Flirting with mother nature.

If designer clowns are evil why is mother nature creating them as well???
Look at wild caught Picasso clowns and misbar clowns. Nature created these with no help from us.
Or how about the lightning maroon clown? These are all considered designer clowns but yet mother nature created these.

Personally I don't see anything wrong with 2 different clowns mating and creating a unique offspring that we can enjoy as a different style.

Edit I haven't heard of any hobbyiest adding hormones or dyes to any clownfish so its not right to assume because of the neon glo fish the same treatment is expected of clowns to come.

 

I'll fix this to make my point more clear and non-offensive.

Exactly! people having been trying to change the natural appearance of things since their existence and in some very extreme cases other people. I think it's wrong and can't understand why we feel the need to change things we have no business changing.

I think if mother nature designs new apparel for some fishes in the wild it's done for a reason to assure the survival of that species.

Mother nature does a great job of taking care of her creations, it's our interventions where all the problems start.

 

It's just a matter of time my friend, once we become bored with the new, they will move on to newer and bigger things.

 

My point being that as the supreme being on this planet we have tried to alter the natural appearance of most everything to our liking, even ourselves. I have no problems with tattoos, dying hair what have you, but it is a personal choice.

I think you just took my point the wrong way, its extreme and I didn't mean as any disrespect and it's a very good thing that we have the choice to put holes in our ears bigger than the craters on the moon or what have you.

But man I seen some really awful looking creatures as a result of our mingling.

 

There is a big difference in breeding out a traint that is naturally found in the wild in a small portion of the population and tattooing the bodies of certain fish or deforming them in a way that would make it impossible for them to survive. I get where you're going with this but clowns was a bad example since there has not been any breeding of clownfish that alters their anatomy.

Parrotfish??? Thats a whole different story of a grossly deformed poor fish much like some of the squashed rams. Longfinned, inside out brained, bubble eyed goldfish, tetras, barbs or anything else is a sad thing to watch as you see it float around barely able to move or correct itself when it happens to accidently float upside down. Tattoos on parrotfish, large kissers, and anything else they feel like is cruel just because of the pain and high mortality associated with it.

Luckily with saltwater we do not seem to have as many issues with deformed "show fish" Maybe it is because we do not know how to breed very many yet and it is only a matter of time. I have seen interbred dwarf angels and IMO they are usually pretty drab when compared to the pure bred wild parents. As far as clowns, they are bred from strains originating from wild stock that sometimes contain rare patterns. Many of them do survive in the wild just fine only in small numbers. Are they ugly? Well beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Not saying that breeding for a trait can not be taken too far. One only has to look at the electric blue jack dempsey. A very hardy fish that is aggressive and tolerant to even the poorest conditions. The electric blue is so weak that you can not breed 2 electric blues as the fry have almost 100% mortality so you need to breed an electric blue with a regular to make a recessive carrying male and female that will breed 50/50 regular/electric blue offspring if my memory serves me right. Even then, the electric blue ones do not grow as big, stay much more passive, and are very sensative and difficult to keep. IMO THAT kind of breeding is taking it too far. The only other real issue with breeding for a specific gene is when we are forced to interbreed to the point we make the genepool weak. We have that problem with fish that look like their wild ancestors as well though and that is why reputable breeders always refresh their breeding stock to keep the gene pool strong and healthy.

 

PghSteeler... That's a very good point about the electric blue Jack Dempseys. That's exactly when breeding goes to far! I see nothing wrong with cross breeding a few different colored clowns to make a unique looking one. The clowns are not being harmed in any ways, and not being painfully injected with dyes, or even tattooed to get a certain look.

Another form, i just thought of, when selective breeding goes to far... Look at the English bulldogs. Those were basically a man made dog... And with the very unique look comes a lot of problems! Terrible hips and joints for one, and because of the way their legs are, they can't even mate the way god intended. They can only be bred successfully using artificial insemination because of how clumsy they are due to the oddly shaped bone structure, and have to have c-sections when giving birth. Theyve got terrible bone structures, difficulty breathing and usually require surgery to fix that problem, and have a lot of skin infections due to the wrinkly skin. To me, that's another form of when selective breeding goes to far.

But cross breeding clownfish just for a unique color, does no harm to the fish and doesn't alter the way it lives, breeds, or acts, is perfectly fine in my eyes