Recently there was an internet post that a pair of axotols had a few dozen young. These young were offered for adoption but the post was removed from the forums, and rightly so, as owning the animal is illegal in the state the ad was posted in, as well as in many other states.
But here’s the interesting part…
This astounding animal is practically extinct in the wild.
It is 'critically endangered' and the desperate efforts to save it in the wild aren't going well.
Why? Mankind of course. Axotols live(d) in two lakes with a river system association. We drained one of the lakes, polluted the surrounding waterways, and made their final selective niche lake poisonous to them.
They now mostly survive in aquariums and in the homes of people that have found them fascinating and have raised them with love and care.
The poster may well have purchased or adopted them where they were legal and moved them, or perhaps they were purchased from a local shop without a label.
Regardless…
The poster obviously provided an environment that suited the axotols so well that they bred successfully.
In this case it's a situation where skirting the law, mistaken or not, has led to the birth of dozens of young of a species that is critically endangered in the wild.
I think that is F6%^38&% amazing.
Seriously...
Home aquarists are now the majority caregivers of a technically extinct species.
We've talked of this for years. Even the NJRC's motto is 'Saving the world's reefs, one living room at a time'.
And there seems enough of the species breeding in home and public aquariums to help re-establish them in the wild, on the condition their last existing habitat, which lies next to an expanding Mexico City, is cleaned by man, which we know will not happen.
So, even if it is on the books as ‘illegal’, is it morally wrong to own this animal, breed it, share it, and to keep a species from being wiped out?
Discuss.
My take:
I feel that given the ability to keep a non-threatening species alive, a species that was not wiped out by natural selection but by man made pollutants, is almost a responsibility to those able to do so, legal or not.
.
But here’s the interesting part…
This astounding animal is practically extinct in the wild.
It is 'critically endangered' and the desperate efforts to save it in the wild aren't going well.
Why? Mankind of course. Axotols live(d) in two lakes with a river system association. We drained one of the lakes, polluted the surrounding waterways, and made their final selective niche lake poisonous to them.
They now mostly survive in aquariums and in the homes of people that have found them fascinating and have raised them with love and care.
The poster may well have purchased or adopted them where they were legal and moved them, or perhaps they were purchased from a local shop without a label.
Regardless…
The poster obviously provided an environment that suited the axotols so well that they bred successfully.
In this case it's a situation where skirting the law, mistaken or not, has led to the birth of dozens of young of a species that is critically endangered in the wild.
I think that is F6%^38&% amazing.
Seriously...
Home aquarists are now the majority caregivers of a technically extinct species.
We've talked of this for years. Even the NJRC's motto is 'Saving the world's reefs, one living room at a time'.
And there seems enough of the species breeding in home and public aquariums to help re-establish them in the wild, on the condition their last existing habitat, which lies next to an expanding Mexico City, is cleaned by man, which we know will not happen.
So, even if it is on the books as ‘illegal’, is it morally wrong to own this animal, breed it, share it, and to keep a species from being wiped out?
Discuss.
My take:
I feel that given the ability to keep a non-threatening species alive, a species that was not wiped out by natural selection but by man made pollutants, is almost a responsibility to those able to do so, legal or not.
.
Last edited:
on the environment
