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

BOUNCE nanf at actwin_com: Non-member submission from [peter.unmack at ASU_Edu] (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 23:03:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: owner-nanf at actwin_com
To: owner-nanf at actwin_com
Subject: BOUNCE nanf at actwin_com:    Non-member submission from [peter.unmack at ASU_Edu]   

>From jwiegert at nexus_v-wave.com  Mon Apr  6 23:02:55 1998
Received: from post5.inre.asu.edu (post5.inre.asu.edu [])
	by acme.actwin.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA23938
	for <nanf at actwin_com>; Mon, 6 Apr 1998 23:02:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: peter.unmack at ASU_Edu
Received: from general1.asu.edu by asu.edu (PMDF V5.1-10 #24133)
 with ESMTP id <01IVK7UTDMXG9BWAVA at asu_edu> for nanf at actwin_com; Mon,
 6 Apr 1998 20:03:28 MST
Received: from general1.asu.edu (localhost [])
 by general1.asu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA23432; Mon,
 06 Apr 1998 20:03:21 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 20:03:21 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Re: NANFA-- Sales of native fishes for ornamental
In-reply-to: <19980406.193158.3878.1.robertrice at juno_com>
X-Sender: springs at general1_asu.edu
To: nanfa at aquaria_net
Cc: nanf at actwin_com, Bill.White at 110_sunshine.com
Message-id: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980406195103.21224B-100000 at general1_asu.edu>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Mon, 6 Apr 1998, robert a rice wrote:

Just a couple of trivial comments.

> I had hoped my little blurb would not only give me some customer feedback
> but initiate a discussion on the merits of selling fish as ornamentals.

Like most things it has good and bad aspects.  At low frequency it is 
probably good if the fish are spread to responsible people who document 
their experiences with the fish, hence furthering our basic knowledge and 
providing information that can be useful in their conservation.  At 
higher frequencies it tends to turn the other way, the benefits are still 
there, and may be increased, but negative points start to emerge such as 
fish being hybridised or translocated etc etc by ignorant or malicious 

> They will have no emotional responses to a fish they
> do not know so any kind of exposure for most none game fishies is good
> exposure 

I would have to broadly agree with this.

> Yes of course native fish have been sold
> for years as sport/bait species and those species have benifited with
> financial resources heading their way.

Does anyone have any examples of bait fish that have benefited because
they were bait fish?  I know plenty of fish that have suffered as a result
of introduced bait fish the western USA.  Certainly the game fish to some
extent has benefited, although trying to find "pure" original populations
of some game fish is getting more difficult due to widespread poorly
thought out sport fish stockings.  Is this an improvement?  On the other
hand some game fish have benefited, ie native trouts. 

So, what does it all mean?  Buggered if I know, except that unless we 
educate people as to the dangers of keeping fish, and their 
responsibilities towards the environment, the native fish we all cherish 
are screwed eventually.  Hence part of the reason for NANFA coming up with a 
mission statement / ethics statement.  This is not to say that 
fishkeepers are not the only ones responsible for the decline of native 
fish, they most certainly are not.  But the potential is there to 
contribute to this impact.  Of course, this has nothing to do with the 
rights or wrongs of selling native fish, but then again I'm not well 
known for sticking to a topic anyway.  :-)


Peter J Unmack 			peter.unmack at asu_edu
DESERT FISHES RULE: To boldly thrive where no other fish can make it!

Australian desert fishes pages at http://ozdesertfish.base.org (don't 
forget to visit the Desert Fishes Council pages too)
Native Fish Australia pages at http://www.nativefish.asn.au
North American Native Fishes Association at http://www.nanfa.org 
Aquatic Conservation Network at http://www.acn.ca