[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: NFC: DP returning fish to the wild

Good points here, though, I'm going ot one by one take them apart and
disagree with them.  
Fish kept in aquaria -- or  any animal kept domestically -- are typically
inferior to the wild strains.  (Examples: Male bettas have longer fins,
they look pretty, but are no good in the wild [fins get torn, infections,
so forth.].  Goldfish, need I say more?  Cows, dogs, etc. all are bred to
either look better, or have a better traite [en gracio, milk].  However,
tehy're all inferior to the wild strain in some manner.)  Now, by
introducing the captive animal into a wild population -- even if its one
he may be traced back to [id est, he's F3, the F0 was taken from this same
spot) you, most likely, will introduced.  Moreover, particular genetic
advantages are likely to be bred out.  [e.g., A fish has a particular
adaptage to avoid a given infection, or to withstand cold.  This trait is
of no use (or perhaps triggered by given factours) in the aquaria.
Therefore, in a few scarce generations, it may be eliminated.).  By
placing this fish (presumably as an adult) into the gene pool, it has a
strong chance to reproduce, and pass on the lack of gene.  
   Diseases, obviously, are a strong risk to be introduced. 
   Resistance to diseases is not likley to happen.  Are fish are likely to
be LESS disease resistant.  They sit in, well, the lap of luxury.  Lets
face it, compared to wild fish, they don't get sick much.  They're not
stressed (presumably), they eat well, etc.  When they get sick, rather
than ones that have a natrual resistance4 surviving, and the others
becoming food for Mr. Turtle, they all get a nice dose of good old drugs
to cure them up.  Therefore, even the ones with inferior resistance are
likely to survive.
><>
J. L. Wiegert,
Student and General Pain in The Butt
end
><>
J. L. Wiegert
www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/2308  
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 Dubotchugh yIpummoH.                      bI'IQchugh Yivang!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Native Fish Conservatory Mailing List (NFC at actwin_com) Administrator. 
The list is also available in digest form (NFC-Digest at actwin_com). 
To subscribe to this list, send mail to Majordomo at actwin_com with the
command "subscribe nfc" or "subscribe NFC-Digest" in the body.  To
unsubscribe, send mail to Majordomo at actwin_com with the command
"unsubscribe nfc" or "unsubscribe nfc-digest" in the body.  Feel free to
ask for help!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, Matthew T. Mason wrote:

> Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 10:57:32 -0400
> From: Matthew T. Mason <mason.163 at osu_edu>
> Reply-To: nfc at actwin_com
> To: nfc at actwin_com
> Subject: Re:  NFC: DP returning fish to the wild
> 
> Daryl wrote:
> >Returning fish to the wild has more than the obvious desease potential. It
> >blurs the gene pool of the existing population. This can lead to loosing
> >unique trates that may make a strain unusual...yada yada yada
> 
> If you are defining "blurring" the gene pool as an increase in genetic
> diversity within a species then I disagree with your premise that releasing
> back into the wild causes a genetic shift (blur) in the local population.
> From a genetics standpoint this is a great position as it allows a
> population to have a broader spectrum of adaptability, resistance,
> survivability upon change.
> 
> Now, I do agree that additions to the local population "could" possibly
> cause a specific trait within the site to change.  This however is not bad
> genetically - this is good genetically as it allows for resitance (see
> above).  It does bother the local collector because a specific desired
> "look" has been eliminated.
> 
> Second, new additions do bring in new diseases and "might" possibly knock
> out exsisting populations.  But this addition may also bring in a new
> resistance to an already exsisting disease - this is a good thing.
> ================
> Matthew T. Mason
> Columbus, Ohio
> Scientist
> 
> 
>
References: