Steffen
> Von: "Nick Zarlinga" <njz_at_clevelandmetroparks.com>
> Antworten an: nanfa_at_aquaria.net
> Datum: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 07:25:50 -0500
> An: <nanfa_at_aquaria.net>
> Betreff: RE: NANFA--institutions-genetics again and predators- Collecting
> ethics
>
> That is where the idealist in me comes in :). However the point of all of
> this is who should be allowed to be able to hold the repositories of species
> which are declining. My stance is that you have to be able to prove
> dedication, responsibility and a committment- long term committment to these
> species. The purpose of these insititutions is to generate money for the
> conservation and eduaction of these species. The purpose of the hobbyist is
> for the enjoyment of the animals. Again, there are fantastic hobbyists who
> have demonstrated this but they are certainly the exception to the rule. (I
> consider myself just a slightly above average hobbyist, certainly not
> anywhere near exceptional!) I mantain that these institutions whose lively
> hood exists because of these reasons are the ones more inclined to provide
> for the oftentimes demanding needs of these species. I do not believe that
> just because you are a hobbyist (ie not one that gets paid for a living
> doing this) that you absolutely can not have these species. But, I do
> believe that the hobbyists that can accept this responsibility are very few.
> So, protecting these species from collecting is just *one facet* of
> providing protection for these species. But, as others have said, much more
> (or simply something?) needs to be done to preserve the habitat from those
> (people and industries) which rape it.
>
> I guess I should also add this too, I believe that the institution who wants
> to keep these species has to be held to certain standards too. Not just
> because this is its business should it be permitted to keep these species.
> Maybe this is the missing piece of the puzzle here?
>
> Nick Zarlinga
> Aquarium Biologist
> Cleveland Metroparks Zoo
> 216.661.6500 ext 4485
>
>
>> <)> -----Original Message-----
>> <)> From: owner-nanfa_at_aquaria.net
>> <)> On Behalf
>> <)> Of Stan Perkins
>> <)> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 12:02 AM
>> <)> To: nanfa_at_aquaria.net
>> <)> Subject: Re: NANFA--genetics again and predators-
>> <)> Collecting ethics
>> <)>
>> <)>
>> <)> Nick,
>> <)> I find it strange that you as a member of the
>> <)> zoological profession should
>> <)> make a statement like this! The current rational
>> <)> for the existance of zoos
>> <)> is their ability to act as repositories of species
>> <)> that may be endangered or
>> <)> extinct in the wild. I am aware of dozens of
>> <)> programs envolving zoos in
>> <)> which the idea is to raise the animals in the zoo
>> <)> and then release them into
>> <)> the wild as soon as protected habitat is
>> <)> available. (Lion Tamarinds -
>> <)> Houston Zoo) I know that the genetic or rather
>> <)> adaptic argument is being
>> <)> used as a counter charge to these programs but
>> <)> usually it is PETA that I
>> <)> hear them or PHD's outside the zoo field.
>> <)> It is an interesting comment that seems to mean
>> <)> more in some species and
>> <)> less in others. I was aware of the problems of
>> <)> species that feed on snails
>> <)> and shellfish but a good aquarist can overcome
>> <)> that by providing a varied
>> <)> diet encorporating these items. The biggest
>> <)> problem is lack of knowledge
>> <)> about the long term husbandry of most species.
>> <)> The search for this or any
>> <)> knowledge about a species should be a priority.
>> <)> This can come in many forms
>> <)> and from many sources.
>> <)>
>> <)> Stan Perkins
>> <)> ----- Original Message -----
>> <)> From: "Nick Zarlinga" <njz_at_clevelandmetroparks.com>
>> <)> To: <nanfa_at_aquaria.net>
>> <)> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 6:03 AM
>> <)> Subject: RE: NANFA--genetics again and predators-
>> <)> Collecting ethics
>> <)>
>> <)>
>> <)> > ><)> Genetic loss: I am convinced that this is
>> <)> > ><)> overestimated by far as amphibia
>> <)> > ><)> and fish are generally highly
>> <)> stable to inbreeding
>> <)> > ><)> and even transbreeding
>> <)> > ><)> (the green-frogs e.g. and the
>> <)> cleptones). These
>> <)> > ><)> animals can be bred healthy
>> <)> > ><)> even in-line for many generations. genetic
>> <)> > ><)> isolation and inbreeding (lack of
>> <)> > ><)> gene exchange) are found in mostly every
>> <)> > ><)> salamander and newts. Scientist can
>> <)> > ><)> even tell local populations from
>> <)> each other. And
>> <)> > ><)> they like it when
>> <)> > ><)> "natiralist" transfer specimen to different
>> <)> > ><)> locations to "save" them. They
>> <)> > ><)> may crass the entire population by
>> <)> that. So from
>> <)> > ><)> my point the taking of a
>> <)> > ><)> little of the so highly precious
>> <)> genetic diversity
>> <)> > ><)> doesn4t matter at all.
>> <)> > ><)> Otherwise most of the amphibians
>> <)> would already be
>> <)> > ><)> extinct. To them its
>> <)> > ><)> natural.
>> <)> >
>> <)> > I don't see how you can say that genetic loss
>> <)> can be overestimated. Yes,
>> <)> > thes animals can be line bred and be healthy for
>> <)> generations, but what
>> <)> about
>> <)> > the adaptive advantages that these animals need
>> <)> to survive in the wild?
>> <)> By
>> <)> > captive breeding for wild release, we are
>> <)> essentially playing God. We are
>> <)> > only selecting for things that we think are
>> <)> important, not what may be
>> <)> > important for survival in the wild. We can not
>> <)> know all the selective
>> <)> > pressures that go on in an ecosystem.
>> <)> >
>> <)> > ><)> Removing any specimens reduces
>> <)> > ><)> > genetic diversity in the system
>> <)> that animals are in.
>> <)> > ><)> That is exactly what predators do
>> <)> to them. What to
>> <)> > ><)> do? Declining their
>> <)> > ><)> permit? What makes the difference is that
>> <)> > ><)> predators usually only take what
>> <)> > ><)> they need.
>> <)> >
>> <)> > Yes, they remove genetic diversity from the
>> <)> system, however that is what
>> <)> we
>> <)> > call natural selection. It has a purpose and
>> <)> contributes to the evolution
>> <)> > of the species.
>> <)> >
>> <)> > ><)> > For arguments sake, if we were to allow
>> <)> > ><)> hobbyists to have these species,
>> <)> > ><)> > should there be a screening
>> <)> process? What would
>> <)> > ><)> the requirements be? I'd
>> <)> > ><)> > be interested in hearing anyones
>> <)> comments on
>> <)> > ><)> this specifically.
>> <)> > ><)> Why not? As in all parts of life - if I want
>> <)> > ><)> something I have to do
>> <)> > ><)> something. The requirements could
>> <)> be agreed upon
>> <)> > ><)> interdisciplinary. We do
>> <)> > ><)> this in Germany not only for
>> <)> endangered species.
>> <)> > ><)> There are regulations for
>> <)> > ><)> maintaining species, for showing
>> <)> qualification in
>> <)> > ><)> care and transport. Not
>> <)> >
>> <)> > And finally, you are creating more work and
>> <)> bogging down an already taxed
>> <)> > system.
>> <)> >
>> <)> > Nick Zarlinga
>> <)> > Aquarium Biologist
>> <)> > Cleveland Metroparks Zoo
>> <)> > 216.661.6500 ext 4485
>> <)> >
>> <)> >
>> <)> > ><)> -----Original Message-----
>> <)> > ><)> From: owner-nanfa_at_aquaria.net
>> <)> > ><)> On Behalf
>> <)> > ><)> Of Steffen Hellner
>> <)> > ><)> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 12:14 PM
>> <)> > ><)> To: nanfa_at_aquaria.net
>> <)> > ><)> Subject: Re: NANFA-- Collecting ethics
>> <)> > ><)>
>> <)> > ><)>
>> <)> > ><)> > Steffen, we can go toe to toe on
>> <)> this as you
>> <)> > ><)> have effectively done, but the
>> <)> > ><)> > fact remains that we need to deal
>> <)> with reality.
>> <)> > ><)> In the grand scheme of
>> <)> > ><)> > things, hobbyists don't have the
>> <)> knowledge or
>> <)> > ><)> the knowhow to deal with
>> <)> > ><)> these
>> <)> > ><)> > species that we are talking with.
>> <)> Again, some
>> <)> > ><)> do, but we need to look at
>> <)> > ><)> > things as a whole and deal with it in that
>> <)> > ><)> fashion. No, not all biologists
>> <)> > ><)> > have the passion, but I believe
>> <)> that it is much
>> <)> > ><)> more than you are giving
>> <)> > ><)> > credit for. By going into biology as a
>> <)> > ><)> discipline, you know that you are
>> <)> > ><)> > not going to be making loads of
>> <)> money. You do
>> <)> > ><)> it for the passion and the
>> <)> > ><)> > interest.
>> <)> > ><)> Or for the safe employment status
>> <)> (over here), or
>> <)> > ><)> because it is not that
>> <)> > ><)> stressing a sassembly lines or big
>> <)> companies. When
>> <)> > ><)> young I thought it is as
>> <)> > ><)> you say but when I started studying
>> <)> biology I
>> <)> > ><)> found most professors, and
>> <)> > ><)> students having serious deficits in
>> <)> passion and
>> <)> > ><)> motivation. That4s one
>> <)> > ><)> reason why I quit it. The "biology
>> <)> business" as I
>> <)> > ><)> encountered it was not
>> <)> > ><)> where I like to be part of.
>> <)> Individuals excepted,
>> <)> > ><)> of course.
>> <)> > ><)>
>> <)> > ><)> > Again, certain hobbyists may be
>> <)> great at it, but
>> <)> > ><)> how do you weed
>> <)> > ><)> > out those that really are good
>> <)> from those that
>> <)> > ><)> *think* they really are
>> <)> > ><)> good?
>> <)> > ><)> That4s one of the major problems, I
>> <)> agree. But
>> <)> > ><)> applications won4t be that
>> <)> > ><)> much I think. Looking at the papers for some
>> <)> > ><)> states I found they have nice
>> <)> > ><)> hurdles built in to keep
>> <)> spontaneous applicants
>> <)> > ><)> off to a certain degree. I
>> <)> > ><)> support restrictions in permit as far as one
>> <)> > ><)> should state the purpose of his
>> <)> > ><)> intensions collecting a species.
>> <)> > ><)>
>> <)> > ><)> > You make the comment that you
>> <)> "Can4t see the
>> <)> > ><)> protection by limiting
>> <)> > ><)> > hobbyists and letting the
>> <)> industry go on with
>> <)> > ><)> pollution and destruction."
>> <)> > ><)> > You are taking it personally and
>> <)> I believe that
>> <)> > ><)> you are not looking at the
>> <)> > ><)> > best interest of the species as a whole.
>> <)> > ><)> Removing any specimens reduces
>> <)> > ><)> > genetic diversity in the system
>> <)> that animals are in.
>> <)> > ><)> That is exactly what predators do
>> <)> to them. What to
>> <)> > ><)> do? Declining their
>> <)> > ><)> permit? What makes the difference is that
>> <)> > ><)> predators usually only take what
>> <)> > ><)> they need.
>> <)> > ><)>
>> <)> > ><)> Genetic loss: I am convinced that this is
>> <)> > ><)> overestimated by far as amphibia
>> <)> > ><)> and fish are generally highly
>> <)> stable to inbreeding
>> <)> > ><)> and even transbreeding
>> <)> > ><)> (the green-frogs e.g. and the
>> <)> cleptones). These
>> <)> > ><)> animals can be bred healthy
>> <)> > ><)> even in-line for many generations. genetic
>> <)> > ><)> isolation and inbreeding (lack of
>> <)> > ><)> gene exchange) are found in mostly every
>> <)> > ><)> salamander and newts. Scientist can
>> <)> > ><)> even tell local populations from
>> <)> each other. And
>> <)> > ><)> they like it when
>> <)> > ><)> "natiralist" transfer specimen to different
>> <)> > ><)> locations to "save" them. They
>> <)> > ><)> may crass the entire population by
>> <)> that. So from
>> <)> > ><)> my point the taking of a
>> <)> > ><)> little of the so highly precious
>> <)> genetic diversity
>> <)> > ><)> doesn4t matter at all.
>> <)> > ><)> Otherwise most of the amphibians
>> <)> would already be
>> <)> > ><)> extinct. To them its
>> <)> > ><)> natural.
>> <)> > ><)>
>> <)> > ><)> > By allowing only a
>> <)> > ><)> > certain number of animals out by
>> <)> issuing permits
>> <)> > ><)> is a way to reduce that
>> <)> > ><)> > genetic loss by taking an
>> <)> educated stance- you
>> <)> > ><)> only allow a small number of
>> <)> > ><)> > animals out to those who have the
>> <)> best chance to
>> <)> > ><)> learn the most for the
>> <)> > ><)> > species as a whole. The rest of
>> <)> the equation
>> <)> > ><)> should be protecting the
>> <)> > ><)> > habitat and all of the *other*
>> <)> stressors in it.
>> <)> > ><)> I respect your opinion,
>> <)> > ><)> but
>> <)> > ><)> > I think that you are not looking
>> <)> at things in
>> <)> > ><)> reality. We are talking
>> <)> > ><)> > numbers here, plain and simple.
>> <)> > ><)> Yes, I am talking of numbers, rather small
>> <)> > ><)> numbers. Keep just some of these
>> <)> > ><)> idiotic fishermen and offroad
>> <)> driver off and there
>> <)> > ><)> would be hundreds of e.g.
>> <)> > ><)> hellbenders saced for science and
>> <)> hobbyists. I am
>> <)> > ><)> absolutely convinced to
>> <)> > ><)> not only look at this from my
>> <)> personal interest
>> <)> > ><)> but at reality. Your
>> <)> > ><)> argumentation is like cutting some
>> <)> leafes from the
>> <)> > ><)> tree rather than going to
>> <)> > ><)> the roots. We all have to decide on
>> <)> an at least
>> <)> > ><)> national scale to either go
>> <)> > ><)> for unlimited industrial development and
>> <)> > ><)> consumption of resources (material,
>> <)> > ><)> ground, water, air) or to change
>> <)> paradigm to a
>> <)> > ><)> substantial limitation of
>> <)> > ><)> what is called "growth". This in
>> <)> fact would take
>> <)> > ><)> much of each and all of us.
>> <)> > ><)> This will not come, world will go
>> <)> on as it is. And
>> <)> > ><)> there will always be a
>> <)> > ><)> group available to blame for the
>> <)> situation and to
>> <)> > ><)> show "we are doinmg
>> <)> > ><)> something". Yes, but inconsequently
>> <)> and often at
>> <)> > ><)> the wrong end of the
>> <)> > ><)> ladder.
>> <)> > ><)>
>> <)> > ><)> > For arguments sake, if we were to allow
>> <)> > ><)> hobbyists to have these species,
>> <)> > ><)> > should there be a screening
>> <)> process? What would
>> <)> > ><)> the requirements be? I'd
>> <)> > ><)> > be interested in hearing anyones
>> <)> comments on
>> <)> > ><)> this specifically.
>> <)> > ><)> Why not? As in all parts of life - if I want
>> <)> > ><)> something I have to do
>> <)> > ><)> something. The requirements could
>> <)> be agreed upon
>> <)> > ><)> interdisciplinary. We do
>> <)> > ><)> this in Germany not only for
>> <)> endangered species.
>> <)> > ><)> There are regulations for
>> <)> > ><)> maintaining species, for showing
>> <)> qualification in
>> <)> > ><)> care and transport. Not
>> <)> > ><)> perfect still but its improving and
>> <)> more and more
>> <)> > ><)> people take part. This is
>> <)> > ><)> accepted within scientists,
>> <)> hobbyist, politicians,
>> <)> > ><)> and the bureaucracy. But
>> <)> > ><)> we are still far away from
>> <)> perfection. At first
>> <)> > ><)> many hobbyists were afraid
>> <)> > ><)> of being over-regulated, other
>> <)> interest groups the
>> <)> > ><)> other way around. Todays
>> <)> > ><)> situation is fine for all parties
>> <)> and for the aim
>> <)> > ><)> of protecting all species,
>> <)> > ><)> endangered or not.
>> <)> > ><)>
>> <)> > ><)> Steffen
>> <)> > ><)> ---------------------------
>> <)> > ><)> /"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
> /"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