> "If we still have common objectives, like being custodians
> of our native fauna, we need each other. If you just want to be "stamp
> collectors" you will just become another hobby group with little or
> no relevance to the understanding of our native fish. You will then
> leave all the policy making to the scientific community without being
> listened to."
>
> This is an insulting statement made by someone that claims he has
>extended his own endeavours by our association. If we choose to be
>"another hobby group" then I see nothing wrong with this and to be
>derided by some scientist somewhere would appear to be a case of
>"professional snobbishness". I think that they would still come running
>when they needed something. >
I'm afraid I have to differ with this opinion. I personally thought it
was a well formulated response by Ivantsoff. I don't think anyone views
ANGFA as stamp collectors. However, I am yet to see many folks admit or
provide solutions to the risk posed by keeping fish outside of their
natural range. That's what I see as part of the fundamental problem. If
I thought ANGFA was a bunch of stamp collectors who put the Australian
environment at risk I would do all I could to lick you all. I happen to
like the Australian fish fauna, I have seen what can happen to major fish
faunas such as
the desert fish of North America. I used to think Australia had big
problems 'til I came here. We really don't realise how lucky Australia
is to have the quality of environment that we do have. Seeing the
situation here has certainly strengthened my resolve to keep Australia
that way. I also enjoy keeping fish and I would dearly love to get my
hands on all the NG gobies and gudgeons that I could, but not if they
posed and unreasonable threat to Australia. I should also point out that
I am not against allowing NG bows into Australia. I would just like to
see some work done to assess their potential threat first.
> I have just checked over the national constitution and the objectives
>of ANGFA as many and various as they are - and I can't see where ANGFA
>has any "common objective" as custodian of our native fauna. What lends
>Ivanstoff to think that he has sole rights to formulate these types of
>policies for the government and the people of Australia. >
Ivanstoff didn't say that by my reading of his posts. Also, reading your
abbrivated consistution/objectives I see a considerable number of
conservation orientated actions listed (as you point out yourself). It was
certainly my impression
that ANGFA sees part of it's role as being a custodian of native fish.
Maybe we are defining our terms differently. My own impression of ANGFA
is that many of it's members are concerned about the future of native
fish and would be proud to be considered as contributing custodians.
ANGFA is not first and foremost a conservation organisation, but I think
it's conservation slant is the reason why it has credibility and respect
and the involvement of some members.
Tootles
Peter Unmack