On the subject of wild caught fish.

grokefish · Post by **grokefish** » 31 May 2007, 10:32

Does anyone know, or what are your onions on wild caught stock?
The reason I am asking is I was thinking about industries that take their (live) resources from nature and the position that the countries involved take on environmental issues regarding the ability of these resources to repopulate.
Do you think that for example, encourageing the industry in these areas is detrimental or benificial to the ecosystem in these places?
For example do the primary sources i.e the guys that phisically catch the fish look after the local environment in order to preserve their livelyhood or is overfishing a problem? like for example the food fish? mostly catfish!
I'm talking about catfish and fish like cichlids which as far as I can tell are mostly wild caught.
I think this question is a bit of a ramble but I hope you get the idea.

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 31 May 2007, 11:15

I think this varies depending on species and where they are from. Most of the "common" wildcaughts, e.g. loricariidae, aren't particuluarly threatened as an overall [this is assuming that Shane isn't incorrect in what he writes]. There are of course exceptions - is one example of an "overfished" resource.

If we consider that many of the alternative activities that bring in money to these regions are at the very least as harmfull, and most often worse: Drugs, gold-mining and cutting down the rain-forest.

Any native who is catching fish to make some extra cash will (hopefully) be aware that if they poison the river with mercury, the fish will not bring in any money.

I'm not sure I'm expressing this very well, but if you look for the thread about "Zebra pleco" and "export restrictions", you'll find some posts by Shane that are a better way of expressing what I'm trying to say.

--
Mats

Bas Pels · Post by **Bas Pels** » 31 May 2007, 11:20

grokefish wrote:I'm talking about catfish and fish like c*****ds which as far as I can tell are mostly wild caught.

Regarding cich lids this is not really true. Many exporters make a living in northern south America (Amazonia) and near the Great Rift lakes in Africa, but Cich lids de exist elsewhere. However, this is aa catfish forum, and catfishes are mostly wild caught (or pond bred)

In my eyes, the question should be expanded a little. I would like to consider not only overfishing, but also what would happen without expoting life fishes.

In the real world, anything what does not pay its keep, will vanish. Regardless our romantic ideas about nature, in Brasil, or Tanzania nature will have to earn money, or its area will be used differently.

The big game natureparks for instance earn money through tourism, but the lakes do not.

Only because people are willing to buy small life fishes, any argument for cnaserving the area excists.

Unfortunately, native collectors are no better than we are, they like to be at home at night too. Thus, they will try to collect the fishes near their houses.This will, of corse, result in overfishing around the villages, but intact nature further away. We all know intact nature can complete a lot of empty areas, and that is precisely what happens

I can't tell you whether an individual fish is happy to have the priviledge to come to your tank, but if it does not, it is paying for those who remain in the river

apistomaster · Post by **apistomaster** » 31 May 2007, 14:16

Hi all,
There are operations such as Project Piaba out of Barcelos, Brazil, that promote a self-sustaining fisheries of wild caught OTF and are intended to benefit the local economy..

While this is planetcatfish, catfish are only part of the equation. The majority of OTF exported from SA countries do not live though many seasons. Speaking strictly on the OTF fisheries, the harvest generally is of very low impact. The few exceptions such as the harvest of L46 has been cited but is also under official sanctions. Panaque suttonorum is another that may have been overharvested to the edge of extinction

Venezuela has cut itself off from much of the "Capitalist" West and most Orinoco drainage fish are actually caught in Colombia. I sincerely doubt that injurious development is not a threat there as well.
The indicriminate spraying of herbicides to annihilate the Coca fields is causing severe damage to wild fisheries.

The real dangers to wild fisheries are from the big oil, mining,logging, agricultural activities, hydroelectric development and population expansion of man; in short industrial level habitat destruction not the harvest of wild caught OTF. Project Piaba is only one small program that promotes the native collection of wild OTF at sustainable and enviromentally sound methods.

Everywhere the encroachment of industrial land use is threatening the wild areas. The great inland FW seasonal sea, The Pantanal is under mulitiple use threats and could be destroyed in a relatively short time if the Florida Everglades is any example, and The Pantanal is one of the incomparable reservoirs of species diversity on the planet.

Africa is and has been in such of state of political and racial turmoil coupled with population explosion and the same industrial pressures as elsewhere that the environment of tropical fish is far more precarious. It isn't even safe to do fundamental studies there by and large to know exactly what there is to be lost in addition to that which we do know about.
SE Asia is not immune and atually perhaps has the greatest loss rate of habitats as rainforest is converted to Oil Palm plantaions creating vast areas of monoagriculture. Many large species with long lifespans are verging on extinction from overfishing and hydroelectric projects that block migrations related to spawning. Many small and inconspicuous fish such as species of wild bettas, small loaches and redtail sharks have virtually been fished to extinction or crowded out.

One item I came across that really struck me as pathetic was that captive bred Barbus titteya, common cherry barb, were being used to re-establish that species in Sri Lanka.

As a resident of the Pacific North Western USA and an avid fly fisherman I am no stranger to how poorly this country has handled it's own unique fisheries to be in no position to criticize the actions or inactions of other countries to preserve their wild fisheries. I can only mostly regret mankinds' record in this field.

Captive breeding of OTF is never a bad idea but the harvest of wild OTF fish is often of little impact compared to much greater forces..

Continued disregard for the producing habitat is where the wild OTF are placed at the greatest risk, IMHO.

sidguppy · Post by **sidguppy** » 31 May 2007, 18:42

I got the same sentiments as Apistomaster on this issue

I got a lot of wildcaught fish, although not as many when I kept riverines. this cause Riftlake fishes (esp cichlids) are being 'pondbred' by the lakes and the quality is often very good. but my granny's and P typus are all wildcaughts.

I have NO problem with most (99.99%) wildcaught species. a few are overfished due to hobby demand; H zebra, some other L numbers, Tropheus duboisi 'Maswa', Ophtalmotilapia boops 'Nkondwe' and some Asian Anabantoids perhaps.

most are caught in much larger numbers for consumption or by-catch with consumption fish.

if you think by-catch is put back, you're wrong. that used to be the case, but these days it's just destroyed or fed to pigs and chickens.

but as long as our own governments are bend on having "free trade with no regulations", a habit wich will cause the rainforests to disappear, the rivers to pullute and countries to be depleted of wildlife NOBODY will tell me anything on wildcaught fish.

it's exactly like someone pointing at a splinter in my eye, conventiently forgetting about the beam in the governments/corporate's own eyes.

I used to be fairly law-abiding when it comes to protected species. but I've seen with my own eyes how the Dutch government goes mideaval onm someone keeping protected newts or so in a very nice clean pond, the same government selling all the leftover biotopes to big corps and developers wich will destroy it all.
that's the Netherlands for you.

please the big honcho'sm, screw the hobbyists. no sirra!

unlike soy, oilpalm and hardwood timber; to set up a sustainable fish-trade you need to keep the forest intact.

save the rainforest: buy a fish! and skip on those mahogany garden furniture, wich is a LOT worse for the fishes than buying wildcaught fish. and do NOT turn vegetarian, cause one of the biggest threats to the Amazon rainforest is the cultivation of soy beans.

I'm a wildcaughtkeeping carnivore and proud of it!

bronzefry · Post by **bronzefry** » 31 May 2007, 21:33

To add to Larry and Sid: Project Piaba may be found <a href='http://www.neaq.org/scilearn/research/l ... name=Piaba' target='_blank'>here</a>. Their motto is great: "Buy a fish, save a tree."
Amanda

panaque · Post by **panaque** » 31 May 2007, 22:56

This is a sentiment close to my heart and a lot of sensible things have been said here. But Sidguppy, as far as I recall most of the soy being grown where rainforest used to be is for cattle feed and not for veggie sausages. You may have to become a vegetarian after all.
When it comes to overfishing many loricariids are particularly vulnerable (e.g. compared to cardinal tetras) because they are slow maturing, long lived, low fecundity things. What ecologists call 'K selected' as opposed to 'r selected'. This means their populations cannot take much harvesting and at the same time also means commercial breeders are unlikely to bother with them. Something to bear in mind when another species reaches the levels of popularity as H. zebra. Most of the time though I agree that sustainable harvesting will benefit the conservation of the habitat and the species, whatever the individual fishes being shippped out (and dying along the way unfortunately) make of it.
By the way, I cannot even find H. zebra in the IUCN red list which just goes to show how little interest exists for protecting fishes outside the fishkeeping community.

Frank

grokefish · Post by **grokefish** » 01 Jun 2007, 19:24

This is the sort of stuff I wan't to know, please keep it up!

sidguppy · Post by **sidguppy** » 02 Jun 2007, 08:03

But Sidguppy, as far as I recall most of the soy being grown where rainforest used to be is for cattle feed and not for veggie sausages. You may have to become a vegetarian after all.

if I would feed on imported beef and BicMacs, yes, but I eat homegrown biological meat

Bas Pels · Post by **Bas Pels** » 02 Jun 2007, 18:29

on the risk of being a commercial, Uruguay is one big natural meadow, and produces very, very gooed meat.

Unfortunately, EU customs make it so expensive. I think this is the best meat in the world, and it is as organic as one could hope for

Post by **Shane** » 04 Jun 2007, 08:40

Just a couple of comments. As many of you know I have written a lot about this topic.

The few exceptions such as the harvest of L46 has been cited but is also under official sanctions. Panaque suttonorum is another that may have been overharvested to the edge of extinction

The restrictions surrounding L 46 are very much a controversy and have more do to with politics and taxes in Brasil than protecting this sp (or any other). I have seen nothing but anecdotal stories that populations have been impacted by commercial collection. Can anyone cite an actual study to show that H. zebra populations have been "over fished?" I am all for protecting this fish regardless, but I want to see some data before blaming depleting wild stocks on collecting. This is why it is not red listed by the IUCN.

P. suttonorum has never been exported for the hobby, so the above statement is 100 percent incorrect (this is how falsehoods get spread).
If you mean the blue eye panaque (P. cochliodon), it is alive and well in the Magdalena basin. Since the narco-paramilitary wings out of Medellin (run by Don Berna) have taken over that area from the non-narco paras that were led by Bloque Metro and the leftist narco-guerillas (FARC) it is not safe to be in the area. Collectors could make deals with Metro and the FARC, but the new folks in charge do not want anyone in there. Do not blame over collecting, it is the drug users that have messed that one up.

Venezuela has cut itself off from much of the "Capitalist" West and most Orinoco drainage fish are actually caught in Colombia.

This is another very incorrect statement. Venezuela is 100 percent dependent on the "Capitalist West." It is a monoculture economy based on oil. Venezuela makes 65 billion a year in trade and 58 billion of that is from oil exports. Oil has one customer... the capitalist west. Venezuela has failed for 50 years to diversify its economy because rich nations buy their oil.
60 percent of Venezuela's exports are to the US. How is that cut off? Agriculture is only 3 percent of the economy. Venezuela can not even feed itself (1/3 of Venezuela's imports are actually food from the US). I raised this issue with Venezuelan officials and the response is always, "We do not need to grow food, promote tourism, or diversify the economy... we have oil!" Fish will come out of Venezuela again when oil prices drop and people need jobs.

The real dangers to wild fisheries are from the big oil, mining,logging, agricultural activities, hydroelectric development and population expansion of man;

This is 100 percent true. The water pollution produced by one factory in a day in Maracaibo kills more fishes than the hobby could use in a year. Pollution has caused 100s of spp to go extinct. Aquarium fish collection has caused none.

if you think by-catch is put back, you're wrong. that used to be the case, but these days it's just destroyed or fed to pigs and chickens.

In all my years spent with collectors I have never seen this happen. The problem when collecting is storage of the live fish. Anything that is caught that does not have a market value (i.e. bycatch) is thrown back immediately. If a collector is paid to get a certain cory they throw everything else back because they only have so many buckets and tubs. Nobody has the resources or desire to take bycatch (sadly for us aquarists).

-Shane

racoll · Post by **racoll** » 04 Jun 2007, 11:52

Just to play devils advocate, as i'm sure there is nobody that uses this forum who objects to wild caught fish......

It seems to me that the running theme of this thread is that it is okay to do something bad*, as other people may be doing something worse.

An analogy would be like saying it is okay to steal a few sweets from a corner shop because someone else will only go and rob the place at gunpoint later.

Surely if the tropical forests are under so much pressure, then we should not be compounding the problem by removing its fauna. We should all join Greenpeace and campaign outside the Brazilian government departments for sustainable development.

As far as I am aware very few people (especially the collectors) can subsist fully on the ornamental fish trade, partly because in many areas you are limited by the high water levels for much of the year. Is it not just a part time job for some people to bring in a bit of extra money?

For this reason it seems improbable that there would be the same employment prospects from fish collecting as there would be from a new cattle ranch, logging station, soy plantation or factory.

Are we saying that the conservation of a few fish is more important than people?

Also, while the evidence that the overfishing of H. zebra and P. cochliodon is not clear, there are other species to which the ornamental fish trade has had a detrimental effect. While I haven't been there personally, the reports of the over-collection of the galaxy rasbora (Celestichthys margaritatus) seem reliable.

http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/p ... ?news=1197

This case shows that if demand (and prices) continues to rise for a species, then collectors (who have to earn a living) will continue to catch them until either demand is satisfied or the fish are no longer a viable proposition (ie they have been caught). When there is no physical obstruction to capture, it seems that a species can easily be overfished. Take the north sea cod fishery as another example.

* We must assume that removing a proportion of a creature's population from its natural environment is undesirable for the conservation of that creature.

Bas Pels · Post by **Bas Pels** » 04 Jun 2007, 12:50

racoll wrote:Just to play devils advocate, as i'm sure there is nobody that uses this forum who objects to wild caught fish......

I can only appreciate the intitiative

It seems to me that the running theme of this thread is that it is okay to do something bad*, as other people may be doing something worse.

* We must assume that removing a proportion of a creature's population from its natural environment is undesirable for the conservation of that creature.

An analogy would be like saying it is okay to steal a few sweets from a corner shop because someone else will only go and rob the place at gunpoint later.

Here I can not agreee with the analogy, and the assumption.
the assumption: A healthy population is able to produce more individuals than room exists for. This surplus can be roamed by humans, for food, of fishkeeping (which, from a populatiopn point of view are identical). Only when too much fishes are taken, overfishing, the populatioon is damaged

the analogy: we don't rob the fish store, we pay people who life there (such as native peoples), enabling them to stay there, protecting the store because they life there

Surely if the tropical forests are under so much pressure, then we should not be compounding the problem by removing its fauna. We should all join Greenpeace and campaign outside the Brazilian government departments for sustainable development.

action groupes are one way to get changes in the world done, using the capitalist system we have is another. Personally, I rather use the system which has already ptroven itself.

As far as I am aware very few people (especially the collectors) can subsist fully on the ornamental fish trade, partly because in many areas you are limited by the high water levels for much of the year. Is it not just a part time job for some people to bring in a bit of extra money?

That is right, the native people don't inhabit the area because they can sell the fishes, they sell the fishes because they happen to be there. It is not their prime source of income, that is hunting / gathering in a money less society. However, their quality of life improves a lot of they can pay a doctor every now and then, to vaccinate them. Thet might be possible by earning some money in the right season.

For this reason it seems improbable that there would be the same employment prospects from fish collecting as there would be from a new cattle ranch, logging station, soy plantation or factory.

An area of 10.000 acres with cattle, or soy, might provide more money, but these people need to buy everything. I don't think motre people can life from the same area, apart from the question whether this is sustainable or not

Are we saying that the conservation of a few fish is more important than people?

As you see, I'm saying the opposite: the quality of life for the people in volved is higher buying fishes. Besides, this way they can life as the choise, not the way we might tell them to (raise at 7, spend 8 hiours in the factory)

Also, while the evidence that the overfishing of H. zebra and P. cochliodon is not clear, there are other species to which the ornamental fish trade has had a detrimental effect. While I haven't been there personally, the reports of the over-collection of the galaxy rasbora (Celestichthys margaritatus) seem reliable.
http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/p ... ?news=1197

This case shows that if demand (and prices) continues to rise for a species, then collectors (who have to earn a living) will continue to catch them until either demand is satisfied or the fish are no longer a viable proposition (ie they have been caught). When there is no physical obstruction to capture, it seems that a species can easily be overfished. Take the north sea cod fishery as another example.

While completely true, the galaxy rasbora is a vrery special case indeed. It is very beautifull, and inhabitates a very restricted area.

Further, absolutely not protective measures were instelled before it became endangered.

My estimation is, that most new species will also inhabit small areas (otherwise we had known about them) but not many will be this beautifull. Awareness by the local community will help these species a lot.

When I was in Uruguay, we visited the ranch of a cousin of my guide. Here some ondescribed cichlid species (or variety of a species) lives, which is very, very beautifull. Demand is higher than the stock in nature.

My guide is the only one with acces to this private property, and only takes small amounts of fishes, amounts he has learned are acceptable.

I have 5 of them, and it looks like they will breed this year. Being substrate breeders, I might get a few hunderd fry, thus reducing the demand significantly

This is, in my eyes, a very good example of how to deal with small populations of very beautifull fishes: keep them under control, or even secret, and try to breed them

aquaholic · Post by **aquaholic** » 07 Jun 2007, 18:21

On the same topic but with a slightly different aspect, I have posted here before seeking help with hormone induced breeding and been criticised. We have slightly different laws in Australia which mean all rare fish here have been illegallly imported. Crazy prices for some of your everyday cheap fish. While I dont support hormone bred hybrids, I feel many aquarium purists object to hormone breeding without even considering why, even if it is keeping species pure.

Just some food for thought....

On the subject of wild caught fish.

On the subject of wild caught fish.

Re: On the subject of wild caught fish.