Brazil grants licence for Belo Monte dam

[andywoolloo]

I don't agree at all, thats one of the reasons I'm here running some projects... I think if these species can't be saved in nature they should be bred in Brazil under controlled forms as a combination of conservation and profit for the people how lives here... not in other countries.

But , are they going to do that, Janne? Breed them in Brazil under controlled forms? Are they plannnig to catch them and re home them somewhere else in their country to be together and keep to save and breed them? Is there a plan?

If not I am leaning towards TwoTank's idea.

[MatsP]

Janne is definitely working on a breeding project next to Rio Xingu. I don't think (without causing some sort of problem) that it would be possible to MOVE the fish to somewhere else, but you can certainly keep groups of them in captivity and breed them there. And I agree that, assuming the project works, that the fish should stay in Brazil.

--
Mats

[andywoolloo]

if they are not catching and moving them to another location how will they save them? what do you mean next to Rio Xingu ? What about all the equipment and workers they will have to bring in, will the fish be far enough away.

but you can certainly keep groups of them in captivity and breed them there.

yes definitely, this is what I mean. I didn't quite realize that was part of what Janne was doing. Yeah Janne!! I thought you were there to help the fish in some way and educate maybe.

sorry , don't mean to be a bit naive, just concerned. Is there a paypal button for Janne? Can we contribute? How is he doing this? who is paying for it or is that too personal?

[MatsP]

I don't know much about the last few details as who is paying and if there is a way to contribute. I don't actually know much about the operation itself either, but they are certainly not "in" the river Xingu. In fact, Janne is in Belem, which isn't near Xingu at all - Belem is next to Rio Tocantins.

And as I understand it, Janne is there to EDUCATE the Brazilians on the process of breeding for example Hypancistrus. But he's also taking part in the actual practical work, like building a breeding facility in itself.

--
Mats

[TwoTankAmin]

Here is the problem I have with all of this preserve the species in Brazil talk.

How many of the fish in the Xingu today will be caught and removed to insure they dont become extinct? Lets make it even simpler- how many of the pleco species in the river Xingu which are threatened by damns will be removed? When you answer anything much less than 100%, I wonder which ones will be condemned to probable extinction.

Then what percent of each species will be collected for captive breeding programs in Brazil? If the answer is anything signinifcantly below 100%, then what should happen to them? Extinction or ending up in other places outside of Brazil? And how much space do folks think is required to preserve in a viable fashion all of the species about to be in jeopardy. And how many employees will be needed to make it work.

Exactly who is going to put up the cash to set all this up and to fund it until it is productive enough to begin earning its own way to some extent? Who will have the final say over all the issues involved from a governmental perspective. If the answer is the Brazilian politicians who approved the dams and the conversion of rainforest into farmland etc. etc., then I for one do not trust them to do anything close to the right thing.

I am no longer so naive as to trust the politicians and business people who out of self serving greed have created the problems when they then say they will fix them.

I still lean towards getting as many fish into the hands of fish keepers/breeders around the world as possible. They will mostly be dedicated, doing it on some level for the love of the fish and not simply for the financial side. This means the fish are likely to get the best care. But it also means that the survival of any species is not at risk because they are concentrated in mega-facilities. Can you imagine if all the worlds tetras had been on fish farms in Florida this winter? Natural disasters, accidents or other life threateneing events rarely hit all the fishtanks on the planet at the same time.

[Janne]

My work is a corperation between the authorities, universities and the private sector, part of the project is financed by the Brazilian government and the rest by private investors... but my self is not paid so well so if you want to contribute it's fine with me ;) The biggest problem is not to breed or to teach how to breed, the biggest problem is the bureaucracy and the delays due to lacyness and that this kind of project is "new" for Brazil so many people in the different departments has difficult to make decisions fast enough for me and in the end for the fishes invold... I have to remind them every week. I'm not worried that one day most of these threatened species will be bred in Brazil, my worries is more how much their natural habitats will be destroyed and that we not have investigate the biodiversity and complex of species before they start any work on the Belo Monte dam... I hope before this summer I can persuade a team of students and researchers from the universities to make the field studys this summer, this week is a large meeting in Belem and UFPA for all Ichthyologs and studenst in Brazil (and I'm drinking beers with them every night)

Two TankAmin.
I think you exaggerate in your way of thinking, no one at any place on the earth can collect 100% of all fishes and species, what they can do is to collect the amount needed to preserve each species and hope that left have a chance to survive even if the population will decrease drastically. If you think it's better that people smuggled out as much they can before it's to late there will never be any conservation efforts made at all more than to forbid everyone to even try... the illegal trade make it really difficult to make any progress at all in Brazil... if you wonder why? Is because the authorities expect that every attempt to make anything serious is to cover an illegal act, this is really shit and not a problem only here in Brazil... that is the same problem in all other countries that try to conserve endagered species, no one trust anyone else.

Janne

[racoll]

Captive breeding of these lower Xingu fishes by hobbyists will do absolutely nothing in their long-term favour.

Countless studies have shown that once fishes are raised and bred in captivity they become maladapted for life in the wild.

Mark my words, in 10-20 years, and despite the efforts of the good folk on this site, indiscriminate breeding by pleco enthusiasts will have turned these lineages into an inbred, malformed, homogenised mess.

Aquarists will be only too keen to breed sibling with sibling, and worse, will not be able to keep populations and species apart, and, there will be no quality control (culling) of valuable species like Hypancistrus, meaning gross deformities will appear.

As Janne points out, the only thing that buying smuggled fishes will do, is hamper any conservation efforts on the ground in Brazil.

[TwoTankAmin]

Captive breeding of these lower Xingu fishes by hobbyists will do absolutely nothing in their long-term favour.

Did you use a time machine or a crystal ball to know this?

Countless studies have shown that once fishes are raised and bred in captivity they become maladapted for life in the wild.

First, destroy the habitat and there is no wild into which to return the fish. Second, since Janne's type of project is a form of captive breeding, the same would apply to it.

Mark my words, in 10-20 years, and despite the efforts of the good folk on this site, indiscriminate breeding by pl*co enthusiasts will have turned these lineages into an inbred, malformed, homogenised mess.

Aquarists will be only too keen to breed sibling with sibling, and worse, will not be able to keep populations and species apart, and, there will be no quality control (culling) of valuable species like Hypancistrus, meaning gross deformities will appear.

While this may be true of fish like endlers which are cheap and easy to find, I am not so sure how many "irresponsible" fishkeepers there are who have the desire or capital to acquire pricier fish for spawning. The small sampling of pleco breeders I have met and/or corresponded with are mindful of genetic and inbreeding and normally keep their fish in species tanks and they do cull. Fish like white cloud mountain minnows, red tailed black sharks, some Lake Victoria cichlids etc. today are extinct or virtually extinct in the wild yet are thriving in tanks all over the world.

Moreover, many of the pleco species have a multi-year time frime in terms of how long it takes from being an egg to being a parent takes. If one starts with a a group of 10 unrelated zebra plecos and is able to spawn them successfully, it would still be a few decades before they would even approach the point of being inbred.

Janne-
You miss my point, perhaps I made it badly. First, I don't think many of us believe that there will be any viable habitats left for those fish left in the wild after the dams etc. So any species not being actively preserved will more than likely perish. Further, as you point out, you can't and don't need to collect 100% of any species for capitive breeding. This means fish will be left in the wild. What I am saying that those left uncollected would be better off if they were in hobbyists tanks than left to die when their habitats are destroyed. I would much prefer that the ban be lifted and that those species and fish which are not being included/used in programs such as yours would still have a good chance to survive and to reproduce. Banning the export of such fish condemns them and also leads to illegal exportation. The smart thing would be to do what insures the maximal survival, but if governements did the smart thing, we would not be having this discussion in the first place. I see no reason that serious fishkeepers around the world can not also be an integral part of helping to preserve fish from extinction. They would be a great backup to any formal programs for any number of reasons. It is too bad the only way this can happen now is to smuggle fish out of Brazil.

[MatsP]

Whilst Rio Xingu fish may well be the cause of the ban on Hypancistrus (etc) export from Brazil, the export restrictions do not ONLY apply to Rio Xingu fish - it applies to ALL fish. How do you lift a ban that doesn't explicitly mention the fish that you have banned, when the ones you are lifting the ban of are not scientifically described [well, at least most of them are not at the present time]. You can't say "it's now allowed to export black or brown fish with white or yellow scribbly markings" - not all of those fish come from Rio Xingu, even if MOST of them indeed do.

I'm pretty sure there will be no lift of the ban, because that will open the floodgates for any number of fish.

--
Mats

[Haavard Stoere]

Species in general will take care of them selves, and can still be harvested by ornamental fish catchers (who makes a decent living in a healthy and rewarding occupation). This includes species like H zebra, L24,L25,L273 etc. The fishing needs to be regulated eventually, but it can in principal go on forever. Fish farming is an industry to meet the demands of buyers thus earning money. We can drop the whole "Noah's Ark" thing. Species being kept and bred to later repopulate a previously destroyed habitat is fantasy. There is little or no conservation in fish farming. Sometimes and quite often it is the opposite of conservation. We should be concerned about the planned dams instead of being concerned about who's gonna breed the fish for the ornamental fish industry. It all boils down to managing human over population.

[MatsP]

If you by human overpopulation mean that the Brazil government is building this dam to supply electricity to the people, I think you've got it a bit wrong. The purpose of this hydro-electric plant is to produce electricity for aluminium smelting facilities. Making aluminium ore into metal is among the most energy consuming on this planet - aluminium oxide is a very hardy chemical compound - it's both mechanically and chemically very stable. So to make aluminium from aluminium oxide requires A HUGE amount of electricity. The Rio Xingu power plant has as it's primary purpose to supply electricity to the aluminium production in Brazil. So that we can get cheap coke-cans and engine parts for cars and motorbikes, etc, etc.

--
Mats

[Haavard Stoere]

I wasn`t aware that the aluminium industry was the reason, but I believe over population is generally a big driving force behind growing energy needs and habitat destruction.

[MatsP]

I wasn`t aware that the aluminium industry was the reason, but I believe over population is generally a big driving force behind growing energy needs and habitat destruction.

Well, in this case, it's probably a more indirect population growth in the western world, and perhaps India and China that is the main driving force, rather than the population of Brazil in itself.

--
Mats

[Haavard Stoere]

Absolutely, but a suvereign state has the responsebility to take care of its own wildlife. The anti-nuclear movement is getting more and more quiet these days, and I sure hope further development of nuclear energy happens soon before its to late.

This might seem OT, but it is much less OT than the discussion about who shall breed the darn fish for our fishtanks. The latter is totally OT when we are talking about large scale habitat destruction.

[MatsP]

I completely agree. And the reason that Brazil is making aluminium is to sell it to people in China, Europe, North America, etc. This is of course based in the principle of "making money from your resources".

I also agree that nuclear power in the right hands (and I think Brazil is "right" in this case) would be great. However, there is a bit of a problem with the waste that is toxic/radioactive for thousands of years.

--
Mats

[Haavard Stoere]

There is both capacity and technology to safely deal with radioactive waste for thousands of years. We are talking about small volumes. No one wants it in their back yards, but land can be bought if the price is right. The Fins have found a responsible method by planning and building facilities for waste at the same time as they build their plants instead of afterwards. They will probably get very rich by exporting these ideas and technologies as the world gets ready to once again go nuclear.

[Janne]

Captive breeding of these lower Xingu fishes by hobbyists will do absolutely nothing in their long-term favour.

Did you use a time machine or a crystal ball to know this?

I think Rupert ment in the long term with the sence in "long term" and he is right.

Countless studies have shown that once fishes are raised and bred in captivity they become maladapted for life in the wild.

First, destroy the habitat and there is no wild into which to return the fish. Second, since Janne's type of project is a form of captive breeding, the same would apply to it.

The advantages to make a controlled breeding in Brazil is that the material is quite large from the beginning, that is the biggest problem for hobbyist's and difficult to solve.

