RE: "Extinct" pupfish (longish)-even longer

["Bruce Stallsmith" <fundulus at hotmail_com>]

Dave, thank you for that recent history on Devil's Hole Pupfish and other 
natives in the Nevada area. The possibility that Las Vegas is on a water 
grab with the various aquifers reinforces my belief that federal protection 
of both the species and especially habitat is necessary. As to any research 
work with these species, I would think that captive-reared specimens would 
work for most purposes. My lingering qualms with dependence on hobbyist 
production of such specimens isn't that many hobbyists couldn't do it, but 
rather a question of who's in it for the long haul. Al Castro and others did 
commendable work. But FWS people responsible for these fish were just that, 
responsible. That takes the form of annyoing paperwork and all that.

I've seen endangered fishes in north Alabama that are restricted to one or 
two habitats, not unlike Cyp. diabolis. The rush darter, Etheostoma 
phytophilum, is an endangered species with two disjunct populations. One of 
these populations is in what looks like a roadside ditch formed by a paved 
over spring along a suburban strip highway outside Birmingham, with a bus 
company yard adjoining. Given that Birmingham is growing like Atlanta has 
been lately, this population is toast without some protection. I guess it 
gets into values too, how many people really care about it? That will also 
determine the fate of Cyp. diabolis. Water or funny fish, you choose!

--Bruce Stallsmith
Huntsville, AL, US of A

>Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 18:06:19 -0800
>From: owner-killietalk at aka_org (by way of Barry Cooper <bjc3 at cornell_edu>)
>Subject: RE: "Extinct" pupfish (longish)-even longer
>
>Dr. Bruce, Mr. Wright, et. al.
>
>About 10 years when I started a series of visits to Ash Meadows I began a
>discussion with the then range biologist, Doug Treloff, about what a fish
>hobbyist could do to help in the effort to conserve the pupfish.  Being at 
>a
>distance it was difficult to get involved with the maintenance effort like
>the current Desert Springs Action Committee does in assisting with the
>elimination of exotics and removal of the salt cedar which "wicks up" a
>temendous amount of water through transpiration and limits the size of the
>aqueous habitat.  Doug felt that there was not enough known about the
>husbandry of these fish so that intelligent design choices could be made in
>constructing these artifical refugia.
>
>Later, during Dave St. George's first stint as range biologist, the new
>refugium at Point of Rocks Spring (several hundred yards from Devil's Hole)
>was in operation for only a couple of seasons.  It was the first attempt to
>try to design habitat other than the concrete tank approach.  If I recall,
>the refuge had a cavern type design but was oriented to maximize algae
>growth on the concrete walls.   The refuge is not only surrounded by a gate
>but has a locked, chain-link, sliding gate over the artifical pool.  For 
>the
>first two years, reproduction of pups in the refuge was not too good and 
>the
>sex ratio was terribly skewed to males.  Water for the refuge came from an
>upslope spring where part of the water is diverted from the spring to the
>refuge.  Without the benefit of association with a large body of water like
>at Devil's Hole, water in the refugium would cool significantly during the
>colder winter weather and the refugium was covered with a translucent cover
>during winter months to retain heat.  But the cover was removed in the
>spring to enhance the growth of algae figuring the increased food source 
>was
>the trigger for reproduction.  What this ended up causing was a much
>narrower window for which the water in the refugium stayed above a "magic"
>82 F temperature.  Based on some observations on sex-temperature ratio
>results I had seen with other killies I suggested to Dave that maybe 
>keeping
>the cover on the refugium longer (reducing nighttime cooling) might 
>lengthen
>the spawning season and correct the sex ratio problem.  Dave did that the
>next year and the ratios began to even out.
>
>Treloff had this information in mind when he suggested that the husbandry 
>of
>the other Death Valley killies be investigated so that there would be some
>intelligent input into refugium design for the other 3 pupfish.  When you
>think about some of these problems (size differential in refugium versus
>natural habitat fish) in trying to save Cyp. diabolis you can see why
>wildlife managers don't hold out much hope for hobbyist tank raised killies
>to be placed back in the wild.  However, the approach to understanding the
>variables that would allow the maintainence of a healthy population of fish
>I think is still needed by these managers.  Here is where the hobbyist can
>play a part.  You can also debate the merits of the academic researcher as
>to whether or not they may care about species survival.  I would like to
>know just how critical it is that wild stock is always needed for research
>for every species or can aquarium raised stock be substituted for a good 
>bit
>of the research.  If one already knows that wild populations are much more
>more genetically diverse than captive populations, how much more 
>information
>is needed for another species and are there not sampling algorithms that
>allow one to estimate what that factor is from just a few wild fish?  Can
>the hobbyist again relieve some of the pressures for research animals with
>tank raised stock for research?
>
>Dave Koran


_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

---------------
See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe
Join the AKA at http://www.aka.org/AKA/Applic.htm