[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: NFC: a few pointsa....
>1. fish are an unknown to most people. Because rthey live under the
>water. To develop public appreciation people must first see them.
Agreed. Does this necessitate selling wild caught fish?
>2. Fish are a renewable resource. Why should people have a double
>standard of fish use. IE Fishing is OK , collecting is bad.We should
>propose reasonable use practices by everyone. From fisheries mangers to
>collectors.
Most states prohibit the sale of fish caught with a fishing license,
whether by angling or by netting. A commercial license is required for
selling wild fish. Greater management is required to maintain a fishery
that can support commercial harvest. For many species, this would likely
be impossible. How is the legality of angling an arguement for selling
wild caught non-game species?
I am not morally opposed to the sale of native fishes. I think the ground
rules have yet to be delineated. If a conservation organization
popularizes the commercial sale of wild caught fishes, the ultimate danger
is that the fishes will be the victims of their own popularity. Sure,
there are now only a small number of people collecting native fishes from
the wild for sale, but if the demand develops, the fishing pressure may
increase dramatically just as it has in Africa and South America.
Education must come first. Interested organizations must insure that all
potential commercial collectors can distinguish between a tiny population
of a very rare madtom and a thriving population of a common madtom that is
found in several river systems. As you have said, it's an unknown.
The state fish departments do not concentrate their management efforts on
non-game species. Therefore, they may not even notice if species are
declining due to over-collecting. Please just encourage restraint.
Mark Binkley
Columbus Ohio USA <))><
mbinkley at earthling_net