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

Adrian R. Tappin (atappin at ecn.net.au)
Thu, 05 Feb 1998 16:48:04 +1000

At 18:40 4/02/98 -0700, Unmack wrote:
>On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, Andrew Hamilton wrote:
>
>> Im sorry, I thought that ANGFA was concerned with the well being and
>> conservation of Oz and NG fishes.
>
>Andrew raises a good point here. What do other members think? Should
>ANGFA be just an aquarium society? At present it by and large is just an
>aquarium society although it's journal is far above most clubs
>standards.
>
>Should ANGFA be just an aquarium society and leave conservation alone?
>
>Should ANGFA be an aquarium society and get involved in conservation
>issues?

Yes and No to answer both questions. Its about time ANGFA stopped hiding
behind this very thin turquoise vail of conservation and stuck to the main
aims that it was established for. Those aims were:

. to promote the study of indigenous fishes of Australia and New Guinea;
· to promote the exchange of information regarding the biology of indigenous
fishes;
· to promote good fellowship amongst those people interested in the study of
Australian & New Guinea fishes;
· to publish a magazine or newsletter containing information on the aquarium
care, breeding, biology and study of Australian and New Guinea freshwater
fishes.

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

Along the way this 'Green' influence have tried to take over ANGFA but if
the result of the vote taken on whether we should keep, breed and sell
"smuggled" PNG rainbowfishes at the last Convention was any indication of
what most members think then aquarium keepers still make up the majority.
The whole idea of keeping fishes in captivity is against the principals of
most conservation groups anyway.

The same people who fly the green banner in ANGFA are the very first to rape
and plunder freshwater environments around Australia collecting more and
more fish that don't really need to be collected. Honey Blue-eye are one
fine example. With the numbers collected over the years every man, dog and
cat in Australia should have some in their aquarium.

Conservationists have their role in society although some tend to be
extremists. However, If you are so inclined then go for it and join some
Conservation Group.

>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!

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!

Adrian
...............................................................
Adrian R. Tappin
"Home of the Rainbowfish"
http://www.ecn.net.au/~atappin/home.htm
...............................................................