[Killietalk] RE: Where Ken should go

["Ken Combs" <KCombs at mergerx_net>]

Erny, Chris, everyone...

The point of my "ranting" was: I think we could help our cause by openly
listing what we have, using a national BAP program, and applying a
breeders survey similar to that on the BKA site. Speaking of places to
look; I've listed my fish on the AKA sight, (I have no problem obtaining
fish, to be honest, I probably have too many). 

Chris offered insight:
>As I said before there are some fish that you are just not going to be
> able to get but there are good reasons for this.  When you become
> established as known and trusted breeder of difficult fish people will
>  ask you to take a pair of their most difficult incase they
strike-out,
>  but that rank has to be earned.  It takes time, skill, and political
>  savvy to do this so if new, rare, and difficult is what you want
start
> working on what is available and build a reputation as something other
> that an antagonist.

I respect the forthrightness, and perhaps many quietly support this line
of thinking, but no matter how many agree, its still based on SUBJECTIVE
reasoning, and by any reckoning makes it real easy to intermingle
subjective criteria(like friendship) under what appear to be impartial
auspices (like conservation)...What am I saying here: 

If conservation is the main criteria for deciding "who gets what", then
using "self appointed" subjective criteria to distribute fish is IMO
misguided, especially given human nature. It's hardly a sociological
epiphany to not figure "human nature" will eventually drive a inward
drift towards a clique' distribution dynamic. IMO, to infer self centric
incentives don't play a role or won't get mixed eventually is fantasy.
So I agree; that's worth a chuckle or two!

We all recognize people have the right to privately collect, distribute
and then decide "who gets what" (friend or otherwise)...but beyond that,
however funded; it's absolutely a "sorted matter" under an
organizational banner.
This is hardly a new or unreasonable perception; I'm not sure how many
"good ole boy" accusations have been posted here, but based on the above
quote; it's not difficult to see the origins/basis behind those posts.
It's possible I'm the only one who sees things this way, I doubt it...

Folks it can only BE positive to discuss/explore less subjective
solutions: (how about BAP points for instance as a mechanism for
distribution?). For now, a closed network of self appointed "master
breeders"; trading amongst each other, under whatever auspices
(familiarity, friendship or otherwise) is not the most fair, objective
or efficient way to reach conservation objectives, let alone efficiently
support the distribution of fish thereto...Are the breeders & fish
actually limited or "self limiting"? 

We can be reasonable and talk this through towards a solution...but I
can also see why those holding the opposite view tire of the subject: no
impetus for change while you benefit from an indefensible
position...I'll offer solutions later, I'll drop the topic for now...

KC




To join the AKA see http://www.aka.org/pages/join.html
Archives are at http://fins.actwin.com/killietalk/