're doing...and people who think that they can create a new, best-selling breed by simply crossing one dog breed with another. Development of lines of attractive, stable "fancy" fish (whether they be hybrids or line bred) isn't easy.

Matt



AnnaFish said:


> Matt, what you say is very reasonable.
> 
> I guess for me, line bred deformities like fancy tails and such are more akin to dog breeds and cat breeds. While mixing species ...
> 
> ...


----------



## shane2sweet1 (Aug 4, 2010)

Wow. This probably one of the most interesting threads I've read on this site, a lot of different opinions and points of view. And who's to say who's right and who's wrong. I've got an all male tank so I don't have any hybrid experience. 
I don't have much of an issue with hybrid fish like bloodparrots, etc. If I went to a pet store that had a hybrid for sale I might buy it if it looked cool. I would take issue with someone selling hybrids as pure strain, but if you know what you're buying you can't complain. 
I see some posts saying its wrong to profit off hybrids, but I live in Michigan and apparently our DNR has no problem with hybrid fish. Take a look at the 'Splake' its a hybrid between a Lake Trout and a Brook Trout (a man made fish). I am sure it helps sell more fishing licenses, so they are profitting off hybrids. Its a tasty fish, but not as good as a natural brooky in my opinion.
I guess what I'm saying is whether you think its right or wrong... it doesn't matter. If there is money to be made then man will do it. Its that simple.


----------



## AnnaFish (Aug 9, 2006)

I don't like your monetary rationalization of human behavior. I prefer Matt's notion of passionate individuals strivig to create something beautiful. We are all playing demigod when we engage in animal husbandry. Some of us are just playing hardball.

Is it wrong to mix species and strains in an attempt to mold a being in your image? No more wrong than keeping organisms bound in glass display cases.

Besides, whether you agree with the product of a sect of animal husbandry, you have to agree -- how much more life and passion and inspiration is on this planet because we took notice of our fellow planet mates and wanted to hold them close and make companions out of them...

It makes the whole business no less selfish, but for the most part, our intentions are pure and born of love. Love for life, love for the hobby. Animal husbandry is ingrained in our global culture: it pulled us out from the forests and the wandering and the ceaseless struggle for stability. Would we be better off if we had stayed away from domestication? Who's to say? We're here now.

Let's roll with it.


----------



## dogofwar (Apr 5, 2004)

I think cichlid-(tilapia) keeping started with the ancient Egyptians (Mesopatamians?)...and they certainly kept domestic cats as companions. I think it's something ingrained in us. Some more ingrained than others (seen the show "Hoaders"?)...

Matt


----------



## Dewdrop (Nov 20, 2007)

I had posted in another section here about a problem I have & mentioned that I had taken in my grandsons fish which included 3 glow fish & 2 tiny balloon rams. I explained that my daughter didn't know what they were when she bought them but I was still a little afraid of getting some flack from it anyway. I really didn't though :thumb: thank you.

Myself, I wouldn't buy balloon rams or balloon anything, even though these balloon rams don't swim or act any differently than my bolivian rams, because I've read here that it's bad. I haven't taken the time yet to check out how they are "made" that way or what difficulties they may have because of it.

I did know a little about the glow fish even before my grandson got his. From what I understand about them, they were "made" by scientist to help somehow in gathering information about waterways. It was kind of a bonus that they were also desirable to aquarist. Thus becoming a commercial product. As far as I can tell, the luminosity of the fish doesn't harm it because it's now bred into them so I really don't have a problem with them.

I guess the only real problems I have with man-made fish or hybrids is ...
1. The threat they pose to pure lines of fish. It's getting so I don't trust any LFS near where I live to have pure fish, but I can even argue with myself that there will (I HOPE) always be purist to keep true lines available...somewhere.
2. Fish that are marketed that are deformed in such a way that the fish apparently isn't comfortable, can't eat correctly, etc.. I've not been around a lot of blood parrots but my grandson had one of those too for a good while & I really didn't see anything wrong with it. I would have liked for him to have had it in a bigger tank but it didn't seem to have any trouble swimming, staying upright, or eating & it was a pleasure to watch as it moved gravel & made nests.

I really don't have a problem with people "coming up" with a "new" type of fish. I love the looks of the man-made Strawberry (or 1/2 dozen other names they have for it :lol: ) peacocks. As long as they are healthy & not hurt during the process (like dying, tattooing, hormoning, cutting off fins etc.) & are labeled as hybrid or man-made when sold then it's fine with me. They mixed a Cocker Spanial with a Poodle & got a Cock-a-poo. It turned out to be a very popular & really nice family dog.

I'm not looking to debate. Just putting in my opinion..and you know what they say about those :wink: I'm glad this thread was kept going.

P.S. BumbleBee Goby's were sold in Walmarts around here a while back. I had some and thoughly enjoyed them while they lasted. Was never sure if they were the brackish type or not


----------



## shane2sweet1 (Aug 4, 2010)

Anna, animal and plant husbandry are a part of the world we live in... whether it's cattle or apples or fish. I'm not saying it's ethical or unethical in the aquarium fish industry, but it's here. Like I said, I got no experience with hybrid cichlids so I can't really offer my 2 cents on whether it's right or wrong. The point of my post was man will push the limits to make a few dollars whether it's right or wrong. I got a friend who's a dairy farmer and they use animal husbandry all time, only the best will breed with the best to get the best offspring. And what it all boils down to is making money just like hybrid fish I believe. I'm sure the people that breed these bloodparrots and flowerhorns don't do it because they think it's fun... money talks.

Everyone can disagree and say what a poor perspective I have on life, but that's the way I see it.

That's all I have to say, good thread.

Hasta luego


----------

