Ethics of Zebra Harvesting?

racoll · Post by **racoll** » 13 Jan 2005, 22:41

Please direct me to the right place if this topic has been discussed before, but i find it difficult to understand how the purchase of wild caught Hypancistrus zebra can be condoned.

I think everybody accepts that they are getting very scarce in the xingu due to over-fishing alone. the stories of exporters making rumours and holding back stock to inflate prices doesn't wash with me. why wouldn't the next company just charge $20 less for them and get all the business.

What's the next species that the aquatics industry threatens with over fishing? gold nuggets are imported in huge numbers now. i've seen them for sale at Â£10.

If someone could give me some information about how populations of all aquarium fish are sustainably managed by local fishermen and exporters, (which is in everyones interest) that would be great. i do suspect sometimes that money takes over (in the case of H.zebra), and over fishing can occur.

I find the justification that these wild fish are purchased with the aim to captive breed risable. these fish are threatened by over-exploitation in the first place and will do much better breeding in the xingu. not in someones tank.

I think the aquarist should take responsibility for long term viability of the fish that it demands.

I think forums like this should frown upon retailers, and more importantly aquarists for wishing to purchase the wild specimens.

i'm sure lots of people will have strong opinions on this.

Tom2600 · Post by **Tom2600** » 13 Jan 2005, 23:23

Its all a little too late with this one as it sounds like the zebra plec is doomed once the dam is built.

I agree with you with regards to the aquatic trade can have a negative impact but at the same time I also think why not catch ALL the plecs in the Xingu before they are destroyed when this dam is created?

With regards to the deliberate limited export, I have it on good authority from two importers that there are relatively large scale zebra plec breeders position near to the Xingu. They don't just deal with L046s so it makes sense to create a shortage as this bumps up the price, especially when there is a huge demand!

I would liken this to the playstation 2 rubbish in the UK before X'mas this year. S**y created a good story to say the consoles are limited, this generated hype because those who wanted one spread the word whilst searching for one, which in turn created a greater demand and therefore shops could charge more etc etc. Its just the way of the business world.

I see where your coming from but there will always be people who want things they cannot have and will stop at virtually nothing to get it, no matter what damage it causes.

racoll · Post by **racoll** » 14 Jan 2005, 09:49

The idea of catching all the plecs in the xingu before that dam is built is an interesting one.

i think i would need to read the the environmental impact assessment (there were legal problems with these) and learn a bit more about the geographical range of these fish before offering an opinion on that one.

i was aware of the breeding tanks, but why would they invest in these if the government are cracking down L-number exports?

Post by **Dinyar** » 14 Jan 2005, 15:01

The argument that exports of tropical fish "help the natives" is plausible and valid in some instances, but in my experience, is not true in general. The example of cardinal tetras is commonly trotted out as Exhibit A by the "help the natives" school, but one -- or a few -- examples does not make a conclusive case.

The "natives" get such a tiny sum per fish that there is little economic incentive for them to treat wild fish as a sustainable resource. At least in the short run, higher retail prices are likely to simply translate into higher margins for middlemen, not local collectors. So banning the export of endangered fish strikes me as defensible, to the extent that it can be adequately enforced.

Unfortunately, governments are hypocritical. On the one hand they raise a hue and cry about the unfair exploitation of their biodiversity resources by foreigners, then think nothing about themselves wiping out their natural heritage through unchecked economic development. Governments respond to popular opinion, and the public wants more money in their wallets today, not more fish in the wild tomorrow.

Dinyar

Mike_Noren · Post by **Mike_Noren** » 14 Jan 2005, 15:43

racoll wrote:i think i would need to read the the environmental impact assessment (there were legal problems with these)

Yeah, as in "criminally flawed".

Caol_ila · Post by **Caol_ila** » 14 Jan 2005, 16:02

At least in the short run, higher retail prices are likely to simply translate into higher margins for middlemen, not local collectors.

Not if you build a "FairTrade" level, as in coffee, tea, honey, fruits and greens etc. Not sure how effective they are but most of what you hear or read sounds good to. Implementing this for the fish trade would need direct imports and a certificate of sustainability and fairtrade maybe. (Which would also mean a zebra would cost 200.- euros...)

racoll · Post by **racoll** » 14 Jan 2005, 17:57

a zebra would cost 200.- euros

if that is the true cost of their sustainable collection and regulation then i think that is what their value should be.

stina · Post by **stina** » 14 Jan 2005, 19:05

racoll wrote:The idea of catching all the plecs in the xingu before that dam is built is an interesting one.

Please explain this???
How can this be interesting?
regards

fishypoo2 · Post by **fishypoo2** » 14 Jan 2005, 19:24

Dinyar,

Do you know of Project Piaba? Its basic goal is to assess the plausibility of a sustainable ornamental fish trade in the Rio Negro (especially with the cardinal tetra, as you mentioned).

The "natives" get such a tiny sum per fish that there is little economic incentive for them to treat wild fish as a sustainable resource. At least in the short run, higher retail prices are likely to simply translate into higher margins for middlemen, not local collectors. So banning the export of endangered fish strikes me as defensible, to the extent that it can be adequately enforced.

Although they get relatively little per fish, it is still generally more than they would get if they worked for a logging or mining company, or built a cattle ranch. Although the middleman point is true, that is currently being worked out. If the export of essential fish, like the cardinal tetra, for instance, were to happen, these people would have no other option but to work in the logging/mining companies, or to burn down a few acres of forest to build a cattle ranch.

However, I agree on the point that some fish may just plainly not be sustainable, but the main fish of the export market (cardinal tetras, other tetras, and cichlids) are sustainable, if a little care is given to monitor the fishery.

racoll · Post by **racoll** » 14 Jan 2005, 20:40

Stina, the idea of catching all the plecos in the xingu before the dam is built was tom2600's not mine.

he raises an important point though.

If it is established that a lot of these fish poputations will perish, then is it not better that they are breeding in our aquaria?

this idea is purely hypothetical not practical however, and i think tom2600 was using this as an example to make a point.

Tom2600 · Post by **Tom2600** » 14 Jan 2005, 21:49

I am sure that the Xingu could be harvested (for want of a better word) of its aquatic life. But it would be one hell of a task and what would be done with all the plecs etc? Its just hypothetical really, and yes I was just making a point.

Why ban the export and then build a dam which will wipe out whole ecosystems and therefore cause thousands of species to become extinct? It doesn't make any sense to me, but mankind is very rarely sensible!

Tapio Martimo · Post by **Tapio Martimo** » 14 Jan 2005, 22:47

Dinyar wrote:The "natives" get such a tiny sum per fish that there is little economic incentive for them to treat wild fish as a sustainable resource.

I have had the impression that the earnings by the natives, involved in the fish collecting, has kept those people away from other industries, such as farming (coffee, tobacco etc), mining and other low-level-income jobs. Needless to say, these industries are more detrimental to nature in the rain forests as a whole.

Nevertheless, I would support the "FairTrade"-fish with my wallet, should those ever emerge to the markets.

Post by **Shane** » 15 Jan 2005, 02:16

The "natives" get such a tiny sum per fish that there is little economic incentive for them to treat wild fish as a sustainable resource. At least in the short run, higher retail prices are likely to simply translate into higher margins for middlemen, not local collectors. So banning the export of endangered fish strikes me as defensible, to the extent that it can be adequately enforced.

Dinyar (and others),
I can not speak to the aquarium fish trade in Asia, but in South America it is a multimillion dollar business that brings a living to many people from collectors to transportation specialists to middlemen, brokers, and exporters. You are certainly correct that the collector gets the smallest share, but he/she also has the least output of expenses. It also should be mentioned that the transporters, middlemen, brokers, etc all are "natives" too. The actual collectors are very few people. I estimated that the entire trade in Leticia, a major supplier of fish, is carried out by a half dozen families. These families were VERY interested in conservation and asked me lots of questions about keeping fish healthy and also caring for several spp. Their interest may be economic, but it translates into conservation irregardless. The money they earned may seem a very sad amount to you and me, but the half dozen families collecting fish in Leticia are amongst the "wealthiest" in the town. In fact one family made me come to their house to see their new 32 inch color TV...the envy of the middle Amazon region! I highly doubt that Leticia would be linked by commercial air travel to Bogota if it were not for the fish trade, it just would not be profitable. The commercial flights have brought many goods and benefits, like medications and tourism, to Leticia.

I agree that banning the trade of endangered fishes is a good idea. The problem is it will not work. Arapaima has been a "protected" sp. since the late 1970s and is still the most common fish offered in every restaurant from Iquitos to Manaus. The sad fact is that "banning" anything will just make it cost more.

Unfortunately, governments are hypocritical. On the one hand they raise a hue and cry about the unfair exploitation of their biodiversity resources by foreigners, then think nothing about themselves wiping out their natural heritage through unchecked economic development. Governments respond to popular opinion, and the public wants more money in their wallets today, not more fish in the wild tomorrow.

Sadly this is too true and South Americans often seem ready to cut off their noses just to spite their faces where "biodiversity resources" are concerned. Better that they detroy everything than let outsiders come in, do research, and threaten their "sovereignty." Reminds me of a long converstation with a German biologist in Venezuela about the Kyoto Treaty. He wanted to know why everyone was mad at the US when we refused to sign a Treaty that obliged the most industralized nations (with strict environmental controls and low biodiversity) to cut down on pollutants while allowing "developing" countries (with no enforced environmental controls and the world's greatest biodiversity) to pollute even more? Needles to say I did not have an answer.
-Shane
PS Great topic folks.

racoll · Post by **racoll** » 16 Jan 2005, 19:10

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.

Tom2600 · Post by **Tom2600** » 16 Jan 2005, 19:51

Racoll,

I would argue that they should now be on sale more than ever as this dam will kill all remaining wild Zebras anyway.

Its the best of the bad situation. What I do hate are those who are making quick cash out of zebras but as with most things it is a double edged sword!

stina · Post by **stina** » 16 Jan 2005, 20:45

Tom2600 wrote:I am sure that the Xingu could be harvested (for want of a better word) of its aquatic life. But it would be one hell of a task and what would be done with all the plecs etc? Its just hypothetical really, and yes I was just making a point.

Why ban the export and then build a dam which will wipe out whole ecosystems and therefore cause thousands of species to become extinct? It doesn't make any sense to me, but mankind is very rarely sensible!

I see what are you getting at, but i just think harvesting is wrong...

Where this dam will be standing?!
Is this for 100% sure that this will happen?
What will bring that dam to humanity!?!
Oh my God, how stupid race we are...

Mike_Noren · Post by **Mike_Noren** » 16 Jan 2005, 21:41

Not one dam, a whole series of dams. Because the Brazilian government wants to industrialize the "backwards" interior of Brazil. It is also alleged that the project has not been handled properly. I do not wish to repeat some of the allegations aimed at the enforcers behind this project, but they are as serious as they could possibly be.

The zebra isn't the only species affected, pretty much all rapids-dwelling fish of the Xingu will be extinguished or have their range drastically reduced. We're talking a whole range of catfish, cichlids, tetras and other.

http://www.amazonwatch.org/amazon/BR/bm ... _number=99

Post by **Shane** » 17 Jan 2005, 01:47

It would almost be funny if it were not so sad. Banning collection for the aquarium trade to lessen the impact on wild populations so you can build a dam and just wipe them out all at once.
Reminds of when I was leaving in Colombia and they passed a law that made it illegal to smoke a cigarette while driving a car. Mind you this is a country where the government has lost 60 percent of the national territory to various illegal armed groups and the number one cause of death is listed as "bullets." All that and their congress wastes time and money outlawing smoking while driving.
-Shane

Post by **Dinyar** » 17 Jan 2005, 03:47

Shane wrote:Reminds me of a long converstation with a German biologist in Venezuela about the Kyoto Treaty. He wanted to know why everyone was mad at the US when we refused to sign a Treaty that obliged the most industralized nations (with strict environmental controls and low biodiversity) to cut down on pollutants while allowing "developing" countries (with no enforced environmental controls and the world's greatest biodiversity) to pollute even more? Needles to say I did not have an answer.

The simple answer is that per capita pollutant output is far higher in developed countries than in developed ones, even with their "strict" environmental controls.

If we were set pollution standards by "country", regardless of population, we would have to insist that the US produce no more pollution than the Vatican does. I'm not sure the US Govt. would agree with that view.

Post by **Silurus** » 17 Jan 2005, 04:03

per capita pollutant output is far higher in developed countries than in developed ones

Uh, I take it that the phrase was meant to read "per capita pollutant output is far higher in developed countries than in undeveloped ones"

Post by **Dinyar** » 17 Jan 2005, 04:09

Silurus wrote:
per capita pollutant output is far higher in developed countries than in developed ones
Uh, I take it that the phrase was meant to read "per capita pollutant output is far higher in developed countries than in undeveloped ones"

Yes, sorry. Meant to say "per capita pollutant output is far higher in developed countries than in developing ones".

And the first sentence of the second para should have read "If we were to set pollution standards by "country"[...]".

Me sloppy.

WhitePine · Post by **WhitePine** » 17 Jan 2005, 04:45

Kind of reminds me of what happened in Washington state... they built lots of dams on the Columbia river and wrecked or destroyed tons of natural breeding sites for Salmon and other native fish species. They also destroyed a very profitable fishing industry in the process of trying to get cheap hydroelectric power. And let me tell you that the electricity now isn't that cheap!

If this species becomes extinct in the wild at least there will be a larger gene pool available if fish are harvested for the aquarium industry. This means less disease and defects for the surviving species.

Post by **Janne** » 17 Jan 2005, 13:38

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.
Compared with the Tucurui dam in tocantins which are the biggest dam in Brasil with the highest production of electricity today so will Belo monte dam be half the size or less but have higher electric capacity.
Tucurui dam inundate 2430 km2 and have a electric capacity of 8,125 MW compared to Belo monte that will produce 11,000 MW.

Pictures from http://www.estadao.com.br.

There have not been done any "real" investigations what kind of impacts it will have for the fishes in the river which also was the case when they build dams in tocantins.
Rio xingu is little special because it have a natural barrier Volta grande rapids downstream Altamira and the fauna of fishes is different upstreams these barrier then it's downstreams, many of these fishes is endemic and one of them is H. zebra.

Even that we think what is right or wrong so should we have some understandings, Brasil is a poor country and have the largest potential in the world for hydroelectric power.
They even thought they could dam the Amazon river

for a long time ago but have escaped from these plans.
They need electricity to develope the country...that is a fact. 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...they cant handle this by them self, the population is to big and everyone cant work with ecotourism.

I dont defend the building of Belo monte dam, just to show they maybe not have so much other choices.
Brasil have planned many more dams then this one in xingu, there will be build several upstreams xingu after 2010 and there are 20 dams planned in the tocantins and araguaia rivers that today have 3 dams.

Janne

Post by **Shane** » 17 Jan 2005, 14:35

The simple answer is that per capita pollutant output is far higher in developed countries than in underdeveloped ones, even with their "strict" environmental controls.

I wonder if this is actually true? I just drove from Texas to Mexico City last week. As we came up the plateau to Mexico City the smog haze could be seen from 30 miles away like an ugly gray cloud. In fact, during the entire trip, we knew when we were 20-30 minutes out from a city by the smog haze in the distance (Monterray, San Luis Potosi, etc). It is claimed that just living in Mexico City is equal to

g a pack of cigarettes a day. Granted Mexico is the largest city in the world, but in terms of manufacturing and cars on the road it is probably equal to any big US or European city. The difference is there is no (enforced) air pollution regulation. There may be more cars in the U.S., but five new U.S. cars combined do not put out 1/10th the pollution of a typical Mexican Volkswagon spewing its trail of black smoke.
The outcome, the impending extinction of an entire family of fish (Goodeidae) that is found nowhere else on the planet.
-Shane
PS I am not picking on Dinyar. I highly value his opinion as he is more knowledgeable than I on the subject of development.

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 17 Jan 2005, 14:53

I've been following this thread since it started. I'm still not sure what the right answer to the original question is... It's not a trivial thing to answer...

But the last couple of posts have made me think a little bit...

Janne: Are you saying that H. Zebra are below or above those rapids near Altamira? If they are above, then it's not a problem (immediately at least).

Shane: I think that Dinyar's statement was based on average pollution per capita, and there are HUGE amounts of people in the developing countries that can not afford the luxury of a car or even fuel to heat the house (never mind electric-based air conditioning).

But you're right in the sense that less developed countries are less strict when it comes to polutants being released, both from individually owned vehicles and industrial sites. The local effects of this can be catastrofic.

It also depends on what "pollutant" we're measuring. For instance CO2 emissions (which is classified a greenhouse gas) is what the Kyoto treatment talks about. Unfortunately, CO2 emissions are invisible to the naked eye, whilst some other pollutants may be clearly visible, and more or less dangeourous than CO2 for the local or global environment. Black smoke from a beetle for instance is probably mostly consisting of carbon. It's not "good" for the environment, but not THAT bad either. The byproducts of the bad combustion that causes the black smoke will have other bad components, but most of them more immediately bad than the CO2 emissions you can't see from a new Volkswagen of some sort, which has a more long term effect. One isn't necessarily better or worse than the other, but one is quite obvious to observe with the naked eye, the other is quite difficult to see without the right equipment. [Of course, spending a few bucks tuning that old Volkswagen up a bit so that it burns the fuel properly may not be a bad thing, becuase the CO2 emissions will probably stay about the same, but the black smoke will go away].

Texas is certainly one of the states in the US with low population density [I've spent quite a bit of time in Texas, but not seen more than 10% of the state, so my data is based on the 10% of it that I have seen]. I'm pretty sure that there are more people living in Mexico City than in the entire state of Texas, which is bigger than the country of Mexico. [And I've never been to Mexico ever, so I'm just going by what I've gathered from reading/hearing about it].

--
Mats

racoll · Post by **racoll** » 17 Jan 2005, 15:58

it's quite depressing, but i think janne is right about what he says. i did see quite a good tv programme the other night arguing that nuclear power was the way forward. i'm probably inclined to agree.

the survival of H.zebra is dependent upon whether it is able to retreat and survive above the dam, below the dam, or in a tributaries.

I don't think anyone knows if it will or not.

i also don't think it will help their potential survival in the wild much by catching them first.

(my concern is also with every creature in or near the river, not just H.zebra)

Post by **Dinyar** » 17 Jan 2005, 17:42

Shane wrote:PS I am not picking on Dinyar. I highly value his opinion as he is more knowledgeable than I on the subject of development.

Don't worry, Shane, I'm not feeling picked on. On the contrary, I welcome the opportunity to stimulate an informed discussion of this important issue.

While it's possible to arrive at different interpretations of the data depending on one's point of view (as with practically any subject), there's a hard bedrock of empirical evidence that more or less speaks for itself.

Since your initial comment was about Kyoto, let's look at CO2 emissions.

CO2 emissions per capita, (metric tons)
USA 19.8
EU 8.0
Mexico 4.3
China 2.2
India 1.1

[Data from 1998-2002]
Source: World Bank, The Little Green Data Book, 2004

What folks in Mexico, China, India and other developing countries would say is "Sure, we'll curb our emissions too... once we reach the emission and income levels of countries like the US! Till then, rich countries should clean up their own crummy act and stop getting on our case."

I'm not saying this is the "right" point of view (though it certainly has logic) or should be our point of view, only that we should understand the facts and different societies' perceptions of these facts before we form our own judgments.

Dinyar

Caol_ila · Post by **Caol_ila** » 17 Jan 2005, 17:55

Hi!

I think Shanes point about sovereignity is a big point...the US telling Brasil what to do is a bit like me telling our neighbours how to raise their kids. I might be right in what i say but they just dont care because its not my business in their eyes. And in politics its all about power - Hypancistrus zebra dont cast votes.
What would the US do if Brasilia called and told them to stop overpumping of the Colorado river?

Post by **Barbie** » 17 Jan 2005, 18:43

If the dam is put in, and from what I was told, H. zebra is collected below the rapids, hence the high oxygen concent they need and what not. How do we know what the environmental impact will be? They are collected in deep water already. They do not migrate to spawn, and are only one of dozens of other species that are also exported from the same river, no?

I do think captive raising them is going to be the only method of keeping them available in the hobby. I was asked to provide some pictures and what not of my breeding set up for a report being given to the brazilian government. Hopefully it means that they are considering such an undertaking themselves. Then they'd have an additional source of income, and save these fish from extinction.

Barbie

Post by **Dinyar** » 17 Jan 2005, 18:57

Caol_ila wrote:
At least in the short run, higher retail prices are likely to simply translate into higher margins for middlemen, not local collectors.
Not if you build a "FairTrade" level, as in coffee, tea, honey, fruits and greens etc. Not sure how effective they are but most of what you hear or read sounds good to. Implementing this for the fish trade would need direct imports and a certificate of sustainability and fairtrade maybe. (Which would also mean a zebra would cost 200.- euros...)

Definitely an interesting idea, and it could work as we hope, but it could also have exactly the opposite of the intended effect: an increase in the price to the local collector not offset by a corresponding decrease in final demand could simply result in an unsustainably large increase in collection of species that are already highly stressed to begin with, pushing them irrevocably over the edge.

This is essentially what has happened to many rare mammal, reptile, etc., species in Asia where newly affluent Chinese consumers are now willing to pay a lot more for exotic fauna which are supposed to have tonic powers in traditional Chinese medicine.

Coffee, tea and other commercial crops work a bit differently, because an increase in demand should over time result in a sustainable increase in production and supply. The price elasticity of wild fish production is zero, because wild fish do not adjust their reproduction in light of market signals.

Dinyar

Ethics of Zebra Harvesting?

Would you boycott the sale of wild H.zebra?

Ethics of Zebra Harvesting?