Ulike yourself, I am living in a part of the U.S. (the desert southwest)
in which I am not "allowed" to keep, let alone collect, the vast majority
of the native fish species. They are almost all either endangered or
threatened. Therefore it seems to me that, to be totally ethical, I would
have to choose the latter option; the total cessation of my hobby. This I
cannot easily do. I work in an aquarium shop, and I have had many a
conversation with people who think that, "since the environment is so
screwed up anyway, and since there are already so many introduced fish ,
what's the big deal if I throw in a few more convicts, etc." Even worse,
I have heard people say that the native fish aren't important, so they
don't see the need to safeguard either them or their habitats. Luckily,
these people are in the vast minority of folks who keep fish.
My solution to this dilemma is to try my best to educate the people who come in
to the shop about the correct way to deal with fish that they no longer want --
that is, to bring them back to the store or euthanize them, but to NEVER
"set them free." As responsible aquarists, we need to do a much better
job of educating and "policing" our own. I do not think that we are doing
all that we could in this respect at the present time. Most of the
well-intentioned "releases" that happen could be prevented if the folks
who did them just knew what the environmental consequenses could be. IMHO
most people do care about the environment and its inhabitants; they are
just ignorant. This, IMHO, is the thing that we should be working on. The
other "option" is not very feasible, and besides, I'd have to give up all
of my 'bows (even the Aussie ones), and that would sorta make my
participation in this very list unnessary. :-) ;-)
Maybe we can find some middle ground?
Julie Zeppieri (RSG) <><