8 replies to this topic

[mattknepley]

I have really, really enjoyed getting involved with NANFA, and hope to become more so as time moves on. I value the ability to better learn about, and connect with, our native finny fauna. A large part of that endeavor is sampling local waters and occasionally keeping some fishes for home aquaria.

Yesterday I posted an id request for a pretty little fish I found one county south of me. From NANFA-based experience and study I had no trouble identifying it to its genus (Notropis) but could not get the species down in the field. I did know that there was only one threatened Notropis that bears even a passing resemblance to "my" fish, but that other fish lives across state in an unconnected drainage. Through experience with the genus I knew what would be required to help it thrive in an aquarium. I could not meet its requirements, so did not collect any. If I had adequate living space I would have, though.

I'm wondering now, though, if I'm suffering a little hubris.

I have a permit issued by my state dnr to sample, collect, house, and sacrifice native fishes in the drainage in question. The only restriction on my permit involves robust redhorse, a species not likely to be mistaken for a Notropis. Legally I am within rights to keep the fish in question.

Ethically, I thought I was within rights, too. I'm not so sure now, though I still think I am. Reading through NANFA's code of ethics, I did nothing that would violate those. Reading the field id requirements from the id assistance page might be different, but I don't know. Part of acquiring knowledge is understanding just exactly what you know, and not mistaking that which you don't know for a faculty you have. Part of acquiring knowledge is the responsibility to use it wisely, or not use it at all. In good faith and clean conscience I would have kept those fish, confident in my ability to rule out that doing so might pose harm to the species and/or their environment. I also had solid reason to believe they would thrive under my home care.

So, one heck of a long set up later, what is the opinion of my peers, who are mostly my betters in icthyological matters? Legally, I'm in the clear. Ethically, the more important concern, do you think I would have been?

I've got my fire-retardant waders on, so torch me if you feel you need to. Just please don't napalm me, , I like it here!

[mattknepley]

Thanks, Dustin. That is how I feel about it, but ethics can be tricky things. Seeings how I'm more inclined to agree with Socrates than the Sophists, I didn't want to be acting hypocritically.