Re: [RML] angfa and aquaconservation--was all kinds of other crap

peter.unmack at ASU.Edu
Thu, 05 Feb 1998 10:56:50 -0700 (MST)

On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, Adrian R. Tappin wrote:
> At 18:40 4/02/98 -0700, Unmack wrote:

> Its about time ANGFA stopped hiding
> behind this very thin turquoise vail of conservation

What do you see it hiding from and why?

> Like anything of course these aims could be construed anyway one wanted too
> but primarily ANGFA was started by fishkeepers for fishkeepers.

Groups evolve yunno. No one has said ANGFA shouldn't be fishkeeping
orientated and it isn't likely to ever not be. Keeping fish and having an
environmental conscience are not mutually exclusive. My whole reason for
pushing this issue is I think ANGFA can only benefit by demonstrating that
it has an environmental conscience and is not just a group of people who
go out and rape and pillage habitats just so they can keep a few fish at
home. Sure, some members will always do this but at least the club could
take a stand against such activity and demonstate that it is a responsible
organisation that gives a shit about what it enjoys. I am concerned that
ANGFA hasn't done more to educate it's members about the risks involved
with it's activities. Every club should make it's members aware of the
risks and responsibilities involved in their activities. The only way to
overcome this risks is by education. Hence why I am pushing for a policy
statment on that issue. ANGFA has an interest in the continued existance
of the fishes that started the group. By that definition I'd argue that
is has always been conservation orientated. You just don't like the word
conservation. Most of this whole discussion is largely semantics based
around the word conservation. Would you disagree with what I have
outlined above Adrian?

> >Native Fish Australia specifically doesn't call itself an angling group,
> >it's focus is conservation orientated and many of it's actions follow
> >along conservation lines for both big and small native fishes. Their
> >membership is cheaper too. :-) ;-)
>
> Well there you go, perhaps they would appreciate your membership as well!

They have since 1985.

> As for pissing dogs, they should all be destroyed too - their not native to
> any country and I'm sure I could find a Conservation Group that hates Dogs,
> even yapping little wimps like you Peter!

Woof woof woof woof woof.

Tootles

Peter Unmack