Re: NANFA-- News: GloFish in the news
Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:19:49 EST

In a message dated 1/12/04 12:34:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, writes:

> But, I am a purist. I like fish that are wild-types. I don't
> really care for aquarium strains which have been selectively
> bred for certain characteristics. Likewise, I don't really
> care for genetically modified fish.
I too like natural fish (except for black mollies, I just can't help loving
them) but I wouldn't be too set in my ways not to consider keeping large fish
that had been modified to stay small but still retain the exact looks of the to
large to keep original. We humans have already produced fish that are so odd
they turn my stomach just to look at them (goldfish, flowerhorns) without gene
transfer. Genetically modified fish couldn't be any worse than the ones we
have already produced through cross breeding and such. but it would be cool to
have, oh say a cow nosed ray that wouldn't get more than 6" across and live in
freshwater. I can see the problem of such fish being released and maybe (it's
a real long shot) becoming established in the wild. More than likely modified
fish wouldn't be able to reproduce or be so vulnerable to predators they
couldn't survive. would you consider such fish that looked the same but were
modified to stay small?

"Who died and left you in charge?"
"Captain Bipto!"
/"Unless stated otherwise, comments made on this list do not necessarily
/ reflect the beliefs or goals of the North American Native Fishes
/ Association"
/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes Association
/ To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word
/ subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to
/ For a digest version, send the command to
/ instead.
/ For more information about NANFA, visit our web page,