[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
postion paper
- To: fishman at golden_net, robert_nawrocki at mlb_sticomet.com, fishnut at dreamscape_com, cburke.fish-head at worldnet_att.net, crazylady80 at juno_com, kcriswel at dns_tiu.k12.pa.us, crom at cris_com, mccartmg at wmvx-mail_lvs.dupont.com, mbarnett at mindspring_com, Alain.Barcelo at univ-reunion_fr, littled at cris_com, gbin at zoo_ufl.edu, vbrach at juno_com, fishncat at polaris_com, bill.edwards at asu_edu, Rjga at aol_com, hellerAP at aol_com, roger at minnow_demon.co.uk, bbn at ld0301_NFWF.ORG, nanf at actwin_com, normane at hevanet_com, l-page1 at uiuc_edu, prollo at juno_com, Harold.J.Schmidt-1 at tc_umn.edu, fishes at kuhub_cc.ukans.edu, noturus at aol_com, jtolman at cei_org, vern at icanect_net, bvoiers at aol_com, MDWfield at aol_com, jim_williams at nbs_gov, twlsn at CLEMSON_EDU, Daz604 at aol_com
- Subject: postion paper
- From: robertrice at juno_com (robert a rice)
- Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 23:51:03 PST
Because I am obsessive sort here is my 55th and (hopefully Final)
revision of the NANFA position paper on amendig laws to support aquarium
rearing and collecting of native fishes....Please drop me a note with
questions comments and input...If and or when this step is over i will
send it to a couple of other folks to act as final
editors........................Let me know what you think...............
NANFA POSITION PAPER :
AMENDING STATE REGULATIONS TO GUARANTEE THE RIGHTS OF
INDIVIDUALS TO COLLECT AND KEEP NATIVE FISHES FOR THE HOME
AQUARIUM.
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. This is due to
state regulations implemented with a lack of consideration
of this common use of our fisheries resources. While such
cases seldom result in individuals being prosecuted the
possibility does exist. Many individuals in NANFA have had
unnecessary field confrontations with conservation officers
over these ambiguous regulations which leave interpretation
to each individual conservation officer. NANFA ( North
American Native Fishes Association ) has become a clearing
house for individuals interested in keeping native fishes.
Our organization balances the needs of collectors and our
native species. That role is our foremost function. Our
unique membership composition of 1/3 fisheries personnel and
2/3 Aquarists gives us a balanced perspective on the issue
of fisheries regulation. The purpose of this position paper
is to spur individual state regulatory committees to adjust
existing regulations where necessary to address the
collecting and rearing of native fishes. We do not seek
anything but reasonable and rational access to our fisheries
resources .
First and foremost we are all aware that our fishes are a
unique renewable natural resource. We understand that the
public must work together with fisheries agencies to insure
their preservation. NANFA takes that role seriously . NANFA
is involved all across the country in stream restoration,
endangered species propagation and public education. We in
NANFA seek to conserve and learn about our fishes within the
framework of state regulations. Unfortunately as has been
stated before many of the regulations did not have the
Aquarist in mind when they were developed. As such they are,
in certain cases limiting or stopping recreational
collecting. We strongly believe to impede the recreational
collector while allowing the sport fisherman or bait
collector to continue without similar restraint is
irrational and wrong. The Aquarist who keeps Native Fish is
an invaluable untapped resource to state agencies . Consider
the following points.
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 NANFA members 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.
2.) With the agency sanctioned involvement of Aquarist in
native-keeping, public education and awareness would
increase. With increased education, public involvement would
increase and yield additional interest in those species and
their conservation. For example NANFA has several writers
who typically write for Aquarium magazines and expose
500,000 readers to native species and their care. These are
people who vote, pay taxes and were largely ignorant of our
native species.
3.) Aquarist spend over 1 billion dollars a year in the US
alone on their hobby. It is reasonable that some of that
money be spent on local species via a collectors license or
permit fee.
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 damaged
stream. This could result in returning specimens to their
historic watersheds. Specimens born and raised in home
aquariums could be used to restore depleted populations
5.) There are more Aquarist in this country than hunters
and fisherman combined. Encouraging their involvement in
local species could only benefit those species.
6.) The danger of introduction of by Aquarists of non
indigenous species to a new watershed is a real threat.
NANFA is aware of that and constantly seeks to educate it's
members and the public at large about the dangers of such
activities. Unfortunately such releases are already
occurring ion the largely ignorant public at large. However
with public awareness and education the incidence should go
down. Regulations can be amended to include releases by
Aquarist. Such regulations exist already for bait/fish
farms. Adding Aquarist should not be difficult.
Scientifically who is more likely to successfully 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 ? Most likely the bait farm or
the release by government agencies would allow a successful
establishment of a new species. Regulations already deal
with bait\fish farms and government programs, it is the
individual who is the wildcard in the mix. The individual
will remain a wild card until public education convinces him
to do otherwise. NANFA has always been at the forefront
voicing concern on the issue of non native species
introduction and will remain so in the future. Watershed
integrity is one of our major focuses.
7.) With existing laws that limit recreational collecting,
those laws are in effect encouraging individuals to kill
fish while discouraging them from conserving them ( i.e. you
can collect X amount to use as bait but can not collect for
the home aquarium ). Such regulations are short sighted.
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, minnow
trap, dip net or hook. It is simpler to just name the game
species individually than to name the non game species. In
addition allow legally caught game fish to be kept in the
home aquarium. It is reasonable to use them against a creel
limit. Special permits would still be necessary to collect
threatened \ endangered or other special concern species.
Scientific permits have proven to be an ineffective means
of allowing general 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 orangethroat darters.
The paperwork involved in such permits makes them unsuitable
as a means to allow collecting for the home aquarium.
Fisheries personnel must evaluate request for scientific
collectors permits on a case by case basis. The scientific
collecting permit takes a guilty until proven innocent
attitude. The citizen must prove him or her self worth of a
scientific collecting permit. 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. They are a unnecessary difficulty to the under-
budgeted fisheries departments and their personnel.
In conclusion we ask that you reevaluate existing
regulations and include the needs of the home aquarium
collector in your future plans. The home aquarium /collector
is a valuable untapped resource that is worthy of serious
consideration when evaluating fisheries programs and user
needs. To ignore them would be great disservice to our
native fishes.