Ethical Question Time: Wild Caught or Captive Breed?

[HUKIT]

It's been awhile since we've had a real discussion in this section, so today the ethical question came up again about my decision to keep and breed wild caught or first generation fish. This comes up with regards to collecting and potentially harming wild life areas or hunting fish into extinction, my view on this is that there is far more harm being done by habitat destruction and climate change than wild caught fish collecting. Most south and central american countries have laws on wild caught fish from quanities and seasons or times of collection. The UICN has a list of endangered fish that are illegal for exportation, most counties follow this with the exception of some of far eastern areas in Asia.

For me personally the opportunity and challenge to breed wild caught fish is the highest reward possible. This has numerous benefits like to help introduce new species not commonly seen and more importantly adding pure fish into the overly dilluted gene pool, this action perpetuates our hobby ensuring future generations of fish keepers will have access to quality fish. Now granted there are difficulties like transitioning to processed food, shyness or other odd characteristics, potentional health problems, and super aggresive behavior but the rewards are greater than the risks in my opinion.

So I would like to hear everyone else's opinions on wild caught vs captive breed, let's be civil and have a quality discussion without this getting thread locked.

 

[Aski247]

Couldn't agree more with you. Mainly "the introduction to not commonly seen species". As you said many SA species. I'll use cichlids as that's what I'm most familiar with. Showing a wild caught Trimac may sway people away from other hybrid species such as the flowerhorn. IMO there is no contest the Trimac is one of my all time fav fish and one of the best looking.

I wish I had a tank big enough to house a mated pair of adult dovii I would with out a doubt go with wild caught.

I would also love a mated pair of bared Midas and this is actually a possibility for me with my 125. Again I would absolutely go with wild caught to help introduce my area to a very cool and unseen version of one of my fav genus. as breeding them like you said would be greatly rewarding.

 

[Lady_Alia]

My opinion is short and sweet. I think it's cruel to take something out of the wild and place it in captivity.

 

[Aski247]

My opinion is short and sweet. I think it's cruel to take something out of the wild and place it in captivity.

Not to argue but it would a had to happen at some point for all of us at some point, or none of us would be in the hobby.

I do respect your opinion. And I do see the value of what you said. ?

 

[severum mama]

My opinion is short and sweet. I think it's cruel to take something out of the wild and place it in captivity.

On the flipside, without wild caught specimens in captivity, we would have no hobby. To take it a step further, ANY new introduction into the hobby is going to require wild specimens. Are you saying that we should never introduce new species into the hobby? What if the purpose of the introductions is to preserve species that are highly at risk from habitat destruction, overfishing, overcollection, etc?
American Cichlid Association - ACA C.A.R.E.S. Preservation Program
http://www.ibcbettas.org/smp/
http://livebearers.org/modules/content/index.php?id=10

 

[bettaowner]

I think captive bred is best and we should only take a fish out of the wild if it can't be bred in captivity. I am an experienced aquarist and there are some fish that I know won't be easy. Wild fish are difficult to acclimate and often harbor diseases.

 

[Mrc8858]

I think captive bred is best and we should only take a fish out of the wild if it can't be bred in captivity. I am an experienced aquarist and there are some fish that I know won't be easy. Wild fish are difficult to acclimate and often harbor diseases.

Even then you still need that wild caught to begin breeding in captivity and after that without new blood being introduced periodically atleast. then the species as a whole in captivity would become weaker. Don't get me wrong if captive bred is available especially in SW I opt for that but new blood is needed For the hobby to continue

 

[HUKIT]

My opinion is short and sweet. I think it's cruel to take something out of the wild and place it in captivity.

The other big issue for me is what the breeders are doing to "enhance" certain physical or color traits. Inbreeding and over inbreeding usually cause recessive genes (usually bad characteristics) to become expressed when in the wild they would remain recessive or be killed and are less likely to breed. The perfect example of this is the electric blue jack dempsey, here is a fish that is line bred for a recessive gene and the result is 80-90%(probably higher) don't make it past the juvenile stage...is that cruel? The point is so many of fish we keep no longer look like they did when they were in the wild, nature has a better method to bring out coloration even my beloved new life spectrum and loads of water changes can't compete.

Don't get me wrong if captive bred is available especially in SW I opt for that but new blood is needed For the hobby to continue

I've been a freshwater guy for 30 years and have never really given much thought to the salty side of this question, but something I would be interested in hearing.

 

[CraigMac]

Interesting topic.
My initial thought is that captive bred should be the standard, let wild fish remain in the wild. I understand new specimens etc do I'm not saying absolute, but excluding some minor exceptions, fish for our hobby should be captive bred.

One reason is that so many people get into this hobby with little knowledge of how to keep fish. Even the experienced experts will agree that wild caught is a whole new ball game with additional challenges. Why take a fish from its wild habitat and risk losing it by adding it to a tank.

My 2 cents....

 

[Galligak]

Do I really think that it is a good idea for people to take fish out of the wild? Eh, probably not. However if they are doing with certain procedures and do not deplete the fish population to a point of no return I have no issue. It's just when they whole, 'Hey look I've never seen that before and no one has bred it yet, let's go collect every darn fish in the pond to sell it' thing that I have an issue with.

If we can breed them, then we should keep them. I don't think that it is really a good idea to keep fish that are impossible for anyone to breed. But if people are able to breed them then yes go ahead and keep them, and get some wild ones for refreshing the genes.

But then again all that's just my opinion, and it's willing to change if I read something that opens my eyes more

 

[Malawi Freak]

I love wild caught, if it weren't still a possibility our breeds would become overbreed and slowly start to create deformities. When I was breeding saulosi I noticed the original breeding group was from a stressed mother and I had to shut down the whole tank. My chailosi are F1 and their colors are more beautiful than most pictures I look up on the breed.

It is also a great way to keep hybridization down with wild caught, but that too happens in the wild at times.

 

[jetajockey]

This is a great topic. This one hits close to home because I collect native fish from time to time. I'm not sure what would constitute it as cruel since it'd be a bit hypocritical to call wild caught fish keeping cruel and then happily keep a house full of domesticated animals. If we placed all creatures on the same level then it is selfishness by us to keep animals as pets, but that again is another ethical question. I believe we have dominion over animals and should be their caretakers both in the wild (to the best of our ability) and in our families.

I agree with the OP, the real pressure on wild species is encroachment/habitat destruction. There are some species in aquaria today that no longer exist in the wild, and it's not because of overcollecting/overfishing. So in those instances, fishkeeping actually saved some species that would have gone extinct.

There are many people who make a career out of keeping tabs on different wild species and putting laws in place to help maintain or flourish those most affected for whatever the circumstance is.

 

[DragonFish71]

I'm mixed on this.

I love native species fish and have 3 dedicated tanks for their well being. I'm hoping that I can get them breeding so I can advance the hobby out here. Mind you, these aren't Colorado natives, so to us they're exotic.

I have found that the wild caughts are hardier than their captive raised cousins.

Take for example killies. I have both tank raised and wilds, the wilds have better colors, are more forgiving if I can't get to the water changes promptly, and just all around seem to adapt better.

The down side is that I do worry about over collecting.

 

[HUKIT]

I have found that the wild caughts are hardier than their captive raised cousins.

Good point, I think that's a popular misconception with wild caught but in my experience they are drastically hardier than captive breed. I'm sure the daily struggles in the wild have a higher risk value than the lazy life in our tanks. My biggest challenges has always been acclimating to processed foods and overcoming their shyness, once that's done there really are no differences.

 

[Gboy66]

I've been a freshwater guy for 30 years and have never really given much thought to the salty side of this question, but something I would be interested in hearing.

In saltwater, the breeding of fish is just so much more crucial to the hobby.

For example, i was at the lfs the other day in the salt sections. We were curious and asked, out of all the fish there and 30ish tanks how many of the species were bred in captivity. He said 1 species. The clowns. Can you imagine how many of these fish were just swooped in on and captured? And considering that saltwater has grown alot, i cannot begin to think about all the wild caught fish in the hobby.

Im not really sure where i stand on this topic. Yes im in the hobby..so saying "anything taken out of the wild is bad" is a bit hypocritical. I am also in the section of the hobby where so much is plucked from the wild. That being said, i always pay extra if i have the option of a tank-bred fish, or self propagated coral. Of course the parents of these fish and the mother colony of this coral had to be wild...but hey, better than nothing!

Nice topic hukit

 

[MrPillow]

I find it no less ethical to extract specimens from the wild than it is to force a specimen to live in an artificial environment, regardless of origin or bloodline. There must come a point where a line is drawn - non sentient organisms are not privy to the rights created by humans. If they are granted any extension of these rights is purely up to the caretaker.

 

[Innovator]

Subjective depending on the care quality of the supplier(s). Were fry overcrowded, underfed, imbreeding involved, exposed to high NH3 concentrations, QT'd for parasites/disease (what meds/methods). For those preferencing wild caught as hardier, is this based simply on purchasing fish from a local lfs or online supplier (knowing well they have culled any dead prior to opening for the day) of which may or may not still have underlying illnesses.

 

[BillD]

this topic has several facets, and is far from clear cut.While there are more than a few extinct species being kept in aquaria, does it really matter that much? they are no longer existent in the wild. Some species that are endangered, can profit from being kept by hobbyists and species preservation programs in zoos. regardless, these fish will not be returned to the wild.
captive bred fish cheaply and readily available can be detrimental to the long term existance of their wild counterparts. An example of this would be the Cardinal tetra.Some 84,000,000 are harvested annually for the pet trade. this is a number that is, apparently sustainable. because the locals make their living from their capture, they aren't burning down rainforest to try and farm. the result is a preservation of the habitat and the ensured survival of the Cardinals, the forest, and the people who call it home. If a cheap source of cardinals were to become available, perhaps from the far east, the collecting might stop, and the resultant degradation of the habitat, created by the need for local peoples to survive, by any means necessary, could result in loss of fish and the forest habitat. So, in this case, wild caught is beneficial to the species and any other species in the area.
Of course, every case is different, and some fish have quickly become at risk shortly after their discovery.
As far as whether it is ethical to remove an animal from the wild, place in a carefully cultured environment, ensure it is free from parasites, and provide a steady supply of food, I will leave it up to the individual.
If you look at what is happening with frogs, and the Kettrick fungus, the only hope for most of them is that they are caught in the wild and removed to a carefully tended environment, and bred, hopefully, over time, with some resistance to the fungus.

 

[aqua_chem]

Bill touched on another point that I would like to flesh out a bit. There is a strong economic argument for wild caught over captive bred. If we were to transition to captive bred only, prices for many difficult to breed fish would skyrocket. Imagine trying to produce 84,000,000 cardinals, a species which is difficult to breed. Same thing with otos, SAE, and several other tetras (among others). We would quickly find that our selection of economically viable species would dwindle. Wild caught fish are essential to the hobby, ethical or not.

 

[Innovator]

^^^One of the primary reasons we don't see captive breeding on such a grand scale...money talks. Even such ventures overseas involving fish/amphib culturing can and is obstructed by unwillingness for whatever reasons, government-wise down to local inhabitants.