[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Daniel Logan <logand at ucs_orst.edu>: NANFA position statement regarding collecting
PLEASE FORWARD TO THE GROUP.....THIS DISCUSSION IS HARD WORK...:)
--------- Begin forwarded message ----------
From: Daniel Logan <logand at ucs_orst.edu>
To: Robert Rice <RobertRice at juno_com>
Subject: NANFA position statement regarding collecting
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 13:56:12 -0800
Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19970318135836.41ef53f2 at ucs_orst.edu>
Good Tuesday afternoon, Robert. Following are my thoughts regarding the
NANFA position statement regarding collecting. Most of the position
statement is well written, but there are a few areas that need attention
-
particularly the section on introductions.
Dan
================================================
>Currently all across the continent 1,000's of individuals are
collecting
, rearing and breeding native fishes in home Aquariums. >Their
activities
are shrouded in legal ambiguity. In many cases the keeping of common
fishes such as darters and pygmy >sunfishes is technically illegal.
How does NANFA deal with this legal ambiguity? Is the statement included
in
most versions of Trading Post that all traders should obey federal and
state
laws sufficient guidance for prospective traders? Why wasn't there any
mention of legal requirements in the Trading Post section of the Fall
1996
issue of American Currents?
>They are illegal due to individual state regulators lack of
consideration of this common use of our fisheries resources.
Perhaps I am overly sensitive to the previous sentances, but it sounds a bit
paternalistic. Couldn't this be phrased to be a bit less confrontational?
>1.) Aquarist typically deal in non game species. Their
>expertise in raising and breeding such species makes them a
>valuable untapped resource for fisheries personnel.
>Propagation techniques developed by Aquarist in NANFA are
>all ready being used by state fisheries departments involved
>in threatened and endangered species propagation in the
>states of Tennessee, Virginia, and Oregon . It is inevitable
>that such partnerships will increase.
I am not aware of any programs in Oregon in which state fisheries
biologists
are using techniques developed by NANFA. I try to keep up-to-date with
T&E
species issues in this region.
>4.) With their backgrounds in aquarium propagation Aquarist
>would be excellent partners in stream restoration projects.
>Their skills could speed up the restoration of a damged
>stream. Even to the point of returning specimens to their
>historic watersheds. Specimens born and raised in home
>aquariums.
What is the connection between aquaculture and stream restoration?
Instead,
how about saying "With their strong interest in the well-being of native
fishes, NANFA members would be excellent partners in stream restoration
projects."?
>6.) The danger of introduction of non indigenous species to
>new watersheds is minimal when compared with the risk of
>existing stocking programs, bait collections etc.. Who is
>more likely to introduce a new species to a watershed the
>bait farm/ stocking program with 1,000,000 fish and a 3%
>species by product (i.e. unintended species in the mix) or
>an Aquarist with a few dozen shiners or darters ?
Okay, this paragraph needs some help. In Oregon, where the use of live
bait
fish is prohibited, members of the general public have been responsible
for
more introductions since 1970 than have been agencies. The last fish
species introduced to Oregon by the Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife
was the redear sunfish in the early 1980s. However, other species
introduced since that time include: banded killifish, Chinese freshwater
shrimp, Oriental weatherfish, Chinese fine-scaled loach, three species of
pacus, fathead minnow, golden shiner, grass carp, and red swamp crayfish.
Granted, aquarists probably did not release all of those species, but who
else would have released the two loaches and the three pacus? In the
past
two years, I have identified two populations of fathead minnows in Oregon
that probably originated from the release of unwanted aquarium pets.
Both
collections were of albino forms of fathead minnow. Albino forms are
very
rare in nature and yet are abundant in pet stores as red tuffies. Also,
the
crayfish, golden shiner and "typical" fathead minnow are available in the
pet trade. How would anyone know if the introduction of golden shiners
was
from bait bucket introduction (don't forget use of bait fish is illegal
in
Oregon) or from the release of unwanted aquarium pets? Is there any
evidence that NANFA members would behave any differently than other
aquarists? I doubt it. Also, just by virtue of NANFA members trading
temperate species, they are at greater risk of "successfully" introducing
an
exotic fish, than are typical aquarists.
T&E protection is very expensive, particularly for the people living in
the
area of the protected species. In Oregon, there are eight species of T&E
fish - in every case, exotic species are listed as a contributing factor in
the decline of the species. Typically, the exotic species are game fish
(either introduced by the state or do-gooding members of society), but
not
always. In Oregon, there are two species of T&E suckers. Exotic fathead
minnows have been cited as a potential reason for the endangerment of the
Oregon suckers.
I have tried to do my part. I am currently composing a Position Paper on
the release of unwanted aquarium pets. I hope that when I am finished, that
the Board would sanction the Position Paper as an official document.
I'll
keep you posted with its progress.
>NANFA proposes a simple game species -non game species
>system for Aquarist .This would be covered under a regular
>fishing license or an additional collecting permit if that
>is necessary. For example an individual could collect X
>amount of non game species per day via seine net, dip net
>or hook. It is simpler to just name the game species than to
>name the non game species. In addition an individual can
>collect via seine ,dipnet or hook X amount of under X size
>game fish for home aquarium use. Scientific permits have
>proven to be an ineffective means of allowing non game
>species collecting. By their very nature they are exclusive.
>For example a housewife in Illinois is very unlikely to be
>able to acquire a scientific collecting permit so she can
>collect Darters. The paperwork involved in such permits
>makes them unsuitable as a means to allow collecting for the
>home aquarium. They also are a difficulty to fisheries
>personnel. Fisheries personnel must evaluate request for
>scientific collectors permits on a case by case basis.
>Instead of assuming a citizen as a worthy fisherman , the
>scientific collecting permit takes a guilty until proven
>innocent attitude. The paperwork for a scientific collecting
>permit is just too formidable for the average citizen or
>fisheries department to deal with on a large scale.
The system in Oregon and Washington seem simpler. Collectors just need
to
fill out a simple one-page form to get a permit and then send in a short
end-of-the-year report. In Washington there is an $11 fee for the permit
(refunded if application is rejected) and in Oregon the permit is free.
Daniel Logan
Oregon State University
Department of Fisheries & Wildlife
Nash Hall 104
Corvallis, Oregon 97331-3803
(541) 737-2407 - phone
(541) 737-3590 - fax
logand at ucs_orst.edu
--------- End forwarded message ----------