Extinct fish.

[Oddball59]

I have seen a lot of posts and videos ("Fishtory" is my go to) about breeds becoming extinct in the wild because usually mans greed destroys habitats, and kept going as a strain in the hobby.
It made wander if anyone knows if any wild extinct species have been bred in enough quantities to be reintroduced in the wild in beneficial environments?

 

[Ceez]

I have seen a lot of posts and videos ("Fishtory" is my go to) about breeds becoming extinct in the wild because usually mans greed destroys habitats, and kept going as a strain in the hobby.
It made wander if anyone knows if any wild extinct species have been bred in enough quantities to be reintroduced in the wild in beneficial environments?

Certain types of environments only occur in specific places in the world and can't be recreated in some cases. Delicate eco systems have developed over the years and can be difficult to recreate to reintroduce certain species back into. Countries that are poor are more susceptible to overlooking environmental habitat in order to become financially independent. The Xingu river comes to mind..

Hell on the other hand the U.S. cares more about capital than almost anything else and continues to destroy species specific habitat. Here in California the MLPA act was introduced to protect from overfishing but what's really going on is commercial vessels are taking more now than ever before while sportfishing boats are kept out of the water in those areas. Ironically sportfishing boats take a small percentage of fish when compared to commercial vessels. Purse seiners are wrapping loads of Pacific Bluefin, squid and bycatch in record numbers. They are terrible for the environment and have destroyed squid grounds around Catalina and San Clemente Islands. Squid come in to the mud flats to lay eggs to reproduce, seiners come and drag the ground up to 120' deep and not only grab the lions share of the squid but destroy the majority of the eggs in the process. It's not sustainable.

I used to catch Yellowtail (not to be confused with yellowfin tuna), Bonita and Halibut off of the Redondo Beach pier as a kid. Albacore Tuna was everywhere within an hour or two of the shoreline. My kids will never see what I saw growing up, it's all gone. I just came back from Alaska and it's much the same. King Salmon numbers are a fraction of what they once were. It's an absolute shame. The almighty dollar always wins. The key to conservation is actually conserving.

In Mexico the government has sold out to Asian markets and spots we used to be able to sportfish are now off limits. Cedros, Benitos, Revillagigedo Islands etc etc...we did a 15 day on the Intrepid out of San Diego few years ago. We headed to the revillagigedos and more specifically Clarion Island. When we arrived we anchored in the bay in front of the Federales buildings. They came out in a small skiff, we paid them off with Cervezas and Cash and we're allowed to fish the island with the agreement in place that they would call us if the Mexican Navy was gonna show up so we could leave without being seen.

My point here is money trumps it all. You'll never be able to conquer greed or humanities selfish wants. I don't believe all hope is lost but I do believe we're on the way to losing more species with a few being saved in the guise of "look we're saving the planet" as a distraction.

 

[GaryE]

Zoogoneticus tequila (bred in a governmental institution) were reintroduced to a Mexican habitat where at last report, they were surviving. It was right beside its original habitat, which is now under a hotel. That's the key thing.
You have to have the habitat, or the fish fits nowhere.
There are a lot of fish whose habitats are gone or going. Almost none can be re-introduced, and our hobby talks a good game, but does little. Very (VERY) few hobbyists want to be as organized as we would need to be to keep a species going in captivity. The late Roger Langton suggested 18 tanks per species as a baseline, with a connected network of dozens of hobbyists working to keep lines from inbreeding, and keep them healthy. There would have to be continuity, as if I take on a species at 30, I may be dead by 80, and 50 years is nothing in the life of a species. I would need a network of people to shift my fish to as I faltered.

We can't even get organized to keep established aquarium clubs operating, so I think we can forget realistic species reintroduction from hobbyists.

Climate change is going to decimate small fish species, which are often more sensitive to temperature changes because of their small bodies. We are not doing anything concrete about it, as societies. As @Ceez said, money trumps all.

 

[Oddball59]

Certain types of environments only occur in specific places in the world and can't be recreated in some cases. Delicate eco systems have developed over the years and can be difficult to recreate to reintroduce certain species back into. Countries that are poor are more susceptible to overlooking environmental habitat in order to become financially independent. The Xingu river comes to mind..

Hell on the other hand the U.S. cares more about capital than almost anything else and continues to destroy species specific habitat. Here in California the MLPA act was introduced to protect from overfishing but what's really going on is commercial vessels are taking more now than ever before while sportfishing boats are kept out of the water in those areas. Ironically sportfishing boats take a small percentage of fish when compared to commercial vessels. Purse seiners are wrapping loads of Pacific Bluefin, squid and bycatch in record numbers. They are terrible for the environment and have destroyed squid grounds around Catalina and San Clemente Islands. Squid come in to the mud flats to lay eggs to reproduce, seiners come and drag the ground up to 120' deep and not only grab the lions share of the squid but destroy the majority of the eggs in the process. It's not sustainable.

I used to catch Yellowtail (not to be confused with yellowfin tuna), Bonita and Halibut off of the Redondo Beach pier as a kid. Albacore Tuna was everywhere within an hour or two of the shoreline. My kids will never see what I saw growing up, it's all gone. I just came back from Alaska and it's much the same. King Salmon numbers are a fraction of what they once were. It's an absolute shame. The almighty dollar always wins. The key to conservation is actually conserving.

In Mexico the government has sold out to Asian markets and spots we used to be able to sportfish are now off limits. Cedros, Benitos, Revillagigedo Islands etc etc...we did a 15 day on the Intrepid out of San Diego few years ago. We headed to the revillagigedos and more specifically Clarion Island. When we arrived we anchored in the bay in front of the Federales buildings. They came out in a small skiff, we paid them off with Cervezas and Cash and we're allowed to fish the island with the agreement in place that they would call us if the Mexican Navy was gonna show up so we could leave without being seen.

My point here is money trumps it all. You'll never be able to conquer greed or humanities selfish wants. I don't believe all hope is lost but I do believe we're on the way to losing more species with a few being saved in the guise of "look we're saving the planet" as a distraction.

Excellent reply, says it all really. I couldn't add to that when the dollars are rolling and fish are falling.

 

[Oddball59]

Zoogoneticus tequila (bred in a governmental institution) were reintroduced to a Mexican habitat where at last report, they were surviving. It was right beside its original habitat, which is now under a hotel. That's the key thing.
You have to have the habitat, or the fish fits nowhere.
There are a lot of fish whose habitats are gone or going. Almost none can be re-introduced, and our hobby talks a good game, but does little. Very (VERY) few hobbyists want to be as organized as we would need to be to keep a species going in captivity. The late Roger Langton suggested 18 tanks per species as a baseline, with a connected network of dozens of hobbyists working to keep lines from inbreeding, and keep them healthy. There would have to be continuity, as if I take on a species at 30, I may be dead by 80, and 50 years is nothing in the life of a species. I would need a network of people to shift my fish to as I faltered.

We can't even get organized to keep established aquarium clubs operating, so I think we can forget realistic species reintroduction from hobbyists.

Climate change is going to decimate small fish species, which are often more sensitive to temperature changes because of their small bodies. We are not doing anything concrete about it, as societies. As @Ceez said, money trumps all.

yes.... spot on. It would be a massive effort, and greed and climate change I agree %100 will be the death of everything eventually. Sadly. I think your also right about hobbyists... it would take a national entity or international to take on such a challenge. Thank you for taking the time to read this and comment.

 

[Colin_T]

It made wander if anyone knows if any wild extinct species have been bred in enough quantities to be reintroduced in the wild in beneficial environments?

The only fish I know of that has been re-introduced into the wild in Australia is the Lake Eacham rainbowfish (Melanotaenia eachamensis). It was only found in Lake Eacham in Queensland (Australia) and was wiped out by introduced game fish. The game fishes were added to the lake by recreational fishermen and those new fishes ate the rainbowfish. The Queensland government found out and went through the lake with volunteers from various organisations and they removed the predatory fish. They then spent a lot of time and money trying to find hobbyists with the fish in their aquariums and got them to breed and supply fish for the lake.

