PDA

View Full Version : wild caught or not?


porsche911
01-02-2008, 05:37 PM
Hi Guys and Gals,

... thinking if I go with wild caught cichlids it would be better...not sure...does anybody know of "reliable/honest/good" importers?? Advice is always welcome…thanks

Drumachine09
01-02-2008, 05:39 PM
Where do you live at?

cocoa_pleco
01-02-2008, 05:48 PM
i cant remember the people who did it from me but i got wild caught cichlids a few years ago, i'll see if i can find the company. a LFS referred me to them, then the LFS that gave the referral closed down

Drumachine09
01-02-2008, 05:49 PM
Also, why would you want wild cichlids, when captive bred are usually healthier and survive longer?

porsche911
01-02-2008, 05:51 PM
i'm in toronto (Canada) ...

another quick question...do you think if i'm planning on breeding...should i be going wild caught? are there any special considerations? I assume they will be able to sex them and provide the ratio's that I am looking for?

thanks again.

kkevvy
01-03-2008, 12:11 AM
It's harder to breed wild caught... plus I don't support wild-caught as it encourages going and taking wild fish... field collecting. thats bad.

NickFish
01-03-2008, 12:17 AM
Woo hoo another Ontarian!
I'm from Niagara.
There really isn't much point to wild caught cichlids when captive bred are usually healthier and live longer. They are also very easier to breed and often cheaper. I personally ask to make sure the fish were not wild caught whenever purchasing any type.

Algenco
01-03-2008, 12:22 AM
certain fish, African cichlids for example have better color when taken from the wild, also survival of the fittest ensure a better quality fish.
Most wild caught freshwater fish impact the populations very little.
I plan on setting up a breeding colony of Frontosa this year and I will pay the extra for wild caught

I just found this on another site, look at how many oto's are caught with one swipe of a handnet

[Only Registered Users Can See Links.]

Algenco
01-03-2008, 12:44 AM
It's harder to breed wild caught... plus I don't support wild-caught as it encourages going and taking wild fish... field collecting. thats bad.


I would bet your Glass cat, kuhli loach, and CAE are all wild caught

NickFish
01-03-2008, 12:55 AM
Wild caught fish may carry more diseases.
In captivity the fish are fed properly so it isn't survival of the fittest it's just sorta like all the fish are already the fitest. Some species are just too expensive to captive breed though and have to be taken from the wild.

Algenco
01-03-2008, 01:11 AM
Wild caught fish may carry more diseases.
In captivity the fish are fed properly so it isn't survival of the fittest it's just sorta like all the fish are already the fitest. Some species are just too expensive to captive breed though and have to be taken from the wild.

breeding of any animal in most cases results in weaker specimens over time. As you said, there is no survival of the fittest, they all survive , and they all get bred, even the inferior specimens.
Take Angelfish as an example, they don't compare to WC, we have bred most of their character out.
You have it backward.
The expensive ones are they most likely to be captive bred.
It the inexpensive fish that aren't worth the expense of captive breeding.
Very few Wild caught fish have any diseases, it's the ones that have been captive bred for numerous generations that are prone to disease.
I think you would be surprised at how many species of fish are WC.

Now if your talking about saltwater, I would agree that it is best to obtain only captive bred, not necessarily because of depleting wild stock, but because of the methods used in capture cause tremendous harm to the Ecosystem

kkevvy
01-03-2008, 01:14 AM
.
Most wild caught freshwater fish impact the populations very little....

I just found this on another site, look at how many oto's are caught with one swipe of a handnet

[Only Registered Users Can See Links.]

And your telling me that has little affect on the populations of the species?

YaYgoldFish
01-03-2008, 01:17 AM
And your telling me that has little affect on the populations of the species?

Well if that was only one "swoosh" with the net could you imagine how many their has to be in just that little creek?

kkevvy
01-03-2008, 01:29 AM
Well if that was only one "swoosh" with the net could you imagine how many their has to be in just that little creek?

Thats true. But of course they could've baited the spot earlier to bring them.

Algenco
01-03-2008, 01:30 AM
And your telling me that has little affect on the populations of the species?

If it had any effect on the overall population, oto's would cost more than $1.99, because they are all Wild caught

Lady Hobbs
01-03-2008, 02:39 AM
And fish are breeding constantly and laying hundreds of eggs each spawn. That's a lotta little ones.

Some countries have stopped the import of fish they feel were becoming too small in numbers. I think they keep pretty good track that they aren't fishing themselves out of business.

I also think wild caught are healthier fish and it's probably why wild fish are generally larger. They eat constantly, not 2 or 3 times a day and have a constant supply of fresh water coming in from the lakes.

porsche911
01-03-2008, 02:47 PM
wow!!

didn't think this was going to be a huge topic...thanks guys...the only thing is now i'm even more confused...:ssad: :ssad:

NickFish
01-03-2008, 05:18 PM
Really depends on the species of fish and where it was caught but even so catching fish in the wild does effects their numbers. Maybe not right away but over time yes it does. This is true about the inferior breeding thing but even in aquarium tanks the strongest are most likely to mate.

Lol maybe this post should be moved to the Controversial forum.