Nick Zarlinga
"If we ignore nature.....maybe it'll go away."
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steffen Hellner" <steffen_at_hellner.biz>
To: <nanfa_at_aquaria.net>
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: NANFA-- Collecting ethics
> This is where it comes to a very individual sight in connection with
> particular interests. I don4t disagree but do not fully agree as well.
> As it is difficult to generalize this let me put some examples.
>
> The Niangua Darter e.g. is an endangered species. Its threat is with no
> doubt a singular one which is pollution by mining and destruction of
> habitat. NOT collecting by anybody. And this from my knowledge is the
point
> for more or less all NANF. There are hardly some with commercial "value"
and
> the aquarists around the globe do not really care for them. There is no
> market for them. And what some private collectors could take even by
intense
> fishing can never add to a serious threat. Commercial collectors can
> significantly reduce a population in a restricted habitat but even this
can
> recover. I know few examples for this and the species have recovered. Does
> not mean I support such a behaviour.
>
> On the other hand captive reproduction of endangered species is prohibited
> in the USA as far as I know (at least to a certain extend, may be
different
> from state to state) and somebody who wants to do so needs a license. If
> that is productive to the thought of protection and species prservation
then
> I am living on another planet. We don4t need a license to breed any
species,
> we can need a license to sell if a species is CITES app.I or a native
> protected species. But this does only mean to declare where the adults
> originated from.
>
> I still wait for the first striking evidence that any collectors ever have
> contributed to the extinction or even endangering a fish species in this
> world. I could easily give several examples for fishermen (trouts, ya
> know!), and even more for forestry, human consumption, industry (in all
its
> branches), farming etc.
>
> To me all the discussion about collectors are not more than a shield to
hind
> behind for other pressure groups. Blame the weakest (in respect of
lobbying)
> and you4re out yourself. To me it is sad that even scientist follow this
> argumentation though there is not the slightest evidence of it. The
> collector of rattle snakes without doubt didn4t use them for the
pet-trade.
> Rattles are so easy to breed that there are more from captivity than are
> requested by hobbyists. What the heck he did with it, this was not for
hobby
> purpose.
>
> Steffen
>
>
> > Von: "Todd Crail" <farmertodd_at_buckeye-express.com>
> > Antworten an: nanfa_at_aquaria.net
> > Datum: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 00:54:57 -0500
> > An: <nanfa_at_aquaria.net>
> > Betreff: Re: NANFA-- Collecting ethics
> >
> > This might help you a bit and get this into scope... It'll save you a
> little
> > time anyway :)
> >
> > "Three Questions, Moore Answers"
> > American Currents, Winter 2003
> >
> > "Is it ethical to collect fishes that are listed as Special
> > Concern but are not legally protected?
> >
> > Whew, ask me a hard one next time! My carefully considered, unshakable
> > opinion is this: It depends. In many cases (probably
> > most, in fact) the fish in question is abundant where it can be
> > found, but its habitat is disappearing for one reason or another.
> > In this case I see no harm in removing a dozen or so specimens.
> > You just need to be aware of what the stressors are, and how
> > your activity might impact a given population.
> > Just as one should not go into a battle of wits unarmed,
> > neither should you undertake to collect a potentially imperiled
> > fish without doing your homework."
> >
> >
> > "Letter to editor: Of Special Concern
> > is reason for concern"
> > American Currents, Summer 2003
> >
> > I find myself in strong disagreement with D.
> > Martin Moore's advice concerning the ethics of collecting
> > fishes listed as "Of Special Concern" (AC,
> > Winter 2003, p. 34, "Supplicants, Ethics, and
> > Antibiotics"). Mr. Moore acknowledges that this is a
> > difficult issue ("a hard one"), but in most cases "the
> > fish in question is abundant where it can be found, but
> > its habitat is disappearing . . .". He concludes that he
> > sees "no harm in removing a dozen or so specimens,"
> > although he concedes that a collector should be aware
> > of how collecting "might impact a given population."
