Should the location of newly discovered species be hidden?

[racoll]

Food for thought?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17386764.

[pleco_breeder]

I find it interesting they specifically point out breeding programs being an option. Breeding is limited by the number of individuals in the program and the skill of the breeder. Therefore, unless someone were capable of cranking out as many as could be caught in the wild, there would still be a black market demand for the species.

It's reasonably obvious which species are going to have commercial value, and both the researcher and breeders have some understanding of this. Likewise, most researchers know of at least someone capable of establishing a successful maintenance program for those commercially viable species.

I know it may be a bit far-fetched, but if the researchers are truly worried about their species, wouldn't it make sense to establish domestic colonies as a joint venture while the paper is being written? In many cases, the initial "hot, new, gotta-have-it" phase would be satiated prior to publication. This would limit the black market demand and may allow for the open exchange of the sensitive type locality information.

I understand that you can't do that with all species. Turtles and tortoises, for example, would take far too long to establish due to the time required to reach maturity. However, some common sense has to apply in these matters if they are truly concerned with conservation rather than simply getting their name in print.

Larry

[Mike_Noren]

FTA: "Smuggling is a drop in the bucket."

That is how it is. The trade for chinese medicine has extinguished a dozen or so species and endangered hundreds, the Three Gorges Dam alone extinguished over a dozen species, untold numbers of species have been extinguished by clear cutting, converting into plantations, irrigation projects, destructive fishing/hunting methods, and sheer urban sprawl. Sum total number of species extinguished by the global aquarium trade is zero.
Smuggling for the pet trade is so small that it only matters when the species has already been brought to the brink of extinction by other factors.

Hobbyists (and western environmental organizations) tend to focus on the pet trade because that's what they see and it's an easy target, but if the pet trade was banned tomorrow the sum total effect on global extinction rate would be zero.

Furthermore wild caught is more environmentally friendly than captive bred. Why? Because a wild-caught animal puts a dollar value on a wild population which would otherwise have been worthless. Why hasn't Nile Perch been introduced into Lake Malawi even though it's been so wildly commercially successful in Lake Victoria? Because of lobbying from ornamental fish collectors (and the same collectors are right now trying to mitigate the destructive fishing resulting from nylon gill nets and trawls handed out by NGO's). Remember the indigenous fishermen who (briefly) stopped the Xingu dam? They were ornamental fish collectors, trying to protect their livelihood.

By contrast a malawi cichlid or zebrapleco bred in Germany provides no income to anyone in Africa or Brazil, and no incentive to preserve the wild populations.

[racoll]

Ignoring the Xingu dam, how many H. zebra do people think would be left in the wild if IBAMA didn't clamp down on their export? Would local fishermen maintain their resource, or as the prices rose, would they in the words of the article "go in, get as many as you can, as quickly as you can, to make as much money as possible"?

[MatsP]

Furthermore wild caught is more environmentally friendly than captive bred. Why? Because a wild-caught animal puts a dollar value on a wild population which would otherwise have been worthless. Why hasn't Nile Perch been introduced into Lake Malawi even though it's been so wildly commercially successful in Lake Victoria? Because of lobbying from ornamental fish collectors (and the same collectors are right now trying to mitigate the destructive fishing resulting from nylon gill nets and trawls handed out by NGO's). Remember the indigenous fishermen who (briefly) stopped the Xingu dam? They were ornamental fish collectors, trying to protect their livelihood.

By contrast a malawi cichlid or zebrapleco bred in Germany provides no income to anyone in Africa or Brazil, and no incentive to preserve the wild populations.

Completely agree. As did every member of the panel at the CSG Convention when asked a question on the subject of wild-caught fish, as does several scientists that I've talked to. Aside from a few isolated incidents of "collecting for hobbyist keepers" (H. zebra and "Redline Torpedo barbs", possibly), there isn't much of a bad record for collecting for pet/ornamental trade. Dam builders, loggers, gold diggers, insecticides, pesticides, farmers and such have a much worse record, that's for sure.

Just to be clear, I'd say that IBAMA did the right thing to stop collection of H. zebra. But that's an unusal case, not the typical situation.

--
Mats

[racoll]

there isn't much of a bad record for collecting for pet/ornamental trade.

Is this not simply because effects are rarely studied and quantified?

results indicated that the location with the highest fishing pressure had reduced fish abundance, species diversity and biomass

See Gerstner et al. (2006).

[retro_gk]

A subjective question, and perhaps not very practical. It makes sense when the species has a very restricted distribution. But, if the known distribution falls outside a protected area, how do you make a case for protecting the species if location data is not disclosed?

Smuggling for the pet trade is so small that it only matters when the species has already been brought to the brink of extinction by other factors.

