Re: NANFA-- A forward

R. W. Wolff (
Wed, 31 Mar 2004 18:08:54 -0600

I think some are misunderstanding where my concerns lie. This is vague
legislation, supposedly designed to stop the import of the carp type fish
that are causing trouble. But the way it is worded it can easily go well
past that. Limiting the sale of perch for stocking farm ponds over state
lines, the transfer of darters you caught at the convention this summer back
home, the shipping of tetras from a Florida wholesaler to a pet shop in
another part of the country.

The point of me forwarding this is that the legislation in the works is
going to try to stop the spread of big head, and silver carp, in U.S.
waters. The wording though is vague, and could easily be used for all sorts
of bans and additional interpretted regulation. The post asked people
reading to contact their congress people and let them know they want the
wording looked at and to be very precise. So that it only pretains to these
large carps that are causing or will be causing trouble. Not to be a loosely
worded law that could be used to stop all interstate travel and commerce of

No one wanted to stop this legislation, they just wanted it worded properly
so it could not go over and stop most or all interstate commerce and
transport of fish. Like the examples in my first paragraph which I doubt are
cause for concern.

Ray W.
/"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
/ To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word
/ subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to
/ For a digest version, send the command to
/ instead.
/ For more information about NANFA, visit our web page,