Re: tularosa revisited

peter.unmack at asu.edu
Fri, 29 Mar 1996 09:28:30 -0700 (MST)

On Wed, 20 Mar 1996, Andrew Boyd wrote:

[snip]
>
> To come at last to the point, IMHO amateur aquarists may have very
> little to do with conservation/preservation, despite all the good
> intentions in the world.

I think that it is also important to recognise when talking about
"ameteur" aquarists and conservation, that very few aquarists (relative to
all the aquarists in the world) are suitable as breeders for
conservation purposes. This is because they either lack the necessary
fish keeping experience, interest, long term commitment, adequate number
of aquariums, etc, etc. My point is that most aquarists will never make
a contribution. I think we are really talking about a small group of
really dedicated fish keepers who need to be brought together if anything
is going to be achieved. However, before they are brought together, I
think that better ground rules need to be developed as to which species
aught to be kept by aquarists for conservation purposes. Too many people
seem to want to go off on a tangent that is of little overall benefit, ie
I feel resourses need to be funneled into the most critical areas which
by and large have not been defined.

In addition, aquarists don't need to keep fish in captivity to contribute
to fish conservation. Anyone can undertake conservation work on fishes
in the field. This is probably a more appropriate contribution that
"most" aquarists could easily make if they were made more aware of local
opportunities that they could be involved in.

Tootles

Peter