Wild Rift Lake Fish?

A great discussion broke out at the end of Ad Konings's Malawi presentation on Sunday of AquaMania: Should we continue to export wild cichlids from the Rift Lakes when hobby-driven exportation is causing depleting / extinction of certain species?

Ad highlighted the near extinction of Pseudotropheus saulosi and Melanochromis chipokae as examples. The Ilangi variant of Tropheus is a Lake Tang example.

The Rift Lakes represent a pretty unique situation for hobbyist demand to doom a wild population because:

1. Except in the cases of widely-distributed species, specific variants of specific species are endemic (i.e. found nowhere else) than very small areas of these lakes
2. The core populations of these endemic populations were relatively small in number before commercial exportation (hundreds or a couple of thousands of individuals)
3. Collection / extraction of the most desirable individuals for hobbyists (i.e. the most colorful, largest, etc.) can alter the minute genetic differences that make one variant of a species different than the others
4. The relatively small brood sizes of many Rift lake species (vs. riverine fish) makes it harder for them to catch up / repopulate
5. The number of wild fish that make it to market is a small fraction of those collected
6. While other detrimental factors like pollution, sedimentation and overfishing are present in the Rift Lakes, these are minor factors compared to Lake Victoria, Costa Rica and other places where there has been wholesale destruction of habitats

By and large, captive bred Rift Lake cichlids of known provenance / purity are widely available, are generally easy to breed and much cheaper and healthier than truly wild fish.



Captive bred Rift Lake Fish, especially those raised outdoors, have all of the (sun / diet-driven) coloration as wild fish. Line breeding (as occurs from selection and breeding of the most colorful and large wild individuals) of captive stock can maintain these (hobbyist-valued) quality attributes.


So should hobbyists (aquarium clubs) seek to reduce or eliminate wild extraction of fish from Lakes Malawi and Tanganyika?


Of course, please keep this thread civil



Matt

I've picked up more than a few groups of wild fish over the past few years.

Never have good luck with them. Those who survive never tend to lose the sunken belly and sometimes become more aggressive than TR once they become acclimated.

Then there's the risk of them spreading disease to your existing stock....

Honestly, can't see myself going in that direction again with wild Malawi cichlids. Besides the very good reasons that Matt listed, too much time, money and heartbreak for me anymore....

I agree with Tony. Ive tried a few wild pairs of fish in the past. I'd rather have fish that I know are healthy and well-adjusted to tank life. It's funny how now at an auction, those two little letters..."WC"....will make me not bid on an item. I know it's likely to 1.) be more expensive and 2.) be fussy at best and possibly die at worst.

I think we shouldn't do with cichlids what we did with the Przewalski's Wild Horse. They are completely extinct in the wild, and live only on natural preserves an in zoos. Yellow Lab Cichlids are rare in the wild, but are the most popular in the hobby. If everyone keeping yellow lab cichlids gave on to some preserve in Malawi, Africa, we would just about overrun the lake! (Though this would be hard to do, but people would definitely be generous enough and do at MANY more specimens.

EDIT: "specimens")

...yet demand for WC fish from Malawi and Tang is high...and people are willing to pay more (much more) for wild fish.

Ad said that if there is the (correct or incorrect) perception among the local fisherman that a particular fish is in demand for the hobby that they will attempt to bring wholesalers more fish than they can possibly sell. And, of course, they try to catch the "best" individuals from the populations.

The good news is that through captive breeding efforts it looks like re-populating P. saulosi will be possible. Several months of collecting resulted in a colony of a few dozen fish (!) to support this.

Unfortunately, several months of looking for M. chipokae only resulted in a handful of fish for a similar captive breeding program.

The supplies of these fish are not infinite. Certainly not large enough to keep up with demand, if there is the perception that unless one has wild fish from the lake that they're inferior or "inbred trash"...

Matt

chriscoli said:

I agree with Tony. Ive tried a few wild pairs of fish in the past. I'd rather have fish that I know are healthy and well-adjusted to tank life. It's funny how now at an auction, those two little letters..."WC"....will make me not bid on an item. I know it's likely to 1.) be more expensive and 2.) be fussy at best and possibly die at worst.

Click to expand...

I found Ad's presentation quite interesting. Being that Saulosi is part of my stock, I would rather have the WC stay in Lake Malawi. My Saulosi have proven to be pretty forgiving of my mistakes and they are line bred. I do hope that the measures that Ad said in the presentation to re-stock the Saulosi to be sucessfull. These are great and colorful fish and I find no need to bring WC over while the line bred versions do well.

I am hoping that my Saulosi start getting busy spawning again to catch up with my Rusties.

No Fishing list

zackcrack00 said:

If everyone keeping yellow lab cichlids gave on to some preserve in Malawi, Africa, we would just about overrun the lake! (Though this would be hard to do, but people would definitely be generous enough and do at MANY more specimens.

Click to expand...

Bad idea for a number of reasons, mostly having to do with pathology and genetics - generally only done when there are no other options and if it comes to that it'll only be because we were all too lazy/disinterested to have acted earlier when easier remedies were available.

I still say we should start with what Ad knows and begin a 'no-buy" list for circulation to other clubs and to importers/dealers seeking a moratorium on capture, importation and sale of wild-caught threatened species until such time as a species sufficiently recovers to allow for responsible takes. If we wait until CITES does something it'll almost certainly be too late. No good reason not to do this and some excellent reasons why we should.

Thus begins the story of the Piscine Police...

There are two dimensions to this, though, Sam:

1) Just about any fish from the Rift Lakes (unless it's a widely distributed in non-specialized forms throughout one lake or the other) is highly susceptible to over-collecting. All it takes is for whatever variant of Tropheus, "Hap" or mbuna to become the "cool" fish of the moment...and they're at risk.

2) The other dimension is that there are protected areas of Lake Malawi (and I though Lake Tang but Pam Chin says I'm mistaken). Yet "wild" fish from these collection locations still show up on lists. Maybe they're collected right outside of the protected areas...or not really wild...or whatever...but it shouldn't be "cool" to have those fish.

Matt

Avatar said:

Bad idea for a number of reasons, mostly having to do with pathology and genetics - generally only done when there are no other options and if it comes to that it'll only be because we were all too lazy/disinterested to have acted earlier when easier remedies were available.

I still say we should start with what Ad knows and begin a 'no-buy" list for circulation to other clubs and to importers/dealers seeking a moratorium on capture, importation and sale of wild-caught threatened species until such time as a species sufficiently recovers to allow for responsible takes. If we wait until CITES does something it'll almost certainly be too late. No good reason not to do this and some excellent reasons why we should.

Thus begins the story of the Piscine Police...

Click to expand...

The club should start an act that club members do not buy WC specimens. Whomever wants may sign the "pledge"... What do you think, Matt? I know I am just a kid guys, but I care, too.

Matt and Sam, have either of you run across any numbers indicating the rate of mis-labeling of WC fish? I guess what I'm wondering is...if I buy a WC fish....is it really WC? And the reverse might be true, too....when I buy a fish from someone, what are the odds it's really WC but not labeled as such?

dogofwar said:

There are two dimensions to this, though, Sam:

1) Just about any fish from the Rift Lakes (unless it's a widely distributed in non-specialized forms throughout one lake or the other) is highly susceptible to over-collecting. All it takes is for whatever variant of Tropheus, "Hap" or mbuna to become the "cool" fish of the moment...and they're at risk.

2) The other dimension is that there are protected areas of Lake Malawi (and I though Lake Tang but Pam Chin says I'm mistaken). Yet "wild" fish from these collection locations still show up on lists. Maybe they're collected right outside of the protected areas...or not really wild...or whatever...but it shouldn't be "cool" to have those fish.

Matt

Click to expand...

Only two? No problem. The list would not be static and need to be updated as circumstances change but if you're telling me that there are scores of species "at risk" then perhaps they should all go on the list - good for the lake, good for domestic breeders, because if after all the hundreds of thousands or millions of specimens taken the hobby can't sustain captive lines of those species then it doesn't deserve to keep draining the lakes of fish and threatening their very survival just to adorn modern man's living rooms. As for the second item, someone needs to make informed decisions on a species by species or population basis because whatever else can be said, this hobby needs to "be (stay) cool" and aiding and abetting extinction definitely doesn't qualify.

At this point wild-caught specimens of many rift lake species should probably be exclusively the province of academic/research institutions. Could also be that that the only thing capable of stimulating actual domestic protections for those species is an external threat to the economic revenue so generated - a "protect your fish/habitat or we're not buying" type of thing.

Start small and grow it. Short list comprised of clear-cut cases of risk, initiate and establish a moratorium on sale, trade and import in wild-caught specimens imports of those species and you're on your way. And doesn't have to be only riifters either...

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead

Zack - I really don't think it's that cut and dry. I'd really like to encourage some constructive dialogue on this issue.

Also, we buy and eat lots of wild fish. And New World cichlids tend to be a very different situation (the lack of commercial export operations for one...and the differing nature of habitat threat another).

I think that the Rift Lakes, specifically for the reasons I identified in the initial post, are a special circumstance...

Not to say that there aren't other instances where extracting WC specimens also doesn't make sense (the Barombi-Mbo fish I keep, for example: there are plenty of them in the hobby, they're easy enough to breed and raise...and their endemic habitat is a single, small crater lake - do we really need more WC fish from there...even though we can get them?)

Matt

zackcrack00 said:

The club should start an act that club members do not buy WC specimens. Whomever wants may sign the "pledge"... What do you think, Matt? I know I am just a kid guys, but I care, too.

Click to expand...

Really hard to say, although it's a safe bet that a lot of the "wild" fish that folks are pointing at as examples of how WC fish are "better" are actually not.

Fraud and mislabeling are widespread. And certainty of ID of (actually) WC fish is far from certain. Think about how many hand-offs must occur between actual collector and hobbyist...and then think about how easy it would be to mix up a juvenile or female Hap or peacock somewhere along the way.

There are varying definitions of WC in the trade. The number of "WC" fish will rise to meet demand.

There are a remarkable number of fish in the hobby that are WC and not explicitly labeled. Almost all cardinal tetras, for example, are wild. But I've never seen where the export of hundreds of thousands of these fish could even dent their availability in the wild (i.e. it's very different than a situation where a certain variant - the really yellow one - of Tropheus is only found around a certain pile of rocks in one lake in the world).

Matt

chriscoli said:

Matt and Sam, have either of you run across any numbers indicating the rate of mis-labeling of WC fish? I guess what I'm wondering is...if I buy a WC fish....is it really WC? And the reverse might be true, too....when I buy a fish from someone, what are the odds it's really WC but not labeled as such?

Click to expand...

ONLY ONE PILE OF ROCKS?!!!??? ARE YOU KIDDING, MATT?!?!?!

Gosh golly gee whiz Batman

I cede the field.

zackcrack00 said:

ONLY ONE PILE OF ROCKS?!!!??? ARE YOU KIDDING, MATT?!?!?!

Click to expand...

"Pile of Rocks" meaning an isolated reef located in the lake. Some large, some the size of a football field or smaller.

[YT]LJGkA1xMr0Y[/YT]

No one views the availability of WC Rift Lake fish as necessary?

Who's buying all of these fish?

Matt

dogofwar said:

No one views the availability of WC Rift Lake fish as necessary?

Who's buying all of these fish?

Matt

Click to expand...

People in other clubs, or people not in clubs

I personally don't buy WC fish for many reasons, some of which have already been mentioned. The only exception I could understand is in new species. But there are so many fish species already in the hobby, we really do not need any more new ones.

I wanted some WC guppies, but I guess not anymore.... I am getting guppies from Frank Cowherd and Arlene and her 7.5 year old son.