[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: reintroduction -- or - The Etiquette on How to Introduce Fish
- To: Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
- Subject: Re: reintroduction -- or - The Etiquette on How to Introduce Fish
- From: "S. Hieber" <shieber at yahoo_com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 03:42:30 -0700 (PDT)
- In-reply-to: <200304180540.h3I5eiE1013376@otter.actwin.com>
Bill Wichers said a lot of good stuff about the
environment, plastics, introducing elements from one
environ to another, etc. But he also said this:
> The idea that taking a fish
> out of a population
> for a while for study and then returning *the same fish*
> to *the same
> population* is going to somehow introduce all kinds of
> diseases is simply
Respectfully, Bill, I think this is a bit of a strawman
argument here, although I might be reading too much into
asingle remark in a self-avowed rant. Technically, it's
not actually illogical (in principle it is possible); it's
just extraordinarily improbable -- enough so that no one
actually suggested this as far as I can recall. I think
the points were more along the line that there was some
risk that *any* (not all) of large number of things could
be introduced, with the potential for substantial effects.
I agree that the probability of an occurence is extremely
low (and I personally think it's too small to fret over)
but they aren't unreasonable positions to maintain -- heck
they could even be right. that would mean that I was
wrong, but that happens, or so I've been told.
But forget about arguing that Tom should not put the fish
in the water -- I'm more concerned about the bigger issue.
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with Tom going in the water --
what the heck is that introducing ;-)
Scott H., who hasn't been introduced for quite some time.
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo