Let me add a couple of comments to the discussion (and Peter's email):
>On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Shireen Gonzaga wrote:
>
>> There's something I've always wondered about endangered native fish.
>> Obviously, habitat restoration is the way to save them. But are there
>> any efforts, particularly at research institutions, to keep them and
>> breed them--that is, indefinitely sustain them--in captivity? I'm not
>> suggesting they should be returned to the wild (tho' tell that to the
>> American Condor :-), but the idea of keeping a species "alive" in
>> captivity has a sort of creepy appeal.
>
>Talking strictly about USA species there are several species in hatcheries,
>like Dexter (as Mark pointed out) and there is the ESA which also goes a long
>way to protecting threatened species. Indefinately keeping species in
>captivity is not a good answer for conserving them unless there is absolutely
>no way they can remain in the wild (in which case it is their last hope).
>
>Aquarists are not granted permits to keep species listed under the ESA. There
>are several good reasons for this, one being that they want to prevent people
>taking matters into their own hands. Misinformed, but well intentioned
>actions can do significant harm under certain circumstances as has been
>discussed on the NANFA list many times.
As a short note let's just shortly mention introducing "foreign" parasites
and non-authochtonous stock (of the respective threatened species but from
another drainage system) as the major unreversible actions resulting from
uninformed good intentions.
To be fair, I don't think the U.S. (or most/all other countries for that
matter) have a rather poor performance with "official" ex-situ conservation
of freshwater fishes either... :o(
The early programmes seemed to have seriously lacked practical input by
knowledgeable "hobbyists".
The Nuevo Leon story is even more sad since appropiate captivity skills
were around when the last killifish, molluscs and crustacean species got
extinct out there - gone forever.
However, if there are still some specimens of the respective species
around, it is usually completely sufficient to improve the habitat - once
it's quality improves, the fish are back in surprisingly short time (and
reasonable numbers)! However, introduction of non-native species is one of
the nastiest ways of "pollution" - Peter has ample experience with
this... :o(
>> I've started thinking about all this because I recently acquired fish
>> from the Dominican Republic that are in trouble in the wild (it was
>> legally collected), and I am trying to understand why I was so anxious to
>> take them in and breed them, and delighted to have that opportunity.
>
>There are some places in the world where captive maintainence will be a
>species only way of continuing their existance. Everyone has heard of the
>situation in northern Mexico and Madagascar. There are many zoos and
>aquariums with conservation programs with these species. The role of
>aquarists has been minimal so far, in part due to the difficultly of
>administering such a system and also because there are no checks and balances
>to ensure that populations don't get mixed or hybridized with other species
I don't think hybridization is a major issue if you work with really
dedicated people - however the necessary management and paper work needs
quite a lot of time; administrative issues can be a daunting task too. The
ACN (Aquatic Conservation Network, www.acn.ca) once set out to start
breeding programs with fishes from Madagascar but it seems to be _very_
difficult to find volunteers who are willing to invest their spare time in
organizing/coordinating programs for any species (especially if they are
not "hot" aquarium fish).
The only hobbyist program which strives for professional standards I know
of worldwide is run by the International Anabantoid Association (IAA, more
widely known under the French and German acronyms CIL and IGL,
respectively) since 1995. It follows the official studbook protocol (as
developed by the European equivalent of the American Zoo Assoc., AZA) and
every specimen is documented, so that each lineage can be traced back to
the founder fishes; exchange of offspring between the participating members
is done systematically (under the direction of the manager Robert
Donoso-Buechner) to avoid inbreeding problems (as much as possible). The
populations of this still undescribed fighting fish (which is closely
related to Betta coccina) are endemic to the southwestern corner of the
Malay Peninsula, one of the former peat swamp areas in Southeast Asia which
has been most "successfully" destroyed by "development", especially oil
palm plantations (anybody out here eating ice cream, pommes frites, etc.,
etc.???).
The AAGB (Anabantoid Assoc. of Great Britain) planned to collaborate with
the National University of Singapore on breeding Parosphromenus bintan; but
I don't know of the current status of this project.
>(mind you, I'm not sure what safeguards zoos and aquariums have either --
>perhaps someone who knows the situation could inform us?). Again, I've heard
>many aquarists state how they would never mix species, but it can be very
>easily done accidentally, most just don't recognise it.
Most breeding programs deal with rather large species with a longer
generation time - this makes molecular genetic checks of the parents and
offspring much more feasible. With current methods this poses no problem
with small fishes either but it's certainly still pretty expensive!
>One of the best things that aquarists can contribute is knowledge. I'll bet
>you can't find much written on the husbandry of your fish from the Domincans.
>Unfortunately, few aquarists ever keep any notes, and even fewer ever publish
>them. That is the greatest tradgedy in all this.
I'd second that!
Best wishes,
kai "another meaning of publish or (let) perish..."