I see one mayor difference to what I mean in your example of the salmons.
Re-introducing a species to its former range or habitat is a lot different
from trying to introduce a species into the range of another one which is
its sibbling ecologically. This is comparing apples and cherries.
Genetics is a great field. But the genes are only the playground and toys
for nature. The game however makes it! ;-)
> Von: Jay DeLong <thirdwind_at_att.net>
> Antworten an: nanfa_at_aquaria.net
> Datum: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 11:14:39 -0700
> An: nanfa_at_aquaria.net
> Betreff: Re: NANFA-- Bluenose shiner news
> At 07:40 PM 9/20/2003 +0200, you wrote:
>> Perfect example with the invaders! Nature is strong, stronger than we
>> suggest and that shows in this example. Captive bred fish can well survive
>> in the wild if a population of sufficient numbers in set out. It even
>> with little numbers as inveders show.
>> Captive bred fish in general still keep the ancient potential inside,
>> for very high bred mutants like black angelfish or lyrateil forms etc. A
>> bubbleeye goldfish won4t make it long, sure. But a Danio will most
>> and a bluehead shiner as well.
> I don't see how instances of the havoc created by introduced fishes suggest
> that an "ancient potential" (?) exists, or that fish introductions are
> successful because Nature is that way. There are numerous examples of
> failed attempts to release and establish wild populations of non-native or
> captive reared fish. Take the Atlantic salmon mess in the Pacific
> now. For years fishery agencies deliberately tried to get Atlantics in the
> Pacific northwest, but efforts failed time and time again-- eggs, fry,
> adults, everything. It's ironic that when everyone was kind of on the same
> page that it was a bad idea, it happened accidentally and now there are
> Atlantics established in Pacific rivers. I understand your optimism but
> this notion of "ancient potential" overlooks genetic science and the
> problems with captive breeding such as domestication-- reducing the
> population to small number then breeding those individuals resulting in the
> permanent loss to the whole species of rare genes, because it's these rare
> genes that allow for adaptation and survival of the species. The biggest
> disservice we can do for fishes is talk about individual animals as though
> they hold some magic secrets to their species. Fish species are about
> populations, and populations are defined in the context of their
> environment and the selective pressures under which they came about:
> chemical, biological, physical, whatever. Habitat conservation is the way
> to save species and species diversity.
> Jay DeLong
> Olympia, WA
> /"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
> / nanfa_at_aquaria.net. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word
> / subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to
> / nanfa-request_at_aquaria.net. For a digest version, send the command to
> / nanfa-digest-request_at_aquaria.net instead.
> / For more information about NANFA, visit our web page,
/"Unless stated otherwise, comments made on this list do not necessarily
/ reflect the beliefs or goals of the North American Native Fishes
/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes Association
/ nanfa_at_aquaria.net. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word
/ subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to
/ nanfa-request_at_aquaria.net. For a digest version, send the command to
/ nanfa-digest-request_at_aquaria.net instead.
/ For more information about NANFA, visit our web page, http://www.nanfa.org