RE: NANFA-- Collecting ethics

Denkhaus, Robert (Robert.Denkhaus_at_fortworthgov.org)
Sun, 11 Jan 2004 10:37:40 -0600

If J.R. Shute or anyone else from CFI is reading this thread, I would be very
interested in their take on the issue.

Rob Denkhaus
Fort Worth Nature Center & Refuge

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Todd Crail
> Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 11:55 PM
> To: nanfa_at_aquaria.net
> Subject: Re: NANFA-- Collecting ethics
>
>
> This might help you a bit and get this into scope... It'll
> save you a little
> time anyway :)
>
> "Three Questions, Moore Answers"
> American Currents, Winter 2003
>
> "Is it ethical to collect fishes that are listed as Special
> Concern but are not legally protected?
>
> Whew, ask me a hard one next time! My carefully considered, unshakable
> opinion is this: It depends. In many cases (probably
> most, in fact) the fish in question is abundant where it can be
> found, but its habitat is disappearing for one reason or another.
> In this case I see no harm in removing a dozen or so specimens.
> You just need to be aware of what the stressors are, and how
> your activity might impact a given population.
> Just as one should not go into a battle of wits unarmed,
> neither should you undertake to collect a potentially imperiled
> fish without doing your homework."
>
>
> "Letter to editor: Of Special Concern
> is reason for concern"
> American Currents, Summer 2003
>
> I find myself in strong disagreement with D.
> Martin Moore's advice concerning the ethics of collecting
> fishes listed as "Of Special Concern" (AC,
> Winter 2003, p. 34, "Supplicants, Ethics, and
> Antibiotics"). Mr. Moore acknowledges that this is a
> difficult issue ("a hard one"), but in most cases "the
> fish in question is abundant where it can be found, but
> its habitat is disappearing . . .". He concludes that he
> sees "no harm in removing a dozen or so specimens,"
> although he concedes that a collector should be aware
> of how collecting "might impact a given population."
>
> The designation Of Special Concern (OSC) is
> commonly used by state agencies and professional
> organizations to describe species that appear to be in
> trouble but for which definitive data are lacking (that
> are rare, endemic, disjunct, threatened or endangered
> throughout all or part of their range, or are in need of
> further research, using Natural Heritage Program
> terminology). The American Fisheries Society now
> prefers the term Vulnerable over OSC (see Musick,
> 1999 and Warren et al., 2000). OSC is also often used
> at a local/regional level for federal candidate species-
> those being considered for Threatened or Endangered
> status under the Endangered Species Act but that have
> not yet completed the legal process.
>
> It is generally accepted within the conservation
> community that endangered species laws are seldom
> applied in advance of real problems, that species only
> acquire legal protection when they are in serious trouble.
> Official designations are unfortunately reactive, not
> proactive or pre-emptive. The tortuous and torturous
> legal process by which a species receives official
> protection gives such status primarily to species on the
> brink of extinction, often too late to accomplish much
> good (see Christopher Scharpf 's Summer 2000 AC
> chronicle of events surrounding the listing of the
> Alabama sturgeon for an excellent case study). As a
> result, the lists created by professional societies and
> state agencies, which carry little or no real legal weight
> or penalties, are always longer than those produced by
> federal governments (e. g., Warren et al., 2000). "Of
> Special Concern" means someone is waving a red flag,
> that we think there's a problem but we don't have
> enough information to know for sure.
>
> It is naive at best to expect collectors to first do an
> adequate assessment of population size and status
> before collecting; academic, state, and federal agencies
> with their trained biologists find this a challenging
> task. Imperiled species that lack legal protection-
> meaning the vast majority for which we lack such
> unequivocal data on population status and decline-
> therefore become prime targets for exploitation, made
> more desirable to aquarists because of the known rarity
> proclaimed by the OSC designation. It is irresponsible
> (and hence unethical) of those who claim to be concerned
> about protecting biodiversity to assume that one does
> "no harm in removing a dozen or so specimens" of a
> species that may be in trouble. This is a presumption
> of no effect in the face of incomplete evidence. It stands
> in direct contradiction to the Precautionary Principle,
> that the wisest course of action to take where evidence
> suggests a problem is First of All, Do No Harm.
>
> There are plenty of beautiful, fascinating, challenging,
> unimperiled species around to keep in aquaria
> without potentially contributing to the problem of
> species declines.
>
> Gene Helfman
> University of Georgia
> helfman_at_sparc.ecology.uga.edu
> Scharpf, C. 2000. Politics, science, and the fate of
> the Alabama sturgeon. American Currents 26 (3)
> [Summer]: 6-14.
> Musick, J. A. 1999. Criteria to define extinction
> risk in marine fishes: the American Fisheries Society
> initiative. Fisheries 24 (12): 6-14.
> Warren, M. L., Jr. and 11 others. 2000. Diversity,
> distribution, and conservation status of the native
> freshwater fishes of the southern United States.
> Fisheries 25 (10): 7-31
>
>
> "D. Martin Moore responds:"
> American Currents, Summer 2003
>
> It was a bit presumptuous of me to believe that I
> could address this issue in a single paragraph, which
> was then subject to further editorial truncation. Indeed,
> I suspect that an entire issue of AC would not suffice to
> explore the issue of aquarium ethics in all of its aspects.
> Dr. Helfman has done a good job of addressing some
> of the pitfalls of collecting (an unfortunate terminology,
> as we shall see) species that are considered "vulnerable"
> or "of special concern." But my question was whether it
> is ever ethical for aquarists to remove these fishes from
> the wild, and his response is "No" and "Never," and
> this is a position that I simply do not accept.
>
> Dr. Helfman presents the Precautionary Principle
> ("First of All, Do No Harm") as a litmus test. Aside
> from the fact that this is an impossible standard
> (mankind's daily existence causes harm), it is one which
> the academic community itself does not practice.
> Population and life history studies that may primarily
> serve to generate statistical data points result in the
> capture and preservation of hundreds, even thousands,
> of potentially imperiled specimens. Some public aquaria
> needing display animals dip their nets into the pool as
> well. There is no question that these activities are
> potentially harmful (i.e., the impact is difficult or
> impossible to assess), but the danger is balanced
> against the benefits of public education and awareness,
> and a better understanding of the target species.
>
> I take note that Dr. Helfman does not directly
> state that he considers these efforts at information
> gathering by ichthyologists to be ethical either, but he
> does fling a few barbs at hobbyists in particular, stating
> "It is naive at best to expect collectors to first do an
> adequate assessment of population size and status
> before collecting; academic, state, and federal agencies
> with their trained biologists find this a challenging
> task" and "Imperiled species . . . therefore become
> prime targets for exploitation, made more desirable to
> aquarists because of the known rarity proclaimed by
> the OSC designation." The first statement seems to
> sanction destructive information gathering techniques
> by presumably qualified professionals (which is not
> always the case either), while dismissing the hobbyist
> (whom I would refer to as an amateur naturalist) as a
> collector of rarities, seemingly motivated by the scarcity
> of the object of his passion (hence my objection to the
> term "collecting"). While quite a number of professional
> biologists have a "Hands Off!" attitude towards
> their occupationally challenged brethren, many more
> will point at hobbyists' contributions to the body of
> knowledge. For example, captive propagation of
> species that are imperiled or extinct in the wild is an
> activity primarily engaged in by aquarium aficionados.
> At the very least, professional fisheries biologists use
> propagation techniques that were developed by aquarists.
> Furthermore, amateurs are frequently the most outspoken
> champions of vulnerable species, fighting to
> give their concerns air time and print space, and to get
> educational curricula into our schools. No dyed-in-thewool
> NANFAn needs to be told this, but those who
> are unfamiliar with the goals and interests of NANFA's
> membership need a gentle reminder occasionally.
>
> As to Dr. Helfman's observation that collectors
> are unable to "do an adequate assessment of population
> size and status," he is largely correct. Instead of doing
> firsthand research, amateurs are more likely to rely
> upon published data when deciding the ethics of
> sampling a given species. Most also utilize their relationship
> with experienced professionals as well in order to
> make an informed decision. One of the most important
> functions of NANFA is to bring these two groups
> together for the exchange of information and the pursuit
> of common goals. The depiction of aquarists as environmental
> tomb raiders is simply inaccurate. No conscientious
> amateur would remove fishes from their habitat
> against the specific advice of his professional colleagues,
> or against his better judgment. Aquarists should not
> capture fishes indiscriminately, but instead use the best
> information available to make a wise and ethical decision.
> ----------------
> /"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
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
/"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