[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: Now Never returned to the wild
As I think I have stated before...what's good for some areas is useless or
even potentially harmful for others. I don't think anyone is advocating
wholesale release of fishes into unknown waters. A little careful thought
before any action is wise. Peter, I have to admit, I respect your
devotion but disagree with your applications. Let's remember that no law
or rule is inviolate...we have to be willing to explore, grow and change
as circumstances or situations develop. Again, I would be the first to
back you on keeping all "exotics" (North American or not) out of pupfish
springs where they were introduced and don't belong. I just don't think
that policy works every time every place though...
Luke
On Wed, 8 Jul 1998 peter.unmack at ASU_Edu wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jul 1998 Phylesis at AOL_COM wrote:
>
> > Quite frankly, my main concern is with Exotics, defined as fish not
> > indigenous to the North American continent.
>
> Not good enough. Most of the western native fish have been devestated by so
> called indigenous North American species like basses and more so sunfish and
> catfish. The only exotic fish as you define it that has caused any problem
> out here is brown trout and tilapia. The other 15 or so problem species are
> all North American.
>
> > I am not a fanatic, and as Robert has so appropriately stated, these are
> > guidelines, not laws.
>
> Guidelines are worthless if no one pays any attention to them.
>
> > The return of a few fish too your "backyard" from whence
> > they came,an enviable address I might add, can hardly be compared to the
> > damage we experience from exotics.
>
> No one is saying that is a bigger problem than another or visa versa. They
> are all problems that need to be addressed.
>
> Tootles
> Peter Unmack
>
>
References: