# Invasive Species (main topics in bold).



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

Alien Invasive Species - and the ornamental aquatics trade

PRESIDENT'S REPORT (Oct. 2004): Not so many generations ago, the introduction of new species of animals and plants to areas outside of their native ranges was not only common, it was considered highly appropriate and beneficial. Introduced species were interesting curiosities, but even more, they were seen to have massive economical potential.

Thousands of animal and plant species were brought to new territories by the emigrants from Europe who settled in North America or Australia, and by European colonialists, to and from their colonies worldwide. In the British Isles alone, it is estimated that several hundred species of alien plants have become well-established in natural ecosystems. Twenty-two of the 63 established mammal species in the Isles are aliens. The same goes for twelve of the 219 bird species, 8 of 14 amphibian species, 3 of 9 reptile species, and 13 of 35 fish species(1).

Not All Positive
Even today, many of the introductions must be regarded as successful and highly beneficial to man, indeed. Who can imagine a life without the common cereal grains such as wheat and rice - though the introduction even of these has been questioned in some cases. Over the last couple of decades, the overall view on alien species has changed dramatically. It is no longer the possibilities for commercial exploitation which are at the forefront, but instead, the fear of ecological disasters - of which there are quite a few historical examples - tends to dominate. Consider what happened with the rabbits in Australia, or what still goes on with some of the most successful water weeds.

Speaking of the latter, Florida alone spends in the neighbourhood of USD 14.5 million per year to control Hydrilla verticillata, which was once a much sought after and commonly traded aquarium plant. The Water Hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes, is an even worse weed in many places. The South African government reportedly spends in excess of USD 25 million per year on eradicating this species from the country's waterways(2).

The Ornamental Aquatics Trade
Nowadays, I have the impression that hardly a week goes by without some press report, in one country or another, which focuses on alien invasive species that are suspected, be it rightly or wrongly, of having originated from the ornamental aquatics trade.

Aquatic plants which grow like weeds outside of their native range, such as the previously mentioned species, plus Pistia, Egeria, and Salvinia species, are typical examples. In most cases, it is historically known that their release was in no way connected with the aquatic trade or hobby. Still, because we continue to keep and trade many of these species, we cannot easily avoid the spotlight. On the fishy side, snakeheads, carp, goldfish, golden orfe, flowerhorn cichlids, and lionfish are but a few of the species we have heard of going astray in North America, Europe, Asia and Australia quite recently.

*The Case with the Snakeheads*
The snakehead horror story that first struck the East coast of the U.S. in the summer of 2002(3), and made big news in the popular press worldwide, was initially blamed on the ornamental fish trade. Eventually, the hundreds of voracious snakeheads that where found vigorously reproducing in Maryland pond, near Washington, D.C., turned out to have originated from a few specimens released by a man who had bought them at a food market, but decided instead to use other ingredients in his soup.

So, in this particular case, the aquarium trade was not to blame. The final effect, however, was that live snakeheads have now become totally banned from the USA. The successful establishment of a small, restricted population of the Northern Snakehead, Channa argus, was most effectively used to ban all Channa species, even the tiniest tropical species, from the U.S. trade. Later, many other snakeheads have been found elsewhere in the USA, most recently in Pennsylvania(4). Some populations may have originated from the ornamental fish trade, others from the food trade.

The focus of the press and legislators remains on the negative effects of introducing aquatic species. And who exactly is it who transports alien aquatics on the largest scale, all over the world? No other than our industry!

*Flowerhorn - Good Luck or Not?*
In February of last year, I saw the first reports of unwanted flowerhorn cichlids having been released in South East Asia(5). Apparently, large numbers of unwanted flowerhorns have been, and are being (?), released in the wild, where they potentially represent a serious threat to native species.

So why do people release these fishes? The Malaysian Angling Association suggests it is because the owners fear that killing this fish will bring bad luck, or even that people buy them with the intended purpose of setting them free - in order to get rid of their 'suey' (bad luck).

As is the case with so many other cichlids, such as tilapias, there is little doubt that thousands of flowerhorns gone astray can bring bad luck to the native fauna at the very least. In the long run it will certainly not be good for the reputation of our industry either. "Freeing" unwanted pets - be it dogs, cats, ferrets, or fish - is an understandable human action, but it is totally unacceptable, thoughtless and misguided. The responsible ornamental aquatic industry must do what we can to prevent this from happening.

*Lionfishes Gone Wild*
Over the last ten years divers have reported observations of Indo-Pacific lionfishes (Pterois volitans/miles complex) from more than 40 locations along the East coast of the USA, from south Florida to North Carolina. There are also reports of observations in Bermuda and several locations in the Caribbean, including Cancun (Mexico), Puerto Rico and St. Kitts. This means that there could be viable populations of lionfish established in the Western Atlantic, which could potentially have a negative effect on local species and ecosystems.

The majority of lionfish sightings along the U.S. coast have been at popular dive spots, such as shipwrecks. The locations have been far from the shore, but frequently visited by commercial dive tourism operators. It seems almost too much of a coincidence that these fishes should have travelled out to these locations themselves, after having been released on a beach by some thoughtless aquarium hobbyist, or having accidentally escaped as a result of damage or flooding occurring during Hurricane Andrew in 1992. I would not be surprised if at least a portion of the releases have been intentional, for instance, by someone seeking publicity. It has been speculated that local dive boat captains intentionally planted the lionfish in deep waters off of West Palm Beach as an added attraction for local dive sites(6).

Still, whether the fishes have been deliberately or accidentally introduced, and regardless what the intentions may have been, the evidence obtained so far provides little reason to doubt that the fishes must have come via our industry, directly or indirectly.

The aquarium industry has a special responsibility, and we need to intensify our efforts to educate customers and the public on the dangers of introducing alien species. In continued cooperation with researchers and authorities we need to reduce any risks of our industry harming the environment, thereby helping the environment as well as our own business!

Svein A. Fosså 
OFI President

REFERENCES
Pimentel, David. 2002. Introduction: non-native species in the world. pp 3-8 in: Pimentel, D. (ed.). 2002. Biological Invasions: Economic and Environmental Costs of Alien Plant, Animal and Microbe Species. CRC Press, Boca Raton FL. 
Pimentel, David & al. 2002. Economic and environmental threats of alien plant, animal, and microbe invasions. pp 307-329 in: Pimentel, D. (ed.). 2002. op cit. 
Dolin, Eric Jay. 2003. Snake Head: A Fish Out of Water. Smithsonian Books, Washington and London. 
Smith, George. 2004. A newcomer to Pa. waters to worry about. Times Leader, 9 August, 2004. http://www.timesleader.com/mld/thetimeslea...rts/9351713.htm. Accessed 12-8-2004 
Hassan, Hazlin. 2003. Craze for ornamental fish unleashes 'killer' in Malaysian waters. ThingsAsian. http://www.thingsasian.com/goto_article/article.2108.html. Accessed 8-9-2004. 
Borenstein, Seth. 2004. Poisonous lionfish likely here to stay. The Miami Herald, 29 August 2004. http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/.../9526169.htm?1c. Accessed 30-8-2004.

OFI Journal Issue 46: October 2004

Last edited: 03.11.2004


----------



## rbp 4 135 (Mar 2, 2004)

i acctualy read that entire thing, good sutff hastatus, i espically like how it points the finger AWAY form hobbiests


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

It may point away, but doesn't help the cause of the fishes being banned. In otherwords, it won't make them legal again.


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

only idiots release...


----------



## rbp 4 135 (Mar 2, 2004)

Filo said:


> only idiots release...
> [snapback]811779[/snapback]​


agreed


----------

