> This isn't the only reason not to release them back to the wild I
guess. There is always the old disease chestnut - and our recently
discussed TB/Ulcer Disease is a good example. The intended returnees
could look OK but be riddled with TB (latent of course due to our
Before any aquarium fish get released into the wild they should be
checked by a qualified fish vet. Mind you, I doubt they ever are.
Did Qld DPI check their eachams before they stuck 'em back in the lake?
I'll bet if a disease did turn up they would blame the aquarists, not
themselves. ANGFA should be lobbying for tighter monitoring of diseases
from hatcheries. Also, has anyone looked for ulcer type TB problems in wild
fish whether latent or not? If it is already in wild populations then it
becomes kind of a mute point to a degree.
> Now let us consider the "never to be returned to the wild" label a
little further - if such a dictum really does hold sway. If the powers
that be do make this decision and cast it in stone then we have to do a
bit more pondering on our motivation for conservation oriented
population maintenance. >
Exactly. I think this statement should really read that any conservation
efforts should be done in conjuction with the relevant authorities before
anyone begins a breeding program. The guidelines for breeding programs
are all there, ACN has done that. Albeit they should be modified
slightly but the guts of it is there in print. As I have already said,
carefully define your breeding programs goals before starting any programs.
> If the only justification is to maintain a strain/species for aquarium
purposes, are we justified in trying to maintain the "wild" phenotype
especially if it is a species that would be more "popular" with
I think this is a mute point. What if we had dabbled with eachamensis?
I think a problem with ameteur aquarists is that they seem to sit back
and hope the "professionals" will come and ask for help. We need to get
in the porefessionals faces and lobby them until agreeance can be reached
on meaningful captive breeding programs. But again, specific goals are
crucial. There is no point setting up a breeding program for
trifasciatas. However, how many maccullochi are still found around
Cairns/Townsville? How hard would it be to set up some refuge
populations in that area with captive raised fish originally from that
area? (Which was a distinctive variety I believe?) These refuges
could then be used to restock former habitats. Further to this, these
populations could be monitored and the original reasons for their decline
could be determined. "Attack" the local councils that may be a bit more
environmentally orientated. Get them on your side, then "attack" DPI. You
need to be organised and professional in your conduct. Start small,
prove yourself and go from there.
>do we select the most
>outstanding specimens from each generation to carry on the line
>(remember they probably still all have more or less the same genotype -
>or do they?) or do we stick to stock that looks like the average
>representatives of the original population? >
Again, try a mix of breeders and remove anything too abnormal. However,
it is also important to know the variation in the wild populations. Why
not set up an experiment, maintain several different lines of a rainbow
stock. Selectively breed a couple of those for a particular trait and
try and keep some others "normal". Compare the genetic variation after a
few generations. The biggest problem with this is it is hard to detect
genetic changes in only one or a few traits. But unless you try you'll
never know. There are many experiments of this kind that aquarists, with
the appropriate supervision and advice could do.
Hooroo
Peter Unmack