So the tuatara thread fits in with something that has been on my mind this week. A couple days ago, I watched this documentary on YouTube. It’s an hour long, so I’ll give you the TL;DW version below. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3KccNiFIVQ
The video documents an expedition to the Colombian Amazon by an ichthyologist who has discovered dozens of new species all over the world. He searches largely for potential species to introduce into the aquarium hobby. When criticized for this, he counters that to leave the fishes in nature is to condemn them to extinction; that the aquarium hobby is their only hope for the future. The rest of the documentary demonstrates why he says this.
He travels into seemingly remote areas, where no one has ever done research before, and finds the streams already dead, devoid of fish. We’ll never know what used to live there. This is because of the expansion of agriculture, especially cattle, poisoning the streams.
He has been to thousands of National Parks and other “protected” areas and found that they are mostly only protected on paper. The fish situation in these “protected” areas is little different from in non-protected areas.
Even Indigenous people aren’t all they are cracked up to be, conservation-wise. In the documentary, he goes to an Indigenous reserve, into what looks like beautiful, intact forest; but their streams, too, are mostly dead because they fish with barbasco.
Now, I’m not taking that video at face value. It is clear that the channel is mainly directed toward aquarium hobbyists; the hosts even pitch aquarium-related products at several points. So it isn’t exactly unbiased. And it does raise doubts in my mind that he is saying such the opposite of conservationists concerned with other taxa – there are reasons why herpers are so tight-lipped about their “good spots,” for example; why we really shouldn’t post the locations of orchids and succulents; and why the market demand for cage birds is seen as a net negative, fueling poaching or at least unsustainable levels of collection.
Still, I have traveled in Latin America, and I cannot deny that there is essentially no habitat outside “protected” areas, and that the pressure on “protected” areas casts doubt on them, too. As much as I have enjoyed visiting those pats of the world, it can feel like I’m in a game of Extinct-a-Thon (thanks to Margaret Atwood for that word).
So, what about it? Can there be hope for freshwater fishes “in nature” (however you define that)? Or is bringing them into the aquarium hobby to be bred in captivity their only chance?
That’s like a meaning-of-life level question lol. Honestly I think it’s pointless to preserve species in captivity unless they or their descendants are going to be released into nature. Exactly how it needs to be done is obviously a complex answer, but I don’t think preserving nature is hopeless, and I certainly think it should be the ideal. If we give up now there’s definitely no chance at preserving natural environments.
I am stunned to read complete and not entirely kind dismissals of people and entire regions.
My experiences have been very different from yours.
That said, if I understand correctly, you mean to discuss the hope for fish. Perhaps you might look toward organizations within the countries themselves, such as MOJA, SDSN, etc. working to restore the chinampas, the habitat of the Ajolote mexicano and other species of Xochimilco, for example.
The only option to preserve a species long-term cannot be in an aquarium. The habitat must be restored.
He can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think he meant that the perception that all indigenous people are “in tune with nature” isn’t necessarily true, they are human like the rest of us, some are environmentally conscious and some are not. And it is an unfortunate reality that many underdeveloped countries have very poor environmental protections
As for the original question, I might argue that popularizing a species in the pet trade might actually contribute to its demise in the wild, as many species are severely threatened by collecting for the pet trade. Best to focus on helping at-risk species by preserving their wild habitat.
I have at various times kept fish, crawfish, lizards, and more as pets, but only keeping local non-threatened species I catch from the wild (legally) myself
I see similar sentiments with endangered plants, especially orchids. Taking them out of their natural environment puts them one step closer to extinction. Making them common in the plant trade reduces pressure to remove them from the environment and produces a genetic pool that can be drawn on if there is ever an effort to reintroduce the species to the wild. Best answer is to leave them and their habitat alone so they can thrive but this is fairly naive IMO. People do not follow rules.
I also see orchids covering fallen limbs and trees that are doomed to perish once their substate starts to desiccate. Are they better removed from the environment or left to die?
I have recently been studying the laws and management practices of Open Space Preserves here in California. These preserves are set aside by developers and turned over to the city or county in compensation for the “destruction” of wildlands.
Not being knowledgeable in the law or preserve management practices, this is a steep learning curve. However, my initial impression is that I agree with the above quote.
I will start with my biases, that I have an inherent mistrust of exotic pet hobbyists and fanciers. In their best case scenario they are willing to do for ‘free’, what is necessary as a consequence of what we are not collectively willing to fund - the protection and studying of delicate river ecosystems, a noble aim.
But without the knowledge of that local stream ecology, I don’t see how they can ever return ‘their’ fish to that system, without knowing what the ‘ideal’ conditions of that stream is. Not just all of the different populations living there, but even fundamental chemistries of those systems. Even such basic things as normal Phosphorous concentrations in a whole watershed may be different than what we expect in other systems, so what chance is there that these ‘conservationists’ have the necessary intricate knowledge of the small obscure streams from which they poached those fish?
There are cases of threatened populations, where I believe it is right for a few animals to ‘take one for the team’ and live in poor conditions, to ensure the survival of that species, but I don’t believe fish fancying is that.
TL DR aquarium trade justifying poaching unresearched fish.
No, thank you.
I can sell you the only living specimen of … at a huge cost to cover my travelling expenses.
Marketing of rare species generally leads to overexploitation. With that, the incentive is primarily to make money, rather than to exercise restraint. The only hope for saving these species from extinction is through carefully planned coordinated efforts that combine off-site breeding programs with habitat restoration, followed by reestablishment of wild populations.
However, it is a steep uphill battle. There is so much economic pressure to extract natural resources from natural environments without consideration of longer term consequences.
Indeed. The aquarium trade is ethically very questionable, to put it mildly. It’s even worse with salt-water fishes, many or most of which haven’t yet been successfully bred in captivity, sooo… well, you know what happens next. And in general, the species conservation argument for the aquarium trade is bs in my opinion. Far more species become threatened in the wild this way than are preserved.
For those who speak German, and don’t already know him, Robert Marc Lehmann has made some good videos about this topic.
While I don’t know much about conservation in Latin America (or anywhere else outside Germany), I don’t have much hope for conservation efforts anywhere with the current global “mindset”, honestly. As long as conservation efforts are voluntary and come at the cost of potential income (either of a country, or of an individual) then they will always be at risk. Carbon needs to be treated as a kind of negative currency where those who emit pay and those who don’t, do conservation, etc. get paid (this has been proposed many times by different people, but I can only recommend the book The Ministry of the Future by Kim Stanley Robinson, where this has been explored as well). Otherwise the system simply will never be fair, and will, as I said, always be at risk.
We pay for food, water, everything else. Now that we know that clean air, and a habitable planet are not to be taken for granted, why should conservation be treated any differently?
I can think of a few reasons. First, because it would mean that – like food, water, and everything else – clean air and a habitable planet will become privileges reserved for those who can afford them.
And second, because this would commodify clean air and a habitable planet just as those other things have been commodified; when a community faces a water shortage because a bottled water company has come in to profit off their water supply, it becomes an environmental justice issue.
Maybe so. But when I have seen the same basic pattern in various countries – namely, that everywhere that isn’t a reserve of one kind or another has already been deforested – it’s hard to have much positivity toward the people or the region.
I am so sorry that something seems to have soured you on an entire region and people, whom you spoke of highly not so long ago.
You also extolled the flora.
You seemed so fond as to consider the DR a “heart home” of sorts.
and set a goal of returning
I am sorry something has soured you but please do not dismiss entire peoples. As someone here attempted to offer, there are better and worse people in all corners of the earth.
I hope if your goal remains to get back to the DR that you can do so successfully soon.
That seems to be an exaggeration, and you’ve got to remember that most people in countries like this are incredibly poor and are necessarily more concerned with their immediate welfare than the longterm welfare of the environment. Conservation has to start by remembering that people are part of nature too, and often they too need help. Just think what would happen if the economies in third-world countries were stabilized and revamped to revolve around conservation and ecotourism, like, say, Costa Rica.
Yes, all those things I wrote are still true. It should be noted, though, that the two orchids mentioned are invasive and can live in disturbed habitats. Most of the nature that I love there is of the ruderal kind – epiphytes that persist in pasture trees, the biota of shade-grown cacao, roadside flowers and butterflies, and the seashore. I do love the Dominican countryside; but I can never forget that countryside is not the same as primary forest. There is one observer in particular who seems to observe mainly in the protected reserves – I can tell because I can’t help identify any of their plant observations, since those aren’t the plants that grow in the campos.