Hobbyists (and western environmental organizations) tend to focus on the pet trade because that's what they see and it's an easy target, but if the pet trade was banned tomorrow the sum total effect on global extinction rate would be zero.

I agree, especially the part in bold text.

Furthermore wild caught is more environmentally friendly than captive bred.

Not always. This only applies if the collecting is targeted and "ethical". In India, at least, I know of several cases where (a) target species are improperly collected / handled and (b) large numbers of bycatch are needlessly killed. The problem partly (mostly?) lies with "part-time" collectors who have no long term interest in the fish. They're only in it to rake in the money while the going is good. Properly managed collection where fishing rights remain in the hands of a few is best, but I'm not sure it works everywhere.

Ignoring the Xingu dam, how many H. zebra do people think would be left in the wild if IBAMA didn't clamp down on their export? Would local fishermen maintain their resource, or as the prices rose, would they in the words of the article "go in, get as many as you can, as quickly as you can, to make as much money as possible"?

I have no experience with fishermen in Brazil, but here in India, many traditional fishermen do realise the effects of overfishing on fish stocks. These are people who have spent their entire lives on one stretch of river and know it inside out. They also realise selling a few hundred fish at xxx currency units each is more profitable than selling a few thousand at xx currency units. In any case, the IBAMA ban was the main reason for the rise in H. zebra prices, which'd been steadily falling for a year or so before the ban was announced.

there isn't much of a bad record for collecting for pet/ornamental trade.

Is this not simply because effects are rarely studied and quantified?

Possibly. I believe any species with a wide enough commercial appeal to require heavy collections from the wild will invariably attract the attention of commercial fish farmers. In any case, the numbers collected for the ornamental fish trade (with a few exceptions) pale in comparison to the numbers taken as food fish. Again using India as an example, most of the ornamental fish that originate here are food fish. And, the numbers at any one fish market in a day will comfortably exceed those taken by ornamental fish collectors in a week.

Just for the sake of discussion; should science condone the taking of threatened species for research?

[Bas Pels]

In general, I would say the location should not be hidden, but there are examples

An example much closer to our hobby is the Galaxi danio. But all examples which became endangered share a few features:

1 they are pretty
2 their distribution is small

Personally I think H zebra could have gotten on the list too - had IBAMA not intervened.

Any species with a wide distribution area will be able to survive people seeking them - unless the pay is too high. It has been said that a nest of some varieties of parrots pays the local finder a year income - and therefore the local people can afford to spend a few months - they know when it is breeding season - searching them. This has endangered may a parrot.

For fishes which pay a day income, they will not be willing to spend that much energy - resulting in a better change of surviving for these fishes.

I do think researches who describe a new species have an obligation to go deeper into the survival of the species - for instance pre-warning authorities to put them on the protected list before the publication, perhaps even on the CITES list and so on - but only for species with a small distribution area and which are pretty

Small and pretty are not really scientific words, but I think anyone will understand them

[Jools]

On the topic of H. zebra, I still think the difficulty in collecting this species, and the fact it can reproduce within a year and a half, sets it apart from other fishes considered in the debate.

At the CSG event, the panel was asked the question, "Will wild caught fishes be available in the hobby in 10-20 years time". These forum things are great but you need hours to cover topics, not minutes. For example, as a member of the panel, I was eloquently asked "How can technology help fishkeeping?" and I restricted my answer to a few minutes. I could go on for a lot, lot longer.

Anyway, the thing here is perception and not fact. Note the words "the dark world of the wildlife pet trade" in the BBC article - and that's from the good old unbiased Beeb. So, the general public start thinking rhino horns, tiger nuts and pandas. Or at least crates of tortoises and boxes of parrots. To any scientist I would suggest reading the recent description of

Peckoltia compta

which mentions the fish trade in a negative light - where exactly was the research for that statement? Who knew the fishes were there and how many there were?

So, the battlefield here is perception, not fact. We, IMHO, so stop throwing facts around and deal with changing the perception.

Jools

[Mike_Noren]

Is this not simply because effects are rarely studied and quantified?

For all intents and purposes collection for the pet trade can be considered low-volume artisanal fishery. It differs from normal artisanal fishery in that the return to the community is much greater and that otherwise unfished and worthless species are targeted.

results indicated that the location with the highest fishing pressure had reduced fish abundance, species diversity and biomass

Quite possibly, all fishing has impact, even artisanal fishing. However, they did not correct for confounding factors, such as that maybe the heavily fished areas were also easily accessible and subject to multiple pressures.

This only applies if the collecting is targeted and "ethical".

I'm not sure. The alternative to collecting isn't "the fish are left in peace", it's "the fish are fished for food, or Tilapia is introduced, or the river is dammed, or the swamp is drained and oil palms planted". All species today must have a commercial value or they are doomed, and the only thing giving commercial value to small fish (other than as feed or fishmeal) is the aquarium trade. Ideally the collection should be ethical, but excepting the use of poison collection probably provides more protection for a species than solely banning trade in it does.

Ignoring the Xingu dam, how many H. zebra do people think would be left in the wild if IBAMA didn't clamp down on their export?

Unfortunately we will never get to see if they really could have fished H. zebra to extinction, as the commercial value of the aquarium trade of the Xingu proved inadequate to stop the tens-of-billions-of-dollars dam project.

Possibly. I believe any species with a wide enough commercial appeal to require heavy collections from the wild will invariably attract the attention of commercial fish farmers.

Yes. I'm torn about that. It's good that breeders depress the price of very expensive fish, as very high price could motivate overfishing, but it's bad that they also remove the incentive to protect common & cheap fish species. On balance I suspect that from a conservation point of view commercial breeding is mostly bad.

[retro_gk]

So, the battlefield here is perception, not fact. We, IMHO, so stop throwing facts around and deal with changing the perception.

Changing perceptions is not an easy thing to do. It doesn't help that the portrait of an aquarist as a scientist/conservationist is well hidden behind the portrait of an aquarist as a trophy hunter. I feel this is one area where the internet has really hurt us.

but excepting the use of poison collection probably provides more protection for a species than solely banning trade in it does.

Yes, a complete ban on collection is not a bulletproof method to protect a species. I have argued elsewhere that managed collection is a far better conservation tool than a total ban, but that argument, sadly, does not get any traction with decision makers.

Yes. I'm torn about that. It's good that breeders depress the price of very expensive fish, as very high price could motivate overfishing, but it's bad that they also remove the incentive to protect common & cheap fish species. On balance I suspect that from a conservation point of view commercial breeding is mostly bad.

I'd like to hear more on this. How is the incentive to protect common or cheap fish removed? As these common species often share habitat with desirable ones, they will still get the benefit of conservation.

The fish don't really need to be conserved, the habitat does. If there is no heavy fishing pressure, the fish will look after themselves, so long as suitable habitat exists. The onus on conserving the habitat should not solely lie in the hands of fishermen or aquarists, everyone needs to be involved.

[MatsP]

I'd like to hear more on this. How is the incentive to protect common or cheap fish removed? As these common species often share habitat with desirable ones, they will still get the benefit of conservation.

If "cheap" fish is cheaper from breeders than from natural collection, the natural habitat of this fish is not worth much [as a source of fish] to the local population, so the local population is less likely to try to protect it. Not all habitats have "expensive" fish in them. For example, it is almost impossible to find wild guppies or wild forms of certain danios, for example, because they are all farmed.

The fish don't really need to be conserved, the habitat does. If there is no heavy fishing pressure, the fish will look after themselves, so long as suitable habitat exists. The onus on conserving the habitat should not solely lie in the hands of fishermen or aquarists, everyone needs to be involved.

Completely agree. But in practice, just like you, living in India, probably wouldn't care as much whether New York's Central Park gets changed into a car-park, as the people actually living in New York [and some, paying a small fortune to park where they live, will probably say "Wohoo", but most would probably object], the fishermen living in a particular area will care much more about their local fish's habitat than those living many miles away. And if the project to destroy the habitat of the fish also benefits those who live far away, such as the promise of cheap electricity, jobs or some such, they are even less likely to "care".

--
Mats

[Mike_Noren]

I have argued elsewhere that managed collection is a far better conservation tool than a total ban, but that argument, sadly, does not get any traction with decision makers.

Well, for what it's worth I absolutely agree with you.

I'd like to hear more on this. How is the incentive to protect common or cheap fish removed?

I muddled that one. What I meant was that while captive breeding was good for reducing the price & pressure on very expensive species by expanding supply, captive breeding of cheap & common species lowers price to the point that it makes collection financially unviable, removing all value the aquarium trade might have put on the wild stock.

For instance: neon tetras are high-volume fish in the aquarium trade, but effectively all are captive bred in south east asia. This means that the trade in them generate no revenue in the fishes' home range, and hence no financial incentive to protect them. Other examples where captive breeding has made wild collection financially unviable is e.g. many malawi and rift cichlids.

The fish don't really need to be conserved, the habitat does.

Yes - and it's a lot easier to protect a habitat if it's filled with species representing a real value measurable in $, and generating income to the local population.

[retro_gk]

This means that the trade in them generate no revenue in the fishes' home range, and hence no financial incentive to protect them.

More or less the point MatsP made. The way I see it, there is nothing stopping farmers in the country of origin raising large numbers of fish. Yes, they're a bit behind the curve, but it is not too late if you can put a good product out in the market. One way to do this would be to provide artificial spawning habitats for fish and remove a percentage of the spawn for commercial use, to be raised in captivity to marketable size. Of course, this requires more involvement from the authorities and the use of people who know what they're doing.

Isn't Yann here involved in a captive breeding project in Brazil? I'd love to hear his thoughts on this as well.

And if the project to destroy the habitat of the fish also benefits those who live far away, such as the promise of cheap electricity, jobs or some such, they are even less likely to "care".

That, unfortunately, is a battle we cannot win, or influence. All opposition to environmental degradation will vanish when enough people feel the pinch. This is true of any habitat, anywhere in the world. We can mitigate this to some extent if we all reduced resource use, but that is not going to happen.

[sidguppy]

The fish don't really need to be conserved, the habitat does.


Yes - and it's a lot easier to protect a habitat if it's filled with species representing a real value measurable in $, and generating income to the local population.

unfortunately governments know this, it works the other way around as well

by -for example- banning the fish trade in a certain area or a local species, the fish will become virtually worthless; especially if they tighten the net around smugglers so hard that it's not worth the risk.

that is what they have been doing in Brazil and with great success; by stopping the trade in fish whole area's became economically worthless and if an area is "worthless' it's an easy target for a dam or flooding

that construction has been used by the brazil goverment for quite some time now and every time they want to destroy another million acres of pristine rainforest they make sure that the local species are banned from the lists

first destroy it economically by unleashing the law and the cops; then destroy it for real by bringing in the bulldozers

[MatsP]

This means that the trade in them generate no revenue in the fishes' home range, and hence no financial incentive to protect them.

More or less the point MatsP made. The way I see it, there is nothing stopping farmers in the country of origin raising large numbers of fish. Yes, they're a bit behind the curve, but it is not too late if you can put a good product out in the market. One way to do this would be to provide artificial spawning habitats for fish and remove a percentage of the spawn for commercial use, to be raised in captivity to marketable size. Of course, this requires more involvement from the authorities and the use of people who know what they're doing.

Isn't Yann here involved in a captive breeding project in Brazil? I'd love to hear his thoughts on this as well.

I think you are thinking of Janne (Ekström), not Yann Fulliquet.

And if the project to destroy the habitat of the fish also benefits those who live far away, such as the promise of cheap electricity, jobs or some such, they are even less likely to "care".

That, unfortunately, is a battle we cannot win, or influence. All opposition to environmental degradation will vanish when enough people feel the pinch. This is true of any habitat, anywhere in the world. We can mitigate this to some extent if we all reduced resource use, but that is not going to happen.[/quote]

Of course, it is difficult. But if the locals (who live/used to live) on the resources aren't fighting back, it gets even worse. And of course, if they are no longer able to sell their fish, they will have to find other jobs, which are often less "good" for the local environment.

--
Mats

[Mike_Noren]

[The way I see it, there is nothing stopping farmers in the country of origin raising large numbers of fish.

Yes, and that would contribute nothing to the preservation of the habitat.

It would perhaps be more fair, as people in the area of origin of the fish species benefited, but it would remove any financial incentive to protect the wild stock just as if the fish was farmed in Germany. Only wild-caught fish give value to the wild stock.

unfortunately governments know this, it works the other way around as well

Yes, I have at times had that suspicion.

[retro_gk]

I think you are thinking of Janne (Ekström), not Yann Fulliquet.

Yes, I was. Apologies.

that is what they have been doing in Brazil and with great success; by stopping the trade in fish whole area's became economically worthless and if an area is "worthless' it's an easy target for a dam or flooding

This assumes ornamental fish are the only economically important produce in the region, which is usually not the case. The biggest problem I have with assigning dollar values to natural resources is it is possible to assign a greater dollar value to goods or services realised by modifying that environment. A very short sighted plan, but usually enough to fool the percentage of the population for the time required till it is too late to change anything.

Yes, and that would contribute nothing to the preservation of the habitat.

It would perhaps be more fair, as people in the area of origin of the fish species benefited, but it would remove any financial incentive to protect the wild stock just as if the fish was farmed in Germany. Only wild-caught fish give value to the wild stock.

The way I see it, conservation benefits greatly if a greater percent of the local population is involved in managed activities based on natural resources. And one way to do this, is to shift from a solely capture based fishery to a capture+culture based fishery. Culture based fisheries needn't solely be the kind practised in large farms in Europe or Asia, based on hormonal manipulation or banks or aquaria, it can be a very simple system based on ripe broodstock or eggs/juveniles taken from the wild.

[Janne]

Was on my way to reply but realized that it would take to long time to give any good thoughts on this subject, what is obvious for one person is not for another, perceptions and "ideas" are turned to facts without real substance... I can just say that it's complicated. But in a perfect "world" we would not need to breed any species which does have a negative effect on our environment and the nature proved by real facts.

Discussion is good and needed, just don't know the real answer... yet.

Janne