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

Re: NFC: Too much awareness?

> So what do we do Martin?  Designate ourselves as the only ones who know
> anything about natives, or have the right to collect them, or to tell
> others that they have no right to collect?  Do we allow beautiful fish
> such as the Topeka Shiner to die in obscurity because we were so arrogant
> as to believe that WE had the only answer to the problem of natives in
> aquaria?  Do we just say 'sorry, your time of existence is up...too bad'
> to all those species that have or more importantly COULD have been saved
> with the 'demon' of commercilization?  It's just NOT that cut and dried.
> And it is the utmost in arrogance to say 'lets just keep it our little
> secret...' Have you never purchased a fish in your life?  Don't you
> realize that fish is native to somewhere?  Do we put on such an attitude
> that the most imortant players in conservation: the landowners, public
> and government agencies all disregard us as a bunch of elitist flakes?

Do you understand the significance of the tag line I appended to 
my original post?

But back to my original question, is anybody claiming that there is 
no historical basis for claiming that if we are not circumspect we 
could easily end up damaging that which we want to protect?

And IF (reminder: this was an anecdote) the Okefenoke story is 
true, was it lost upon everybody that it was people who had every 
reason to be knowledgeable about what they were doing, who 
caused the damage?



Greater American Freshwater Fishes Resource Site (GAFFeRs):  http://www.localink4.com/~archimedes/

"Fie on thee, fellow!  Whence come these fishes?" - Scheherazade

"Any fish with good teeth is liable to use them." - Wm. T. Innes