# Pillaging the Zebra Pleco



## knight of ni (Oct 8, 2006)

A flood of zebras has hit the market..is this a last orgy on these fish, extinction by hobbyist before the extinction by dam project?

Brazil's ultra corrupt government seems to have allowed a huge pirating effort to bring in some bribery $ before the dam gets built. 

Hungry hungry hobbyists are snapping them up and giving the importers the signal
"More, please, before they're all gone !"


----------



## Hitch (Apr 26, 2009)

where did you hear this? 

but in a way.....I dont find it a horrible thing


----------



## knight of ni (Oct 8, 2006)

they're suddenly for sale in quantity all over the place


----------



## Hitch (Apr 26, 2009)

Really? Where? What's the price like


----------



## knight of ni (Oct 8, 2006)

Hitch said:


> Really? Where? What's the price like


varying depending on the lies they tell.. in the states from about $275 to huge amounts for claimed breeding sets.
Charles has some at $300, no ?


----------



## Hitch (Apr 26, 2009)

Oh, ya the states has them all of the time. I don't think the ones from Chaldea are wc. Oliver in Montreal also has a lot of them, thought they are again not wc.


----------



## knight of ni (Oct 8, 2006)

http://www.aquabid.com/cgi-bin/auction/auction.cgi?fwcatfishp&1253728205

you might ask Charles. Here are the larger size...just apply a bit of healthy skepticism to claims from importers of unlimited numbers of tank raised small ones...we see the same time of arrival for other importers of the wilds.

currently there is a flood of them, they are not always flooding the US


----------



## Jackson (Jan 30, 2009)

knight of ni said:


> varying depending on the lies they tell.. in the states from about $275 to huge amounts for claimed breeding sets.
> Charles has some at $300, no ?


Those prices are way too high. I seen them selling in the staes for 125-160 max @ around 2''-3'' these fish are not rare they just cost a lot of money for a 2'' fish that reaches what is it 3.5'' max

Here there are some LFS that are selling them in large numbers as well.



Hitch said:


> Oh, ya the states has them all of the time. I don't think the ones from Chaldea are wc. Oliver in Montreal also has a lot of them, thought they are again not wc.


I think Oliver is the only one who claims they are F1 and not WC. The rest just do it so they can chrge more.


----------



## knight of ni (Oct 8, 2006)

Jackson said:


> Those prices are way too high. I seen them selling in the staes for 125-160 max @ around 2''-3'' these fish are not rare they just cost a lot of money for a 2'' fish that reaches what is it 3.5'' max
> 
> Here there are some LFS that are selling them in large numbers as well.
> 
> I think Oliver is the only one who claims they are F1 and not WC. The rest just do it so they can chrge more.


Not sure what your appraisal of the situation is . Do you think they are a sudden flood of captive breds ?

Of course there is a small regular supply of captive-breds going for about up to $150 lately...we know that. This is different.


----------



## Jackson (Jan 30, 2009)

knight of ni said:


> Not sure what your appraisal of the situation is . Do you think they are a sudden flood of captive breds ?
> 
> Of course there is a small regular supply of captive breeds going for about up to $150 lately...we know that. This is different.


nO I am with you in thinking that they are just being let out of Brazil. I also think the ban is stupid and is not going to help with saving the fish since they will most likley be killed of by the dam. So why not let them in teh hobby so they can be kept alive and live on. I have bought 6 fish this month that are on the banned list and all are WC from LFS. Not trade in just sent to the store with regular orders.

You know how they are doing it. They dont give the proper ID when the fish is being shipped out


----------



## knight of ni (Oct 8, 2006)

Jackson said:


> nO I am with you in thinking that they are just being let out of Brazil. I also think the ban is stupid and is not going to help with saving the fish since they will most likley be killed of by the dam. So why not let them in teh hobby so they can be kept alive and live on. I have bought 6 fish this month that are on the banned list and all are WC from LFS. Not trade in just sent to the store with regular orders.
> 
> You know how they are doing it. They dont give the proper ID when the fish is being shipped out


sure...highly doubtful that a mystery zebra breeder is selling his hundreds and hundreds of zebras at 60 bucks or something so that wholesale sellers can make all the profit. He could sell them himself wholesale any time, for more than that. So I think a little skepticism is in order on claims that these are captive breds.
Brazil, in response, has done a whitewash search of all facilities and laid a few charges.

That hobbyists support the pirates and beat the dam project in wiping out the species in the wild, is a good subject for debate on the ethics involved on our side of the extinction equation.

http://www.aquariacentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202487

Is it OK to reach inside a broken store window just because everything will be gone by morning anyway?

OK to do it first, because soon enough the others will do it anyway ?

The dam is likely...it's not de facto in place, though. Extinction of life as we know it is also likely...so why not ...

get in on some of the action !

Perhaps some kind of award ceremony for the importer bringing in The Last Wild Zebra ?


----------



## Hitch (Apr 26, 2009)

I dont think (at least from my/some of the hobbyists I know's perspective) that we think its a good idea because its going to happen anyways...so lets take advantage of it, but its coming from a sincere view of conservation of this obviously popular and beautiful species. (as cheesy as that sounds)

Its unquestionable that many of the species of the fish in the Xingu will be dramatically affected by the damming projects, its only a matter of time that we see how some of the species will cope of the sudden and dramatic change in environment (though I still hope many will be able to adapt and thrive again).

So I dont think its a matter of "the store is going to be robed anyways, so might as well take as much as I can now" situation. Its more of a "national treasures are going to be lost to the black market, so lets take it and put it into a museum or something....(I realized that this is a bad analogy, but its the best one I can come up with right now...:/)". Just like how (someone brought this up on another topic) the white clouds are almost extinct in their natural waters...but are soo common in the aquatic hobby. Anotehr example is the conservation efforts (though on a huge scale) on trying to perverse the population of the Giant Sturgeons in China, since they lost all of their natural spawning grounds due to the dams in the major rivers in China. 

but with that said, the motive of the Brazil government is obviously not of the preservation, but of greed :/


----------



## knight of ni (Oct 8, 2006)

Hitch said:


> I dont think (at least from my/some of the hobbyists I know's perspective) that we think its a good idea because its going to happen anyways...so lets take advantage of it, but its coming from a sincere view of conservation of this obviously popular and beautiful species. (as cheesy as that sounds)
> 
> Its unquestionable that many of the species of the fish in the Xingu will be dramatically affected by the damming projects, its only a matter of time that we see how some of the species will cope of the sudden and dramatic change in environment (though I still hope many will be able to adapt and thrive again).
> 
> ...


but domestication is not conservation, is it ? that "saving via museum collection" is old. We know how museums like to save culture through grave robbing and illegal transport of treasures out of the culture and into a culture that will pay to see it.

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/queensofiamuseum.pdf

http://www.asiancanadian.net/2008/01/chinese-antiquities-at-rom-under.html


----------



## Hitch (Apr 26, 2009)

I dont think fish can ever be "domesticated" :/, but yes not to a full conservation...but hey what can you do when there is no more natural habitat for you to release the fish back into? But so what if the fish is maintained in a "domesticated" way? Its still far better fate for the species then to go extinct. Most people in the aquatic hobby are not greedy, we have fish, fish breed (hopefully) and we distribute it to other hobbyists (even though there is exchange of money involved). So its not like the specie that goes into the aquatic hobby will be locked up in private collections and never shared again.

as for the museum stealing the artifacts out of the culture...yes its true. But I was talking about the situations where artifacts have been reclaimed from the black market.....yes there are cases where reclaimed artifacts are not returned the country that "rightfully" owns them--one good example if the parthenon reliefs that are in the british national museum. My perspective on that analogy is: hobbiests (serious hobbiests/breeders etc) are like the museums..and the black market is like the fate of those natural environments...wow this is a bad analogy...need to think of a better one. But I think my basic idea is there.


----------



## knight of ni (Oct 8, 2006)

Hitch said:


> I dont think fish can ever be "domesticated" :/,


they have been domesticated..just like cats dogs, pigs, cows or chickens are domesticated animals.



> but yes not to a full conservation but hey what can you do when there is no more natural habitat for you to release the fish back into?


 That has not happened yet. It's possible or likely in the future, though. It brings us back to this justification

"Someone else is going to do it, so why shouldn't I do it first ?"



> But so what if the fish is maintained in a "domesticated" way? Its still far better fate for the species then to go extinct.


 It is not extinct yet but could be, if hobbyists make it happen. 


> Most people in the aquatic hobby are not greedy


 are they different than other people ?



> we have fish, fish breed (hopefully) and we distribute it to other hobbyists (even though there is exchange of money involved). So its not even like the specie that goes into the aquatic hobby will be locked up in private collections and never shared again.


 The hobby already has plenty of captive zebras wordwide that breed. In fact, the captive breds are getting cheaper, you can get them for maybe about $100 from friends or if you buy a lot. $150 max. Cheaper than wilds, and likely easier to breed.

Therefore no argument, that this is for "preserving the species", can be a valid argument.

"I want it" is a truthful justification( the only one ).


----------



## Jackson (Jan 30, 2009)

you guy's battle it out there is no winning from both sides. 

All I know is RAPE and STEALING are nothing like buy or exporting banned fish. They should not even be compared.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 26, 2009)

Jackson said:


> you guy's battle it out there is no winning from both sides.
> 
> All I know is RAPE and STEALING are nothing like buy or exporting banned fish. They should not even be compared.


lol.......ya......I had this whole essay wrote...but like you said...there is no point. Since obviously the two sides are not going to cave...XD


----------



## knight of ni (Oct 8, 2006)

Jackson said:


> you guy's battle it out there is no winning from both sides.
> 
> All I know is RAPE and STEALING are nothing like buy or exporting banned fish. They should not even be compared.


Why is possessing stolen goods DEFINITELY not roughly equivalent to stealing the goods yourself ?
If I have ten TV sets and there is reason to believe that I knew they were stolen...then I go to jail too.

Of course, if the stolen articles come from another country, I might not go to jail..I might not be charged with knowingly doing it.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 26, 2009)

knight of ni said:


> Why is possessing stolen goods DEFINITELY not roughly equivalent to stealing the goods yourself ?
> If I have ten TV sets and there is reason to believe that I knew they were stolen...then I go to jail too.
> 
> Of course, if the stolen articles come from another country, I might not go to jail..I might not be charged with knowingly doing it.


wait wait...how are these stolen by any definition?


----------



## knight of ni (Oct 8, 2006)

Hitch said:


> wait wait...how are these stolen by any definition?


It's illegal to collect or export them from Brazil, they are considered the property of Brazil. Hence, they are stolen from the people of Brazil, by definition.


----------



## KnaveTO (May 13, 2007)

I am not going to weigh in here at all...

I will say that please keep this friendly and civil.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 26, 2009)

knight of ni said:


> It's illegal to collect or export them from Brazil, they are considered the property of Brazil. Hence, they are stolen from the people of Brazil, by definition.


first of all, legality is something humans set. The legality is set for the purpose of "saving" the species...in which the government of brazil is being very hypercritical with the dam project.

second of all, how does an animal living in brazil "belong" to brazillians? what gives them the title of ownership just because they live in the same facility, the same location as some species of animals? We have beavers here in Canada, does that mean we own them? Looking at the grand scheme of things, do we own any wild life? and why should we own any wildlife? We didnt create these animals, so what give us the right to "own" an animal? So a few lines on a legislature would make this animal stolen, but an animal not on this list (that is also from Brazil) wouldnt be stolen?

Even with that said, the ban only restricts exportation of the animals, so we having it, means we are stealing from the Brazillian people? if I, a Canadian were to go to brazil, catch a bunch of these, put it in my aquarium in my house in Brazil (which is not against the law of exportation), wouldn't I be stealing from them?

Even with that said, the only way we are stealing per say, is that we are stealing the animal from THEIR natural environment (kid napping if you will). So if we are being really technically stealing, then wouldnt all of the zoos be stealing animals?


----------



## bigfishy (Jun 19, 2009)

knight of ni said:


> It's illegal to collect or export them from Brazil, they are considered the property of Brazil. Hence, they are stolen from the people of Brazil, by definition.


I am sure your not a Brazillian, so why do you care about if "WE" stole Brazil's property or not????

This is something not for you to concern about, and even if you want to care about this issue..

There is nothing you can do about it!

Fish will get export and import by richer country and into richer people's hand, whelther you LIKE it or NOT!



This is Brazil's problem, let them do whatever they want! I suspect the ban is just to boost up the value of their fish (more in their pocket) than actually conservating the species


----------



## knight of ni (Oct 8, 2006)

Hitch said:


> first of all, legality is something humans set.


 Indeed.



> The legality is set for the purpose of "saving" the species


 perhaps



> ...in which the government of brazil is being very hypercritical with the dam project.


 the government of Brazil is thoroughly corrupt. 


> second of all, how does an animal living in brazil "belong" to brazillians?


 In exactly the same way as your pants belong to you. Or your house belongs to you. Or anything belongs to anyone. If you are trying to argue that there is no such thing as "belonging", it's strange to only bring that to this topic. I'm sure you would argue differently if I broke into your house and stole everything you have.



> what gives them the title of ownership just because they live in the same facility, the same location as some species of animals?


 It's on their land. Canada claims rights to certain lands and water too. If it's only on this that you would use that argument, it's rather strange. Do you believe that Portuguese fishermen should be able to enter our waters and take anything they like ? U.S. should be able to take all our water and minerals and land when they like ? Strange arguments to forward on this topic, unless you believe that nothing belongs to anyone.



> We have beavers here in Canada, does that mean we own them?


 Obviously. People cannot come here and kill every beaver - or they would go straight to jail.



> Looking at the grand scheme of things, do we own any wild life?


 Can I take your dog or TV without your permission, and you won't complain ?



> and why should we own any wildlife? We didnt create these animals, so what give us the right to "own" an animal? So a few lines on a legislature would make this animal stolen, but an animal not on this list (that is also from Brazil) wouldnt be stolen?


 If Brazil permits it to be sold, it is not stolen, by that token.


> Even with that said, the ban only restricts exportation of the animals, so we having it, means we are stealing from the Brazillian people?


 of course



> if I, a Canadian were to go to brazil, catch a bunch of these, put it in my aquarium in my house in Brazil (which is not against the law of exportation), wouldn't I be stealing from them?


yes, and you would go to jail in a hurry for doing that. Didn't guess that one right, did you ?



> Even with that said, the only way we are stealing per say, is that we are stealing the animal from THEIR natural environment (kid napping if you will).


No, removing animals from habitat is not criminal , as to most species, in most countries.
These are illegally taken.


> So if we are being really technically stealing, then wouldnt all of the zoos be stealing animals?


No. they have correct legal permits from the country of export and import.


----------



## knight of ni (Oct 8, 2006)

bigfishy said:


> I am sure your not a Brazillian, so why do you care about if "WE" stole Brazil's property or not????


 that's my business.



> This is something not for you to concern about


I do hope you won't be too upset if I ignore your thoughtful advice ?



> There is nothing you can do about it!


 irrelevant



> Fish will get export and import by richer country and into richer people's hand, whelther you LIKE it or NOT!


 no kidding



> This is Brazil's problem, let them do whatever they want! I suspect the ban is just to boost up the value of their fish (more in their pocket) than actually conservating the species


 Of course it's Brazil's problem. Of course they are corrupt. Of course, as are the hobbyists who take the stolen fish. In this case, maybe to extinction in this big last orgy.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 26, 2009)

this will be last post in this topic...because frankly, I dont think I would be civil for much longer.

first of all, how on earth is a wildlife that evolved the same time as humans equivalent to your pants, or your TV, or even your dog for that matter? did you spend on obtaining your house? and in some cases create the things in your house yourself? yes. did any country do anything similar for the wildlife that live within the boundaries of our country? just because we came to this land and colonized here....now that everything in this land is ours?

your entire argument is predicated on the idea that humans have the right to decide the fate of everything that falls in their land. So why are you complaining that the Brazilian government is allowing exportation now....when it is them who put forth the law. What are you going to do? sue the Brazilian government to the Brazilian government?


----------



## knight of ni (Oct 8, 2006)

Hitch said:


> this will be last post in this topic...because frankly, I dont think I would be civil for much longer.


your choice


> first of all, how on earth is a wildlife that evolved the same time as humans equivalent to your pants, or your TV, or even your dog for that matter?


You claim to own your pants, they claim to own their wildlife. Can you show argument as to how your claim to your pants is more legit than their claim to their property (or wildlife on it ? I do suspect that wildlife in your pants is all yours, though).



> did you spend on obtaining your house? and in some cases create the things in your house yourself? yes.


 did you create the things that made the house, the minerals and wood ? Because you spend some effort, does that constitute a claim that is legit ? for instance, if you carve a piece of wood it is yours, but if you just find a piece of wood, and keep it, it is not yours ?


