I am worried about the future of native fish collection. And also worried on how this future will effect NANFA as a whole.

The incident where Tennessee banned collecting and keeping of native fish caused a big stir earlier in the year. I recently learned that between the VHS scare and the new laws prohibiting keeping wildlife New York ir is now illegal to transport bait fish away from waterways their and even teachers can no longer keep tadpoles and caterpillars in new york to teach a class on metamorphosis. This new york incident seriously cuts off the variety of fish available to people in the northeast.

Permits to keep native fish are often very hard to get and are usually limited to research permits. This makes things worse, as they cannot be picked up by anyone like a fishing licence.

It seems each year one state or other passes laws to make collecting and keeping native fish more difficult. If this keeps up not only will native fish collecting be impacted, but NANFA itself will be.

I know that not every NANFA member approves of native fish keeping, but it IS a large part of the forum and the community at large. NANFA is funded by membership and donations made by members. If less people are able to access and collect native fish then membership may start shrinking in the long run as enjoying these native species becomes more and more difficult. If membership shrinks so does NANFA's funding, this may lead to a feedback loop that may impact the community in a negative way.

Honestly I think their is two things the community should do to try and reverse the trend.

1. GET POLITICAL: By this I do not mean supporting certain canidates, the polarization of this will tear the community apart. I mean NANFA should find a way to organize and contact congressmen and such to change the rules on collecting and keeping fish. Offer guidelines and rules for this, just as fishing rules are based on conserving which species you catch, adding limits, etc. collecting should also offer similar protections. (one of my biggest fears is a certain color morph of a popular species found in a limited area becomes a "prize population" and gets heavilly pressured and harmed by over collecting, I think that is a perfect storm of collection that could become a disaster and a sign that regulation of collecting like you would any other species NOT banning it, is the right way).

2. ENCOURAGE AQUACULTURE: Another way to encourage fish keeping when wild collecting is not allowed is to encourage aquaculture. In places where laws forbid keeping this will not work, but in areas where laws merely discourage collecting this may work fine. The problem is that currently relatively few sources raise native species for sale, and of them, way too many supplement their sales with wild caught stock. If the unlikely event happens and wild collection gets banned nationwide, we'd be stuck with only golden shiners, fathead minnows, bass, bluegill, and trout as possible native aquarium species. Encouraging of aquaculture could not only lead to farmed fish that are not wild caught, keeping pressure off wild populations easing state worries, but also possibly lead to diversification on the availability of bait species. (honestly, the situation where the only species i can buy at most local bait shops is golden shiners sucks).

I hope NANFA does something to help protect the collecting and keeping of native species, as people into this hobby are important to the funding of NANFA itself.

I also beleive native collecting should one day be regulated the way fishing is, not prohibited, not allowed as a free for all, but something in between. I still find it hard to beleive most states think permanently taking a fish from an environment to keep is different from permanently taking one to eat. Either way the fish is removed from nature.

One of the central pillars of NANFA is to encourage and support keeping native fishes. With a national membership of ~500, we're not high impact by sheer numbers, but we've tried to oppose efforts to restrict fishkeeping. For the most part there's no difference between traditional fishing and collecting fish for aquaria. But there aren't millions of us interested in doing that, willing to buy licenses from states to support all the machinery of the fishing industry. So we're usually chopped liver in the eyes of state agencies who are doing important things like stocking exotic trout and salmon. We should do better, I hope we can.

One of the central pillars of NANFA is to encourage and support keeping native fishes. With a national membership of ~500, we're not high impact by sheer numbers, but we've tried to oppose efforts to restrict fishkeeping. For the most part there's no difference between traditional fishing and collecting fish for aquaria. But there aren't millions of us interested in doing that, willing to buy licenses from states to support all the machinery of the fishing industry. So we're usually chopped liver in the eyes of state agencies who are doing important things like stocking exotic trout and salmon. We should do better, I hope we can.

Only 500? I saw that this board has over 2000 members and assumed it was a fraction of the total, not more than the total. Such a low number suprises me. Have you considered advertizing, maybe in fishing magazines or conservation magazines?

Ads in zines such as TFH have had little success in the past. This Forum is the single best recruitment tool for NANFA. I would hope that anyone who cares about natives fishes in any way would join with us, although everyone is certainly welcome to use the Forum for free.

right or wrong....if it ever gets to the point where it is banned i will be a rebel. in the end it will be the govt that is being "unethical". no govt will stop me and doing something that was put on this earth for us. who is it to say they control our resources....i understand protecting things that need protecting but we all know there is an abundance of things that dont need control

Edited by bumpylemon, 13 June 2010 - 08:02 AM.

I quest I have been breaking the law, and I will just keep on breaking the law,

Only 500? I saw that this board has over 2000 members and assumed it was a fraction of the total, not more than the total. Such a low number suprises me. Have you considered advertizing, maybe in fishing magazines or conservation magazines?

Remember it is not required that if you join the forum that you become a member of NANFA. Membership and Forum has been a topic of discussion many times. Personally I think that the Forum should have limitations to those who have not become a due paying member of NANFA; for example the employment section, possible the trading dock and maybe others should be closed to non-members. After all it does take time and money to maintain a forum. Many people will say that they can not afford a $20 dollar membership and that may be completely true, BUT some times it is just not a priority for people and they are not willing to give up a movie night, couple 6 packs, video game, 1 dinner at a restaurant, ect... Many college kids say they can't afford it, but look at where they do spend (waste) their (or mommy and daddy's) money. Any ways off my soapbox.

I think that having a stance on a issue is completely fine and important. But if I remember correctly a non-profit has to be careful on its "political" involvement and how that impacts its 501-C3 status. The board would have to look deeply into the rules for its non-profit status and see what it is allowed to do to maintain that status.

It may be that if NANFA solely contacts and works with a Department (Ohio Department of Natural Resources) or Division (ODNR Division of Wildlife) level of government then that most likely would not be considered a political involvement that would effect its 501 C3.

Another involvement that may be looked into is simply issue related and posting the issues and listing the contact information for the decision makers in that state, then encouraging NANFA supporters and others to contact the decision makers on their stance. But again 501-C3 limitations need to be looked into.

Looking into the 501-C3 limitations is important not only to maintain NANFAs current status but also protect those who volunteer to be on the board of directors. If there are "political" limitations that the board or membership wants to overcome then changing the non-profit status might be required.

Another important thing to consider is that all of this takes time. NANFA is a volunteer organization. To do such things as we are discussing takes alot of time to research and organize. Someone who has a passion, is WELL organized, board approved, hard working and dedicated would have to take this on. The importance of board approval (especially on an issue like this) is that NANFA's name is not used in a way that could jeopardize the organization. Now if some one did all of this on their own with out NANFA's name then that is up to them.

Just a few thoughts

Edited by Scenicrivers, 13 June 2010 - 08:01 AM.

I am also worried about the future of native fish keeping since laws have recently been applied with larger and larger reach without consideration to those who do so responsibly and ethically. Further personal comment from me would simply be repeating what Bruce has already said.

NANFA really needs more members if we're to make significant changes at the state or federal level in conservation, education or captive husbandry. I will add that NANFA does make a difference via grants, but so many good applicants and such little money. Please tell people about NANFA and let them know it's only $20 a year to join!

Bumpy...like it or not, we elect people to either maintain freedoms or control us. This forum isn't the best place for political discussion and dropping the political "C" bomb isn't going to help anyone. I do empathize with you since I share your frustration.

Wolf....Public proclamations of lawlessness on the NANFA forum are quite taboo. I want to urge you to work within the law. We're native fish people, not freedom fighters here.

In short, I share the frustration guys and gals but we really can't have the discussion deteriorate to politics and lawlessness on the forum. Lets find a more constructive way to vent.

I agree with Uland, simply expressing a willingness to break the law, though most likely a knee jerk reaction, to an ever increasing restrictive situation, will never solve the problem.

More involvement by supportive members, I feel is the only tool available to us.

I own and operate a small forum of my own, and i would certainly welcome free advertising space to NANFA, and constantly (At least with every opportunity) promote this organization, and solicit Membership.

A small gesture i know, but all i have to offer.

FirstChaos, Bruce, Uland,



Wish I had time to post more. I may come back to this topic later.

Brian

As far as niche organizations go, NANFA is minuscule. Specialized groups with sub-specialties have 10's of thousands of members. It is really surprising to compare the numbers in some of these fringe groups to ours.

And yes, we are losing our ability to legally pursue our hobby, state by state, thanks to a relatively small number of "environmentalists" who nevertheless outnumber us by some orders of magnitude (an "order of magnitude" is a power of 10). Or in some cases, by one or two DNR officials. We aren't a source of revenue, so we get the shaft.

Wouldn't it be great if we could get a President who didn't get a presidential dog, but instead filled the White House with fishtanks? Sometimes I think about running for office just to get some fishhobby-friendly policies in effect instead of the opposite we usually get.

Hey, I just thought of something!
We aren't allowed to have any corals from the Gulf of Mexico because some of them are endangered, but everyone is bemoaning the fact that the oilslick is about to wipe them all out anyway. The coral farmers of the hobby/industry could easily save these species if only they were allowed to go grab some while it it still possible to find them alive.
How hard do you suppose it would be to convince the right people that this needs to happen, and happen NOW?

While I agree that a larger organization has more pull, I don't know that the lack or perceived lack of people collecting native fishes has had much effect on the laws being passed. Looking at other pet hobbies they are nearly all(outside of the common critters) coming under a lot of legal stress. Exotic animals have a massive following yet they are still constantly having legislation sent their way that is extremely negative towards their hobby. The keeping of native fish has had a lot less legislation thrown its way probably due to those same perceived low numbers.

We have a fair number of US-FWS and state fishery and parks biologists as NANFA members; some have even hosted NANFA conferences. Having more "insiders" as NANFA members would certainly help our case at rulemaking time. So, make yourselves useful to conservation agencies as a volunteer at stream cleanups, fishing workshops, educational booths, seining demos at river festivals, etc. Get to know the native fish lovers in those agencies, and tell them about NANFA. The "non-game" or "habitat protection" staff are often the best ones to target. Keeping native fish in aquaria can be a major factor in developing a public sense of need for environmental protection, especially among folks who didn't come from a sport fishing family.

And yes, we are losing our ability to legally pursue our hobby, state by state, thanks to a relatively small number of "environmentalists" who nevertheless outnumber us by some orders of magnitude (an "order of magnitude" is a power of 10). Or in some cases, by one or two DNR officials. We aren't a source of revenue, so we get the shaft.

Environmentalists (without the quotes) are like everyone else, they would rather have a slightly flawed law pass than none at all.

If people and politicians were knowledgeable about the issues, the issue here being native fish, the laws would be better written.

As far as niche organizations go, NANFA is minuscule. Specialized groups with sub-specialties have 10's of thousands of members. It is really surprising to compare the numbers in some of these fringe groups to ours.

And yes, we are losing our ability to legally pursue our hobby, state by state, thanks to a relatively small number of "environmentalists" who nevertheless outnumber us by some orders of magnitude (an "order of magnitude" is a power of 10). Or in some cases, by one or two DNR officials. We aren't a source of revenue, so we get the shaft.

I beg to differ, we are a source of revenue; fishing licenses. The real question is are you willing to be a greater source of revenue, such as paying 5, 10, etc more dollars for a baitfish or non-game fish stamp? There is no real middle ground between fishing license bait collection, which as many people have said before is not what we do, and the scientific permit. While the voice of a small organization is generally also small, I also see a great bit of apathetic/omniscent participation in the legal process that is typically involved with fisheries regulations, i.e. public comment periods. I know of only a few people in the past few years who have voiced their opinions, participated, and been proactive with their comments regarding changes to bait collection laws. Be proactive, not reactive with an us against them attitude because that doesn't work. People aren't out to get "us", they are generally reacting to broader issues of disease or invasive species ontainment and fisheries quality.

I agree that some sort of political appeal needs to be made.
Ny was a major source of collecting for me. VT had previously outlawed collecting/possesion of native fish.
I know why the laws were passed, but they were passed with no thought to the collection of native fish for home aquariums.
Owning native fish has really opened my eyes to our aquatic world and is a great educational tool.
I am an environmentalist/conservationist and I know that if more people and especially schools kept native fish it would be a real eye opener on this environment. Maybe if school kids were introduced to this world I would not find so much trash along the shores of waterways, development would take these environments more into account....
The thing that gets me even more is, I can go buy some fish from the pet store, throw them in a pond and they can survive, and possibly spread exotic disease, as well as ruining native habitat.
Prohibition never really works.

Environmentalists (without the quotes) are like everyone else, they would rather have a slightly flawed law pass than none at all.

I think the exact opposite is true. We have too many laws with vague aims at improving the world, or some such. I haven't seen any improvement.

Environmentalists (without the quotes) are like everyone else, they would rather have a slightly flawed law pass than none at all.

If people and politicians were knowledgeable about the issues, the issue here being native fish, the laws would be better written.

I think the exact opposite is true. We have too many laws with vague aims at improving the world, or some such. I haven't seen any improvement.

I never said that flawed laws, or more laws, did any good.

I agree with you.

I couldnt agree more, I definately think the states (even Tennessee with alot of threatened and endangered species) could have Fish collecting stamps that you would have take a class to get (yes I expect to get flamed for this)on responsible fish keeping and collecting (it would hopefully have pictures and descriptions of threatened native species and the fines for collecting them as well as having state fisheries specialist explaining how to keep the fish they can collect. If these classes charged a small fee (say 10$-20$) combined with the "bait fish stamp" they would not only pay for themselves (the states could wait until the classes filled up to have one) but may even provide a little profit for cash strapped states.

I beg to differ, we are a source of revenue; fishing licenses. The real question is are you willing to be a greater source of revenue, such as paying 5, 10, etc more dollars for a baitfish or non-game fish stamp? There is no real middle ground between fishing license bait collection, which as many people have said before is not what we do, and the scientific permit. While the voice of a small organization is generally also small, I also see a great bit of apathetic/omniscent participation in the legal process that is typically involved with fisheries regulations, i.e. public comment periods. I know of only a few people in the past few years who have voiced their opinions, participated, and been proactive with their comments regarding changes to bait collection laws. Be proactive, not reactive with an us against them attitude because that doesn't work. People aren't out to get "us", they are generally reacting to broader issues of disease or invasive species ontainment and fisheries quality.