RE: NANFA-- Collecting ethics

Nick Zarlinga (njz_at_clevelandmetroparks.com)
Mon, 12 Jan 2004 09:38:36 -0500

Steffen, we can go toe to toe on this as you have effectively done, but the
fact remains that we need to deal with reality. In the grand scheme of
things, hobbyists don't have the knowledge or the knowhow to deal with these
species that we are talking with. Again, some do, but we need to look at
things as a whole and deal with it in that fashion. No, not all biologists
have the passion, but I believe that it is much more than you are giving
credit for. By going into biology as a discipline, you know that you are
not going to be making loads of money. You do it for the passion and the
interest. There are certainly a higher percentage of biologists with a
passion that hobbyists. And no, you are correct. Not every professional
has the credentials of those you mentioned, but that does not make them any
less effective just because of that. If there are several groups of people
that are already working on a species, and they have demonstrated a
proficiency in a surrogate species, then what is really the reason to reduce
wild populations even further by allowing good hobbyists to have the
species? Again, certain hobbyists may be great at it, but how do you weed
out those that really are good from those that *think* they really are good?
You make the comment that you "Can4t see the protection by limiting
hobbyists and letting the industry go on with pollution and destruction."
You are taking it personally and I believe that you are not looking at the
best interest of the species as a whole. Removing any specimens reduces
genetic diversity in the system that animals are in. By allowing only a
certain number of animals out by issuing permits is a way to reduce that
genetic loss by taking an educated stance- you only allow a small number of
animals out to those who have the best chance to learn the most for the
species as a whole. The rest of the equation should be protecting the
habitat and all of the *other* stressors in it. I respect your opinion, but
I think that you are not looking at things in reality. We are talking
numbers here, plain and simple.

For arguments sake, if we were to allow hobbyists to have these species,
should there be a screening process? What would the requirements be? I'd
be interested in hearing anyones comments on this specifically.

Nick Zarlinga
Aquarium Biologist
Cleveland Metroparks Zoo
216.661.6500 ext 4485

><)> -----Original Message-----
><)> From: owner-nanfa_at_aquaria.net
><)> On Behalf
><)> Of Steffen Hellner
><)> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 4:18 AM
><)> To: nanfa_at_aquaria.net
><)> Subject: Re: NANFA-- Collecting ethics
><)>
><)>
><)> > Steffen, the way that I see it, you are trying
><)> to split hairs.
><)> That4s not my intention.
><)>
><)> > I would not necessarily argue against your points.
><)> > There are some hobbyists which are
><)> > very good about the conservation of a species
><)> and are "responsible" enough
><)> > to be able to keep certain endangered,
><)> threatened, or special concern
><)> > species. The problem is that those exceptional
><)> hobbyists are still
><)> > *hobbyists*; as opposed to a professional-one
><)> whose sole job is to know,
><)> > learn, and conserve these animals.
><)> This can be an advantage but as well the opposite.
><)> Why else are many
><)> hobbyists so far ahead in particular knowledge?
><)> Many biologists I have
><)> encountered are "well educated" but don4t have
><)> passion. And only passion
><)> (and dedication) makes progress and innovation. A
><)> job can just be a job and
><)> then a position is mis-occupied from the point of
><)> efficiency. It4s the same
><)> for each and every profession.
><)>
><)> > Now, let me shut the door that someone
><)> > is just waiting to open by saying that ***being
><)> a professional does not
><)> make
><)> > you better than a hobbyist.*** It is just that
><)> it is the job of the
><)> > professional to make the time and have the
><)> resources to deal with these
><)> > animals in a more responsible matter.
><)> I highly doubt this if generalized. Not every
><)> professional in nature
><)> conservation is a Grzimek or Chico Mendez.
><)>
><)> > This is a designation that our
><)> > society looks at on any subject.
><)> The old mistake to see any educated person as a
><)> professional.
><)>
><)> > The system is far from perfect but just
><)> > look at what we have to show for it. Ask any
><)> anyone who regularly deals
><)> > with the vast majority of hobbyists in one
><)> fashion or another. Many
><)> > hobbyists (the dangerous ones ;) think that they
><)> are on top of their game,
><)> > but a truly sincere hobbyist [and professional]
><)> knows that what you learn
><)> is
><)> > simply a better understanding of how much more
><)> you really don't know.
><)> No doubt, there are numerous black sheep within
><)> the flock of hobbyists. But
><)> as well vice versa in scientists and wildlife managers.
><)>
><)> > On this topic, due to numbers alone, hobbyists
><)> as a whole can not be
><)> trusted
><)> > to keep these types of species because they
><)> don't generally put in the time
><)> > and effort to know their species. Again,
><)> understand that we are talking
><)> > groups and not individuals.
><)> Yes and no. Who else could do it? Zoos are crowded
><)> and are better on big
><)> species (primates, crocs, monitors etc.)
><)>
><)> > So, by saying that you or anyone else should be
><)> allowed to keep and try to
><)> > propogate species X, you are saying that some
><)> > people not in the profession can accept the
><)> responsibility. How are
><)> > officials to know who those people are? Do you
><)> have to fill out a
><)> > questionaire? an inspection of your tanks?
><)> references? etc? That creates
><)> > more work for officials.
><)> Cynically replied, the plus in work is worth
><)> tipping the canoe over?
><)>
><)> > As we all agree, we need devote our resources to
><)> > save the species' habitat and not argue about
><)> who should and shouldn't be
><)> > allowed to keep and breed the animals. Again,
><)> it is far from perfect, but
><)> > it is a system that does afford some protection
><)> to many different species.
><)> Can4t see the protection by limiting hobbyists and
><)> letting the industry go
><)> on with pollution and destruction. Try to limit
><)> the fishermen - and then
><)> protect your ears from the loud shout in the
><)> public. We4re the easier to
><)> shoot game.
><)>
><)> > I agree, taking a few representatives from a
><)> population probably won't do
><)> it
><)> > much harm (exceptions of course!), but allowing
><)> some and not others to
><)> > collect and posess these animals is a logistical
><)> nightmare. I think it is
><)> > better shut it down, and shoot for habitat
><)> protection instead.
><)> No doubt, habitat is most important. But first we
><)> have to examine the limits
><)> for habitat conditions to define up to what limit
><)> it is suitable for the
><)> species (and v.v.). This is fieldwork AND
><)> observation in captivity. But this
><)> is only my personal particular sight. Other may
><)> and will think different
><)> upon this.
><)>
><)> Steffen
><)> ---------------------------
><)> /"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