In the name of conservation?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : South African Coelacanth Conservation and Genome Resource Programme : One Thread

How many exibits of coelacanths are housed in Museums & "research institutes" globally?

Until "scientists" created the market, coelecanths were in no way targeted by anglers, or commercial & subsistance fishermen.

In the name of "conservation" curators of museums compete fiercely to win the prestige that comes with every new, rare or unique exhibition. Is there no paradox in the style and ethos of museum philosophy -where, the "collection" of every rare and endangered "specimen" is a prime imperative of field work ?

The arrogance of a science that condecends to imagine itself as a superior arbiter of intellect, ethics and standards is part of the problem. Is it not time for science to move more swiflty away from the fascism and eco-terrorism that are such integral parts of their past and present?

Coelacanths - and the record of "collecting specimens" for display and "study" is but one example. The list is endless and the style well established. How many Leptopelis xenodactylus have been discovered in situ? How many of them now reside in bottles of formalin - enriching our environment in an entirely new way - predicated by the ethics of a scientific community that views itself as intellectually exalted

-- Wolf Avni (troutcup@futurenet.co.za), May 10, 2002

Answers

Wolf -

There has never, as far as I am aware, been a targeted fishery for coelacanths! To the best of my knowledge, every coelacanth captured so far has been an accidental bycatch of a fishery (usually subsistence level) for other fishes. A comoran fisherman would much rather catch oilfish (which he can eat) than a coelacanth (which he can't). Incidentally, according to Robin Stobbs, the coelacanth bycatch in the comoros is decreasing as the traditional night fishing techniques (which caught coelacanths occasionally) are being replaced by gill netting during the day (which does not).

The only true "hunt" for a coelacanth I am aware of is an expedition by a Japanese Aquarium to capture a living coelacanth in the comoros for exhibit in the aquarium. They were unsuccessful. All other coelacanth specimens have been caught and died before science even has a chance to take the blame for "killing" them - releasing a caught coelacanth will result in almost inevitable death (due to the physiological stress of catching, potential barotrauma and the typical unsuitability of surface waters to coelacanths), to the best of our knowledge; coelacanths out of their depth suffer a slow but inevitable death. The success of returning them to their habitat after this trauma is unknown. The fact that these specimens, if properly saved "for science" helps us to understand more about the creatures, perhaps to the point at which we could save those accidentally caught is surely important?

As for your attack on the methods of ichthyology and other biological sciences where collection and preservation form an integral part of the discipline, whilst I can understand your concern that collection is damaging the environment (which it undeniably is - typically in a small way), if conducted sensibly and in a controlled manner it is extremely unlikely to result in any harm coming to a population - in extremely rare species, of course one has to be particularly careful, and in most cases, this is done.

However, if these surveys are not carried out, rare species will not be discovered. Their existence will be unknown and it will be impossible to protect them. Many species cannot be identified by sight - detailed anatomical studies are often necessary to separate them from their closely related species, and these regrettably cannot be performed on a living specimen in many cases.

If we do not know about a rare species we cannot possibly hope to conserve it.

Whilst it is impossible to condone wide spread collecting of a rare species "just" to have one and put it on display, it seems a rather large jump to then condemn all biological collection as irresponsible ecoterrorism!

I find it interesting that a person who wholeheartedly endorses ecoterrorism of the worst sort can direct such an attack upon science. I am assuming of course that you are the Wolf Avni who says that introducing alien fish species to improve recreational fisheries is a good thing and establishes a new "natural" order! This actually leads to the very rapid extinction of many endemic species in rivers which the trout outcompete or eat, often leaving a very impoverished fish fauna consisting of one or two species of trout (originally imported from europe) and few, if any of the diversity of species previously inhabiting such rivers. The fact that many South African riverine fish are critically endangered and that anglers, including yourself, will still advocate the introduction of alien angling fishes resulting in their extinction is far more irresponsible than the concepts you have been so vehemently attacking. Some native fish provide very good sport as far as I am aware, so introducing an alien species, which then decimates the living species is highly irresponsible, particularly as there are native fish suitable for angling. If you want to catch trout, go to the northern hemisphere - you should rather catch yellowfish in South Africa!

Incidentally most specimens are fixed in formalin and then stored in alcohol.

-- James Stapley (fishwatch@ru.ac.za), May 10, 2002.


Robin Stobbs has contributed the following in response to my answer to this question:

How many exibits of coelacanths are housed in Museums & "research institutes" globally? ANSWER: As far as we know, around 200 which works out at an annual catch average of only 5 per year! What percentage of the total WIO population this represents is anyone's guess but it's probably very small.

Until "scientists" created the market, coelecanths were in no way targeted by anglers, or commercial & - ANSWER: Oh yes they were! Following the knowledge that there were ‘wazungu’ (white people) out there crazy enough to pay Ł100 for a pretty useless fish there was a notable increase in the numbers of Comoran artisanal fishermen willing to risk nights fishing for another ‘gombessa’! That was until they realised that there was no way they could target the fish, that those ‘wazungu’ seldom paid all the rewards they offered, and that the chances of actually catching a coelacanth were about as good as guaranteeing a win on a national lottery! Let’s be realistic - Ł100 was a huge wad of cash then (as indeed it still is!) and it would be only human to expect there to be an immediate rush to cash in on this seemingly easy money. Yes, they were ‘targetted’ but not caught and it IS true that every known coelacanth catch was (and so far, still is) accidental.

There has never, as far as I am aware, been a targeted fishery for coelacanths! To the best of my knowledge, every coelacanth captured so far has been an accidental bycatch of a fishery (usually subsistence level) for other fishes. A comoran fisherman would much rather catch oilfish (which he can eat) than a coelacanth (which he can't). Incidentally, according to Robin Stobbs, the coelacanth bycatch in the comoros is decreasing as the traditional night fishing techniques (which caught coelacanths occasionally) are being replaced by gill netting during the day (which does not). No. Not quite right. I didn’t say that traditional ‘mazé’ fishing is being replaced with gill netting - HEAVEN FORBID. Although gill netting has existed for many years in some areas of the Comoros it is not used to catch deep fish! Artisanal mazé fishermen are indeed on the decrease due mainly to the inherent dangers of this fishing practice and a decreasing recruitment into the artisanal fishing sector. However the alternatives are probably more damaging to coelacanth populations in the Comoros than was mazé fishing! Those fishermen who once used to fish at night are now fishing the reefs and shallower nearshore slopes with potentially disastrous results. Already there are large areas of reef almost devoid of all edible species (and that includes species that many aquarists would give an arm to have in their aquaria!) and the ripple effect to coelacanths and other top predators living further down the slope means that there is an ever-decreasing prey resource. To be sure, there is a devastating increase in the use of nets of all types (even mosquito netting is being used to harvest reef-top fishes) but all the previous mazé fishermen I have spoken with remain handline fishermen almost without exception they are old men who don’t change their habits too readily! If we are to succeed in reducing the devastation of nearshore fish resources then we HAVE to urge for the re-deployment of FADs around the islands. FADs were immensely successful during the years when there was an EEC Belgian tuna consultant on the islands but after he left on transfer to Madagascar they fell into decay, were not serviced, and rapidly disappeared - there is this unfortunate thing, typical but not exclusive to the Comoros, that the half-life of any enterprise is about one week after you leave!

It was a change from deep-set long lines (for sharks) to deep-set gill nets that resulted in the four Madagascar and two (known) Sulawesi coelacanths.

The only true "hunt" for a coelacanth I am aware of is an expedition by a Japanese Aquarium to capture a living coelacanth in the comoros for exhibit in the aquarium. They were unsuccessful.

Comoros, perhaps?

JLB Smith himself set about mounting expeditions to the Comoros and/or Madagascar in the early ‘50s - he never got these off the ground and was also unsuccessful ;-)

Various expeditions to the Comoros from France, the USA, Britain, etc. also attempted to catch coelacanths using traps, long lines and such. None were successful and, proving the point that even Comoran artisanal fishermen can’t target ‘gombessa’ or catch one on demand, not once was a coelacanth caught to order for these expeditions!

-- James Stapley (fishwatch@ru.ac.za), July 15, 2002.


In Answer to Lee-Ann's post, I thought people might be interested to read the continuing saga of Wolf and my discussion on this topic!

I believe it continued more amicably.

First, my response to Wolf's last post:


Dear Wolf - Ditto your response to my response, which made very interesting reading, as did the attached document.

As far as I am aware, at least in the Comoros, there wasn't a targetted fishery set up by the "demand" for specimens of coelacanths - although I have personally not been to the Comoros and fully understand the incentive that such sums of money would represent, I believe that fishermen continued fishing for Ruvettus pretiosus and only occasionally (and accidentally) caught coelacanths. Of course, you might then cash in on this- I suppose if the chances of catching coelacanths were better, more people might have tried their luck at it (i.e. a targetted fishery)! I forget the exact number of coelacanths caught (reported ones anyway!) over 50 years, but it's less than 200 - pretty low catch rates. Still, in a species where reproductive output is low as is population even this may have a negative impact over even a relatively short timespan. It seems fortunate that coelacanths will now be relatively undistrubed, even if gillnets themselves are terribly destructive of the rest of the fish fauna!

Perhaps I have been overly swayed by the Cambray&Co. arguments that all alien fish are evil, but in certain cases (such as lake Victoria) the introduction of alien fish species (nile perch) has contributed directly to the decimation of native, endemic fish species (in that case haplochromine cichlids). It has had some positive benefits on the people living around the lake - bigger fish are more profitable and can be exported, however, the smaller endemic species are more useful as a subsistence level foodstuff, as nile perch cannot be salted/airdried as can the small haplochromines. In a tropical area, unpreserved protein goes off pretty fast! (Several hundred species extinct/highly endangered there). I believe there is also a thriving sport fishery for large nile perch. Score one for the fishermen (commercial and recreational), 0 for biodiversity =). I believe much of the nile perch is exported to Europe. Score 0 for the poor people too...

I always feel somewhat guilty when coming along and arguing that messing up the environment should be stopped in "3rd world" countries, whilst coming from Europe/"1st world" where the environment was totally and utterly changed during the course of the last few thousand years - more rapidly in the last few hundred - in the drive for Development. I'm surprised more people don't look at it that way and cancel foreign debt in return for environmental protection. No one stopped "us" cutting down all the forests, or exhausting non renewable resources, or utilising cheap, polluting energy sources! Somewhat hypocritical, huh?

As is the case in any system man gets anywhere near, there are other impacts perhaps more severe than introduced fish species (deforestation, eutrophication, siltation and so on), it would certainly seem a bad plan to condone further introductions of alien fish species. I fully recognise that there is pretty much nothing that can currently be done to totally remove an alien fish species from the environment without causing a lot of collateral damage, so in many ways we are stuck with the current situation. I read an interesting article the other day about some work done on producing genetically engineered male carp that have an altered gene that prevents any offspring being female; with a relatively small introduction of altered males into a system the population becomes effectively sterile in a very short period of time, and once the last female dies, it's cheers to the population. I guess that's one way of doing it. (Although this stirs up the hornet's nest associated with genetic engineering!). But it's a decade or so away from being useable according to the article. Eradicating introduced aliens may not revert to the original ecosystem, but it ought to be more "natural" - in the same way you mention occurring in the now protected (but degraded) grasslands and marshes of the Drakensberg. Who knows what botanical treasures and associated depended fauna were ravaged to extinction by goats, sheep and cattle? Certainly the new "equilibrium" will take time to establish, but so did the current "equilibrium". The continued existence of trout hatcheries is indicative of either overly high fishing pressure, or poorly established natural populations (or both). In the case of it being fishing pressure, then perhaps if there is ever an eradication of trout, yellowfish hatcheries had better be set up to compensate! (Although this brings up implacations of the alteration of genetic diversity within the "wild" population - as has happened with many wild salmon stocks "contaminated" by escaped, genetically low diversity, farmed salmon).

