[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Dealing with the real fish? problem
On Wed, 24 Jun 1998, Herb Harris wrote:
A little Devil's advocate for you. :-)
> 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.
What would the carrot be?
> 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
> species?
Additional species tend not to be turning up except for aquarium releases of
stuff in canals around Phoenix which typically don't make it through the
winter or just don't make it in general. Pacu have started to turn up in one
of the lakes in the Colorado River though, who knows if they'll take off.
Most of the releases occurred early on and are related to either sport fish
releases, bait fish releases, or mosquito control. The main expansion of non
native fishes today appears to be bait release and people putting fish in
stock tanks. It is near impossible to detect translocations of native fish
(I'm defining translocation here as moving it within it's native range).
> 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.
How is it in the fishes (especially the threatened ones--which is many
of them in AZ) benefit by allowing Joe Blow to take them and move
them around? Many of the polititions in Arizona would probably rather be
without any native fish.
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: