"jk" wrote in message v.net...

It's OK to selectively breed fish for their color only, but not OK to
artificially color them? Flushing millions of undesirable babies down the
toilet, because the color isn't quite right to go to market is OK with you?
Isn't that how they eventually got red, tiger, red tiger, albino, and other
Oscars that we see now? I'm not being judgmental here, only asking your
opinion Noname. We are all forced at some point to draw the line on what is
OK, and what goes too far with fish.

You may have a point about selective breeding, if indeed "millions of
undesirable babies" get flushed. But I'm not certain they are. The Red
Oscar and the Red Tiger Oscar are the same, and were bred by Charoen
Pattabongse in the late 1960s in Thailand in what I understand to be a
small shop. It's hard to see how "millions" of Oscar babies could have
been "flushed" by this one businessman. The Tiger is the naturally
occuring color in the Amazon (both the orange and olive var.). I don't
know where the Albino came from. As far as I know, people that breed
species for color variations don't wantonly murder all the rejects.
People that I am acquainted with that breed Millions Fish and Bettas
for color for shows are not cruel at all. If millions of Oscars are
being killed for the sake of breeding specific colors, we'd like to
see the evidence.

However, dying fish for sale is a very cruel process, where dye is
injected under a layer of skin with needles. These specimens rarely
grow and live beyond a year, and lose their color within weeks. This
is a very cruel way to market live animals.

--Mark


Mark Stone tractorlegs at msn dot kom
OSCAR Lovers! http://www.geocities.com/cichlidiot_2000/oscar.html
The ".Edu" meens i are smart.