Galaxy Rasboras??

[Baby_Girl]

hi Fisherman. Sorry for the late response, I hope your paper isn't due on Monday!

Anyway, the refernce I posted from NOAA lists over 270 articles in their bibliography. So you could probably use a lot of the ones they consulted. Also, that link is a large 90+ page summary of the findings of many other studies. So it would be helpful for you to look at.

Other than that, search search search your school's library. Even if they don't carry the physical journals, they often subscribe to online publications. So you might be able to download PDF's of the original documents.

[Baby_Girl]

The science of re-introduction has come a long way and will continue to develop. Don't give up hope.

how right you are, badflash!

It's just a shame that man-kind has unwittingly wreaked havoc on our habitat. Often it's too late before we realize the extent of the damage we've done. However, life is a learning process and our collective mistakes have revealed so much to us about how the natural world operates. In some ways it's like the kid who takes apart a watch just to see how it works, only to be unable to assemble it and get it back to working condition. In terms of re-introduction of captive-bred animals (especially aquatic ones) we are really in our infancy. Time can only expand our knowledge and improve our techniques.

lampeye, my example of the learned behavior was just to illustrate how govenrments are spending millions and millions of dollars on hatcheries only to release fish where the majority of them will be swooped up by predators before they can reproduce. It's just a lot of effort toward not much reward, at least at this point in history.

[badflash]

One of the biggest problems with hatcheries is that they don't use natural live foods the animals in the wild would eat. As a kid we would hatch loads of trout by chumming with catfood and drumming on 5 gallon buckets. The fish would come running to the dinner bell.

Luckily, fish have millions of babies, so the few that get smart fast will breed and re-populate. It only takes a few.

[Baby_Girl]

One of the biggest problems with hatcheries is that they don't use natural live foods the animals in the wild would eat. As a kid we would hatch loads of trout by chumming with catfood and drumming on 5 gallon buckets. The fish would come running to the dinner bell.

that's exactly the point I was making!

Another problem with feeding by hand is that this favors the more aggressive, dominant fish. Once they get released, they haven't developed proper 'social skills' to get along with their conspecifics. This might reduce the reproductive output of hatchery-raised fish and, if the majority of fish in a locale are from hatcheries, change the entire interaction dynamic for that species. So I think some facilities are now employing slow-dispensing, continuous feeders to more closely simulate how they would forage in the wild.

I'm now reading that some hatcheries are getting smarter and making their vessels more realistic with substrate, hiding places, and flow regimes that replicate seasonal changes in the watershed, that kind of thing.

[Newjohn]

I believe this is one of the most interesting threads that have been posted in awhile.

But, I think that it needs to have a little more conversation about Inverts.

The Aquarium Hobby is just the last step in the process of over collecting. As badflash stated, the US attempts to keep “Protected” Species from entering the country.

The Hobbyist that may not research the species that they are interested in keeping and may not keep them in conditions that would allow for them to live out there normal Life Span.

The local Pet Stores that may keep these Shrimp / Fish in conditions that may lead to a shortened life.
Hire workers that may know nothing about the animals they are keeping

The Countries that allows the exportation of there Natural Resources.

The Exporters that may ship the Shrimp / Fish to the US and other Countries.
They may keep these Shrimp / Fish in conditions that are not suitable for there long term survival.
They may place too many Shrimp / Fish in and shipping container that may cause a large % of Deaths or Stress that eventually leads to Death.
If they shipped a smaller number per bag the price per Item would increased.

The native areas where the Shrimp / Fish are collected and the small % of Native People that do the actual collecting and are trying to earn a living from this .

The Native Areas that are being changed for the purpose of Tree Harvesting, Farming and/or the introduction of Non-Native Species for the purpose of raising Fish to eat. That are eating every Native Species they can find.

Re-introduction of Species.

Commercial raised Shrimp / Fish may not be a true Species /Type due to the introduction of a different Species/type to there breeding area.

Hobbyist raised Shrimp may not be a True Species/Type due to the above mentioned or the Hobbyist may have introduced a compatible breeding Shrimp to a already established breeding colony.

Responsible hobbyists are the best hope for any species.
John

[Neonshrimp]

Responsible hobbyists are the best hope for any species.

I agree 100% as all of our fellow members should. This is a great topic because we can learn so much from it. Thanks everyone!

[Baby_Girl]

But, I think that it needs to have a little more conversation about Inverts.

yeah, I know

Fish just happen to be my area of professional expertise, so that's the example that came to my mind first. Plus, there is just much more interest (both academic and public) in vertebrates because they are "charismatic megafauna". It's human nature that what we can easily observe and thus perceive as endearing or worth saving receive the most attention. If one looks at the list of endangered or threatened species, very few are without a backbone. The inverts humankind has usually tried to save from extinction are those with economic/fishery importance. Very few (some aesthetically magnificent butterflies come to mind) are listed purely based on appreciation for their existence. Which is truly a shame.

I can't think of any attempts to re-introduce captive-bred invertebrates to decimated populations at an official level. If anyone knows of any, please post it because I'm sure we'd all be interested. Mostly I think we try to preserve valuable inverts such as abalone and lobster through aquaculture for the food industry, and not so much placing them back in their natural habitats.

[Newjohn]

I believe that with habitat destruction or species over collecting, shrimp and fish can easily be interchanged.

I forgot to mention natural disasters, such as hurricanes.

John

[Baby_Girl]

heehee, notice how I edited my post above 4 times? After posting, I came up with some invert examples and reasons why humankind tends to overlook our 'spineless' buddies.

[Baby_Girl]

speaking of hurricanes and natural disasters, John, it got me thinking about lampeye's previous point about protecting tracts of natural habitat. I have done some work on Marine Protected Areas (MPA's) and as many of you probably know, the state of California has recently made history by making a large portion of our coastal waters into natural reserves. Of course, many of these MPA's were established for the purpose of protecting commercially valuable fish species such as rockfish, but their existence will certainly help preserve some native inverts as well.

But one of the big questions was: if the state has decided to allot a certain number of square mileage to be protected, what's the most effective way of distributing this MPA? Is it more beneficial to make one huge tract of reserve, or many smaller ones that are not contiguous? The first is better for protecting a larger proportion of a certain population and its breeding area, not to mention its prey organisms (and many incidental inverts). However, non-continuous tracts have the advantage of better being able to survive a natural disaster. For example, if a hurricane came through one region and the MPA is located smack dab in that affected area, we lose everything. But if policy-makers have spread the risk by establishing several smaller reserves, there's a better chance that one or more will survive a natural disaster. It's a hard balance to strike, and is a matter of tradeoffs. Policies are never easy to write, and this recent change in my home state has not been without many arguments back and forth.

[badflash]

I'd vote for several smaller reserves as long as they were large enough to support the species. How the heck are they going to enforce this though? Laws without enforcement are pretty worthless.

[Baby_Girl]

You hit the nail on the head, badflash. That's the MAJOR downfall of MPA's. THere's simply not enough manpower to enforce the borders so fishermen sneak in quite commonly. After 9/11 and the recession, there were nation-wide hiring freezes at governmental conservation agencies. I've even heard rumors that the United States Fish&Wildlife Service is basically being disbanded slowly and all management is to be taken over by individual states. Only this year are agencies finally open to hiring people from outside, rather than only promoting from within.

Obviously, the state of CA spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the research to establish these new protected areas. How much they have leftover to hire enforcement is unknown to me. Most of the folks I know that work there are fisheries biologists, and not wardens so I can't tell you how well the borders are working out.

I guess at least it's a step in the right direction. *shrug*

[Mustafa]

I guess I'm not making my point exactly clear - I'm not concerned with alienation, I'm concerned with the tropical fish industry being portrayed as a negative force in terms of conservation. It is an exceedingly slim chance that collecting fish for the aquarium hobby is ever going to cause the extinction of a fish in the wild. If that is possible for a given species, then it's doomed to begin with: A drought, a chemical spill, a flood, etc is going to take it out first.

And on that note, I've talked myself out on this subject.

I could not disagree more. Unscrupulous collectors, exporters and importers *have* caused the extinction of many species, the most prominent being Epalzeorhynchos frenatum ("Labeo frenatus"), the ubiquitous "red-tail shark." This fish is gone from the wild because right after it was discovered there was such a high demand for the fish that it got collected out of existence. "Luckily" fish farms in southeast asia had started breeding these fish and now you can get them for a few bucks in most fish stores. There are several other species that met the same fate, but I would have to dig around to come up with species names.

There are other examples of animals being driven into extinction or the edge of extinction by unscrupulous collectors. Dozens of species of parrots come to mind....

The situation is probably worse with shrimp. Nobody, not even most environmentalists, seem to care much for shrimp, so there aren't all that many initiatives to protect and save them. As sad as it is, the only "saving grace" for shrimp may be that they die so easily during transport and it *may* become unprofitable for exporters to constantly get complaints from importers about "dead on arrivals."

Bottom line is, any scarce resource that is exploited in an uncontrolled way, especially animals, will disappear if demand for such a resource is high and exploitation is profitable. There is no factory that makes these animals and they can't breed fast enough in the wild (thanks to predators and lack of enough food) to meet high demand by millions of people.

The only responsible and long-term way to enjoy *any* pet is to establish captive breeding populations. Even if collecting and shipping animals does not immediately endanger their population, the fact that in many (most?) cases more animals die on their way to our pet stores after capture than actually survive should be reason enough to stop catching wild animals for direct sale. It's good to switch on one's sense for right and wrong once in a while.

As for the "100% of fish left in the wild die" comment...by that logic (i.e. everything dies eventually) we could just all pick up guns and start shooting people (disclaimer: I do NOT encourage such behavior) and say "well, they would have died sooner or later anyway." Not a logical argument at all.

As for the aquarium industry protecting natural areas...that's wishful thinking in most cases. The collectors and exporters are not concerned about where the fish and shrimp come from. As there is competition for the fish and shrimp, the collectors will try to catch every single fish/shrimp they can before the competition does. This comment is like saying: "the fishing industry helps to protect the oceans and save fish" or "the whaling industry will protect the oceans so whales have a place to live and prosper." We all know now that is not the case and never was. The whaling industry has been outlawed by treaties (for the most part) because the whales were disappearing and the fishing industry is a highly subsidized industry that has overfished the oceans and is scrambling to find newer and deeper waters with more fish so that deman can be met. These people are short-sighted and care about their bottom lines and don't understand much about why it's not a good idea to destroy the source of your income. Again, their logic is...if *we* don't do it, others will..so it might as well be us.

Although I am not a big fan of how most fish farms are run, captive breeding is the future of the pet industry.

[lampeye]

Sorry. Hate to be argumentative, but...I'm still going to go with my "exceedingly slim" wording. The red-tailed shark may be gone from the wild, but it is not extinct. While (with some digging!) you may be able to find a literal handful of species like the red-tailed shark that have been impacted negatively and permanently by overcollecting, it would be a TINY FRACTION of those wiped out by habitat destruction and/or introduction of alien species for fishing/food purposes. Literally a drop in the bucket.

Birds and large mammals have much lower recruitment rate than fish and invertebrates, so parrots, big cats and other large vertebrates are outside the scope of my argument, and, I feel, this discussion.

In a way, the shark argument makes my point - BECAUSE of the heavy demand for that fish, it's future is fairly stable. What would have happened to Botia (whatever genus it's in now) sidthimunki if it weren't for the tropical fish industry?

Fact: The WORST OF THE WORST industry practices will NEVER, EVER do the harm that overpopulation, overdevelopment, industrialization and large-scale agriculture will do.

Do we have a responsibility to the fish, shrimp, plants and other biota we love so much? You're damn right we do. Do we need to remember every consumer dollar is a vote, and that we can "vote against" harmful industry practices? I think we all agree on the answer to that one.

MY POINT: I just want to caution against demonizing segments of our hobby, where well-reasoned action and "voting" with our wallets will better serve, lest we see the hobby regulated out of existence.

And as far as my "not logical argument," look again - there's a "wink" emoticon there to denote my intention as sardonic/tongue-in-cheek. I just felt the discussion was turning a bit silly. And please do not imply, however indirectly, that my sense of "right and wrong" is not "turned on."

[Mustafa]

I just felt the discussion was turning a bit silly.

Agree, and posts like your last one (and others before in this thread) are contributing a huge part to it (Just because one thing is a lesser evil does not mean it's still not "evil.") At this point this discussion has nothing to do with shrimp anymore. Thread closed. (And I stand by what I posted before as it's still valid).