Ethics of supporting the trade in wild L46

Recent threads in other sections got me thinking a bit more about this aspect of the aquarium hobby. It is unfortunately not that rare for fish that really should not be on the market for various legal or ethical reasons to come up for sale, and usually I find it hard to support such endeavors, but the issues with L46 are quite a bit more complex. Though it is true that it is illegal to export wild caught specimens from Brazil, these laws may be more to the detriment of the species than their benefit. The Rio Xingu, where they are found, is slated for a damming project which could seriously affect the survival of the species in the wild. Given that these are fish that are facing large scale habitat destruction in the wild, and are being bred by a handful of hobbyists, it seems that it might behoove the species for us to establish as wide a possible captive gene pool if extinction in the wild is a possibility. In the US, endangered plants can sometimes be legally collected when they are facing destruction from building projects, however in those cases selling them for profit is illegal (i think). I personally am not entirely sure how I feel on the issue yet. What does everyone else think?

Many good points raised, but something else that hasn't been discussed. Though pulling these fish from the wild may possibly have positive benefits for the survival of their species, it does not change the fact that since they are wild caught (coming only from one place where they're illegal to collect) they are most certainly at some point during the supply chain, breaking laws. The issue with this, despite the validity of the intentions behind it, is that it undermines a set of laws that are largely in place to protect the wildlife resources of Brazil and the Amazon river system. If we continue to flout the policies of the Brazilian Government and support the poaching of fish out of waters they control, then they have every right to clamp down on the export trade, and attempt to complicate things for the smugglers, with the unintended consequence being that legitimate fish traders/dealers also have to deal with the greater cost and complication of getting a fish out of the country, ultimately affecting us at the consumption end of the trade. I understand that people who are in a business need to cover their own costs, but it hardly seems fair to make a business out of such a threatened species. If one's intentions were truly to support the preservation of the species, wouldn't it be better to distribute the fish amongst hobbyists with a body of experience already rather than selling them to any old joe on the open market? I don't agree with the argument that the exorbitant price limits the purchasing pool to those who know what they're doing. There are plenty of people who don't know their butts from their elbows who have money to burn on a pretty looking exotic fish.

Well, that's a bit of a gross oversimplification. Wild collecting in many parts of the world supports local economies and gives impetus for the protection of wildlife. Things like the MAC council and Project Piaba teach sustainable harvesting practices while allowing may people access to the world economy they wouldn't normally have. By allowing local populations to profit from the ecosystems they inhabit, it gives them impetus to protect said ecosystems and thus protect their resources and economic stability. Its alot easier to convince people to protect something when it gets them fed in the process. Additionally, there are plenty of fish that no longer exist in the wild, and if not for the intervention of hobbyists would no longer exist in any capacity. There is no single issue that we are dealing with, which is why the situation is so complex. There are just as many pros to be had from wild collection as there are cons. Sorry, but I don't believe it's nearly as black and white as you see it.