On Tue, 2 Apr 1996, Cynthia.Teague wrote:
> Les Kaufman said, in part:
{snip snip]=20
=20
>From the little I know about this proposal the whole idea is to get the =
local people to conserve their own fishes. If they are able to do an=20
adequate job of achieving this then why should aquarists need to =
maintain=20
them for conservation purposes? We don't need to be duplicating the=20
efforts of others. There are more than enough endangered fish in the=20
world to go around all the zoos and aquarists (with probably a few=20
species to spare). Also, as has been pointed out, the KEY to the =
success=20
of this project is maintaining a market for the fish. An unsteady or=20
negligable market for the fish is what is most likely to cause this=20
project to fail......
One of the problem with local people conserving their own species is =
that many of the Worlds endangered and threatened species occur in third =
world countries. These Countries are finding it difficult to feed their =
people let along spend their limited resources on conservation. (They =
would probably rather eat them than conserve them). Of course, third =
world countries are not alone, so called developed Countries like =
Australia & the US are reducing conservation funding and the scientific =
community is struggling to find continuing funding for projects already =
in hand.=20
On one hand we have the scientific community who are running out of =
funding and on the other an untapped resource of Aquarists who are =
willing to undertake some of this responsibility. In between these two =
groups we have the Public Aquariums who also have limited resources but =
would like to get involved in Aquatic Conservation. However, they also =
have to provide an interesting public display to attract paying =
customers. Over all these groups we have the Governments, who like the =
proverbial monkey, swings from tree branch to tree branch in tune with =
current political opinion polls.
It seems to me that the Scientific Community, Public Aquaria and the =
Aquarist should try to get together to share their collective expertise. =
There are many endangered species that are just not suitable for =
captive conservation in the home aquariums, but at the same time there =
are many that are.
Most Aquarists have no idea about "third-base nucleotides in a DNA codon =
(trio or triplet of nucleotides))", but their expertise at breeding =
fishes is well known and acknowledge. Some species are considered more =
attractive or desirable while others are not given a second look. (this =
is just a fact of life).
Why not have Public Aquariums concentrate on those species that are not =
suitable for home aquarium maintenance while the individual Aquarist =
maintains those species that are. We then add to this equation the =
Scientific Communities collective expertise on genetics, research, =
etc.,etc., so that the populations in captivity can maintain their =
genetic diversity. Government funding on the other hand could be =
directed to the physical restoration & preservation of their natural =
habitat so that one day we may be able to return captive species back =
into their natural habitats.
We need an organisation to bring this altogether, surely this is a role =
of the Aquatic Conservation Network, or am I horribly mistaken!
Adrian Tappin.
=20