Chip in SC
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark [SMTP:nanfa_at_jonahsaquarium.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 9:39 AM
> To: nanfa_at_aquaria.net
> Subject: Re: NANFA-- Bluenose shiner news
>
> At 11:03 PM -0500 9/8/03, Irate Mormon wrote:
> >...Some of you may gather from my "point-counterpoint" dialog with
> >Gene Helfman (I think it's
> >in this issue of A/C, unless Chris decided it was too controversial)
> >that I am gung-ho about collecting "special concern" species
> >which do not enjoy legal protection. This is not the case at all,
> >as I hope I communicated in my rebuttal...
>
>
>
> Just skimming the list a little. The phrase ""special concern"
> species which do not enjoy legal protection" caught my attention. I
> know that Irate knows the difference, but some readers may not. He
> is refering to rules of the state of Mississippi, which I am not
> really familiar with, but which apparently do not provide legal
> protection to fishes that fall under the "special concern" status
> category. The reader should not conclude from Irate's comments that
> species of special concern do not have legal protection in any state.
> For instance, the state of Tennessee provides for legal protection
> for all categories of imperilled status from endangered to special
> interest, which is the term they use instead of special concern.
> Other states, such as West Virginia, last time I checked, do not
> afford legal protection to any of their designated categories of
> imperilled fishes. They do maintain such listings, but their agency
> or legislature has not seen fit to impose legal sanctions. Of
> course, just because they do not offer special protection for
> imperilled species, does not mean that it's a free for all and
> anything goes. They still have laws governing the take and use of
> wild fishes. And, as always, please be very careful and do not do
> anything, legal or illegal that will lead to the damage of wild fish
> stocks. I hope that Pt welaka is not suffering from over collection
> by hobbyists, researchers or anyone else. If it is, then shame,
> shame, shame on those responsible. As native fish enthusiasts, we
> must be the first out the gate to defend and protect wild fish. I by
> no means claim to have a perfect record in this area, but I feel
> remorse for any overzealous collecting that I may, or may not, have
> done.
>
> --
> Mark
> Ohio
> USA
> <))><
> ----
> /"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