Actually, I do believe there is something incredibly different between
breeding in desired traits and artificially forcing them on a fish. Just
look at the life lifespan estimates she give. you are lucky for one of these
to live a year when a non-dyed Oscar can live for 5 no problem. That should
tell you something about the difference between breeding in some blue and
chocking the fish full of dye that dissapears over time anyway just to make
a quick buck off the uninformed. Huge difference.


"jk" wrote in message
et...

"D Perri" wrote in message
...
JK:
I got the impression from "nonames" post that disposing of fry that
didn't meet color specs wouldn't be "OK" either ... perhaps she didn't
know that this was common pracice ....



I was simply comparing their distaste for coloring vs selective
breeding. My point was that our LFS stock has very often been "made" to
look
a certain way, to generate interest and sales. It may be color, size,
shape,
etc. Where do we draw the line in terms of our anger? For some purists,
only natural caught stock is acceptable. For others the quest for that new
look, justifys almost anything. Most of my lifetime experience is with
live
bearers, and specifically guppies. Serious breeders flush millions of fry,
in attempts to perfect or maintain a strain. You can't afford to feed and
store all your babies, especially if they aren't what you are looking for.
Maybe it's different with Cichlids?

--
JK Sinrod NY
Sinrod Stained Glass
www.sinrodstudios.com
Coney Island Memories
www.sinrodstudios.com/coneymemories