Glow- fish

[Andy Sager]

I think you may have misinterpreted me, I don't support wild catching either. We have thousands if not Millions of tank bred species that are out there to go home to an appropriate tank! We don't need to create or catch fish. Probably should've been more clear with that.

But this brings up the question " When have we gone too far with our fish?" Yes, most of the fish we have available today are tank bred and raised but not all fish available are that way. There would be no new discoveries of fish species if there were no fish being collected for the aquarium trade. People fishing for food fish aren't interested in those "pretty little fish" that got stuck in the nets.

Look how many fish weren't discovered until the 1990s or later. I missed out on a whole bunch of fish because I got out of the freshwater fish biz around 1987. Then again, there are so many new variations to the fish that were available to me back then or before that don't even resemble their wild ancestors. It's on the verge of fascinating but then the production of glo-fish types makes me think we finally crossed the line. They ran out of things to change about the fish's appearance so they made the fish genetically different? All in all, these are still the same fish they started out as ( i.e. Zebra Danio, Tiger barb, etc.) they just look different. So if making a long finned variety of a fish is okay, then we should be OK with making a genetically altered fish. Right? I guess it's an ethics thing. To me, they crossed the line with them. I won't be keeping them in my tanks for that reason and that reason alone. It's up to us all when to say STOP, we have enough variety. ( BTW, there are a number of fish we used to keep back in the day that I don't see anymore in fish stores. I wonder why not? Is it because good enough is never really good enough? Just something to ponder )

 

[jetajockey]

From an ethics standpoint, there is several differences between selective breeding to bring out an already inherent trait and laboratory genetic modification that gives a creature something it never had to begin with.

I don't support it for multiple reasons:
a) it's tacky, I can see the appeal if you have small children or are just starting out in the hobby, though. This is just my opinion of them, some people love them, and more power to them for doing so.

b) the copyright thing. As has been mentioned, they put copyrights on these fish, as in, you are not allowed to sell or breed them. That in itself should turn most people off of them solely on the fact that a company would do that to pet.

c and d) They are expensive. And besides that, they have moved on to other species of fish (as mentioned) including skirt tetras, and some companies overseas are modifying cichlids and even other animals. So they aren't going to stop at a few novelty fish, they are squeezing this thing for as long as possible. And as long as consumers (mostly ill informed) continue to purchase them, they will keep it up.

Does that mean anything negative? Perhaps, depending on how you look at it. The plus side is that it's not technically hurting any fish since it's only done to a small initial group of fish that are bred into future generations. However, the more common these GM fish become, the more various species etc (especially livebearers/egg brooders), the more likelihood that these genetic modifications are going to make their way into regular fish stock strains.

From what I've read (very little), the offspring of a glo/non glow pairing shouldnt' glow, but I do believe they would end up being gene carriers, assuming it's a recessive gene (Not sure about this). But the gene tampering will still be there, even if it's not visible.

For glowing fish, this isn't all that big of a deal. But what about when they start doing other modifications? At what point does it cross the line? What if they put in a modification that makes a species far superior to it's wild counterparts? What happens when these fish make it back into the wild?

There are so many unknowns with genetic modification. So when I see glo-fish, I am looking way beyond the little bit of novelty they have to much more serious and potentially detrimental ramifications.

 

[twiddlemuffin]

I don't find them appealing. The don't look natural and that kinda ruins it for me.

 

[Tieberion]

../puts on flame retardant forum suit...../If they come out with glo-German blue Rams, I am soooo forking over my credit card lol.

We all have diff opinions and views, and that's what keeps the aquarium industry as a whole going, people wanting to save our ancient species spend the money to do it, and people who want crazy new things spend the money on them, so as long as were all spending the mighty dollar, yen, euro, etc, I think it's a positive as a whole for the industry.

 

[Fibsog]

../puts on flame retardant forum suit...../If they come out with glo-German blue Rams, I am soooo forking over my credit card lol.

We all have diff opinions and views, and that's what keeps the aquarium industry as a whole going, people wanting to save our ancient species spend the money to do it, and people who want crazy new things spend the money on them, so as long as were all spending the mighty dollar, yen, euro, etc, I think it's a positive as a whole for the industry.

I would love that! And guys come on. They are not died, they are given genes from coral and jellyfish. Only the first few eggs! I think alot of people are overreacting tbh.

 

[Andy Sager]

From an ethics standpoint, there is several differences between selective breeding to bring out an already inherent trait and laboratory genetic modification that gives a creature something it never had to begin with.

I don't support it for multiple reasons:
a) it's tacky, I can see the appeal if you have small children or are just starting out in the hobby, though. This is just my opinion of them, some people love them, and more power to them for doing so.

b) the copyright thing. As has been mentioned, they put copyrights on these fish, as in, you are not allowed to sell or breed them. That in itself should turn most people off of them solely on the fact that a company would do that to pet.

c and d) They are expensive. And besides that, they have moved on to other species of fish (as mentioned) including skirt tetras, and some companies overseas are modifying cichlids and even other animals. So they aren't going to stop at a few novelty fish, they are squeezing this thing for as long as possible. And as long as consumers (mostly ill informed) continue to purchase them, they will keep it up.

Does that mean anything negative? Perhaps, depending on how you look at it. The plus side is that it's not technically hurting any fish since it's only done to a small initial group of fish that are bred into future generations. However, the more common these GM fish become, the more various species etc (especially livebearers/egg brooders), the more likelihood that these genetic modifications are going to make their way into regular fish stock strains.

From what I've read (very little), the offspring of a glo/non glow pairing shouldnt' glow, but I do believe they would end up being gene carriers, assuming it's a recessive gene (Not sure about this). But the gene tampering will still be there, even if it's not visible.

For glowing fish, this isn't all that big of a deal. But what about when they start doing other modifications? At what point does it cross the line? What if they put in a modification that makes a species far superior to it's wild counterparts? What happens when these fish make it back into the wild?

There are so many unknowns with genetic modification. So when I see glo-fish, I am looking way beyond the little bit of novelty they have to much more serious and potentially detrimental ramifications.

I agree with you on many of these points. It's why I asked the question of when do we cross the line. There are other things going on with genetically engineered fish that has many concerned. With the wheat and corn, there are signs that it really isn't healthier for us to eat them. They are just easier to grow and stronger against pests making them a bigger cash crop.
Farm Raised Salmon, this monster salmon could easily get loose and destroy the entire ecosystem. It's a concern that has been brought up many times in the articles I've read over the years. I won;t eat farmed Salmon for the same reason I won;t buy glo-fish. PLUS, add in the cancer situation from the food the farmers got caught using a few years ago and I don;t trust them at all.
But this is about Glo-fish

To those who believe that there is no harm from these genetically engineered fish getting into the wild population, here's something to think about:
Before mankind came to being, there was a harmony between all that lived on the planet. Not PEACE and harmony, just harmony. Predators were outnumbered by prey so what they depleted from the "herd" did not effect the herd. Plant life grew where it could and didn't grow where it shouldn't. There were symbiotic relationships created by many different species and all was right with the world (so to speak. ) Now man comes along and alters the balance of things and there are 100s of living things that have gone extinct since the arrival of modern man. Maybe not all man's fault but just a fact and maybe coincidence. Now, say you have a building, you make a blueprint, it's perfect, it meets every requirement necessary for it to remain on Earth for the rest of time. You build it and it lasts say 100 years when all of a sudden some whacko decides to "fix it" and changes something in the mixture from the original recipe to repair a wall ( let's say) but the result is that that change causes the building to collapse and crumble into 1 billion pieces. If the blueprint and the architect are both gone, you cannot replace that building exactly as it was. Take this to the fish: if you change the genetic blueprint of the wild fish, should you have a collapse of the specie from our screwing around with it, you have NO possible pure genetics to bring back into the plan to remake the specie. However that specie got here and survived was what was necessary to do in order to survive. Take anything away from that and they may not survive. Is that what you want for the hobby? No control and destruction of the wildlife that created the ability to even have this hobby? IMO, Shame on you for thinking that!

As a breeder I know that every once in a while you need to add wild blood into your lines or you will not have a viable line to sell or keep. Too many generations of breeding will produce nothing but runts and rejects. That's just a fact. I want to be able to pull a wild fish to add to my lines that are identical to the ones that started the whole line. That may not be able to happen if we let these "engineered" fish into the system. Keep these fish in a tank and not the rivers, ponds, lakes, streams or oceans!

