I think that Dave's discussion on captive propagation was great in terms of
having fish that may be rereleased into their native range. Some aquarists
actually do take the time to keep the documentation, purity of bloodline,
and genetic diversity through breeding back in wild fish, to make this
possible. Given, this is a very small percentage of the fishkeepers that
are maintaining protected or imperiled species. I also don't necessarily
see the danger of continuing the propagation of what is, in effect, an
aquarium strain of certain fish. Ameca splendens is a great example of
this. This fish is totally lost to it's native habitat. Without aquarists
maintaining captive populations, this fish would not be known and enjoyed by
the general public. Public aquaria and large-scale breeding operations with
reintroduction in mind can only provide so much space. This would leave
tens, if not hundreds, of species that are in the hobby now to be lost
altogether.
I think we all can agree that the best policy would be to protect and secure
the native ranges of these fish, however, this may be next to impossible to
do when it comes to dealing with a third world government and farmers and
ranchers that need this land to subsist.
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------
/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes
/ Association (NANFA). Comments made on this list do not necessarily
/ reflect the beliefs or goals of NANFA. For more information about NANFA,
/ visit http://www.nanfa.org Please make sure all posts to nanfa-l are
/ consistent with the guidelines as per
/ http://www.nanfa.org/guidelines.shtml To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get
/ help, visit the NANFA email list home page and archive at
/ http://www.nanfa.org/email.shtml