# ACA Convention and New Hybrid Class



## Mr.Firemouth

http://acaforum.com/index.php?showtopic ... entry14291

Class 28. AOV-Cichlid will allow for the showing of any cichlid, including Hybrids!!!

I will see you all at the convention! Make your registration today!!!!!

http://www.2009aca.com/


----------



## Cich of it all

It is disappointing to me that they will allow hybrids. It just encourages the act of cross-breeding.


----------



## niccomau

Cich of it all said:


> It is disappointing to me that they will allow hybrids. It just encourages the act of cross-breeding.


I agree


----------



## prov356

That is surprising. Probably bowed to pressure from somewhere, someone. Hopefully people won't be 
out there trying to develop 'show' hybrids just to put them in the ACA show. I wonder what kind of 
reaction they'll get.


----------



## prov356

Interesting theme for the convention

*Fish Wars, the Hybrid Menace!*

Maybe that's why.


----------



## prov356

In their flyer, they call it the 'menace' class and 'under consideration'.

_28. Menace Class
Open to any fish with two cichlid parents.
Under consideration_


----------



## Cich of it all

prov356 said:


> In their flyer, they call it the 'menace' class and 'under consideration'.
> 
> _28. Menace Class
> Open to any fish with two cichlid parents.
> Under consideration_


Maybe if they awarded the _ugliest_ hybrids and stressed the importance of not distributing them. They could instate the rule: all hybrids entered will be fed to the big SA/CA's at the end of the show. opcorn:


----------



## prov356

Maybe they're just trying to lay the controversy on the table and see where it goes. Maybe the thinking is 
that they might as well have them present while they do that. Not sure they'll come to any consensus or 
conclusions. Or maybe it's just a way to increase attendance, you know, with some controversial 
theme. It'll be interesting to follow. I've been considering going this year, since I'm not that far from 
Cincy, and I hear that have a nice zoo.


----------



## niccomau

You could be right Prov. I just hope they don't make it a real class. It's already impossible to find pure L. Caeruleus, and I. sprengerae out here. And the chain pet stores (who shall remain nameless) would love it  Not that they have trouble selling their hybrids anyways.

" They could instate the rule: all hybrids entered will be fed to the big SA/CA's at the end of the show." 
:lol: :lol: :lol: That really would be an interesting show.


----------



## lotsofish

The "menace" is out there and we can't stop it.

I think its best to confront the issue. I think that reputable breeders will be more in demand because they will represent quality and purity. I don't see much difference between "mutts" and hybrid fish. When you get a purebred dog, you pay more and you know what to expect. It is similar with fish, the recognized species will exhibit the looks and behaviors of that species. Don't buy a dog from a puppy mill and don't buy your fish from pet chain stores.


----------



## ZaireBlue

An interesting Article from *Cichlid Blues* (the PCCA bimonthly Journal), issue #161, January 2009.








:thumb: :thumb: :thumb:


----------



## dogofwar

I don't believe that the intention is for people to display randomly mixed fish...but to exhibit flowerhorns and other intentional hybrids.

Kind of like this show in Asia:
http://forums.waterwolves.com/Indonesia ... 28474.html



lotsofish said:


> The "menace" is out there and we can't stop it.
> 
> I think its best to confront the issue. I think that reputable breeders will be more in demand because they will represent quality and purity. I don't see much difference between "mutts" and hybrid fish. When you get a purebred dog, you pay more and you know what to expect. It is similar with fish, the recognized species will exhibit the looks and behaviors of that species. Don't buy a dog from a puppy mill and don't buy your fish from pet chain stores.


----------



## Cich of it all

ZaireBlue said:


> An interesting Article from *Cichlid Blues* (the PCCA bimonthly Journal), issue #161, January 2009.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:


Very well said
I agree. Let the flowerhorn people whine. The organization should stand up for the principles of the hobby and the people that have dedicated their lives to these principals. I believe Mr. Grant will be turning over in his grave.



> intentional hybrids


IMO_ intentional _does not make it right.


----------



## dogofwar

Why are flowerhorns "wrong"?


----------



## Cich of it all

dogofwar said:


> Why are flowerhorns "wrong"?


I don't think I could explain it any better than that article above; particularly the bottom of the left page. Click on it if it's too small to read on your screen.


----------



## Mr.Firemouth

The ACA is not doing this in an attempt to increase membership.
The ACA is doing this to reach out to hybrid owners and show them the importance of conservation. That goal can not be achieved with discussions like" the ACA is just a bunch of bigot elitists".

The ACA hopes to reach more people to encourage the benefits of being a member, and by becoming a member then helping the organization achieve the stated goals. Cichlid Power is the unified efforts of the organization's members to achieve something for Cichlidae.

This is also not about popularity. It is about reality. The hobby has morphed. It has moved towards the proliferation of cichlid hybrids and we as a group can not stop that, but we can reach out and to people and try to educate them of the current plight of our natural cichlids in the wild in an effort to initiate more conservation projects.

To all those that oppose hybrids, I ask how many of you are CARES registrants with tanks dedicated to conservation? I keep 1 CARES species. Before we dismiss hybrids and talk about the destruction of the wild types, we must first ACT and DO something for conservation!
Cichlid Power starts with you!

Finally, the BOT makes judgements based on the input they receive. The ACA Forum has not seen the above displayed article. Why? It is posted here, but not there where the ACA BOT can see it. This lack of using the provided means of communication for a public discourse on the topic has been another reason for the BOT making their own decisions.

Please be aware, the ACA did NOT allow this to happen. The Host club did.


----------



## Number6

Mr.Firemouth said:


> To all those that oppose hybrids, I ask how many of you are CARES registrants with tanks dedicated to conservation? I keep 1 CARES species.


Very well said!

I must say I am not impressed with some of the anti-hybrid comments in this thread so far...

There are more than 2 sides to this debate... you can be neither pro nor anti-hybrid.

I have bred and owned a species from the CARES list, I've also owned hybrid breeds and they both have their place in the hobby.


----------



## PsYcHoTiC_MaDmAn

the only thing I can see here is the comparison between discus and flowerhorns here is wrong.

line bred fish are separate from hybrids. the red discus are a line bred strain, (as are many other "species" out there, Aulonocara eureka for example)

personally I can see it being a tight rope to walk between "wild type" and "line bred" as there are arguments that a lot of the rare fish that are maintained, from in some instances a single shipment/pair of fish, are therefore to be considered "line bred". however they are separate from hybrids.

the colour morphs and so on that are derived from the fish may well serve as a lure to get people interested in cichlids, personally I prefer wild type fish over "colour varieties" so my favourites are brown discus, as opposed to the reds/blues/pigeon bloods etc

though I have the luxury of not having to worry about this, as its unlikely for me to be going to an ACA event, as that would require some expensive flights to get there...


----------



## Fogelhund

PsYcHoTiC_MaDmAn said:


> the only thing I can see here is the comparison between discus and flowerhorns here is wrong.


I'm not sure it is though. The argument proposed by the author seems to be one of conservation. A bright red discus is hardly conserving what is natural, nor are any other line-bred creations for that matter. From that perspective, the comparison seems rather accurate.

Now having said that, I'm not certain that the keeping of fish in an aquarium is remotely close to being something of conservation. How many fish kept in the aquarium for 10 generations would survive if returned to the wild... (well, let's overlook Florida :lol: )

But seriously, I think it is important to try and teach, and learn about conservation, but the aquarium hobby does far more damage than positive when it comes to natural habitat. A bit of irony in this stance.

Maybe we are talking about the conservation of species in the hobby?

The ACA does need to clearly define itself though, does it promote what is "natural" or not? A red discus is an ornamental fish, that seems to have more in common with a Flowerhorn, than a wild discus in some respects. What about these Parrot fish... should they be include too?

What about all these albino strains of fish? Can we verify their purity? Many of them I am extremely sceptical of...

In the end, I almost wonder what we do. We have natural pure strain fish, representative of wild fish. We have some fish we know are line-bred versions. We have some fish that we aren't sure about, maybe line bred, maybe hybrid. Then we have known hybrids.

Or, we have natural cichlids, and ornamental cichlids.

Let's face it, the Pet Trade doesn't give a hoot about conservation of pure fish in the hobby. They need to make sales, and it appears as though some of these hybrids and ornametal cichlids have caught on... what to do about it....


----------



## Number6

for a long time, the linebred red Discus were thought to be interspecies hybrids, whereas now, they turn out to be intraspecies hybrids...

and this changes what?

Yet a monstrosity of a line bred Discus wins shows and a flowerhorn is banned...

I like Fogel's summation:

"Or, we have natural cichlids, and ornamental cichlids. "


----------



## dogofwar

"the only thing I can see here is the comparison between discus and flowerhorns here is wrong. line bred fish are separate from hybrids. the red discus are a line bred strain.."

I too struggle with the logic of the "hybrid = bad; line bred cross of different varients of single "species" to create a fancy fish = OK" argument.

Whether discus are a single species or multiple species is still being determined by scientists. Certainly, the different wild types of discus are "different" in visible ways. At the time that fancy discus were developed, the different types were classified as different species. Do you think that those who developed them (fancy discus) balked at crossing species? Nope - they wanted to develop a red fish! No different than flowehorns.

Hobby conservation and conservation of natural habitats are two separate issues. The latter has to do with destruction of native habitats (because of farming, pollution, encroachment of man, etc.).

Hobby conservation entails maintaining strains of fish that are as authentic to wild-type fish as possible. The real danger to hobby conservation occurs when people or vendors act irresponsibly: mis-labeling fish as something that they're not and the like. This is a problem that is not limited to flowerhorns or hybrid fish.

The existence of flowerhorns (or fancy line bred fish for that matter) is largely irrelevant to hobby conservation as a responsible breeding program to maintain wild characteristics would not include fish that are - at best - suspect "wild type fish". Mis-labeled wild-type fish, I would argue, represent a much bigger problem...and irresponsible breeding of similar, mis-labeled wild-type species has led to the - unintentional - production and sale of hybrid fish (as wild fish).

Don't hate flowerhorns or the people who keep and enjoy them. Hate people - who keep cichlids of all kinds - who act irresponsibly.

The ACA can make a difference by promoting responsible fishkeeping...and not by excluding parts of the cichlid hobby. I hope that this "olive branch" in Cinci results in a real breakthrough!


----------



## ZaireBlue

Another interesting article for you to read - written by *Dr. Ron Coleman*

http://cichlidresearch.com/parrot.html :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:


----------



## ZaireBlue

Is this what we expected to see at the ACA Convention 2009 Show?


----------



## prov356

ZaireBlue said:


> Is this what we expected to see at the ACA Convention 2009 Show?


Sadly, yes, because of this attitude.



Mr.Firemouth said:


> The hobby has morphed. It has moved towards the proliferation of cichlid hybrids and we as a group can not stop that





Mr.Firemouth said:


> Please be aware, the ACA did NOT allow this to happen. The Host club did


And they have no voice, and can do nothing about it? So, no matter what the host club comes up with, 
ACA has to go along?



Mr.Firemouth said:


> To all those that oppose hybrids, I ask how many of you are CARES registrants with tanks dedicated to conservation?


So, if I'm not keeping something off the CARES list, then I'm a hypocrite if I don't want to see a hybrid 
category at ACA? Not everyone is able to do that for a variety of reasons, and it doesn't mean they 
don't care about cichlid conservation. You can't place that requirement on having a voice. I'm a 
paying member of ACA and I support cichlid conservation even without keeping anything on the list.



Mr.Firemouth said:


> but we can reach out and to people and try to educate them of the current plight of our natural cichlids in the wild in an effort to initiate more conservation projects.


Or, it may backfire and get people excited about keeping flowerhorns like they saw ACA legitimizing. 
I know they're not intending to legitimize, but that could be the perception. We'll see where this goes, 
and if this truly educates and helps to increase awareness and support of cichlid conservation.



Fogelhund said:


> A red discus is an ornamental fish, that seems to have more in common with a Flowerhorn, than a wild discus in some respects.


Good point. Every year there are some pretty wild strains of discuss at the OCA Extravaganza. 
Should there be?

Hopefully this won't turn into another 'hybrid, good or bad' thread, since we've got enough of those 
already, but should convention shows have hybrid categories, particularly the ACA convention.

Mr. Firemouth. Just curious. What's your connection with ACA?


----------



## dogofwar

...because, of course, the only fish that can be tattoed or otherwise disfigured are hybrids, correct?



ZaireBlue said:


> Is this what we expected to see at the ACA Convention 2009 Show?


----------



## Cich of it all

> ...because, of course, the only fish that can be tattoed or otherwise disfigured are hybrids, correct?


...and yes, everybody loves condescending sarcasm.

Tatooed or not, holy **** is the flowerhorn an ugly freak of *nature*!


----------



## Number6

Cich of it all said:


> Tatooed or not, holy #%$& is the flowerhorn an ugly freak of *nature*!


How? How is it an ugly freak? Excuse me, but the hump is a naturally occurring trait! The colors? The colors are hardly very extreme... 
compared to many wild cichlids and even compared to non-cichlids, fish can be extremely colorful.

Are you familiar with the CA and SA cichlid species that make up the traits we see in Flowerhorns?

I think not...

Perhaps you meant the Parrotfish?

IF SO, then how is that ugly freakish and yada yada but the Balloon German Ram (a pure species) NOT?

Is it truly hybridization that you don't like? or is it the manipulation of fish with complete disregard for all things natural and in the interests of the fish?


----------



## Guest

If the ACA is going to allow hybrids, they should REALLY stress during the talks the importance of conservation, preserving natural species, and they should really explain why hybrids are likely to have more health issues, behavioral issues, and why they are for the most part disliked in the hobby.

Don't get me wrong some hybrids and other line bred fish are fine looking, namely some of the malawi peacock aquarium strains for example.

The problems I have with hybrids is how flowerhorn and red parrot *breeders* sacrifice the health of the fish and morals for certain colors and severe deformations (granted the hump is naturally occurring in many new world species)... All for a quick buck.

Don't get me wrong I see nothing wrong with the people that enjoy those fish. But I personally feel the argument that this will backfire and make it seem like the ACA is welcoming hybrids, especially when there are hundreds of beautiful species all around the globe that are going extinct, are extinct, or extremely endangered that are only getting attention by a handful of dedicated hobbyists, is a valid argument. However, like I said above, if the ACA does feel allowing hybrids in, then I surely hope that they do overly stress the importance of natural species conservation and natural habitat conservation (preventing overfishing for example and destruction of natural habitats).

Also, just a personal comment... I personally feel that comparing hybrid and line bred Aulonocara species for example to Flowerhorns is extremely wrong.... Flowerhorns are hybrids between fishes that aren't even closely related. ALL Malawi fish are VERY closely related and to say that for example Eureka and Albino Eureka peacocks, Ruby Reds, etc, are making the rest of Malawi cichlids and particularly the natural Jacobfreibergi species variants and the natural baenschi and stuartgranti variants less popular in the hobby is wrong.

I personally fear that this action by the ACA will bring an explosion of flowerhorns across pet stores around the country, and even more deformed variants as we currently see with the goldfish that come out of asia...

~Ed


----------



## prov356

Marduk said:


> if the ACA does feel allowing hybrids in, then I surely hope that they do overly stress the importance of natural species conservation and natural habitat conservation (preventing overfishing for example and destruction of natural habitats).


I opened my copy of the ACA bulletin that I had received recently, but never got to, and looked to see if it 
had anything on this issue. There's a good article from Konings on hybrids in the wild, but nothing else 
mentioned. Maybe it was printed before this decision was made and maybe they'll have something to 
say next month. Maybe Konings or others will be speaking on this topic at the convention. Again, just 
waiting to see how this plays out.


----------



## Cich of it all

*Number 6:*
Perhaps you don't quite understand the concept of an _opinion _sir. I think that is one ugly a$$ fish. Regarding the balloon German Ram, also an ugly fish. Other ugly fish: Marine Sunfish, Adult Iridescent "shark", Angler fish. If you don't agree with my opinions on appearance, that is fine with me. 
I'm punching out of this thread now because: a) I am out of league here in terms of knowledge of the species that have been used to create the flowerhorn hybrid, b) I'd don't want to be involved in another "ethics of hyrids" debate, and c) I cannot express my true opinions because you are a mod.


----------



## prov356

Question. How are they going to judge that category?? :-?


----------



## Guest

prov356 said:


> Question. How are they going to judge that category?? :-?


I have no idea, but I still hope there aren't any serious repercussions that will affect the hobby negatively...


----------



## Fogelhund

Cich of it all said:


> c) I cannot express my true opinions because you are a mod.


 You can certainly express your opinion about the subject at hand.


----------



## Fogelhund

Marduk said:


> I personally feel that comparing hybrid and line bred Aulonocara species for example to Flowerhorns is extremely wrong.... Flowerhorns are hybrids between fishes that aren't even closely related. ALL Malawi fish are VERY closely related and to say that for example Eureka and Albino Eureka peacocks, Ruby Reds, etc, are making the rest of Malawi cichlids and particularly the natural Jacobfreibergi species variants and the natural baenschi and stuartgranti variants less popular in the hobby is wrong.


I think you are making a dangerous argument here. We don't really know what went into some of the Aulonocara "hybrids", so the assumption that they are more closely related than what might have gone into Flowerhorns is dubious. It is "probably" right, but who knows.

If we assume you are correct, at what point do we draw the line in genetic differences? How closely related must two distinct fishes be, to be hybrids that are ok in your opinion? Exactly at what point are they not ok? Is the line black and white, or is there a gray area? How do we know what exactly went into some of these fish?

Is an OB ok? Is an albino fryeri, that was likely created by crossing an Aulonocara and natural fryeri ok? Is an albino jacobfreibergi type ok, if it was created by crossing a jake and a stuartgranti, then line breeding to ensure it looked like a jake?

Also, if people were not keeping albino baenschi's, or albino fryeri, or OB peacocks... would they be keeping nothing at all? Or would they be keeping natural species?

My opinion keeps it simple... natural fish, ornamental fish, and I'd add on deformed fish. Even deformed fish is a difficult one to deal with with some fishes.. Is a long-finned Oscar a ornamental fish, or a deformed fish? We can certainly agree that mutilated and dyed fish are wrong, the rest gets cloudy.


----------



## Guest

Fogelhund said:


> If we assume you are correct, at what point do we draw the line in genetic differences? How closely related must two distinct fishes be, to be hybrids that are ok in your opinion? Exactly at what point are they not ok? Is the line black and white, or is there gray area?


I draw the line when there are fish that aren't even close to looking natural. You can argue with the albino peacocks for example that they could exist in the wild, although would be extremely rare and not exist in large numbers to sustain an actual albino population.

And with some fish like Ruby reds, as far as I know they are either line bred baenschis or stuartgranti Marleri Island peacocks. And with O.B. peacocks, although it is known for a fact that they are hybrids between two or more completely different genus's, they at least resemble the rest of the peacocks and the OB morph is something that does exist in all three of the rift lakes...maybe not naturally as far as we know with Aulonocara sp., but it's not too polluted in the gene pool for me to want to dismiss it as a freak of nature.

With flowerhorns and blood parrots, I see fish that aren't even close physically to natural cichlids, and their health must be seriously questioned. I don't like that breeders are now treating cichlids the way they treated goldfish over the centuries I guess is my main problem with hybrids.

I don't want to get into an argument over hybrids, because personally I have no problem with them being kept, just the breeders that in my opinion go too far with ruining the gene pool with for example fish such as the ornamental goldfish, flowerhorns, and blood parrots.

My only real concern though about the ACA opening up to it, is the potential damage it could cause to the cichlid hobby in America and maybe all over the world... Like I said before, if the ACA is serious about allowing ALL KINDS of hybrids that are of cichlid blood, then they should at least overly stress the importance of preserving the natural species especially after what is happening in Lake Victoria and Madagascar with the destruction of habitats, introduction of non-native fish, etc.

~Ed


----------



## Cich of it all

Sorry to break back in here, but does anybody have a link to a website that has info on the CARE program / list? I'm very interested in this and I'd like to get involved, but I've found no info via my googling.
TYIA


----------



## prov356

> Sorry to break back in here, but does anybody have a link to a website that has info on the CARE program / list? I'm very interested in this and I'd like to get involved, but I've found no info via my googling.
> TYIA


ACA CARES

The trick is finding those species.


----------



## BillD

Are Flowerhorn keepers actually cichlid hobbyists, or just Flowerhorn keepers? All the cichlid hobbyists I know, and these are people who are more experienced and learned than I as far as cichlids go, would not be caught dead with a Flowerhorn or Parrot, or balloon ram, or worse yet an Angel ram. There are people that keep only flowerhorns and wouldn't keep anything else. Does the ACA need to include these people? I think not. The judging of these fish would be kind of difficult especially if the class is open to any hybrid.


----------



## Fogelhund

Marduk said:


> And with some fish like Ruby reds, as far as I know they are either line bred baenschis or stuartgranti Marleri Island peacocks. And with O.B. peacocks, although it is known for a fact that they are hybrids between two or more completely different genus's, they at least resemble the rest of the peacocks and the OB morph is something that does exist in all three of the rift lakes...maybe not naturally as far as we know with Aulonocara sp., but it's not too polluted in the gene pool for me to want to dismiss it as a freak of nature.
> 
> With flowerhorns and blood parrots, I see fish that aren't even close physically to natural cichlids, and their health must be seriously questioned.


The "theory" is that they "might" be line bred. The reality is, nobody knows, except the people who originally bred them. Then, we don't know what has happened since then, particularly in fish that owe their lineage to certain breeders in Asia, who actively hybridize. (Not a bash, just a reality) The theory suggested that Ruby's were baenschi and Germans were Maleri.. (or the other way around). Since then, it is obvious that the term Ruby and Germans are used to mostly describe the same fish, and it is highly probable that if you believe the original story, that they are Maleri/baenschi hybrid/linebred fish now anyway... even if the story is right.

In the end, I gave up caring. There are some nice "ornamental" Red Peacocks. As long as people don't breed them with natural strains of baenschi, or Maleri, or Ngara... I could care less what they are, or how they came into being, other than as an interesting discussion.

If it turns out these Ruby or German Reds are hybrids, are they less desirable? Probably not to all but a select few. Is it verifiable beyond genetic testing? Of course not, and the testing wouldn't do anything positive for the hobby either.

Albinos will occur naturally in some of these species, but their probability of survival in the wild is approaching zero. The reality is that some of these albino Haps/Peacocks were created through hybridization. Which ones?

Where an organization such as the ACA can help in these situations, is by making a strong and easily understandable distinction, along with proper education. Given we don't know whether many of these fish are natural, or hybrids, we should probably call them "ornamental" fish, and just recognize "natural" strains for what they are. The education should be focused on ensuring that people do not breed "ornamental" fish, with "natural" fish, in order to preserve the natural lines. It is possible and in many cases probable that the "ornamental" specimens are hybrids, and introducing their genetics into the hobby, is destructive for the "conservation" of that "natural" species in the hobby.

The question is simple. Does this fish, with these genetic characteristics exist in the wild? Yes or No? It doesn't carry any stigma with it, that perhaps the term "hybrids" do. I'm not certain that "ornamental" versions of fish are any better, or worse than known "hybrids".

Regarding the flowerhorn... I don't see how they are unnaturally shaped. You might be referring to their humps, which don't seem to be much larger than some frontosa, midas, Gymnogeophagus balzanii and so on.... Frankly, I think if your released flowerhorns into the wild, you would probably find they are fit enough to outcompete natural species.

Parrots... well.. appear to be deformed and often mutilated... can't say much postive about that.


----------



## Fogelhund

BillD said:


> Are Flowerhorn keepers actually cichlid hobbyists, or just Flowerhorn keepers? All the cichlid hobbyists I know, and these are people who are more experienced and learned than I as far as cichlids go, would not be caught dead with a Flowerhorn or Parrot, or balloon ram, or worse yet an Angel ram. There are people that keep only flowerhorns and wouldn't keep anything else. Does the ACA need to include these people? I think not. The judging of these fish would be kind of difficult especially if the class is open to any hybrid.


I certainly see quite a few Parrot's and Flowerhorns in the Your Tanks section, as I go through and approve them. It would seem that they are indeed cichlid hobbyists.

Serious breeders... no idea, I don't know many people in Ontario who are breeders of South/Central America "type" cichlids anyway.

No idea if bringing some Flowerhorn people into the fold, and showing the some of the natural specimens might encourage them to move away from the "darkside" as some might see it.

I'm not in the habit of sending people to other forums for discussion, but read this first posting from some people who have been in the hobby for a LONG time, and are well respected. (Marc Weiss, Chuck Davis, Mo (mojo)...

http://forum.aquamojo.com/index.php?showtopic=8822


----------



## Fogelhund

..and one other thing... this idea that these fish would be difficult to judge in a show is bunk. They judge Red Discus, Angel variants, bettas, fancy guppies, goldfish and all kinds of other fish that look nothing like their natural counterparts.


----------



## PsYcHoTiC_MaDmAn

Number6 said:


> for a long time, the linebred red Discus were thought to be interspecies hybrids, whereas now, they turn out to be intraspecies hybrids...
> 
> and this changes what?
> 
> Yet a monstrosity of a line bred Discus wins shows and a flowerhorn is banned...
> 
> I like Fogel's summation:
> 
> "Or, we have natural cichlids, and ornamental cichlids. "


just explain to me how it can be an intraspecies hybrid. that means it came from within the species, therefore still of that said species, even if it is from various locations, its still one species.

from what I remember reading discus sp tend to hybridise in the wild anyway,

dont get me wrong, I'm not a major fan of linebred fish, but if they are still based on the sp that makes them quite a bit different than hybrids like the flowerhorn. .

the "standards" for flowerhorns, and what are hybridised in order to make them
http://www.cichlid-forum.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=179488

that is somewhat different to the line bred discus.

so I personally cant agree with the comparison between the 2,


----------



## dogofwar

"My only real concern though about the ACA opening up to it, is the potential damage it could cause to the cichlid hobby in America and maybe all over the world..."

Could you explain how this would happen?

Step 1: ACA has an "all other" class for hybrids in their annual show
...
Step n: Damage to the cichlid hobby in the US
...
Step n+?: Damage to the cichlid hobby all over the world

Alternately can you explain how encouraging people who like flowerhorns (exclusively or in addition to other kinds of cichlids) in ACA activities will hurt the organization?


----------



## Cich of it all

Wow, this discussion (and the one in the thread that was linked to in psycho madman's post) is almost like one of religion or politics! Everybody seems to place the division line between what is okay/not okay for the hobby, what is hybrid/what is line-bred, what is cruel or not, etc., in a different place. Some of this is semantics, some of it ethics, but almost all of it could be defined clearly by rules/guidelines if they are put in place. Maybe the ACA has intentions of getting something like that started and this invitation is the initiation of that action? I guess no matter how clear the definitions are, there will still be people on both sides of the fence regarding hybrids, but the individual hobbyist can make that decision for his/her self.


----------



## dogofwar

So lets say that the ACA comes up with some hair-splitting "definition" of what fish are ethical (OK to keep and breed) and which ones are un-ethical (wrong to keep or breed), so what?

Flowerhorns and parrots and OB peacocks will still be remain popular aquarium fish... and people who like those fish simply will not join the ACA. It's like throwing the baby (education, $ for conservation activities, fellowship with other cichlid hobbyists) out with the bathwater (hybrids are bad).

A better focus for the organization would be on encouraging responsible practices in keeping, breeding, and selling/distributing cichlids.

Nature made different "species" (which is a man-made way of organizing living things) of cichlids able to readily breed with each other. Irresponsible care, breeding, and sale/distribution of ANY kind of cichlid represents the true threat to lines of fish in the hobby that are as authentic (as possible) to wild populations.


----------



## heylady

> Are Flowerhorn keepers actually cichlid hobbyists, or just Flowerhorn keepers? All the cichlid hobbyists I know, and these are people who are more experienced and learned than I as far as cichlids go, would not be caught dead with a Flowerhorn or Parrot, or balloon ram, or worse yet an Angel ram. There are people that keep only flowerhorns and wouldn't keep anything else. Does the ACA need to include these people? I think not. The judging of these fish would be kind of difficult especially if the class is open to any hybrid.


I consider myself a cichlid hobbyist. I have "natural" cichlids but I also have hybrids. In the past I have raised; angels, rams, N. brevis (shellies) and jewels. I have also kept other cichlids too; OB peacock, julies, labs, discus, cockatoo dwarf, convict. I know I'm forgetting something...so anyway I do consider myself a cichlid hobbyist.

Hubby and I were at the LFS like 8+ years ago and he saw a parrot cichlid that he wanted me to get. I knew the controversy over this fish but I figured what the heck. It was his fish right? But I have to say that I fell in love with this fish and wouldn't trade her for anything! She is big, bold, beautiful and quite aggressive (Especially when she has eggs. And yes, she can bite and draw blood!)

Now I have an oscar, texas and rainbow cichlids. I also have a female *flowerhorn*. Because of this flowerhorn I have become much more interested in true trimacs. Eventually down the road when the fish I have now die from extreme old age I would like to have a trimac as a wet pet.

Don't discount all hybrid keepers as not "real" hobbyists.

BTW, dyeing fish and tattooing is not only done to hybrids, I've seen blueberry oscars, glassfish have been injected, etc....this is something that should be outlawed in this country! Cropping tails and dorsal fins/any fins should be outlawed too! Horrible practice.....

And just to throw in a pic of my blood parrot because I can never resist a chance to show her off!!


----------



## ZaireBlue

dogofwar said:


> ...because, of course, the *only fish that can be tattoed* or otherwise disfigured are hybrids, correct?


It is NOT CORRECT. Parrot fish is not only fish that can be tattooed.

Here is what I found.


















































This fish is simply a HYBRIDS.


----------



## dogofwar

Great perspective, Heylady!

"Hubby and I were at the LFS like 8+ years ago and he saw a parrot cichlid that he wanted me to get. I knew the controversy over this fish but I figured what the heck."

It is - in my opinion - misplaced "controversy". What kind of fish that you keep and like shouldn't be "controversial".

What should be controversial (frowned upon) isn't people - like you - who take good care of a fish that they like...but people who take poor care of fish, mislabel them, etc. Irresponsible people. Who keep fish of all kinds.

Matt



heylady said:


> Are Flowerhorn keepers actually cichlid hobbyists, or just Flowerhorn keepers? All the cichlid hobbyists I know, and these are people who are more experienced and learned than I as far as cichlids go, would not be caught dead with a Flowerhorn or Parrot, or balloon ram, or worse yet an Angel ram. There are people that keep only flowerhorns and wouldn't keep anything else. Does the ACA need to include these people? I think not. The judging of these fish would be kind of difficult especially if the class is open to any hybrid.
> 
> 
> 
> I consider myself a cichlid hobbyist. I have "natural" cichlids but I also have hybrids. In the past I have raised; angels, rams, N. brevis (shellies) and jewels. I have also kept other cichlids too; OB peacock, julies, labs, discus, cockatoo dwarf, convict. I know I'm forgetting something...so anyway I do consider myself a cichlid hobbyist.
> 
> Hubby and I were at the LFS like 8+ years ago and he saw a parrot cichlid that he wanted me to get. I knew the controversy over this fish but I figured what the heck. It was his fish right? But I have to say that I fell in love with this fish and wouldn't trade her for anything! She is big, bold, beautiful and quite aggressive (Especially when she has eggs. And yes, she can bite and draw blood!)
> 
> Now I have an oscar, texas and rainbow cichlids. I also have a female *flowerhorn*. Because of this flowerhorn I have become much more interested in true trimacs. Eventually down the road when the fish I have now die from extreme old age I would like to have a trimac as a wet pet.
> 
> Don't discount all hybrid keepers as not "real" hobbyists.
> 
> BTW, dyeing fish and tattooing is not only done to hybrids, I've seen blueberry oscars, glassfish have been injected, etc....this is something that should be outlawed in this country! Cropping tails and dorsal fins/any fins should be outlawed too! Horrible practice.....
> 
> And just to throw in a pic of my blood parrot because I can never resist a chance to show her off!!
Click to expand...


----------



## Cich of it all

Regarding the tatooed fish pictured above (BTW, I believe dogofwar was just being sarcastic with that rhetorical question to make the same point you're making -- that _any _light colored fish can be dyed);
Who actually likes the way those fish look??? :x I mean, I can _almost _see the brightly colored zebras, but those mollies/platies and gourami? Never mind the cruel practice of dying them; they are just plain ridiculous looking! :roll:
To me, that's like spray painting a giant heart on the flanks of a glacier cover peak or pruning a Redwood in the same manner you'd prune an arbor vitae. Decimation of nature's beauty.


----------



## dwarfpike

I believe it to be a moral issue for many people, and no I'm not talking about just right wing conservitive christians either. I tend to have the same reaction to flowerhorns as I would to a human-chimp hybrid. I can say with a fairly good certainy that I won't ever own a flowerhorn or fake parrot fish.

But as much as I dislike them, look at one of our own members *gage*. Moved from flowerhorns into cichlids rather nicely. As much as I hate to say it, it does seem like flowerhorns are enticing a younger group into a) fish in general and b) cichlids in particular. Ouch, that was painfull to even admit. But hopefully many of them will do the study, understand what's going on with cichlids in nature and perhaps make that transition.

Those zebras aren't tattoo'd btw.

And another point, you deffinately can have interspecies hybrids. The dictionary deffination of hybrid does include same species-differant races/color forms. While the hobby in general does not utilize this part of the deffination, it the technical sense it is true.

Also while many people seem to think hybrids in nature are common, one of the ways scientists seperate species is the fact they don't create hybrids in nature. For instance, there are areas where sp. 'honduras red point' and convicts are found in the same rivers together. The reason they are considered a differant species instead of a color form of convict is the fact that no intrabreeding pairs were found. Each species breeds with it's own. The same happens with _Thorichthys pasionis_ and firemouths, and discus and heckels.


----------



## Number6

PsYcHoTiC_MaDmAn said:


> just explain to me how it can be an intraspecies hybrid. that means it came from within the species, therefore still of that said species, even if it is from various locations, its still one species.


 Yes, still pure species, but also a hybrid. A hybrid is the blending of two previously distinct gene pools. Species doesn't enter into the accurate definition. Well, except that all Species crossed with a different species fall into the category of blending two distinct gene pools.



PsYcHoTiC_MaDmAn said:


> from what I remember reading discus sp tend to hybridise in the wild anyway,


 species hybrids in Discus are sterile or at least severely affected. The Discus variants within a species hybridize readily. This is pretty much why the Discus variants barely seem to rank a sub-species split.



PsYcHoTiC_MaDmAn said:


> dont get me wrong, I'm not a major fan of linebred fish, but if they are still based on the sp that makes them quite a bit different than hybrids like the flowerhorn.


 not automatically the same, but frequently so. Most line bred breeds are the results of intraspecies crossings and then artificial selection. Many of these breeds are species level or genus level hybrids...

There may be one or two line bred fish that are not the result of outcrossing, but I don't know of them.


----------



## Number6

Cich of it all said:


> To me, that's like spray painting a giant heart on the flanks of a glacier cover peak or pruning a Redwood in the same manner you'd prune an arbor vitae. Decimation of nature's beauty.


The beauty that you call freaks of nature... oh, I guess only SOME natural things meet your criteria...


----------



## Guest

heylady said:


> Don't discount all hybrid keepers as not "real" hobbyists.
> 
> BTW, dyeing fish and tattooing is not only done to hybrids, I've seen blueberry oscars, glassfish have been injected, etc....this is something that should be outlawed in this country! Cropping tails and dorsal fins/any fins should be outlawed too! Horrible practice.....
> 
> And just to throw in a pic of my blood parrot because I can never resist a chance to show her off!!


I agree completely. I just fear that if a major cichlid association like the ACA allows all hybrids in, that people and even worse magazines could take the wrong impression that hybrids are the future of the hobby and so on and next thing we'd know the hybrid industry could boom, and we'd see more and more hybrids for sale at LFS's and less and less natural species, especially the natural species that are doing horribly in the wild or are even extinct in the wild...

That's the only problem I have with the ACA doing this, which is why I hope that they stress it why keeping natural species is more beneficial to the hobby, etc, and maybe even educate people better about hybrids (pros and cons) while they're at it.

Personally though with the tattooing of fish... That's just horrible... It's amazing the fish don't even die after all that stress and pain...

~Ed


----------



## DJRansome

I think they need AHA: American Hybrid Association. That way those of us that don't want to see flowerhorns and parrot fish can avoid their conferences, LOL!

Seriously, I like the idea that my fish and tank give a suggestion of what I might see in the lake. And the "C" in ACA stands for cichlid...these fish are not cichlids.


----------



## dogofwar

" I just fear that if a major cichlid association like the ACA allows all hybrids in, that people and even worse magazines could take the wrong impression that hybrids are the future of the hobby and so on and next thing we'd know the hybrid industry could boom, and we'd see more and more hybrids for sale at LFS's and less and less natural species, especially the natural species that are doing horribly in the wild or are even extinct in the wild..."

I think you're getting the cart and the horse mixed up. Hybrid cichlids (flowerhorns, parrots, OB peacocks, etc.) don't need support to boom: they're probably the most common and commonly sold cichlids at LFS already....because people like them.

What the club in Cinci has done by establishing this class is to acknowledge that probably the most popular cichlids kept today are part of the cichlid hobby...and to reach out to members and prospective members who happen to like flowerhorns. Current members who "hate" flowerhorns and the like might actually learn something from interacting with these folks as well.

The best strategy for getting those who keep flowerhorns and other hybrids interested in other cichlids and conservation isn't to treat them like leppers or murders (rapists?). You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. And the ACA needs more members to be able to have a real impact on conservation, especially in the wild.


----------



## Number6

*dogofwar*
well said!


----------



## Guest

*dogofwar*
If that happens to be the outcome then I too wouldn't protest bringing more unnatural fish into the association. I'm just worried though that it could backfire and instead of bringing younger generations into natural fish and breeding, it would encourage just keeping unnatural fish...wet pets if you will...

I mean, I joined the hobby wanting to keep cichlids because I read in what I now feel is a P.O.S. book how fascinating they are, so I started with a 10g box store tank and then got a 120g and started keeping and breeding africans. Now two years since I have major MTS and have a 120g, 75g, 60g, 40g, 29g, two 20g, two 10g, 2.5g, 15g, 150g, and a 265g... And now I am branching off from Malawi haps to eventually keeping rare Madagascar cichlids...

If inviting flowerhorns into the ACA convention helps the hobby and actually benefits the organization and conservation efforts, and invites more younger generations like me into the hobby, then I wouldn't mind having these fish in the hobby. I just don't want the hobby taken over by these fish and have the few younger generation and the rest of the older generations eventually grow smaller and smaller...

And just to add something (and don't take this the wrong way) I don't hate flowerhorns or other hybrids (though I believe the blood parrot is physically an abomination even though I can see why people like them) ...the only fish I absolutely hate and those that keep them are the fish that are dyed, tattooed, and the ones that are surgically changed...

I hope that clears up my position. I wouldn't say I'm 100% opposed to the ACA inviting hybrids, just paranoid and concerned on the outcome of it...

~Ed


----------



## Cich of it all

Number6 said:


> The beauty that you call freaks of nature... oh, I guess only SOME natural things meet your criteria...


Hmmm, silly me, I was under the strange impression that all of the mods here were professional , helpful, tactful and courteous. I guess there has to be one in every bunch. I must say, I don't quite follow the logic in this quote. Please, indulge me. =D>

from the "flowerhorn definition" thread:


gage said:


> this is why i dislike this forum, because everyone on here will take someones mistake and keep telling them "but you said..." even after they explained they had made a mistake.


Umm, hmmm. :?


----------



## Mr.Firemouth

prov356 said:


> ZaireBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this what we expected to see at the ACA Convention 2009 Show?
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, yes, because of this attitude.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Firemouth said:
> 
> 
> 
> The hobby has morphed. It has moved towards the proliferation of cichlid hybrids and we as a group can not stop that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Firemouth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please be aware, the ACA did NOT allow this to happen. The Host club did
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they have no voice, and can do nothing about it? So, no matter what the host club comes up with, ACA has to go along?
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Firemouth said:
> 
> 
> 
> To all those that oppose hybrids, I ask how many of you are CARES registrants with tanks dedicated to conservation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, if I'm not keeping something off the CARES list, then I'm a hypocrite if I don't want to see a hybrid category at ACA? Not everyone is able to do that for a variety of reasons, and it doesn't mean they don't care about cichlid conservation. You can't place that requirement on having a voice. I'm a paying member of ACA and I support cichlid conservation even without keeping anything on the list.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Firemouth said:
> 
> 
> 
> but we can reach out and to people and try to educate them of the current plight of our natural cichlids in the wild in an effort to initiate more conservation projects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or, it may backfire and get people excited about keeping flowerhorns like they saw ACA legitimizing. I know they're not intending to legitimize, but that could be the perception. We'll see where this goes, and if this truly educates and helps to increase awareness and support of cichlid conservation.
> 
> 
> 
> Fogelhund said:
> 
> 
> 
> A red discus is an ornamental fish, that seems to have more in common with a Flowerhorn, than a wild discus in some respects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good point. Every year there are some pretty wild strains of discuss at the OCA Extravaganza.
> Should there be?
> 
> Hopefully this won't turn into another 'hybrid, good or bad' thread, since we've got enough of those
> already, but should convention shows have hybrid categories, particularly the ACA convention.
> 
> Mr. Firemouth. Just curious. What's your connection with ACA?
Click to expand...

Hello Prov356,
my affiliation to the ACA is as a member and I am a moderator of the ACAForum.com
I will explain my comments. 

 The hobby has morphed. It has moved towards the proliferation of cichlid hybrids and we as a group can not stop that This is beyond the scope of the ACA and is not their responsibility to regulate the hobby or trade. In the past the ACA was responsible for petitioning Congress to block the Lacey Act(1974) which would of prohibited cichlids from import and possession. To petition legislation is something that took ALL the members to do (800 at the time) and they all wrote letters to Congress. To regulate trade or the hobby has surpassed their current ability.

Please be aware, the ACA did NOT allow this to happen. The Host club did[/quote]

And they have no voice, and can do nothing about it? So, no matter what the host club comes up with, ACA has to go along?  Currently these are the rules and we have to respect their decision. The membership has been asked to discuss this at the forum in both Newsletters and in the pages of the BB. Even Ad Koning wrote an article about it. However, the membership remained silent.

To all those that oppose hybrids, I ask how many of you are CARES registrants with tanks dedicated to conservation? [/quote]

So, if I'm not keeping something off the CARES list, then I'm a hypocrite if I don't want to see a hybrid category at ACA? Not everyone is able to do that for a variety of reasons, and it doesn't mean they don't care about cichlid conservation. You can't place that requirement on having a voice. I'm a paying member of ACA and I support cichlid conservation even without keeping anything on the list. 

You have shown me my words were poorly chosen. The intent of the statement was to emphasize the lack of participation of the 1200 members of the ACA in this matter. The Lion has been let loose the cage.  I applaud your efforts with conservation! I also ask for your help. I have posted the CARES Priority list and other ACA threads here to promote the ACA(and other forums) so that Conservation efforts and Jordan Research Funds could get support thru membership and awareness. Unfortunately my post do not receive support from members of the ACA as the see them.  Any support that you can offer will also contribute to the overall goals of the ACA which will help cichlids in their natural habitats. 

but we can reach out and to people and try to educate them of the current plight of our natural cichlids in the wild in an effort to initiate more conservation projects. [/quote]

Or, it may backfire and get people excited about keeping flowerhorns like they saw ACA legitimizing. I know they're not intending to legitimize, but that could be the perception. We'll see where this goes, and if this truly educates and helps to increase awareness and support of cichlid conservation.  We can only try our best to make an effort to effect change. The world is changing and it takes action more than words. My hope is a large turnout of Cichlids to offset any entries of hybrids so that people can see the true beauty of cichlids at the shows.

HTH, Rich


----------



## Mr.Firemouth

Cich of it all said:


> Sorry to break back in here, but does anybody have a link to a website that has info on the CARE program / list? I'm very interested in this and I'd like to get involved, but I've found no info via my googling.
> TYIA


I posted it in this forum....

http://www.cichlid-forum.com/phpBB/view ... p?t=186470

:thumb:


----------



## Mr.Firemouth

prov356 said:


> Sorry to break back in here, but does anybody have a link to a website that has info on the CARE program / list? I'm very interested in this and I'd like to get involved, but I've found no info via my googling.
> TYIA
> 
> 
> 
> ACA CARES
> 
> The trick is finding those species.
Click to expand...

Claudia has a Master list of breeders and their are some wholesalers who still have access to such fish that have not become extinct in the wild. Talk to Claudia if you are interested in getting involved! 
:thumb:


----------



## Mr.Firemouth

BillD said:


> Are Flowerhorn keepers actually cichlid hobbyists, or just Flowerhorn keepers? All the cichlid hobbyists I know, and these are people who are more experienced and learned than I as far as cichlids go, would not be caught dead with a Flowerhorn or Parrot, or balloon ram, or worse yet an Angel ram. There are people that keep only flowerhorns and wouldn't keep anything else. Does the ACA need to include these people? I think not. The judging of these fish would be kind of difficult especially if the class is open to any hybrid.


ACA member Chuck Davies has been a member of the ACA for over 30 years and has been an extreme purist supporter! He has changed his mind, and now owns a FH. Mo has a hybrid wild Parachromis.(Note wild! that he collected). There are many other long term ACA members keeping hybrid Africans and FH's. This does not make them any less of a member or less of an accomplished fishkeeper. 

We can not judge people as that is a prejudice not warranted. What we can do is emphasize the need for a comprehensive captive breeding program for wild types. I am in the process of writing an ACA article, then I will work on writing a breeding strategy for captive stocks while avoiding linebreeding techniques and allow "natural selection". This will take me a few months to get to. If you can write something on the topic sooner please do and post it at the ACA and any other cichlid forums you post at.  We need to spread the word on responsible fishkeeping!
As Guy Jordan would say, "Cichlid Power!!!"


----------



## Mr.Firemouth

Marduk said:


> *dogofwar*
> If that happens to be the outcome then I too wouldn't protest bringing more unnatural fish into the association. I'm just worried though that it could backfire and instead of bringing younger generations into natural fish and breeding, it would encourage just keeping unnatural fish...wet pets if you will...
> 
> I mean, I joined the hobby wanting to keep cichlids because I read in what I now feel is a P.O.S. book how fascinating they are, so I started with a 10g box store tank and then got a 120g and started keeping and breeding africans. Now two years since I have major MTS and have a 120g, 75g, 60g, 40g, 29g, two 20g, two 10g, 2.5g, 15g, 150g, and a 265g... And now I am branching off from Malawi haps to eventually keeping rare Madagascar cichlids...
> 
> If inviting flowerhorns into the ACA convention helps the hobby and actually benefits the organization and conservation efforts, and invites more younger generations like me into the hobby, then I wouldn't mind having these fish in the hobby. I just don't want the hobby taken over by these fish and have the few younger generation and the rest of the older generations eventually grow smaller and smaller...
> 
> And just to add something (and don't take this the wrong way) I don't hate flowerhorns or other hybrids (though I believe the blood parrot is physically an abomination even though I can see why people like them) ...the only fish I absolutely hate and those that keep them are the fish that are dyed, tattooed, and the ones that are surgically changed...
> 
> I hope that clears up my position. I wouldn't say I'm 100% opposed to the ACA inviting hybrids, just paranoid and concerned on the outcome of it...
> 
> ~Ed


This argumnet makes me quaestion all fish forums with hybrid threads. Don't the pics and the "hay check out my cool new hybrid" influence the young also? Then, doesn't Ebay and Aquabid share some blame for the illusion of profits made breeding such fish?

My point is, the ACA will do no more harm showing hybrids than any one of these forums.


----------



## Guest

Mr.Firemouth said:


> Marduk said:
> 
> 
> 
> *dogofwar*
> If that happens to be the outcome then I too wouldn't protest bringing more unnatural fish into the association. I'm just worried though that it could backfire and instead of bringing younger generations into natural fish and breeding, it would encourage just keeping unnatural fish...wet pets if you will...
> 
> I mean, I joined the hobby wanting to keep cichlids because I read in what I now feel is a P.O.S. book how fascinating they are, so I started with a 10g box store tank and then got a 120g and started keeping and breeding africans. Now two years since I have major MTS and have a 120g, 75g, 60g, 40g, 29g, two 20g, two 10g, 2.5g, 15g, 150g, and a 265g... And now I am branching off from Malawi haps to eventually keeping rare Madagascar cichlids...
> 
> If inviting flowerhorns into the ACA convention helps the hobby and actually benefits the organization and conservation efforts, and invites more younger generations like me into the hobby, then I wouldn't mind having these fish in the hobby. I just don't want the hobby taken over by these fish and have the few younger generation and the rest of the older generations eventually grow smaller and smaller...
> 
> And just to add something (and don't take this the wrong way) I don't hate flowerhorns or other hybrids (though I believe the blood parrot is physically an abomination even though I can see why people like them) ...the only fish I absolutely hate and those that keep them are the fish that are dyed, tattooed, and the ones that are surgically changed...
> 
> I hope that clears up my position. I wouldn't say I'm 100% opposed to the ACA inviting hybrids, just paranoid and concerned on the outcome of it...
> 
> ~Ed
> 
> 
> 
> This argumnet makes me quaestion all fish forums with hybrid threads. Don't the pics and the "hay check out my cool new hybrid" influence the young also? Then, doesn't Ebay and Aquabid share some blame for the illusion of profits made breeding such fish?
> 
> My point is, the ACA will do no more harm showing hybrids than any one of these forums.
Click to expand...

I hope you're right, and that I'm just being a little paranoid.

~Ed


----------



## prov356

Mr Firemouth said:


> The membership has been asked to discuss this at the forum in both Newsletters and in the pages of the BB. Even Ad Koning wrote an article about it. However, the membership remained silent.


I'm a member and saw nothing soliciting feedback about this. I'm sure you're right and it was out there, 
but apparently not very visible. That may be the reason for the silence.

I've read Konings article in the bulletin. There's nothing there soliciting feedback from membership. 
Also nothing that I can find in the rest of the bulletin.

I think the ACA needs to try again and a little bit louder this time.

I do appreciate your responses.



dwarfpike said:


> I believe it to be a moral issue for many people, and no I'm not talking about just right wing conservitive christians either.


I don't think there are too many right wing conservative Christians taking up the cause of hybrid fish. 
Unless I missed that memo too.


----------



## Mr.Firemouth

Hi Tim, 
the BB's have ads and so does the Cichlid News for the forum.
What the intent was with the articles is that they would spur discussion about the topic at the forum where a discourse could be had publically. These are the threads(member only)...

http://acaforum.com/index.php?showtopic=3331

http://acaforum.com/index.php?showtopic=3323

http://acaforum.com/index.php?showtopic=3307

http://acaforum.com/index.php?showtopic=3309

http://acaforum.com/index.php?showtopic=3004

http://acaforum.com/index.php?showtopic=3226

http://acaforum.com/index.php?showtopic=3222

If you are an ACA member and can not see the links then contact RonN at [email protected] to have your web account upgraded to ACA Members group.

Thanks, Rich


----------



## dogofwar

Maybe the ACA should only allow endangered and threatened species in its shows and auctions.

Devoting tank space to any species that aren't endangered and threatened isn't supporting conservation.

Right? :wink:

We all have fish that we like and don't like. And what we like and don't like can change.

Can we all agree that we all don't need to agree on what kinds of fish that we like and don't like to belong to the same organization? If we can't then I hereby vote to exclude all dwarf cichlid keepers. They're not real cichlids! :lol:


----------



## prov356

> If you are an ACA member and can not see the links then contact RonN at [email protected] to have your web account upgraded to ACA Members group.


I will do that. I didn't even know there was a member's group and threads I couldn't see. Thank you.


----------



## edburress

Sorry dogofwar, that the only quote I pulled out is yours  but I know you personally so I figured that'd be the best thing.



> Devoting tank space to any species that aren't endangered and threatened isn't supporting conservation.
> 
> Right?


I know you said this sarcastically, but to me it seems like reality, not so much the threatened species in particular, but wild and wild-type fish. What is the benefit to conservation to keep hybrids or line bred (non wild-type) fish? Unless I am mistaken, there is none.

I don't have a problem with people who keep flowerhorns, blood parrots, or whatever, they are hobbyists just like me and have the same potential to be caring, great, and professional aquarists; but we keep fish for different reasons, and therefore are different.


----------



## dwarfpike

prov356 said:


> dwarfpike said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it to be a moral issue for many people, and no I'm not talking about just right wing conservitive christians either.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think there are too many right wing conservative Christians taking up the cause of hybrid fish.
> Unless I missed that memo too.
Click to expand...

That came up in a previous thread about hybrids. The dog arguement kept coming up, which doesn't work mostly becuase with only a few exceptions (blue healers), almost all dogs are the same wolf species derieved. I made the comment that a closer arguement would be a human-chimp hybrid and that I believe lots of people would have moral issues about it. It was implied the only people that would have an objection to a human-chimp hybrid were right wing conservitive christians. Since these discussions always seem to have the same people posting, I assumed people would remember the previous threads, so my bad.


----------



## dogofwar

"What is the benefit to conservation to keep hybrids or line bred (non wild-type) fish? Unless I am mistaken, there is none."

Thanks for the perspective, Ed 

Keeping the vast majority of fish in the hobby (basically anything not in a captive breeding program...as CARES could be) really doesn't impact conservation.

But I think that the real issue is getting people - and their resources - engaged and educated about actual conservation of fish in the wild. I'd like the ACA have a strategy for addressing habitat destruction, over-fishing, pollution, and other issues that actually impact conservation of the fish that we love. A small group can't muster the resources to do much. A bigger group can.

Ed said: "I don't have a problem with people who keep flowerhorns, blood parrots, or whatever, they are hobbyists just like me and have the same potential to be caring, great, and professional aquarists; but we keep fish for different reasons, and therefore are different."

These fish aren't my cup of tea (or mate'), either...and I'm just wowed at the level of care that some hybrid keepers give their fish... I think that to address conservation - both in the wild and in the hobby - a bigger tent is better than a smaller one. People who like hybrids and people who like wild-type fish (or combinations of the two) have more in common than differences.


----------



## dogofwar

"It was implied the only people that would have an objection to a human-chimp hybrid were right wing conservitive christians. Since these discussions always seem to have the same posted, I assumed people would remember the previous threads, so my bad.[/quote]

For the record, I object to human-chimp hybrids (and I'm not a right wing conservative christian).


----------



## dwarfpike

*dogogwar* - Nor am I. Far from it.  But despite being mostly liberal on everything, hybrids just aren't one of them. Not sure if it's just because I grew up reading all those articles from noted cichlidphiles declaring hybrids the evil of evils ... even worse than microsoft and starbucks!!!

I'm as against cichlid hybrids as anyone could be (anyone that equates flowerhorns to human-chimp mixes is pretty far out there I admit) ... but as I said, seeing *Gage* expand out as had me come closer to the fence ... though not quite on it yet. Who says old dogs can't learn new tricks? :thumb:

ps. (sorry for the pun *dogofwar*! :lol:


----------



## dogofwar

I have to admit that this is an issue where I've had some evolution as well. I used to have a "cull them all" opinion of these fish. I personally only keep wild and wild-type fish with the exception of a really pretty AER peacock.

But I hung out with some guys who are really passionate about flowerhorns...and saw their passion translated into great care of their fish, more tanks, importation of quality stock from overseas, participation in clubs, etc...

Gee, they're a lot like us. And they're as upset by irresponsible practices people be dumb-arses as us. And many of them are us (just "closeted") :lol:

That said, I started the hobby as a kid obsessed with fancy bettas...so man-made fish and their genetics is something that I was interested in at a young age. I progressed to both fancy bettas and wild ones...community fish...and then into the world of cichlids. 25 years later I have a fishroom of brown, black, gray, and silver fish...and 9 ACA CARES species.


----------



## edburress

I am skeptical that bringing in more people is necessarily a good thing. Personally, I do not think (from a conservation standpoint) that it is worth losing the established conservation-minded people, to bring in new hopeful converts, even if their pockets are full of money. It seems like the take one step back to (hopefully) take two steps forward idea, that I have a hardtime supporting. Showing hybrids is not a decision for conservation, so I cannot support that.

The hobby will never lose flowerhorns, and stuff like that, for the simple reason that people will buy them for looks, unknowingly, or whatever. The hobby might lose wilds and wild-type fish eventually, and I think the acceptance of hybrids speeds that process. At that point, people like me will no longer keep fish.

The semantic argument between hybrid and line-bred (non wild-type) also hinders progress, and for that reason I (perfectly well knowing the difference) lump them together. In the eyes of conservation they are the same: non-natural. Maybe lumping line-bred is a sacrifice, but maybe it must be done to pursue conservation. To me it seems like if you decide conservation is at the forefront of objectives (for you, the ACA, or whatever) then you are concerned with wild and wild-type fish, meaning hybrid and line bred (non wild-type) fish are equally not of your concern. I've went through an evolution as well, I have never kept hybrids, and now am no longer interested in line-bred species that differ from wild-type.


----------



## ZaireBlue

dogofwar said:


> ... 25 years later I have a fishroom of brown, black, gray, and silver fish...and 9 ACA CARES species.


We love to see *your fishroom* and *9 ACA CARES* you have.


----------



## edburress

> Keeping the vast majority of fish in the hobby (basically anything not in a captive breeding program...as CARES could be) really doesn't impact conservation.


I see what you mean, but I assume the CARES list and red lists will grow. Seeing as preserving species in the hobby is the last ditch effort of conservation when preserving them in the wild has failed, I tend to think keeping wilds and wild-types in the hobby in any fashion serves conservation, even if it is a passive way of doing so. I don't think we have to wait until they are on a list to worry about their future.


----------



## Number6

*edburress*
excellent position, and well put.

I would fully support this new class of "pet" fish in the ACA show, or I would fully support a full restriction to wild type fish.

It's the current in-between state that I find pretty baseless. One level of hybrid is fully accepted, yet one notch up the outcross totem pole and suddenly this fish becomes unethical?

If anyone can give me a single well-founded reason why a species to species cross is unethical when a variant to variant one is not, I'm open to having my mind changed. Otherwise, I'll stick to both Ed's and Firemouths posts...


----------



## ZaireBlue

*xbreeding species* is *no good* as well as *xbreeding variants*. 

Here is what *Dr. Ron Coleman* wrote in his *Parrot Fish Article* ( http://cichlidresearch.com/parrot.html)

" ...There are over 2300 species of cichlids in the wild and I think that is more than enough variety for anyone to find something of interest. Fish stores can only keep so many fish in stock, and space devoted to parrot cichlids is space not devoted to other equally or even potentially more interesting fishes.

There is more to a fish than just a colorful body swimming in water. Cichlids (and other fish) are the way that they are because of the never-ending process of natural selection operating on them to create truly magnificent creatures, highly adapted to the world they live in.

The color and form of a wild cichlid exists for many reasons and understanding these reasons and how the fish lives in its natural world heightens the joy of keeping these fish in aquaria. We are very fortunate that it is possible to create an environment in an aquarium that is remarkably similar to the conditions that cichlids encounter in the wild, and because of this, we get to witness much of the regular behavior of cichlids including fighting, courting and breeding.

I am adamantly against selectively breeding cichlids to create "enhanced" colors or new color varieties. If you watch how a cichlid uses its colors to communicate messages of courtship, parenthood, aggression and territoriality, you will realize that to alter its ability to do that through selective breeding is to render the fish mute.

I encourage you to enjoy fish as incredibly complex living organisms that we are able to enjoy, learn from, and be fascinated with because we can keep them happy and healthy in aquaria...... "

it is just my 2 cents.


----------



## dogofwar

"Personally, I do not think (from a conservation standpoint) that it is worth losing the established conservation-minded people, to bring in new hopeful converts, even if their pockets are full of money."

I'm not sure that it's valid to assume that all that populate the ACA today are particularly conservation-minded...or maybe more correctly actually doing things to support conservation in the hobby or in nature.

What's not clear is from where the next generation(s) of ACA members will come. If there were only more Ed's =D>

I've been pushing for the ACA to do more to support actual conservation activities.  It's hard to educate or inspire the general public (those who aren't already members)...from the back room of a hotel somewhere. I'd like to see more focus on documenting and sharing knowledge among members on different species, pictures of them, and their care. I'd like to see more participation in CARES. Whenever anyone gets offspring of CARES fish from me, I ask (beg) them to register them. Some do, some don't. I'd like to see the ACA put its 501c(3) status to good use and raise some real money / work with other conservation organizations to make a real difference. I could go on...


----------



## dogofwar

Zaire...here are the current CARES species I keep (and breed many of them)...

I can't attach pictures here so I'll try to link to a site with pictures of my fishroom:

http://www.capitalcichlids.org/forum/in ... hl=preview[/img]

Matt

003258	Quinn, Matthew	Sacramento, CA 95819
Archocentrus myrnae	topaz cichlid	x	9/30/2008
Archocentrus nanoluteus	x	9/30/2008
Haplochromis sp. â€˜rubyâ€™	x	9/30/2008
Konia eisentrauti	x	9/30/2008
Ptychochromis oligacanthus	tsipoy	x	9/30/2008
Pungu maclareni	pungu	x	9/30/2008
Sarotherodon linnellii	3	yrs	x	9/30/2008
Stomatepia mariae	x	9/30/2008
Stomatepia pindu	3	yrs	x	9/30/2008


----------



## edburress

> I'm not sure that it's valid to assume that all that populate the ACA today are particularly conservation-minded...or maybe more correctly actually doing things to support conservation in the hobby or in nature.


I agree. If they were, this thread probably wouldn't exist. I just meant the hardcore conservation minded members are the ones that will not appreciate this development.



> If there were only more Ed's


Thanks for the kind words! When I have the means, I plan to actively contribute in the area of conservation.


----------



## Mr.Firemouth

edburress said:


> I'm not sure that it's valid to assume that all that populate the ACA today are particularly conservation-minded...or maybe more correctly actually doing things to support conservation in the hobby or in nature.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. If they were, this thread probably wouldn't exist. I just meant the hardcore conservation minded members are the ones that will not appreciate this development.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there were only more Ed's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for the kind words! When I have the means, I plan to actively contribute in the area of conservation.
Click to expand...

Ed, your support can be in discussing the CARES programs on various forums and just getting the word out! Claudia will send you any info you may be interested in. The Aquahavens school program is another one to teach others about! These simple post will cost you nothing but your time and could inspire others to get involved with more resources than you or I may have.


----------



## xalow

Before this post I had never even heard of the CARES program. I am not a member of the ACA but this sort of program is a good reason for joining. It is nice to think that I have a species in my tank that is very rare in the wild and that some day because of responsible people who have devoted their resources that these species will still exist in captivity should they go extinct in the wild, which is very likely.

On the original topic, I can see how judging a hybrid class may be difficult. Say we have only one species of cichlid A. Then there would be no hybrids. If we have 2, A & B, then the one possible hybrid is AB. For four cichlids A, B, C, and D we would have six possible hybrids where each parent was pure A,B AC, AD, BC, BD, and CD. So the number of possible cichlid hybrids that could be judged where both parents were pure is described by the formula n(n-1)/2 where n=number of cichlid species. If there are lets say 2000 species that would mean 1,999,000 hybrids.

Of course in reality not just any two species can hybridize but you can see how this could make judging really difficult if just any hybrid was allowed.

...Now suppose any fish whose four grandparents were cichlids than that would be 2000! said as 2000 factorial which is a number so big that it makes my calculator weep and if each fish was worth a dollar than there would be enough to sell to remove the US national debt and still enough fish left over for everyone in the world to eat.

If you don't have a headache yet think about how a fish could have had a hybrid ancestor but was otherwise pure to the point where it would have no more genetic deviation than could be expected from an individual specimen within a species. In between hybrids and purebreds there is an ambiguity that I expect will make a few people uncomfortable. If there becomes a point where no one can tell the different between fish being judged in the hybrid category and those in the purebred what happens?


----------



## edburress

Number6... thanks!

Rich... I will look into those programs.


----------



## dogofwar

The issue of judging flowerhorns is pretty straightforward: there are competitions throughout asia...with classes, rules, etc. Like fancy goldfish or bettas or discus. It gets dicey when you try to judge random hybrids...or random hybrids vs. flowerhorns.

Ed - I have some free CARES species for you next time we hang out  I agree with Rich on the conservation activities: we need to use our imaginations (not necessarily $$$) to support efforts. That might even be putting the cart before the horse: the ACA needs to first even define HOW it's going to seek to impact conservation, how it's going to measure that impact, and then move forward with it.

I don't actually believe that the most conservation minded (or active) are necessarily the ones who will object most to having a hybrid class in the show. Some in the ACA fear change...


----------



## Mr.Firemouth

Matt, there are already discussions of signs and buttons and shirts with No HYBRID logos.
The Conservation minded people look at this as a very big slap in the face for a decades worth of selfless service to the ACA and its programs.

This show will be wrought with controversy.
Again, I will suprised at how many entrants are in either show class.
I do not forsee many hybrid entries, the environment is too hostile.


----------



## Mr.Firemouth

Judging a hybrid,

this is from Ted Judy.....



> First... there are no standards even for non-hybrid fish, so that is a moot point with regards to hybrid fish as well.
> 
> Second... Only one group of classes contain a single species, tank strain discus (that is not the discussion of this thread), so almost every class has different species of fish being judged against each other; so that is not a problem for the hybrids either.
> 
> The reason there is no problem is that the system does not judge Fish A against Fish B, but instead scores each fish out of a total number of points with points deducted for faults. There are five categories for the point: color, condition, finnage, size and deportment. Each fish is graded by it's own features by a single judge for the class. Why a single judge? Two reasons - lack of many judges and scoring consistancy. So... all the hybrid judge needs to do (or the judge of any class really) is look at a fish and decide if the color, overall condition, fins, size of the fish or how it behaves in the glass cell it has been stuffed into deserve full or partial points. Hybrids, in my opinion, will be easier than other classes, because the judge actually gets to think things like 'hey that is really pretty' rather than 'pretty, but it does not look like my educated but artificial interpretation of what a wild representative of this species should look like'.
> 
> So... worry not hybrid fans, the fish can be judged!
> 
> Oh... after the class winners are determined the points are not really considered any more in determining the division and BoS winners. For the division the different judges of each class confer and decide which of the best of class fish wins the division. Then the best of divisions are discussed by all judges to pick BoS.


----------



## dogofwar

The issue is that there are people who are experts on flowerhorns....and can judge flowerhorns with some expertise...but they don't consider themselves experts on EVERY kind of hybrid. So they couldn't provide an educated assessment of the quality of fish other than flowerhorns (and parrots, red texas, etc.).

I would submit that Ted might be an expert in judging wild-type fish (and the fancy line bred fish in the same classes) but he's not an expert on judging flowerhorns. What an opportunity to learn from the people who are. Or treat them like leppers and ensure that they (and everyone who they come in contact with) never set foot in an ACA event again.


----------



## LadyBarbara001

Mr.Firemouth said:


> The ACA is not doing this in an attempt to increase membership.
> The ACA is doing this to reach out to hybrid owners and show them the importance of conservation. That goal can not be achieved with discussions like" the ACA is just a bunch of bigot elitists".
> 
> The ACA hopes to reach more people to encourage the benefits of being a member, and by becoming a member then helping the organization achieve the stated goals. Cichlid Power is the unified efforts of the organization's members to achieve something for Cichlidae.
> 
> This is also not about popularity. It is about reality. The hobby has morphed. It has moved towards the proliferation of cichlid hybrids and we as a group can not stop that, but we can reach out and to people and try to educate them of the current plight of our natural cichlids in the wild in an effort to initiate more conservation projects.
> 
> To all those that oppose hybrids, I ask how many of you are CARES registrants with tanks dedicated to conservation? I keep 1 CARES species. Before we dismiss hybrids and talk about the destruction of the wild types, we must first ACT and DO something for conservation!
> Cichlid Power starts with you!
> 
> Finally, the BOT makes judgements based on the input they receive. The ACA Forum has not seen the above displayed article. Why? It is posted here, but not there where the ACA BOT can see it. This lack of using the provided means of communication for a public discourse on the topic has been another reason for the BOT making their own decisions.
> 
> Please be aware, the ACA did NOT allow this to happen. The Host club did.


Couple of points, sorry to come into this so late, but I just found this thread. I'm not trying to start an argument. I am trying to get some clarity.

I'm not necessarily opposed to hybrids being involved in the ACA. I am opposed to allowing the host club to make decisions which affect the ACA, and the ACA board not coming to decisions over this. Personally, I'd rather hybrids not be included in the ACA, but unless it affects the CARES program, I don't have a major problem with their inclusion. Keeping endangered species is where my passion is, and I do just that.

I keep 4 species on the CARES list, with one more that will be included on the next listing. I keep Mbipia cf Lutea, Xystichromis Phytophagus, Paralabidochromis Chromogynos, and Xystichromis sp. Kyoga Flameback. Haplochromis sp. Kenya Gold will soon be on the CARES list, and I have a colony of those as well. I also keep 2 more Victorian species that are not on the CARES list, Neochromis Omnicaeruleus and Ptyochromis sp. Hippo Point Salmon. I try to update on the CARES forum as I have new developments with my fish.

The questions I've asked on the ACA forum have gone unanswered, and maybe asking in a different forum will give different responses.

What exactly does the ACA offer to hybrid fish keepers? If the decision to allow these fish is in the hands of the host club, then the next club could disallow their inclusion. So, the decision right now is a show-by-show basis. At this time, hybrids are not allowed to be bought or sold on the Trading Post portion of the ACA forum. That is a benefit to membership that is offered. The BB is another benefit, but will there be some added articles on Flowerhorns and Blood Parrots? If my interests were hybrids, this would not be enough to make a decision to join the ACA.

I do understand the possible benefits to having hybrid keepers join the ACA. I don't know how much the ACA can offer them at this time. And if the ACA did offer more benefits to this group, how would it change the face of the ACA?


----------



## Mr.Firemouth

The hybrid class has been canceled and will NOT be at the show...

http://acaforum.com/index.php?showtopic=3416&hl=


----------



## Number6

and so the status quo wins again... :lol:

so we have some hybrids at the show, but not others... how lovely and arbitrary.  =D>


----------



## Fogelhund

Interestingly enough, I found on the ACA Forum trading post, a number of hybrids for sale, and some that are probably hybrids for sale.

Just for kicks and giggles, I wonder what the validation for allowing Neolamprologus marunguensis to be an acceptable fish under ACA rules? It is after all a species created by hybridization.


----------



## NorthShore

Number6 said:


> so we have some hybrids at the show, but not others... how lovely and arbitrary. =D>


Agreed.


----------



## dogofwar

"Interestingly enough, I found on the ACA Forum trading post, a number of hybrids for sale, and some that are probably hybrids for sale." 
I agree - instead of focusing on a lot of the real hobby conservation issues, many in the ACA have decided to scapegoat flowerhorns and those who keep them. Inconsistency reigns.

"Just for kicks and giggles, I wonder what the validation for allowing Neolamprologus marunguensis to be an acceptable fish under ACA rules? It is after all a species created by hybridization."

As is Pungu maclareni (from Lake Barombi-Mbo)


----------



## Mr.Firemouth

The Trading Post has been neglected by Jim Ellenberger. He is the TP editor. 
He does not like forums and does not read the post to check them for their accuracy.
No one else has stepped up to be the TP editor. Therefore, the inconsistency can not be challenged.

The above example of 1200 members and 20 volunteers is the BIGGEST problem with the ACA PERIOD!!! There just isn't enough people active. What is the ACA or the Host Club to do when the volunteers who help at the event tell them they don't feel like participating this year? Or what are they to do when people start talking about boycotts? Or what are they supposed to do when people are sending them emails for their membership dues back?

How far does it go? 
Mo did a lot to get this where it had gotten to. The backlash was overwhelmingly negative.
Did they try something new? YES
Did it fail? Yes
Finally the hybrids that are in the show now are there why? Outside of the allowed Discus(which was thought to be line bred) the other entered fish are entered as a pure species. The Owner registering the fish in the class did not disclose it is a hybrid. 
Why Not? Do they not know or do they not care?

The whole debacle is depressing, but I refuse to let it get me down. I like the ALA and don't understand why the ACA can not be as accepting. If I had a vote, I would vote NO for hybrids because I do not believe in its current hobby philosophies. But I would of let the class in as I do not see it as a Hybrid Promotion. I saw it as a respectful gesture to others.


----------



## dogofwar

There's so much outrage - people threatening to boycott the convention and quit the ACA -because of an exhibition of properly-labeled hybrid cichlids at the convention.

Yet, people sell hybrids on the ACA Trading Post (which doesn't allow the sale of hybrids) and there's no outrage. It is not unreasonable for someone to assume that fish on the ACA trading post are not hybrids because of the BOLDED no hybrids policy listed at the top...which could easily result in someone buying a hybrid fish and thinking that it's not. Kind of like a LFS that says, "We only sell pure fish"..and the one you pick turns out to be a hybrid.

Maybe there's just so little traffic on the ACA Trading Post that no one saw it (I didn't)...

But this is an example of the dissonance between those who think that keeping those who (responsibly) keep and develop flowerhorns out of the ACA = conservation and those who think a big aspect of hobby conservation = promoting responsible fish keeping, labeling, selling, etc. (so that people don't accidentally buy hybrids and think they're pure fish).

It's clear enough what I believe: flowerhorns, OB peacocks, firefish, etc. aren't a threat to conservation in and of themselves (any more than a pure or line bred fish). They only become dangerous when people act irresponsibly: mis-label them, sell them as pure fish, introduce fish of unknown provenance into a captive breeding program, etc.


----------



## dogofwar

"But I would of let the class in as I do not see it as a Hybrid Promotion. I saw it as a respectful gesture to others."

I couldn't agree more...although I could see it as a promotion of responsible keeping of hybrids.


----------



## LadyBarbara001

Mr.Firemouth said:


> The whole debacle is depressing, but I refuse to let it get me down. I like the ALA and don't understand why the ACA can not be as accepting. If I had a vote, I would vote NO for hybrids because I do not believe in its current hobby philosophies. But I would of let the class in as I do not see it as a Hybrid Promotion. I saw it as a respectful gesture to others.


I don't understand this belief. My biggest concern was that allowing hybrids into a single show, then not allowing full benefits of membership seemed unfair. My argument was that the ACA needed to make a stand on hybrids, either way. I wouldn't have quit over allowing hybrids into the ACA, but the lack of a decision was the wrong way to go.

I felt it was a slap in the face of hybrid keepers to say "Yes, bring your fish to one show, but you have to join either the host club or the ACA to enter them. If you join the ACA, you'll have limited benefits, and your fish won't be respected by the majority. We don't know if your fish will be allowed at the next show...so come on, join us!"

Until the BOT clarifies the ACA's stance on hybrids, I think exclusion from the show is the best thing. I'm willing to accept either decision, but I think that this decision needs to be made soon. I have nothing against anyone who responsibly keeps any type of fish. I may not keep a certain type of fish, but that doesn't make it "wrong" in my book.


----------



## dogofwar

I think the saddest thing is to support exclusion...based on mis-perceptions, half-truths, and threats of non-participation.

I hear you Barbara regarding allowing participating in this show but not in other ACA activities or possibly future shows. The ACA Board needs to make a decision.

What's missing is some real EDUCATION regarding what we as hobbyists can do to support conservation. I'd bet that telling flowerhorn keepers to get lost wouldn't be at the top of the list in terms of greatest positive impact.


----------



## LadyBarbara001

dogofwar said:


> I think the saddest thing is to support exclusion...based on mis-perceptions, half-truths, and threats of non-participation.
> 
> I hear you Barbara regarding allowing participating in this show but not in other ACA activities or possibly future shows. The ACA Board needs to make a decision.
> 
> What's missing is some real EDUCATION regarding what we as hobbyists can do to support conservation. I'd bet that telling flowerhorn keepers to get lost wouldn't be at the top of the list in terms of greatest positive impact.


I only support exclusion because one show isn't the problem, or the answer. I would have no problem with Flowerhorns being shown at any show, provided the ACA's stance was clear.

I agree, education is key. I have no ill will towards any type of fish keeper that houses their fish responsibly. I may never keep a Flowerhorn myself, but I respect people that do. There are a lot of fish that I'll probably never keep. That doesn't mean that I hold any animosity towards those fish or the people that have them, it means that I will never have enough tank space to keep everything that interests me.


----------



## Maddog

this is BS, 
but i look at it the same way as dogs.... there are alot of similarities.

some people like mutts, some like pure breeds.
You cna have a beautiful mutt, and it can be healthy, adn brougth up right, and can produce beautiful offspring...
How man dogs do you know of today that are considered pure bred that are mixes of older breeds of dogs... eventualy they become there own breed. 
If you never had peopel trying things (responsibly) some of the coolest breeds out there wouldnt exist.

On a even stronger note. Scientist are actuly cross breeding specific dogs to make perfect, police dog, or, a great seeing eye dog, etc.... So it goes as far as to benifit our race.

Maybe some cross breeding of fish coudl yeild a perfect mix for eating... proper nutrients, etc. 
who knows..

I think it;s dumb to restrict "responsible" change

my 2 cents


----------



## dwarfpike

The problem with the dog arguement is this ... with only one or two exceptions (australian blue healers come to mind), dogs are the same species. Hence the term 'breed.' They are all derieved from the same wolf species. Dogs would be the equalavent domestic discus color strains.

Cichlid hybrids tend to be between differant species, even worse between genus. It's closer to mixing a chimp and a human, both being primates. This is where much of the 'outrage' comes from I would imagine, right or wrong.

Deliberate tilapia hybrids have been created for human consumption, again right or wrong.


----------



## Fogelhund

I think for now, exclusion and Status Quo is the best way to handle this ACA convention.

That isn't to say that I think Status Quo is the best way forward, but it is for now. This is a somewhat complex issue, as it has many ramifications and has the potential to radically change what the ACA is, has been and will be.

The ACA states...



> The ACA strives to
> 
> Gather, organize and disseminate knowledge of the family Cichlidae
> 
> Further the conservation of cichlids and their natural habitats
> 
> Promote fellowship among cichlid hobbyists


I'll only touch on point #2, as "seems" to be the one at issue here.

_Further the conservation of cichlids and their natural habitats. _

It seems to me, that people are taking the conservation of cichlids in this case, to mean pure species in the hobby.

I would like to see clearly articulated, exactly how Flowerhorns, OB Peacocks are a threat to the conservation of pure "wild type" cichlids in the hobby.

I would like to understand how Rainbow coloured Discus, are any less a threat to natural strains of Discus within the hobby.

Then there are the unknown fish; the Red Peacocks (hybrids or not?), Eureka Peacocks (probably a hybrid), Albino whatevers (mostly hybrids?), are they less a threat to natural strains. The albinos and OB (compressiceps, afra, fryeri) versions of fish are likely the greatest threat of anything out there to natural strains in the hobby, yet for the most part these are accepted in the ACA. I've certainly seen them all available for sale in the ACA, including OB fryeri. We also know that most devils/midas are hybrids, and they have often appeared in the ACA shows.

Personally I don't care whether the ACA excludes ornamental hybrids, or ornamental line breds or not. There is a problem with consistancy from my viewpoint, that should be clarified.

The hybrids are only likely to grow in the general hobby, as more colourful creations come out of Asia in particular. This hobby is mostly one that is ornamental in nature, so it is no shock that some are creating ornamentalized "cichlids". Ignoring them will not make them go away. Excluding them will not make them go away. Education of hobbyists is the only thing to help, and most that is to reduce the risk of hybridization of natural strains, with strains that are not. I know that this website endeavours to educate, and hope that people appreciate that.

Unfortunately for the ACA, a can of worms has been opened up, and it won't close any time soon.


----------



## dogofwar

Well said, Fogelhund!


----------



## edburress

> If you never had peopel trying things (responsibly) some of the coolest breeds out there wouldnt exist.


Personally, I would be perfectly content with wolves.


> So it goes as far as to benifit our race


Poor justification IMO

Very good post *Fogelfund*!

In regards to the "threat" of hybrids, line-bred, unknowns, etc and how they differ in their effect on wild and wild-types in the hobby. I had this comment earlier...


> The semantic argument between hybrid and line-bred (non wild-type) also hinders progress, and for that reason I (perfectly well knowing the difference) lump them together. In the eyes of conservation they are the same: non-natural. Maybe lumping line-bred is a sacrifice, but maybe it must be done to pursue conservation. To me it seems like if you decide conservation is at the forefront of objectives (for you, the ACA, or whatever) then you are concerned with wild and wild-type fish, meaning hybrid and line bred (non wild-type) fish are equally not of your concern.





> I would like to see clearly articulated, exactly how Flowerhorns, OB Peacocks are a threat to the conservation of pure "wild type" cichlids in the hobby.


I haven't thought out my entire response, but the simplest example would be when a pure bred is blown off as a hybrid or likely-hybrid because of the prevelance of them with a particular species. For example, a pure Trimac (granted maybe not a rare fish) and flowerhorn, it might be easy to tell a pure trimac from a show quality flowerhorn, but what about all the crappy flowerhorns and the "should-be" culls that float around the hobby. If you had a pure Trimac, good luck convincing 7 out of 10 people that it is such. It is detrimental in that it creates a gray area that only gets bigger. It leads to the reality of this comment from *xalow*...


> If there becomes a point where no one can tell the different between fish being judged in the hybrid category and those in the purebred what happens?


That is a good question, and I think the presence of hybrids in the hobby speeds arrival of that reality. You can blame it on the irresponsible people and not the fish, but the ending is still the same.

Where I dissagree with *dogofwar* when he says that the people are to blame because of poor breeding practices and mislabeling fish, etc., as true as that is, bottomline is more often than not, you can I.D. a pure species down the road, either consulting literature and looking at the Holotypes and Paratypes or looking at wild shipments, whatever, but when you have to start taking into consideration that your fish could be a hybrid, good luck, it's the same gray area that makes a pure breed almost trivial. Irresponsible breeders/hobbyists are a problem, but much, much more so when dealing with species that are likely hybrids because of the difficulty in I.D.

Ed


----------



## why_spyder

I have read most of this thread and I have to say - *edburress*, I like how you post your thoughts. :thumb:

_Sidenote_:

I don't like hybrids and line-bred cichlids, but I have no problem with people that keep them responsibly. I would prefer not to see these fish at a show because I find the wild-types more fascinating.


----------



## eric

Overall some really well thought out posts. It's nice to see that people have taken the time to be thoughtful in their writing as well.

I'm a member of the ACA and I support the ACA. I have also supported conservation of cichlids directly.

The ACA is dwarfed by the sheer number of cichlid keepers that are a part of the hobby and are not members of the ACA. For example, it was written in an earlier post that the ACA has 1200 members. Consider that this site alone has over 150,000 visitors in a typical month and is still growing. Also consider that this site is only one site on the internet that includes cichlids. Therefore, far less than 1% of cichlid keepers get their information from the ACA.

This is not to say members of of the ACA are not important. I would like to think we are! I do feel that the members of the ACA as a whole are disproportionally more influential on the hobby then the average cichlid keeper, but compared to the masses?

Of course, when the ACA was created, there was no internet. We now have the internet and there is so much information available on the internet on cichlids. There is no real calling from the public asking the ACA to educate the public on hybrids. In other words, if the ACA wants to keep hybrids out of their shows (or attempt to), it cannot be viewed as tragic. There so many other resources out there that will let the public educate themselves on cichlid hybrids. And since there are many pet shops and fellow hobbyists who keep hybrid cichlids, anyone who wants to observe these fish can easily do so.

In conclusion, I'm not sure why some people get so worked up about the ACA and hybrids. In terms of real numbers, I don't think it's a big deal.

Again, thanks to all who posted so eloquently.


----------



## why_spyder

eric said:


> The ACA is dwarfed by the sheer number of cichlid keepers that are a part of the hobby and are not members of the ACA. For example, it was written in an earlier post that the ACA has 1200 members. Consider that this site alone has over 150,000 visitors in a typical month and is still growing. Also consider that this site is only one site on the internet that includes cichlids. Therefore, far less than 1% of cichlid keepers get their information from the ACA.


That is a very interesting statistic that I had not known about (or even considered)...


----------



## dogofwar

Great post, Eric!

I'm also an ACA member and think about the small proportion of total cichlid-keepers who are part of the ACA in a couple of ways.

On one hand, I want more people to join the ACA...because I believe that it is an organization with a lot of potential and opportunity to positively impact the hobby and conservation more broadly. Starting another organization from scratch takes time, organization, and will lead to rivalries, bitterness, etc. Let's build on what we have.

On the other hand, I don't believe that the ACA is ready to accept more people...especially if they're different. There are many who are happy with the organization being a small clique...and ANY changes to the organization, the annual meeting, etc. are - as we've seen - resisted.

The problem with this is that the ACA as it stands, while influential, is not having a measurable impact on either conservation in the hobby or in the natural environments of cichlids.

And, as I've said before, I believe that the anti-hybrid stance mis-identifies the root threat to conservation of fish in the hobby and alienates probably the largest (youngest) and fastest growing sector of the cichlid keepers from participating, learning, and supporting the organization.

In that regard, the ACA's largest impact is probably mis-education (flowerhorns are bad) and polarization....vs positively impacting the level of responsible fishkeeping (and vending) in the hobby.

I also firmly believe that the BB alone is worth the $25 price of admission for the ACA. I will continue to pay my dues and maybe even attend the annual meeting.

The ACA needs to decide whether it wants to remain a small, cliquish group with a relatively small and aging membership (and impact) or whether it wants to grow, have a broader membership and impact, and truly accept a broader swathe of those in the cichlid hobby, including those who don't believe that responsible care and breeding of flowerhorns and other hybrids are inherently counter to conservation.

The decision to cancel the hybrid class in this show (or more correctly, the decision to cave to members who support the status quo / exclusion) represents a decision for the former.


----------



## TheFishGuy

Eight pages to read... I'll be back...


----------



## TheFishGuy

Oh my... What to say...

I was going to join the ACA until I got some information about the upcoming event including hybrids.

That was in November, I've been trying to decide to join or not since then.

Monster Fish Rescue is about educating the public and conservation. Flowerhorns have been documented to decimate entire bodies of water of other fish in Asia when they've been released. That's not conservation.

Here's why I've been struggling to join. I like hybrids, they're interesting to look at. BUT I don't think they should be sold and I don't think an organization like the ACA should support them simply because of the loss of blood lines by inexperienced cichlid keepers who don't know any better.

My personal OPINION is the "kok" on a FH is an enlarged madula oblongata :lol: Still neat to look at though...

If you can't tell... I'm personally split right down the middle... Interesting read though...


----------



## prov356

> The ACA needs to decide whether it wants to remain a small, cliquish group with a relatively small and aging membership (and impact) or whether it wants to grow, have a broader membership and impact, and truly accept a broader swathe of those in the cichlid hobby, including those who don't believe that responsible care and breeding of flowerhorns and other hybrids are inherently counter to conservation.
> 
> The decision to cancel the hybrid class in this show (or more correctly, the decision to cave to members who support the status quo / exclusion) represents a decision for the former.


The ACA canceled the hybrid class because they mismanaged the roll out and couldn't handle the fallout.
I don't think it's fair to say it's because they are and want to remain a small cliquish, exclusive group. 
They've left the possibility open to trying this again, but they'll need strong leadership to do it. They need 
to stop the bleeding, but seem to be continuing to misstep. See All the hybrid posts have been closed. 
Right or wrong, now there's another negative perception of what's going on.

Someone over there needs to take charge and make some strong statements regarding where they 
stand to alleviate the fears. I do believe this is driven by fear. Fear that pure strains of fish will one 
day no longer be available. Maybe the fear is irrational, but someone in a leadership position over 
there needs to start making some decisions and doing some communicating.

Just my .02


----------



## dogofwar

"Monster Fish Rescue is about educating the public and conservation. Flowerhorns have been documented to decimate entire bodies of water of other fish in Asia when they've been released. That's not conservation."

If you can replace "flowerhorns" with another wild-type fish in the above statement, then the issue isn't flowerhorns but the irresponsible a-holes who let non-native fish loose...


----------



## TheFishGuy

I agree 1000000000000000000% that it's not the fishes fault. But if flowerhorns didn't exist.... Follow me?


----------



## dwarfpike

I agree with ya *TFG*, but I think *dogofwar* meant if it weren't flowerhorns, it would be tilapia, or something else.


----------



## dogofwar

Tim,

I think that the problems is that there is no compelling, rational argument that ranks "flowerhorns" as the gravest issue facing conservation of cichlids in the hobby or nature... and, thus, no good reason to explicitly exclude them...that will not also logically exclude all of the other "non-natural" cichlids that many in the club keep without ethical quandary.

The ACA needs to manage its brand. Because events have cast its brand as something less than progressive, relevant, inclusive, or constructive.


----------



## dogofwar

TheFishGuy said:


> I agree 1000000000000000000% that it's not the fishes fault. But if flowerhorns didn't exist.... Follow me?


But flowerhorns DO exist...and MN (Mother Nature) made a lot of cichlids genetically close enough to easily interbreed...so hybrids have and will always exist as long as we keep cichlids in glass boxes.

That people intentionally keep and breed fancy strains of fish isn't the problem...it's people who act irresponsibly - either out of ignorance, malice, laziness, or whatever.

Education on responsible fishkeeping (breeding, etc.) is the answer. Not trying to dissuade the world that flowerhorns are bad and must be destroyed...lest the hobby as we know it will end.


----------



## edburress

Thanks *why_spyder*!

Nice posts *Eric* and *TheFishGuy*!



> I don't think they should be sold and I don't think an organization like the ACA should support them


I agree. If I think beyond the "hobby" I can't believe you can sell hybrids. We're spoiled in the US, just think how many *pure* species are illegal in Australia for conservation reasons. Sometimes you hear them complain about it jokingly, but when you talk to them, they are really proud of those laws and happy that they are in place. To me, it seems like there are hobbyists that love keeping fish and really care about it, then there are hobbyists that really love fish and really care about them, and that the later are more interested in conservation and more willing to sacrifice aspects of their hobby.



> My personal OPINION is the "kok" on a FH is an enlarged madula oblongata


 :lol: I know what you mean. I think that the fish look the way they do for a reason, from morphology to coloration and when we alter that we limit their ability to communicate to both conspecifics and others, and the tendency for hybrids to be aggressive is when subtle communication fails, they simply act.



> But flowerhorns DO exist...and MN (Mother Nature) made a lot of cichlids genetically close enough to easily interbreed...so hybrids have and will always exist as long as we keep cichlids in glass boxes.


It's not the "fact" of hybrids, but more their proliferation and promotion. Back to the ACA.. if you can show your hybrid, it's making it more appealing to own one than if you could not. If hybrids were gone, poor breeders and incorrectly identified pure breds could be identified at some point by someone. Hybrids probably could not, so they magnify the problem that arises from uninformed/unprofessional hobbyists. They don't have to be the foremost threat to conservation to still be a threat.

Making strides towards conservation is going to limit the number and kinds of species we can keep, but the circumstances are much more satisfactory than if it is because those species no longer exist or are no longer pure.

Ed


----------



## TheFishGuy

Well, either way anyone feels about it, it's over for the moment with the ACA.


----------