I'll step off my soap box and let someone else stand on it for a while

 

[Autumnsky]

Liked the flame retardant forum suit comment! lol

They are very eye catching, and a little pretty, not in a fish way if you get my meaning (not natural), but don't like the whole thing. There are so many fish which could be kept and are truly beautiful.

I won't step into the rest, most has been already been discussed.

Not the op question but hate the tatooed and dyed fish. Poor things.

 

[Tieberion]

Isn't it those parrot fish that come in weird colors one of the ones that are slime coat scale dyed? That's rough, same with those heart tattoed barbs.

 

[Dallascowboys16]

Yeah I don't like glow fish because tampering with fish genetics for our own pleasure seems a little too far. I for one think they are ugly. It's a fad that will come and go (or at least I hope so). I am also very worried about mucking up pure wild fish genetics. We have already basically ruined a ton of cichlid species through hybridization and if these things could pass on their glowing genetics it would be a catastrophe. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Ian086]

I agree with you on many of these points. It's why I asked the question of when do we cross the line. There are other things going on with genetically engineered fish that has many concerned. With the wheat and corn, there are signs that it really isn't healthier for us to eat them. They are just easier to grow and stronger against pests making them a bigger cash crop.
Farm Raised Salmon, this monster salmon could easily get loose and destroy the entire ecosystem. It's a concern that has been brought up many times in the articles I've read over the years. I won;t eat farmed Salmon for the same reason I won;t buy glo-fish. PLUS, add in the cancer situation from the food the farmers got caught using a few years ago and I don;t trust them at all.
But this is about Glo-fish

To those who believe that there is no harm from these genetically engineered fish getting into the wild population, here's something to think about:
Before mankind came to being, there was a harmony between all that lived on the planet. Not PEACE and harmony, just harmony. Predators were outnumbered by prey so what they depleted from the "herd" did not effect the herd. Plant life grew where it could and didn't grow where it shouldn't. There were symbiotic relationships created by many different species and all was right with the world (so to speak. ) Now man comes along and alters the balance of things and there are 100s of living things that have gone extinct since the arrival of modern man. Maybe not all man's fault but just a fact and maybe coincidence. Now, say you have a building, you make a blueprint, it's perfect, it meets every requirement necessary for it to remain on Earth for the rest of time. You build it and it lasts say 100 years when all of a sudden some whacko decides to "fix it" and changes something in the mixture from the original recipe to repair a wall ( let's say) but the result is that that change causes the building to collapse and crumble into 1 billion pieces. If the blueprint and the architect are both gone, you cannot replace that building exactly as it was. Take this to the fish: if you change the genetic blueprint of the wild fish, should you have a collapse of the specie from our screwing around with it, you have NO possible pure genetics to bring back into the plan to remake the specie. However that specie got here and survived was what was necessary to do in order to survive. Take anything away from that and they may not survive. Is that what you want for the hobby? No control and destruction of the wildlife that created the ability to even have this hobby? IMO, Shame on you for thinking that!

As a breeder I know that every once in a while you need to add wild blood into your lines or you will not have a viable line to sell or keep. Too many generations of breeding will produce nothing but runts and rejects. That's just a fact. I want to be able to pull a wild fish to add to my lines that are identical to the ones that started the whole line. That may not be able to happen if we let these "engineered" fish into the system. Keep these fish in a tank and not the rivers, ponds, lakes, streams or oceans!

I'll step off my soap box and let someone else stand on it for a while

Excellent post Andy, I completely agree. I am not a fan myself and thank god they are unavailable in Europe. The only way to rid these from our industry is, as was mentioned, not to buy them. If they don't sell, they won't produce them. Everyone is entitled to choose to buy or not but before you make the decision to buy one, read Andy's post above and then decide. IMO, if you are a true fish lover, you will/should love fish without GM modification.
In Europe, it's a €10,000 fine and/or 1yr jail just for keeping them and a €50,000 and/or 10yrs jail for breeding/selling/distributing them. The EU CAN do things right, occasionally....lol

 

[Tommy10]

Yesterday I saw dojo loach glofish... Bright blue and pink...