Re: NANFA-L-- Fw: NAS Species Alert - Piaractus brachypomus


Subject: Re: NANFA-L-- Fw: NAS Species Alert - Piaractus brachypomus
dlmcneely-in-lunet.edu
Date: Thu Nov 04 2004 - 15:36:44 CST


It seems that non of the links as typed below work. Try googling Florida Exotic Fishes. That's how I came up with these. The links you get on the first page will include the sites referenced below. I may have mistyped them, but one of them I definitely did not, yet it doesn't work here. They all work fine off the google page. Sorry, Dave

David L. McNeely, Ph.D., Professor of Biology
Langston University; P.O. Box 1500
Langston, OK 73050; email: dlmcneely-in-lunet.edu
telephone: (405) 466-6025; fax: 405) 466-3307
home page http://www.lunet.edu/mcneely

"Where are we going?" "I don't know, are we there yet?"

----- Original Message -----
From: dlmcneely-in-lunet.edu
Date: Thursday, November 4, 2004 3:19 pm
Subject: Re: NANFA-L-- Fw: NAS Species Alert - Piaractus brachypomus

> Moon, you are absolutely right -- honesty is the best policy.
> Sometimes people make statements or claims out of dishonesty.
> Sometimes they make them out of ignorance. Here are some
> references you might want to take a look at:
>
> http://fmnh.ufl.edu/fish/lnNews/flood2004.htm
> http://floridafisheries.com/Fishes/non-native.htm
> http://floridafishes.com/sci-name.html
>
> These references provide numbers and the assessments of scientists
> from the Florida fish and game system and the Florida Museum of
> Natural History, generally credible agencies. According to these
> reports, there are somewhere above 108 species, maybe 130, species
> of exotics in Florida freshwater, as many as 53 of which have
> established breeding populations. the Florida Museum of Natural
> History lists 287 species of fishes as having been recorded in
> Florida freshwaters, but also offers the caveat that many of these
> (I counted over 80) are marine species seldom seen in freshwater
> and not a part of the Florida freshwater fauna in a realistic sense.
>
> The fact that half or more of Florida's freshwater fish fauna
> consists of exotics has been generally accepted in the
> ichthyological community since the 1970s, and if you read the
> references I provided, you will see that the problem is considered
> by the people on the scene in Florida, studying and working to
> conserve the freshwater fishes of the state, to be exactly as you
> claim it is not. You will also see that almost every one of the
> species listed entered Florida through the ornamental fish industy
> and hobby. Some places in Florida, particularly in agriculturally
> stressed and urban waterways, have almost NO native fishes. A few
> non-natives were introduced as food fish or for fishing, including
> a couple of cichlids in recent years in an attempt to find an
> effective biological agent to control some of the rampant and
> highly invasive exotics that had escaped aquaria and the
> ornamental fish ponds and importers in Florida.
>
> I never said that livebearers were infesting mountain streams in
> the Rockies. I said that livebearers are pests in the northern
> Rockies. They are mostly in warm springs. Some of these habitats
> once had native fishes that have been largely eliminated. Some
> small springs and ponds in the desert SW harbor extremely rare
> species with tiny populations. Competition or predation by an
> exotic may simply be the end for them. The exotics in these
> places came from unwise introductions by home aquarists.
>
> Wishing won't make something so. Because I live in Oklahoma, and
> observe when I visit a stream that there are lots of native fishes
> present doesn't mean that introduced exotics are not a problem in
> those streams. Same is true in Florida. BTW, I noticed in the
> list of Florida exotics three species called "pacu." One of them,
> however, was the tambiqui, a species that is not called "pacu" in
> its native Brazil. These species, because of the long-distance
> migration (hundreds of kilometres) included in its life cycle, is
> unlikely to become established, but stranger things have happened.
>
>
> It doesn't end with fishes. A snail that excaped aquaria in Texas
> has now introduced an exotic tapeworm that contributes to the
> endangerment of native pupfish and possibly others in the Pecos R.
> system. That was an aquarium escape.
>
> I also noticed that there were several species of snakehead
> listed. Swamp eels were among the fishes listed. Does my desire