> >
> > The designation Of Special Concern (OSC) is
> > commonly used by state agencies and professional
> > organizations to describe species that appear to be in
> > trouble but for which definitive data are lacking (that
> > are rare, endemic, disjunct, threatened or endangered
> > throughout all or part of their range, or are in need of
> > further research, using Natural Heritage Program
> > terminology). The American Fisheries Society now
> > prefers the term Vulnerable over OSC (see Musick,
> > 1999 and Warren et al., 2000). OSC is also often used
> > at a local/regional level for federal candidate species-
> > those being considered for Threatened or Endangered
> > status under the Endangered Species Act but that have
> > not yet completed the legal process.
> >
> > It is generally accepted within the conservation
> > community that endangered species laws are seldom
> > applied in advance of real problems, that species only
> > acquire legal protection when they are in serious trouble.
> > Official designations are unfortunately reactive, not
> > proactive or pre-emptive. The tortuous and torturous
> > legal process by which a species receives official
> > protection gives such status primarily to species on the
> > brink of extinction, often too late to accomplish much
> > good (see Christopher Scharpf 's Summer 2000 AC
> > chronicle of events surrounding the listing of the
> > Alabama sturgeon for an excellent case study). As a
> > result, the lists created by professional societies and
> > state agencies, which carry little or no real legal weight
> > or penalties, are always longer than those produced by
> > federal governments (e. g., Warren et al., 2000). "Of
> > Special Concern" means someone is waving a red flag,
> > that we think there's a problem but we don't have
> > enough information to know for sure.
> >
> > It is naive at best to expect collectors to first do an
> > adequate assessment of population size and status
> > before collecting; academic, state, and federal agencies
> > with their trained biologists find this a challenging
> > task. Imperiled species that lack legal protection-
> > meaning the vast majority for which we lack such
> > unequivocal data on population status and decline-
> > therefore become prime targets for exploitation, made
> > more desirable to aquarists because of the known rarity
> > proclaimed by the OSC designation. It is irresponsible
> > (and hence unethical) of those who claim to be concerned
> > about protecting biodiversity to assume that one does
> > "no harm in removing a dozen or so specimens" of a
> > species that may be in trouble. This is a presumption
> > of no effect in the face of incomplete evidence. It stands
> > in direct contradiction to the Precautionary Principle,
> > that the wisest course of action to take where evidence
> > suggests a problem is First of All, Do No Harm.
> >
> > There are plenty of beautiful, fascinating, challenging,
> > unimperiled species around to keep in aquaria
> > without potentially contributing to the problem of
> > species declines.
> >
> > Gene Helfman
> > University of Georgia
> > helfman_at_sparc.ecology.uga.edu
> > Scharpf, C. 2000. Politics, science, and the fate of
> > the Alabama sturgeon. American Currents 26 (3)
> > [Summer]: 6-14.
> > Musick, J. A. 1999. Criteria to define extinction
> > risk in marine fishes: the American Fisheries Society
> > initiative. Fisheries 24 (12): 6-14.
> > Warren, M. L., Jr. and 11 others. 2000. Diversity,
> > distribution, and conservation status of the native
> > freshwater fishes of the southern United States.
> > Fisheries 25 (10): 7-31
> >
> >
> > "D. Martin Moore responds:"
> > American Currents, Summer 2003
> >
> > It was a bit presumptuous of me to believe that I
> > could address this issue in a single paragraph, which
> > was then subject to further editorial truncation. Indeed,
> > I suspect that an entire issue of AC would not suffice to
> > explore the issue of aquarium ethics in all of its aspects.
> > Dr. Helfman has done a good job of addressing some
> > of the pitfalls of collecting (an unfortunate terminology,
> > as we shall see) species that are considered "vulnerable"
> > or "of special concern." But my question was whether it
> > is ever ethical for aquarists to remove these fishes from
> > the wild, and his response is "No" and "Never," and
> > this is a position that I simply do not accept.
> >
> > Dr. Helfman presents the Precautionary Principle
> > ("First of All, Do No Harm") as a litmus test. Aside
> > from the fact that this is an impossible standard
> > (mankind's daily existence causes harm), it is one which
> > the academic community itself does not practice.
> > Population and life history studies that may primarily
> > serve to generate statistical data points result in the
> > capture and preservation of hundreds, even thousands,
> > of potentially imperiled specimens. Some public aquaria
> > needing display animals dip their nets into the pool as
> > well. There is no question that these activities are
> > potentially harmful (i.e., the impact is difficult or
> > impossible to assess), but the danger is balanced
> > against the benefits of public education and awareness,
> > and a better understanding of the target species.
> >
> > I take note that Dr. Helfman does not directly
> > state that he considers these efforts at information
> > gathering by ichthyologists to be ethical either, but he
> > does fling a few barbs at hobbyists in particular, stating
> > "It is naive at best to expect collectors to first do an
> > adequate assessment of population size and status
> > before collecting; academic, state, and federal agencies
> > with their trained biologists find this a challenging
> > task" and "Imperiled species . . . therefore become
> > prime targets for exploitation, made more desirable to
> > aquarists because of the known rarity proclaimed by
> > the OSC designation." The first statement seems to
> > sanction destructive information gathering techniques
> > by presumably qualified professionals (which is not
> > always the case either), while dismissing the hobbyist
> > (whom I would refer to as an amateur naturalist) as a
> > collector of rarities, seemingly motivated by the scarcity
> > of the object of his passion (hence my objection to the
> > term "collecting"). While quite a number of professional
> > biologists have a "Hands Off!" attitude towards
> > their occupationally challenged brethren, many more
> > will point at hobbyists' contributions to the body of
> > knowledge. For example, captive propagation of
> > species that are imperiled or extinct in the wild is an
> > activity primarily engaged in by aquarium aficionados.
> > At the very least, professional fisheries biologists use
> > propagation techniques that were developed by aquarists.
> > Furthermore, amateurs are frequently the most outspoken
> > champions of vulnerable species, fighting to
> > give their concerns air time and print space, and to get
> > educational curricula into our schools. No dyed-in-thewool
> > NANFAn needs to be told this, but those who
> > are unfamiliar with the goals and interests of NANFA's
> > membership need a gentle reminder occasionally.
> >
> > As to Dr. Helfman's observation that collectors
> > are unable to "do an adequate assessment of population
> > size and status," he is largely correct. Instead of doing
> > firsthand research, amateurs are more likely to rely
> > upon published data when deciding the ethics of
> > sampling a given species. Most also utilize their relationship
> > with experienced professionals as well in order to
> > make an informed decision. One of the most important
> > functions of NANFA is to bring these two groups
> > together for the exchange of information and the pursuit
> > of common goals. The depiction of aquarists as environmental
> > tomb raiders is simply inaccurate. No conscientious
> > amateur would remove fishes from their habitat
> > against the specific advice of his professional colleagues,
> > or against his better judgment. Aquarists should not
> > capture fishes indiscriminately, but instead use the best
> > information available to make a wise and ethical decision.
> -
> > /"Unless stated otherwise, comments made on this list do not necessarily
> > / reflect the beliefs or goals of the North American Native Fishes
> > / Association"
> > / This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes
> Association
> > / nanfa_at_aquaria.net. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the
word
> > / subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email
to
> > / nanfa-request_at_aquaria.net. For a digest version, send the command to
> > / nanfa-digest-request_at_aquaria.net instead.
> > / For more information about NANFA, visit our web page,
> http://www.nanfa.org
-- > /"Unless stated otherwise, comments made on this list do not necessarily > / reflect the beliefs or goals of the North American Native Fishes > / Association" > / This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes Association > / nanfa_at_aquaria.net. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word > / subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to > / nanfa-request_at_aquaria.net. For a digest version, send the command to > / nanfa-digest-request_at_aquaria.net instead. > / For more information about NANFA, visit our web page, http://www.nanfa.org /----------------------------------------------------------------------------- /"Unless stated otherwise, comments made on this list do not necessarily / reflect the beliefs or goals of the North American Native Fishes / Association" / This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes Association / nanfa_at_aquaria.net. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word / subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to / nanfa-request_at_aquaria.net. For a digest version, send the command to / nanfa-digest-request_at_aquaria.net instead. / For more information about NANFA, visit our web page, http://www.nanfa.org