Is the ACA actually doing anything to promote conservation?

[number6]

Hi everyone, I ws chatting

with a few fellow cichlid enthusiasts and brought up the ACA... we all had a few thoughts on what

the ACA is doing... we had more questions that answers, so it was suggested to me to post them up

here.

Our # 1 question is, what (if anything) is the ACA actually doing to actively

protect cichlids or their habitats?

I noticed that we can list our redlisted fish for

free to sell to other hobbyists... what does that do?

Any enterprise without goals is

just busy work... and so far, conservation of cichlids and their natural habitats seems to be

without goals... Lake Victoria, for example... it is forever changed. What is the point of

preserving a captive bloodline of a particular species? What end are you attempting to acheive?

Until the ACA can really lay out their goals, it all looks like busy work and back

patting...
From the "What we do" section of the ACA website...

Awards


Buntbarsche Bulletin
Trading Post
Annual Convention
Local Club Liason
Local Show Sanctioning
Speakers Program
Jordan Endowment Research Fund
Paul

Loiselle Conservation Fund

compare the sections for the Jordan fund to the Loiselle

fund...
http://www.cichlid.org/Jordan.html
http://www.cichlid.org/Loiselle_Conservation_Fund.html

former is

great... clear, and with end goals... "to publish the findings in a referenced scientific

periodical" and "a short popular account of the findings in Buntbarsche Bulletin".



The latter is about as airy and aimless as I could think of...

Now if the

ACA had some sort of solid, identifiable end goal to promote conservation of the Rift Lakes... say

a Malawi-native run company to export cichlids to the United States... or something like that, I

think you'd find the 30 and under crowd would be pretty darn impressed... the ACA would be

making something happen...

anyone have any thoughts?

[JustRon]

I posted something in another

of your threads here, but I can basically say that we have begun the CARES program which will

actively involve members to keep species that are in need.

As far as the Loiselle

description/mission statement, that was undergoing a re-write before the convention this year. I

hope we will have a much more tangible statement to put out very soon. This will provide some

insight into how the awards will be given.

Another issue we are trying to raise is

information to place in the BB and here to discuss endangered species.

I am not sure

these are all the right steps to be taking or that we are taking enough steps to move forward. If

you have some suggestions I would like to hear them. Help us get the organization the focus you

think it needs. It is your club too.

[maddog10]

That is a very good point.

This is our club too. It is very important that members get involved in shaping the direction the

ACA proceeds. Post thoughts on this forum for discussion but don't stop there, attend the

annual convention and express your concerns, in person, to the board. The ACA has a responsibility

to provide some "serious" conservation programs. There can not be a sustainable fishery

if protection, or in the very least some sort of guidelines or quotas are put in place. Greed

always creeps to the forefront and someone or group will exploit the fishery until it is depleated.

The ACA may one day be in a position to pressure Governments into acting. Just my opinion.

That said, the funds in place are a start and they need or money to keep going. They may not be

exactly what is needed but they are steps in the right direction.

[andregurov]

<!--quoteo

(post=1700:date=Jul 26 2006, 02:02 PM:name=number6)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(number6

@ Jul 26 2006, 02:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1700"><{POST_SNAPBACK}

></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Now if the ACA had some sort of solid,

identifiable end goal to promote conservation of the Rift Lakes... say a Malawi-native run company

to export cichlids to the United States... or something like that, I think you'd find the 30

and under crowd would be pretty darn impressed... the ACA would be making something happen...<!--

QuoteEnd--></div>

I think such an idea has splash, but perhaps without

much substance. Perhaps a problem with conservation and the ACA so far is a lack of definable focus

- the words "cichlid conservation" allow a lot of latitude in definition, to be sure.

There is some bitter (delicious?) irony in exporting cichlids from a native habitat in order to

save them. Part of the beauty of the current ACA conservation activities is that there is a

balance between assistance to the professionals at the forefront of conservation/biology and

encouragement toward the ACA member community. Perhaps additional focus on education - not just

within the ACA membership - is a step in the right direction, providing the best combination of

profile and result. It would seem that the latest issues of TFH might bear this out, as the ACA

has been prominent in several of them.

Is it also possible that the ACA's approach

to cichlid conservation will be a continually revised one, kind of a living document? The

solutions, like the problems they address, are myriad and overwhelming.

As a new member,

it is nevertheless wonderful to see a club responsive to the concerns of their members.

J

[JustRon]

Very good input. I think the

conservation issue and the scope with which the ACA membership can participate AND have an impact

is a moving target. We are moving forward though. I hope with increased participation of the

members and the interaction via this forum we can improve what we do and at least get the

information shared with the membership.

[bobrfish]

It is possible Loiselle

Conservation Fund will give a grant within next 12 months to protect cichlid habitat or to carry

out a captive preservation program within the nation of cichlid origin. Yes, these are nebulous

but the fund is just now earning enough return for a grant to be possible.

In past ACA

members have participatied in species maintaince program. Some of you may have read about CARES

program. The mantra for this program is that each ACA member set aside one tank to maintaining an

endagered cichlid. This is easier said than done. Who has kept the same colony of fish (counting

offspring if parents passed on) for last 15 years? Who has asked themselves, why do I bother, the

habitat is gone, the fish is mutating within my and other survival maintaince keepers tanks? No

one sees the fish but me, what good are they do the World now?
Each day the fish keeper with

a tank of endangered fish must tell themselves: Yes the habitat is gone, but I cannot

predict the future. Who knows what will happen tomorrow? Then keep on, keepin on.

Jordan fund is small and Loiselle fund is even smaller but who knows, someday these funds may

become something special. Who knows if someone will leave a half million dollars to one of these

funds some day. It could happen.

Will we have the endangered cichlids on that day. Are

any in your tanks?

[number6]

That is some good news on

the fund bobr... oh and just in case that wasn't a rhetorical question...

<!--

quoteo(post=1924:date=Jul 31 2006, 11:23 PM:name=bobrfish)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

(bobrfish @ Jul 31 2006, 11:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1924"><

{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Will we have the endangered

cichlids on that day. Are any in your tanks?</div> yes...

that's why I joined the ACA... http://cichlid.ipbhost.com/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif
The CARES program is looking quite

exciting... count me in as a participant!

[seand]

One thing I've heard Dr.

Paul talk about (at the ACA Convention) is getting the most bang for our buck with either of the

endowment funds.

He mentioned is that many foreign governments are suspicious when

Americans show up and start poking around. But if we can fund a project for a citizen (icthyology

student) of said country, they have a much better chance of gathering the desired information, or

making an ecological impact in favor of conservation of cichlid habitats. Also, he believes that

funding these projects will build the programs at the universities - which builds the accademic

cichlid community - which is in the best long term interst of both endowment funds.

That

all makes sense to me.

[samuel horwitz]

although i too am a

new aca member under 30 i feel that this is a really harsh judgement of th aca. doesn't

exposing the public to cichlids only improve our position to make a difference. i also feel that

if we all made a suggestion instead of a complaint than we might actually get something

accomplished. so with that in mind, i feel that the only way to protect the cichlid ennviroments

is to educate the local people and governments on why these fish are so important. this can be as

simple as funding educating/collecting trips. not only will we be helping our beloved fish, we

will be helping the people who just happen to live around the fish. not to mentoin all the cool

fish we could bring back to the dedicated hobbysts here.

[bobrfish]

Sean brought up the point of

US citizens going in to a foreign country to establish conservation efforts. This is a valid point

but there are more.
Look at conservation here in USA. We have set aside lands for

conservation yet there is constant pressure to use these lands for economic gain. Many times the

economic gain is cloaked in "better for society" arguement. Enough said about USA

conservation problems.
Now imagine going to a country with a rapidly expanding population of

humans. These humans have basic needs like housing, food, security. Just as Americans have done

in the past, these folks are going to exploit their natural resources. When the resouces are fully

exploited such as cichlids for food, then non endogenous species that grow quickly and serve as

food source will be brought in.
When hungry, when voters want more economic gain, why would

those living in areas where cichlids are threatened care about fish? They do not care, they have

more pressing needs.

Education alone is not enough. It is not enough in the USA, as

witnessed by attempts to use conserved lands here. It sure is not going to be enough in foreign

lands that have hungry mouths and lack of housing.

ACA has approximately $50,000

endowment in conservation fund. The goals for this conservation fund were written but then

revisions were requested. Not sure if the revisions are done and published but I think not. A

grant from interested earned on 50K invested in a 5% CD is about $2,500. If BOT agrees, this

amount will be granted during 2007.

Back to Sean's comments. Who can deliver the

most bang for the buck? A native to the country where endangered species live or US citizen coming

in and telling natives what must be done to save fish species?

[Tim]

Perhaps we're doing as much

as we can by making sure there are representations of the extinct (in the wild) species in our

tanks. Years from now, when a country has developed past the "third world country" stage

and they've set up programs for endangered species, we'll have cichlid species to release

back into the wild in an attempt to re-establish the species.
I don't know if any of the

money raised can benefit in the maintenance of these species in hobbyists tanks, but it may be

something worth looking into. Conservation funds in the US are typically used for lobbying and

getting Senators and Legislators to pass bills. What is the money for cichlid conservation going to

be used for in Madagascar? Who are we going to lobby to get any results?
Perhaps donating

money annually to a few large aquariums for maintaining an extinct species with the thoughts of an

eventual release back to the wild would be a more worthwhile use of our money. This way we can not

only preserve the species, but also go look at them. http://cichlid.ipbhost.com/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif
Tim

[jluckshire]

The subject of what

goals - and how real results might be achieved is one that I HOPE gets focus here. Clear Statement

of of GOALS towards habitat preservation or improvement would seem to be key towards any level of

success.

The free listing of red-listed fish is certainly not paramount to success - but

it is one small behavior that demontrates concern. Getting people to think in terms of

conservation is one thing that costs us nothing - so I think it's good in itself - but we DO

need activists that will drive these concerns home - so I applaud you for asking the right

questions.

I'm hoping to try to get some people thinking specifically about the

madagascan fishes plight - and hopefully we can remember to keep the kind of focus you're

suggesting. so far I don't see the kind of activism I'm looking for here. I hope you get

some feedback on this !!

John


<!--quoteo(post=1700:date=Jul 26

2006, 02:02 PM:name=number6)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(number6 @ Jul 26 2006,

02:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> (index.php?act=findpost&pid=1700)</div><div

class='quotemain'>Hi everyone, I ws chatting with a few fellow cichlid enthusiasts

and brought up the ACA... we all had a few thoughts on what the ACA is doing... we had more

questions that answers, so it was suggested to me to post them up here.

Our # 1

question is, what (if anything) is the ACA actually doing to actively protect cichlids or their

habitats?

I noticed that we can list our redlisted fish for free to sell to other

hobbyists... what does that do?

Any enterprise without goals is just busy work... and so

far, conservation of cichlids and their natural habitats seems to be without goals... Lake

Victoria, for example... it is forever changed. What is the point of preserving a captive bloodline

of a particular species? What end are you attempting to acheive?

Until the ACA can

really lay out their goals, it all looks like busy work and back patting...
From the

"What we do" section of the ACA website...

Awards
Buntbarsche Bulletin


Trading Post
Annual Convention
Local Club Liason
Local Show Sanctioning
Speakers Program
Jordan Endowment Research Fund
Paul Loiselle Conservation Fund

compare the sections for the Jordan fund to the Loiselle fund...
http://www.cichlid.org/Jordan.html


http://www.cichlid.org/Loiselle_Conservation_Fund.html

former is

great... clear, and with end goals... "to publish the findings in a referenced scientific

periodical" and "a short popular account of the findings in Buntbarsche Bulletin".



The latter is about as airy and aimless as I could think of...

Now if the

ACA had some sort of solid, identifiable end goal to promote conservation of the Rift Lakes... say

a Malawi-native run company to export cichlids to the United States... or something like that, I

think you'd find the 30 and under crowd would be pretty darn impressed... the ACA would be

making something happen...

anyone have any thoughts?</div><!--QuoteEEnd

-->

[bobrfish]

compare the sections for the

Jordan fund to the Loiselle fund...
http://www.cichlid.org/Jordan.html
http://www.cichlid.org/Loiselle_Conservation_Fund.html

As

previously mentioned, Loiselle Conservation Fund goals have been written and presented to BOT.

There were corrections requested and those corrections have not come back to BOT for approval.

Once they are approved, the goals will appear on website.

Remember too that Loiselle

Conservation effort is a many years younger than Jordan Fund. It is a weak excuse for not having

goals by now but there was no money to grant from Loiselle Fund until 2007. Thus it is timely that

goals be approved soon.

Loiselle Conservation Fund is not solely interested in

Madagascar. Grants could be submitted for other areas that require conservation of cichlid habitat

etc. However, current law in Madagascar prevents exporting any live fish. Thus, Madagascar is one

of many places where cichlids could be lost quickly.

[Claudia]

<!--quoteo(post=3962:date=Feb

19 2007, 01:59 PM:name=bobrfish)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bobrfish @ Feb 19 2007,

01:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> (index.php?act=findpost&pid=3962)</div><div

class='quotemain'>compare the sections for the Jordan fund to the Loiselle fund...


http://www.cichlid.org/Jordan.html
http://www.cichlid.org/Loiselle_Conservation_Fund.html

As

previously mentioned, Loiselle Conservation Fund goals have been written and presented to BOT.

There were corrections requested and those corrections have not come back to BOT for approval.

Once they are approved, the goals will appear on website.

Remember too that Loiselle

Conservation effort is a many years younger than Jordan Fund. It is a weak excuse for not having

goals by now but there was no money to grant from Loiselle Fund until 2007. Thus it is timely that

goals be approved soon.

Loiselle Conservation Fund is not solely interested in

Madagascar. Grants could be submitted for other areas that require conservation of cichlid habitat

etc. However, current law in Madagascar prevents exporting any live fish. Thus, Madagascar is one

of many places where cichlids could be lost quickly.</div>

Hello All!

It is so good to hear from all of you and to know of the enthusism and

interest for conserving our cichlids at risk for generations into the future.

The

revisions for the mission statement of the ACA Conservation Committee, Chaired by Dr. Paul

Loiselle, and the Paul V. Loiselle Conservation Fund, are being finalized "as we speak."

As this process is completed and placed before the BOT, we will move ahead expeditiously.

Your participation in ACA conservation efforts, such as maintaining cichlids at risk in

your tanks through the ACA CARES Preservation Program is to be applauded, just as John Luckshire,

Louis Rovner, Paul Loiselle, BOT Chair Phil Benes, Ted Judy, Rusty Wessel, Wayne Leibel, Bob

Randall, Mo Devlin, Ron Nielson and many others are doing.
Keep up the great work!

Please be certain to register the species at risk that you are maintaining in your tanks in ACA

CARES! You may do that on this forum, or by e-mailing me at ivyrose@optonline.net.

A group discussion on conservation will be excellent, John! As long as it is agreeable with

our host club, Sacramento. Please do count me in!

Thank you so much, and you will

be kept informed through the forum and the pages of BB.

With Warm Regards,
Claudia

[Steve Rogers]

<!--quoteo

(post=1700:date=Jul 26 2006, 11:02 AM:name=number6)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (number6

@ Jul 26 2006, 11:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1700"><{POST_SNAPBACK}

></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Any enterprise without goals is just busy work...

and so far, conservation of cichlids and their natural habitats seems to be without goals...<!--

QuoteEnd--></div>


Captive breeding of threatened or endangered

species is hardly "busy work" or "without goals". Maintaining a strong and

viable population is a goal in itself, even without further goals.

Where does one begin?

at the very least, where the potential exists for environmental disaster, loss of habitat or other

external force that could decimate a wild population, a source of healthy and genetically diverse

livestock is absolutely essential. You can't just manufacture a species out of thin air if they

get wiped out or their habitat destroyed. Working a problem after the fact is much harder than

being proactive and determining what is at risk and making sure that the means to repopulate a

species exists.

At the very least it is a form of Noah's Ark.

The ACA

doesn't NEED to have ALL the answers, just having a piece of the solution is a great start,

which makes it relevant.

[Mrfiremouth]

I think it's

awesome that the ACA has programs dedicated to conservation!
As mentioned, participation

in the programs is paramount to success. I have been reviewing the CARES program and have been

considering how to get involved.

Species maintenance over a decade or more can be

difficult. I have raised particular strains of line bred guppies and swordtails, this takes an

exercised effort to keep the strain pure and not breed out a trait. The same is true for captive

breeding of a cichlid long term. You must have access to a new fish stock after several generations

to avoid inbred mutations.(outcrossing to a new viable stock of same fish)

I chatted

with Ad Konings at TR and asked why can't we set up pens in their natural habitat to protect

and breed certain species in the wild. He answered that it would be no different than having a

really big aquarium. He sounded like(to me) as if there was little hope of real conservation.

In Saltwater coral mariculture, corals are fragged(broken into smaller pieces) and

"penned" on frames that are anchored to the ocean floor(10-30m) to grow out for resale.

This gives the local Phillipine population a renewable resource. I have wondered why not do this

with African communities? Set up breeding sites controlled by locals for profit.

Unfortunately, most of these people have more serious problems at hand than worrying about

ecological matters.

For now, CARES seems to be the best conservation tool.

[bobrfish]

If someone was interested

in captive breeding in pens, the project could be submitted for seed money.
Project would

need to pass scrutinity of scientist reviewers, thus a lot of thought is required to write a

proposal for an ACA grant.

[sredie]

What is the ACA doing to

promote the conservation of cichlids?

I see that this question was originally

raised awhile back, but having newly joined the forum, I’ll offer my take on it. Sorry if some of

this is old news by now. One of the primary things to understand is that conservation is voluntary

for all parties, and as Bob has pointed out, we cannot force conservation on other countries, or

even our own for that matter. Bob also noted that the Paul Loiselle Conservation Fund, an endowment

fund founded in 2000 at the ACA convention in Cleveland, is now healthy and funding conservation

projects.
Last year (2007) a grant was awarded from the Loiselle Fund to Ms Allison

Pease, a graduate student at Texas A&M, to study the Cichlid ecology issues in the Usumacinta

Region of southern Mexico, including the effects of pollution and habitat destruction. What makes

this meaningful is that the research is being done in situ rather than in a laboratory in the US,

but more importantly, she is conducting this research with the scientific community of that

country. If progress is to be made there, homegrown involvement and leadership will trump foreign

meddling, although our research dollars can help.
Also last year, a donor stepped forward and

funded, thru the ACA, a renovation of the Aquatic Biology Lab at the University of Antananarivo in

Madagascar so that they may better understand and protect their imperiled fish resource.


This year, a similar donation will fund an educational effort for Lake Victoria. Several schools in

Kenya will be provided classroom aquariums, and teachers will be trained to teach young people to

understand their environment and how to get involved with conservation. Again, local involvement is

crucial.
There will be other conservation grants awarded at this year’s convention and at

future conventions as the endowment fund continues to grow. Our members’ generous donations and

bidding on these donated items makes this possible.
The ACA CARES program has made an

impact by raising awareness and highlighting those species that are in danger of disappearing, not

just from hobbyists’ tanks, but from the planet. People are beginning to make extra tankspace

available to assure these species’ survival. We can all do our part as hobbyists. We can’t just

depend on zoos, universities, and public aquariums to do this for us. There are now too many

species on the list, and it’s growing as we speak. We are all extremely indebted to Claudia for

spearheading this effort; she is truly a modern day Noah.
Because the formal ACA conservation

endowment fund is the Paul Loiselle Fund, we cannot directly collect or disburse for the Stuart

Grant Conservation Fund. But we support it, are promoting it, and encourage other clubs to

participate. See separate post under Protecting Malawi Cichlids.
Is the ACA doing enough?

No. We couldn’t possibly do enough. We can’t change the world, but we can try to influence it. We

should all do what we can, and maybe a little more.

Steve

[Fishguy]

Steve,

Great

summary, thanks for post that.

Phil

[Dean Hougen]

Steve,

Can

I ask for some clarification on that timeline? I recall being at the ACA BOT meeting at the 1990

ACA Convention in Chicago when the board voted to establish the fund. I also thought the fund was

well underway by the time we hosted the 1993 ACA Convention in Minneapolis. So, what happened in

Cleveland in 2000?

Thanks,
Dean

[Pam Chin]

<!--quoteo

(post=9972:date=May 20 2008, 10:01 PM:name=Dean Hougen)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dean

Hougen @ May 20 2008, 10:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=9972"><

{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Steve,

Can I ask for

some clarification on that timeline? I recall being at the ACA BOT meeting at the 1990 ACA

Convention in Chicago when the board voted to establish the fund. I also thought the fund was well

underway by the time we hosted the 1993 ACA Convention in Minneapolis. So, what happened in

Cleveland in 2000?</div>


Dean,

No I

don't think so, 1990 in Chicago, if I remember correctly I was the Chair on the BOT, and there

was no talk of a Loiselle fund that weekend!! lol Or at least the parts I remember...

Cichlid Power!
Pam

[sredie]

Dean,
It was

Cleveland in 2000. The Babes collected money on the sly to kick it off. (I paid $62 for a

rock. It was a nice rock, but still...) See page 11 of BB200, Oct 2000 for the writeup

establishing the fund. Perhaps you were thinking of the Guy Jordan Research Fund, which has been

around much longer.

><))));>