> I was somewhat surpised by Peter's implied statement that there is
> little prestige attached.
I think that anywhere outside of higher academia this type of work is
thought of quite highly. Just an unfortunate annoying quirk of academia.
> I guess I thought that these state books were important enough so that
> they would be well funded so that the researchers' time could be largely
State books are extremely important, indeed that is how you get the
majority of the information in a form that is accessible to the majority
of people who need to know that information. A good state fish book is
probably the greatest resource a state can have. You have to remember
though, the majority of fishes in state fish books are not game fishes,
and most state money comes from game fishes. Thus who is going to pay for
it?
> Like a lot of hobbyists, I don't have the time or money to read
> professional journals, so state fish books are my main souce of
> information.
Outside of academia and Chris Scharpf I doubt very many people read all
that much in the way of journals, most fish biologists who work in the
real world probably don't track more than 3-4 journals. So you aren't
that unusual,-in-least relative to your reading habits. :-)
Cheers
Peter Unmack
Canadian River, Oklahoma
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------
/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes
/ Association (NANFA). Comments made on this list do not necessarily
/ reflect the beliefs or goals of NANFA. For more information about NANFA,
/ visit http://www.nanfa.org Please make sure all posts to nanfa-l are
/ consistent with the guidelines as per
/ http://www.nanfa.org/guidelines.shtml To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get
/ help, visit the NANFA email list home page and archive at
/ http://www.nanfa.org/email.shtml