[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: "Extinct" pupfish (longish)-even longer
Hi Wright,
First of all I do not want to take away from any of the great conservation
efforts going on out there. Nor do I mean to devalue any of the fine people
that care for fish that no longer exist in the wild. Nor am I impugning the
capabilities of any of the fish breeders on this list. And I would humbly
like to apologize for anything else I am about to say that might get someone
or even everyone up in arms. But I remain in favor of habitat preservation
where possible as well as larger scale, better funded conservation efforts,
than we can offer, to preserve species. Keeping fish "in the hobby" to
preserve a species, still seems to me to be a last ditch effort after
everything else has failed.
Lets think about what an ideal conservation program should look like. First
of all it should be set up at multiple sights. Each sight should have a
sufficient population to maintain genetic diversity. It should have water
preparation facilities capable of duplicating the appropriate water
conditions. It should have holding pools large enough for the fish to
maintain their natural behavior patterns and territories as applicable.
Filters, heaters, chillers, etc. need to be redundant systems with power
backups. Experienced staff needs to be on site or on call 24 X 7.
If the facility can not be appropriately located outdoors, synthetic
"natural" lighting needs to be arranged. The appropriate algae's
crustations, etc. from the fish's natural habitat need to be cultivated with
the same care.
There are very few fish rooms among all of us that could come close to
meeting the ideal requirements for maintaining an extinct or endangered
species properly.
I have at least two fish populations that have been in captivity for over 20
years. They are much more reproductive and easy to care for than their wild
imported counterparts. Their coloration and size appear to differ also.
Unfortunately the original breeders of these fish are no longer with us to
advise if that is the way they originally were, but I would guess, that
through selective breeding over 30 or 50 generations, the fish have changed
substantially.
The fish that you listed are relatively attractive and easy to maintain, as
a group, we have a much worse record when it comes to difficult or less
attractive fish.
You can argue, that when it comes to extinct fish any chance at life is
better than nonexistence. On the other hand, If a population is in trouble
and conservation measures are in process, I still believe that the market
for the endangered species becomes a threat to the remaining wild specimens.
Search your soul and be entirely honest about it, reread then answer the
following question:
It's Friday night and you just left the pet shop, a non-descript fellow
shows you a bag of devil's hole pup fish. They are a prime adult pair in
very good condition. He offers them to you for only $20.00. He claims that
he breeds them in secret. You have the $20.00 plus enough for your bills,
taxes, tolls and gas to get home. What do you do?
a)Say "Oh no they are unlawful to possess". Then you walk away, so that he
will sell them to the next person that walks by.
b)Dig into you pocket and hand the fellow $20.00. Run home, flush something
out of a fish tank. and set up a pup fish spawning tank.
Some of you may have chosen option "a" I suspect that many of you would have
chosen option "b". In either case you could defend your choice.
If you chose option "a" you are a good citizen but you have most likely
condemned the fish to a community tank with large cichlids or goldfish.
If you chose option "b" and you are a competent pup fish breeder, you are
doing something good for the hobby and the fish, but you are now a criminal.
Your crime will get worse if you get the fish to breed.
Now if we make it legal to possess captive populations of these pupfish.
Just about everyone on this list would chose option "b". There is now no
longer anything wrong with buying the fish, nor is there anything wrong with
selling them. In any event this is the best thing that could happen to those
fish in the bag anyway, right?
Would your answer to the last question change if I told you that the fellow
selling you the fish has a moist long handle dip net and a covered bucket
full of these killies in the bed of his truck? How about if I told you he
does not even own a fish tank?
In principle, I HATE government regulation. It usually makes things worse.
But I know human nature too. There are way too many people that would
actually pay more for endangered or extinct fish even if they are less
colorful or less interesting than common ones. Where there is a demand there
will be a market. If there were a way to differentiate wild from captive
raised fish I would be 100% on your side here. As there is no way to tell
one from the other, we could do registration and licensing. But imagine what
your government could do with that?
If anyone has any doubts about my assessment, try listing a pr of devil's
hole pup fish on aquabid and see what happens. Some people will no doubt
object, but, others will no doubt bid big bucks, sight unseen.
If anyone or everyone really wants to save a pupfish or any other fish from
extinction maybe they should gather together to buy a piece of stream or
water hole. Or raise the funds to build a proper facility rather than
allocate a space in the basement. Once the fish are propagated in these
facilities or in nature, and they are no longer in danger of extinction,
then we should propagate them into the hobby as a failsafe. I know that it
feels better to do a little something than nothing at all. But some things
just need to be done right. In the mean time I believe that everyone that is
interested in pupfish should try uncommon fish that are not endangered yet.
The experience that they gather could be invaluable down the road. For
people that live near the pupfish habitats, they can do whatever they can to
preserve them, habitats and all.
Over all I'm not against keeping endangered fish in the hobby, I am just
against the hobby taking too many endangered fish out of the wild, where
they should be in the first place. And I think species maintenence is a
great idea, I just would not bet the farm on it, if there was any better
way.
Peace,
~RJ~
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-killietalk at AKA_Org [mailto:owner-killietalk at AKA_Org]On
Behalf Of Wright Huntley
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 8:26 PM
To: killietalk at AKA_Org
Subject: Re: "Extinct" pupfish (longish)
Tranquility Base wrote:
> Hi Wright,
>
> I am not entirely sure that I agree with the concept of saving a species
> through this hobby.
Saving a species? I agree that that might be a too-ambitious goal at the
current level of our hobby. We can only whittle at a few corners, IMO.
> In my time working with killies I have seen more than a
> few so called rare species evaporate.
Exactly why KCC was set up! The intent was too keep them going longer (maybe
forever?) IN THE HOBBY! Losing species due to carelessness just isn't
responsible husbandry.
Roger Langton's Endangered Species Program is also that kind of attempt,
where real extinction is imminent. Please study it and contribute your
experience and opinions. As Charley Nunciata has said of the KCC efforts,
the only sure way to fail is to not even try.
>
> Although many of us are pretty good at keeping killifish, there are very
few
> I would entrust with the very last of a species. If I had a dime for
every
> population that got wiped out in a fish room because of a missed water
> change, heat wave, power failure, leaking fish tank, heater malfunction,
> water company screw up, mystery disease, over medication, under
medication,
> chemical contaminant, bad sex ratio and minor and major errors in
judgment,
> I would be pretty well off.
That is why KCC never tries to work with only one fishroom. That would be
the height of folly and I don't care *how* good folks think that particular
breeder is.
>
> I am not saying that if enough people work collaboratively that a
population
> could not be preserved. But we have a pretty poor track record. Lenny
> Mackoviak has a collection of photos of fish he brought in during his
tenure
> as AKA new and rare chairman. Most of these collections are long gone.
Actually, RJ, I think the track record is pretty decent. Check with the many
KCC Coordinators for how many easy, pretty species we have kept going in the
hobby despite a tendency for breeders to drop them when they become too
common. All it takes is for most serious (I didn't say expert) breeders to
devote a few tanks for a couple of years, and let the coordinators know when
they wants to move on.
>
> If there are sufficient specimens available to distribute to the hobby and
> the wild population is relatively secure, it should be done. On the other
> hand the primary conservation effort for an endangered species should not
> depend on amateur hobbyists.
That depends, very much, on who values them and for what reasons -- pure and
simple. Congress cannot pass a law that gives any animal intrinsic "value."
They can create a criminal class by not recognizing their own limits,
though.
I think hobbyists place a far, far greater value on having *Fp. oseri*
around than any bureaucrat could or would. What is more, they can do it
without a multi-million-dollar empire and dozens of restrictive laws, so
they do.
If the current *oseri* program in KCC is as successful as for the WAL GH
74/2, I think we will have done it again. [Neither of these, BTW, is
believed to exist in the wild, any more.]
>
> As it is impossible to distinguish wild collected fish from those that are
> legitimately in the hobby, it will be very hard to prosecute poachers.
IMHO, it is utterly absurd to make legitimate producers of endangered
species into criminals. That we do it speaks more to the intellectual
bankruptcy of the green bigot brigade, than to anything that makes an iota
of common sense.
> Here
> in the peoples republic of NJ the Corn snake is endangered. Possession of
> such a snake is a crime.
Did I say that was wise or prudent? Do I think it is a good way to preserve
the corn snake? I guess I'm quite unwilling to accept your underlying
assumptions that such stuff is a given and never to be questioned.
> Albinos may be bred and kept, and are both abundant
> and popular. As they are easy to distinguish from the wild specimens there
> is no legal problem unless you accidentally wind up with a normal colored
> offspring. Then bad things are likely to happen to you. The state
recommends
> that people not breed their albino corn snakes for this reason.
Huh? And you see *any* logic in that? :-)
Sorry. That is not why they want folks to not breed them. They want a bigger
budget next year and something more to police. Concern for the actual animal
is often quite strong in the field personnel, but it rarely gets even one
level above them in such force-based efforts.
>
> The only way for domestic and wild populations of an endangered fish to
> safely coexist is through some very onerous regulation and enforcement.
Hogwash. I defy you to intellectually defend that emotional statement! There
are dozens of KCC fish species that fit that definition precisely. The wild
and captive populations are *both* doing very well, indeed, in many cases.
In most, the likliest to fail is usually the wild population due to
3rd-World development pressure, and not the hobby collection.
Only when the law is set up to create a new police force do they even come
into conflict. I admit, we Americans are disinclined to reject any aspect of
the total police state in this current era, but, until they come and get me,
I probably will. [The Emperor has an unusually attractive Jock Strap, don't
you think?]
> And
> if you think that the government can screw up wildlife management, wait
and
> see what they will do to the poor killie breeder that happens to wind up
> with a few extra pupfish!
Unfortunately, we have been blessed with some unscrupulous hobbyists who
gave them plenty of reason to be suspicious, too. [I believe they were
caught with scuba gear in Devil's Hole a while back.]
>
> Some years back, I was sitting back and having a few beers with a few
locals
> when I spotted a very large rare bird. Having never seen two of them at
one
> time, I commented that I had always wondered if it was the same one I had
> seen before or if there were more about. One redneck commented that there
> were at least two some time back, as he had shot one. I asked him why he
> would do such a thing. He replied "I thought, same as you, it might be the
> last one and if I didn't shoot it then, I might never get another chance."
> I found myself at a loss to argue with such eloquent logic, realizing that
> we did not share a common reference set of values, I reached for another
> beer still pondering if the bird that flew by was the last one.
>
> Under the same logic, given a chance and a market, some genius is most
> certainly going to make sure to collect the very last of a given fish
before
> he misses the opportunity. And if you ever come across a certain middle
age
> redneck, (or any of his offspring or like minded individuals), boasting
> about having more than his or their fair share of endangered species
points,
> for goodness sake, never mention the word pupfish in his or their company.
> They may not look too bright, but I'm sure with a the vast determination
of
> an otherwise uncluttered mind, a little effort, a bucket and something in
> the back of the pickup that can be used as a net, another species of
pupfish
> will join the ranks of the lost.
That thinking, RJ, is *exactly* the result one should suspect will happen
under a philosophy of prohibition. That's why a War on Drugs floods the
inner city with crack, because it becomes a govt. price-support program for
hoods. [We did it earlier when bathtub gin replaced good London Dry at 4X
the price, but alcoholism went way up, anyway. Made millionaires out of the
gangsters. too.]
Do you think it was the hobbyists (including those poachers) or was it BLM,
F&WL and Natl. Park Service that caused "Kill The Pupfish" bumper stickers
to crop up all over NV?
The truth is that most killifish get wiped out because they are beneath the
notice level of the subsistence farmer or miner who wants their puddle.
Often encouragement for planting of game and food fish is all it takes. It
is amusing to watch the New Zealanders "protecting" their "native" trout
fisheries! :-)
We are fortunate that we have effectively killed any serious ($$$$) market
for rare killifish, and I hope we keep it that way. It is true because our
very best breeders have been extremely generous with sharing their fish and
knowledge. The economic demand for strange, difficult little fish is really
pretty easy to saturate.
When one political jurisdiction outlaws their husbandry, people seem to find
ways to be sure they are still around in another.
Their biggest reason for being endangered in our hobby (discounting
congressional stupidity) is the limited number of folks who care and their
fishroom limitations. A few keep a species for many many years, but most
don't. Those fascinated by the "New and Rare" may be the first to tire of a
species and go looking for a new challenge. KCC can keep them going for a
lot longer, by just being there.
The structure pioneered in the KCC, as assisted by SMC, and now the ESP, has
taught us a little about how to coordinate hobbyists to keep from losing
fish species/collections like we did earlier. It is not entirely unlike
herding cats, but Roger and Charley have taught us a lot, and we all
continue to learn as we keep doing it.
HTH,
Wright
>
> Peace,
>
> ~RJ~
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-killietalk at AKA_Org [mailto:owner-killietalk at AKA_Org]On
> Behalf Of Wright Huntley
> Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 12:25 PM
> To: killietalk at AKA_Org
> Subject: Re: "Extinct" pupfish
>
>
>
>
> Bill Wallace wrote:
> > The pupfish are U.S. fish, right?
>
> No, mostly Mexicans, these days.
>
> > So if some specied are extinct in the
> > wild, are they still controlled in the US?
>
> Yes, they would be, AFAIK.
>
> > If so, then us Canadians
> > should help maintain them for you, since I doubt that they are
controlled
> > up here (they certainly aren't native to Canada - although there are a
> > few killies that are, even a few here in Ontario). That would allow us
> > to eventually re-introduce them at some point. Is anyone working on
this
> > in Canada?
>
> Not to my knowledge. Check your laws, for they are usually written to
> protect the bureaucrat's turf, and rarely to get the intended results. It
> may be illegal, as in the US, to import a species declared endangered or
> threatened by the govt. where it originates (even if, like all pupfish, it
> is not on the CITES list).
>
> Mostly the known "extinct" species of *Cyprinodon* in the wild are
Mexican.
> Because of the stupidity of our lawmakers, anything that goes extinct in
the
> US is really extinct, for keeping them in captivity is a serious crime
> except under most unusual circumstances. I'm not aware of any recently
> extinct US *Cyprinodon*s beside *b. [n.] calidae*, but there are several
> *Empetrichthys*, I think, that have been lost in recent years. We'll
likely
> lose *Cyprinodon radiosus* one of these days, as 7 different govt.
agencies
> engage in turf wars over their dwindling habitats and numbers. Meanwhile,
> hobbyists are forbidden to keep any alive, for that would take pressure
off
> that career-building turf war. The agencies often *need* them in serious
> danger to get their budgets approved.
>
> Earlier exports to Europe, and maybe even a little smuggling, have assured
> that most of the endangered and now extinct pupfish species of Mexico are
> still alive and well.
>
> Some argue that you can never reintroduce aquarium-raised fish to the
wild.
> Those of us who spend a lot of our weekends at places like Roger's Spring
> and Ash Meadows, removing "tropical" exotics, can tell you how utterly
> wrong-headed *they* are. :-)
>
> Wright
>
--
Wright Huntley -- 209 521-0557 -- 731 Loletta Ave, Modesto CA 95351
We have a million monkeys typing on a million keyboards.
The 'net still does not look much like Shakespeare.
http://www.sfbaka.net/
---------------
See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe
Join the AKA at http://www.aka.org/AKA/Applic.htm
---------------------------------------------
Introducing NetZero Long Distance
1st month Free!
Sign up today at: www.netzerolongdistance.com
---------------
See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe
Join the AKA at http://www.aka.org/AKA/Applic.htm