Wild Rift Lake Fish?

[Tony]

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?

I think Ad would be willing to help out on this effort, especially considering his talk regarding Ps. salousi's decline in the wild.

Another to talk to with some good input would be Leif Demason. Though I am not certain he would agree, considering that he is one of the larger importers in the hobby.

 

[Avatar]

Build it and they will come

Am a lot of things but a "crackpot" isn't one of them, and stating and restating the obvious isn't going to get anything done. I was involved in getting dolphin-safe labels on tuna cans which was a far greater challenge, no reason this needs to be so complicated and overwrought - just start up with a draft of intent, prototype or hypothetical rendering and grow/evolve it through circulation until there's a consensus among principals/luminaries that it's ready. Ad's there from what I could tell and others will be as well...

Done talking until I see something on paper that can be built upon. Really - just do it. Fact is, this should be the easy/fun part - the heavy lifting won't begin until the "marketing" campaign is enjoined.

It's all good.

 

[Jeff George]

Another to talk to with some good input would be Leif Demason. Though I am not certain he would agree, considering that he is one of the larger importers in the hobby.

This is the trick - coming up with a plan that importers and exporters could buy into. If we got Demason to sign on, wow...that would be really powerful.

It needs to be presented not as a BAN on trade in WC fish, but a system of long-term management. It's about WISE use of wild fish, not NO use. The key is that vulnerable species are cycled between Trade and No-Trade status as their wild populations wax and wane.

As a starting point for a Compact list, I just ran down the CARES list, which is already expert-curated, and identified about 50 rift lake species that MIGHT be appropriate for consideration. I think that some of the open-water and sand-dwelling haps on the CARES list might NOT be appropriate for the Compact list, though, because they may be vulnerable due to trawler nets for commercial food fisheries. I very much doubt the aquarium trade is a serious threat to open-water species that are being fished out by the millions for human consumption. This is the sort of distinction that we need expert input for, though.

And Sam - while I appreciate the cut-to-the-chase urgency, this idea is about three days old now. We haven't even had a weekend to mull it over. If we bat this around for another day or two, then draft something over the weekend, we'll have something that could be sent to Konings et al for a first reaction by some time next week. That's pretty darn quick, for folks who have day jobs.

That being said, the dolphin-safe tuna analogy is an excellent one, and I'm glad you brought it up. I'd love to know more about how that idea was developed, refined, and sold.

 

[dogofwar]

The thing that I don't like about lists (of fish NOT to buy) is that many, many fish in the lakes aren't on the list...but are just as vulnerable as those on the list.

Think of it this way: Ilangi Tropheus have been decimated because they were (are) the "it" fish. The next-yellowest-Tropheus (or whatever the collective fish taste-setters establish as the next "it" variant) could just as easily be decimated.

Putting one variant on the list would likely have the (unintended) impact of increasing collection of another variant or variants.

A different approach could be to list the species that are widely distributed enough that hobby-level demand wouldn't likely impact them.

Kind of like not eating certain kinds of seafood that aren't sustainable...vs. switching from one kind of rockfish to another kind!

Matt

 

[Avatar]

Kum-ba-yah

And Sam - while I appreciate the cut-to-the-chase urgency, this idea is about three days old now. We haven't even had a weekend to mull it over. If we bat this around for another day or two, then draft something over the weekend, we'll have something that could be sent to Konings et al for a first reaction by some time next week. That's pretty darn quick, for folks who have day jobs.

I've been talking about it since AquaMania when Ad raised it as an issue during his talk and I walked him out to his ride and asked him about the possibility of creating just such an entity. And my admonition has nothing to do with urgency, just expediency, not for the least reason and sake of "folks who have day jobs" like I. But I do like the schedule you're setting for yourself.

That being said, the dolphin-safe tuna analogy is an excellent one, and I'm glad you brought it up. I'd love to know more about how that idea was developed, refined, and sold.

Basically at the point of a gun. Consequence of corporate demonization (H. J. Heinz - the dolphin-killing company - like so), not exactly the model you're looking for save for the back-end marketing angles.

Until next week then...

 

[neut]

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.

Didn't blow it off. All I said, based on both personal experience and what I've seen over the years, is I don't think a generalization applies to all wild fish or all wild Malawis. I've just seen too many nice wild imports do quite well. No doubt a lot depends on the importer and how they condition/acclimate the fish, no doubt also how the fish are handled along the way... and according to at least one well connected importer I know, a lot can depend on what someone does once they get them home to their own tank (his advice linked below). In any case, my impression is a well connected importer chooses a pipeline that can get the fish he wants and delivers his investment in decent shape.

I assume we're allowed to express different opinions and just because we've seen different things doesn't mean either of us is blowing off the other's opinion.

Some importers are no doubt better than others at this. Here are a couple of threads with advice from someone who dives the lake regularly, often working with Ad Konings (and Stuart Grant when he was alive) and also collects, breeds and imports Malawi cichlids (and has been directly involved with conservation efforts).
See Larryochromis post-- #6 re: receiving wild caught fish
See Larryochromis posts in this thread re: treating wild caught fish ...not saying Larry's way is the only way, but it's what he has done (and advised) and what works for him.

And, while I'm at it, here's a thread by Larry on the Stuart Grant conservation fund.

 

[neut]

...and another about the effectiveness of placing anti-netting devices

 

[Tony]

Didn't blow it off. All I said, based on both personal experience and what I've seen over the years, is I don't think a generalization applies to all wild fish or all wild Malawis. I've just seen too many nice wild imports do quite well. No doubt a lot depends on the importer and how they condition/acclimate the fish, no doubt also how the fish are handled along the way... and according to at least one well connected importer I know, a lot can depend on what someone does once they get them home to their own tank (his advice linked below). In any case, my impression is a well connected importer chooses a pipeline that can get the fish he wants and delivers his investment in decent shape.

I assume we're allowed to express different opinions and just because we've seen different things doesn't mean either of us is blowing off the other's opinion.

Some importers are no doubt better than others at this. Here are a couple of threads with advice from a guy who dives the lake regularly, often working with Ad Konings (and Stuart Grant when he was alive) and also collects, breeds and imports Malawi cichlids (and has been directly involved with conservation efforts).
See Larryochromis post-- #6 re: receiving wild caught fish
See Larryochromis posts in this thread re: treating wild caught fish I'm not saying Larry's way is the only or best way, but it's what he has done (and advised) that works for him.

And, while I'm at it, here's a thread by Larry on the Stuart Grant conservation fund.

Seems to be sound advice. Have you had similar experiences? What techniques have you used in the past with what types of fish?

 

[Jeff George]

The thing that I don't like about lists (of fish NOT to buy) is that many, many fish in the lakes aren't on the list...but are just as vulnerable as those on the list.

Think of it this way: Ilangi Tropheus have been decimated because they were (are) the "it" fish. The next-yellowest-Tropheus (or whatever the collective fish taste-setters establish as the next "it" variant) could just as easily be decimated.

Putting one variant on the list would likely have the (unintended) impact of increasing collection of another variant or variants.

A different approach could be to list the species that are widely distributed enough that hobby-level demand wouldn't likely impact them.

Kind of like not eating certain kinds of seafood that aren't sustainable...vs. switching from one kind of rockfish to another kind!

Matt

I understand that some folks won't like or observe a list of fish not to buy, but how is a list of fish that it's okay to buy NOT a list? And if we say its only okay to buy widely distributed fish, where do we draw the line between widely-distributed species without local variants, widely-distributed species with local variants, and one-location fish?

Yes, I totally get that proscribing import or trade in TYT will just shift collection to the next-most-yellow Tropheus (henceforth, TNMYT). But that's kind of the point, isn't it? I don't believe it's practical or even desirable to permanently cut off imports from the lake - my thought was to temporarily protect species that were becoming vulnerable, to give their populations time to recover. In most cases, after a few years, collection could probably be allowed to resume, at least for a year or two. The key is to force a rotation in what is "hot," so that no one population is allowed to remain the "It" fish for too long. While TYT recovers, TNMYT carries the load for a couple of years; then we move TNMYT onto the No-Trade list, and the pressure shifts to the third-most-yellow Tropheus. Hopefully, by the time TTMYT is under pressure (3-5 years of no collection), TYT will have recovered to the point that it can be responsibly collected again, at least for a while.

I fear that making a Do-Collect list, rather than a Don't-Collect list, would be far too limiting, and would never get support from collectors, exporters, importers, or many consumers. I think we'd have more success by making a list of a couple-dozen species/poopulations that the recognized experts in the field believe should NOT be collected, than by making a list of a couple-dozen species that they think can be sustainably harvested. I know that the Don't-List approach stands to miss some species that ought to be included, but the Do-List approach will exclude SO many species that are not under significant threat that no one will find it economically feasible to follow.

Besides, if a fish is commonly exported, it quickly becomes unnecessary to export it further, because tank-raised specimens will be widely available. The trick is managing the collection and export/import of more limited species, so that they can be harvested indefinitely. My sense is that a rotation of collecting and non-collecting periods - which amounts to the creation of a Don't list - is the only way to accomplish this that might be accepted by the commercial entities in the chain.

 

[Jeff George]

I've been talking about it since AquaMania when Ad raised it as an issue during his talk and I walked him out to his ride and asked him about the possibility of creating just such an entity. And my admonition has nothing to do with urgency, just expediency, not for the least reason and sake of "folks who have day jobs" like I. But I do like the schedule you're setting for yourself.

Well, as I mentioned before, I came to late to this party. And I do think we are still hammering some basic, conceptual stuff out that needs to be discussed before we can draft a mission statement or the Compact itself. Matt has raised a point about listing fish that CAN be sustainably collected, rather than those that CAN'T be; this is something we need to consider before drafting any compact, because it's at the core of what the compact would be about.

Hopefully we'll be ready to create a draft very soon.

 

[Jeff George]

Here are a couple of threads with advice from someone who dives the lake regularly, often working with Ad Konings (and Stuart Grant when he was alive) and also collects, breeds and imports Malawi cichlids (and has been directly involved with conservation efforts).
See Larryochromis post-- #6 re: receiving wild caught fish
See Larryochromis posts in this thread re: treating wild caught fish ...not saying Larry's way is the only way, but it's what he has done (and advised) and what works for him.

And, while I'm at it, here's a thread by Larry on the Stuart Grant conservation fund.

Larry Summers has spoken at several clubs in the east coast area lately. He's definitely someone who should be included on the list of potential "experts" to help perfect the list. His endorsement as an commercial importer and dealer, as well as a regular explorer of Lake Malawi, and a known rift lake conservationist and a rising "cichlid celebrity," would no doubt enhance the credibility of any compact. He would be on my first-round list of experts to contact, once we have a draft.

 

[Tony]

I understand that some folks won't like or observe a list of fish not to buy, but how is a list of fish that it's okay to buy NOT a list? And if we say its only okay to buy widely distributed fish, where do we draw the line between widely-distributed species without local variants, widely-distributed species with local variants, and one-location fish?

To boot, collection points and similarities between collection points is one of those gray areas (even from the experts). Red Cap Lethrinops for instance. Ask about the difference between Cherwe and Itungi and get different answers from everyone. A. stuartgranti Ngara? Mdoka?

I fear that making a Do-Collect list, rather than a Don't-Collect list, would be far too limiting, and would never get support from collectors, exporters, importers, or many consumers. I think we'd have more success by making a list of a couple-dozen species/poopulations that the recognized experts in the field believe should NOT be collected, than by making a list of a couple-dozen species that they think can be sustainably harvested. I know that the Don't-List approach stands to miss some species that ought to be included, but the Do-List approach will exclude SO many species that are not under significant threat that no one will find it economically feasible to follow.

I agree. It doesn't help that there's an estimated 900 cichlid species in the lake.

 

[neut]

Seems to be sound advice. Have you had similar experiences? What techniques have you used in the past with what types of fish?

Honestly, my preference is to buy wilds from an importer or seller who has already done the work and fish are already in good condition.

Of course, doesn't always work that way. Basically, years ago my fall back for anything stubborn was Clout, there were other options but it was the best I knew at the time. Then went to Jungle Parasite Clear/Parasite Guard, pretty broad spectrum and usually worked for me, then later years some combination of Metro/Praziquantel and/or epsom salt and/or NLS Thera-A.

Early years the wilds I had were mainly discus (occasional festivum, curviceps, etc.), middle years I was mainly into Malawi peacocks/haps but only occasionally bought wilds, and over the past few years I've had wild green terrors, plecos, scalare. For the most part I've had little trouble with wild fish, but a lot of the wild (red) discus I bought years ago were in rough shape and most I could bring back, but some I couldn't. (not counting what I did as a kid when I didn't know much and it was basically hit or miss)

 

[neut]

I fear that making a Do-Collect list, rather than a Don't-Collect list, would be far too limiting, and would never get support from collectors, exporters, importers, or many consumers.

I recently read this take on the problem with white lists.

 

[neut]

What techniques have you used in the past with what types of fish?

...Almost forgot! Wild rotkeil severum, did look thin and bit of cloudy eye, basically kept water in low 80s, little Melafix, and fed Thera-A until looking better, now about 12 years old.

 

[Jeff George]

I recently read this take on the problem with white lists.

I'm glad you shared this link, Neut. It explains the dangers of a white list (what I called a "Do-Collect" list up above) very clearly, and frankly, chillingly. The more I think about it, the more dangerous I think an approved-species list is to the hobby. It SOUNDS all happy and positive - "You are more than welcome to keep any of the several dozen species on this list!" - but what it REALLY means is, "You are forbidden to keep any of the several thousand species NOT on this list, including any new species that have not yet been scientifically identified and named." That would really, really change the hobby in general, and the cichlid and catfish hobbies in particular. I don't think we want to set that kind of precedent, that might later be picked up and used against us by governments of exporting or importing countries.

There are two important distinctions between what we are talking about in this thread, though, and what the article discusses that is in the works in the UK.

First, we are talking about a rotating list of species that are TEMPORARILY restricted from wild collection, not a permanent ban on collection or possession of any species. The point is not to prevent them from being caught and imported forever - which would be accomplished by banning their import OR by collecting them to the point of extinction - but to preserve and protect the wild populations so that we can import them from time to time for the rest of our lives. I would much rather not be able to buy WC TYTs this year than not be able to buy WC TYTs as long as I live, whether that purchase is blocked by legislation or extinction.

Second, we are talking about voluntary self-regulation, not a legal ban imposed by the governments in the countries of origin, or in our home countries. Voluntary self-regulation by the movie industry is what has kept the government from censoring motion picture content since the 1930s. Reasonable, thoughtful, meaningful self-regulation by the aquarium hobby can protect the hobby, the industry, and the wild fish populations much more effectively than could imprecise, reactionary regulation imposed by the governments on the lakes, or by those of the importing countries like the US and Canada.

But the only way to protect and preserve the wild fish in the lake in a way that they can continue to be enjoyed by hobbyists as well as scuba-diving world tourists is for us to be wise in how we exploit the resources of the lakes.

 

[dogofwar]

I think you mean Larry Johnson (the Canadian one and not the guy who played for UNLV and the Knicks) and not Larry Summers (who was Sec'y of the Treasury: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers)

Matt

Larry Summers has spoken at several clubs in the east coast area lately. He's definitely someone who should be included on the list of potential "experts" to help perfect the list. His endorsement as an commercial importer and dealer, as well as a regular explorer of Lake Malawi, and a known rift lake conservationist and a rising "cichlid celebrity," would no doubt enhance the credibility of any compact. He would be on my first-round list of experts to contact, once we have a draft.

 

[dogofwar]

I really don't think it's as simple as a do and don't collect list. The purpose of this is to help consumers make better (voluntary) choices with regard to the fish that they buy.

I'll use the seafood metaphor again, Seafoodwatch issues ‘Best Choice’, ‘Good Alternative’ or ‘Avoid’ recommendation based on science and recommendations from an advisory panel (described here): http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/...ia/MBA_SeafoodWatch_RecommendationProcess.pdf

Seafood Watch recommends that consumers:
 Preferentially buy seafood from the ‘Best Choices’ list.
 Buy seafood from the ‘Good Alternatives’ list, but be aware that there are concerns with how the items are fished or farmed.
 Buy seafood that has been certified by schemes identified by Seafood Watch as both credible and equivalent to at least a ‘Good Alternative’.
 Support their local restaurant or retailer’s decision to buy seafood from fisheries engaged in credible improvement projects – even though some of these items are currently on the Seafood Watch ‘Avoid’ list.

Seafood Watch recommends that businesses that buy and sell seafood:
 Preferentially buy seafood from the ‘Best Choices’ list.
 Buy seafood from the ‘Good Alternatives’ list, but be aware that there are concerns with how the items are fished or farmed.
 Buy seafood that has been certified by schemes identified by Seafood Watch as both credible and equivalent to at least a ‘Good Alternative’.
 Buy seafood from fisheries engaged in credible improvement projects – even though some of these items are currently on the Seafood Watch ‘Avoid’ list.

Not a perfect metaphor but a useful perspective, in my opinion!

Matt

I'm glad you shared this link, Neut. It explains the dangers of a white list (what I called a "Do-Collect" list up above) very clearly, and frankly, chillingly. The more I think about it, the more dangerous I think an approved-species list is to the hobby. It SOUNDS all happy and positive - "You are more than welcome to keep any of the several dozen species on this list!" - but what it REALLY means is, "You are forbidden to keep any of the several thousand species NOT on this list, including any new species that have not yet been scientifically identified and named." That would really, really change the hobby in general, and the cichlid and catfish hobbies in particular. I don't think we want to set that kind of precedent, that might later be picked up and used against us by governments of exporting or importing countries.

There are two important distinctions between what we are talking about in this thread, though, and what the article discusses that is in the works in the UK.

First, we are talking about a rotating list of species that are TEMPORARILY restricted from wild collection, not a permanent ban on collection or possession of any species. The point is not to prevent them from being caught and imported forever - which would be accomplished by banning their import OR by collecting them to the point of extinction - but to preserve and protect the wild populations so that we can import them from time to time for the rest of our lives. I would much rather not be able to buy WC TYTs this year than not be able to buy WC TYTs as long as I live, whether that purchase is blocked by legislation or extinction.

Second, we are talking about voluntary self-regulation, not a legal ban imposed by the governments in the countries of origin, or in our home countries. Voluntary self-regulation by the movie industry is what has kept the government from censoring motion picture content since the 1930s. Reasonable, thoughtful, meaningful self-regulation by the aquarium hobby can protect the hobby, the industry, and the wild fish populations much more effectively than could imprecise, reactionary regulation imposed by the governments on the lakes, or by those of the importing countries like the US and Canada.

But the only way to protect and preserve the wild fish in the lake in a way that they can continue to be enjoyed by hobbyists as well as scuba-diving world tourists is for us to be wise in how we exploit the resources of the lakes.

 

[Jeff George]

I think you mean Larry Johnson (the Canadian one and not the guy who played for UNLV and the Knicks) and not Larry Summers (who was Sec'y of the Treasury: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers)

Matt

D'oh! :wacko: Of course I do. I spend too much time watching politics on TV.

 

[neut]

Larry Johnson is the guy I had in mind.

As far as white lists, I agree there's a difference between a government list imposed by law and something more along the lines of the MPAA comparison someone made above. But to my ears the proposed British law has bit of an 'it could happen here' ring to it (this country, not this thread)... but then I guess that would finally get me to more seriously consider a (native) sunfish tank, some of which rival many cichlids for color, etc... but then multiply that by a few million fishkeepers and that potentially presents its own issues.