Most wild fishes are endangered and will become extinct in the near future due to warmer water, less rainfall in various areas, pollution, and habitat destruction.

 

[Seisage]

You have to have the habitat, or the fish fits nowhere.
There are a lot of fish whose habitats are gone or going. Almost none can be re-introduced, and our hobby talks a good game, but does little. Very (VERY) few hobbyists want to be as organized as we would need to be to keep a species going in captivity. The late Roger Langton suggested 18 tanks per species as a baseline, with a connected network of dozens of hobbyists working to keep lines from inbreeding, and keep them healthy. There would have to be continuity, as if I take on a species at 30, I may be dead by 80, and 50 years is nothing in the life of a species. I would need a network of people to shift my fish to as I faltered.

We can't even get organized to keep established aquarium clubs operating, so I think we can forget realistic species reintroduction from hobbyists.

Climate change is going to decimate small fish species, which are often more sensitive to temperature changes because of their small bodies. We are not doing anything concrete about it, as societies. As @Ceez said, money trumps all.

Couldn't agree more. This is an area of the hobby that frustrates me—when hobbyists act as though they're doing real, important conservation work simply by having a tank with a few endangered or extinct (in the wild) fish that they breed for fun (and whose offspring they may end up selling for a good chunk of change).

If a species is extinct in the wild without any genuine conservation efforts applied, its existence in captivity is nothing more than a sad novelty for people to ooh and ahh at. The most dedicated hobbyist could not save a species on their own. Not even a singular zoological facility can achieve that. Virtually all captive breeding programs involve the trade of animals between facilities to promote genetic diversity, and these are very carefully planned and calculated trades with genetics primarily in mind. The scale of a robust captive breeding program is wildly beyond the scale of what a single person could achieve on their own, even with all the money and space in the world. And I do agree that it's not something that could be achieved even with attempts at hobby-wide scale efforts. The truth is that it's not just about resources, it's about organization.

I understand where these people are coming from. It's disappointing to feel useless, so people do what they can to feel useful, but hobbyists' efforts would be better directed at donating or volunteering for habitat restoration and advocating for creation and enforcement of laws and regulations. Of course, the latter might end up restricting what hobbyists are allowed to keep, and I can't imagine that going over well... We've already seen the hissy fit (pun intended) that the reptile hobby threw over the proposed amendment to the Lacey Act a few years back.

 

[Oldspartan]

I know little about the macro enviroment but quite a it about my little plot of micro environment.

First an actual experience. I live in an area blessed with a multitude of lakes and ponds. Many are only accessible after an arduous hike. One large pond in particular I used to backpack into was wonderful Brooke fishing. Trophy sized trout under very little fishing pressure. After many years of not going there I got a bug to go. The pond was dead. Acid rain. After another number of years I heard from my son the water once again was alive. He and I hiked in for a weekend. The pond was indeed alive again. Not what it was but there were some moderate bookies again. So there are opportunities to correct if we are able and can justify the expense of recovery.

As for my little micro ….. fifty years ago our gardens were planted in late May. We started plants in early April. Last year our veggies garden was fully planted by the first week in May. We lost one tomato plant to light frost. We harvest at least 10 days earlier. We grow some plants that 50 years ago we could not.

Linda’s bird gardens have birds that do not belong here and others that no longer come or are greatly reduced. Monarchs are becoming rare, fire flies that once lighted our yard are nonexistent. Ground bees and wasps are everywhere, honey bees hard to find.

Our apple trees blossom to early and need to be picked before being properly frosted. We can now grow peaches.

That is a small list of observed, not theoretical changes. With that said I M not overly concerned. We adjust and I think we will continue to do so as individuals and as populations. It will not always be pretty though.

This is why we have drilled our children and now our grandchildren into the importance of not just a chunk of land but also the process of using it. It is far more important than gold.

 

[GaryE]

@Seisage - there is one aspect of hobbyists 'conserving' species that I feel you overlooked. That's education.

When I kept Zoogoneticus tequila for 15 years or so, I knew it was a dead end project the whole time. But I was able to generate other dead end projects, and quite a few people who got fish from me tried very hard to keep them going, as personal projects. I had a bunch of weird shaped old aquariums donated to me, and I oversaw a project with these fish in classrooms.
Eventually, there was a fatal inbreeding problem and fertility vanished.
But maybe, just maybe, it inspired someone, somewhere among those hundreds of teenagers to consider vanishing diversity. Maybe, someone will work with properly organized institutions for habitat preservation, or change. Maybe some of those kids will become adults who support real efforts. We live in times where collective efforts are devalued, but we'll have to start supporting real efforts at saving species someday.

I see our fish as a great zombie movie we get to make. They're the swimming dead, disconnected from their natural history. Every fish in an aquarium has been predated, and maybe bred like a farm animal for a different kind of consumption. I question my ethics keeping fish sometimes, but I give up - I have a carnivorous curiosity that feeds on other species just as the rest of my body feeds on mammals and plants. When I went fishing in Gabon last summer, catching weird unknown fish to bring home and learn about, as well as catching fish for study by a couple of respected scientists, I was a predator. I watched the Gabonese guys going out in the morning with old rifles to find antelopes, and then I cleaned out my net and joined the same process, except to feed curiosity.

I don't know if it's good or bad, but it is. This hobby has made me a supporter of projects aimed at habitat preservation, and of governmental policies that try. At one point in Gabon I got to sit in on an impromptu meeting with a government Minister and discuss the need to protect a river that was the only home of a local fish. I knew a couple of scientists who had just crawled out of a river and people like me meant nothing compared to the slick gold mining interests and forestry companies that will probably kill that river, but you give it your shot.

I hope that by seeing what we've destroyed, even in fishtanks, maybe people will ask questions and seek solutions. Maybe.

 

[Seisage]

@Seisage - there is one aspect of hobbyists 'conserving' species that I feel you overlooked. That's education.

When I kept Zoogoneticus tequila for 15 years or so, I knew it was a dead end project the whole time. But I was able to generate other dead end projects, and quite a few people who got fish from me tried very hard to keep them going, as personal projects. I had a bunch of weird shaped old aquariums donated to me, and I oversaw a project with these fish in classrooms.
Eventually, there was a fatal inbreeding problem and fertility vanished.
But maybe, just maybe, it inspired someone, somewhere among those hundreds of teenagers to consider vanishing diversity. Maybe, someone will work with properly organized institutions for habitat preservation, or change. Maybe some of those kids will become adults who support real efforts. We live in times where collective efforts are devalued, but we'll have to start supporting real efforts at saving species someday.

I see our fish as a great zombie movie we get to make. They're the swimming dead, disconnected from their natural history. Every fish in an aquarium has been predated, and maybe bred like a farm animal for a different kind of consumption. I question my ethics keeping fish sometimes, but I give up - I have a carnivorous curiosity that feeds on other species just as the rest of my body feeds on mammals and plants. When I went fishing in Gabon last summer, catching weird unknown fish to bring home and learn about, as well as catching fish for study by a couple of respected scientists, I was a predator. I watched the Gabonese guys going out in the morning with old rifles to find antelopes, and then I cleaned out my net and joined the same process, except to feed curiosity.

I don't know if it's good or bad, but it is. This hobby has made me a supporter of projects aimed at habitat preservation, and of governmental policies that try. At one point in Gabon I got to sit in on an impromptu meeting with a government Minister and discuss the need to protect a river that was the only home of a local fish. I knew a couple of scientists who had just crawled out of a river and people like me meant nothing compared to the slick gold mining interests and forestry companies that will probably kill that river, but you give it your shot.

I hope that by seeing what we've destroyed, even in fishtanks, maybe people will ask questions and seek solutions. Maybe.

That's a very fair point, and you're right, I did overlook it. Education can be a very powerful thing. It's why modern zoos and aquariums, at least in their current forms, exist at all, really. Captive animals have their place, even if they're used only for display and not for breeding programs.

I wouldn't be surprised if the exposure to endangered fish in private collections does inspire at least some people to take productive action. I just hope that those people outnumber the ones who simply get inspired to obtain an animal for bragging rights.