Now who would enhance a picture of a tri? ;)
>I also think that aquarium store owners are also to blaim as to why natives
>are not more widely stocked in their stores. How many times have you gone
>into a fish shop out of curiosity to see what they have and find that the
>rainbows are very dull and often pricey? I look into the tank to see some
>very cramped and unhappy bows, then I look at what is suppose to be in that
>tank and find over a dozen varieties of bows. Now, whos going to tell me
>which one is which. Most shop owners would not even be able to tell the
>difference between completely different rainbows, let alone determine those
>which have geographically induced differences. In my opinion it should be
>easy to sell a native. Take Empire Gudgeons for example. These fish have the
>potential to exhibit more colour than those little feeder fish they call
>Neons. Sure the fish wont disply its bueaty whilst in the store but one only
>needs to put a picture of these fish in colour next to the tank they are
>kept in with a note to say this is what they CAN look like. Even blind
>Freddy couldnt resist this temptation.
These guys are in it for the cash. period. They are there to make a living
to feed themselves, a motivation I can understand entirely. They should,
however, know enough about the fish that they sell to educate those few
buyers who care... The most common question I get from the general public
is "How many Goldfish can I keep in a bowl (holds hands a foot apart) this
big?" - My answer is "How long do you want them to live? - Buy them a 30
gallon or bigger tank, and then you can keep some real fish!" - they mostly
seem shocked at the idea that poor keeping can kill fish... Ahem - to
return to something approaching on-topic - while it should be easy to sell a
native, it isn't in reality because the dealers generally won't take the
trouble to display them properly, as you say above...
>Thirdly, I often wonder wether or not I really want the world to know about
>our hidden little treasures. Ignorance does discriminate, it is there for a
>very good reason. The majority of fish keepers just keep fish. They are not
>interested in learning, its what I call the 'goldfish syndrome'. No offence
>to those who keep Koi. Although its not up to me, I would feel more
>comfortable knowing that those who generally keep natives do it because they
>are curious and interested in a particular type of fish and what this
>country has to offer. Whos backyard do you look into when you first wake in
>the morning (O.S. subscribers excluded from this).
There is an old saying amongst Dobermann breeders that "God invented German
Shepherds so that morons wouldn't own Dobermanns!" (or something to that
effect). You could apply this to Rainbows rather easily - they aren't for
everyone, and not everyone is going to keep them. The trick is to have
effective organisations in place to "train" those genuinely interested. I
think that it is possible for a fish to become too popular - look at how
many of those poor Goldfish die horrible deaths at the hands of ignorant or
ill-caring people every year, get fed to Oscars and Arowanas, etc. Their
crime? Being cheap, plentiful and tough! You wouldn't want that to happen
to Rainbowfish, would you?
;-)
Regards, Andrew
___________________________________________________________________________
Andrew Boyd - andrew at pcug.org.au - http://www.pcug.org.au/~andrew
"Are you a Klingon, or is that a turtle on your head?"
___________________________________________________________________________