First, I don't think many of us believe that there will be any viable habitats left for those fish left in the wild after the dams etc. So any species not being actively preserved will more than likely perish. Further, as you point out, you can't and don't need to collect 100% of any species for capitive breeding. This means fish will be left in the wild. What I am saying that those left uncollected would be better off if they were in hobbyists tanks than left to die when their habitats are destroyed.

But I think that even if they now build the dam we must give all species a fair chance to survive in the nature, we will not know that before after the dam. In the meantime the most "valuable" species that brings income to Brazil would be bred in large scale within Brazil. And yes, some species will not be preserved... they will get extinct and what is your sudgestion to do with them? I do understand the view from the hobby but if everything would be so easy like we think or want it to be we have to make a revolution ;) Bureaucracy exist everywhere and politicians too, everytime we feel something is wrong we can't change the law to justify our actings... this take time in this world we have chosed to call a democracy.

Hobbysist's can probably keep an extinct species within the hobby for 50 years... but for 100 or 200 years? No, I dont think so and that can't any breeding program in Brazil either... but it will increase the chances for the hobby to preserve a species for much longer time that if only hobbyist's would alone try to preserv a species.

The only place where a species can be preserved is in nature and their natural habitat... in the long term.

Janne

[Janne]

Fish farming is an industry to meet the demands of buyers thus earning money. We can drop the whole "Noah's Ark" thing. Species being kept and bred to later repopulate a previously destroyed habitat is fantasy. There is little or no conservation in fish farming.

Agree, and it's not really possible to repopulate a species that have become extinct in nature... it's possible but not in the normal way like fish breeding have been made so far... the problem to make it correctly is money, no one wants to put any money if they not can see a profit later and NGO's... how many fishes have they saved?

It all boils down to managing human over population.

Brazil is large... very large and the problem is not that the population grows, it's just to many poor people livig here and it's not just the "rich" peoples fault in Brazil, it's all the richer people in the industries countries and their wellfare.

Nuclear power, Brazil was choosing between this alternative when deciding to go for hydroelectric power plants, Brazil have already a couple of Nuclear plants running and one they didn't finish... which they are doing now. All NGO's and many organisations within Brazil is against nuclear power and the opinion made it easier to choose hydroelectric power plants.

If we now know Brazil will start to build several dams and power plants in the Amazonia jungle that still is a Jungle we can't stope these already made decissions... when we discuss Brazil continues with their planes and before we have finished our discussion the dams already are a fact.


Janne

[racoll]

Species in general will take care of them selves, and can still be harvested by ornamental fish catchers (who makes a decent living in a healthy and rewarding occupation). This includes species like H zebra, L24,L25,L273 etc. The fishing needs to be regulated eventually, but it can in principal go on forever. Fish farming is an industry to meet the demands of buyers thus earning money. We can drop the whole "Noah's Ark" thing. Species being kept and bred to later repopulate a previously destroyed habitat is fantasy. There is little or no conservation in fish farming. Sometimes and quite often it is the opposite of conservation. We should be concerned about the planned dams instead of being concerned about who's gonna breed the fish for the ornamental fish industry. It all boils down to managing human over population.

The only place where a species can be preserved is in nature and their natural habitat... in the long term.

Exactly. To me, the pattern (i.e. the species, the biota) and the processes (i.e. the geography of the region) are intrinsically linked. They have co-evolved over millions of years together. Destroy the habitat and move the species into captivity, and the species are no longer part of the natural world, and are unlikely to ever be.

By all means breed them for the hobby, but lets not pretend that there is a grain of conservation value for them there.

If people want someone to blame for this, don't blame the Brazilian government for dam building, as they are just doing what any government would do; blame the Industrialised/industrialising world (i.e. us) for the insatiable demand for consumer luxuries made of materials, like aluminium.

The demand for these luxuries, such as those used in our fish tanks and computers, are creating this destruction. Hence, we are the problem, not the solution!

The small sampling of pl*co breeders I have met and/or corresponded with are mindful of genetic and inbreeding and normally keep their fish in species tanks and

I am less concerned about malicious cross breeding, just inadvertent hybridisation due to incorrect identification. Even on this website, only a very small handful of people can identify all those black and white lower Xingu species. Why is it that Janne and Yann have to answer almost every single "what is my Hypancistrus" post?

For example,

Hypancistrus sp(l236)

is an incredibly rare fish. Is is possible that all 25 registered keepers are keeping that species, or that they have been misled, or wishfully identified their fish at this species?*. Isn't it more likely that most of the 53 registered keepers of the rare

Corydoras julii

are actually keeping the similar, common,

Corydoras trilineatus

?

If one starts with a a group of 10 unrelated zebra plecos and is able to spawn them successfully, it would still be a few decades before they would even approach the point of being inbred.

Indeed, but people have and will, be buying breeding groups of sibling fish from other breeders.

they do cull.

Only the really responsible folk. I have seen deformed H. zebra on sale, and I know that this might be limited example, but what breeder will cull $200 worth of fish, if it looks a little bit different?

* of course some of them may not own it at all

[DJ-don]

just a thought,
wouldnt cutting down trees to make way for the dam increase Co2 levels?

[Mike_Noren]

Nuclear power, Brazil was choosing between this alternative when deciding to go for hydroelectric power plants, Brazil have already a couple of Nuclear plants running and one they didn't finish... which they are doing now. All NGO's and many organisations within Brazil is against nuclear power and the opinion made it easier to choose hydroelectric power plants.

Personally I'd much rather take nuclear power plants than hydroelectric dams in biodiversity hotspots like the Xingu. Heck, I'd rather take brown coal power plants without smoke scrubbers. From a conservation/biodiversity point of view I can't imagine any worse form of electricity generation than hydroelectric dams in biodiversity hotspots.
It's impossible to get that through to people, though. Firstly because hydropower for some bizarre reason have an aura of environmental friendliness, and secondly because people are unable to parse the concept that fish are actually real species of animal.
Imagine the difference in the amount of protests if the Xingu dam had been a nuclear power plant, whose construction in the amazon would mean wiping out, let's say, a single species of songbird.

@DJ-don: Yes, the dam does increase CO2 emissions, due to all the vegetation which will be drowned and left to rot in it.

[Bas Pels]

The big problems is the distinction between what I would call the 'green' environment and the 'gray' one

Green environment - that nature. Planning a road through a forest destroys it and from a green environmentalist point of view, that's bad. From a gray enviromentalist point of view, the road might enable drivers to cut down their milage a lot, saving a lot of fuel, and therefore keeping the environment clean

In fact, I personally think a road around a forest instead of straigth through it, might be the worst of 2 worlds: it is longer than needed, and the fumes will kill the forest anyway.

Most often, the 'green' argumentswin over the 'gray' ones, because the gray arguments are more complex, further in the future and therefore will sound more uncertain (tell me, will al trees die within 5 or 6 years?)

Back to the Belo Monte dam. Indead, hydroelectric power has a good aura - because in countries such as Sweden, one is able to build hydroelectric power plants without much damage to the environment. Why? Firstly, because biodiversity is low, secondly, the mountains are very steep: the artificial lake does not have to be large to get sufficient high waterlevels

But look at the Aswan dam in Egypt, or the Three cloves one in China: many people had to move, enormously large areas - of the best farming soil - are destroyd, destroyd beyond repair.

No, hydroelectric powerplants are not environmentally friendly - unless in very specific circumstances, but then most often the plant will be too small, or be planned in too remote an area - and often both.

But, as workers in development are most often people from Europe or North America, where hydro-electric power plants are exceptionally friendly, they will keep on emphasizing them

[Janne]

Firstly because hydropower for some bizarre reason have an aura of environmental friendliness, and secondly because people are unable to parse the concept that fish are actually real species of animal.

I would put the second first, I would even state that is the largest problem all over the world... Animals like fishes is only important as food and as forage for other animals incl. fishes later used as food for us.

The problems with road building in a rainforest is not to cut the shortest way from one point to another, it's what follows after the road are buildt... lots of new poor people sattle down along the road and start to cut all the trees down on both sides as far they are able to take the wood out to the road, check google map and zoom in Amazonia.

Janne