[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


I don't think the idea should be enforcement, but a code of ethics.  The
point is removal.

Would be an interesting research subject to find out which States, if any,
have a no-release policy regarding 'foreign' organisms.  It's probably
posted somewhere.  I know Florida is fairly adamant about putting in
anacheris :)(I think that's the one clogging our byways.)

I think the policy is fairly clear on the ERP page, which implies removal as
the primary concern, and whether they are eaten, sold, or euthanized is
actually a by-product of removal.

A code of ethics for aquarists would be a good idea as far as sales go.

A recipe book would also be appropriate (I think there are a few recipes on
the NFC site).

And, methods for euthanization should be there as well which I know would
include standard fishing practices such as a fishing license, appropriate
fishing gear, and any other applicable laws regarding harvesting and
handling.  (I believe some of this is also covered under "follow the
applicable State Laws".

As far as territory goes for shipping -  An aquarium is an aquarium wherever
it lie.... Of course, when I first read the "Mason Dixon line" I took it as
a funny :)  I still do.  I wouldn't mind getting breeder sized fish
personally.  And Titusville is only a few hours South.  So, I'd hate to be
excluded from picking up some breeder sized fish just because I live in


Sachs Systems Aquaculture
and Web Presence
1185 Thompson Bailey Road
St. Augustine FL  32084

PHONE:  (904) 824 - 6308
EMAIL:  Mailto:deano at aquaculturestore_com
web  :  http://www.aquaculturestore.com


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nfc at actwin_com [mailto:owner-nfc at actwin_com]On Behalf Of
Doug Dame
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 3:31 PM
To: nfc at actwin_com
Subject: Re: NFC: ERP IS BACK!!!

Luke (mcclurgl at washburn_edu) wrote:

...question: How do you "enforce" this restriction?
Ten generations down the line, who knows what fish
came from where and what grandpa promised to
whom?  The idea shows thought, but I feel is totally

Point well taken, this is not "enforceable" in any reasonably practical way,
it's effectiveness would clearly depend on an honor system / moral
commitment on the part of the recipients of ERT-provided exotics.

However, the current "re-distribution of fish rule" implies that we take
care of this issue simply by shipping (southern) exotic fish north of the
Mason Dixon line. Enforcement by presumed biology, I guess. That doesn't
seem to offer a very good level of environmental protection in my admittedly
amateur opinion. In many cases we seem to have these problems with
nonindigenous species precisely because we didn't understand the
bio-implications or adaptability of critters that were intentionally
introduced with nominally good intentions. To paraphrase the chaos theory
character from Jurassic Park, "Life will find a way."

A somewhat extremist view would be to decide that any and all nonindigeous
critters collected by NFC recognized ERTs will be (humanely) killed, on-site
or as soon as is reasonably possible. This would presumably cut down on the
"feral recidivism" rate. This seems extreme to me, we could be killing
ERT-caught U.S. specimens of some fish at the same time that LFS and
consumer demand is causing the continued wild-capture of the same species in
the Amazon or elsewhere.

Ten generations down the line, who knows
what fish came from where and what grandpa
promised to whom?

Well, my answer to that is that ten generations down the line, I desperately
hope that we are not tracking "this fish came from a restricted use
parentage, but these two over here didn't."   I hope by then we'll have
elevated the general level of public awareness on the issue, through use of
our unenforceable "no re-release" policy etc., to the point that EVERYONE
will accept, as an article of unquestionable faith, that WE NEVER RELEASE


Doug Dame
Interlachen/Gainesville FL

Follow-Ups: References: