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

Daniel Logan <logand at ucs_orst.edu>: NANFA position statement regarding collecting


--------- 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: < 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.



>Currently  all  across the continent 1,000's of  individuals are
, rearing and breeding  native fishes in home Aquariums. >Their
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
most versions of Trading Post that all traders should obey federal and
laws sufficient guidance for prospective traders?  Why wasn't there any
mention of legal requirements in the Trading Post section of the Fall
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
are using techniques developed by NANFA.  I try to keep up-to-date with
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

What is the connection between aquaculture and stream restoration? 
how about saying "With their strong interest in the well-being of native
fishes, NANFA members would be excellent partners in stream restoration

>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
fish is prohibited, members of the general public have been responsible
more introductions since 1970 than have been agencies.  The last fish
species introduced to Oregon by the Oregon Department of Fish and
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
two years, I have identified two populations of fathead minnows in Oregon
that probably originated from the release of unwanted aquarium pets. 
collections were of albino forms of fathead minnow.  Albino forms are
rare in nature and yet are abundant in pet stores as red tuffies.  Also,
crayfish, golden shiner and "typical" fathead minnow are available in the
pet trade.  How would anyone know if the introduction of golden shiners
from bait bucket introduction (don't forget use of bait fish is illegal
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
exotic fish, than are typical aquarists.

T&E protection is very expensive, particularly for the people living in
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
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. 
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
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 ----------