Arkansas is one of the states that currently does not have legal protection
for SOSC's. We have a list that we use for reviewing request for Scientific
Collection Permits, and we require justification before allow researchers to
take SOSC's for scientific studies. However, the general public with a
fishing license are not restricted from such take. We make this distinction
because of impact magnitude - an aquarist taking 6 fish is much different than
a researcher putting 100 in a jar (and I put my share of fish in jars, so I am
not knocking the value of ichthyological collections).
In fact, there is a wide range of status included on our SOSC list - from
federal candidate species endemic to small areas that we don't think should be
taken at all, to endemics that are dirt common within their range, to
wide-ranging species that are rarely collected and we just don't know much
about. So as far as providing guidance to fish enthusiasts that want to limit
their potential for impacting SOSC's, I'd have to agree that the call would
need to be made on and individual species basis.
Brian Wagner
Nongame Aquatics Biologist
Arkansas Game & Fish Commission
----Original Message----
>
>Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 10:46:22 -0500
>From: John Bongiovanni <bongi_at_cox-internet.com>
>Subject: NANFA-- SOSC was Bluenose shiner news
>
>Its my turn to weigh in! This issue seems to have grown from a simple rumor.
I think NANFA should take a stand on the collection of "species of special
>concern (interest)" regardless of the legal definition found from
state-to-state.
>
>As part of the NANFA bylaws, responsible collecting/sampling is called for.
In the case of SOSC, I think that the organization should help the membership
>identify what responsible behavior is. I think the stand should be properly
researched and the conclusions be presented to the membership and then
>published. NANFA is not just an organization of hobbyists (I hope) but an
organization that is committed to maintaining biodiversity and ecological
>excellence and all that means. A moratorium on collecting a SOSC should be
issued only after the species has met certain NANFA criteria that have been
>agreed upon by the membership. That criteria should include (but not limited
to):
>
>Adherence to existing laws of each state
>Reflect the Goals of NANFA
>Reflect the bylaws of NANFA
>Reflect the consensus of the NANFA membership (boy is that a tough one!)>
>
>I know that we get in heated arguments over the role of government,
environmental laws etc. Nongame Fish are our passion. Who better to sound
out with a
>united voice on issues regarding the objects of our passions. We also need
to decide, at some point, whether we would prefer to see the fish in our
>aquariums or in nature.
>
>John
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
/"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