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