> did any country do anything similar for the wildlife that live within the boundaries of our country? just because we came to this land and colonized here....now that everything in this land is ours?


 generally, that is what is accepted as a legitimate claim. this is based on precedent, and has been accepted since the start of human history. governments and people cheat and lie and renege on promises and deals. Nevertheless, we have concepts of right and wrong. Historically, much wrong has been done, lands have been stolen, people wiped out.



> your entire argument is predicated on the idea that humans have the right to decide the fate of everything that falls in their land. So why are you complaining that the Brazilian government is allowing exportation now....when it is them who put forth the law. What are you going to do? sue the Brazilian government to the Brazilian government?


No, just post on forums about the hobbyists bringing an end to a beloved species, out of our greed. It's a noteworthy event, IMO, if it does bring extinction. If it were a very limited number, controlled well, and not a threat, I'd ignore it.

The reason for reactions against what I'm saying is this: you know I'm right.


----------



## Jackson (Jan 30, 2009)

I feel like this thread is on crack!!!!!!


----------



## bigfishy (Jun 19, 2009)

I cannot control your concern, but I can show you a lot of WC BANNED pleco to agitate you 

makes you feel helpless


----------



## knight of ni (Oct 8, 2006)

bigfishy said:


> I cannot control your concern, but I can show you a lot of WC BANNED pleco to agitate you
> 
> makes you feel helpless


That wouldn't make me feel helpless at all. Even if it did, I would still say the same:

If it would make you feel better about yourself, then please _do_ go ahead. Cause this is really about what makes you feel better about yourself. If you feel complete, you won't need to buy the wild fish. So I invite you to show the fish


----------



## knight of ni (Oct 8, 2006)

Hitch said:


> I dont think (at least from my/some of the hobbyists I know's perspective) that we think its a good idea because its going to happen anyways...so lets take advantage of it, but its coming from a sincere view


 Maybe not you, but some not-so-good ideas are going 'round the forum here. 


> Jackson said: I also think the ban is stupid and is not going to help with saving the fish since they will most likley be killed of by the dam. So why not let them in teh hobby





> BigFishy said: YES!!!
> 
> 2 million year of evolution can wipe out a species that exist 450 million years
> 
> AWESOME!!!!


 so it seems you are in the minority, here, Hitch.


----------



## BillD (Jun 5, 2006)

This is just another example of greed and need fueled by the haves of this world. Wild catching fish isn't all bad, as evidenced by the fishery of the Cardinal tetra. About 80,000,000 a year are removed from the wild, providing a livelihood for the people who live in the collection area. This works to preserve the area, as the number is sustainable, and there is no need to slash and burn the area to sustain these people. Caring about what happens in another country is not new. For years the World Bank financed all sorts of destructive projects in Brazil and other 3rd world countries, until people from around the globe put pressure on them to stop. Like it or not, we have a vested interest in what happens in Brazil and elsewhere. Preservation of the rainforest is essntial to our long term viability as a species. As a country of haves, it would be presumptuous of us to tell the people who live there they can't try to improve their lot because it is detrimental to us, unless we help to provide an alternative. It is a fact that when you destroy an area on the edge of the rainforest, you may be able to grow grass for 1 year, and then, nothing as there isn't any real soil there. The forest will never come back.
Everything in Brazil belongs to the Brazilian people, and should be used for their benefit. It is in our best interest (as well as theirs) for the Brazilians to prosper without destroying the natural environment around them. 
The Zebra pleco is just a small example of what is happenning around the world when demand outstrips supply. Flooding the market results in lower prices which in the long term is bad for business.


----------



## bigfishy (Jun 19, 2009)

knight of ni said:


> Maybe not you, but some not-so-good ideas are going 'round the forum here.
> 
> so it seems you are in the minority, here, Hitch.


Dude! That comment is in the sharkfin soup!!! as a joke to bluekriss (the million years of evolution)

http://gtaaquaria.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9843&page=4

If you want to start a fight over these comments, I am ready!


----------



## knight of ni (Oct 8, 2006)

bigfishy said:


> Dude! That comment is in the sharkfin soup!!! as a joke to bluekriss (the million years of evolution)
> 
> http://gtaaquaria.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9843&page=4
> 
> If you want to start a fight over these comments, I am ready!


Fight ? We don't fight here. Take that elsewhere, please. I don't want to agitate you. I love your comments, and I hope you feel better about it soon.


----------

