Re: affiliate club species maintenance

["Catherine Carney" <schmidtcarney at ecr_net>]

HI Mike--

I can't speak for all the affiliates, but GCKA has accepted the
responsibility of maintianing Pachypanchax sakaramyi, with interested
members also maintaining omolonotus Nosy Be and playfairii. None of these
fish are proving easy to raise (breeding is no problem), but they are well
worth the effort.

We also have a club member that is maintaining Fp. walkeri GH 74/2
(Kutunse).

As far as requiring affiliates to agree to maintain one or more species, I
can see pros and cons. The pros are more breeders and more local swaps of
breeding stock (which also becomes a con several generations down the road
when all the fish of a particular species in the club are closely related).
However, a requirement like this could cause some resentment (and it is
usually better to get willing enthusiastic participation from a few
volunteers than it is to get grudging resentful participation from
recruits), place an undue burden on small or startup clubs (species
maintenance takes time and space and resources), and cause people to take
fish to work with before they are ready (in terms of knowledge, committment
and resources).

That said, I think that we can (and should) encourage each other to maintain
species, to report to the SMC regularly, and to join the appropriate branch
of the KCC. As experienced members, we also need to be sure we foster a
species maintenance approach in any new members that we mentor.

Just my 2 cents.

Catherine


Can anyone tell me with certainty if each affiliate club is monitoring a
particular species ? If  the AKA wasn't already loaded with affiliates, a
mandatory species maintenance for any new groups could be a requirement to
become a sactioned affiliate.Yes? No?

---------------
See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe
Join the AKA at http://www.aka.org/AKA/Applic.htm