> There's a very simple way to keep an endangered population from becoming
> extinct. That is: By doing absolutely nothing! (compared to what aquarists
> usually do!)
Unfortunately, if we did nothing we would lose many species because their
habitat is no longer able to support them. In some cases, such as Lake
Victoria, the cause of species extinction may never be removed no matter
how much effort was put into it. The only hope for those species is
translocation (in some cases) or long term captive breeding. Aquarists may
act as an excellent intermediate or end step in maintaining those species.
> If the population of a species in question was found to live naturally in
> relatively small pools, swamps or ponds then the "breeder" would create an
> environment in a similar climate and transfer a number of fish, from
> various parts of the same pool, swamp, or pond to his newly created pond.
Unfortunately, not everyone has those resources. Unlike Australia, most
people don't have large (if any) backyard at all. Also, the climate is
not always suitable. For most people, aquaria are the only way they
could contribute. It would be wonderful if we could all maintain ponds
of endangered species.
> But the underlying question is: What aquarist would want to maintain a
> population without the benefits of studying or changing the fish to become
> "aquarium fish" and not "wild fish". ie, change the appearance and
> behaviour.
There are many people around who try and maintain "wild" strains. They
purposely avoid breeding any unusual varieties.
> I believe that few aquarium-breeding wild fish speices can successfully
> sustain their original genetics. Not only because of the aquarist, but
> also because the aquarium resembles nothing like their natural habitat.
It is generally accepted that some loss of genetic material occurs in
captive breeding programs, although there are strategies designed to
minimise this. I would argue that any genetic material from a species is
better than none.
In terms of changes due to captive vs wild habitats, how much of the
change in captivity is genetic verses behavioural? Also, how much of
their behaviour is genetic? These are the questions that require further
research to quantify.
Tootles
Peter