Too true, Chris. I think a lot of people want to keep endangered / threatened species because of the panache of keeping something rare / endangered / threatened.
The goal for most conservation efforts is to make them sustainable - including making the (local) business case for people to conserve their natural resources.
Because conservation is such a multi-faceted issue, success often requires bringing scientists together with business people, local governments, etc.
This is happening today (again check out
www.parksinperil.org as one example)... but not (to my knowledge) with a focus on cichlids.
What is frustrating (for me at least) is that the well-intentioned efforts of hobbyists are either misdirected (e.g. keeping fish in ad hoc "breeding programs" to possibly, some day re-introduce fish back into native habitats) or disconnected from broader efforts (e.g. a couple of thousand dollars for funding anti-netting devices to keep Lake Malawi natives from fishing places where they're not supposed to).
If we really care about these fish, we should focus on WHY they're endangered / threatened... use the fish as a means to educate... and encourage our fellow aquarists to support groups who are working to preserve / conserve their habitats.
Matt
cchhcc;3898458; said:
So true.....but as long as people brag about their mahogany desks (several of my semi-idiot friends who have them don't have a clue they come from 300 year old trees from CA) and the need for ethanol (the production of which is decimating old growth jungles in SA) it's all just lip service at the expensive of CA and SA habitats.
I agree with you guys. We can keep the species alive, but putting them back may never happen.
Just check some of Mo's pics from his last collecting trip and it'll be clear that the economics of poverty almost guarantee habitat destruction.