Jump to content


Lawyers for Spring Pygmy Sunfish


37 replies to this topic

Poll: NANFA money (27 member(s) have cast votes)

Should money from the NANFA treasury be used to pay Spring Pygmy Sunfish lawyers?

  1. Voted Yes. (13 votes [48.15%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 48.15%

  2. Voted Yes, an amount to show our support. (8 votes [29.63%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 29.63%

  3. I don't know. (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  4. I don't care. (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  5. Voted I think not. (3 votes [11.11%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 11.11%

  6. Voted Definitely not. (3 votes [11.11%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 11.11%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Guest_PhilipKukulski_*

Guest_PhilipKukulski_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 July 2010 - 09:49 PM

If it takes lawyers to help the Spring Pygmy Sunfish,
I would donate money
and
support the use of NANFA money.

Edited by PhilipKukulski, 26 July 2010 - 09:51 PM.


#2 Guest_Uland_*

Guest_Uland_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 July 2010 - 07:21 AM

Just brainstorming here... Does the existing endangered snail (one that already has a protected status) have any support in this fight?
If so, can we join forces?

#3 Guest_andyavram_*

Guest_andyavram_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 July 2010 - 08:34 AM

As sad as it may seem not everyone here is up on the plight of every fish species (and snail) in the country. This would be a good place for a quick synopsis (or a link as I think this was posted about before) of the issue. Also, what are the legalities of NANFA as a non-profit buying lawyers to fight issues.

Personally, I would lean for NANFA involvment in issues like this.

Andy

#4 Guest_PhilipKukulski_*

Guest_PhilipKukulski_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 July 2010 - 10:32 AM

Also, what are the legalities of NANFA as a non-profit buying lawyers to fight issues.

Andy


NANFA would not be making any kind of political statement
so this is not a case of taking a side on political issues.

Related threads:
Save the Spring Pygmy Sunfish Extinction is looming without our help

NANFA Letter To USFWS About Spring Pygmy Sunfish

Edited by PhilipKukulski, 27 July 2010 - 10:38 AM.


#5 Guest_ashtonmj_*

Guest_ashtonmj_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 July 2010 - 05:33 PM

I would support, but what can we realistically afford/contribute? $1000 or so goes to the conservation grants a year. That is like 10 billable hours for good lawyer. Here in Maryland, the University of MD school of law regularly take up environmental cases (illegal discharge, pollution, class actions, etc.) on a pro bono basis. Is something like this at UA or Auburn available?

#6 Guest_ashtonmj_*

Guest_ashtonmj_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 July 2010 - 07:39 AM

Can an email go out, and announcment in the next AC, soliciting for donations via the PayPal site for this cause? I agree that a mailing may be a little too costly, unless its a post card, to make this worth while. If people put a memo in their donation they wish to have this go to the spring pygmy conservation that should clear up accounting things and still keep things okay with tax deductions. I will gladly make a donation if this gets set up.

#7 Guest_Uland_*

Guest_Uland_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 July 2010 - 07:47 AM

Matt, I think we could network (via the forum, AC and Facebook etc) to raise funds for the Spring Pygmy Sunfish. I also want to see what Bruce comes up with after his talk with the legal department. I would hate to take money just to find a lawyer won't touch this with a ten foot pole.

#8 Guest_Dustin_*

Guest_Dustin_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 July 2010 - 07:50 AM

I think this is a great idea Matt and Uland. Once we see if the firm Bruce is contacting will take up the case, we can move on this.

#9 Guest_gerald_*

Guest_gerald_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 July 2010 - 02:53 PM

I looked at the Google Maps photos of the Beaverdam/Limestone Cr watershed around Madison AL and it looks like nearly everything that isn't swamp is already converted to agriculture or other uses. Is this correct? Based on my NC experience, US-FWS endangered listing is most helpful when there's large extents of undeveloped land that MIGHT get developed, and listing can then be used to preserve land and minimize impacts as development proceeds.

If most of the developable land surrounding the habitat is cleared and in private ownership, I have doubts about how much good US-FWS listing could do. The risk of creating more hostile enemies might outweigh the potential gains of listing. So instead of promoting FWS listing, what about if NANFAns help organize a bottom-up approach using local land conservation orgs to work with landowners, schools, etc in that watershed? Seems to me a locally-motivated campaign might accomplish more in the long run (in this case) than top-down federal regulation.

Fundraising is a good idea and could be used either way. I like the idea of it being a special request for donations, rather than appropriating NANFA general funds.

Edited by gerald, 29 July 2010 - 02:55 PM.


#10 Guest_fundulus_*

Guest_fundulus_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 July 2010 - 03:19 PM

Gerald, there's a history of the USFWS working with the largest landowner in the Beaverdam Swamp area for more than 20 years. He's reneged on various things he agreed to. It's this change that has prompted several of us to move to the lightning double bonus round of looking for listing. This landowner thinks he has a chance to sell most or all of his property for ~$30 million, and not surprisingly that has changed his outlook. He had been blithering on earlier about wanting to preserve the property for his descendants since it has been in his family for several generations, but money doesn't talk, it swears. This guy has refused offers from The Nature Conservancy to buy the land for one or two million dollars. The City of Huntsville is moving forward with various sewer and water projects in the area to support both more housing developments and maybe a large industrial plant. So, both a unique habitat and some endemic aquatic species are up against the wall. We may well be doing too little too late, but a judgment has been made that we (and these species) have nothing to lose.

#11 Guest_Lotsapetsgarfhts_*

Guest_Lotsapetsgarfhts_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 July 2010 - 08:25 AM

Sorry folks but I think it would be a waste of money to buy a lawyer for this cause, unless of course it was one of our members and they had the passion for fish. It would be very easy for anyone else to take the job, send out some letters, file a few motions and keep the money. I don't hold much faith in lawyers.

A darter once stopped a dam, but I'm not sure a sunfish and an endangered snail will be able to stop development. If the landowner can get 30 mil for the land and the habitat is unprotected, for that amount of money the wetland, pools, spring or whatever could be filled in in very short order. No more fish, no more snails, no more problems, the sale goes through.

I still think that a group should be formed (ASAP) to maintain, preserve, and distribute the fish. It needs to be done NOW, because if the fish becomes protected you may not be able to get them legally. Once again I will state that I am not really interested in the fish in question, but you can't hope a zoo or aquarium will act as an ark to preserve them. Lets face it their resources are limited, and they can only preserve so much, again the bottom line is display animals. This is one fish hobbists might have to save. Ok yes I know they will probably get bigger in the aquarium, but isn't bigger better than extinct?

I voted "I don't know" on the poll after giving it some thought I would say NO.

#12 Guest_fundulus_*

Guest_fundulus_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 July 2010 - 09:28 AM

A darter once stopped a dam, but I'm not sure a sunfish and an endangered snail will be able to stop development. If the landowner can get 30 mil for the land and the habitat is unprotected, for that amount of money the wetland, pools, spring or whatever could be filled in in very short order. No more fish, no more snails, no more problems, the sale goes through.
The landowner thinks he can get $30 million for the land, it's different that way. I guess I see it as a case of if you don't hug the trees today they'e guaranteed gone tomorrow, and everyone should just go back to watching TV worrying about their waistline. Then again, you may disagree.

#13 Guest_ashtonmj_*

Guest_ashtonmj_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 July 2010 - 10:15 AM

Sorry folks but I think it would be a waste of money to buy a lawyer for this cause, unless of course it was one of our members and they had the passion for fish. It would be very easy for anyone else to take the job, send out some letters, file a few motions and keep the money. I don't hold much faith in lawyers.

A darter once stopped a dam, but I'm not sure a sunfish and an endangered snail will be able to stop development. If the landowner can get 30 mil for the land and the habitat is unprotected, for that amount of money the wetland, pools, spring or whatever could be filled in in very short order. No more fish, no more snails, no more problems, the sale goes through.

I still think that a group should be formed (ASAP) to maintain, preserve, and distribute the fish. It needs to be done NOW, because if the fish becomes protected you may not be able to get them legally. Once again I will state that I am not really interested in the fish in question, but you can't hope a zoo or aquarium will act as an ark to preserve them. Lets face it their resources are limited, and they can only preserve so much, again the bottom line is display animals. This is one fish hobbists might have to save. Ok yes I know they will probably get bigger in the aquarium, but isn't bigger better than extinct?

I voted "I don't know" on the poll after giving it some thought I would say NO.


A darter did not stop a dam, it delayed it. If you'd like the details I can elaborate, but no one wants to know about Supreme Court decisions being circumvented by a last minute rider attached to a bill that was unannounced.

The taxanomic group does not matter, federally endangered means federally endangered. The fish has been distributed to folks (CFI) with decades of success in maintaining imperiled species in captivity. I do not understand this impetus for the hobbyists to goble up fish before they become protected. What N.A. native have hobbyists saved? There is a proven track record of the people already working with this fish, along with other zoos and aquariums in the Southeast. This is coming from someone who addmittedly doesn't see eye to eye with CFI regarding monitoring and results. For the time being, I'll put my money on the people that have the track record. Arks are not the answer, they are a superficial band aid to a terminal condition.

#14 Guest_Lotsapetsgarfhts_*

Guest_Lotsapetsgarfhts_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 August 2010 - 09:18 AM

A darter did not stop a dam, it delayed it. If you'd like the details I can elaborate, but no one wants to know about Supreme Court decisions being circumvented by a last minute rider attached to a bill that was unannounced.

The taxanomic group does not matter, federally endangered means federally endangered. The fish has been distributed to folks (CFI) with decades of success in maintaining imperiled species in captivity. I do not understand this impetus for the hobbyists to goble up fish before they become protected. What N.A. native have hobbyists saved? There is a proven track record of the people already working with this fish, along with other zoos and aquariums in the Southeast. This is coming from someone who addmittedly doesn't see eye to eye with CFI regarding monitoring and results. For the time being, I'll put my money on the people that have the track record. Arks are not the answer, they are a superficial band aid to a terminal condition.


Oh I did know the dam was built, I know the story, but the little darter did cause a long delay. Let's face it that habitat could be gone tomorrow if the landowner wants it gone and stands to make that much money. Well I'm glad to hear that there are people and places already maintaining them. I thought I clearly stated I wasn't interested in the fish, but that I felt a group should be formed to maintain them exchange breeding stock and distribute them. I also don't really agree with gobbling up fish before they become protected but from the looks of things protection is a long way off and the bulldosers could be filling in the spring tomorrow.

Now to answer the golden question..... "What N.A. native have hobbyists saved?" Well you might have me there, but I could probably name more than a few Goodieds. Ok yes they're Mexican and they're also probably being kept by other entities as well so I guess hobbists can't take any credit. By the way I maintained Characodon lateralis for about 14 years before I was forced to shut down the fishroom. I passed them on to a friend that still has them for a combined total of 27 years. I'll be receiving some breeding stock back from him soon. I have also decided to keep Zoogoneticus tequila long term, and may include a Skiffia and the black Characodon (the species name escapes me right now) in the future. For the record I also maintained Rivulus xhipidius PK15 for the 13 years that the fishroom was shut down (I had it for about 6 years before that) and have been told I may have the only pure stock of it in the US. They may be right since I have been looking for someone to exchange some breeding stock with and have found none that anyone could positivly say was pure stock. I just for the life of me can't understand why the concept of hobbists helping out is so offensive.

I just don't think throwing money at a lawyer is the answer unless like I stated it happens to be a member with the same passion we all seem to have, and then again hopefully he'll donate some extra time to the effort. But then again I'm just 1 new member and I guess my opinion doesn't amount to much.

#15 Guest_ashtonmj_*

Guest_ashtonmj_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 August 2010 - 09:56 AM

1) No body said your opinion didn't matter. I certainly didn't.
2) I asked for a question because I didn't know the answer and wanted facts and figured you may know the answer since you were so strong about bringing them into captivity amongst hobbyists. I didn't do it to be sarcastic.

Pretty simple things that are relavent to the situation. This is a case where an experienced environmental lawyer matters. The state and regional offices of the Fish and Wildlife service are not doing their job if there is a listed species within the project area and an incidental take permit has not been applied for and recieved. Furthermore, I have a sneaky suspicion that a project of this size that requires a significant infrastructure investment is recieving some type of federal funding. That puts the project into Section 7 consultation of the ESA.

#16 Guest_fundulus_*

Guest_fundulus_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 August 2010 - 09:59 AM

Furthermore, I have a sneaky suspicion that a project of this size that requires a significant infrastructure investment is recieving some type of federal funding. That puts the project into Section 7 consultation of the ESA.

Yes, this is exactly what all parties to this fiasco have pretended doesn't exist, up to this point. The FWS doesn't receive the funding to do everything they're charged with, which is where federal courts enter the picture as a means of forcing the government to fund this kind of work. That's the end-all, be-all of this kind suit.

#17 Guest_Lotsapetsgarfhts_*

Guest_Lotsapetsgarfhts_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 August 2010 - 12:37 PM

Here is a fun fact is the most common pet beginers snake in Europe is the San Francisco Garter Snake. I have heard that they can be had for $5.00 to $10.00. Yes I have also heard that some of them may be hybrids, but that there is still some pure stock over there. The reality of the situation is there may be more in captivity in Europe than exist here in the wild.

One other poit of interest, I can legally keep and breed fish that are endangered from other countries but I can't keep and breed fish that are native to the US that are protected or endangered.

#18 Guest_fundulus_*

Guest_fundulus_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 August 2010 - 01:14 PM

One other poit of interest, I can legally keep and breed fish that are endangered from other countries but I can't keep and breed fish that are native to the US that are protected or endangered.

Sure. Do you find that strange?

#19 Guest_ashtonmj_*

Guest_ashtonmj_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 August 2010 - 01:47 PM

One other poit of interest, I can legally keep and breed fish that are endangered from other countries but I can't keep and breed fish that are native to the US that are protected or endangered.


Not if it is CITES or IUCN listed. I'd also wonder about the importation legalities, not to mention the ethical. I don't see what is interesting about this point, fish that are legally protected in the U.S. cannot be kept without permit, there is a reason why, end of discussion. This is derailing the to thread...

#20 Guest_Lotsapetsgarfhts_*

Guest_Lotsapetsgarfhts_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 August 2010 - 01:57 PM

Sure. Do you find that strange?


I'm sorry I wasted our time.

Edited by Lotsapetsgarfhts, 01 August 2010 - 02:17 PM.




Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users