PlanetCatfish.com

No study has been made but the fact the fishermen used to collect over 100 during a good day in the early days (mid 90's) and that just before the ban, they would consider themselves lucky to be able to catch 10... that makes to me already an alarming note....and I guess the IBAMA, mainly based its decision regarding this...

H. zebra does not appear on any engangered, at risk, or CITES list for Brasil. It is not recognized as at risk or endangered by the European Union or US Fish and Wildlife. Also, the IBAMA ban included far more spp. than just H. zebra. The official reason given, according to Dr. Chao at the University of the Amazon in Manaus, was that the Brasilian government wanted to update its list of spp. permitted for export and put things on hold until the list was complete. This reasoning has nothing to do with protecting H. zebra, or any other fish for that matter.

We all live in countries with governments... Do you think it more likely that in a country where 46 million citizens do not have access to sufficient food (Brasilian Embassy statistic) to live healthy lives, the government was trying to squash jobs and protect a three inch fish? Or are they re-evaluating the system to get their hands on a higher percentage of a multi-billion dollar a year industry that pays almost no taxes?
I am hardly faulting the Brasilian government for their actions, but I promise you the reasoning favors the government coffers and not the fish's survival.

Yann, I would take the complaints of collectors with a large grain of salt unless someone actually studied their catches for a few seasons. The collectors we were with in Colombia did nothing but complain the whole time we were there. Peru was taking away Colombia's business in the trade, exporters were not paying fair prices, Peruvians were poor and could take less money for their fishes, etc, etc.

The dip in prices was most likely the reason imports got smaller. When prices go down, it is less worth people's while to collect the fish and so less are collected. This normally causes prices to go back up, but at the time when the price was starting to bounce up again IBAMA came out with the ban.

This was the case in Colombia last month. Prices were down to around US 14.00 per 1,000 corys and nobody wanted to collect them. Importers will eventually run low, demand more, and exporters will have to up the price to make it worth the collector's while again. The only thing anyone was collecting, and this was the dry season, were arowana for the Asian market.
-Shane

racoll wrote:I am totally against the non-sustainable harvesting of fish from the wild, but I imagine I am in a tiny minority of people on this site.

At least you are not alone in that. What I find very dificult is to get a good grasp on how sustainable this whole thing is. There are differences among species in how well they can sustain harvesting. Especially since some species are endemic to really small areas of specialised habitats, and other found along whloe rivers and more. Another factor is the losses in transportation. Has anyone any reliable figures for how many survive the whole way from their habitat to an aquarium, let's say here in Sweden (not only Hz, but say the ever popular L18)? (Last year I bought two L18, one of them died within a day. Then I got a replacement, which also died within a day, and then the third died. I got it all refunded and went for L204s instead. I still feel quite disturbed by this.

Regarding the people catching fish in the streams in South America. I read Shanes post (was it in this thread or some other) about the catfish harversters in Leticia who were among the richest in the area. Yes, this shows that it can give a good income. But would they stop catching a certain fish if the catches decreases, as an indication of either failed spawning that year or of over fishing? I am not the person to judge if they would or would not. I just want to raise a question of concern.

Eventually, this whole thing is up to us buying fish, if we want the catching to be sustainable, we should ask our LFS questions about it. Nowdays we can get organic bananas, inpossible a few years ago. I really hope we can get wild-caught fish in the future, certified to sustainable harvested.

Another factor is the losses in transportation. Has anyone any reliable figures for how many survive the whole way from their habitat to an aquarium...

To my mind this is the single biggest thing we as hobbyists could do for the trade, but let me ramble on a bit first.

Tropical fish collecting is a sustainable industry that harvests a renewable resource. It brings goods and services to people that would have far less (or nothing) without the aquarium trade. For the most part, these are fishes too small to be eaten and thus do not impact on the people's diet. An argument about the merits of exporting food fishes is a different thing. (It is illegal in every South American country to export food fishes, but we can all stop by the local pet store and pick up anything from a red tail cat to a peacock bass.)

It also promotes environmental protection because polluted waters do not produce fish.
The impact on the environment is very, very low. Especially compared to other ways to make a living in the Amazon like logging, clear cutting the jungle to raise cattle, or gold mining.

It is impossible to explain the vastness of the Amazon (or even Orinoco) to someone that has never been there. But, the idea that a handful of local people with small nets collecting fishes a few months a year could make any real impact on fish populations is just impossible.

There may be a few fishes with very restrictive environments and these should be given special consideration.

The above said, many fish do perish between the collectors, exporters, and importers. There was a person that tried to set up collecting stations in Colombia some years ago and he actually gave lessons to all the collectors on how to care for the fish so that more survived. He was kidnapped by the FARC though and that ended that.

If aquarists really wanted to do something that helped they could form a group, like an NGO, that went to the key collecting areas and taught the locals how to keep the fish they do collect alive. This way less fishes would be collected to keep aquarists happy.
-Shane

But would they stop catching a certain fish if the catches decreases, as an indication of either failed spawning that year or of over fishing? I am not the person to judge if they would or would not.

This is also the question I would like to know the answer to. You would hope they would protect this resource for future years, but when a fish is in demand (like H.zebra), would the temptation to cash in on the rising prices be too great.

I worry less about the R-selected species such as cardinals, that are widely distributed.

It's the more K-selected species with very restricted distribution (such as H.zebra) that I am concerned about.

There is absolutely no way that collection of a species with such a distribution would be allowed by European law.

In the UK, we have many species that are pan-European, but to even glance at them, a licence needs to be applied for.

What is the actual distribution of H.zebra? was this included in the description?

Well, it should be possible to harvest fish for sale even from species with K-strategies, however, only as long as the breeding population is let alone and a sustainable part of the offspring is caught. (I feel sad seeing old and mature wild caught specimens in the stores, for this reason)

Looking at the case of H. zebra: given that catches are a proxy of population size, and that the catches have decreased with 90% as mentioned earlier, H.zebra fills the critera for "Critically endengared" according to the IUCN red list directive. I hope I'm wrong in my assumptions, but it seems at least as it would fit in "Endangered" or "Vulnurable", given what's been said about it in various fora.

Are CITES capable of reacting quickly to changing populations?

I presume they will need at least one paper to be written before action is taken. As no such paper has been produced with relation to H.zebra, it is no surprise that they are not on the list.

This does not mean they are not under threat from fishing though.

racoll wrote:Are CITES capable of reacting quickly to changing populations?

I presume they will need at least one paper to be written before action is taken. As no such paper has been produced with relation to H.zebra, it is no surprise that they are not on the list.

This does not mean they are not under threat from fishing though.

That was kind of my point too.

CITES will not regulate trade in any species as long as no member country brings it up to decision at the CITES Conference of the Parties. I suspect it would be diplomatic troublesome if some other country than the home country of a species brought it up.

given that catches are a proxy of population size, and that the catches have decreased with 90% as mentioned earlier

Mikael,
This is completely anecedotal information. We have no studies to support this statement or to support that said anonymous collector ever said this or based it on any fact. Where was this quote taken from?
I would certainly be in favor of a study to find out H. zebra's natural range and the impact of the aquarium trade on the fish's population, but I do not think reporting alarming (and likely incoorect) statistics based on "an anonymous collector" helps us to understand the situation.
-Shane

This may sound pessimistic, but I would have to say that relying on government intervention to sustain a species is futile. One look at the failure of the long-studied East coast cod fishery off the east coast of Canada would certainly bring a dose of reality to any optimist. Although aspects of this situation is different, there are too many critical similarities. Assuming the ban is [u]working[/u], hopefully the high prices would encourage only those with the necessary experience and financial committment to purchase prospective breeders and provide the obvious market with aquarium bred animals. Many experiences have proven to me over time that, most of the time, people do not appreciate what they can have for little sacrifice. This is not meant to sound elitist, but is merely a reflection of the realism from years in the hobby.

Shane wrote: Mikael,
This is completely anecedotal information. We have no studies to support this statement or to support that said anonymous collector ever said this or based it on any fact. Where was this quote taken from?

Shane,
I'm quoting Yann's post earlier in this thread:

yannfulliquet wrote:@ Shane!
No study has been made but the fact the fishermen used to collect over 100 during a good day in the early days (mid 90's) and that just before the ban, they would consider themselves lucky to be able to catch 10... that makes to me already an alarming note....and I guess the IBAMA, mainly based its decision regarding this...

This might, as you say, be anectodal information from an anonymous collector. However, it still warrants us to be more careful until we know better. What is obvious is that the supply decreased before the ban as the prices rised. Indepent of the cause of the reduction in catches, in my opinion, it is better to be on the safe side and ban trade until we know better.

If it is correct that H. zebra has startade to appear again in the trade as for research caught specimens, to me sounds very similar to the Norweigan and Japanese whale hunting for scientific reasons, where the meat ends up in the trade anyway.


Ps. To clarify. My opinion is not to ban all trade in Loricarids. I believe it can be a good and sustainable source for income among local people which brings many good things, as you, Shane, have described. Much better than logging and other things which affect the ecosystem badly. But I do think we should be careful when there are signs of species being to heavily exploited.

Shane,
In your experience, is collecting a full-time job for locals? Or is it a side job to help supplement income? Are jobs here and there typical to make ends meet? I'm also trying to get a picture in my head of what "making ends meet" would mean along the Amazon.
Amanda

ps.I was reading the other day that there's a huge glut of whale meat on the Japanese market. It seems the younger generation hasn't taken to it the same as their parents.

I read in Wels Atlas 1 that H.zebra collecters earn approximately $200 per week, and that was in 1996!

Where do you want to start and end these trade bans? How can you tell L260 isnt vulnerable...or the big Baryancistrus species that land here by the thousands in horrible condition for 12 euros of which 80% die within a month.
All people seem to care about the zebra because its the "most beautiful" fish in the trade. In Germany shop prices of 200+ euros are like a ban nobody is willing to invest this kind of money in a 4 cm fish.

All people seem to care about the zebra because its the "most beautiful" fish in the trade.

The only reason I cite H.zebra is because there is anecdotal evidence of a declining population, an assertion which is backed up by rising prices (before the ban).

Currently prices of L260 and L018 are falling. This indicates the supply is more than meeting demand, so therefore there is no evidence of any population declines.

I would be just as concerned if either of these "species" were to appear to decline too.

How can you tell they are not declining? Because thousands of them are still being shipped? Have you though about eating seafish? You can buy redfish/ocean perch for 5 euro/kg and its almost depleted in most fishing zones.

Prices of zebras went through the roof because the demand rose so quickly and because it is difficult to catch the supply side couldnt bring in enough fish. Also there were numerous "facts" being spread before the actual ban. I can remember these stories being around for some years, most of them just being spread to pump the prices up.

Prices of zebras went through the roof because the demand rose so quickly and because it is difficult to catch the supply side couldnt bring in enough fish. Also there were numerous "facts" being spread before the actual ban. I can remember these stories being around for some years, most of them just being spread to pump the prices up.

All this is very true.

To find out the truth, there is no substitute for a rigorous study. I agree that anecdotes should not be the basis of bans.

The point in me hijacking this topic was to listen to other peoples opinions on the subject, and to encourage hobbyists to give some thought to the wild populations of the fish they keep.

In your experience, is collecting a full-time job for locals? Or is it a side job to help supplement income? Are jobs here and there typical to make ends meet? I'm also trying to get a picture in my head of what "making ends meet" would mean along the Amazon.

Amanda,
There are some, very few, "full time" collectors. These are people (usually families) that make their living off the aquarium trade all year round. Collectors target certain spp. when the price/market call for them. These are people with contacts in Leticia, Iquitos, Manaus, Villavicencio, Puerto Carreno, etc that can tell them what the exporters need. When we were in Leticia in Jan. people were after arowanas because they were selling for an outrageous price (like a couple of US dollars apiece) to fill orders from Asia. Asia will be swamped with arowana in a few months and that will end the "spike" in the arowana trade for a year or two.
Spikes in popularity also have an impact and I tend to believe that "pleco mania" (i.e. demand) had more to do with the rise in H. zebra prices before the ban than a drop in wild populations (i.e. supply).

That said, I think we all agree that, whatever the reason for the ban, it will be a good thing for all the banned fishes in the near term.

Many collectors only collect when a certain fish close to where they live is in demand or when full time collectors come to an area and offer a price on certain fishes in the area. Others may simply collect for a day or two to bring a couple 1,000 corys to town to sell so they can buy a new machete, a shirt, and as often as not, a bottle of chacaca or aguardiente (booze). These folks rarely have direct contacts in the big collection ports or hubs.

I really have no idea what an "average" income would be in small town Amazonas. The average annual income in Colombia is under US $7,000, Peru $6,000 and Brazil $8,500. That said, those "average" incomes would be huge incomes in the Amazon. I would guess that these incomes could be cut by 1/2 or even 2/3 in the Amazon outside Iquitos or Manaus. There are very, very few jobs. Most shops and cafes are family owned and operated. The only "real" jobs would be working in a hotel that had tourists or as a guide. Many people sell fruit or fish to make extra money to buy things they either can not make or can not live without. I have been in many caboclo and indigenous peoples house in the Amazon and you could usually fit the entire family's belongings (that they did not make themselves) in a small backpack.

While the people are poor by the standards of the industrialized world they are healthy and eat well. Only a complete ass, or a contestant on the TV show "Survivor," could go hungry in the jungle.
-Shane

Thanks, Shane. It sounds as if there may be a disconnect from the collection of the fish to the time the fish reaches the hobbyist. The collector lives in an area with the supply, so he can demand whatever he wants. So can the shippers, etc. The hobbyist is demanding the supply and will pay that price. Whether it's Arowanas, L-46s or anything else in this world. It seems like this disconnect could lead to misunderstanding. This kind of disconnect happens in New England a lot. Folks think fisherman and lobsterman have it made in the shade. The same supply and demand applies. The government is always threatening and applying new regulations, sometimes for good reasons, but, sometimes to appease politicians. Yes, the money is good, but they take it while they can because a dry spell can come at any time, man-made or nature-made.
Amanda

Excellent read thanks Shane. Always nice to hear first hand experiences, especially from intelligent sources.

Thanks again.