Ethics of Zebra Harvesting?

[Mike_Noren]

Belo monte dam was planned to be finish 2005 from the beginning but the new date is before 2010, the inundated area will be either 400 km2 or 1200 km2.

Janne, do you have a direct link? As far as I can glean from the images you posted, the 1200 km2 dam is the "old plan", whereas the 400 km2 is the "current plan", which on the face of it seems less destructive (although it wont save altamira).

If we want to protect all this nature from destroying and save it for our next generations needs Brasil support from the rich countrys in the world...

It would help if Brazil accepted foreign help wrt saving their environment too.

[Icthician]

In my humble opinion...
There are a lot of us who are blessed with the insite to see that humankind's progression will eneviatably destroy the multitude of nature's creatures that we find dear and fascinate us.

As America's history shows evident, the desimation of many animal species, and peoples, were all for the single minded progress of the human race. Basiclly driven by the desire to have a better life- or rather comforts afforded by advanced civilizations. We live this as we sit in our heated air conditioned homes with televisions, microwaves, computers, shoes, clothes , jobs, roads, malls, conveinence stores, satellite and cable,access to an ATM's.

We are reminded everyday of our errs to nature for humankind's benefit by the work of a multitude of groups and individuals who have spearheaded preservation areas, wildlife refuges and sanctuaries; and by the loss of animals never to return.

Many cultures believe that animals were put on this earth to serve mankind. If the flora and fauna of nation are made extinct to provide the people with comforts that are coveted for a better life as they perceive it, and as the powers that be perceive it, the preservation of the natural history of a nation will continue to be second thought.

If we as hobbyist, researchers, and scientists could think beyond the enevitable and begin to focus our energies to surcumbvent the extinction of species by starting conservation programs on our own right now and not 30 years from now, we, as a group, or as individuals,could concentrate or efforts to begin to systematically obtain and maintain generations of the species that will be affected by this third world's progression.

We have the advantage of have learned from past mistakes and can be prepared to reintroduce these species to a habit that has changed.

Like I said, JMHO

Francine

[Caol_ila]

time result in a sustainable increase in production and supply

Couldnt breeding programms (i mean even small ones) be a key here? Organize the fishermen, tell them how to sustainably "harvest" the fish (which i guess? they might know but arent able to withstand the pressure of exporters to bring in as many fish as possible - maybe Shane can give an insight here) and keep some back to breed (maybe in ponds or in separated parts of the river) this would be especially interesting with the big species like the Baryancistrus as they are never exported at adult size...so instead of eating them you could try to house them outdoors...just an idea.

[racoll]

Many cultures believe that animals were put on this earth to serve mankind.

this is so true.

i work as an ecologist with protected amphibians and reptiles, and unfortunately this attitude is very common.

people like building developers seem to have the opinion that a creature has to perform some kind of beneficial service to man if it's deemed fit to live. they ask me what lizards 'do', like how "spiders eat flies"

i explain that the lizards prefer to eat the spiders.

they aren't usually impressed.

[Janne]

Mike,
You are right, I didn't knew which they should follow but as you said...the current plan will inundate 400 km2.
http://www.estadao.com.br/ext/belomonte/

It would help if Brazil accepted foreign help wrt saving their environment too.

I think this depends on which help we offer, I understand if they not want foreign countrys to rule their nature resources...it's enough that foreign companys use their cheap manpower (they are not better by them self). I mean if you make the whole amazonas to a national park...they need to be compensated so the rest of the country and their poor inhabitants still can develop and be feed and also allow a few to be rich. This will not happend if we just are prepared in a small scale with little money concentrated on these areas we want to save...for them it's worth much more money to build a dam and use their nature resources as much they can.
Just try to give the amazonas a value in money...that is what the cost are to save it.

The biggest threat to amazonas is not building dams...of course it have big impacts for the aquafauna but worse is the agroculture with soyabeans and cattle ranches which reduce the rainforest day by day and make it to a savanna and above these comes logging of the rainforest...these three factors more or less kill all the environment from fishes to mamals.

Janne

[zebra046]

Where ever the collection site of the zebra is above or below the Dam there fate is still doomed as well as many other species of fish, a limited number should be collected with a certain size restriction, fish that are in between 1.5-2.5 inches TL so as to spare the wild breeders and leave the very young once, in the hopes that some of them will evade capture and someday reproduce just incase in some miracle they would survive after the Dam is built.

If worst comes to worst there are a few left in captivity that can someday be re-introduced back to the wild.

Do we even know the population of the wild fish in captivity around the globe, maybe we can start a pedigree book so as to know how many are still left and maybe you guys could suggest how to breed the fish in order to keep the blood lines separated (ex. Should we only breed the wild fish with each other and not back cross the F1 or F2 to the wild stock) this is a little lame but I got the idea from what is happening to the Spixâ??s Macaw http://www.bluemacaws.org/spixart.htm where only a few of them are left and the last living bird in wild died a few years ago, majority of the last remaining birds are owned buy one person â??Sheikh Saoud bin Mohd. bin Ali Al-Thaniâ?

[Mike_Noren]

If worst comes to worst there are a few left in captivity that can someday be re-introduced back to the wild.

If their entire natural range is destroyed, there is no wild to reintroduce them to.

[Dinyar]

Researchers at Yale and Columbia Universities have just released the 2005 edition of the Environmental Sustainability Index, which ranks nations on their success at such tasks as maximizing biodiversity, safeguarding air and water quality and cooperating with other countries on environmental problems.

The index and accompanying report and annexes can be downloaded at:
http://www.yale.edu/esi/

Interestingly, Brazil is ranked 11th overall, while the US ranked 45th. Finland topped the chart at #1.

Definitely worth a read for those who want to have a factual discussion of the relevant issues.

[Daniel Machado]

I think we can get a few more votes on this one?

I am yet to hear a solid enough arguement why wild Hypancistrus zebra should be on sale.

The only valid argument for wild-caught zebras on sale is the fact that breeding colonies need some "fresh blood" from time to time. But that usually is NOT the case. I'm totally against the commercialization of WC zebras for a loooong time, until the population can recover from the overexploitation. And I love this species and want to keep some, BTW.

Best regards.

Daniel.

[Jools]

First of all, let me say I'm firmly in the leave the fish in the river if they're being over-fished camp.

However, we're talking here about a lot of unknowns and focusing on one species, how dependant on rapids and other factors this species is in the wild we don't really know.

Why wouldn't H. zebra live in appropriate depths of the flooded area should that come to pass? Could it move to deeper and indeed safer waters?

I think my point is the dam ISN'T the issue, if it wasn't on the horizon, we'd be talking about overfishing, gold mining, deforestation or some other impending doom to avoid making a statement of where we are with the original question, namely:

Only buy captive bred zebras (insert species name here) or not...

IMHO, and as I seem to be saying a lot at the moment, it can only come down to personal accountability.

Jools

PS Sadly I also know that for every enlightened person, there's an idiot with too much money that "needs to have that fish" without the experience, will or patience to breed them.

[Mike_Noren]

Why wouldn't H. zebra live in appropriate depths of the flooded area should that come to pass? Could it move to deeper and indeed safer waters?

First of all, I have it on good authority that there is reason to believe dam probably *wont* extinguish H. zebra.

However, for what it's worth a dam isn't the same as a lake. If it was just an increase in water depth, then many species could adapt. The thing with hydroelectric dams is that water level fluctuate wildly - it is quite normal that the depth can increase or decrease 10 - 20 meters in a matter of hours. This is not slow seasonal change, but rapid and random fluctuation in response to the market price of electicity.
This means that nothing can live in the shallow areas of a hydroelectric dam: no plants, no benthic fish, not even insects. It is usually very easy to tell if a body of water is a hydroelectric dam or a natural water: hydroelectric dams have a wide zone around the shore where all vegetation has been killed.

Only pelagic fish do well in hydroelectric dams, and even they suffer from the lack of primary production and shallow breeding grounds. Frequently exotic fish have to be introduced to allow the dam to support a fishery.

The short & sweet of it is that hydroelectric dams equal wholesale ecosystem destruction. There is nothing green about hydropower.

Now, I hope this dam is different, but the... shall we say 'dubious' way it's come about doesn't inspire much hope.

[FuglyDragon]

my 2 cents for what its worth.

Dosnt the theroy of evolution pretty much predict that lifeforms best able to adapt to changes in their immediate environment bought on for any reason are most likely to survive, and rightly so as all lifeforms are pretty much competeing for limited resouces only the most adaptable will survive.

It seems to me that a fish limited to a very specific location / environment, that is unable to adapt to changes in that environment, that reproduces at a slow rate and that is of a colouration very attractive to predators (man), is pretty much going to be outcompeted by other more adaptable fish and has a poor future.

Even if a Dam wasn't built, what if a major seismic event (earthquake) were to drastically alter the river environment, any fish that couldnt adapt to the new environment would gradually dissapear as fish that could took over.

Isn't this constant changeing / refining and improvement the mechanics of nature at work ?

I am not saying that human influence in extinction of a species is right or wrong, just that it is a fact and any species that dosnt adapt to changes bought about for any reason will not survive.

[Zebrapl3co]

...Dosnt the theroy of evolution pretty much predict that lifeforms best able to adapt to changes in their immediate environment bought on for any reason are most likely to survive, and rightly so as all lifeforms are pretty much competeing for limited resouces only the most adaptable will survive....

That's not how evolution works. Evolution takes it's turn over tens to hundres of thousands of years. Not overnight. To expect them to adapt to the changes of MAN is kind of rather unrealistic.

[racoll]

Why wouldn't H. zebra live in appropriate depths of the flooded area should that come to pass? Could it move to deeper and indeed safer waters?

I think in addition to what Mike_Noren has explained, the Hypancistrus would be unable to compete with say Glyptoperichthys, Hypostomus and Loricariichthys on the silty substrate of a reservoir. Hypancistrus I think are quite specialised fish that can only survive in an exteremly stable and heterogeneous habitat

Not overnight. To expect them to adapt to the changes of MAN is kind of rather unrealistic.

I see your point Zebrapl3co, and for the reasons above I also doubt they could adapt, but new species often evolve after catastrophe events. Take for example the "rise" of the mammals after the asteroid impact near the Yucatan that was supposed to have killed off the dinosaurs.

It seems to me that a fish limited to a very specific location / environment, that is unable to adapt to changes in that environment, that reproduces at a slow rate and that is of a colouration very attractive to predators (man), is pretty much going to be outcompeted by other more adaptable fish and has a poor future.

Yes this is the case, but the very reason there is huge diversity in the Amazon is due to it's stable environment. It has been like that for millions of years. This is due to lack of events like earthquakes.

The more change there is in an enviroment, the lower it's biodiversity. You can see this when you look at the globe. The highest biodiversity is at the tropics. The further towards the poles you get, the lower biodiversity becomes. This is due to the lack of environment stability caused by increased seasonality.

H.zebra is exactly the same as most other rainforest species. They live in very small specialised niches. If we are to change their habitat so drastically, and lose this massive biodiversity, it is because of US, not them.

Of course many generalists will survive, and eventually speciate when humans have wiped themselves out, but we won't be able to enjoy species like H.zebra in the meantime.

[panaque]

The most immediate threat to the survival of H. zebra in the wild at this moment is overfishing for the aquarium trade. Personally I would find it absolutely awful if the fishkeeping hobby was responsible for the extinction (in the wild) of this or any other species. Species like H. zebra that take long to mature and have low fecundity are particularly vulnerable to overfishing so I completely support a ban.
Should they then in the future go extinct due to dam projects then that would be awful too but at least our consience would be clear. The argument that we should harvest the wild fish now to make them available for captive breeding to 'save' the species should the dams wipe them out doesn't wash with me. There are plenty of H. zebra in circulation already. The biggest incentive to using these for commercial breeding programmes is a ban on the export of wild fish. Harvesting the wild fish would be counter-productive in my humble opinion.
I find it incomprehensible that people who say we should continue to harvest an overexploited species stil feel that they can complain about the Brasilian government for building dams. If you are concerned about the survival of these fish in the wild then you should start by whole heartedly supporting a ban. Only then can you voice your protest about other threats.
Anyway, that is my humble opinion.

[Mike_Noren]

The most immediate threat to the survival of H. zebra in the wild at this moment is overfishing for the aquarium trade.

How could overfishing possibly be a bigger threat than wholesale destruction of a species entire habitat?

Harvesting the wild fish would be counter-productive in my humble opinion.

In the perfect world the fish would be left alone to live where they live. Unfortunately this is not.
As an example, the building of the dam in the yellow river, caused the extinction of an estimated 17 species of vertebrates.

For comparison, collection for the aquarium trade is not known to have extinguished a single species. Ever.

It is however known to have saved dozens if not hundreds. Collection assigns a dollar value to fish which otherwise would be considered worthless. The *only* reason nile perch hasn't been introduced in lake Malawi is that the cichlids there generate revenue through export.

I find it incomprehensible that people who say we should continue to harvest an overexploited species stil feel that they can complain about the Brasilian government for building dams.

That is like saying that you can not be concerned about the murder rate if you occasionally break the speed limit while driving.

If you are concerned about the survival of these fish in the wild then you should start by whole heartedly supporting a ban. Only then can you voice your protest about other threats.
Anyway, that is my humble opinion.

I'm sorry, but you clearly haven't understood what a hydropower dam means.

[Jools]

Mike,

I have to jump in here as I think we're missing more points than a zebra has stripes.

The most immediate threat to the survival of H. zebra in the wild at this moment is overfishing for the aquarium trade.

How could overfishing possibly be a bigger threat than wholesale destruction of a species entire habitat?

A question of timing. The point being made is that the zebra could be fished out before the dam has an effect. This topic has a really narrow view on one species, the dam would likely wipe out a whole range of species and just becuase a species isn't blessed (?) with lovely colouration doesn't mean it is less deserving of a place in the ark.

For comparison, collection for the aquarium trade is not known to have extinguished a single species. Ever.

True (I think) but then the zebra pleco is rather unusual. The point is wouldn't we all look rather bad if it WAS the first.

It is however known to have saved dozens if not hundreds. Collection assigns a dollar value to fish which otherwise would be considered worthless. The *only* reason Nile perch hasn't been introduced in lake Malawi is that the c*****ds there generate revenue through export.

This one is rolled out a lot and I agree with it wholeheartedly, however the zebra pleco is different I think because it doesn't reproduce with the ferocity of a bunch of Malawi cichlids.

I find it incomprehensible that people who say we should continue to harvest an over exploited species still feel that they can complain about the Brazilian government for building dams.

That is like saying that you can not be concerned about the murder rate if you occasionally break the speed limit while driving.

Eh? I might have read this wrong, but when I read it was saying the total opposite? Panaque asked about the logic of people who complain about the dam but are happy to pay for imported fish which appear to be over fished.

As I work in the area of civic governance and have a lot to do with speeding offences, I'd suggest that anyone who thinks it's OK to break the speed limit (from time to time, like it's not going to hurt anyone, I was late for the hairdresser etc etc etc) should spend a half day in a city A&E ward watching mangled motorists come in. Anyway, that's a personal viewpoint and really rather off topic, so sorry, but when you've seen a real human leg hanging off, it does rather stick with you.

Anyway, more people are killed by motor "accidents" than murder, so shouldn't the logic applied from above be true also? More zebra plecos have been killed by collectors and aquarists than by dams (as yet!).

If you are concerned about the survival of these fish in the wild then you should start by wholeheartedly supporting a ban. Only then can you voice your protest about other threats.
Anyway, that is my humble opinion.

I'm sorry, but you clearly haven't understood what a hydro power dam means.

Agreed. I think, however, both the above points of view are rendered academic, solely from the viewpoint of the survival of this one species, if we aren't breeding them and being more excited by breeders offering groups for sale than when the next dodgy import is going to arrive.

How many posts on this forum about zebra pleco prices and how many about successful breeding attempts?

Jools

[panaque]

Sorry Mike, I don't think you understood the point I was trying to make. I fully understand what the consequences of hydropower dams are. The destruction they cause to ecosystems is appaling. There is no doubt about that. What I am saying is that we should not use this as an excuse to just continue harvesting an overexploited population. Given the biology of H. zebra it could easily be finished off by continued harvesting within a few years (if that), well before the dams are completed. The aquarium trade has probably never driven a species to extinction as you say and we should keep it like that, whatever other threats there are to the species concerned. You might as well say that it's fine to murder a cyclist in London because he is likely to be hit by a bus sooner or later anyway.

[Yann]

Talking about the Dam...

it seems they have reduced the initial plans...
still it will be tough on the fauna...

Totally agree with Jools!! People are cariing about Hz!!
What about the hundreds of other sepecies that will suffer...
Cool to save the Hz but what about the other... Baryancistrus sp L18/81 are taking a huge load on the export as well...and their survival rate in aquarium is far lower of Hz because people just don't know how to house them correctly...
I ain't to worried about Hz or any other Hypancistrus species from the Rio Xingu surviving in the hobby... but regarding the other genus and species that is an entire other story... Baryancistrus, Parancistrus,etc... breeding report are not numerous or totally inexistant...Retroculus xinguensis is also one species that is likely to disappear and it is not a Loricariidae...so why concentrate on only one species... because it has money value...when breeding Hz, it is money on the bank...50$ for a tank raised F1 Hz juvenil of not even 1'' long...come on...

That whole story on Hz is just disgusting...it is a Hobby not a buisness, hopefully I know a few aquarist that loves their hobby and doing their best to breed some species...and pass them by around to insure the population is saved into the hobby, they are not asking for enormous price, just a tiny little thing...it is sometime for some of them fish they have caught themselves on a trip, rare population never been exported before...

If people start refusing paying high prices for a fish, the price will drop down and the pressure on wild caught will diminish, and certainly less people would have the fish just to make money with...

My 2 cents

Cheers
Yann

[Mike_Noren]

What I am saying is that we should not use this as an excuse to just continue harvesting an overexploited population.

Actually I'd say that if the worst-case scenario was true (it isn't, but if it was), so that all of the space in which H. zebra lives would be destroyed, then by all means collect every single specimen. Why not? The specimens would be doomed anyway. Botanists do the same thing when rare plants are in the way of construction works. And in fact entire species of pupfish in the US have been collected (and relocation attempted, in some cases successfully) when their waters have been destroyed, so there are precedents.

However, H. zebra wont be extinguished by the dam, and so there is reason to regulate collection to protect the wild population.

[Mike_Noren]

because it has money value...when breeding Hz, it is money on the bank...50$ for a tank raised F1 Hz juvenil of not even 1'' long...come on..

Perhaps ironically, I think the fact that H. zebra is fairly easy to breed, even without injections, AND commands such a high price is what's driving the market: people buy them to breed & make a ton of cash.

Personally I'm a bit surprised the price hasn't crashed yet, because surely the czech/south-east asian breeders should be mass-producing zebras by now?

[zebra046]

Mike_Noren wrote:
For comparison, collection for the aquarium trade is not known to have extinguished a single species. Ever

this might not be fish tank related but we do not want the HZ fate to end up like the spix's macaws.


this species is extinct in the wild as what I have stated in my previous post if you anyone is willing to read here is a link to some good information http://www.bluemacaws.org/spixart.htm

to make it short a quote from one of the authors,

Probably at the beginning young birds from one or two known nesting sites arrived on the market. The rising prices increased demand for these rare birds and then the adult birds were hunted. The adult birds were either caught with lime on their traditional roosting branches or with the young in the nest hole. In this way it was possible to remove completely the entire population, estimated at 30 pairs, within a few years. The following is a short time-scale summary:-
1977-84 According to the locals and the trappers more than 9 birds were taken between 1977 and 1984.
1984-5 From information received from the trappers, 10 to 12 birds were taken, including at least 7 adult birds.
1985 Five birds still remained. One Spix's Macaw was killed by a rancher (fazendeiro) according to the local people.
1986 When we arrived for the first time in the Curaçá area, there were still three Spix's Macaws remaining.
1987 Up to April three birds were sighted, but from May onwards only two. We could obtain no information about the fate of the third bird.
1987-8 A few days before Christmas 1987 a trapper from Petrolina caught one of the remaining two birds and according to telephoned information from the local people the very last member of this Spix's Macaw population was caught by the same trapper in the first few days of 1988.

[racoll]

I'm totally confused about the plans for this dam.

We were told in another post that it wasn't going ahead.

Could anyone provide me with some facts?

[Mike_Noren]

Mike_Noren wrote:
For comparison, collection for the aquarium trade is not known to have extinguished a single species. Ever

this might not be fish tank related but we do not want the HZ fate to end up like the spix's macaws.

No we don't, but that's not a fish, that's a bird, and that appears to make a difference.
The list of bird species extinguished through overpredation by humans is long and ranges from the Moas to Passenger pigeons.

By contrast, I don't know of a single species of fish which has been extinguished by overcollection. I assume there are some, but I don't know of any. Hundreds of species have however been extinguished by destruction or alternation of their habitat.

Basically it seems as to kill off a species of bird, the most efficient is to shoot them; to kill off a species of fish, one'd destroy their habitat.

This doesn't mean that it's impossible to extinguish a species of fish through overharvesting, only that habitat destruction is a greater threat.

[Mike_Noren]

I'm totally confused about the plans for this dam.

We were told in another post that it wasn't going ahead.

Could anyone provide me with some facts?

Unless there's been recent developments, and I doubt it, it is going ahead - too many too corrupt people stand to gain too much for this project to be scrapped - but it's been slimmed.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows ... book4.html
http://www.amazonwatch.org/amazon/BR/bmd/

As far as I can gather this reduction hasn't been brought about by environmental or legal concerns, but because it has been argued that the original dam would be an enormous financial loss. Presumably the financial loss from this smaller dam is more manageable, while still preserving the personal prestige and personal gains of the people responsible.

[bronzefry]

Are we also thinking about the people who would lose their homes and who knows what else? <a href='http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0317-reuters.html' target='_blank'>This</a> is the latest I've read. Knowing what I know about construction and engineering in different parts of the world, a revised "version" approved for 2007 from a government in flux is asking a lot. But, sometimes projects like this can become pets for a government and things have a strange way of happening, or not.
Amanda

[Mike_Noren]

I found this rather relevant paper, which might be of interest to those wanting to know more about xingus fish fauna:
http://www.mamiraua.org.br/arq/prod_2004_xingu.pdf