FishProfiles.com Message Forums

After reading another thread about snail eating fish, I came across some chained loaches for sale, and having read that they were difficult to find but good, small, snail eaters I snapped them up. When I got them back home, I checked the internet to learn a bit more about them and found out they were an endangered species.

I was a bit shocked at first, if they're endangered I'd much rather they were in their stream than my tank, but I managed to persuade myself that they must be captive bred. After that, I started to enjoy the idea of telling / showing people that I had an endangered fish.

Does anyone know of any other endangered fish that occasionally turn up at the LFS? Of course assuming that they are captive bred and we're not harming the wild population. Or have I got this completely wrong and I'm about to receive your (rightful) anger at behaving so inconsiderately?

I've heard that cherry barbs, one of the most plentiful fish at the LFS, is pretty difficult indeed to find in their natural habitat. Also, I was reading in my April issu of Tropical Fish Hobbyist that there are some livebearers that ARE extinct in the wild but only live on by being bred in tanks by hobbyists.

I would just imagine that your little loach is tank bred and I wouldn't worry about sending the species into oblivion....they usually ban export these days before it gets that far....I think.

---

~~Melissa~~
"Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder."

WCMMs are also supposedly extinct in the wild, but are extensively farm-bred.

Joe Potato


Edit: Correction. Just did some fact-checking and indeed it appears as if a small, wild population has been recently discovered. As such, WCMMs are now considered critically endangered.

On top of the growing list, Red Tailed Sharks and Boesmani Rainbowfish are also endangered in their natural habitats.

However, I'm pretty sure that endangered species are protected by certain laws in their natural habitats, so any fish that are endangered and you regularly see in the trade are probably captive bred.

--------------------------------------------
The aquarist is one who must learn the ways of the biologist, the chemist, and the veterinarian.

...Except for Botia sidthimunki.

This species, and in fact all Botia species you see in the store, is harvested from the wild where they are endangered. That's why you're lucky to find one for under $20...

Most fish you see in fish stores are actually wild-caught, simply because it is much cheaper to catch them than it is to breed them.

---

I'm not your neighbor, you Bakersfield trash.

If they are endagered and are caught from the wild then surely you shouldn't buy them...the same way you wouldn't buy anything made of ivory?

The Aphanius fasciatus in Malta is quite endangered & hopefully something will be done soon.
As a Malta Aquarist Society member, we are doing our best to convince the authorities to do something immediatly.


http://uk.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/s8xi5heh/my_photos
http://www.geocities.com/s8xi5heh/classic_blue.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/buzaqq/
http://www.deathbydyeing.org/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/corydoras/
Member of the Malta Aquarist Society - 1970.
http://www.maltaaquarist.com

That is no captive bred loach as Cory Addict mentioned above. While the rest of the world views it as an endangered animal, the natives just know that catching and selling them is a source of income. We don't prohibit them from import so there you go for sale at the local shop.

There are so many different ways to view it. I purchase endangered species because I know they will live longer and happier in my tank than in anyone elses who may buy them. They will also still be alive should such the time come that they may be needed if the species takes a turn for the worse. My fish usually die of old age, which is why you don't hear of me buying fish very often. I have my stock.

Others will argue that by not buying you will not increase the demand and the shops will stop ordering them, both valid arguments.

Koi

Empty chairs at empty tables, the room silent, forlorn.

It's all about supply and demand. I would argue that if you remove the demand then the supply won't have anywhere to go, so the fish lose their financial value. If we all decided that panda bears were good pets then would it bew alright to remove them from the wild and keep them as pets, even if we treated them well?

Devil's Advocate Situation:

In the San Diego zoo, there is a small herd of a subspecies of antelope native to the middle east. Their entire natural habitat is found on the narrow bank of a small river - unsustainable for a population the size of the captive-breds at the zoo. (This has always been their habitat - we haven't made it smaller, it's just a limited range for these critters.) In Africa, there is a very successful cheetah breeding operation recently featured on Animal Planet. This facility focuses on acclimating their captive-breds to people contact, because there is simply not enough wild habitat left to sustain them and they will never be released. So why bother? Does life have value just because it's life? Why keep animals that are extinct in the wild at all? Why not just let them die off? If there is no wild population, or an endangered one, what is the benefit of keeping them? I suppose the real question is - what is lost when a species is lost? (BTW, I support saving species that man has endangered.)

Just food for thought.

I guess that there is a hope that some habitats could be recovered, although I dont have much faith myself. There are some creatures that nature is obviously selecting for extinction outside of mans influence, but since we are losing several species of animal a day I guess one school of thought could be that its a good idea to save any species. Even the wisest of men cannot know what species might find new environmental niches in this radical period of ecological change.My personal opinion is that we should make every effort to save every species possible, that way we have a greater diversity of species at our desposal for repopulation projects of the future. There may come a day when there is no longer such a thing as a type locality ecosystem and we may have to artificially construct systems that includes species of whatever origins to fit certain roles. We'd be foolish to part with any potentially suitable species.

I think I'm with PurestDJ on this one, if a species is endangered I'd prefer that it stays in it's natural habitat. Or only for the professionals to take it into captivity - too risky for the likes of me to be trusted with it!!! It would only take a power cut for any length of time to put the guys in my tank in danger. Also a little concerning is the survival rates from the importing. I guess for the 20 fish I see for sale in the LFS, that a similar number didn't make the journey???

I guess the only way to prevent this happening would be a ban on imports. It's all well and good saying that we could not buy any endangered fish for sale, but the trouble is the lack of knowledge about the subject. I bought my loaches without realising they were endangered, and even if I did know I certainly had no idea they haven't been captive bred (an unscrupulous LFS could easily advertise as captive bred). This then leads to Koi Keepers comment that if they are to be bought, they're better off in a well kept aquarium where the owner has the knowledge to keep them alive and happy.

Difficult one, but still not overly happy to learn that my little endangered loaches were once wild (they're all still alive and settled into the tank now at least anyway).

Th fact of life is that they were already harvested, and there's no way that you're going to be flying all the way back to Asia to release them. Therefore, provided you're quite confident of your expertise as an aquarist, would you rather have them thrive in your tank or live in the substandard housing of another casual aquarist (or worse--the LFS)?

If you want some engangered fish, then get some Endlers Live Bearers. They are extinct in the wild, and look like tiny guppies!

It's not just about the fish you see in the aquarium, it's about the entire species, if the LFS are left with 100 chain loaches that they can't sell then they'll stop ordering them...the demand goes down and the importers stop importing those fish, lots of chain loaches left in the wild
If you buy them and give them a good home, the LFS will continue to buy them in and the demand stays the same or increases and supply will meet demand...before long no wild chain loaches
I know this is a simplified version of reality but if someone thinks that buying endangered fish and looking after them well will help save the species then they are just kidding themselves really.

I don't think so. Most people find out that a species is endangered and the demand goes up naturally. Many endangered fishies that are common in aquariums can breed and thrive happily in aquariums and not in the wild. ^_^

Inky

"I know this is a simplified version of reality but if someone thinks that buying endangered fish and looking after them well will help save the species then they are just kidding themselves really. "

Who said anything about that? We're just making the best of a bad situation. Of course, if you have a better, more feasible idea, I'd be happy to share it.

The Lake Eacham Rainbowfish, Melanotaenia eachamensis, is a case in point.

After the addition of non-native fishes to the lake, the fish became, as far as we knew, extinct in the wild. However, aquarists had stocks of the species, and a breeding programme was instituted to raise large numbers for a possible reintroduction to the lake. It has since transpired that there is another wild population of the species extant in Australia, and that protection of that population from alien introductions is now a high priority. But until the second population was discovered, the aquarists' stocks were the only hope for the species' survival. Indeed, it has since been determined that removing the alien fish species from Lake Eacham and making the lake habitable for the Lake Eacham Rainbowfish will take decades, partly because the alien iintroductions (mostly carp) are fecund and aggressively competitive compared with the natives.

As for the Pigmy Chain Loach, if I had the money to do so, I'd start setting up places where the fish could be captive bred, even if that meant digging special ponds for the purpose and creating new habitats for them to breed as they would in the wild.


Panda Catfish fan and keeper/breeder since Christmas 2002

Points taken, especially about the examples of the introduction of alien fish, I am refering more to situations of over-harvesting.
Cup_of_Lifenoodles mentioned that it is better to keep an endangered fish in your own tank rather than leave to an in-experianced aquarist or even leave them in the shop. If they are left in the shop then maybe the fish in that tank would die, but then less would be harvested from their natural habitat...the species survives.
A non-aquarist but fishy example is the over harvesting of Cod in the North Sea, the demand for Cod is so high that many ecologist believe that before long we are going to make wild Cod extinct! The only way to regulate this fishing is either to patrol the waters and ensure that only the permitted amount of fish are caught, or for people to stop eating cod. Neither are easy and the first solution isn't working...but the later requires individuals to change their eating habits. Maybe even harder!

You know that both sides of this story are compelling but let me offer a third side. A lot of the fish that are kept in the aquarium trade have really short population doubling times. This is evident when looking at fishbase.org and it tells you what the population doubling time is. If a fish is endangered and its doubling time is less then a year and only half of the doubled population is taken there still on the rise. If these fish are taken at young ages you have to also figure in attrition.

On an episode of dirty jobs the host was at an alligator farm. This farm releases more alligators into the wild then would normally make it if they didn't take the eggs from the wild. With a mortality rate of 80% in the wild and only 6% or so in captivity even though the majority of the alligators are going to be slaughtered for there skin and meat or sent to zoo's in the case of albino-ism (they have a 100% mortality rate in the wild) they are still releasing more than 20% of there stock into the wild. Whats more they population balance so that the ratio of males and females is correct.

I think its wrong to look at this from a supply and demand perspective or from a wild extinction to captive thrive perspective either I think this needs to be viewed from a conservation perspective. So here are the two perspectives in a nutshell.

1: They are being over farmed and this is causing populations to diminish. If we do not buy them they will not be farmed as much. (while this is true the casual aquarist isn't going to know we are doing this and our attempt will be futile) Letting them live in our tanks will stop them from dying else were.

2: There loosing the battle for there habitat, be it a battle against invading spices or invading humans they are loosing and we as aquarist's are keeping them alive because we provide a little home away from home. (While this is true what are we doing about the problem of them disappearing in the wild.)

I think both perspectives are flawed and I offer solutions to both situations.

If a fish is being over harvested, fine we cant do much about it. Wrong, we as responsible aquarist's have a lot of these species reproducing in our aquariums many with 80% survival rate which is much higher than in the wild, so why are we giving them away or keeping them, should we not share this population with the world by sending a large portion back home to there natural habitat even if they get farmed again they will have a chance to produce in the wild right? And wouldn't it also be wise to have a major fish farm be willing to pay for shipping to receive your captive breed fish for free so that less wild caught fish are being sold?

If on the other hand our endangered fish are loosing there habitat shouldn't we as citizens of the world be protesting in a more proactive way than talking about it here, shouldn't we start a sort of repository for fish that no longer have natural habitats so that when our cries for restoration of said habitat are answered we will have the fish to put back home giving our cry for restoration some weight now that we have the extinct fish to return there? I think that the reason most habitats don't get restored is because the extinct animals are gone, but if we have them and are willing to return them wouldn't this give us more power to effect the change needed?

All in all I don't believe its bad for us to have the fish, i believe it is our duty to breed the fish and share the ones we breed, and save the ones we have for the day we can repopulate the world. An ark does not have to be a religious icon, nor does it have to be a large boat sometimes its a little glass cube on your desk... at least thats one point of view.