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

Re: Collecting fears.......

Exactly so Ray!

	There has long been the double standard for fish that fish for food and
sport uses was somehow "legitimate", whereas fish for viewing and study
in an aquarium in the home was not. Somehow the fish used for aquariums
are suddenly "threatened" by any human intervention, whereas food and
game fish are usually overlooked in these points of view. Overstocking,
whether by nature as it is, or nature acting through man, leads to
needless waste of life in the form of the fish, though nature provides
for the death not to go to waste in the form of food for others in the
food chain.
	Everyone has a take on this topic of course, but IMO this is not really
a full discussion unless the food and game fish are included too. If
folks that really believe fish and other aquatic life should not be
harvested for any reason mankind may have for them are serious, I'd like
to know how you intend to go about explaining this point of view to all
the peoples and counties of the world that DEPEND on the harvest of
aquatic life to sustain at least part of the human population?
	And, how do you intend to educate people on the need for reasonableness
in the use of the environment where it may impact fish? If folks don't
care about something, they will not take time to change their own
actions, or care when someone else does something that harms the
environment of the fish. Inclusion in the lives of the fish on some
level is certainly one way, and that is something that home aquarium
hobbyist do very well. The tack that fish should not be taken from their
native habitat AT ALL will seriously lessen this opportunity to provide
an educational medium for people. One more way to isolate the fish from
those that might play a role in preserving their world.
	Since most non food or game fish generate no monetary income for
people, why should people care if they are all killed? General
principle? Not likely! Give them a way to be involved, like aquarium
hobbyist do, and there is a much greater chance that people will notice
when degradation of the environment the fish live in occurs, and that
gives the fish a fighting chance. If no one cares cause all the common
people have been taken out of the loop on decisions that affect the
fish, it will soon be up to the "experts" to protect the fish alone, and
guess what? When funding cuts hit the budgets for the programs that
underpin the experts, the fish will have even fewer people to speak for
them. That is not a path that should be allowed IMO.
	Also, if it ever got to the sorry state where none but the experts were
deciding the fate of the fish, it would need a major investment by
society for a "police action" force to enforce the laws, cause you just
know that the "solution" will be tight control of the harvesting of
fish, as is already in effect in some areas. An extreme example of where
this isolation of common people from the decisions affecting their
environment can be found close at hand if relatively recent history is
looked at, though taken from the context of the social environment
rather than the so-called "natural" environment (though in my opinion
they are not separate). Don't know who may remember the days before the
60's in USA, but the attitude of the police, and the criminal justice
system in general for the most part was that they were the "experts" and
they would control anything that came their way. Great. Then came social
unrest for various reasons, the political and social environment
changed, and the police in many cases were overwhelmed. Change in the
way things are done in most American cities came eventually, and one way
the change manifested itself was in greater inclusion of common people
in "policing" their neighborhoods, the Neighborhood Watch Programs. The
experts learned what common sense should have told them all along, that
they need people involved in their social environment to be effective in
maintaining order and protection of the populace, the supposed goal of
the police.
	Though of course the situation with the fish is different in many ways,
some of the same lessons should be applicable in the way common people
are included in helping to maintain the environment in ways that benefit
aquatic inhabitants as well. Let's not wait till it gets to the point
that the experts are failing to be effective in protecting the fish and
aquatic life before we get involved. Instead, lets seek to provide ways
for the common person to be involved in the part of their personal
environment that will contribute to protecting the aquatic life. Funding
for public aquariums, land set asides, responsible laws pertaining to
land and water use, and educational programs at schools are all good
ways to get people involved. A little ten gallon tank with some wild
caught native fish that don't cost a bundle and are easy to care for is
a very legitimate way to get folks of all ages to include aquatic life
in their personal circle of concern as well.


Raymus l Wolff wrote:
> Hey Everybody,
>       I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone,  this is my outlook on
> the situation.  Everybody has an opinion on what's right,  but like most
> things in life,  if you use things in moderation and wisely, then it is
>  alright.
>      I've got to way in here, In other words homo sapiens (that's us) are
> not part of the environment or the ecosystem they live in.
> ..   All  things alive and dead a reacted on in a certain environment by
> each other.
>     I hope this makes some sense?  If not, I'm trying to say is all
> creatures use things around them in there daily lives, but recently we
> started forgetting where we (humans) fit in,    unless maybe we were
> planted here by aliens and really are an introduced species.
>    Sorry everyone about going overboard,  but I know we can get along
> with and use our natural resources , now that is a fact.

Follow-Ups: References: