>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.
>
If you ask me the conservation of native fish and the maintenance of native
fish in aquaria go hand in hand except that the aquariast relys on the
conservation to continue the hobby. Sure, all those hobbiests can sit back
and do nothing about it and then gripe because the fish they see in books
are no longer available to them. There is a saying along the lines of "to
bite your nose to spite your face". Bruce, your involvement with the
various groups is invaluable to the hobby and to the conservation of these
fish, and so is everyone on this list but what about all the others. I
liken this discussion to that of recreational anglers. I love to fish as do
millions of Australians each year but, unlike a lot of people I am
extremely concious of preserving fish stocks. By having an interest in the
sport I feel obliged to fight for the conservation of fish stocks through
whatever means are available to me. If I dont I cant expect to continue to
catch fish. Sorry this discussion is arse about but I think you all get my
drift.
Sure, ANGFA (and other groups and individuals) may be concerned with
aquaria, and by virtue of this it must take some responsibility for
conservation for its own benefit. You can get caught up in the "greeny"
debate but this is not what its about.
There will always be people who rape and pillage, the best thing we can do
is try to minimise the extent. Established organisations generally have the
best infrastructures to accomodate this through its membership and
communication channels.
:-) :-) :-) :-)
Andrew