# Opinions on breeding fish vs. dogs?



## toad (Jul 17, 2012)

In the dog world, it's pretty well accepted that you have no right breeding a dog that hasn't been proven in conformation or working classes. The obvious reason for this is to prevent the breeding of dogs that are poor examples of, and would therefore create poorer examples of, the breed.

I'm just curious to know if the same is true of fish? Does anyone have any business breeding a fish that does not meet the "breed standard" in color, form, etc.?

In breeding a fish that couldn't win a show, aren't we really just muddying the genetic pool of these animals?


----------



## Mo (Mar 15, 2012)

I know im Like that... Im very selective about the stock I keep... I only breed fish that meet the standard, and would place well in a show


----------



## Ilikebutterflies (May 19, 2012)

I just can't see comparing the two. The worst that happens with fish is a breeder is stuck trying to offload his mediocre fish and is either stuck with them or has to destroy them. If he does succeed in selling them it isn't going to matter one bit as he isn't going to be successful in "muddying" the waters. There are far too many purist breeders that do it for the right reasons. Once you know what you are looking for you can easily avoid less than quality fish. I see fish more as livestock than pets. I have my favorites of course but I have to roll my eyes just a bit as some posts that treat fish on equal ground as companion animals.

Not so easy with dogs. There are laws involved and it's far too easy to get papered dogs and just breed them because they are purebred. However, I know of a guy that put himself through college breeding and selling GSD's. He did it solely for the money and did a darn good job. He chose quality healthy parents and sold the pups cheap enough to avoid competition. His breeding stock were well treated pets and his pups were all vetted and vaccinated/dewormed before selling them but had zero interest in showing or improving the breed.


----------



## MoonShadow (Feb 29, 2012)

I personally try and keep my breeders as close to the standard as possible, since I would like to show in the future. I also believe that breeding (Of ANY animal) Should be done with the intention of some how improving the breed or creating something new. Nothing aggravates me more then someone who says "Oh look at my 2 pretty pet store fish, I think I'll breed them just because it will be fun and the babies will be so cute!"

IMHO breeding just to breed is not the right thing to do...


----------



## Oldfishlady (Mar 1, 2010)

The Betta either meets standards or it doesn't-You won't find a perfect Betta without a fault of some type or another and this is what keeps us breeding.
Faults can vary from minor, major to DQ. (_disqualified_) 

You can either start with known or unknown genetics-but you will still end up with the same thing....A Betta that either meets or doesn't meet standards to some degree with faults.

Starting out with mystery genetic can sometimes take longer to get that near standard for showing if that is something that interest you. Keep good records just as you would do with known genetics.

Even with known genetic lines-you may not be able to sell/re-home them all. Plus, you can still get offspring that don't meet standards and/or have DQ standards.

Personally, I don't see a problem with a hobbyist spawning their pet shop Betta, mixing tail types, colors...etc.... as long as they have a plan. Rarely will a new hobbyist get more than 20-30 fry up to adults anyway-some do get lucky and get 100's on the first attempt and this is where culling comes in and this is what can be hard for some and this is what IMO muddies the water so-to-speak-The really poor quality regardless if they started off with known or unknown genetics that would meet the DQ standard that they continued to use for spawning-especially the deformed, birth defects...etc.....

It depends on your goals-if you want to show-get a pair that fits closest to the IBC standard you can find-that compliment each other-Otherwise get what you like-get creative-experiment-create a unique Betta-how do you think we got what we have today....Brave hobbyist that mixed color, tail types...etc.....The HM wasn't accepted in the beginning and look at it now.....

Get your feet wet-research-experiment-be creative and don't let the extremist dictate what you can and can't do....Have a plan and be responsible....with a plan to spend lots of time in the fish room....

Most of all...have fun and enjoy the hobby....


----------



## Mo (Mar 15, 2012)

OFL. this Show season there is an HMPK red male whom does not have any faults. I remember a Judge saying that this was the first fish hes seen (40 years of experience with bettas) Without any faults. So there IS such thing as a Perfect betta


----------



## teeneythebetta (Apr 29, 2012)

Ilikebutterflies said:


> I just can't see comparing the two. The worst that happens with fish is a breeder is stuck trying to offload his mediocre fish and is either stuck with them or has to destroy them. If he does succeed in selling them it isn't going to matter one bit as he isn't going to be successful in "muddying" the waters. There are far too many purist breeders that do it for the right reasons. Once you know what you are looking for you can easily avoid less than quality fish. I see fish more as livestock than pets. I have my favorites of course but I have to roll my eyes just a bit as some posts that treat fish on equal ground as companion animals.
> 
> Not so easy with dogs. There are laws involved and it's far too easy to get papered dogs and just breed them because they are purebred. However, I know of a guy that put himself through college breeding and selling GSD's. He did it solely for the money and did a darn good job. He chose quality healthy parents and sold the pups cheap enough to avoid competition. His breeding stock were well treated pets and his pups were all vetted and vaccinated/dewormed before selling them but had zero interest in showing or improving the breed.


Yet another back yard breeder who adds to the population of unwanted dogs for their own benefit.
Vet care isnt the only thing that produces good pups. Genetic health testing and show titled show that the dog is desirable to pass on traits.


----------



## Oldfishlady (Mar 1, 2010)

Mo said:


> OFL. this Show season there is an HMPK red male whom does not have any faults. I remember a Judge saying that this was the first fish hes seen (40 years of experience with bettas) Without any faults. So there IS such thing as a Perfect betta


But it took 40 years......


----------



## Creat (Dec 6, 2010)

Mo said:


> OFL. this Show season there is an HMPK red male whom does not have any faults. I remember a Judge saying that this was the first fish hes seen (40 years of experience with bettas) Without any faults. So there IS such thing as a Perfect betta



I would like to point out the betta was perfect in his eyes dosent mean it was perfect to another judge thats the thing with judging. 

I think dogs are a good example to compare to betta fish, I think anyone with a plan can breed. If everyone who bred their dog or fish had a good plan and parents lined up or the offspring I dont see why not. I also like to imput in the search for perfection like the same with dogs it can ruin a line or breed. Just like springer spaniel, pekinese , German shepherds, anything really....


----------



## Mo (Mar 15, 2012)

Oldfishlady said:


> But it took 40 years......


But he hadnt been Judging or showing for 40 years.. The breeder.. I think it took 12-15 years to develop that fish.. WOW


----------



## shellieca (Jul 12, 2012)

My personal opinion applies to all breeding, it should ONLY be done to better the breed & for no other reason. Even that to me is questionable since there is such an overpopulation of most creatures, especially dogs & cats. Fish on the other hand tend to be viewed differently since they are not "overpopulating" & over crowding the rescue organizations. Just my quick two cents.


----------



## registereduser (Jul 30, 2010)

There will never be shelters dedicated to taking in unwanted, poorly bred or mongrel fish. 

I couldn't give one flying farkle for conformation of a FISH. 

I just want it pretty.:mrgreen:


----------



## LadyVictorian (Nov 23, 2011)

shellieca said:


> My personal opinion applies to all breeding, it should ONLY be done to better the breed & for no other reason. Even that to me is questionable since there is such an overpopulation of most creatures, especially dogs & cats. Fish on the other hand tend to be viewed differently since they are not "overpopulating" & over crowding the rescue organizations. Just my quick two cents.


+1million...can I do that?

Being that I was in the Arabian horse breeding industry with my family as well as Dobermans with my father and manx cats with my grandmother breeding is an artform. It's not a thing of profit. We lost TONES of money trying to breed the perfect Arabina Horse, perfect Doberman Pincher, perfect Manx cat, all show animals, all in the quest to make that perfect conformation, personality, and health. Fish should be treated the same way. One day I intend to breed mice, compared to my other family members yes it's a small scale but when I breed mice it won't be for money or because I want cute babies. It will be because I want beautiful mice free from cancer and other common ailments in mice, with great temperaments, great quality, and even if I won't show my mice I want people who do show mice to consider my stock show quality. All the mice who don't fit breeding quality will be pets (males neutered to prevent people wanting pets to ever breed them for 'fun'.) I think this view is just the same, if you are not helping the species you are hurting it.


----------



## Olympia (Aug 25, 2011)

No one breeds fish for health besides fighters though. Show fish are being inbred till the cows come home.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## LadyVictorian (Nov 23, 2011)

I totally know the feeling, the same was happening with show mice but people stopped buying those bloodlines because they were sickly and what is the point of a show mouse if it will be too sick to win awards? Cancer lumps and physical mutations and all. So now inbreeding has greatly decreased which is why I am actually going to buy a lot of my stock from France, UK, and Sweeden where they inbreed less (plus genetic diversity) I would hope betta breeders will catch onto that. You can have beautiful fish and not constantly breed back into the line. You can also get healthier fish that way as well with longer life spans.


----------



## Olympia (Aug 25, 2011)

It's easier if they die young I think. ;-)
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## toad (Jul 17, 2012)

Very valid points, everyone!

If I were ever to breed any animal, it would be with the goal of ethically producing an animal with extraordinary health and beauty. Of course, my opinions of breeding other species would carry over and I would only choose animals that had been proven to be of quality and health.


----------



## crowntaillove (Sep 3, 2012)

Oldfishlady said:


> The Betta either meets standards or it doesn't-You won't find a perfect Betta without a fault of some type or another and this is what keeps us breeding.
> Faults can vary from minor, major to DQ. (_disqualified_)
> 
> You can either start with known or unknown genetics-but you will still end up with the same thing....A Betta that either meets or doesn't meet standards to some degree with faults.
> ...


I love this.


----------



## dramaqueen (Jul 7, 2008)

The 2 fish I got from a breeder were bred from petstore fish. At least the father was from Petco. I'm not sure about the mother. We were led to believe in the past (or at least I was) that the IBC frowns on petstore fish being bred but you can breed them and show the offspring as long as they meet the standards.


----------



## indjo (Jun 6, 2010)

> I'm just curious to know if the same is true of fish? Does anyone have any business breeding a fish that does not* meet the "breed standard" in color, form, etc.?*
> 
> In breeding a fish that couldn't win a show, aren't we really just muddying the genetic pool of these animals?


It depends on your definition of standards. If you're using IBC standard, then there are tons of mutts out there. But then again are the IBC standards actually BETTER for the species? Are show winners better than non show bettas? Or are they better for humans? ....... Compare the natural PK/fighter to modern PK. Compare the long fins ..... are today's breed better?

Nowadays you have tons of deformities .... caused by the "betterment" of the breed .... is this better for the species? If such "betterment" wasn't exploited (namely DT and Rose) there wouldn't be such deformities or at least not as bad as we know them now. Further are their immune systems more .... resistant (?) or are they weaker than ever? Are these better conditions?

IMO the important thing is having a plan and a goal. Research, research, and more research - understand as much as you can about them. Only then can one say he/she is breeding for the betterment of the species. Otherwise (IMO) the breeder is only breeding for the heck of it.

Since most begin with little knowledge and work themselves through as they gain experience, I have nothing against breeding non show fish - whether to achieve show quality or mere pets. As long as they are responsible for what they create.

I know nothing about dog breeding and can't compare the two species. But I know that Dobermans were created by mix breeding several types of dogs...... is that justified? Again, IMO as long as the breeder is responsible for what he creates.


----------



## registereduser (Jul 30, 2010)

indjo said:


> as long as the breeder is responsible for what he creates.


+++++++++++++1


----------



## LadyVictorian (Nov 23, 2011)

indjo said:


> I know nothing about dog breeding and can't compare the two species. But I know that Dobermans were created by mix breeding several types of dogs...... is that justified? Again, IMO as long as the breeder is responsible for what he creates.


It really doesn't work like that. In order to create a new breed EVERY dog born has to look the same, same body structure and same pattern of coloration that will define the new breed. Yes all dogs come from mixing a bunch of dog breeds together but you never see any Poodle that looks like a lab unless it's a mutt or poorly bred animal. 

I still feel having been in a house where we bred show quality dogs and healthy ones at that if you are not going to breed a healthy dog and add to the dogs dying young of horrid and painful birth defects then you have no right to breed. Even if you do find them homes. There is something called a puppy mill and they find their dogs places to go but they are not breeders, in fact what they do is very much illegal and they even breed purebreds along with it. A breeder is ethical and weeds out the hip displasia, cancer, fur lose in blue dobermans (yes improperly bred blue dobermans lose all their fur sadly). MANGE which is also genetic and killed one of our pet dogs because the genetic mange can't be cured. Wobblers, and many more. As an owner would you want to put down your six year old dog because of an irresponsible breeder who made sure your animal would suffer? No. I have seen people forced to put down a three year old Great Dane because of wobblers...is that responsible breeding? Is that an ethical breeder? Is that right? He found the dog a home but he still doomed the poor beast to a horrid death.


----------



## registereduser (Jul 30, 2010)

Being responsible for what you bring into the world means more than getting it a home.  It means making sure it is healthy and in the case of mammals making sure they will not procreate UNLESS you have oversight in the matter. Show breeders, for example, will co-own a dog that they think is worthy of continuing their line.

Anyone who brings puppies or kittens into this world needs to make sure each and every last one gets altered before going to a new home or very soon after. How many actually do? Maybe 1% :-?:-?:-?:-?


----------



## LittleBettaFish (Oct 2, 2010)

While a good idea in theory, it is actually not advised to spay or neuter at a very early age in a lot of bigger breeds of dogs because of problems with growth. 

For example, we kept our shepherd male intact until 12 months old and then got him desexed. Glad we did as we have two girls (we show) in the house and it's bad enough now when they come into heat! 

Anyways, I always feel as long as you have an actual long-term goal with your breeding program and are willing to cull or re-home those fish that don't meet this goal, I don't have a problem with breeding from lower-end stock.

What annoys me though is when a person gets two generic pet quality VTs from their pet store and just wants to chuck them into the spawning tank with no forethought as to the compatibility of the pair or any real idea as to what they want to achieve from the crossing. 

Quality is always going to sell, and I would hate to have spent months raising fish only to have to give them away in an already saturated market to less than desirable homes. I mean, how many of you would _really _prefer a blue with red wash VT male over a flashy coloured and decently formed HM or HMPK? 

There are only so many homes out there that I feel take an appropriate level of care of their bettas. To me, the most important thing is that any fish I produce go to good homes. Why bother breeding, if your target demographic is going to be those who keep their bettas in cold, dirty bowls?


----------



## Olympia (Aug 25, 2011)

That's why I'll never breed fish, LBF. I'd be too worried about their future homes.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## LittleBettaFish (Oct 2, 2010)

Yeah that's one of the reasons I don't breed, or if I do I usually keep a large portion of the fish I've bred. 

We all condemn ignorant owners and stores that promote poor care on this forum, yet with so many bettas produced each year, many are either going to fall into one of these two categories, or if they are unlucky enough, both. 

IMO quality, well-bred fish are usually going to find better homes because people don't usually buy expensive things just to treat them poorly. However, a $1-$2 fish is generally a lot less regarded and if it dies because of bad care, well then it's no big deal as it was only worth a couple of dollars.

This is why when breeding you have to actually have a customer base in mind. Questions I think all new breeders should ask include whether you are going to be selling your fish as pet, breeding or show stock? Whether you are going to only be selling to private customers or supplying local stores with your fish? Whether you are selecting for popular colours and tail types or just breeding the cheapest fish you can find? 

Customer demand should be be a main driver in your breeding choices. It is no good successfully raising spawn after spawn if no one is buying them from you. Just because it's what you as a breeder like, doesn't mean that it's going to sell well. 

Every store I go into has red and blue VTs that sit languishing in their cups for months and months. Therefore, it would not be a sound business plan for me to go out and breed red or blue VTs as this is an already oversaturated market and I would never be able to financially compete with overseas commercial breeders. 

Therefore, it's not only the quality of your stock that dictates whether or not they should be bred, but also whether or not there is a market for the kind of fish you would be producing.


----------



## indjo (Jun 6, 2010)

registereduser said:


> Being responsible for what you bring into the world means more than getting it a home. It means making sure it is healthy and in the case of mammals making sure they will not procreate UNLESS you have oversight in the matter. Show breeders, for example, will co-own a dog that they think is worthy of continuing their line.
> 
> Anyone who brings puppies or kittens into this world needs to make sure each and every last one gets altered before going to a new home or very soon after. How many actually do? Maybe 1% :-?:-?:-?:-?


Exactly. ;-) 
IMO new types (HM, Rose T, HMPK, CT, Big ear, etc) are not better (species wise) - they are weaker and carry many genetic issues. They only look better (form and color) and thus are only "better" to us humans.


----------

