> >This I think goes to show that having a fish commercial does not
> >guarantee its long term vialbility without continued effort on
> >everybodies part to maintain them properly.
>
> I would have strongly disagree with this statement. By comercialising a
> fish, especially native fish, you employ a breeding program to supply the
> aquarium industry with fish to sell. These fish may not necasserily conform
>
Andrew it is my turn to disagree with you here. What we have is very poor
quality fish, this is not a good add for native fish. It would be the
sort of thing that would be bought by someone, they would die and that
person would then say that "natives" are hopeless fish. The hassle is
that some people that breed fish do not take the care that they should
when selecting breeding populations. Pagwi were once commercialised as
well and look what happened to them for many years, herbies were the
same.
As to their poluting wild populations I agree that is unlikely. However
there are species that we should put effort into to maintain viability in
and those are generally the ones that you can not go and get more of to
improve bad fish here. The comments that I have made in the past have
been mis interpreted previously, I have thought that the term of keeping
fish true to form should be in the order of 50yrs, not the 5-10 that most
people seem to think is the standard. We are in the 10yr ball park with
the eachamensis project, but what will happen in the next 10yrs?
Please do not take offence at these comments Andrew, I am not useually
the sort of person that takes a flamethrower to someone because they
disagree with me.
Peter