I would donate money
support the use of NANFA money.
Edited by PhilipKukulski, 26 July 2010 - 09:51 PM.
Jump to content
Posted 27 July 2010 - 08:34 AM
Posted 27 July 2010 - 10:32 AM
Also, what are the legalities of NANFA as a non-profit buying lawyers to fight issues.
Edited by PhilipKukulski, 27 July 2010 - 10:38 AM.
Posted 27 July 2010 - 05:33 PM
Posted 29 July 2010 - 07:39 AM
Posted 29 July 2010 - 07:47 AM
Posted 29 July 2010 - 02:53 PM
Edited by gerald, 29 July 2010 - 02:55 PM.
Posted 29 July 2010 - 03:19 PM
Posted 31 July 2010 - 08:25 AM
Posted 31 July 2010 - 09:28 AM
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.
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.
Posted 01 August 2010 - 09:56 AM
Posted 01 August 2010 - 09:59 AM
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.
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.
Posted 01 August 2010 - 12:37 PM
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.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users