I would just add that,given what seems to be a high degree of speciation within certain genera, I think that I can understand their hyper vigilance against genetic mixing. I'm just saying.
Harry Knaub
TWRA Requesting Public Input
Started by
Guest_jblaylock_*
, Apr 16 2014 10:18 AM
92 replies to this topic
#82
Guest_Uland_*
Guest_Uland_*
-
- Guests
Posted 04 June 2014 - 09:25 AM
I recognize your point Harry but it's already illegal to dump fish. The next step to this rationale is no netting anything.
#83
Guest_fundulus_*
Guest_fundulus_*
-
- Guests
Posted 04 June 2014 - 12:21 PM
I don't know if they're noble, but they obviously feel no real obligation to us. It's like the old joke about AT&T in the 70s, we don't care, we don't have to. They see no reason to extend themselves since they probably see no hope of getting more of the resources they probably think they would need. A blanket ban is easy to enforce, so.....
#84
Guest_Uland_*
Guest_Uland_*
-
- Guests
Posted 06 June 2014 - 06:33 AM
I had a subsequent conversation with Frank Fiss specifically regarding the legality of removing fish, alive for photos (then returning them). He was quite cordial and offered sincere responses. Unfortunately my photography style may be interpreted as illegal or perhaps not. Largely this depends on the proximity to the water and weather or not it appears I may be removing the fish for other reasons.
#85
Guest_fundulus_*
Guest_fundulus_*
-
- Guests
Posted 06 June 2014 - 11:45 AM
That's the beauty of the system, no one knows...........
#86
Guest_Casper_*
Guest_Casper_*
-
- Guests
Posted 10 June 2014 - 01:41 AM
I am considering to approach Frank Fiss with a request for a permit to allow a group of NANFans to conduct a small collecting and photography foray and to keep a few non listed non game fish.
This would be a test to see if he has any real desire to accommodate us in any way.
If i can come up with a date, plan, sites and committed members i would like to see IF TWRA would work with NANFA members.
Let me know if you would like to be part of this.
Perhaps this fall would be an ideal time?
On another note...
When reaching out to folks to sign the letter i was quite pleased that so many leading ichthyologists, including the authors of the Fishes of Tennessee, added their names to our letter. However while pursuing other professionals i could not get a single individual from the Tennessee Aquarium, nor CFI to add their names, nor several other professionals that i thought would assist our effort. Those individuals that i spoke with seemed mostly concerned with the politics and the consequences to their professional careers and their ongoing relationships with TWRA. I think that a shame but acknowledge the political reality and their personal self oriented concerns for careers, paychecks and / or funding. However i urge them to consider the non professional, the common tax paying citizen and their interests and desires. It is absurd that our favored, treasured fish can be used as catfish bait but not taken home alive and observed in home aquaria. Not to mention the absurdity that we can import exotic fish from around the world but not the ones in our own backyards.
When preparing our letter i was also told that TWRA was looking at a way to open up their restrictive regulations to organizations like us but i see that NOWHERE in Frank Fiss's responding comments. I believe it obvious that TWRA and Frank Fiss are not considering our desire, nor our contributions. There is the possibility that TWRA may not have been sincere in reaching out to the public for input but may simply be required to do so by Tennessee's legislative government. I hope that is not the case but it is obvious TWRA is not interested in altering their ruling at our request.
TWRA is simply taking their easiest action. And in their concern we note...
1 They do not want fish moved between water sheds. NANFA members know not to move and release fish and teaches that to our membership and anyone who will listen. However fishermen do it all the time, as well as bait shops who are importing bait species from across state lines.
2 TWRA does not want diseases spread. Neither do we and again that is an issue NANFA teaches its membership and in our public outreach.
3 Most of TWRA's officers cannot tell the difference between minnows, bait, darters and listed species. Our highly interested members do.
It is a shame TWRA has not reconsidered its very restrictive regulation. Many neighboring states in the Southeast do support its citizen's interests.
I think the next step is to ask for a permit for a collecting foray. I am all ears if anyone has another suggestion. I do not think we should give up and step away from this situation.
Sincerely, your Tennessee Representative.
This would be a test to see if he has any real desire to accommodate us in any way.
If i can come up with a date, plan, sites and committed members i would like to see IF TWRA would work with NANFA members.
Let me know if you would like to be part of this.
Perhaps this fall would be an ideal time?
On another note...
When reaching out to folks to sign the letter i was quite pleased that so many leading ichthyologists, including the authors of the Fishes of Tennessee, added their names to our letter. However while pursuing other professionals i could not get a single individual from the Tennessee Aquarium, nor CFI to add their names, nor several other professionals that i thought would assist our effort. Those individuals that i spoke with seemed mostly concerned with the politics and the consequences to their professional careers and their ongoing relationships with TWRA. I think that a shame but acknowledge the political reality and their personal self oriented concerns for careers, paychecks and / or funding. However i urge them to consider the non professional, the common tax paying citizen and their interests and desires. It is absurd that our favored, treasured fish can be used as catfish bait but not taken home alive and observed in home aquaria. Not to mention the absurdity that we can import exotic fish from around the world but not the ones in our own backyards.
When preparing our letter i was also told that TWRA was looking at a way to open up their restrictive regulations to organizations like us but i see that NOWHERE in Frank Fiss's responding comments. I believe it obvious that TWRA and Frank Fiss are not considering our desire, nor our contributions. There is the possibility that TWRA may not have been sincere in reaching out to the public for input but may simply be required to do so by Tennessee's legislative government. I hope that is not the case but it is obvious TWRA is not interested in altering their ruling at our request.
TWRA is simply taking their easiest action. And in their concern we note...
1 They do not want fish moved between water sheds. NANFA members know not to move and release fish and teaches that to our membership and anyone who will listen. However fishermen do it all the time, as well as bait shops who are importing bait species from across state lines.
2 TWRA does not want diseases spread. Neither do we and again that is an issue NANFA teaches its membership and in our public outreach.
3 Most of TWRA's officers cannot tell the difference between minnows, bait, darters and listed species. Our highly interested members do.
It is a shame TWRA has not reconsidered its very restrictive regulation. Many neighboring states in the Southeast do support its citizen's interests.
I think the next step is to ask for a permit for a collecting foray. I am all ears if anyone has another suggestion. I do not think we should give up and step away from this situation.
Sincerely, your Tennessee Representative.
#87
Guest_Subrosa_*
Guest_Subrosa_*
-
- Guests
Posted 10 June 2014 - 05:08 AM
There is also the attitude among some who work in public zoos and aquaria that they are the only ones who should keep animals in captivity. A few years back I heard about a group of Victorian Cichlids (not sure of the species) which were being maintained at a zoo in the Midwest. It was the only known captive population of an extirpated species. When a problem arose with the system they were kept in, a well known hobbyist who had worked with many Victorians offered to help and was rebuffed. The fish all died and are likely now extinct.I am considering to approach Frank Fiss with a request for a permit to allow a group of NANFans to conduct a small collecting and photography foray and to keep a few non listed non game fish.
This would be a test to see if he has any real desire to accommodate us in any way.
If i can come up with a date, plan, sites and committed members i would like to see IF TWRA would work with NANFA members.
Let me know if you would like to be part of this.
Perhaps this fall would be an ideal time?
On another note...
When reaching out to folks to sign the letter i was quite pleased that so many leading ichthyologists, including the authors of the Fishes of Tennessee, added their names to our letter. However while pursuing other professionals i could not get a single individual from the Tennessee Aquarium, nor CFI to add their names, nor several other professionals that i thought would assist our effort. Those individuals that i spoke with seemed mostly concerned with the politics and the consequences to their professional careers and their ongoing relationships with TWRA. I think that a shame but acknowledge the political reality and their personal self oriented concerns for careers, paychecks and / or funding. However i urge them to consider the non professional, the common tax paying citizen and their interests and desires. It is absurd that our favored, treasured fish can be used as catfish bait but not taken home alive and observed in home aquaria. Not to mention the absurdity that we can import exotic fish from around the world but not the ones in our own backyards.
When preparing our letter i was also told that TWRA was looking at a way to open up their restrictive regulations to organizations like us but i see that NOWHERE in Frank Fiss's responding comments. I believe it obvious that TWRA and Frank Fiss are not considering our desire, nor our contributions. There is the possibility that TWRA may not have been sincere in reaching out to the public for input but may simply be required to do so by Tennessee's legislative government. I hope that is not the case but it is obvious TWRA is not interested in altering their ruling at our request.
TWRA is simply taking their easiest action. And in their concern we note...
1 They do not want fish moved between water sheds. NANFA members know not to move and release fish and teaches that to our membership and anyone who will listen. However fishermen do it all the time, as well as bait shops who are importing bait species from across state lines.
2 TWRA does not want diseases spread. Neither do we and again that is an issue NANFA teaches its membership and in our public outreach.
3 Most of TWRA's officers cannot tell the difference between minnows, bait, darters and listed species. Our highly interested members do.
It is a shame TWRA has not reconsidered its very restrictive regulation. Many neighboring states in the Southeast do support its citizen's interests.
I think the next step is to ask for a permit for a collecting foray. I am all ears if anyone has another suggestion. I do not think we should give up and step away from this situation.
Sincerely, your Tennessee Representative.
#88
Michael Wolfe
-
- Board of Directors
-
- North Georgia, Oconee River Drainage
Posted 10 June 2014 - 08:45 AM
I would like to support you in your limited collecting day approach and would likely have a few other NANFA Georgia members that would like to do so as well.
Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing. - Benjamin Franklin
#89
Guest_jblaylock_*
Guest_jblaylock_*
-
- Guests
Posted 10 June 2014 - 10:55 AM
Assuming there are no conflicts in the date, I would drive down for some TN collecting.
#91
Guest_harryknaub_*
Guest_harryknaub_*
-
- Guests
Posted 11 June 2014 - 05:05 PM
I think there would be no shortage of NANFAns who are eager to participate.
#92
Guest_trygon_*
Guest_trygon_*
-
- Guests
Posted 11 June 2014 - 08:01 PM
I'm in. Call me when you're ready.
#93
Guest_Doug_Dame_*
Guest_Doug_Dame_*
-
- Guests
Posted 11 June 2014 - 09:15 PM
I am considering to approach Frank Fiss with a request for a permit to allow a group of NANFans to conduct a small collecting and photography foray and to keep a few non listed non game fish.
This would be a test to see if he has any real desire to accommodate us in any way.
If i can come up with a date, plan, sites and committed members i would like to see IF TWRA would work with NANFA members.
Let me know if you would like to be part of this.
Perhaps this fall would be an ideal time?
< snip snip>
Sincerely, your Tennessee Representative.
I would definitely be interested.
A couple of things worth considering:
* In my experience, state agencies contemplating some easing of regulations are extremely circumspect about putting anything in writing about that possibility. That includes email. Use the phone or talk face-to-face if that's possible.
* There could be sufficient flexibility in the existing regulations for state wildlife & fish agencies such as TN to issue "scientific collecting" permits for amateur naturalists, if they want to do so. The application process provides the opportunity for them to do some vetting of applicants, and set whatever limits they think are appropriate. The applicant in turn will have some higher level of accountability, such as (for example) an annual report of all collections, with locations, dates, species, numbers of specimens caught and numbers kept. Of course, one downside from the agency's point of view on this is that their staff have to be involved in processing and vetting the applications for scientific permits, it can't be automated like the normal on-line purchasing of recreational fishing licenses.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
NANFA Youtube Channel 
