LOGIN

RSS Facebook Twitter YouTube
GLOSSARY       

SEARCHGLOSSARY

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

PROFILESEARCH

Is It Too Late For Paretroplus In Madagascar?

Home Forums The Lounge Is It Too Late For Paretroplus In Madagascar?

This topic contains 0 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by  ferox 6 years, 10 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 16 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #301514

    Matt
    Keymaster
    #344205

    Stefan
    Member

    What a depressing news

    #344212

    ferox
    Participant

    Very depressing news indeed, and such a beautiful fish.

    I hope the authors of the article manage to breed these to establish a captive population. This may be a good example of a species (or two) which could be saved in captivity as the wild population is wiped out.

    #344213

    coelacanth
    Participant

    Where there is no wild habitat for them to return to, it would be a waste of limited resources that would be better put to securing captive populations of those species where habitat restoration is feasible. Harsh I know, but there’s finite capacity to hold species, better off directing efforts towards those where there is some chance of “success”.

    #344215

    David Marshall
    Participant

    Hey

    Sadly just one of many recent press stories about the demise of fish and their habitats.

    Regards David

    #344216

    Bojan Dolenc
    Participant
    #344221

    Matt
    Keymaster

    QUOTE (coelacanth @ Jun 21 2011, 11:34 AM) < {POST_SNAPBACK}>
    Where there is no wild habitat for them to return to, it would be a waste of limited resources that would be better put to securing captive populations of those species where habitat restoration is feasible. Harsh I know, but there’s finite capacity to hold species, better off directing efforts towards those where there is some chance of “success”.

    Sad to say, but I agree with most of this.

    #344224

    Stefan
    Member

    QUOTE (coelacanth @ Jun 21 2011, 01:34 PM) < {POST_SNAPBACK}>
    Where there is no wild habitat for them to return to, it would be a waste of limited resources that would be better put to securing captive populations of those species where habitat restoration is feasible. Harsh I know, but there’s finite capacity to hold species, better off directing efforts towards those where there is some chance of “success”.

    How many restorable habitats would you expect earth will have in let’s say 5-10 years from now? Perhaps I’m stubborn, but personally I couldn’t give up on some of the species that (will) have no chance of being returned to the wild due to their habitat disappearing. But I do understand what you’re saying.

    #344230

    Eyrie
    Participant

    I’m of the opinion that the focus has to be on protecting the habitat first so that the species have somewhere to live.

    Problem is that exponential population growth means that humans aredestroying natural habitats to support their own needs. It would be much easier to raise living standards throughout the world if the population wasn’t so large, and that would help ease the pressure on vulnerable habitats and endangered species.

    #344231

    Stefan
    Member

    QUOTE (Eyrie @ Jun 21 2011, 09:29 PM) < {POST_SNAPBACK}>
    I’m of the opinion that the focus has to be on protecting the habitat first so that the species have somewhere to live.

    You’ve hit the nail on the head. I wish it were easier to achieve

    #344235

    Plaamoo
    Participant

    The Earth is in need of a serious plague. It looked like maybe the bird/swine flu would do it, but they seem to have subsided, for now.

    #344236

    ferox
    Participant

    I can understand the thinking behind the pessimistic nature of many of the preceding posts, but when it comes to deciding whether to believe endangered species are worth making an effort to conserve it is important to consider each species on it’s own merits. I’d like to make a couple of observations about the species covered in the article.

    Firstly, I envisage that these attractive fish could conceivably become popular and sought after in the hobby provided they could be kept and bred without too much difficulty, thereby perpetuating them in captivity whether or not they still exist in the wild and whether or not there is a habitat to return them to. If these species were to become considered ‘desirable’ their survival would not have to depend on acts of charity.

    Secondly, it appeared to me from the article that their decline might be less to do with habitat loss and more to do with competition with introduced species. Could the habitat be modified to favour the endemic species over the non-natives? If the habitat still exists then there is a strong argument for making the effort to help the species along. why not get locals interested and active in the same way the SEI are getting kids to breed and release killifish for example?

    #344239

    Matt
    Keymaster

    Gordon, habitat loss/degradation is the main cause of fish habitat loss across the planet – for example up to 90% of forest cover has now been removed from Madagascar and many rivers are polluted, though vigorous, introduced species such as Tilapia hardly help.

    In Spain, all Aphanius and Valencia habitats are ‘protected’ under both national and international law, but in most cases the physical manifestation of this is to simply erect a sign next to the habitat, or more commonly, do nothing at all…

    #344242

    coelacanth
    Participant

    QUOTE
    How many restorable habitats would you expect earth will have in let’s say 5-10 years from now? Perhaps I’m stubborn, but personally I couldn’t give up on some of the species that (will) have no chance of being returned to the wild due to their habitat disappearing.

    I understand and sympathise with your approach, but with the current rate of habitat loss there will be ever more species to care for and try to keep in perpetuity. Think of it as a lifeboat, with only room for a certain number of rescuees. If you overload the hypothetical lifeboat, all perish. If you load the lifeboat based on emotion or personal bias, more logically-deserving cases may miss out. Even if you and a few other people keep a “homeless” species going, eventually it will become a kind of “Betta netherlandensis“, and if keeping that species means you don’t have the space to keep “Betta couldgobackicus” in adequate numbers to ensure genetic viability, then both species ultimately are lost.

    QUOTE ( @ Jun 22 2011, 01:50 AM) < {POST_SNAPBACK}>
    when it comes to deciding whether to believe endangered species are worth making an effort to conserve it is important to consider each species on it’s own merits.

    There are already various methods of “scoring” different species to establish whether ex-situ conservation efforts would be likely to have a long-term positive outcome. One of the criteria used is always something along the lines of “is there a restorable habitat?”.

    QUOTE
    Firstly, I envisage that these attractive fish could conceivably become popular and sought after in the hobby provided they could be kept and bred without too much difficulty, thereby perpetuating them in captivity whether or not they still exist in the wild and whether or not there is a habitat to return them to. If these species were to become considered ‘desirable’ their survival would not have to depend on acts of charity.

    Some Paretroplus are being bred in captivity, but they are slow to mature, not very fecund, grow large and can become aggressive when you least expect it. The smallest tank that can be considered for adult fish is IMO 150 gallons.

    QUOTE
    Secondly, it appeared to me from the article that their decline might be less to do with habitat loss and more to do with competition with introduced species. Could the habitat be modified to favour the endemic species over the non-natives? If the habitat still exists then there is a strong argument for making the effort to help the species along. why not get locals interested and active in the same way the SEI are getting kids to breed and release killifish for example?

    Madagascar is getting hit from all sides. Political instability and corruption can mean that projects come to a sticky end very quickly with all the loss of resources that entails. It’s expensive to get to and from anywhere which means lots of logistical issues quite aside from the politics. As I understand it, there’s lots of cultural variety on Madagascar which means you have to know how to negotiate with many different head honchos without offending or upsetting any of them. Many people in Madagascar are desperately poor, they’re more interested in survival than breeding anything that isn’t edible. Climate change is accelerating the damage from anthropogenic habitat loss, which places further pressure on the human inhabitants just to obtain enough food for subsistence.
    Then you’ve got the FAO with their lunatic agenda who help set up fish farms, encouraging the spread of non-native species, and there are still Western missionaries who head over there to interfere with native cultures and spread their own brand of idiocy.
    I’ve been working with, and caring for, fish from Madagascar for over 15 years, but to be honest I just think they’ve had it.
    I’m with plaamoo.
    Naturally I hope I’m one of the survivors, and to be honest I’ll feel no more guilt over that than if I was a small tetra that happened to remain in the main river rather than getting trapped in a drying sidepool where the egrets like to pick off the easy meals.

    #344247

    Plaamoo
    Participant

    QUOTE
    Naturally I hope I’m one of the survivors, and to be honest I’ll feel no more guilt over that than if I was a small tetra that happened to remain in the main river rather than getting trapped in a drying sidepool where the egrets like to pick off the easy meals.

    Nicely put!

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 16 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.