PlanetCatfish.com

I came across a large ( and expensive) Panaque at my LFS and wondered what age it would be.
And I started having this question:
Is it a good thing to take old fish from the wild and bring them all the way to Europe?
It just didn't feel right some way or the other...
Just a thought you might have had too .

I know: the same goes for a lot of other things like eating tuna or visiting a Zoo with wild animals in cages but stil...

I think you are right asking this question.

After all, small fish don't breed, yet, but large fish do.

If one would take out 50 % of the fry from one season, the other half will have a greater change of growing out to maturity - there is more food, predators will find other prey.

Therefore, taking out a certain percentage of fry would not hurt to breeding capacity of the population. Taking out adults will.

By taking out fry, the local people see the value of the fish, and will do more to keep it as it is. Therefore, I thnink that, from an ethical point of view, taking out a certain percentage of fry, or young fish, is defendable. But not for taking out adults.

Further adults are often also more vulenerable to trasport conditions. BUT this one Panaque could be a return form one of their customers. In that case the ethical question will be a whole different one.

Hi all,

kruseman wrote: ↑21 Jan 2021, 22:37 I came across a large ( and expensive) Panaque at my LFS and wondered what age it would be.
And I started having this question:
Is it a good thing to take old fish from the wild and bring them all the way to Europe?
It just didn't feel right some way or the other...
Just a thought you might have had too .

I know: the same goes for a lot of other things like eating tuna or visiting a Zoo with wild animals in cages but stil...

Personally I don't agree with exporting these, others will have a more nuanced view and will be able to tell you how important the wild fish trade is for amazonian people and habitats.

cheers Darrel

For me it's a ratio, quota thing. Exporting fishes from the wild, at any size, is only ethical if it is sustainable. So a mix of mostly young and a few older/larger would seem to balance the benefits of the trade to the environment with the impact of exploitation (in the "making use of" sense of the word). This also keeps the price high, and so more care of fish and environment is taken to ensure maximum profit _if_ governed properly.

There is also the consideration of freight and risk. If a large is shipped in one box, and it dies, that's a loss in all senses from ethical to business accounting, but it removes the temptation to overpack and do it on the cheap!

Jools

Bas Pels wrote: ↑22 Jan 2021, 08:03 Therefore, taking out a certain percentage of fry would not hurt to breeding capacity of the population. Taking out adults will.

That's imprecise, and on an emotionally charged topic it's good to be precise. So, by way of example, taking out 30% of juveniles (I don't think trading fry would be a great idea) and 30% of adults may be detrimental, but perhaps 50% of juveniles and 5% of adults might be OK. For example where we know the fishes breed at a much smaller size. A lot of this depends on the species, but I just go into this detail here to explain my point above about ratio.

I think we could all agree that the heavy export of mostly adult fishes where the fishes live a few decades is rarely going to be sustainable and so must be unethical?

Jools

Jools wrote: ↑22 Jan 2021, 16:03 I think we could all agree that the heavy export of mostly adult fishes where the fishes live a few decades is rarely going to be sustainable and so must be unethical?

I'm afraid that's the case.
And by a acknowledging that it might be time to take a stand as responsible fishkeepers.

That is an issue I have with 'sustainable seafood' for the past 10 + years I've not eaten any seafood at all, as I find it hard to believe any is truly sustainable at the current rates of harvest.

The definition of sustainable, at least in this sense, is something which is able to be maintained without detriment to the population/environment at its current level for an indefinite period. As a scuba diver, I have seen first hand the devistation things like trawling causes, it's as stark as seeing swathes of the Amazon cut and burned, it leaves the seabed looking like a barren freshly ploughed field. I have seen this in the English channel, the north Atlantic, the Indian Ocean, the red sea, and Caribbean.

I think there is some merit though in fisheries such as cardinal tetras in the Rio Negro. If there is an incentive for the fishermen to keep a good environment for the fish, as well as their livelihood, maybe it's more positive than at first glance.

I have very little detailed knowledge of these human interactions with complex ecosystems, but where a livelyhood depends on the ecosystem being healthy, I have some hope.

As Jools noted, shipping costs keep the export of large, adult fishes low. 25 small Panaque in a box that retail for $40 each is a far better profit to risk ratio than a single large Panaque that will retail for $400. Most shipments of large, adult fishes are more of a special request from importers.
In terms of ethics, where was the animal captured? If it was from a drying charco in the dry season, then collecting the animal was a mercy. I have walked across dried oxbows crunching armored catfish carcasses with every step. Collecting those animals a few weeks earlier would have only harmed the vultures.
-Shane

Shane wrote: ↑22 Jan 2021, 23:10In terms of ethics, where was the animal captured? If it was from a drying charco in the dry season, then collecting the animal was a mercy. I have walked across dried oxbows crunching armored catfish carcasses with every step. Collecting those animals a few weeks earlier would have only harmed the vultures.

Indeed, so it depends on the species. However, species that die en masse in dried out seasonal events do not live for decades and I can't think of any that grow to any large size. So, adult Hoplos don't equate to adult Panaque to follow the theme. Another twist is what if the adult Panaque comes from a river about to be destroyed?

So, we maybe have to refine where we ethically draw the line, something like species that grow larger than 20cm and live longer than a decade perhaps? The thing here for me that I worry about is that governments, their lawmakers and those who influence them don't have the resources or inclination to get to this level of ethical accuracy.

As Arjan says though, it is good to talk about this.


Jools

Jools wrote: ↑23 Jan 2021, 11:14 it is good to talk about this.
Jools

Yes, and if we don't, who does?

Maybe there is thorough scientific research on this whole issue proofing there isn't a problem at all, but I doubt that.

I have been working with ornamental fish export from Brazil over 10 years, worked to improve the activity and implement some wild fishery managements but it is difficult. For me it is ethical if I remove a fish with 30-40 or even 50 years old from nature, even if it not harm the population of the same species. It is more emotional, if a fish have been succeeding to live and grow to such size in nature, it is worth to let that fish continue the rest of its life in nature too. These individuals have been able to escape all kind of threats; predators including humans for such long time that it has own its right of life continue in its habitat.

I do export large, old specimens, if we take Panaque armbrusteri as an example, the natural population of adult and mature individuals are far higher than the few that are collected, and exported, it is less than 1% (more close to 0,1%) and have no impact on the natural population. In quantity of fish, more than 90% exported of all species are juveniles or semi adults, it is too expensive for the majority of clients to buy large size of fish, both because they are more expensive per unit and also because of the high freight cost to ship them, but also the market for big fish are limited, very few can buy them.

The activity are also self-regulated, we can take Pseudacanthicus pitanga and pirarara, for approx. 6 years (2012-2018) many adult sized fish was exported, under the last year much less because the clients was breeders in other countries. Today that market are fulfilled and the total collected in nature of adult sizes are just a fragment of earlier export. Of all popular species the total export have decreased because wild collect cannot compete with reproduced fish of the same species, and as we know… reproduced species of fish in foreign countries does not return incitements to the country of origin and the environment.

Food fishery, is very different because what are caught are not juveniles or semi adults, the majority of food fish that are caught for food and other uses are adult and mature individuals. Food fishery decimate the reproductive population of a species and that is the reason why oceans are becoming empty. Ornamental fishery are far from that impact on natural species of fish, instead the threats for ornamental species of fish are human developments, dams, agriculture, mining, deforestation and so on.

It would not be wrong to implement real wild fishery managements like maximum size of a genus collected as ornamental fish (for these that may need it), much better than the bureaucratic management that exist today which are based on numbers and not populations and yearly renewal of the same. Management until today are by documents and not by physical management. I think would be good and maybe food fishery would receive a pressure to do the same, where the catch are counted in tons and by documents that easily can be manipulated.

My point is, if you buy a large and old fish it comes with ethical responsibilities, you need to provide the best care and environment, if not, don’t buy it.

Janne

Am I not right in thinking that fisheries science has repeatedly shown that larger,older fish are far more fecund (Cod in particular) and that their removal has disproportionate impact to the removal of young adults or sub-adults. Many of the latter may never reach the point where they contribute to reproduction of the species. Younger fish (not fry) tend to cope with transportation more easily and with a reduced carbon footprint as less water/space is required. They also adapt more easily to a captive environment.
I think if you buy any fish from the wild it comes with ethical responsibilities that range far beyond sustainability of the fishery. But perhaps that goes beyond the current discussion. I do not personally see the logic behind buying a fish just because its large and displaying it as some sort of trophy. Surely the true joy is in raising a fish over a number of years. In the UK it is a legal requirement [Animal Welfare Act 2006] that owners of animals (including fish) ensure their welfare needs:-

for a suitable environment (place to live)
for a suitable diet
to exhibit normal behaviour patterns
to be housed with, or apart from, other animals (if applicable)
to be protected from pain, injury, suffering and disease

As aquarists we do need to start addressing the legalities and ethics of keeping fish. Showing that we care for our charges in the same way as other [vertebrate] animals is a good start.

Quite right in what you say, in that it is the keeper of the fish that must be responsible. The Act (in England and Wales, and the equivalent legislation in Scotland) I think has had a positive impact on fishkeeping (for example, providing a legal basis by which an LFS cannot stock dye injected fish) but aspects of it are hard to implement. For example those Pirhana Vs Oscar type videos you see on Facebook or to sell a fish to someone under 16 years old. Both clearly illegal given the Acts, but at somewhat different ends of the spectrum.

But at risk of me straying offtopic, I guess the question is about fishes before this point in time, at the point of removal from the wild. Again, as per many authors above, a lot of it comes down to specific circumstances.

Jools

Hi all,

syorksaquarist wrote: ↑26 Jan 2021, 13:56..........I think if you buy any fish from the wild it comes with ethical responsibilities that range far beyond sustainability of the fishery. But perhaps that goes beyond the current discussion. I do not personally see the logic behind buying a fish just because its large and displaying it as some sort of trophy..............
As aquarists we do need to start addressing the legalities and ethics of keeping fish. Showing that we care for our charges in the same way as other [vertebrate] animals is a good start.

That would be pretty much where I'm coming from as well.

cheers Darrel