[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
NFC: Mexico & North American natives
- To: nfc at actwin_com
- Subject: NFC: Mexico & North American natives
- From: Christian Hedemark <chris at yonderway_com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 13:38:14 -0400
- References: <19990812.080218.-3909467.0.robertrice at juno_com> <37B2BC9F.895A6A8D at yonderway_com> <001b01bee4df$f1802660$6116bad8@suite420rover> <37B302D2.79860C4F at home_com>
(moved over from the nfcbreeders mailing list as it is more appropriate
Wright Huntley wrote:
> "Exotic" fish are defined by the USF&WL folks in sort of a bizarre way. If
> the fish lives native anywhere in the contiguous 48 states, it is not an
> "exotic" when misintroduced into some other US waters. Damnbusia are one
> widespread example.
But Mexico is part of NA, and they have native species of their own.
Many of our species would be considered "exotic" there, as would their's
be here. I know the tendency is to be very U.S.-centric, possibly
including Canada, though we really need to be clear about whether or not
Mexico fits in with the interests of the NFC.
From what I've heard, there have been parties in Mexico interested in
the NFC with regards to kicking fish into the BP. The reason those
fishes aren't circulating in the BP have nothing to do, AFAIK, with
those fishes having come from Mexico but rather the fledgling state of
the BP which didn't yet have the infrastructure to handle the
distribution and such of these fishes (correct me if I'm wrong here, I'm
going from faulty memory).
I *think* that what kicked this off was clearly a slip, and a common
one. The very real danger here is perpetuating the problem by using
USF&W definitions for "native fish" to determine what is or is not of
interest to the NFC as a whole.
"I would remind you that extremism in defense of liberty is no vice; and
I would remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no
virtue." - Barry Goldwater
FOR COMMENT CHANNELS ONLY