Wild Rift Lake Fish?

[zakmorrison]

I didn't read through everybody's opinions but wouldn't it be a good thing to stalk endangered and threatened species with captive bred fish? They have done it with tigers rinos ect.

Sent from my H866C using MonsterAquariaNetwork App

 

[neut]

Not quite seeing the correlation but agree this is a fascinating aspect of some of the Rift Lake ecologies, pity that vertebrate speciation generally requires a period of time equivalent to or longer than all of recorded human history, to say nothing of habitat which is in increasingly short supply.

Was addressing point 4 regarding the potential of the system in some of these lakes to repopulate... and reproduce parallels to extant (or recently endangered or extinct) species. What's interesting (to me) is that the evidence reported in some of the science literature indicates that species radiation can or has taken place in far shorter time spans than most would imagine. From the Royal Society (a British Academy of Sciences) article above:

The species flock of rocky-shore dwelling Lake Malawi cichlids known as `Mbuna' contains about 200 species in Malawi's waters. Mitochondrial DNA differentiation shows that the flock as a whole is of extremely recent origin. Almost every rocky outcrop and island has a unique Mbuna fauna, with endemic colour forms and species. As many of these islands and outcrops were dry land within the last 200-300 years, the establishment of the faunas has taken place within that time.

Basically, as this and other references suggest: the lake recedes substantially, number of species recedes, the lake rises again, the remaining species recolonize the newly available habitat and re-radiate in diversity-- and this process appears to have occurred repeatedly in lake Malawi-- this conclusion reached by some scientists based on geological, historical, and genetic evidence. Again, I am not remotely suggesting this justifies apathy or callousness in individual or societal attitudes regarding environmental or conservation concerns. But there are aspects of the natural world's machinery, significant segments of which are barely understood if not largely unknown to us, that may well take little lasting note of our potentially ephemeral and collectively short-sighted tom-foolery.

As to the effect on hobbyists, or 'the hobby', to the extent that Ad Konings is trying to educate hobbyists or to the extent the Stuart Grant fund web site attempts to educate hobbyists or to the extent a discussion such as this thread attempts to educate hobbyists, some of those who are conscientious and well meaning, if in some cases previously unaware, are alerted that there may be more to be concerned with in 'the hobby' than whether brand X fish food is better than brand Y fish food.

Unfortunately, the problems in our little corner of the universe are larger than Lake Malawi.

 

[Avatar]

Good morning

Unfortunately, the problems in our little corner of the universe are larger than Lake Malawi.

All too true and painfully so. In perusing yesterday seems that even the aquarium trade is relatively speaking one of the least problems besetting Lake Malawi though all share one common denominator.

Given the relatedness of Malwai mbuna, et al., their ability to interbreed virtually at will, have to wonder at the liberal use of the term species to describe what is effectively a large closely related complex that would seem just as easily and perhaps more appropriately classed as a collection of variants and sub-species rather than as numerous "species". Not really qualified to dispute the status quo w.r.t. to nomenclature but it does seem that if similar criteria were applied to say Homo sapiens that there would in fact be an abundance of different human species. Perversely amusing to imagine the societal implications and backlash that would be associated with any such overhaul or re-alignnent (could make for an entertaining sci-fi romp if nothing else) but doesn't seem to be a great deal of consistency in the way assignations are determined across families, classes, etc.

"But there are aspects of the natural world's machinery, significant segments of which are barely understood if not largely unknown to us, that may well take little lasting note of our potentially ephemeral and collectively short-sighted tom-foolery."

While poetic in its sentiment and prose, and doubtless true if not in fact understated in terms of "little lasting note", the initial feeling of reassurance I felt upon reading this and being reminded of Earth/life's tenacious resiliency was quickly displaced by a more familiar melancholy. So very much in this life and the nature of our own unfolding human evolution with our magnificent and unprecedented brains and capacity for emotion/awareness that makes the pillage and ruin all the more disconcerting. Along the lines of "If a tree falls in the forest" quandary, and the terminations to so many (and from our perspective) inauspicious species' lines notwithstanding (few would have grieved overmuch 25 million years ago the loss of our own diminutive progenitors, the lowly tree shrew), find myself pondering just how glorious creation can be if there are none to take note. While thoroughly unscientific if only for fact of being untestable, I am handicapped by a sense that the greatest loss may be on to our own potential to explore co-evolution and experience a sort of ecological godhead if you will by supporting the synergy of natural and mutually reinforcing systems. Such fantastic conjecture aside, it remains that humans are the first and only species able to truly choose in that our "place" is largely described by free will rather than being defined by the natural world (at least in the near-term). Hard then to look at the built environment and where it/we are headed and not wonder at/regret our choices.

About a year ago a very good friend was invited to present a screening of a film she produced at the White House. With a face to face meeting with the First Lady (and possibly her husband as well) imminent, I asked how she would answer, if posed, the question of what could be done to solve the problems raised by the the subject of her film. She replied that as a journalist that "wasn't her job", policy not being what journalists do. I remarked that I felt this would be a very poor response to any question from perhaps the most influential and powerful couple in the US if not the world, and a missed opportunity that one might regret for the rest of their days. I asked her to try again and she paused and said, "Teach little girls how to read". With respect to a universal balm for the Earth's ills, am not sure I've ever heard truer words, no wonder then that the implications of her answer almost reduced me to tears. I mention it only because it seems that the basic and fundamental choices we make as individuals and societies are so much more important than rocket science in determining what is possible and what we and this planet ultimately become.

As an aside, where are you and do you ever come to meetings? If you'll tell me what ds stands for I'll know your name - would be pleased to become better acquainted.

Best,
Samuel

 

[neut]

In perusing yesterday seems that even the aquarium trade is relatively speaking one of the least problems besetting Lake Malawi though all share one common denominator.

IMO that's the elephant in the room. From what I've read and sources I've heard from, the major threat is not whatever fraction of hobbyists actually buy wild fish as it is villagers overfishing for food, illegally fishing protected areas, large net fishing, deforestation, pollution, or climate change. Villagers view conservation efforts as an encroachment on resources and territory they see as belonging to them and on which they depend-- there is little money or other employment in much of the area.

Given the relatedness of Malwai mbuna, et al., their ability to interbreed virtually at will, have to wonder at the liberal use of the term species to describe what is effectively a large closely related complex that would seem just as easily and perhaps more appropriately classed as a collection of variants and sub-species rather than as numerous "species". Not really qualified to dispute the status quo w.r.t. to nomenclature but it does seem that if similar criteria were applied to say Homo sapiens that there would in fact be an abundance of different human species.

Gets even more complicated. The definition of species varies by source and, at least in one area of biology (concerned with genetics, sometimes combined with other criteria), often has more to do with genetic distinctiveness preserved by different breeding populations than whether the animals can interbreed or not. So, with the advent of genetic testing, terms like "cryptic species" and "cryptic diversity" have gained prominence, referring to populations or types or 'species' of animals that appear to be virtually identical or appear to be the same animal but are genetically distinct, with a growing trend to reclassify as separate species animals once considered a single species. Well known example: goliath grouper. Another (of many) examples here.

Probably the best discussion of the term species I've read concluded that it's basically part of an artificial construct that doesn't adequately describe the complexity of life.

So very much in this life and the nature of our own unfolding human evolution with our magnificent and unprecedented brains and capacity for emotion/awareness that makes the pillage and ruin all the more disconcerting. Along the lines of "If a tree falls in the forest" quandary, and the terminations to so many (and from our perspective) inauspicious species' lines notwithstanding (few would have grieved overmuch 25 million years ago the loss of our own diminutive progenitors, the lowly tree shrew), find myself pondering just how glorious creation can be if there are none to take note. While thoroughly unscientific if only for fact of being untestable, I am handicapped by a sense that the greatest loss may be on to our own potential to explore co-evolution and experience a sort of ecological godhead if you will by supporting the synergy of natural and mutually reinforcing systems. Such fantastic conjecture aside, it remains that humans are the first and only species able to truly choose in that our "place" is largely described by free will rather than being defined by the natural world (at least in the near-term). Hard then to look at the built environment and where it/we are headed and not wonder at/regret our choices.

A simplistic response wouldn't do these comments justice... but I'm hesitant to take my post too far afield of the original topic, leaving me at a bit of a loss as to how to respond without presuming too much on the indulgence of the OP or others following this thread. But you have some interesting thoughts, here... Let me just say that, in my view, as sad as what the society we've created has done to our natural world is the damage done to human integrity and potential or some of the other finer parts of what we can or should be.

Otherwise, my perceptions are partly influenced by the science reading I like to do and partly by something akin to the quote from Hamlet that "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

As an aside, where are you and do you ever come to meetings? If you'll tell me what ds stands for I'll know your name - would be pleased to become better acquainted.

ds was intentional as I'm a bit of a privacy nut, but first name David. Would no doubt enjoy attending some of the association functions, but I'm at least 5 hours away and health and other circumstances afford me little surfeit of disposable time and energy. Also, family, etc. for the most part are in the opposite direction, so I'm rarely traveling that way.

 

[dogofwar]

We're talking about two different issues here: one macro and the other micro.

The macro affects huge swathes of the ecosystem or whole lake and, of course, requires a more wholeistic approach thanpreventing or limiting collection of wild fish for aquariums (and/or food).

For example, the Nature Conservancy's program at Lake Tanganyika approaches conservation of the lake on many levels : http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/africa/wherewework/tuungane-project.xml

Tuungane (pronounced TOO-un-gah-nee, Kiswahili for “Let’s Unite”) is our community-focused collaboration to reduce threats and improve the resilience of this system. Our project is expressly designed to bring together reproductive-health and conservation interventions for integrated solutions to address the pressures on people and nature.

The Conservancy is partnering with Pathfinder International, Frankfurt Zoological Society, Jane Goodall Institute, Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA), Government of Tanzania and others to unite conservation with initiatives to strengthen local governance, improve access to social services and create sustainable livelihoods.
Tuungane Project Goals

• Build the capacity of village governments: Design training programs that meet specific community needs; enhance participation and transparency; educate and engage local leaders in population, health, and environment strategies.
• Improve local governance: Enable long-term support for population, health and environment strategies.
• Strengthen forest management: create, gain local and national government endorsement, and implement a comprehensive land and water protection plan.<LI sizset="112" sizcache="306">Enhance Lake Tanganyika fisheries management: catalyze co-operative fisheries management at the village level.
• Improve access to health-care information and services: Strengthen local government capacity and train community health workers.
• Diversify and improve livelihoods: focus on food security and access to markets.

I give money from every month's paycheck to TNC (and other conservation-focused charities) to support these efforts and others like them. It's important to me beyond the availability of X varient of X species of fish (for me to buy).

Addressing macro issues ensures (hopefully) that there will be any fish (chimps, etc.) in and around Lake Tanganyika today and for the forseeable future.

The micro issue of availability of Ps. salausi, for example, is absolutely addressable by individual hobbysist. The depletion (near extinction) of these fish in the lake is driven by real or perceived demand by hobbysists. There's no reason that the exact same thing that's happened to Ps. saulosi, M. chipokae and others can't happen to whatever the next "cool" fish of the moment becomes.

Is this a macro issue affecting the entire lack? Not really. But it is something that hobbyists can directly impact through buying habits, education and cultural changes in the hobby around the "necessity" of wild stock for "quality fish"...

I'm all for both!

Matt

In perusing yesterday seems that even the aquarium trade is relatively speaking one of the least problems besetting Lake Malawi though all share one common denominator. IMO that's the elephant in the room. From what I've read and sources I've heard from, the major threat is not whatever fraction of hobbyists actually buy wild fish as it is villagers overfishing for food, illegally fishing protected areas, large net fishing, deforestation, pollution, or climate change. Villagers view conservation efforts as an encroachment on resources and territory they see as belonging to them and on which they depend-- there is little money or other employment in much of the area.

 

[neut]

The micro issue of availability of Ps. salausi, for example, is absolutely addressable by individual hobbysist. The depletion (near extinction) of these fish in the lake is driven by real or perceived demand by hobbysists. There's no reason that the exact same thing that's happened to Ps. saulosi, M. chipokae and others can't happen to whatever the next "cool" fish of the moment becomes.

Is this a macro issue affecting the entire lack? Not really. But it is something that hobbyists can directly impact through buying habits, education and cultural changes in the hobby around the "necessity" of wild stock for "quality fish"...

This I agree with, especially regarding the necessity of having wild stock without considering whether this adversely affects wild populations-- which in some cases it does and in others it doesn't. Ideally (imo) it would be advantageous to have an information flow where threatened wild species are identified and distinguished from species that are simply not threatened by the aquarium trade or some cases in which the aquarium trade provides a relatively benign option for local people to make a living.

To the extent this might be done through a forum or cichlid association is a good thing, but, unfortunately, likely limited in impact on the whole of those who keep fish.

 

[neut]

Still, and unfortunately, a bigger, more inexorable threat to Lake Tanganyika is climate change.

 

[dogofwar]

(As discussed earlier in the thread) I think that wild Rift Lake cichlids are a special case (different than wild fish from, say, the Amazon) because of (many of) their extremely small natural ranges and wild populations.

As we've seen, a few years of intense collection can decimate a wild population of Rift Lake cichlids. Of course, on top of macro pressures that are impacting all of the fish in the lake. This is really different than pulling hundreds of thousands of cardinal tetras out of South America per year. Or a dozen juvenile cichlids out of an Uruguayan river or pond ever few years.

I disagree that hobby attitudes (and forums) can't have an impact on hobbyist demand for wild rift lake fish. If people stop believing that unless they have wild (or F1) fish in their glass boxes...that their fish are impure or otherwise inferior...won't be colorful...will be labeled as hybrids...or inbred monstrosities...then demand for them will continue until select wild populations of the latest "cool" fish are gone (or need to be "rescued") by man.

Matt

This I agree with, especially regarding the necessity of having wild stock without considering whether this adversely affects wild populations-- which in some cases it does and in others it doesn't. Ideally (imo) it would be advantageous to have an information flow where threatened wild species are identified and distinguished from species that are simply not threatened by the aquarium trade or some cases in which the aquarium trade provides a relatively benign option for local people to make a living.

To the extent this might be done through a forum or cichlid association is a good thing, but, unfortunately, likely limited in impact on the whole of those who keep fish.

 

[dogofwar]

Couldn't agree more.

...and all of us, including the half that don't believe...

Matt

Still, and unfortunately, a bigger, more inexorable threat to Lake Tanganyika is climate change.

 

[Avatar]

Small is beautiful/better

We're talking about two different issues here: one macro and the other micro.

Appreciate the perspective, but it's the same issue in that there's only one physical reality and hence conservation has to be pursued with a unified field approach like anything else. Can't disagree about with the obvious range of complexities but think it's important not to imagine that anything is separate from anything else.

While your contributions to TNC are as admirable as their efforts, you should know that they receive vast sums annually from foundations and high-donors that comprise the overwhelming majority of their operating capital - as such your contributions IMO would make a much greater impact directed to NGOs that are actually resource-limited where an extra few hundred/thousand dollars a year really can and does make a difference in terms of adding greater scope and effectiveness. Same goes for Conservation International which is an outgrowth of TNC created when TNC's ED left to set up his own shop. On that note, no one should give a dime to WWF - they're the biggest ongoing environmental scandal/fraud in history and the #1 reason why elephants, rhinos, tigers and a number of other species' prospects are circling the drain.

 

[dogofwar]

I figure that supporting larger NGOs (e.g. TNC, Nature Conservancy, Rivers Internation) is kind of like buying shares of a mutual fund (targeting a particular sector). I really don't know enough to pick and manage a portfolio of individual stocks...so I let a bigger portfolio entity do it for me (alas for a small fee).

The bigger question is: Do people in fish clubs care?

Matt

 

[Avatar]

Clearly

Some obviously do, and overall I'd reckon more than don't...

International Rivers is a good outfit by the way, and was hardly suffering from a hyper-abundance of resources last I checked.

 

[neut]

(As discussed earlier in the thread) I think that wild Rift Lake cichlids are a special case (different than wild fish from, say, the Amazon) because of (many of) their extremely small natural ranges and wild populations.

Agree, and my intent was to account for this, not disagree, in my comments.

If people stop believing that unless they have wild (or F1) fish in their glass boxes...that their fish are impure or otherwise inferior...won't be colorful...will be labeled as hybrids...or inbred monstrosities...then demand for them will continue until select wild populations of the latest "cool" fish are gone (or need to be "rescued") by man.

Very much agree and always have. But, I have to think fish clubs, forums, etc. have their limits in sphere of influence, and that was my point. Doesn't mean it's not a good idea to bring this up to inform members of forums, etc. but not all of the fish buying public or even those involved selling fish are members of such.

It's unfortunate the situation in these East African lakes isn't such that the governments where the fish come from don't prevent export of endangered species, so that it would be more like certain SA cichlids, plecos, etc. where at times you just can't get certain species, because they're simply not being collected and exported.

 

[Jeff George]

I'm showing up late to this party (Matt told me about the thread days ago, but I didn't have time to reply here), and I've just read through the many pages and ideas quickly, so if I am repeating something, flame me gently.

The point that Matt was making at the start of the thread is that the Rift Lakes provide a nearly unique situation in which there is immense demand for cichlids that in most cases never numbered more than a couple of thousand wild individuals in the whole world. This is the exact opposite of the situation with the cardinal tetra, where the supply of the fish is virtually infinite, and no matter how great the demand grows, the market is saturated long before the wild population is threatened. If you think of a species as "endangered" when it drops below a few thousand or even a few hundred wild individuals, then most of the rock-bound species in Malawi are "endangered" before we catch a single fish!

Ps. saulosi we noticed just in time, apparently. M. chipokae, we may have been one or two years late to notice. That yellow Tropheus-whose-name-we-dare-not-speak may be too far gone to save.

But I don't think the answer is NEVER to import wild caught fish. Because species fall out of favor in the hobby for a while, then come back into favor, I do think there is an ongoing need for limited, responsible collection of WC fish, especially for use in professional hatcheries or semi-pro specialist fish rooms, who use the WCs to produce F1s in quantity for distribution to cheap dudes like me who won't pay for 12,000 miles worth of shipping.

Ted Judy's latest TFH column makes a powerful case about the dangers of small-gene-pool, sibling-to-sibling captive breeding, which is exactly how most fish are bred in the hobby, whether commercially or privately. I think we do need to re-introduce wild genes into our tank-raised stock every so often, in order to keep the domestic fish genetically viable and diverse. Which means we need to OCCASIONALLY import wild fish, to cross into domestic lines, not CONSTANTLY import wild fish so that I can act like my fish are better than yours.

I like the idea of a sort of "Rift Lake Cichlid Conservation Compact," which clubs, individuals, and commercial entities could sign onto, and if they follow its rules, use in promoting their stock. The heart of the RLCCC would consist of an expert-curated list of species and variants which are currently under "No WC Trade" status. That status wouldn't be permanent, but it would probably last for 3-5 years at a time. After a "No-Trade" cycle, a species could be put on a "Limited Collection" cycle of one or two seasons, during which time RLCCC signatories COULD buy and sell WC specimens of the fish in question. Then, after a couple of years of collection and importation to freshen the gene pool, the species goes back on the "No WC Trade" status. (We need better titles for the Compact and its lists, but you get the idea. I'm riffing here...)

 

[Jeff George]

Previous post continued...

So, let's look at That Yellow Tropheus (TYT) for a second. We all know that TYT is in immediate danger of extinction, so it goes on No WC status for 5 years. All the exporters know that no one in the English-speaking hobby will touch WC TYTs for the next 5 years, so the market for them is GONE. They are now worthless, economically speaking, so collection stops. They have 5 years to repopulate in the wild. After 5 years, we take a look, and find that the wild TYT population has recovered, so the RLCCC (I just decided to say it "Arr Ell Triple-See," btw) moves the TYT to Limited Collection status for one year only. We bring in a new wave of WC TYTs and cross them into our existing and responsibly-maintained domestic stock, and after one year, we STOP. The TYT goes back on NO WC status. So the hobby has good fish with a fresh infusion of wild genes, and the wild TYT is protected by the only thing that will save an in-demand fish - a total lack of demand!

 

[verbal]

Does anyone know the breakdown of exports from the rift lakes of North America, Europe and Asia?


Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app

 

[Tony]

Really good points, Jeff. I like your idea of a Compact to give species a chance to recover. It would take a large coordination effort, but could have real impact.

As Jesse alludes to though, I suspect that US imports of WC fish are a drop in the bucket in comparison to those going to Asia.

 

[Avatar]

Good notions, but...

I like the idea of a sort of "Rift Lake Cichlid Conservation Compact," which clubs, individuals, and commercial entities could sign onto, and if they follow its rules, use in promoting their stock. The heart of the RLCCC would consist of an expert-curated list of species and variants which are currently under "No WC Trade" status. That status wouldn't be permanent, but it would probably last for 3-5 years at a time. After a "No-Trade" cycle, a species could be put on a "Limited Collection" cycle of one or two seasons, during which time RLCCC signatories COULD buy and sell WC specimens of the fish in question. Then, after a couple of years of collection and importation to freshen the gene pool, the species goes back on the "No WC Trade" status. (We need better titles for the Compact and its lists, but you get the idea. I'm riffing here...)

...let's be clear: accommodating captive diversity at alleged or actual optimum levels must be acknowledged as secondary to maintaining same in wild populations and it's not even close (more so as captive populations for some of these species may be greater than wild ones and consequently may very well claim/manifest greater actual genetic diversity). Both aims are self-serving, but the latter reflects a more expansive long-term perspective that actually serves the species/ecosystem rather than the "hobby".

To your proposal, these are not mutually incompatible aims and could in fact reinforce one another IF a viable Conservation Compact can be put together. Assuming that intelligence and resolve are givens on the part of the organizers/administrators, that will leave promotion, inclusiveness and enforcement as the biggest keys to success. Consumer groups are potentially very powerful since consumerism itself is the biggest defining causal agent of the modern era - I don't even keep Rift species but I'll pledge $200 toward start-up of a non-profit proposition along the lines of what was described. I'd be inclined to create a "guild" comprised of clubs, import/export agents, academics, breeders and retailers to practice and promote responsible commerce along these lines with the "Compact" being a product of that association - would be good for everyone/everything involved and has a number of precedents, e.g., the Free/Fair Trade coffee campaign which is a largely passive but nonetheless powerful change agent.

All you really need to get started is a preliminary working-name though I would encourage one that is not limited in scope to species from a single lake/region.

Let me know where to send the check.

 

[AquaStudent]

I'd be inclined to create a "guild" comprised of clubs, import/export agents, academics, breeders and retailers to practice and promote responsible commerce along these lines with the "Compact" being a product of that association - would be good for everyone/everything involved and has a number of precedents, e.g., the Free/Fair Trade coffee campaign which is a largely passive but nonetheless powerful change agent.

I quickly read over a few of the posts in this thread but will try to support the discussion as much as possible. This really is an interesting topic. I wish I had seen the talk.

Sam, would this group work via lobbying or economic pressure? I think it's a great idea but depending on how it would work, enforcement of the decisions may be tricky. Close ties to the local governments (Malawi, Zambia, Rep. of Congo, and Tanzania (to hit most of the Malawi/Tang coasts) could help enforce the situation. It may also legitimize the group.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Avatar]

Am sure I have no idea

Sam, would this group work via lobbying or economic pressure? I think it's a great idea but depending on how it would work, enforcement of the decisions may be tricky. Close ties to the local governments (Malawi, Zambia, Rep. of Congo, and Tanzania (to hit most of the Malawi/Tang coasts) could help enforce the situation. It may also legitimize the group.

Imagine it would be almost entirely consumer economics - in any case until that's a reality there'd be little or no real leverage or influence to be had with governments . "Lobbying" per se can be done in many different ways - for instance blacklisting an importer (or threatening to) for activity detrimental to a species could be a very effective lobbying tool although I'd imagine positive and pro-active messaging would be largely sufficient to achieve the desired results. Expect it would primarily function as a self-policing guidance network to ensure that the hobby doesn't shoot itself in the leg by aiding in the demise of it's stock and trade while doing what it can to promote species/habitat protection, etc.

Thing to remember is that aquarists are an enormous constituency (well over 10 million households in US alone) and that if there's no "beacon" to describe right action, then it's only ever going to be a "whatever the traffic will allow" scenario w.r.t. to commerce in species.