I understand erring on the side of caution - I really do. But nowadays everbody
is raising all kinds of alarms with nothing to back it up, or else they produce
junk "science" to justify their claims. I have not seen any credible evidence
that NA naturalists are contibuting to the decline of any NA animal by
"collecting" them. I still believe that if this were a _legitimate_ concern,
then the majority of professional zoologists would consider it a point of honor
never to harvest wild animals for their own various studies of imperiled species.
This is simply another version of the points I debated in A/C with Gene Helfman,
and I have yet to see an effective counterargument. I was kind of hoping
somebody would take a stab at it :-) If one can avoid protraying me as a
whining, rationalizing idiot, that is.
> The harm is imperfect knowledge that they may be common, the other side of
> the coin. We all know things change quickly in many areas, and this is a
> species with very specific habitat needs. Today's G4-G5 in many areas may be
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
/"Unless stated otherwise, comments made on this list do not necessarily
/ reflect the beliefs or goals of the North American Native Fishes
/ Association"
/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes Association
/ nanfa_at_aquaria.net. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word
/ subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to
/ nanfa-request_at_aquaria.net. For a digest version, send the command to
/ nanfa-digest-request_at_aquaria.net instead.
/ For more information about NANFA, visit our web page, http://www.nanfa.org