I recognise that empathy for the wilderness is not the exclusive domain of scientists - far from it, many "ordinary" people are far more in touch with nature than many scientists - as with all things it depends on the individual! I'm sure many other scientists feel the same way. I think perhaps (some) scientists are more rigid (blinkered?) in their views because the nature of academia demands sticking to your guns or watching your career wash away - perhaps that is the root cause of such things? I think many scientists are accutely aware of their own fallibility and this may also feed into the same "complex", as science is supposed to be set in stone (at least in popular understanding). Real science knows for sure only what isn't - never what is; a basic scientific (THE concept actually) is that you can only prove something wrong (not right). After that you get to have whatever is left as "right" until that gets proven wrong - far from the popular notion that science knows things with absolute certainty! Also, research funding is very much pegged to the perceived value of your research and outputs!

There is no single field (except politics perhaps?) with more people backstabbing or openly assaulting "opponents" than in conservation, which is a highly emotional field! Funny how some of the most bitter enemies have similar end intentions!

I for one am somewhat uncomfortable with having to kill anything to find out about it. Whilst I can accept eating meat and so on (I hate most vegetables, so that's probably a good thing...), I feel somewhat uncomfortable every time I go out to collect fish. I get really angry when I go with other people who do not take this seriously and extract every possible bit of information from the animals they have killed (for example not picking up every fish in a rotenone collection) - I have on occasion even felt like coming to blows with younger students who discard fish just because they belong to groups that are very hard to differentiate and "all look the same" whilst at the same time being common (generally gobies, the bete noir of most people who have to ID marine fish!). Most upsetting of all is fishing trawls - now there is a waste of life and unpleasant way to die. Any time a "vegetarian" comes along and says "eating meat is cruel" and proceeds to eat fish I find that truly enraging!

I think I'm fairly open to new ideas and will generally quite happily enter into debate, or read about other viewpoints, and add that to the collective data bank in my head for processing! Perhaps later in life one gets more set in one's ways? I certainly hope I remain open to new ideas and viewpoints!

It would be nice if we could live without altering things - but the very act of living alters things around you. Still, it's important to make as little (negative) impact as you can.

Anyway, that's enough rambling for one day - many thanks for enlightening me with an alternate viewpoint for the trout!

James. (p.s. if none of this makes sense, blame it on 4 hours of sleep!). =)


Next, Wolf's reply to my e-mail:

Dear James

we be of one blood you & I.....

I do most of my writing in the hours before the dog watch. With enough caffeine and other abstruse alkyds driving stream-of- conciousness.... it provides for pretty good fly-by, if a sometimes wild ride .

I think the whole point of this debate (or any other) revolves around issues of good faith. The line between making points based on intrinsic content and scoring points based on other, more subliminal motivations to do with issues of social prestige & politicking , is a fine one indeed. And I suppose the truth is that not one of us is a jot better than we aught to be. From your reply to the question on your website about coelacanths & captivity, it is clear that you have seen that line.

We are ‘sapiens’ before anything else, and just as there is bad science, as in your example of students who collect with a callous disrespect for the fabric, so too fly-fishing is full of pomp, pretension, and self- appeasement - with far too little awareness of that fabric. Those are social issues - but, just as it is unfair to attack science for the failures of the individuals that people it - so too with this trout thing.

With regard to the hatchery issue. There are 53 trout producers in South Africa. - producing just over 1000 tons per year of mostly Table Products. As with any intensive husbandry - there are significant environmental issues and the industry has a great many irresponsible producers who, basically, get away with far too much - because of non enforcement of the provisions of a number of very good pieces of legislation (including the water act). But equally, there are many individuals whose operations are environmentally sound - and who police themselves to a very high standard of ecological friendliness!

Some small fraction of the production does go towards stocking for the recreational angling market - but 99.99% of that is used to stock dams & impoundments - still waters, where the trout do not breed. Here too there are environmental issues. Essentially, while many of us argue that still water impoundments cannot be managed as an entity apart from the rivers as they form an integral part of the riverine catchment... and that whatever happens in the impoundments will ultimately impact upon the entire catchment - popular perception holds to an argument that sees the management and the utilisation of dams, ponds, etc as the private concern of landowners. W.R.T. recreational angling, this creates opportunities with terrifying environmental implications. It comes down to concepts of sustainability - and individual responsibility!!

In the same way some capricious individuals might shovel fish into rivers, including drainage that might previously have been free of trout - but this is an issue of social irresponsibility driven by market demand. The responsible trout lobby was probably the first to go public in identifying the problem... and calling for interventions/mechanisms to enforce compliance with existing protective legislation, ( Water act, Conservation act, etc).

As far as I know, I am the only producer specialising in the production of an angling fish for stocking - but, not only am I entirely opposed to stocking fish into rivers free from trout, I am generally not in favour of artificially boosting populations in those rivers where the trout occur.

Fishery management is a complicated and inexact science & neither space nor time permit a complete dissertation - suffice to say that there are a significant number of flyfishing roleplayers who are sensitive to the practical fragility of the system-equilibrium.

All ecology and conservation effort is undertaken in the context of desperation and rearguard action - we tilt at windmills, we who feel the criticall wounds of our planet. Overwhelmed, almost haunted, by my own futility, I tear out 35yr old pines .... and replace them with podocarpus (yellowwoods) that will take 1000 years to grow!!

regards

Wolf


I hope readers found the above interesting!

James.

-- James Stapley (fishwatch@ru.ac.za), August 21, 2002.


DEAR JAMES thank you for your prompt and succinct answer. Your excellent response deserves a like courtesy.

You are of course entirely right w,r,t the broad picture - and my posting was really a bit of frivolous wickedness -. undertaken in the same spirit, no doubt, which sees supposedly rational scientists label all trout fishermen as eco-terrorists. What a pity the scientific community was not as quick to supply a measured and balanced response to articles published in "peer review' journals, under emotive headlines that scream things like "LETS CLEAN UP THE ALIEN FISH SPILL" where both personality and intent are apportioned to the non- existing aggregate of all flyfisherman. Being labelled by the generality of association doesn't feel so good, does it? You are not entirely right with regard to specifics. Where previously coelacanth were caught purely by accident and only very occasionally - the events of December 1938 and then, again, 24 December, 1952, including the printing & dropping by plane of leaflets offering a reward of 100 pounds (R51,200 in today’s money) for any coelacanth - to a subsistence fishery where no individual might hope to earn that in a lifetime, had the inevitable and intended effect of creating a fishery specifically targeting coelacanths. The bidding war undertaken by the representatives and agents of museums and fishery research institutes on Comoran & Malaysian/Indonesian quaysides for the better part of 5 decades might also have had some influence on the cropping models of the subsequent half century, don't you think? I am thrilled to read your reassurance that this is now in decline - some 50 years later - but am not reassured that the Comoran gill nets themselves will not become an even more intractable problem. Quote "I am assuming of course that you are the Wolf Avni who says that introducing alien fish species to improve recreational fisheries is a good thing and establishes a new natural order!" I have never said anything of the kind and the statement comes nowhere close to reflecting my position, so perhaps you mistake me with some one else. I admit to being a Wolf Avni, the one consumed by a lifelong passion for the natural world, and inclined throughout adult life to sincere commitment to the preservation of bio-diversity, to the fundamentals of sustainable utilisation and to a vibrant global ecology and its protection . It makes not a jot of difference - It seems I(along with anyone else who might fish for trout) , - have been labelled by scientists who know neither me, nor my concerns, nor my lifes' work, with tags which are derogatory and insulting. None the less, we flyfishers seem to bear the slurs with a great deal more humour than the 'scientists' appear to manage. And no, I have never advocated that alien fish should be introduced into any natural environment just to indulge the whims of anglers OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON. I have, however, tried to point out that much of the (declining) trout fishery IS BASED ON INTRODUCTIONS THAT OCCURRED 100 YEARS AGO and that simply removing the introduced trout would do nothing to restore the systems to their original state, or indeed to halt their continuing slide into complete degradation. I have argued that a strong case can be made for a limited trout fishery within a very specific and narrow context. I have pointed to the hypocracy of much of the case against trout, based as it is, on emotive buzz- phrases made from behind the protection of the credibility of academia. I have in the past, and continue to, advocate and lobby for integrated catchment management processes which take account of all development and economic activities that impact on any natural resource. As part of an environmentally responsible trout lobby, who, incidentally were among the first to call for establishment of effective legal frameworks and the effective enforcement of ALL the provisions of conservation legislation with regard to the activities of any interests which exploit natural resources while being divorced from any precepts of sound ecological management. And that includes recreational angling for trout or all other species which may be targeted by anglers. I am that Wolf Avni who perceives that the lobby that has chosen to demonise trout are not unlike the doctor, who, with a patient on deaths door, suffering from cardiac infarction, renal collapse and immune response failure, chooses to focus on and search for treatments for the ingrown toenail! The fact is, whether we be flyfishermen targeting trout, or scientists collecting coelacanth - we remain of one blood - you & I. We are members of a species that inexorably destroys the most basic fabric of the environment that it depends upon for its survival. A degree in biological science does not confer a patent to the rights of Awareness. Empathy for, or insight into the natural world -and the crisis' it faces - are not the private domain of scientists, though the condescension that oozes from some of the texts emanating from within that fraternity sometimes seem to imply otherwise. Is there not a single scientist who does not take himself so seriously that he cannot accept the concept of fallibility, that scientists are as fraught with ego and human frailty as the rest of humanity? In the realm of the intellect that smacks somewhat more of the terrain where Gulliver travelled, rather than those brave frontiers supposedly peopled by the foot servants of Science. It is not so much what we do, but rather, how we do it that makes all the difference. Until a real ethos of "Ubuntu" - based on sound fundamental principles of sustainable utilisation underpins our exploitation of natural resources and our social interaction - until we learn to look at ourselves with a modicum of humour, to see ourselves as others might, we are likely doomed to continue on this ghastly spiral. It is a pity, because in a hostile world, with so few fighting on the side of the environment, it seems less than rational to shun natural allies simply because they do not conform to preconceived and rigid parameters.

-- Wolf Avni (troutcup@futurenet.co.za), May 13, 2002.


MY MY what an interesting discussion. And enlightening too, to see that the exact arguments and topics being discussed in S.A. regarding both the coelacanth and trout fishing are happening in the northwest United States too. We are fighting over native salmon stocks, introduced species and habitat. We are fighting over logging and environmental destruction/preservation. We are fighting over grazing grasslands, predator protection, hunting...

We have both the eco-terrorists and the scientists (and those in between) and the identical sorts of rationales. Only the species vary. Best wishes to you both; and please carry on. I would contribute something but you are doing such a superb job I will just 'lurk' and read for now, hoping to learn more. Thank you, Joanie Livermore Oregon, USA

-- Joanie Livermore (jeanne@teleport.com), May 31, 2002.



Being neither 'scientist', fisherperson of any serious sort, or and eco-terrorist (which individuals, I believe, may well fall into both the aforementioned catagories!), I read this string of dialogue with great sadness. Surely not everyone has to be completely right all the time? Is our natural heritage always going to be the negelected victim of a political argument? Does everyone have to get so caught up in who is right and who is to blame, that while the argument rages on for yet another century, the world around us is raped, mutilated and left to die in it's own juices? Both the fisherman and the scientist have so much to offer, yes I guarantee, both have flaws and both have beliefs which, upon investigation, they will find are way off the mark. But I maintain that if, for just a small while, the two could put aside the mudslinging and attack dogs, they would find that they could work together to restore these natural resources. For goodness sakes can't we stop banging heads and put them together gently for a change?

I have met so many great personalities in both of your worlds and I respect them all and see great wisdom in all their eyes and I wish that you could all just step out of your little boxes and see each others knowledge and, without prejudice and defensiveness, share and learn from each other. It's a little like what South African's from different cultural groups should be doing....

Lets do a bit Aquatic Transformation boys!

-- Lee-Ann Fargher (angelfish@websurfer.co.za), August 21, 2002.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