Re: NANFA-- federal listing process

R. W. Wolff (
Wed, 8 Nov 2000 00:57:25 -0600

Jay, you are right on that account. The side that gets me is once listed,
usually there it sits. Like I said before, the agencies lack funds and
manpower. meanwhile the specie listed could have been declining or bouncing
back. That is why I believe it would be good for those agencies to put out
"friendly feelers" so that people like us could contribute what we see when
collecting, fishing or whatever- a free data base. then when funds come up,
these hot bed areas could be explored. Or, if a specie appeared to be
suddenly dropping in numbers ( a fece spill?) it could be immediately
checked out, and those responsible fined for breaking current laws. If this
is not checked out, who knows what the cause was but here say. I know that
the listing works like much of the good things in our government, slow but
with purpose ( although some parts of it I don't agree with). One of the
problems is we don't have time, so slow is not an option. Extra eyes in the
field help elevate this. Wisconsin has delisted , or bumped down, to
special concern many species I have found common recently, so I know they
are probably doing there best. All this with a Republican governor , huh?

/"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
/ To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word
/ subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to
/ For a digest version, send the command to
/ instead.
/ For more information about NANFA, visit our web page,