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

Dealing with the real fish? problem

	Sort of gets down to the age old question: Which works best, the carrot
or the stick?
	Seems that it might be difficult to get good statistical data
concerning this, as a violator from a "stick" state might not wish to
give truthful details to a survey. Of course using the sometimes well
publicized (see local newspaper handling of the issue) "violators list"
that can be compiled may distort the truth as well. Obviously the state
can't afford an all out effort to oversee every aquarist or fisher in
the state, or even consider it seriously.

	So, it just could be that states that want to in fact do something
about the problem of ALL introduced species might consider spending
money on carrots instead of honing the hickory even finer. Really, who
can be expected to make real changes quicker, a person that wants to for
their own interests, or a person that does so while you are watching,
but as soon as the back is turned..... well, you get the drift.

	At least it might be worth a try. If a state's programs don't work for
real, change it, or at least the approach to the problem. Your very own
statistics should give an indication on the effectiveness of the state's
program. Do your statistics not in fact show a general increase in
introduction occurrence in recent years? Or am I completely off base,
and there is no continuing problem from the numbers and types of
introductions and resulting pressures on the original native fish

	The real problem to this may not be that it makes sense, but that some
people that really know better defend their positions for other than the
good of the people of the state's interest in the native fish of the
state. Treading upon a politician's (?) pet domain is a bit touchy some
places, and they are generally quick to let you know it.

	Now this is not said in criticism, just in an effort to bring the
forces of all interested parties together to make real changes in an
effective way. We all hopefully do have the same goals in mind, just a
matter of pulling together to be more effective in getting the job done
rather than showing just what a problem there is with introductions and
the results of them. Anyone with just a bit of looking can find piles of
information showing the problem, but solutions are more difficult to
find, cause the real problem is human nature, not fish nature, and
that's a different animal entirely. ":)

Keep in touch,


peter.unmack at ASU_Edu wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jun 1998, D. Martin Moore wrote:
> > Is that why CA is so tough on collecting?
> More likely because CA has ~35 million people and somewhere around half (or
> more maybe) of their fish fauna that is threatened in some way.  In AZ it is
> illegal to transport any fish alive from their place of capture except about 5
> exotic bait species, red shiner, fatheads, damnbusia, golden shiner, and
> goldfish (and some of those can only be transported in certain counties).  You
> can't even take your bass home alive.  This whole thing is to prevent
> translocations of native fish and more introductions of non-natives.  I was
> just finalising some GIS (Geographic Information System) work here (which is
> on fishes in the southwest) and from our database there are 45 species of
> introduced fish the Gila River system alone.  The original native fauna was
> around 18 of which only about 12 are still found here.
> Tootles
> 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

Follow-Ups: References: