PlanetCatfish.com

I just received this month's current price list from a well known NA importer listing L333 as Peckoltia sp L333 rather than Hypancistrus sp L333.
I know this company knows the difference.
The price was $60 each or $55 in larger quantities. Rather higher prices than the fairly recent "good old days." I wonder how long and how many others will be able to get away with this? Peckoltia sp L134 were about the same price.
Where and at what level will the Hypancistrus species prices stabilize in the coming years?

Larry wrote:I just received this month's current price list from a well known NA importer listing L333 as Peckoltia sp L333 rather than Hypancistrus sp L333. I know this company knows the difference.

All Hypancistrus species have always been listed as Peckoltia to "make them legal" for export since they first started to export them, this year IBAMA decide to no longer looking between their fingers.
If they do try to export L333 they take a quite high risk for so little money compared what the penaltys would be if they are discovered, it's not so smart of the exporter. Also remember that many exporters have nice stocklists but they do not have all the species listed in stock

Some Hypancistrus species will always recieve a higher price and I dont think any of them will ever be a cheap fish.
L134 is caught under a very short season and under some years if the water level is to low they are not reach able at all or just a few is caught, the size have also decreased under the last years so the population maybe have been affected negatively.

Janne

If you take a look at some of the Peruvian and Colombian exporters newer lists you will see a lot of Brazilian species listed at decent prices.

taksan wrote:If you take a look at some of the Peruvian and Colombian exporters newer lists you will see a lot of Brazilian species listed at decent prices.

Peru exporters have at least the last 10 years had Brazilian species in their stocklist's so that is not the news, if they really export all Brazilian species that they have in their stocklist's...that would be the news.
Colombia exporters have always exported a few Brazilian species caught on both sides of the border but do not "import" from exporters in Brazil to just extend their own stocklist's. Colombia have similar rules like Brazil and they also have a positive list with species allowed to export for the ornamental trade, I dont know how serious they are to follow this positive list. What I am aware of has Peru not the same rules or laws which maybe would make it easier for them to export everything if they get their hands on them...but it has to be economical defendable. The exporters reputation in South America is highest in Brazil and Colombia and lowest in Peru (even with all other countrys counted), some have better reputation then others so it's not fare to judge all the same, but in general they all have to work to improve their reputation.

Janne

I know that dealers' price lists often list more than what they may have in stock at any given time but the list I alluded to was the actual stock on hand list for the month. It is a more recent phenomenon in the USA for Hypancistrus to be called something else to obviate the recent Brazilian rulings. This is too transparent a ploy to last long and I agree that given the legal and financial risks if caught seem disproportionate to the short term gains that may be had.
I am glad to see that this topic produced so many good commentaries about the Hypancistrus. Peckoltia issues.
I do think fishing pressures have begun having an adverse effect on the wild populations of L134 and Hypancistrus species. Their replacement rates are much lower than fish like popular Tetra spp, Corydoras spp or Apistogramma spp which rarely live more than one or two years in the wild so collecting these fecund species has little effect on wild populations but the small plecos that take a few years to reach maturity and have spawns of 10 to 25 at a time, are not able to sustain long term intensive ornamental tropical fish fisheries.

Larry wrote:Their replacement rates are much lower than fish like popular Tetra spp, Corydoras spp or Apistogramma spp which rarely live more than one or two years in the wild so collecting these fecund species has little effect on wild populations but the small pl*cos that take a few years to reach maturity and have spawns of 10 to 25 at a time, are not able to sustain long term intensive ornamental tropical fish fisheries.

I agree, the problem for Brazil and IBAMA was that the trade with plecos (other fishes too) was out of control when they "allowed" export under many years, there are no studys made in nature considering reproduction rate, populations and so further. They dont know how high pressure we can allowe for each species without having affect on their populations, when new people took over the leadership at IBAMA they could not do nothing else then forbid the export of all species thats not was in the positive list.

When IBAMA forbidded Hypancistrus zebra they did that because of rumours from the fish collecters in Altamira, the truth was that H. zebra really was decreasing rapidly in their natural habitats from thousands induviduals per 1000 m² in the beginning of the 90's to a few hundred on the same area. Even that they obviously was decreasing in such numbers no real study have been made of Hypancistrus zebra.
There are lots of researchers in Brazil but they as most others in other countrys is busy with other projects, or have the same problem recieving founds etc. just imaging how many species of animals that needs to be study just in Brazil.

Janne

I think we all need to consider exactly what these so called rules mean?
If people seriously think that IBAMA rules are going to stop any kind of exports in these areas then they are mistaken. The ban on black rays and H.Zebra has been around a few years and there has been no problem with the supply of either through private channels.
Have a think about exactly who the countries are we are dealing with here? All have large networks in place that are fairly experienced in moving contraband of all sorts in massive quantity's to all points of the globe. The ban on WC parrots has been around for years yet I don't see fewer WC birds appearing in the trade.
I think the effect of the IBAMA rules on serious Aquarists will be far less serious then people think. If people want fish they will be able to get them sure the price might be higher but I don't think that's a bad thing as it tends to weed out those people who are not seriously dedicated.

Hi Taksan,
While what you wrote was all true, but it does not change the fact that if any animal or plant with a limited reproduction/replacement rate like plecos or Orchids are indiscriminately overexploited, the outcome in the long run is to bring those species ever closer to the brink of extinction.

Everything was done backwards in Brazil. Instead of assessing the populations before commercializing them so the resource might be managed in a sane and rational way, the fish have been ruthlessly exploited and now new stock is increasingly going to arrive through those well established underground routes and organizations to which you alluded to and thus potentially endangering the species existence in the future. It is late to be closing the barn door but the hobby has played a role in making some reactions from the responsible agencies necessary to ameliorate the damages while there are still fish left to save.
All of us who have bought these fish and those that are able to make it through post-ruling environment, must take ownership for the part we play in the events that have led to today's circumstances. I am as guilty as anyone for buying my share of these fish while I could.

Colombia exporters have always exported a few Brazilian species caught on both sides of the border but do not "import" from exporters in Brazil to just extend their own stocklist's.

Janne,
Just want to point out that this statement does not match my experience. Many Colombian exporters I know do exactly that. While the fishes originating from the main Amazon collection point of Leticia, Colombia can't be said to belong to any one country (because the borders of Colombia, Brazil, and Peru all intersect there), there are Colombian exporters that send their men down river for Xingu and Tapajos plecos specifically. Actually plecos, rays, discus, and arowana are all brought into Colombia this way. Many of the collectors operate from "house boats" so it is an easy thing to float into (true) Brazilian waters if that is where the fishes that bring the most money are.
-Shane

Shane wrote:Just want to point out that this statement does not match my experience. Many Colombian exporters I know do exactly that. While the fishes originating from the main Amazon collection point of Leticia, Colombia can't be said to belong to any one country (because the borders of Colombia, Brazil, and Peru all intersect there), there are Colombian exporters that send their men down river for Xingu and Tapajos pl*cos specifically. Actually pl*cos, rays, discus, and arowana are all brought into Colombia this way. Many of the collectors operate from "house boats" so it is an easy thing to float into (true) Brazilian waters if that is where the fishes that bring the most money are.

That they collect species in Brazil is common in the area around these countrys borders but I am not aware of any exporters in Brazil sending fish to Colombia, if they go by boat down to Xingu...how do they bring their boats above the waterfalls just south of Belo Monte? How many kilometers is it to Leticia from the mouth of Rio xingu? How much money does it cost to make that kind of expedition? They need to fill a very large boat with fishes and at least 50% would die under the transport and the rest would be in a terrible shape when they arrive Bogota. Of course there are people collecting fish in Brazil and then sell to buyers in Colombia or Peru but there are no evidence for any larger trade from Brazil to these countrys, if it happens that they smuggle fishes from so far distances like Rio xingu to Peru or Colombia they need to fly them out from Altamira or Belo Monte. If it's true that some exporters in Peru or Colombia really export forbidden fishes from Brazil like H. zebra or P. leopoldi it cant be more then just a few, I am aware of Colombian exporters interested to buy H. zebra from Europe thinking they can start to breed them.
The day the wholesalers I know in Europe really recieve any of these species ordered from Peru or Colombia I will change my mind.

taksan wrote:I think we all need to consider exactly what these so called rules mean?
If people seriously think that IBAMA rules are going to stop any kind of exports in these areas then they are mistaken. The ban on black rays and H.Zebra has been around a few years and there has been no problem with the supply of either through private channels.
Have a think about exactly who the countries are we are dealing with here? All have large networks in place that are fairly experienced in moving contraband of all sorts in massive quantity's to all points of the globe. The ban on WC parrots has been around for years yet I don't see fewer WC birds appearing in the trade.

I cant agree, of course it has been much more difficult to smuggle animals from south america and it has had affect anyway in Brazil, when you talk birds I think Peru is the worse country.

taksan wrote:I think the effect of the IBAMA rules on serious Aquarists will be far less serious then people think. If people want fish they will be able to get them sure the price might be higher but I don't think that's a bad thing as it tends to weed out those people who are not seriously dedicated.

I dont agree with that either, because before the bans it was much much worse then today. Before they was exported in thousands but today the people with money that really wants and pay for a H. zebra only can get their hands of a few boxes each year if lucky...and stingrays that was allowed in a quota system before can only be smuggled out one or two now and then.

To justify smuggling just because a very few serious aquarists really want a particular species and pay the price just show the affects of the bans, with an open trade these species would be extinct today but they thrive instead and the populations is recovering. People with enough money will allways be able to buy what they want but there are lots of more people without money on this planet, then you can count the people that have a lots of money how many of them that are interested in aquariums...

Janne

Your welcome to your views ...I'll stick with my fish

I think we all need to consider exactly what these so called rules mean?
If people seriously think that IBAMA rules are going to stop any kind of exports in these areas then they are mistaken. The ban on black rays and H.Zebra has been around a few years and there has been no problem with the supply of either through private channels.
Have a think about exactly who the countries are we are dealing with here? All have large networks in place that are fairly experienced in moving contraband of all sorts in massive quantity's to all points of the globe. The ban on WC parrots has been around for years yet I don't see fewer WC birds appearing in the trade.
I think the effect of the IBAMA rules on serious Aquarists will be far less serious then people think. If people want fish they will be able to get them sure the price might be higher but I don't think that's a bad thing as it tends to weed out those people who are not seriously dedicated.

You seem to be saying for example that effectively "it should be legal to murder people, because you will never stop people murdering each other".

If something is wrong, it is wrong regardless of other people doing it.

How you manage to draw a analogy with murder is beyond my comprehension. I am simply saying that despite the IBAMA ban people will still be able to obtain the fish they really want so they should stop panicking. Fish are finding their way out just fine.

In my eyes Racoll tried to find an anology for your statement

'as people will try and find a way to circumvent the ban, the ban would better be lifted'

which generalizes to 'if a prohibition can not be hold, it would better be allowed'

I think he succeded: not only did he find an analogy, but he found an anology that prooved the statement wrong

I don't think he suggested smuggling fishes is murder.

Personally, I would like to point out, that by buying smuggled fishes the smuggler might try other ware to smuggle, such as drugs, or waepons. And later on, this smuggle might lead into criminal gangs which might even murder each other, or worse, police enforcement.

I do think that this risk is such a large risk, thant I would call everyone to refrain from buying smuggled fish

In my eyes Racoll tried to find an anology for your statement

'as people will try and find a way to circumvent the ban, the ban would better be lifted'

which generalizes to 'if a prohibition can not be hold, it would better be allowed'

I think he succeded: not only did he find an analogy, but he found an anology that prooved the statement wrong

I don't think he suggested smuggling fishes is murder.

Exactly.

I am simply saying that despite the IBAMA ban people will still be able to obtain the fish they really want so they should stop panicking. Fish are finding their way out just fine.

If you are simply stating that fish have and will be smuggled, then fine, a valid point. But I detect that you think the IBAMA restrictions are a load of rubbish, they should not be observed, and we should buy our fishes "illegally" from now on, should we want to.

Correct me if i'm wrong.

Hi Bas and Gang,
You have established that buying banned plecos is a gateway into felonious behaviors of all kinds.
Pretty interesting chain of logic you used there. I'll have to give it more before trying play counter point.

I am not generally in favor of prohibition. I am a card carrying liberal in most respects.
The facts are, Brazil has decided to restrict the export of some of her ornamental fish species and that it is how it was done that made this so disagreeable. The aquarium fish export business is a very small part of the total Brazilian GNP although it is an an industry that helps some families survive off their native lands and waters.

I believe that it is unfortunate that these fish export bans are now in place but not that they may not be necessary as I explained in a previous post, the Hypancistrus types are not fairing as well with unrestricted collecting as Cardinal Tetras. We aquarists and the live stock trade that provides them have the capacity to drive some of them into extinction so something had to be done by the Brazilian government.
Prohibition long enough to perform studies that should have been made by the Brazilian Government long ago to determine at what level a sustainable fishery can be maintained. They merely reacted and did too little, too late so now we have to wait much longer for the scientists to evaluate the existing populations, name the fish for a change, and figure out when they have recovered so a rational sustainable harvest may resume. If no actions were taken soon, I'm sure we would see our favorite species but in ever fewer numbers and higher prices, perhaps, in the process of unregulated harvesting, driving many species into extinction.

Taksan, I have to disagree with you that, even if I were to accept that fish smuggling operations are as sophisticated and well financed as you imply, I disagree that their take will be enough to drive the fish into extinction and present a minor threat to the fish populations at this time. They are threatened species, yet there are good indications that there are few endangered species, albeit, not yet named species. I believe that all species of Hypancistrus are still capable of recovering if given a reasonable chance. As these fish become scientifically described, if Brazil claims them as endangered, various international treaties to which most major OTF buying countries are signatories, will prevent entry of illegally exported species. No enforcement scheme is ever close to being perfectly successful, but the stakes of imprisonment and fines for fish smuggling are high enough to be more successful with live fish than those prohibiting the manufacture or possession with intent to distribute, US DEA Class I Drugs like Heroin, Cocaine, and LSD to name a few where the profits truly are well worth running the risks organized criminals take using folks that are normally about as poor as the pleco collectors to perform the actual job of being the virtual mules.
While on the subject, many of the people in the smuggling business actually smuggle a range of items. So when a Colombian smuggles into Brazil, a load of Cocaine, they will likely bring back something else of value that is restricted. That is their business; taking high risks routinely.
I kind of doubt that they would choose to smuggle fish with such a low profit margin and allow a bust over a shipment of fish interfere with their more profitable businesses.

apistomaster wrote:I am not generally in favor of prohibition. I am a card carrying liberal in most respects.

I consider myself very liberal too - but I was informed 'liberal' does not mean the same in the USA as it does in Europe. However, regardless the meaning, I think we should try to avoid politics as much as possible

However, you referred to certain DEA enforced drugs, and I think we do agree some enforcement of certain things is needed.
In my eyes, an export ban on fishes can principally one of these

Further, what I wrote above did not cover the rightfulness of the ban itself, I wrote people should obay the ban - regardless of it rightfulness. We should obey it, because it does exist. We may, further, feel the ban should be lifted. Official chanels will be found to arrange this. That is, to me, a whole other issu

racoll wrote: But I detect that you think the IBAMA restrictions are a load of rubbish, they should not be observed, and we should buy our fishes "illegally" from now on, should we want to.

It is a load of rubbish
It won't be observed .... its already being flouted.
and its not illegal to buy fish ...might be illegal in Brazil to export them but I'm not in Brazil so I don't have to follow their laws.

My view is simple if you want certain fish you will still be able to get them and the idea of people running around saying there are going to be no fish available simply have no idea of the reality. Keepers of black rays have been dealing with this issue for a few years and supply is still coming through.

Where there is demand there will be supply.

And bad laws will be broken.

Thats life ....

For a long time, Aussies have had to buy smuggled fish species that are perfectly legal (and plentiful and cheap) for many of the international fishkeepers here. Imagine if almost every fish you currently have or want was an illegal fish? What would you do if your government (or other governments) decided that keeping all exotic fish were illegal?

I can see Taksan's side of the equation even though it isn't the ideal.

and its not illegal to buy fish ...might be illegal in Brazil to export them but I'm not in Brazil so I don't have to follow their laws.

Indeed, which is why I used inverted commas.

And bad laws will be broken.

Why is it such a bad law, aside from the fact that it will be broken?

racoll wrote:
Why is it such a bad law, aside from the fact that it will be broken?

See the strings of dead Pseudi's sold for 5 cents as a snack ...see the wild discus turned into soup .. see the piles of Dead black rays speared and left to die on the sand ...see the gill nets with their drowned dolphins....see the gold mines ...see the land clearing I could go on and on and on and we havern't even got to the proposed hydroelectric dams the vandals want to build. I've been there I've seen these things.

The net effect of collection for Aqauria pales into insignificance compared to the destruction being sanctioned and supported by the Brazilian government.

I actually believe many species would be safer if completely exported far out of the way of these peoples jurisdiction. They are safer in your tank then in a river administered by IBAMA.


For IBAMA to take away the livelihoods of some of the regions poorest people in the name of protecting wildlife while allowing the rich to destroy at at will and whim on a scale so massive that recovery is impossible is the ultimate hypocrisy. Not to mention that far greater numbers of L numbers are killed as "by catch" of commercial fisheries for human consumption each year then have been exported since exports of live fish began yet nothing is done about the fishing licenses granted to the wealthy fishing fleet owners.

The Brazilian government are hypocrites and environmental criminals and such things as the ban are only to pay public lip service to any issues so behind the scenes their destruction fueled by green and corruption continues unabated.
As you can see I don't have much respect for Brazilian environmental policies and I can't understand how people who I would think knowledgeable in other areas seem to think otherwise.

aquaholic wrote:For a long time, Aussies have had to buy smuggled fish species that are perfectly legal (and plentiful and cheap) for many of the international fishkeepers here. Imagine if almost every fish you currently have or want was an illegal fish? What would you do if your government (or other governments) decided that keeping all exotic fish were illegal?

I can see Taksan's side of the equation even though it isn't the ideal.

Regarding an eventual Astralian ban on all imported tropical fish, I think people can give very good arguments. Would you keep rabbits as pets? I used to.

Australian wildlife is very sensitive to foreign species, and thus needs to be protected.

In such a case, were I Australian, I would emigrate

Back to Taksan's arguments

Actually I'm shocked you don't even try to respect Brasil. I mean, we Europeans, we used to be colonialists, and later we agreed we better not be colonialists

I think your arguments above (which are not that new) are quite convincing, but the point is, Brasil is an independent nation which is quite free to do as they please. They don't have the get your or my permission

Currently, the Dutch government is not what I voted for. So I just have to wait them out. For other nations, with policies I don't like, I think it will be just the same

Cheers,

..and what about hundreds of thousands of, e.g., Baryancistrus spp. starving to death under inappropriate aquaria conditions? Because they are bought by virtually everyone for their good looks without knowing how to care for them? The Ancistrus kept in rift valley cichlid tanks as "cleaning fish"? Ill tetras flushed down the toilet because buying new ones is cheaper than curing them?

Which leaves another "ethical" question: why is it necessary to have wild caught fish rather than distributing and breeding with aquarium strains? What´s the benefit of getting, e.g., H. zebras which are smuggled through Peru and arriving in bad condition as compared to buying bred stock from a local? Aside from the point that bred stock probably has to be raised to maturity and is not "capable" of producing valuable offspring immediately?

While I can generally get the idea behind the notion that any species really wanted actually will be available, there is one point I really cannot get into my mind:

There are a few hundred species of loricariid catfish known and virtually every genus has already been bred under aquarium conditions by dedicated breeders. The small, most widely desired species are even rather easy to breed in acceptable numbers, and Hypancistrus species as the most sought after genus of all are actually even "hard" to prevent breeding.
I personally feel that it should be very possible for dedicated catfish keepers should be able to supply the majority of all species of catfish that had been available in certain numbers. This has even gone so far as to a lot of people (at least here in Germany) stopping breeding, e.g., H. sp. "L 66", since no one would pay enough for the fry to at least cover the cost partially. Other fish are so cheap in the trade as wild caught specimen, that breeding them might be a nice goal to prove that you´re able to, but in no way could bring the expense back in.
Seen from such a split hobbyist/capitalist point of view (meaning essentially that I also have to pay my bill from the electricity supplier), I consider this "ban" (which is, to recall that, not new, but only now enforced) as a chance for dedicated breeders to regain some reputation and the possibility to show the versatility of groups of aquarists joining their efforts to preserve species by breeding from "extinction" (be it as naturally occuring fish or as fish available in the trade).

And now back to the "point":
Who on this planet defines what a "bad law" is? If I don´t like copyright law, does that give me the moral right to download music, movies and whatsoever from the internet just because it can be made available? Regardless if it should be done? And is the fact that millions of other people do it enough justification to do it yourself?
And where is the delimitor to this string of thoughts? Can you justify stealing, e.g., a patent just because you think that you don´t like patent laws?
Regarding, finally, to your personal view of Brazilia and it´s government (without any intent to judging it!):
A comparable collection of oppinions and notions were (and are) put forward by certain people toward the idea of a "war on terrorism". And to give it a twist: would you defend with the same verve as proving the rightfulness of breaking an export ban a person that states that "America has no right to defend it´s values, is in general a "bad thing" and should be harmed in any way possible"?
Although I´m aware that it´s not a too well comparing example: where would you draw the line between "breaking laws (be it moral or "true" ones) is fine provided it serves me and I don´t like the one putting them up" and "breaking this law is wrong and should be punished"?

And then imagine YOU would have to suffer the consequences of your actions/your wish to get hold on certain fish species. Think of being thrown into a brazilian prison because you made other people try to smuggle fish out of the country? It´s easy to hold up claims and naming desires as rightful if you´re not the one suffering the consequences of such claims and desires.

Cheers, Sandor,
on the moral trip.

P.S.: Bas rushed in between.. This is a direct answer to taksan´s post..

Bas Pels wrote: Actually I'm shocked you don't even try to respect Brasil. I mean, we Europeans, we used to be colonialists, and later we agreed we better not be colonialists

I think your arguments above (which are not that new) are quite convincing, but the point is, Brasil is an independent nation which is quite free to do as they please. They don't have the get your or my permission

Currently, the Dutch government is not what I voted for. So I just have to wait them out. For other nations, with policies I don't like, I think it will be just the same

Yes you are quite correct that Brazil can do as it pleases and they have a right to make whatever laws they like regardless of what anyone thinks.

But I'm not in Brazil so I I have no legal or moral obligation to respect Brazil's domestic legislation as it does not apply to me.

Taksan, it is true that there are many causes that contribute towards the demise of these fishes, but I think morally it is wrong to think "well everyone else is harming them, so I will too".

There is enough evidence now that some loricariid populations cannot be harvested sustainably at current levels.

I think the moral "high ground" is to respect Brazil's laws and let them do as they please with regard to dams etc, which I do not believe are a foregone conclusion yet.

I think IBAMA are the good guys, and I don't believe they have any control over the dams and large-scale infrastructure projects decided upon by other the government departments (I think we have discussed this before though).

As far as I can see, all that will come of buying smuggled fish, is lots of fish dying in sub-standard conditions, fish being destroyed at airports and middlemen/retailers getting a lot of money.

Hi,

But I'm not in Brazil so I I have no legal or moral obligation to respect Brazil's domestic legislation as it does not apply to me.

If you consider morality as such an ambivalent and obsolete issue, I believe any further discussion is completely pointless.

It actually scares me that such ruthless attitude can go without saying in the so-called "civilized world".

Headshaking,
Sandor

racoll wrote:I think IBAMA are the good guys, and I don't believe they have any control over the dams and large-scale infrastructure projects decided upon by other the government departments (I think we have discussed this before though).

Correct.

And Sandor make the point extremely clear, finally I just would want to point out that before any "ban" the export was 100% and today the smugglers maybe illegal export 1% so the problem is not really a problem.

Why we should buy wild caught fishes is simple, it's a very important income for thousands of poor people and few rich people but they are depending on each other, it needs to be regulated if it shall works so without laws and rules there would not be any WC fishes in any aquarium's in the future and the poor people will just get more poor.

Janne

I would really like to see fairtrade tropical fishes.

That means; ecological lasting and fair payment to those who catches the fishes and not just a few people that gets rich on others expences!
I also see problems with exporting fishes and the C02 and blobal heating but there is not differences with breed and wild cought fish, but it is a problem never less.

But would it be able to solve the ecological and financial part we would be going on a good track!

Perhaps the fairtrade foundation would be interested in tropical fishes cause its a quite big trademarket.


Regards
Cristoffer

Project Piaba is one such attempt to address the inequalities between those who catch ornamental tropical fish out of Barcelos along the Rio Negro and the buyers. You may find this website interesting. This project is a pilot project and it and others like it deserve support.
http://finarama.com/projectpiaba/?linkname=piaba2

This is a copy of post I made today at zebraplecop.com:

There are for sure more wild caught zebras being offered in the USA than I have seen in the last few years. I can get sexed adults for $250 each in lots of 10 and even cheaper for more. I have noticed the ones being listed on AquaBid are not selling either at the "old" price levels. Clearly at least many 100s of zebras are being illegally collected and shipped out. maybe more since I have no idea about what is showing up on European and Asian markets.

The question is whether this is a good or bad thing as far as the species is concerned. There are virtually no studies of what the wild zebra populations look like- are they stable, rising, decreasing?

Apparently global pricing, driven by demand, has made it worth collecting in violation of the ban and smuggling them for export from neighboring countries. While we are all aware of the potential destruction of the zebra's habitat by the proposed dams, none has even broken ground as far as I know. So I reject the argument offered by some that buying illegally exported zebras is saving them from certain death.

What I do fear is that greed is now causing these fish to be over collected. Given how long it takes them to grow to breeding size/age, I wonder if the greater risk now is from over collection. If enough adults and sub adults are removed from the wild, I would suspect that alone could lead to the demise of the species.

I am torn myself. Knowing I can get sexed wild adults for $250 or less in lots of 10 is very tempting. But supporting the illegal export of the species given the above is something I believe is wrong. I feel doing so makes one responsible, to some extent, for possibly wiping the species out entirely.