| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
glow in the dark fishies
That's so scary! ;)
But don't some deep see fish glow anyhow? Have you heard about them doing a similar experiment with an ape of somesort? The apes fingernails glowed in the dark! (It's insane!) Leandra |
glow in the dark fishies
b wrote in message rthlink.net...
frankenfish be damned. but...i kinda want a school of glowing danios for after dark viewing. wrong? well yeah but the visuals should prove interesting after a day under power compacts. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3026104.stm m It's one thing to produce more crops etc, but just for the pet industry's whim, and you'll note they are sterile which is good as far as releasing them into the wild etc, but...............this is also a great thing for the company selling them. None one can breed or sell them except them. Sort of like genetically resistant Round Up soybeans from Monsanto and other GM crops, you have to buy from the ompany that develops it at a higher cost and no raising your own. That goes against the basic premises of growing crops or livestock, breeding and keeping seeds for next year. Genetic mutants are extremely useful in research, but not just for personal consumer whims. I see a boycott by many people. GM crops/livestock for food production are bad enough and have issues some of which may or may not be agreeable with folks. Regards, Tom Barr |
glow in the dark fishies
well I guess shoot me, I think they are cool and if I saw them in my local
store, I'd buy them |
glow in the dark fishies
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:59:52 GMT, "Cammie"
wrote: well I guess shoot me, I think they are cool and if I saw them in my local store, I'd buy them I don't have any objection to genetically engineered fish, but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stay away from multilated fish. Fish like the "Painted Glass Fish" that they literally inject the dye with a needle. Please do not buy them, or support any store that sells them. Chuck Gadd http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua |
glow in the dark fishies
well I guess shoot me, I think they are cool and if I saw them in my local
store, I'd buy them I might be tempted, but not for $17 each! Leigh http://www.fortunecity.com/lavender/halloween/881/ |
glow in the dark fishies
speaking of injected glass fish, my Walmart has these in hot pink, and neon
green... very very cool looking, but I did not know they were actually injected, I thought they were just another neon tetra sort of fish |
glow in the dark fishies
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 03:23:03 GMT, "Cammie"
wrote: speaking of injected glass fish, my Walmart has these in hot pink, and neon green... very very cool looking, but I did not know they were actually injected, I thought they were just another neon tetra sort of fish Yup, yet another thing some creeps will do for money. Chuck Gadd http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua |
IMO, genetically engineered fish is still not as cruel or any more ethical as catching wild fish and condemning them to a life in a tank, I've heard all types of statements for justification for doing so such as, fish not having to search for food, no predators etc, sorry, I'de sooner take my chances and be free.
As for injected fish, ban it, it should be illegal. Totally unacceptable and anybody who endorses it, let alone purchases them, is as sick and twisted as those low lifes who inflict such attrocious cruelty! I know that for some areas of the world, their only income is from catching fish for the trade, but at what price, some fish have already seen dramatic drops in numbers, one in particular I'm led to believe is the Zebra plec, yet I still see them for sale, why? I know a few of you keep Marine fish and inerts etc, which the majority of are wild caught I believe, personally I feel it should be banned. I know there are controlled catches around the world, but for some reefs etc, the damage has been done and some of it irreversible all because of high demand by the trade. Being actively involved in raptor conservation in the U.K, I can foresee for different reasons, the future of certain species of tropical fish doomed! I know there are quite a few species of fresh water fish struggling to maintain numbers due mainly through habitat loss and pollution here in the U.K Like most things, people will only sit up and realize, when it's to late! Stuart Maybe slightly off topic I know, but it just rattles my cage! |
glow in the dark fishies
"Chuck Gadd" wrote
Actually, for some wild caught freshwater fish, having them caught for the aquarium industry might be the only thing saving them. I don't recall which species she was talking about, but Karen Randall mentioned areas in South America where fish are caught and sold. In those areas where they banned fishing (to protect the fish), suddenly that land wasn't making any money, so the forests were cleared for farming and other uses, which destroyed the habitat and killed off the fish. There were some live-bearers for sale at our last fish club auction which are now extinct in the wild due to habitat destruction. I was actually thinking about the whole ethical side of fishkeeping the other day. I have to admit to feeling uncomfortable about wild caught reef fish and inverts but I don't know enough about the issue to make a judgment either way. Is there such a thing as a 'happy fish' scheme so that fishkeepers such as ourselves can be confident that any livestock we buy has been treated humanely and is either tank bred or comes from sustainable wild populations? If not then there should be. -- Graham Ramsay You might be a Bright: http://www.the-brights.net |
glow in the dark fishies
"Graham Ramsay" wrote in message ... I was actually thinking about the whole ethical side of fishkeeping the other day. I have to admit to feeling uncomfortable about wild caught reef fish and inverts but I don't know enough about the issue to make a judgment either way. Is there such a thing as a 'happy fish' scheme so that fishkeepers such as ourselves can be confident that any livestock we buy has been treated humanely and is either tank bred or comes from sustainable wild populations? If not then there should be. I think about these things as well... only *I* think "humanely treated / wild caught" is an oxymoron. g Perhaps one of the first things we can do as end buyers is to ask our LFS "where is this fish from?" before each and every purchase. Let them know that it is an issue that will influence where the $$$ go. -- Toni http://www.cearbhaill.com/aquarium.htm |
glow in the dark fishies
"Graham Ramsay" wrote in message ... I was actually thinking about the whole ethical side of fishkeeping the other day. I have to admit to feeling uncomfortable about wild caught reef fish and inverts but I don't know enough about the issue to make a judgment either way. Is there such a thing as a 'happy fish' scheme so that fishkeepers such as ourselves can be confident that any livestock we buy has been treated humanely and is either tank bred or comes from sustainable wild populations? If not then there should be. I think about these things as well... only *I* think "humanely treated / wild caught" is an oxymoron. g Perhaps one of the first things we can do as end buyers is to ask our LFS "where is this fish from?" before each and every purchase. Let them know that it is an issue that will influence where the $$$ go. -- Toni http://www.cearbhaill.com/aquarium.htm |
glow in the dark fishies
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:13:22 GMT, "Toni"
wrote: I think about these things as well... only *I* think "humanely treated / wild caught" is an oxymoron. g So you think that wild caught fish are automatically mistreated? Chuck Gadd http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua |
glow in the dark fishies
Actually, for some wild caught freshwater fish, having them caught for
the aquarium industry might be the only thing saving them. That's true. And for some fish, there's little harm done by collectors. Neon tetras and clown loaches, for example. Neons are basically annual fish in their native waters. They live only a year in the wild, and are extremely profilic. The ones collected for the hobby aren't missed. With clown loaches, only the babies are desirable. The adults, which are a foot or more, are left alone, so the breeders aren't affected. Most of the babies collected for the pet trade wouldn't survive to adulthood anyway. Leigh http://www.fortunecity.com/lavender/halloween/881/ |
glow in the dark fishies
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:11:01 +0100, Skunky
wrote: I know that for some areas of the world, their only income is from catching fish for the trade, but at what price, some fish have already seen dramatic drops in numbers, one in particular I'm led to believe is the Zebra plec, yet I still see them for sale, why? Actually, for some wild caught freshwater fish, having them caught for the aquarium industry might be the only thing saving them. I don't recall which species she was talking about, but Karen Randall mentioned areas in South America where fish are caught and sold. In those areas where they banned fishing (to protect the fish), suddenly that land wasn't making any money, so the forests were cleared for farming and other uses, which destroyed the habitat and killed off the fish. tropical fish doomed! I know there are quite a few species of fresh water fish struggling to maintain numbers due mainly through habitat loss and pollution here in the U.K EXACTLY. In poor countries, where most of the wild-caught fish come from, if they don't make money by catching the fish and selling them, then they will find some other use for the land, often doing much more damage to the fish populations. Like most things, people will only sit up and realize, when it's to late! Yes, but people also tend to simplify the problem/solution. Chuck Gadd http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua |
glow in the dark fishies
"Chuck Gadd" wrote in message ... So you think that wild caught fish are automatically mistreated? Knowing full well that you'll probably come back with 100 reasons I'm wrong g- I believe that to interfere to the extent of physically removing a creature from its natural environment is the ultimate abuse. The percentage that die is unacceptable- how big is that pile of dead Cardinal Tetras in the sky? Plus the trauma of being yanked from your home and being slapped into a plastic bag? Simply so they can live in a box in your home? As humans can we really *be* that presumptuous? I believe it is simply not our right to intrude on their lives. I also don't believe in zoos, captive animals, or a hundred other abuses our present society condones. I believe that "dominion over the animals" is not a license to redetermine their fate, but a gentle edict to respect their right to exist as equal to our own. I believe that "animal viewing" exhibitions may have started innocently enough as a way for common folk to see up close and personal all the creatures that the explorers wrote home about, but that time is now past. The concept went bad pretty early on IMO- when the first animal died. We have the Discovery Channel now for viewing the wonders of the wild kingdom. I also might need to mention that I have worked in the pet shop/circus/companion animal field for over 30 years and have seen more than my share of animals faring badly at the hand of man. -- Toni http://www.cearbhaill.com/aquarium.htm |
glow in the dark fishies
Toni wrote in message thlink.net... "Chuck Gadd" wrote in message ... So you think that wild caught fish are automatically mistreated? Knowing full well that you'll probably come back with 100 reasons I'm wrong g- I believe that to interfere to the extent of physically removing a creature from its natural environment is the ultimate abuse. The percentage that die is unacceptable- how big is that pile of dead Cardinal Tetras in the sky? Plus the trauma of being yanked from your home and being slapped into a plastic bag? Simply so they can live in a box in your home? As humans can we really *be* that presumptuous? I believe it is simply not our right to intrude on their lives. I also don't believe in zoos, captive animals, or a hundred other abuses our present society condones. I believe that "dominion over the animals" is not a license to redetermine their fate, but a gentle edict to respect their right to exist as equal to our own. I believe that "animal viewing" exhibitions may have started innocently enough as a way for common folk to see up close and personal all the creatures that the explorers wrote home about, but that time is now past. The concept went bad pretty early on IMO- when the first animal died. We have the Discovery Channel now for viewing the wonders of the wild kingdom. I also might need to mention that I have worked in the pet shop/circus/companion animal field for over 30 years and have seen more than my share of animals faring badly at the hand of man. -- Toni http://www.cearbhaill.com/aquarium.htm |
glow in the dark fishies
Graham Ramsay wrote in message ... "Chuck Gadd" wrote Actually, for some wild caught freshwater fish, having them caught for the aquarium industry might be the only thing saving them. I don't recall which species she was talking about, but Karen Randall mentioned areas in South America where fish are caught and sold. In those areas where they banned fishing (to protect the fish), suddenly that land wasn't making any money, so the forests were cleared for farming and other uses, which destroyed the habitat and killed off the fish. There were some live-bearers for sale at our last fish club auction which are now extinct in the wild due to habitat destruction. I was actually thinking about the whole ethical side of fishkeeping the other day. I have to admit to feeling uncomfortable about wild caught reef fish and inverts but I don't know enough about the issue to make a judgment either way. Is there such a thing as a 'happy fish' scheme so that fishkeepers such as ourselves can be confident that any livestock we buy has been treated humanely and is either tank bred or comes from sustainable wild populations? If not then there should be. -- Graham Ramsay One of the benefits of this hobby is seeing that we can sustain species that are no longer found in the wild. Some top of the head examples would be cherry barbs, black ruby barbs, and most Lake Victoria Hap's. Some are so common and easily bred within the hobby that the chance of extinction is remote. Others are maintained through specialty societies, zoos, and scientific studies, so that perhaps a restocking can take place once the causes for extinction in the wild have been corrected. Reef or marine fish do not have the benefits of time, numbers of keepers, and ease of keeping that freshwater fish have on their side. Yes, there are firms that are actively involved in spawning experiments with marine fish and invertebrates. Some are successful enough to offer the progeny through retail outlets. But it will take a lot more time and study before many of the marine life forms are self sustaining in captivity. Our hobby would be a lot smaller if we had to wait for just tank raised fish. Some tank raised fish come with 'certificates' of captive breeding. But I imagine it is up to the individual hobbyist to be informed about the status of fish they intend to keep, and to be experienced and knowledgeable enough to provide a proper aquarium environment. The longer we can keep fish alive, the less likely we need to purchase replacements, probably of wild caught fish. What you keep is indeed a personal decision. Just be informed. Jim |
glow in the dark fishies
