I didn't want to nullify anything that Bruce said about certain species liking
certain types of water etc. Everything he said is perfectly valid as far as I
know. But I did want to give Greg Tong a more balanced view about what species
can be kept under which conditions regardless of their natural water conditions.
Some species need certain water conditions; others are very adaptable. Many of
the replies to Greg's inquiry said "you can't do this" or "you can't do that" or
"this fish is difficult" etc. What I wanted Greg to see was that each reply
should be taken to mean for THAT person these things are true. "I FIND WERNERI
DIFFICULT", is very different from "WERNERI ARE DIFFICULT".
In response to Bruce's stirring of the pot ;-) let me ask these questions:
Are we hobbyists or conservationists? I am a hobbyist. I keep fish that grow
reproduce etc in my water. There are varying degrees of hobbists too. If I had
to mess with water the way Cary does, I'd be keeping dogs!
Am I to NOT keep a species because I choose not to create water like that of
it's natural habitat?
If we must create it's natural water conditions shouldn't we then provide it's
natural diet? It's natural predators etc., ad infinitum? What do we really know
about the natural water anyway. I speculate it's in a constant state of flux.
If I can't provide these things should I be even removing these fish from the
wild??
Will the fish I have in my tanks for my enjoyment be called upon to return to
the wild? And would any SERIOUS conservation project even consider them?!!
I'll agree that if you were running a program to maintain stocks that could
someday return to the wild then, all parameters should met as closely as
possible. This puts me and my fishes out of the running.;-) But by God if I can
manage to keep Rhads with DGs and everybody grows and flowers then WHY NOT?;-)
Chris