> Angfa is concerned about the well-being and conservation of Australian
> fishes but not totally exclusive to the enjoyment of the hobby of keeping
> the native fishes of Australia and New Guinea.
No one said it should be exclusive. Obviously there has to be a
responsible balance between conservation and the aquarium hobby. I think
for the most part it achieves this. As Adrain notes, there will always
be a few bad apples who will do things like collect honey blue eyes.
> We do our bit for conservation and at times we only pay lip service.
Is this due to lack of desire though or lack of warm bodies to do it?
> I'll bet both Andrew and
> Peter are guilty of taking more than they needed most times they collected
> and I'm sure they replaced all the weeds and logs back in their original
> places afterwards as well as obliterating their footsteps and collecting
> all their Chip packets etc etc
Footprints I don't worry about, however, I always pick up my own junk and
often that of others. And I always make a note of replacing logs and
other habitat back into the stream if it gets removed. Sure, I think at
times I have taken more fish than I needed, I don't think many folks
could say they haven't. One hopefully learns from their mistakes and
improves their judgement.
> If Peter thinks the members of ANGFA don't get their moneys worth compared
> with other native fish associations then he is as guilty as the rest of us
> for 'throwing good money after bad year after year. I make no apologies for
> our publications or our fees.
That was a joke Bruce and a badly done plug for NFA. For what ANGFA puts
out it is extemely good value for money. I would never seriously argue
otherwise.
> I refuse to abandon any interest in conservation just as I refuse to
> abandon keeping native fish. I would venture to say that the captive
> management of native fishes has contributed more towards the current
> understanding of our fishes than the few sporadic forays into the bush
> published by so-called conservationists who usually don't publish and
> usually overlook fish anyway.
Agree 100%. The greatest crime is not publishing observations/data
whether one is an aquarist or a "scientist".
> if they were true conservationists as Adrian
> suggested they would send all the domestic exotic animals and plants
> (including themselves) back to that big conservation incinerator "down
> below"
Well that just excluded everyone from contention since it would have to
include ourselves too.
> Some of our
> "scientists" and "pseudo-conservationists" could learn a few things from
> hobbyists about how to keep and breed our fish. For that matter they could
> polish up their act when it comes to environmental damage while collecting
> in the field as well as reining in their enthusiasm for massively
> un-neccessary numbers of specimens too !
Obviously you percieve a problem here with how "scientists" conduct their
research relative to the numbers of specimens retained. On what basis do
you make that judgement? How many specimens are sufficient? I want to
understand your logic behind that statement.
> I better stop before I say some of the things I really want to say and
> Adrian publishes them.
Oh common Bruce. I'm sure we can get Adrain to promise not to publish
them. :-)
Tootles
Peter Unmack