Toni wrote in message thlink.net... "Chuck Gadd" wrote in message ... So you think that wild caught fish are automatically mistreated? Knowing full well that you'll probably come back with 100 reasons I'm wrong g- I believe that to interfere to the extent of physically removing a creature from its natural environment is the ultimate abuse. The percentage that die is unacceptable- how big is that pile of dead Cardinal Tetras in the sky? Plus the trauma of being yanked from your home and being slapped into a plastic bag? Simply so they can live in a box in your home? As humans can we really *be* that presumptuous? I believe it is simply not our right to intrude on their lives. I also don't believe in zoos, captive animals, or a hundred other abuses our present society condones. I believe that "dominion over the animals" is not a license to redetermine their fate, but a gentle edict to respect their right to exist as equal to our own. I believe that "animal viewing" exhibitions may have started innocently enough as a way for common folk to see up close and personal all the creatures that the explorers wrote home about, but that time is now past. The concept went bad pretty early on IMO- when the first animal died. We have the Discovery Channel now for viewing the wonders of the wild kingdom. I also might need to mention that I have worked in the pet shop/circus/companion animal field for over 30 years and have seen more than my share of animals faring badly at the hand of man. Toni Then how do you feel about cattle being yanked from a pasture, jammed onto trains or trucks, then crammed in stockyards at the slaughterhouse? Zoos are no longer just a prison for captive animals. They are repositories for animals that are almost lost in the wild. They maintain an international registry of captive animals to allow breeding programs to share the gene pool. Many even breed animals that are extremely rare, and establish release programmes for the successes of their efforts. I would imagine that there are less animals being treated inhumanely now than in the past. Any animal at risk can look to man as the reason. Not an easy problem to resolve, but at least the efforts are being made. Jim |
glow in the dark fishies
Graham Ramsay wrote in message ... "Chuck Gadd" wrote Actually, for some wild caught freshwater fish, having them caught for the aquarium industry might be the only thing saving them. I don't recall which species she was talking about, but Karen Randall mentioned areas in South America where fish are caught and sold. In those areas where they banned fishing (to protect the fish), suddenly that land wasn't making any money, so the forests were cleared for farming and other uses, which destroyed the habitat and killed off the fish. There were some live-bearers for sale at our last fish club auction which are now extinct in the wild due to habitat destruction. I was actually thinking about the whole ethical side of fishkeeping the other day. I have to admit to feeling uncomfortable about wild caught reef fish and inverts but I don't know enough about the issue to make a judgment either way. Is there such a thing as a 'happy fish' scheme so that fishkeepers such as ourselves can be confident that any livestock we buy has been treated humanely and is either tank bred or comes from sustainable wild populations? If not then there should be. -- Graham Ramsay One of the benefits of this hobby is seeing that we can sustain species that are no longer found in the wild. Some top of the head examples would be cherry barbs, black ruby barbs, and most Lake Victoria Hap's. Some are so common and easily bred within the hobby that the chance of extinction is remote. Others are maintained through specialty societies, zoos, and scientific studies, so that perhaps a restocking can take place once the causes for extinction in the wild have been corrected. Reef or marine fish do not have the benefits of time, numbers of keepers, and ease of keeping that freshwater fish have on their side. Yes, there are firms that are actively involved in spawning experiments with marine fish and invertebrates. Some are successful enough to offer the progeny through retail outlets. But it will take a lot more time and study before many of the marine life forms are self sustaining in captivity. Our hobby would be a lot smaller if we had to wait for just tank raised fish. Some tank raised fish come with 'certificates' of captive breeding. But I imagine it is up to the individual hobbyist to be informed about the status of fish they intend to keep, and to be experienced and knowledgeable enough to provide a proper aquarium environment. The longer we can keep fish alive, the less likely we need to purchase replacements, probably of wild caught fish. What you keep is indeed a personal decision. Just be informed. Jim |
glow in the dark fishies
Toni wrote in message thlink.net... "Chuck Gadd" wrote in message ... So you think that wild caught fish are automatically mistreated? Knowing full well that you'll probably come back with 100 reasons I'm wrong g- I believe that to interfere to the extent of physically removing a creature from its natural environment is the ultimate abuse. The percentage that die is unacceptable- how big is that pile of dead Cardinal Tetras in the sky? Plus the trauma of being yanked from your home and being slapped into a plastic bag? Simply so they can live in a box in your home? As humans can we really *be* that presumptuous? I believe it is simply not our right to intrude on their lives. I also don't believe in zoos, captive animals, or a hundred other abuses our present society condones. I believe that "dominion over the animals" is not a license to redetermine their fate, but a gentle edict to respect their right to exist as equal to our own. I believe that "animal viewing" exhibitions may have started innocently enough as a way for common folk to see up close and personal all the creatures that the explorers wrote home about, but that time is now past. The concept went bad pretty early on IMO- when the first animal died. We have the Discovery Channel now for viewing the wonders of the wild kingdom. I also might need to mention that I have worked in the pet shop/circus/companion animal field for over 30 years and have seen more than my share of animals faring badly at the hand of man. Toni Then how do you feel about cattle being yanked from a pasture, jammed onto trains or trucks, then crammed in stockyards at the slaughterhouse? Zoos are no longer just a prison for captive animals. They are repositories for animals that are almost lost in the wild. They maintain an international registry of captive animals to allow breeding programs to share the gene pool. Many even breed animals that are extremely rare, and establish release programmes for the successes of their efforts. I would imagine that there are less animals being treated inhumanely now than in the past. Any animal at risk can look to man as the reason. Not an easy problem to resolve, but at least the efforts are being made. Jim |
glow in the dark fishies
This ethical consideration is very interesting. We in the West (America)
have realized the results of our "industrialization" and have for basically economic reasons, moved our "dirty manufacturing" to third world countries. We preserve our habitat at the expense of other's habitats. I'm an American and believe in free enterprise...because I'm a true blue Capitalist, but let me take this one step beyond fishkeeping (because I'm pretty buzzed on Merlot :))\ One day we're going to overpopulate the earth or do something to melt the polar ice caps or something equally cataclysmic.... (some folks believe that we will exterminate some "Key" in the food chain that will domino up the food chain to us)... the beauty of nature is that it really doesn't matter. What survives after the cataclysm will be stronger. So... off the soap box... and the wine bottle, when the fish that we keep are near extinction because of something man did, well I feel that having those rare species in a controlled environment is a wonderful extension to their lives. A friend of mine once said that as a species becomes extinct, we suffer greatly. However until we become extinct we won't understand the suffering. Dang.... birthday wine does a number on my sensibilities! :) Are we much different than the "fish in the box" that one previous poster mentioned? Heck, I've moved to several new "boxes" over my 40 year life span... BTW the majority of my fish have been with me for over 5 years. Their thousands of spawn have populated a few LFS... Don't know how they would have faired in the wild!? DJay "Toni" wrote in message thlink.net... "Graham Ramsay" wrote in message ... I was actually thinking about the whole ethical side of fishkeeping the other day. I have to admit to feeling uncomfortable about wild caught reef fish and inverts but I don't know enough about the issue to make a judgment either way. Is there such a thing as a 'happy fish' scheme so that fishkeepers such as ourselves can be confident that any livestock we buy has been treated humanely and is either tank bred or comes from sustainable wild populations? If not then there should be. I think about these things as well... only *I* think "humanely treated / wild caught" is an oxymoron. g Perhaps one of the first things we can do as end buyers is to ask our LFS "where is this fish from?" before each and every purchase. Let them know that it is an issue that will influence where the $$$ go. -- Toni http://www.cearbhaill.com/aquarium.htm |
glow in the dark fishies
Skunky wrote:
I know that for some areas of the world, their only income is from catching fish for the trade, but at what price, some fish have already seen dramatic drops in numbers, one in particular I'm led to believe is the Zebra plec, yet I still see them for sale, why? I know a few of you keep Marine fish and inerts etc, which the majority of are wild caught I believe, personally I feel it should be banned. I know there are controlled catches around the world, but for some reefs etc, the damage has been done and some of it irreversible all because of high demand by the trade. Being actively involved in raptor conservation in the U.K, I can foresee for different reasons, the future of certain species of tropical fish doomed! I know there are quite a few species of fresh water fish struggling to maintain numbers due mainly through habitat loss and pollution here in the U.K Well, my personal take on wild caught fish (and I have owned some in the past and plan to again in the near future once I rid myself of certain roommates (search for my recent disaster on alt.aquaria)) is that I only purchase wild caught fish I know that I can breed in my tanks. My thoughts are that I should contribute to the local hobby by breeding these fish and distributing them to the LFS and aquarium societies in the area. I tend to prefer F0 and F1 for my breeding tanks to avoid the possibility of hybrids. Still has the possibility of inbreeding, but it's really the purity of the species that I'm more concerned with. Anyways, in this way, as some other respondants have mentioned, the species can be maintained in the hobbyist/industry field even if it becomes "extinct" in the wild. One quick note as for damage, I have seen one damaged wild-caught fish from the rift lakes. In my last batch of Neolamp. similis, one female definately had a damaged swim bladder. She couldn't really swim without slowly sinking even if she put a ton of effort into it. I always wondered if she suffered from pressure issues when caught or if it was a later infection/etc that caused the problem. She didn't seem to be unhappy from it. She had her own little spot in the colony and defended the fry (although not as adeptly as the others). I miss my little "clown" as I called that female *frowns in her roommate's direction*. |
glow in the dark fishies
"Jim Brown" wrote in message .. . Then how do you feel about cattle being yanked from a pasture, jammed onto trains or trucks, then crammed in stockyards at the slaughterhouse? Well- any cattle that spent time in a pasture are much better off than the pigs stacked in crates and shat upon by all the pigs above it for all its life. Or the chickens penned so closely that their feet grow around the grates. For some ridiculous reason I was taken on a tour of a slaughter house as a small child- fear in an animals face is not something you forget. I'm a hypocrit I guess, as a failed vegan of several years. I'm a product of my society as much as anyone else. I do buy free range poultry and Coleman beef, but that is more to avoid hormones as it is taking an ethical stand. Zoos are no longer just a prison for captive animals. They are repositories for animals that are almost lost in the wild. They maintain an international registry of captive animals to allow breeding programs to share the gene pool. Many even breed animals that are extremely rare, and establish release programmes for the successes of their efforts. None of these extraordinary efforts would be necessary had man not fouled the equation to begin with. I would imagine that there are less animals being treated inhumanely now than in the past. Any animal at risk can look to man as the reason. And that's my point. Not an easy problem to resolve, but at least the efforts are being made. The problem will never be resolved as long as man sees this planet as his own personal playground, and the flora and fauna as fun to play with *and* expendable. It will be what gets us in the end. -- Toni http://www.cearbhaill.com/aquarium.htm |
glow in the dark fishies
"Toni" wrote in message rthlink.net...
"Chuck Gadd" wrote in message ... So you think that wild caught fish are automatically mistreated? Knowing full well that you'll probably come back with 100 reasons I'm wrong g- I believe that to interfere to the extent of physically removing a creature from its natural environment is the ultimate abuse. The percentage that die is unacceptable- how big is that pile of dead Cardinal Tetras in the sky? Plus the trauma of being yanked from your home and being slapped into a plastic bag? Simply so they can live in a box in your home? As humans can we really *be* that presumptuous? I believe it is simply not our right to intrude on their lives. I also don't believe in zoos, captive animals, or a hundred other abuses our present society condones. I believe that "dominion over the animals" is not a license to redetermine their fate, but a gentle edict to respect their right to exist as equal to our own. I believe that "animal viewing" exhibitions may have started innocently enough as a way for common folk to see up close and personal all the creatures that the explorers wrote home about, but that time is now past. The concept went bad pretty early on IMO- when the first animal died. We have the Discovery Channel now for viewing the wonders of the wild kingdom. I also might need to mention that I have worked in the pet shop/circus/companion animal field for over 30 years and have seen more than my share of animals faring badly at the hand of man. I sort of hope this is a troll. We're all guilty of the occasional oversimplification but the view that aquarium (or any) fish has "their right to exist as equal to our own" is more than a tad extreme as is "it is simply not our right to intrude on their lives." (we'll assume you're vegan, but how do you justify intruding on the life of vegetables? Do the screams of butternut squash keep you up at night?) I'm all for treating our finned charges humanely and maintaining their tank environments respectfully because we, generally, have assumed that burden in making the decision to keep fish. But I'm also pretty comfortable with our position as a species on top of the food chain. Remember folks: we aren't intruding on some grand environmental equation that would be harmonious and static but for our bumbling; we're part of the equation and it is dynamic and non-linear--we and our bumbling are part of the grand equation(or at least this part of it). Species going extinct for a variety of reasons is part of evolution; it may not be wise of us to blithely obliterate some species--but it is rather difficult to tell a subsistance farmer in South America not to feed his kids because we (from the comfort of our air conditioned keyboard cubes) need to perpetuate the habitat of a micro shrew that may or may not exist elsewhere and likely has very little impact on our survival as a species. There are lots of folks to blame for the overly romanticized view of nature implied here, from Rosseau to Disney. Rachael Carson's alarmist style has also muddied the discourse. Think beyond the greenpeace bumper stickers. Enjoy your grilled salmon. |
To be honest this topic could go on forever and cause some folks to fall out! I could write about this stuff forever and moan about it. One thing I am sure of is that nearly all the species lost and the habitat destroyed brings us ultimately back to one cause.....HUMANS, that sickening affliction to want to own and control everything at any cost.
Stuart |
glow in the dark fishies
"Skunky" wrote : One thing I am sure of is that nearly all the species lost and the habitat destroyed brings us ultimately back to one cause.....HUMANS, Just some of the recent ones. No one ever complains about the thousands of lost species caused by the proliferation of Bison in NA nor the loss of whole ecosystems as the continents shifted nor the near total extinction of every form of anaerobic life when oxygen producing algae came to be. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.491 / Virus Database: 290 - Release Date: 6/18/03 |
glow in the dark fishies
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:45:23 UTC, Leandra wrote:
That's so scary! ;) But don't some deep see fish glow anyhow? Have you heard about them doing a similar experiment with an ape of somesort? The apes fingernails glowed in the dark! (It's insane!) As I recall, that experiment didn't work; just got green fingernails or something. But they did try. (Has anybody got the reference? I saw it in a reputable source but have lost the cite.) -- Dan Drake http://www.dandrake.com Outer Planets update: Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, the check in the mail, the weapons of mass destruction. |
glow in the dark fishies
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 23:42:11 +0100, Skunky
wrote: thing I am sure of is that nearly all the species lost and the habitat destroyed brings us ultimately back to one cause.....HUMANS Sorry, not even close. If you want someone or something to blame, point to nature. According to the 1995 United Nations Environment Programme Global Biodiversity Assessment, over 95 percent of all species that ever existed are now extinct. Even figures for the number of species known to have existed vary greatly, ranging from between two million and 80million - while some scientists estimate that only about 1.6million species have ever been recorded. 440 Million years ago, 20 - 50 % of families wiped out. 360 million years ago, 20 - 30 % of families wiped out. 250 million years ago, 50 % of families wiped out, Greatest mass extinction ever. 213 million years ago, 20 - 35 % of families wiped out. Dinosaurs and mammals had just recently evolved; both live through this extinction. 66 million years ago, 15 % of families wiped out. Dinosaurs become extinct. 65 million of years after this mass extinction, early humans evolve. About 11,000 years ago, many species of animals went extinct across north america. Some people try to point to human hunting as the cause, but evidence of human hunting exists only a few of the hundreds of species that were wiped out. A more credible explanation points to a changing climate, long before man was having a big impact on the climate. Chuck Gadd http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua |
glow in the dark fishies
I believe that to interfere to the extent of physically removing a creature
from its natural environment is the ultimate abuse. The percentage that die is unacceptable- how big is that pile of dead Cardinal Tetras in the sky? Plus the trauma of being yanked from your home and being slapped into a plastic bag? Simply so they can live in a box in your home? As humans can we really *be* that presumptuous? Well, yes, obviously. g I'm curious, though. If you feel this way, why do you have an aquarium? Especially with wild-caught fish like cardinal tetras, otos, and farlowella catfish? You could, if you wanted, keep only captive-bred fish, and not be party to the "ultimate abuse." Leigh http://www.fortunecity.com/lavender/halloween/881/ |
glow in the dark fishies
"LeighMo" wrote in message ... I'm curious, though. If you feel this way, why do you have an aquarium? Especially with wild-caught fish like cardinal tetras, otos, and farlowella catfish? You could, if you wanted, keep only captive-bred fish, and not be party to the "ultimate abuse." You're right of course. It's a slippery slope and I'm hopelessly conflicted. -- Toni http://www.cearbhaill.com/aquarium.htm |
Unfortunately Chuck, my memory doesn't go that far back! As you pointed out 'these are some of the recent ones' I should have been more specific, the past few hundred years! We have no hard evidence of what went on 460 million years ago to give a clear picture, just fossils and a lot of 'maybe's from our guessing scientists.
All I know, of the 33 years I've been around, species declines and habitat loss have been as a direct result of human interference and are continuing right now. Stuart |
glow in the dark fishies
You're right of course.
It's a slippery slope and I'm hopelessly conflicted. LOL! Well, at least you're honest. :-) I'm somewhat conflicted, too. I don't really have a problem if people know how to care for the fish, and are willing to make a commitment to do it properly for the fishes' entire lives. But the vast majority of fish are bought by people who don' t have a clue. Heck, that's probably what keeps pet stores in business. It would probably be better for the fish if there were no fish stores. True hobbyists would find a way. I try to be environmentally aware when I choose my fish. I won't buy bala sharks, for example. But a lot of the time, you just don't know how endangered the fish is, or if the method of harvesting does environmental damage. Leigh http://www.fortunecity.com/lavender/halloween/881/ |
glow in the dark fishies
"Skunky" wrote in message ... To be honest this topic could go on forever and cause some folks to fall out! I could write about this stuff forever and moan about it. One thing I am sure of is that nearly all the species lost and the habitat destroyed brings us ultimately back to one cause.....HUMANS, Um, no. Major extintions are generally caused by changing environmental conditions that have little or nothing to do with human beings. This is a fact. Were we responsible for the dinosaurs going bye-bye? Of course not. I'm not downplaying the Amazon basin deforestation, etc. We definitely should take care in our treatment of the environment, but to presume that we're the one big "problem" is a bit ignorant. Lee |
glow in the dark fishies
Wow Chuck,
my love for you grows more and more. ;) Thanks for providing some facts. I wrote a similar response but didn't go digging for the data. Lee |
glow in the dark fishies
Lee Clemmer wrote:
that have little or nothing to do with human beings. This is a fact. Were we responsible for the dinosaurs going bye-bye? Of course not. I'm not You do realize that there were no humans when the dinosaurs roamed, right? downplaying the Amazon basin deforestation, etc. We definitely should take care in our treatment of the environment, but to presume that we're the one big "problem" is a bit ignorant. I don't think any other species in the history of the Earth has been responsible, directly or indirectly, of so much damage to ecosystems and thus of the extinction of species, both plant and animal. -- Victor M. Martinez http://www.che.utexas.edu/~martiv |
As I said, 'the past few hundred years' eg, the loss of over 42 species and 44 subspecies of bird lost in the past 280 years! Causation; habitat loss, deliberate hunting and the introduction of non native species! Ignorant I'm not, arrogant you would appear!
|
glow in the dark fishies
"Skunky" wrote : Causation; habitat loss, deliberate hunting and the introduction of non native species! Not wanting to appear arrogant, "Habitat loss" is the same as "The introduction of a non-native species", and "Deliberate hunting" is almost the same... "Introduction of a non-native predator". The idea that man is destroying nature rests upon the false notion that man is not part of nature. Every species but the first is non-native at some level. Right now, some non-native frog, having had it's egg shat in a puddle by some migratory bird, is eating the last of a rare species of grasshopper. As it stands, man is the only species who has ever purposely done anything to conserve "nature". --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.497 / Virus Database: 296 - Release Date: 7/4/03 |
glow in the dark fishies
There's vastly more forest habitat in this state now than there was 100
years ago, even with the increase in urban sprawl. Massive increase in habitat for lots of critters. We've also created an excellent roach and rat habitat here in the city :) Lee |
glow in the dark fishies
" You do realize that there were no humans when the dinosaurs roamed,
right? Of course, that's exactly my point. We couldn't have had anything to do with it, because we didn't exist yet. It was a bit of a joke. I don't think any other species in the history of the Earth has been responsible, directly or indirectly, of so much damage to ecosystems and thus of the extinction of species, both plant and animal. Tough to say, since we weren't around to see if there were species that were more destructive, for most of the earth's history. You may be right, we might be the most destructive. But so far all that we've done has been very mild compared to what nature has done and can do. Again, I'm not making excuses for our behavior. We shouldn't be destructive if we can avoid it. Read Chuck's post. (if you didn't) Lee |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:33 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter