Wild Rift Lake Fish?

[Jeff George]

Really good points, Jeff. I like your idea of a Compact to give species a chance to recover. It would take a large coordination effort, but could have real impact.

As Jesse alludes to though, I suspect that US imports of WC fish are a drop in the bucket in comparison to those going to Asia.

I have a vague feeling that you are right about that, Tony, although I can't prove it. What I will say, though, is that the more distracted we can keep Asia with things like Flowerhorns, the less they'll be taking TYT's from the lakes... :lol:

 

[Jeff George]

Imagine it would be almost entirely consumer economics - in any case until that's a reality there'd be little or no real leverage or influence to be had with governments . "Lobbying" per se can be done in many different ways - for instance blacklisting an importer (or threatening to) for activity detrimental to a species could be a very effective lobbying tool although I'd imagine positive and pro-active messaging would be largely sufficient to achieve the desired results. Expect it would primarily function as a self-policing guidance network to ensure that the hobby doesn't shoot itself in the leg by aiding in the demise of it's stock and trade while doing what it can to promote species/habitat protection, etc.

Thing to remember is that aquarists are an enormous constituency (well over 10 million households in US alone) and that if there's no "beacon" to describe right action, then it's only ever going to be a "whatever the traffic will allow" scenario w.r.t. to commerce in species.

When the idea came to me, it was all about consumer demand. The only way to stop trade in a commodity is to kill demand. Making it illegal to sell it won't stop it, as long as there is demand. Just look at the drug situation, or think back to prohibition. As long as demand remains, trade will continue. Making it illegal just puts it in the hands of criminals, and out of reach of enforcement agencies.

As for African governments, they have their hands full already. They can't enforce the rules around the National Park in Malawi. We can't expect them to protect obscure ornamental, non-food fish when they have millions of people living on a few hundred calories a day, with no desks in the few places they even have schools. WE are the problem for these fish, and WE need to be the solution.

The Fair Trade example is an excellent one. The Compact would have a clear mission statement and a set of guidelines for conducting business in the Rift Lake cichlid trade, as well as an expert-curated list of which fish are on No-Trade and Limited-Time Trade status. Participation would be voluntary; there would likely be no apparatus or funding for enforcement. But signatories to the compact - be they clubs, exporters/importers, commercial or semi-pro breeders, or individuals - would be allowed to display the seal of the Compact as long as they observe it, letting other people who are concerned about the topic know their stance and their commitment.

The organization - and there would have to be one - would need to maintain a database of signatories, and make that portion of the list doing commercial business in tropical fish verifiable online. This way, concerned consumers could check the website to see if the importer they were about to order from was really observing the Compact. There would also need to be some sort of reporting function, when people noticed signatories violating the Compact or the List, and the organization would have to follow up, at least via email or phone, so that commercial enterprises would know they were being observed.

The organization would need to be a positive rather than negative entity, though. It's main purpose would be to praise and publicize people and companies doing the right thing, not to punish those doing the wrong thing. It would need legal advice before setting a policy for de-listing or otherwise publicly naming a signatory that did not observe the Compact and respect the List.

Lots to think about...

 

[AquaStudent]

Yes Sam. I agree completely. I was thinking about it in my classes today too. I'm not sure there's a whole lot the government would be able to control anyway. An economic impact would more likely be a stronger option although, like mentioned earlier, a well organized effort would be the only chance of success.

Controlling demand would be tricky. It would need to be a consensus among people that the preservation of a species in its natural environment is more important than ascetic, sentimental, or financial gain. If fewer and fewer people are importing a rare species the price for one specimen will increase, increasing the demand. Hopefully blacklisting (or threatening to) "unethical" importers and companies will have enough of an impact or scare factor to allow the wild species to recover.

It is a very tricky situation in the modern world...

 

[dogofwar]

I agree, Sam.

We underestimate the value of informed chatter and discussion on cichlid forums as a way of establishing (or changing) worldwide opinions and culture with regard to what's OK and not OK in the hobby... The cichlid hobby is a pretty small world...and we all read the same stuff!

Matt

Imagine it would be almost entirely consumer economics - in any case until that's a reality there'd be little or no real leverage or influence to be had with governments . "Lobbying" per se can be done in many different ways - for instance blacklisting an importer (or threatening to) for activity detrimental to a species could be a very effective lobbying tool although I'd imagine positive and pro-active messaging would be largely sufficient to achieve the desired results. Expect it would primarily function as a self-policing guidance network to ensure that the hobby doesn't shoot itself in the leg by aiding in the demise of it's stock and trade while doing what it can to promote species/habitat protection, etc.

Thing to remember is that aquarists are an enormous constituency (well over 10 million households in US alone) and that if there's no "beacon" to describe right action, then it's only ever going to be a "whatever the traffic will allow" scenario w.r.t. to commerce in species.

 

[dogofwar]

Ironically, all of the vitriol expended on flowerhorns and other fancy cichlids over the past couple of decades has probably accelerated the demand / demise of the Rift Lakes.... because keeping wild fish "supports" conservation, right?

Matt

I have a vague feeling that you are right about that, Tony, although I can't prove it. What I will say, though, is that the more distracted we can keep Asia with things like Flowerhorns, the less they'll be taking TYT's from the lakes... :lol:

 

[Tony]

We need to be careful to lump-categorize importers as "unethical" as this is far from a black-and-white issue. Not everyone will agree to do this and not everyone should be expected to so (especially those whose motivation is their livelihood and not just at the hobby level).

Should a club join this Compact, could they earnestly display the seal if not all the club's members have signed-on? I am not trying to get the cart in front of the horse or poke holes, just trying to get thought out there for discussion.

I like it.

 

[Avatar]

Go for it

When the idea came to me, it was all about consumer demand. The only way to stop trade in a commodity is to kill demand. Making it illegal to sell it won't stop it, as long as there is demand. Just look at the drug situation, or think back to prohibition. As long as demand remains, trade will continue. Making it illegal just puts it in the hands of criminals, and out of reach of enforcement agencies.

As for African governments, they have their hands full already. They can't enforce the rules around the National Park in Malawi. We can't expect them to protect obscure ornamental, non-food fish when they have millions of people living on a few hundred calories a day, with no desks in the few places they even have schools. WE are the problem for these fish, and WE need to be the solution.

The Fair Trade example is an excellent one. The Compact would have a clear mission statement and a set of guidelines for conducting business in the Rift Lake cichlid trade, as well as an expert-curated list of which fish are on No-Trade and Limited-Time Trade status. Participation would be voluntary; there would likely be no apparatus or funding for enforcement. But signatories to the compact - be they clubs, exporters/importers, commercial or semi-pro breeders, or individuals - would be allowed to display the seal of the Compact as long as they observe it, letting other people who are concerned about the topic know their stance and their commitment.

The organization - and there would have to be one - would need to maintain a database of signatories, and make that portion of the list doing commercial business in tropical fish verifiable online. This way, concerned consumers could check the website to see if the importer they were about to order from was really observing the Compact. There would also need to be some sort of reporting function, when people noticed signatories violating the Compact or the List, and the organization would have to follow up, at least via email or phone, so that commercial enterprises would know they were being observed.

The organization would need to be a positive rather than negative entity, though. It's main purpose would be to praise and publicize people and companies doing the right thing, not to punish those doing the wrong thing. It would need legal advice before setting a policy for de-listing or otherwise publicly naming a signatory that did not observe the Compact and respect the List.

Lots to think about...

Very sound and astute analysis if I'm any judge - not sure I've anything to add except that perhaps it's time to move beyond the "thinking" stage...my offer stands.

 

[Jeff George]

We need to be careful to lump-categorize importers as "unethical" as this is far from a black-and-white issue. Not everyone will agree to do this and not everyone should be expected to so (especially those whose motivation is their livelihood and not just at the hobby level).

We have no authority to force people to follow or not follow the Compact - it would be a voluntary agreement, not any nation's law. As far as ethics are concerned, each person aware of the Compact would have to judge for himself whether the idea and its execution are "ethical."

A lot of exporters and importers WON'T agree to this, at least not at first. But some will. And more will if they see that it matters to their customers, out of commercial necessity. We could No-Trade list 50 species in each lake, and they'd still have PLENTY of fish to export or import. And the upside to this method would be that the listed fish are NOT listed permanently - they are just being given a break from collection for a few years until the wild population recovers. The whole purpose of this is to be sure that wild fish remain available both in the lake, and for export, indefinitely. We are talking about WISE use here, not NO use.

Should a club join this Compact, could they earnestly display the seal if not all the club's members have signed-on? I am not trying to get the cart in front of the horse or poke holes, just trying to get thought out there for discussion.

As I see it, a club that joins the Compact would be agreeing that No-Trade Listed fish will not be sold through the club, either at auction, at meetings, or through ads on forums or in publications. It is beyond the authority and resources of a club to police it's members fish rooms, or their activities away from club meetings. But a club can and should control transactions at its own meetings and through its own online and traditional publications.

And remember that all that's being restricted here is the SALE or PURCHASE of WC fish on the No-Trade list. It doesn't mean I can't OWN them, and it doesn't mean I can't GIVE THEM AWAY. If I had a breeding colony of, say, wild-caught Ps. Saulosi, and they appeared on the list, I would not be allowed to SELL them as long as they are listed. I can and should, however, breed them and distribute as many F1s as I possibly can. Sale and distribution of quality tank-raised fish decreases the demand for WC fish, and thus helps to protect them.

Now, as long as my WC Ps. saulosi are No Trade listed, I can't SELL them, even if I bought them before they were listed. I could, however, GIVE them to someone else for free. The purpose of the Compact is to make at-risk WC fish commercially valueless, while enhancing the value of quality tank-raised fish. We're not asking people to get rid of the WC fish they already have, and we are certainly not suggesting they should be destroyed. We are simply establishing that they are TOO valuable to the entire world to be traded by individuals for a profit. No-Trade-Listed fish need to be treasured, protected, and propagated, until there is no longer a need for them to be collected.

Once the wild population has recovered, it may be possible to de-list them, and import new wild stock, at least for a while. Actually, that would be the ultimate victory and vindication for the Compact - fish that were collected to near extinction, then were given time under the Compact to recover to the point that they could be collected again, at least in limited numbers.

If we DON'T do something like this, we are quite likely to see laws enacted similar to those that apply to the national park in Malawi - permanent, imprecise bans on exportation of all the fish of a certain species, type, or location. What happens to us if the current threat to That Yellow Tropheus led one or more governments on the shore of the lake to ban collection and export of ALL Tropheus?

It's actually very much in our interest to regulate ourselves, before governments step in to do it for us. That is why we have an MPAA, btw. There was a growing movement afoot in the middle of the last century to create a government authority to control motion picture content. In order to head off what amounted to censorship, the motion picture industry got together and created the Motion Picture Association of America. The MPAA exists for one reason: to provide a set of standards by which movie producers (or their delegate, the MPAA) can rate movie content, so that the government doesn't feel the need to step in and do so for them. What we're talking about here is something very much like that - an association through which the aquarium hobby and trade voluntarily polices itself, before governments come in and start doing it for us, in ways we won't like.

 

[dogofwar]

At the end of the day, I think the main motivation (beyond vanity / desire for the unattainable) for keeping wild rift lake fish is that many hobbyists think that wild fish are the "highest quality"... that they have the best color, most interesting behavior, etc... and that captive-raised fish (even F1) are inbred and lower "quality"...which almost always isn't true.

I'm all for education before lists (and associated intended and unintended consequences).

I'd love to hear some other folks' perspectives on this topic.

Matt

 

[Avatar]

Oh the times they're always changing

I think the main motivation (beyond vanity / desire for the unattainable) for keeping wild rift lake fish is that many hobbyists think that wild fish are the "highest quality"... that they have the best color, most interesting behavior, etc... and that captive-raised fish (even F1) are inbred and lower "quality"...which almost always isn't true.

Matt

Along with vanity I'd rate ignorance and herd behavior as the principle reasons. You could line up wild caught and captive raised specimens side by side and not be able to tell the difference in the vast majority of cases either in individuals or offspring. "High-quality" stock is available from trades with other breeders - unless your fish and theirs came from the same parents, good chance there's as much diversity there as any other match. I view the whole quality argument as mostly justification and rationalization for what is largely a lot of unqualified and subjective BS, particularly if there's no subsequent distribution of offspring associated with WC acquisitions.

I'm beginning to shift toward keeping uncommon and rare/endangered species beginning with a group from Madagascar. Figure I'll be entitled to another species when these spawn and I'm able to spread them around beyond the glass box in my kitchen where they'll reside solely in service to my own vanity until such time as that is accomplished. Imagine that life should never be taken for granted...

The fact this discussion is even taking place is indicative of change - what's in "vogue" is purely consensual and entirely fluid, and this is how perceptions and acceptance of what is correct become other than what they are/once were. But enough talk, let's see a draft charter, eh?

 

[Jeff George]

Several posts back, someone - Sam, I think? - mentioned giving the Compact initiative a broader scope than just the rift lakes. I actually don't think this is a good idea, though, and here's why.

The rift lakes present a nearly unique situation in which the actual threat to the species in question is collection for the aquarium hobby. There are lots of at-risk cichlid species from other places, but very, very few of them are at risk because of collection for aquariums. Habitat destruction and invasive species are far more common threats in other areas than is aquarium collection. How we, as fish keepers, handle conservation of species whose existence in the wild is threatened by factors OTHER than the aquarium trade is very, very different than how we handle the conservation of the species that WE are threatening ourselves.

Take, for example, a personal favorite of mine, and one I've done a bit of research and asking-around about: Cryptoheros myrnae. A swell little CARES-listed fish whose numbers are dwindling in the wild. Should we stop collecting them? HECK NO! It's not fishkeepers that are eliminating them from their native range, the Rio Sixaola drainage. The threat is the fertilizers, pesticides, and clear-cutting associated with the banana farms that are replacing the natural forests throughout the Sixaolo region. Unless you can stop banana farming -good luck with that, United Fruit has been going strong for well over 100 years, thanks - we should capture every single C. myrnae we find, and get them here where no one is dumping pesticides in their tanks, and breed them and distribute them. Whether we can preserve a "valid" genetic strain for eventual repatriation is pretty much irrelevant, since there isn't likely to be a habitat for them to return to any time soon. For fish like C. myrnae, CARES - captive propagation and distribution - is the best thing the aquarium hobby can do to conserve the species.

With Melanochromis chipokae, however, WE are the problem. Their habitat is fine. There is no invasive Tilapia species crowding them out or eating their fry. The only reason there are almost no M. chipokae in Lake Malawi any more is that they are (were?) endemic to a small area, and WE (fishkeepers) fished 'em all out. We need to stop doing that.

That's why I see this idea as separate from and complementary to the CARES effort, btw. CARES is about preserving fish in captivity when they are lost or nearly lost in the wild, regardless of why they are at risk. This Compact idea is about US stopping US from being the reason that some fish go extinct. It's about making sure that wild fish continue to exist in the wild, not about preserving them in captivity. Not that those are contradictory objectives. Some fish - Ps. saulosi and M. chipokae, for example - will likely be listed by both CARES (for captive preservation) and the Compact (for conservation and protection of wild populations).

I am sure there are a few other cichlids around the world where collection for the aquarium trade is the reason for their at-risk status, but I can't name any off-hand. I don't think the Compact should be applied to any fish that is not threatened BY COLLECTION FOR THE AQUARIUM TRADE. One fish that pops into my mind that SHOULD be included, however, is the Banggai cardinal fish, a Phillipine marine fish that became popular because it is a mouthbrooder that can actually be bred by amateur aquarists. Because of this, it became super popular, and it is now threatened in its small native range exactly because it has been over-collected for aquarists.

 

[Tony]

You could line up wild caught and captive raised specimens side by side and not be able to tell the difference in the vast majority of cases either in individuals or offspring.

I disagree.

The wild caught ones are generally those with the sunken bellies that never go away.

 

[Avatar]

Mahayana

Several posts back, someone - Sam, I think? - mentioned giving the Compact initiative a broader scope than just the rift lakes. I actually don't think this is a good idea, though, and here's why.

The rift lakes present a nearly unique situation in which the actual threat to the species in question is collection for the aquarium hobby. There are lots of at-risk cichlid species from other places, but very, very few of them are at risk because of collection for aquariums. Habitat destruction and invasive species are far more common threats in other areas than is aquarium collection. How we, as fish keepers, handle conservation of species whose existence in the wild is threatened by factors OTHER than the aquarium trade is very, very different than how we handle the conservation of the species that WE are threatening ourselves.


– Every situation is unique for various reasons. If the goal is to use the hobby to safeguard species at risk from the hobby, limiting it to one ecosystem is a rather limited and arbitrary proposition as you seem to indicate below:


I am sure there are a few other cichlids around the world where collection for the aquarium trade is the reason for their at-risk status, but I can't name any off-hand. I don't think the Compact should be applied to any fish that is not threatened BY COLLECTION FOR THE AQUARIUM TRADE. One fish that pops into my mind that SHOULD be included, however, is the Banggai cardinal fish, a Phillipine marine fish that became popular because it is a mouthbrooder that can actually be bred by amateur aquarists. Because of this, it became super popular, and it is now threatened in its small native range exactly because it has been over-collected for aquarists.

If the goal is to create a self-policing, ecologically responsible quality control mechanism, an arbitrary limit on what can be considered or included is self-defeating and by my way of thinking, short-sighted. No one should imagine that commerce in species is going to do anything but increase going forward - illegal species trade is already the third largest global illegal activity in terms of dollars after drugs and arms smuggling, and pressure on habitats and species is only going to intensify from all sources including collectors.

Limiting the the initial focus/scope of activity to Lake Malawi may make sense for various reasons initially, but it would be a really bad idea to incorporate any such limit into the articles of formation for a hobbyist guild. In point of fact, there is no need to institute limitations on what might be considered by such a body - if it's participants are not able to make sound judgements about what needs to be done and what falls within the realm of achievability, best forget about the whole idea now. Better to afford it an open mandate so that it's not constrained going forward by developments no one can foresee.

 

[Jeff George]

Limiting the the initial focus/scope of activity to Lake Malawi may make sense for various reasons initially, but it would be a really bad idea to incorporate any such limit into the articles of formation for a hobbyist guild. In point of fact, there is no need to institute limitations on what might be considered by such a body - if it's participants are not able to make sound judgements about what needs to be done and what falls within the realm of achievability, best forget about the whole idea now. Better to afford it an open mandate so that it's not constrained going forward by developments no one can foresee.

My thinking is not to limit it to species from a single (or actually, two somewhat similar) regions; my thinking is to limit it to species where the threat is specifically collection for the aquarium hobby.

Lake Victorian cichlids are very much at risk, as we all know. But the threats to their existence have nothing to do with the hunger of aquarists for new species. The threats to Victorian cichlids are habitat destruction and invasive predator species. The net impact of collection for the aquarium hobby on Lake Victoria is neutral at worst, and arguably beneficial, since it appears that many species that would otherwise be extinct continue to survive at least in private exotic fish collections, as well as in institutional preservation programs. CARES has a lot to do to preserve Victorian cichlids; this Compact really does not come into play, since there are relatively few Victorian cichlids left in the lake, and those that remain are more threatened by conditions in the lake than by collection for the aquarium trade. There are several species of Mexican and Central American cichlids and livebearers (including almost all the Goodeids) for which the same is true.

What we can and should do to conserve and protect at-risk fish species varies from case to case. In some cases, captive maintenance is the only option left. In those cases, proscribing the collection of wild fish is likely to hasten their extinction, rather than prevent it. Those species should definitely NOT be listed for no wild-caught trade. In other cases, where the main threat is collection for the aquarium trade, the species' survival would definitely be benefited by limitations on collection for the aquarium trade. These are the species that would be included within the compact.

If we decide to give the Compact a broader name than "Rift Lake Cichlid", to enable it to include species from other areas in similar circumstances - like the Banggai cardinal - that's probably a good idea. But I wouldn't want to confuse or undermine its central mission by including species for which collection for the aquarium hobby is more likely to help, rather than harm, species survival.

By the way, talking through all these issues is exactly why we don't just throw up a website and start making a list of members. We need to explore these issues and at least start to figure them out before anything "goes live."

 

[neut]

It is beyond the authority and resources of a club to police it's members fish rooms, or their activities away from club meetings. But a club can and should control transactions at its own meetings and through its own online and traditional publications.

Exactly

At the end of the day, I think the main motivation (beyond vanity / desire for the unattainable) for keeping wild rift lake fish is that many hobbyists think that wild fish are the "highest quality"... that they have the best color, most interesting behavior, etc... and that captive-raised fish (even F1) are inbred and lower "quality"...which almost always isn't true.

Exactly, and there are those who think they're experts on the subject running around posting as much but neglecting to mention that the fish as collected are also subject to being mixed, incorrectly identified, etc.

I'm all for education before lists (and associated intended and unintended consequences).

I tend to agree. Nothing wrong with a club or association having a policy regarding club or association activities, but what I've never liked (and seen before) is when forum members suggest that somehow they might assume the place of a sort of ruling body that will set standards in a particular niche in the hobby.

You could line up wild caught and captive raised specimens side by side and not be able to tell the difference in the vast majority of cases either in individuals or offspring.

Exactly. And, in fact, with some species the perception of poorer quality for F2+ or the 'status' of having/breeding wilds has some sellers out there selling their F2, F3, etc. as F1.

There are lots of at-risk cichlid species from other places, but very, very few of them are at risk because of collection for aquariums. Habitat destruction and invasive species are far more common threats in other areas than is aquarium collection. How we, as fish keepers, handle conservation of species whose existence in the wild is threatened by factors OTHER than the aquarium trade is very, very different than how we handle the conservation of the species that WE are threatening ourselves.

Exactly

The wild caught ones are generally those with the sunken bellies that never go away.

I've seen this only with certain species at certain times, such as a percentage of wild discus over 20 years ago, but the majority of wild fish I've had or seen were reasonably well conditioned and acclimated by the importer and lived healthy lives. IMO a generalization doesn't work here.

 

[neut]

We underestimate the value of informed chatter and discussion on cichlid forums as a way of establishing (or changing) worldwide opinions and culture with regard to what's OK and not OK in the hobby... The cichlid hobby is a pretty small world...and we all read the same stuff!

Matt

That might be true, up to a point. I've simply met too many cichlid keepers (and sellers) who spend very little or zero time on forums-- or even think online forums are a waste of time because half of those on them don't know what they're talking about and they're a poor source of accurate information, both of which are true in some cases, to believe this is universally true. What I've also seen is perceptions of reality vary by forum, as influenced by its own particular 'experts', who in some cases are relatively inexperienced and uninformed and broadcast little more than personal opinion as fact.

 

[Avatar]

Get out your pencils

"Several posts back, someone - Sam, I think? - mentioned giving the Compact initiative a broader scope than just the rift lakes. I actually don't think this is a good idea, though, and here's why."

Nothing in your last post with which I disagree but you can't have it both ways. At the risk of belaboring an issue where there is no apparent need/discord, and not withstanding the fact that this effort isn't yet ready for primetime (as in a website), a draft charter is the next obvious step - I hereby nominate you to begin same.

You are obviously much more versed in the details re: trade in the hobby than I, but I will nonetheless offer three points for consideration should you be inclined to venture the transition from the realm of the theoretical to the actual: less is more, it's not rocket science, and great things generally come from small beginnings. You're ready maestro - rock and roll.

If this notion instead withers on the vine I'll instead be commissioning three desks in a place I've never been or expect to visit (and likely accorded credit for the most unusual proposed "group buy" in CCA history), but happy to provide input for this at the next level as doubtless are others including the esteemed Reverend Quinn. But enough with our well-intentioned banter, it's time - go for it.
arty0007:

 

[neut]

A simple and relatively effortless step would be to bring this topic up on other forums. Another simple step would be to pin a topic that IDs species known to be endangered by the aquarium trade.

I, for one, am an admin on a couple of forums, but have been out of keeping Malawis for a few years-- would be happy to bring this up on other forums, but I wouldn't know the list.

Yes, I stated that I don't believe forums universally reach all cichlid keepers, but that doesn't mean I consider them impotent.

 

[Tony]

Exactly
I've seen this only with certain species at certain times, such as a percentage of wild discus over 20 years ago, but the majority of wild fish I've had or seen were reasonably well conditioned and acclimated by the importer and lived healthy lives. IMO a generalization doesn't work here.

I'm not one who prides himself on wild fish, but over the last few years, I've acquired 5-6 groups/pairs of W/C Malawi haps (either through random opportunity at auctions, resale or through seeking them out from venders) and in my experience, this is true of most imported adult Malawi haps.

I have zero doubt that the process of pulling them from the lake, transporting them to the holding tanks, transportation to the airport, trans-Atlantic shipping, going into the importers tank and being nuked with meds... then shipping again and going into your glass box long-term (and potentially medicating again) is very rough on an adult fish. How much do you think they eat during this 2-3 week period? Probably not until they hit the seller at the end of the line (Atlantis, Anthony, Steve, Dave, whoever) or potentially not until they hit your tank.

At that point, feeding them krill/mysis/Sp. brine shrimp/whatever they react to is the general strategy, but getting to eat is not always all that easy. Many fish may survive this ordeal, but are never the same after it imo.

This is in addition to the condition that they are in naturally in the lake. Look at Ad's pictures. Do you see well-fed filled-out fish, comparable to those who have only ever seen a glass box? No. You see pretty lean fish that may catch a meal every other day.

After dumping $700 collectively with Peck last summer on a large group of adult Thick-Lip Mbenji (from one of, if not THE most reputable importers out there)... and doing everything possible... and ending up with one fish (with a permanently sunken belly), you really can't blow off my comment and tell me that it isn't applicable here.

 

[Jeff George]

I tend to agree. Nothing wrong with a club or association having a policy regarding club or association activities, but what I've never liked (and seen before) is when forum members suggest that somehow they might assume the place of a sort of ruling body that will set standards in a particular niche in the hobby.

The whole point of this Compact idea is to establish and respect a list of fish that we voluntarily pledge NOT to import while its numbers in the wild recover. That means we have to have a list, and if clubs intend to sign the Compact, they need to enforce it at their meetings, auctions, and printed or online trading posts. It would be hard to stop people from trading listed fish in the parking lot OUTSIDE the meeting, but a club could certainly stop them from being accepted for an auction, or could delete a thread offering them for sale in an online trading post forum.

In order to be meaningful, though, the list can't be something that a handful of crackpots like us in one forum hacked out in a couple of days. It needs to be created and curated by acknowledged experts...scientists, for example, and other people who would have first-hand and unbiased knowledge of the status of various species in the lakes. We'd need to have a panel like the one managing the CARES list - Konings, Loiselle, Lamboj, Steeves, Leibel, just to name a few examples. If the list were created or at least vetted by experts of that caliber, then it would be credible throughout the hobby and the industry.

We couldn't MAKE people follow it, but we could REWARD people who do choose to by providing a spiffy seal that they could display in their store and in their advertising. To get commercial entities to respect the Compact, we'd have to make it in their financial interest to do so; that is, we'd have to make the Compact seal something that brought them sales in the form of new customers than it cost them in sales of proscribed fishes.

Matt--you were there for the conversation with Ad. Is it your sense that he might be willing to lend his reputation and a few hours of his time to something like this? I've never met him myself, but my sense from his writings is that he might be willing to take part.

What other big names could we approach with this idea, that might be willing to at least go over the list and sign their name to it?