-----Original Message-----
From: peter.unmack at ASU.Edu <peter.unmack at ASU.Edu>
To: rainbowfish at pcug.org.au <rainbowfish at pcug.org.au>
Date: Tuesday, 3 February 1998 3:01
Subject: Re: [RML] Hybridss-marci--now just philosophical garbage
>On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Rob Wager wrote:
>
>> So what is important then?
>
>Now we are getting towards the deeper philosophical crap. :-)
>
>Every one has a different answer to this question as it depends upon
>their perspective. The most important thing to me is to have an intact
>habitat. For humans to persist habitats are going to change, but I think
>efforts can be made to limit these impacts. I think it is important to
>set aside areas that are still relatively pristine. Australia is
>probably one of the luckiest countries in the world in this respect
>interms of aquatic habitats. Non native organisms are to be obliterated
>except cows as I like my hamburgers. :-) Actually, roos are ok, I could
>substitute for them.
>
>Ultimately, I think we just try and do the best we can realising that
>perfection is not a real target to aim for. For me, if someone in the
>future can obtain similar experiences and the same enjoyment out of it
>that I do then we have succeeded. To me, failure is when the only way one
>gets to have similar experiences is via a book outlining how things used
>to be.
>
>For me, it's all about being able to get out into the wilds and view fish
>in their natural habitats. I love nothing better than sitting on the
>banks of Cooper Creek fishing or pulling a seine net, or being in the
>Victorian highlands watching Galaxias fuscus. I wouldn't sit by the same
>stream and watch trout knowing it was supposed to be G. fusucs habitat.
>Part of my whole reason for despising exotic fish is that in the south
>western US you can't go out and watch natural fish populations. Most
>streams have been altered, exotic fishes are everywhere and they dominate
>fish populations and several native species populations are based
>primarily on reintroduced populations. It really sucks, but if that's
>all we can do then I'd rather go out and watch captive raised razorback
>suckers in the wild than to only be able to look at museum specimens.
>
>> Is it the functioning of an ecosystem in a manner
>> that is suitable to human survival. What defines a functioning ecosystem?
>
>What is a functioning ecosystem? Show me one that no longer
>functions. Functions are a human artifact. Nutrient cycling and
>energy flow still continue irrespective of what anyone does to an
>ecosystem. The numbers change but the processes don't really change.
>
>Now I'll bet you really feel you have a much better handle on things. :-)
>
>Tootles
>
>Peter Unmack
>