> to keep a pet override society's interest in protecting native
> fauna and prevention of endangerment of the species I want to keep
> in its native country? Can't I be a good citizen, and forego my
> desires, even if I believe that I'm doing no harm. Maybe I can be
> a good example of the citizen who simply says, "Oh, I know it
> wouldn't hurt anything if I had a bluebellied bananafish, but
> there have been so many exotics introduced that I will make sure
> that I don't contribute to the problem, even unintentionally.
> Also, I want to show my support for the hard working agencies that
> attempt to control the problem. Let the bluebellied bananafish
> remain in its native bananafishland, and when I can, if ever, I'll
> go there and see them in their habitat."
>
> Let's not be part of the problem. Let's be part of the solution.
>
> Thanks Moon. Think about it.
>
> Dave
>
> David L. McNeely, Ph.D., Professor of Biology
> Langston University; P.O. Box 1500
> Langston, OK 73050; email: dlmcneely-in-lunet.edu
> telephone: (405) 466-6025; fax: 405) 466-3307
> home page http://www.lunet.edu/mcneely
>
> "Where are we going?" "I don't know, are we there yet?"
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Moontanman-in-aol.com
> Date: Thursday, November 4, 2004 1:45 pm
> Subject: Re: NANFA-L-- Fw: NAS Species Alert - Piaractus brachypomus
>
> > For some reason I seem to be giving the impression I am not
> > against the
> > release of exotics or that I think it's ok in small areas.
> Nothing
> > could be further
> > from the truth, I just take exception to people saying things
> like
> > half the
> > fish in Florida are exotics without explaining that this doesn't
> > mean that the
> > whole state is being taken over. the first time I heard that so
> > many species
> > were established in Florida I was appalled. The way it was being
> > presented
> > seemed to indicate that the rivers and lakes of Florida were all
> > brimming full of
> > exotics and the native were disappearing. This isn't the case or
> > even close to
> > the case. To say that 50% of the species of fish in Florida are
> > exotic
> > without qualifiers is blatant sensationalism and that sort of
> > thing only serves to
> > make it more difficult to make the correct decisions when it
> comes
> > time to do
> > something about the problem. To say that live bearers are a
> > problem in the
> > rocky mountains gives the impression of a vast area being
> infested
> > by these fish.
> > I just think that honestly is the best way to approach a
> problem.
> > Trying to
> > make the problem look worse than it really is serves the best
> > interests of no
> > one. It would be much more accurate to say that in areas where
> the
> > habitat is
> > amenable to live bearers some unknowing people have been
> releasing
> > their
> > aquariums fish and this has resulted in small but important
> areas
> > being colonized by
> > exotics-in-the expense of the native populations in those areas.
> > To insinuate
> > the problem is more wide spread than it really is serves the
> > interests of no
> > one. When these inaccurate descriptions make it to the media
> they
> > can result in
> > rules and regulations being passed based on emotions rather than
> > real data.
> > Then when some legislator wants to prove to his constituents he
> is
> > doing
> > something to help the environment he can get laws passed without
> > checking the real
> > problems and hurt the aquarium hobby while really doing little
> or
> > nothing to
> > help the environment.
> >
> > Moon
> >
>
> /------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----
> / 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 http://www.nanfa.org . Please make sure all posts to nanfa-
> l are
> / consistent with the guidelines as per
> / http://www.nanfa.org/archive/nanfa/guidelines.html. To subscribe,
> / unsubscribe, or get help, visit the NANFA email list home page and
> / archive-in-http://www.nanfa.org/archive/nanfa/.
>
>

/-----------------------------------------------------------------------
/ 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 http://www.nanfa.org . Please make sure all posts to nanfa-l are
/ consistent with the guidelines as per
/ http://www.nanfa.org/archive/nanfa/guidelines.html. To subscribe,
/ unsubscribe, or get help, visit the NANFA email list home page and
/ archive-in-http://www.nanfa.org/archive/nanfa/.



: Fri Dec 31 2004 - 12:42:46 CST