RE: NANFA-L-- topics for discussion

Subject: RE: NANFA-L-- topics for discussion
From: Bob Sinclair (
Date: Tue Aug 31 2004 - 12:26:52 CDT

Dr. Dave:

Good questions. Faced with similar thoughts, it appears that many
formerly active posters have simply decided it's just not worth the
effort ... unless the subjects are limited to "biology, captive care
and breeding, collection, and conservation of North American
native fishes, as well as NANFA-related business and news items."


Bob Sinclair
Santa Barbara CA
  -----Original Message-----
Dave McNeely
  Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 9:30 AM
  Subject: NANFA-L-- topics for discussion

  I hope this inquiry will be forgiven in the spirit of trying to understand
what is permitted and what is not. I guess I hadn't even realized that
there has been an effort with the reincarnation of the list to control
communication until some other participants raised the question. In making
this inquiry, I am simply speaking as one who wishes to further
understanding, and I am in no way offering anything negative regarding
anyone, whether those who developed list policy and procedure, or those who
have questioned same. So, what follows is copied from the notice welcoming
participants to the list:

  "Accepted topics are biology, captive care and breeding, collection, and
conservation of North
  American native fishes, as well as NANFA-related business and news items.
Unacceptable topics are
  virus alerts, chain letters, jokes, and personal musings on politics,
religion, creationism vs.
  evolution, and other off-topic, potentially divisive subjects.

  Topics not recommended include politics and arguments about the
environment, environmental
  legislation, endangered species laws vs. property rights, and the role(s)
of individuals, states,
  and federal agencies in conservation efforts. Many of these topics have
been discussed many times in
  the past on this list. All of them are almost guaranteed to generate more
heat than light. News
  items on these topics, however, are welcome."

  Now to the question: If conservation is an appropriate topic, given that
politics and roles of individuals, states, and federal agencies are often at
least as important to conservation as is science, when would discussion of
these matters be germane to the furtherance of conservation, and would they
be allowed in the context?

  Re: Creationism vs. evolution. I may have been "guilty" of posting
something related to this topic in the past -- I just don't remember. A
conservation question that depends on understanding the evolution of a
population or species may arise. Suppose, just suppose, someone takes
offense to the evolutionary explanation of a conservation concern (or Heaven
forbid, the politically charged concept of the "evolutionarily significant
unit," a conservation approach developed by federal agencies and relevant to
conservation of the fishes we care about) . What do we do?

  Here's wishin' you "good fishin'.

  Dave in Okieland, home o' the "red dirt darter."

  David L. McNeely, Ph.D.
  Professor of Biology
  Langston University
  P.O. Box 1500
  Langston, Oklahoma 73050
  phone: 405-466-6025
  fax: 405-466-3307
  web page:

  "Are we there yet?" (author unknown)

/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes
/ Association (NANFA). Comments made on this list do not necessarily
/ reflect the beliefs or goals of NANFA. For more information about NANFA,
/ visit . Please make sure all posts to nanfa-l are
/ consistent with the guidelines as per
/ To subscribe,
/ unsubscribe, or get help, visit the NANFA email list home page and
/ archive-in-

: Wed Sep 29 2004 - 12:24:26 CDT