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

Re: blueheads (and discussion of interstate issues)

Actually, the relevant points are quite simple.  First, the fish must be 
obtained legally.  Second, the fish must be kept and transported in a 
legal manner, with all necessary permits.  If fish are taken legally, 
ownership of the fish conditionally goes to the person who captured the 
fish. The fish must continue to be managed in a legal fashion to retain 
ownership, otherwise ownership reverts to the State. If a particular 
state allows minnows to be taken for personal use under a fishing 
license, the minnows may be used for bait, put in an aquarium, traded, 
etc.  It tends to get more complicated if the minnows are sold, which 
may require a bait dealer's license.  Propagation permits are often 
required if the offspring are to be stocked into waters of the state, 
but may not apply to aquarium-based breeding systems where the offspring 
will not be released into the wild.

In short, the best approach is to draft a prospectus describing what you 
would like to do, including collection, captive propagation methods and 
what will be done with the offspring and ask the local DNR for a 
determination as to what permits, if any, are needed.  DNR staff are 
generally quite helpful to those that inform them in advance of planned 
activities, especially if the persons involved clearly communicate their 
intent to fully comply with applicable regulations.

For most areas that don't have import/export permit requirements (like 
North Carolina and Arizona, for instance), the process may be a bit more 
involved, but the USFWS staff I have talked to say that these states 
just want to know what is going on and that activities are above-board.  
Associating a proposed project with an established conservation 
organization (such as the NFC, for instance) seems to facilitate getting 
through the permit process. Inquiries and providing upfront info to the 
DNR's of the involved state(s) is the best way to go.

>From owner-nanf at actwin_com Mon May 18 13:23:38 1998
>Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
>	by acme.actwin.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA27845;
>	Mon, 18 May 1998 16:21:12 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: by acme.actwin.com (bulk_mailer v1.5); Mon, 18 May 1998 
16:21:12 -0400
>Received: (from majordom@localhost)
>	by acme.actwin.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) id QAA27834
>	for nanf-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 16:21:08 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from mail3.uts.ohio-state.edu (root at mail3_uts.ohio-state.edu 
>	by acme.actwin.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA27830
>	for <nanf at actwin_com>; Mon, 18 May 1998 16:21:06 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from [] ([])
>	by mail3.uts.ohio-state.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA27060
>	for <nanf at actwin_com>; Mon, 18 May 1998 16:23:06 -0400 (EDT)
>X-Sender: mbinkley at pop_service.ohio-state.edu
>Message-Id: <v02130513b1863a4fb5c8@[]>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 15:22:46 -0400
>To: nanf at actwin_com
>From: mbinkley at earthling_net (Mark Binkley)
>Subject: Re: blueheads
>Sender: owner-nanf at actwin_com
>Reply-To: nanf at actwin_com
>>>That all makes sense, but what I want to know is does the state the
>>>originated from have any jurisdiction over the fish after it leaves
>>No much like my Joe Buck analogy when Joe Leaves Ks he is no longers 
>>property or concern...He is the property and concern of his state of
>Yeah, but Joe Buck walked under his own volition.  Joe Fish gets 
scooped up
>and mailed across by Joe Fishhead.  I think that's a different 
>Mark Binkley
>Columbus Ohio USA          <))><
>mbinkley at earthling_net
>Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach him
>to use "the Net" and he won't bother you for weeks.

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com