What are y'alls thoughts on keeping endangered species in your tanks?

[ange]

I'm going to start this entire thing by saying, I personally can't. I understand how some people can make a good case for keeping certain ones and do justice to the animal but it's really not for me.

I have a friend who wants to add denison barbs to their 75g, however they're a species that is endangered due to the aquarium trade and it doesn't sit right with me keeping them in captivity. I guess the bonus question is, how reliably can people get captive-bred specimens? This feels like a really ethical gray area.

I'm not trying to receive validation or virtue-signal here, I'm genuinely curious about the opinions of others on the topic. Environmental health is a really complicated subject and like with most things aquarium related, I like to receive as much information as possible and then draw my own conclusions.

[Cory]

At this point it would be much harder to even find wild ones for sale. Commonly captive bred. Tons of aquarium fish are endangered, however commercially bred and abundant. Also many species that are tracked, the data is spotty at best. Lots of it looks like the population would decline. WIthout anyone following up to see if it did, or it grew. 

[Taylor Blake]

White cloud mountain minnows are a very popular aquarium fish and Are very easily bred in captivity however they were declared extinct from most of their wild range and it is unknown wether there are any wild ones left. Their are many species of fish that are endangered in the wild because of unsustainable collecting practices and destruction of habitat. I believe that as long as you do the your research on where you get your fish and choose people that are sustainable in the collecting process. I think we as a hobby should support the people that are trying to breed endangered/extinct fish and keeping them in the hobby so they are not lost to future generations. 

[HenryC]

I think it is ok for the purpose of conservation, but the people selected to keep them would have to be extremely knowledgeable people, dare I say borderline scientists? I mean, I would love some desert pupfish, but I would probably not be qualified to take care of them and make them breed.

I would support people like cory or dean with keeping and trying to save endangered species, you know they know what they're doing and the animals would have a chance of bouncing back!

[RovingGinger]

I would very much like to keep some endangered species, either through the CARES Fish Preservation Program or just on my own. Goodeids seem like a good candidate with a strong community around their preservation and care.

I am holding off until I feel a little more experienced and have more space, but I like this from Select Aquatics:

Quote

There are not nearly enough hobbyists today that have chosen to keep these fish, possibly because most do not realize that the opportunity exists for them to contribute to the actual survival of a species.

 Do not feel that if you were to try any of these rarer fish that they may die, and that you should not make the effort. We all lose fish. I went through 6 trios of the Z. tequila over about 3 years before I found this particularly hardy line that liked my water and the way the room is run. Today I have sold or given away hundreds of them and continue to do so. We share these fish with others out of trust that whoever gets them will do their best to keep the fish doing well, and it is understood that it may take a few tries for those who are really serious about keeping them. If you decide to keep one of the rare or endangered fish found at this site, first read what you can in books you own, the care of new arrivals in Receiving Shipped Fish, and what may be posted on the internet, then set up a tank and call me!

- What Are Endangered Fish, and Why Should I Keep Them?

To me, keeping and preserving endangered species would take aquarium-keeping from a hobby to a cause I can very much get behind. 

[gcalberto]

I don't see a problem at all keeping endangered fish, as long as they are captive bred. 

If they are wildcaught, however, I'm generally against it, unless you have a solid plan to breed them yourself to help decrease the pressure on the wild populations

[FriendlyLoach]

Only if they are captive bred. However sometimes the breeding business is sketchy, I here that some of them will take from the wild to help there breeding process if the want a certain genetic, or more fish. I would just know where the fish are coming from before you get them. PS I don't keep wild caught fish even if they are not endangered. I just feel bad about what they must feel, I had some dojo loaches that were best friends, then one died and the other one didn't move much for a week. I think they are smarter than we think. 

[Daniel]

Sometimes as strange as it may seem it is socially and environmentally better for us to demand and keep wild caught fish (non-endangered wild caught fish that is) .

How could that be? That sounds crazy!

Wild caught cardinal tetras are a good example. Cardinal tetras are abundant in the Rio Negro and the ornamental fish trade harvest is literally next to nothing and does no damage to the cardinal tetra population.

The damage to the environment comes from removing the economic stimulus the sustainable fish trade provides for indigenous and local peoples. With no income coming in from harvesting cardinal tetras, a local renewable natural resource, there is less incentive to protect the rivers the cardinal tetras live in.

The local and indigenous peoples are forced find work in the logging and cattle ranching industries, or even gold mining ( @Cory witnessed this on his latest trip to Peru, where mining was decimating creek after creek wiping out huge populations of fish).

Like most problems this one is complicated. Many, many species of wild caught fish should be avoided.

But not all. Not if you care about the social and environmental impact of removing one of the few jobs that demands that the rivers and streams be clean and healthy year after year.

[pedrofisk]

The freshwater fish that are endangered or extinct in the wild are 99.9% due to habitat destruction from deforestation, mining, development and global warming. For marine fish it is the same habitat destruction plus over fishing. I think as a group fresh water fish are the most endangered vertebrate in the world.

Also remember there ARE wild caught sustainable fresh water fish with Cardinal Tetras being the poster child. If those Cardinals were not caught they would just perish in the dry season so it's actually saving fish. Most importantly they provide a sustainable income for locals so they don't have to turn to logging or cattle farming.

As Cory said there is a huge number of fish in our hobby that are kept alive as a species because of the hobby. I myself keep certified (by Adrian HD) N Class Endlers which are mostly or all extinct in the wild and in the hobby mostly hybridized. I've decided its one of the very small thing I can do to help.

Of more help would be supporting organizations like:

Cares Preservation Program https://caresforfish.org/

Project Piaba (supporting the local sustainable fisheries) https://projectpiaba.org/

The Goodeid Working Group http://www.goodeidworkinggroup.com

[pedrofisk]

10 minutes ago, Daniel said:

Sometimes as strange as it may seem it is socially and environmentally better for us to demand and keep wild caught fish (non-endangered wild caught fish that is) .

How could that be? That sounds crazy!

Wild caught cardinal tetras are a good example. Cardinal tetras are abundant in the Rio Negro and the ornamental fish trade harvest is literally next to nothing and does no damage to the cardinal tetra population.

The damage to the environment comes from removing the economic stimulus the sustainable fish trade provides for indigenous and local peoples. With no income coming in from harvesting cardinal tetras, a local renewable natural resource, there is less incentive to protect the rivers the cardinal tetras live in.

The local and indigenous peoples are forced find work in the logging and cattle ranching industries, or even gold mining ( @Cory witnessed this on his latest trip to Peru, where mining was decimating creek after creek wiping out huge populations of fish).

Like most problems this one is complicated. Many, many species of wild caught fish should be avoided.

But not all. Not if you care about the social and environmental impact of removing one of the few jobs that demands that the rivers and streams be clean and healthy year after year.

We were writing our posts at the same time but you beat me to it.

[ange]

4 hours ago, RovingGinger said:

I would very much like to keep some endangered species, either through the CARES Fish Preservation Program or just on my own. Goodeids seem like a good candidate with a strong community around their preservation and care.

I am holding off until I feel a little more experienced and have more space, but I like this from Select Aquatics:

To me, keeping and preserving endangered species would take aquarium-keeping from a hobby to a cause I can very much get behind. 

This really changes my viewpoint alongside another poster who mentioned that most of the species aren't primarily threatened or endangered due to the aquarium trade.

This is a topic I never thought about much until my friend wanted that specific species and I saw from multiple sources (including sources that serve the hobby) stating that they're endangered primarily due to being captured for trade. Thank you everyone who replied to this thread. There are a ton of really thoughtful comments here and I appreciate all of them.

[Aubrey]

This is a tricky subject. In my state it is illegal to remove endangered species from the wild. It is legal with a license to keep native fish, but once removed they cannot be reintroduced. Part of the license fee goes towards conservation. Since most of species suffer from habitat loss and human activity in general, the proceeds that go towards conservation are helping endangered species. I do not know what kind of permits and licenses are needed by people collecting, breeding, or selling any fish deemed endangered or extinct in the wild, but it would seem like a logical thing to impose for true conservation. Also if keeping them saves the species then that is good, but I know a lot goes into the consideration of reintroducing species bred in aquaria. I think @Randy has an interview, ep. 67 - Matt Wagner,  that talks on breeding and reintroducing endangered madtoms. In it it states that because of genetic diversity or lack of, and available resources that even though endangered species have been spawned in captivity they may be disposed of. I guess what I'm getting at is that unless you are working with an active agency to conserve and improve a species in the wild then you probably shouldn't try to keep an endangered species. On the other hand if keeping it preserves the species and it is abundant in aquaria then it's alright. e.g. whiteclouds. 

Edited September 25, 2020 by Aubrey

[mountaintoppufferkeeper]

My answer would be too dependent on too many factors to say yes or no for all endangers species but in general I would be a yes if it were legal and I felt I would be able to be successful with the species in question without damaging the population. 

Species deemed endangered or extinct would be similar, for me, to trying to reproduce a species that is not known to have been reproduced in the hobby. I prefer to keep and enjoy a species I am reasonably certain I can maintain successfully long term for the benefit of learning from them, hopefully reproducing them at some point, and sending them back into the hobby for others to further learn.

 

[shkote]

This could be sprinkled with a touch of bias, but I would say I'm for it. Especially for conservation purposes. 🙂

[Streetwise]

If eco-tourism, or eco-conscious collection keeps the locals working for the fish instead of for polluting industries, our hobby can have a positive effect.