All,

Our next Southeastern Wisconsin Native Fish Club (SEWNFC) meeting is scheduled for Saturday, August 15th at Critter Supply Central pet store in Cedarburg, Wisconsin. Their address is:

Critter Supply Central
7481 Highway 60
Cedarburg, WI 53012
Phone: 262-376-2969

The meeting starts at 6:00pm. Our speaker will be Bill Horns of the Wisconsin DNR. He will be speaking about Lake Trout Restoration in Lake Michigan and the New Invasive Species Rule and How it Could Affect the Aquarium Trade and Aquarium Users. The new Invasive Species rule will effectively stop all importation of U.S.-native species into the state that are not native to Wisconsin! If you live in Wisconsin and keep any fish that are native to other parts of the U.S., this law will affect you! Please show up to voice your concerns, as the DNR has said that they want your input. As usual, we will have food and refreshements at the meeting. Law allowing, we will also be having a native fish auction at the end of the meeting. If you live in Wisconsin and can make the meeting, I strongly encourage you to attend!

Brian

To be honest, we might want to support this kind of legislation.

To be effective, some legislation would also have to deal with:
ship ballast water
water transported by sports fishermen, like live wells and engine cooling water
live fish sold as food for humans
fish sold for bait
release of fish bought by humans

Then there is how and where the limits are set:
white list vs black list
ease of changing list
penalties
who makes the list
tropical vs sub tropical vs fish that are not likely to survive in Wisconsin.

For example: Speckled Dace seem capable of living all over the US West. Speckled Dace might find Wisconsin an easy environment to invade.

To be honest, we might want to support this kind of legislation.

To be effective, some legislation would also have to deal with:
ship ballast water
water transported by sports fishermen, like live wells and engine cooling water
live fish sold as food for humans
fish sold for bait
release of fish bought by humans

Then there is how and where the limits are set:
white list vs black list
ease of changing list
penalties
who makes the list
tropical vs sub tropical vs fish that are not likely to survive in Wisconsin.

For example: Speckled Dace seem capable of living all over the US West. Speckled Dace might find Wisconsin an easy environment to invade.

Yeah we might want to support this kind of legislation...if we hope to see native fish keeping outlawed! Follow the dotted lines to can't keep fish from other counties or drainages since they may well survive in yours. Then again if you really like a certain fish you could always MOVE!
I prefer to keep my options open especially considering all the areas you mentioned that are bigger problems and poorly regulated. And considering even if its all outlawed somewhere some will get through the cracks. Education, education, education!

Sorry, Phil, I have to agree with Mike. This law is only going to hurt the people who are trying to follow the rules. Anyone who's going to release non-natives into the wild is probably not going to have a problem with getting the fish illegally. And, actually, it's already illegal to release aquarium fish into the wild in Wisconsin. That happens to be a law I agree with.

Brian

Sorry, Phil, I have to agree with Mike. This law is only going to hurt the people who are trying to follow the rules. Anyone who's going to release non-natives into the wild is probably not going to have a problem with getting the fish illegally. And, actually, it's already illegal to release aquarium fish into the wild in Wisconsin. That happens to be a law I agree with.

Brian

Here's a really scary scenario... you outlaw non-state fishes...someone feels unfairly regulated...so they dump their favorite non-state natives in state waters. Kinda defeats the purpose. I am so sick of supposedly well meaning government regulation that does little to nothing about the real issues. Come on Wisconsin get smart, get us to work with you and work with us. Everybody will be better off.

Mike,

Yeah, unfortunately I think that not enough people know about this to know that it's a bad thing. Everyone hears "stop invasives" and they automatically jump on the bandwagon. If this passes, it will destroy native fish keeping in Wisconsin. Someone asked me today how this will effect BTDarters. Here's my response to them:

This new law is going to effect BTDarters in that we won't be able to sell other fish of the U.S. that could survive if accidentally released into Wisconsin waters. This applies to most fish of the U.S.. This means that we couldn't even order the fish, breed them, and sell the offspring. This will also effect other native fish keepers, as these laws will apply to them, too. I would not be so foolish to say that the fish of Wisconsin are the only beautiful or interesting fish out there. I am not interested in releasing any fish not native to Wisconsin into Wisconsin waters, but it would be nice if I could keep some of them in my fish tank and learn about them and their husbandry. The native fish of Wisconsin are not the only native fish in the country that are worth learning about and preserving.

Brian

To be honest, we might want to support this kind of legislation.

To be effective, some legislation would also have to deal with:
ship ballast water
water transported by sports fishermen, like live wells and engine cooling water
live fish sold as food for humans
fish sold for bait
release of fish bought by humans

Then there is how and where the limits are set:
white list vs black list
ease of changing list
penalties
who makes the list
tropical vs sub tropical vs fish that are not likely to survive in Wisconsin.

For example: Speckled Dace seem capable of living all over the US West. Speckled Dace might find Wisconsin an easy environment to invade.

Phil,

If this type of legislation makes its way into Michigan, you might not be able to keep those Pteronotropis welaka that I've heard you keep or have kept. How does that sit with you?

Brian

Edit: Updated content.

Edited by BTDarters, 29 July 2009 - 10:55 PM.

I am just saying that we, NANFA, need to think about invasive species.

The status quo is not working.
I don't believe education will remove the problem.
There is one possible, non-pleasant solution, regulate fish like they do out west;
if the line is pushed that far back, eventually people will think 'invasive' first.

Please explain how other solutions would work.

And yes, I might have to go the permitting route to work with NA fish.

Brian,

This kind of legislation has me concerned and feel it's inevitable on a federal level. It's a shame to impose such strict rules on a group of people that would never release animals of any kind.

Philip,

You ask "Please explain how other solutions would work" and I ask in return...Is it not already against the law to release any fish into any natural waters? Will many hundred perhaps thousands of new law enforcement officers be employed to assure that all residents of Wisconsin do not/cannot import and or possess any fish? Will they search every trunk of every car? Every suitcase? Every USPS/UPS/Fed Ex package? Unless you actually are willing and able to enforce such a law, you are merely enacting a new law that effects law abiding citizens. To add insult to injury they are trying to prevent actions that are already illegal.

Philip,

You ask "Please explain how other solutions would work" and I ask in return...Is it not already against the law to release any fish into any natural waters? Will many hundred perhaps thousands of new law enforcement officers be employed to assure that all residents of Wisconsin do not/cannot import and or possess any fish? Will they search every trunk of every car? Every suitcase? Every USPS/UPS/Fed Ex package? Unless you actually are willing and able to enforce such a law, you are merely enacting a new law that effects law abiding citizens. To add insult to injury they are trying to prevent actions that are already illegal.

Kind of reminds me of fireworks:
you can sell fireworks in Michigan,
you can buy and possess fireworks in Michigan,
you just can't legally use fireworks in Michigan.

Again, I wonder how many fewer chances of a species release there is in Arizona
than there is in Wisconsin?
As the analogy goes, how many fewer people possess fireworks.

Unless you actually are willing and able to enforce such a law, you are merely enacting a new law that effects law abiding citizens. To add insult to injury they are trying to prevent actions that are already illegal.

Isn't this the case with many laws, like speed limits, seat belts, texting while driving, and practially every currently existing natural resource regulation. It's a person responsibilty to obey a law that is put for their safety and the general publics. This propose regulation ise for the general ecological safety of natural resources that belong to everyone, not just a user or user group. You're right it is illegal to dump fish in most states but that doesn't stop people for a variety of reasons. Some don't know, some just don't care, some do it just because there is a law that says the contrary. There will be no wild increase in law enforcement to enforce these potential regulations, there is a shortage in regular law enforcement and natural resource enforcement as it is already. Personally I feel there is a lot of histeria driven by lobbying trade groups and doom and gloom big brother is coming for you that just isn't fact based or scientifically supported. I hear a lot of opposition with no alternative solutions too. The rules aren't being imposed just on us either, it's not NANFA legislation it's invasive species legislation. Brian's own response to 'how this will effect you' isn't something set in stone either. It makes the assumption that there will be absolutely no permitted avenue for the importation, exportation, and sale of native fish when there will certainly be a white list of species. There are plenty of N.A. natives that will not survive the winters in Wisconsin that could be petitioned to be white listed. The facts are millions upon millions of dollars are spent annually on invasive species that could be going other places like endangered species recovery and land acquisition. Personally I'm tired of spending my time and tax payer money on invasive species that are obvious bait bucket introductiond and getting lambasted at public meetings when something has to be done about it or blamed for not doing enough.

Matt, Phil,

I don't disagree that something has to be done. I just disagree with how they are going about doing it. Releasing fish into Wisconsin waters is already illegal. It has been for years. Do people still do it? Here and there, yes. Realistically, are these few people the problem, no. The invasives in Wisconsin that the DNR site as problems, zebra mussels, round gobies, carp, etc. have been introduced to the state by things like ballast water dumping and people not cleaning their boats as they move from water body to water body. And in case the DNR has forgotten, they stocked carp in many waters of the state in the early part of the last century. "Great food fish" and the like! Is the responsible aquarist the problem, no.

I've been reading the legislation on-line regarding this law. The DNR states that they are using a "science-based" approach. They also state that they are calling all fish not-native to Wisconsin invasive species, but are permitting the posession, transport, and sale of selected "white-listed" species. A specie's "white-listing" is determined by a committee. "Non-viable" life stages of tropical fish of the aquarium trade are going to be allowed. They are also making an allowance for goldfish and koi. How "science-based" is that?

Brian

Isn't this the case with many laws, like speed limits, seat belts, texting while driving, and practially every currently existing natural resource regulation.

This is indeed a case of duplicitous laws and unlike the laws you posted which simply violate common sense. It's against the law to release fish period. Making it a federal offense to release plecos or Lythrurus will not prevent a single release of either without the ability to enforce or better yet...education.

This propose regulation ise for the general ecological safety of natural resources that belong to everyone, not just a user or user group. You're right it is illegal to dump fish in most states but that doesn't stop people for a variety of reasons. Some don't know, some just don't care, some do it just because there is a law that says the contrary. There will be no wild increase in law enforcement to enforce these potential regulations, there is a shortage in regular law enforcement and natural resource enforcement as it is already. Personally I feel there is a lot of histeria driven by lobbying trade groups and doom and gloom big brother is coming for you that just isn't fact based or scientifically supported.

They just want to help us by destroying the legal ability for responsible people to carry on with a hobby/education? Ignorant people will break the law regardless of the impact or penalty simply because they are indeed ignorant. Laws that restrict responsible behavior should be called just that. I don't for a second believe there will be wild any increase in law enforcement. In fact I suspect just the opposite as new laws require more administrators to handle paperwork and not feet on the street to enforce them.

I hear a lot of opposition with no alternative solutions too.

Education. I think we both agree it's ignorant people that cause damage and that's actually something that can be curbed. I also think we can agree that an ounce of prevention is far better than a pound of cure when it comes to invasive fish.

The rules aren't being imposed just on us either, it's not NANFA legislation it's invasive species legislation. Brian's own response to 'how this will effect you' isn't something set in stone either. It makes the assumption that there will be absolutely no permitted avenue for the importation, exportation, and sale of native fish when there will certainly be a white list of species.

As far as reasonable permits...are there any states that allow casual collectors to easily obtain a permit for the activities that are not afforded under a fishing license? Please remember that you're talking to a guy that must obtain scientific permits to take photos of common fish that are immediately released unharmed. Sorry if I don't have faith in the state of Wisconsin to provide reasonable permits for it's citizens that want to participate in hands on learning of aquatic animals. I don't believe for a second that NANFA members in Wisconsin will suddenly be offered a permit for responsible activities.

There are plenty of N.A. natives that will not survive the winters in Wisconsin that could be petitioned to be white listed.

I'm sorry but I believe the people of Wisconsin have the right to learn about fishes (and other animals) that live within their state not just the Florida keys. What fish do you believe would actually be white listed in any case? Elassoma from Illinois should be able to survive and many others that have not been tested. If this is the standard, then keeping fish at home that might even look like a local stream cannot happen legally.

The facts are millions upon millions of dollars are spent annually on invasive species that could be going other places like endangered species recovery and land acquisition. Personally I'm tired of spending my time and tax payer money on invasive species that are obvious bait bucket introduction and getting lambasted at public meetings when something has to be done about it or blamed for not doing enough.

I'm sorry the public meetings are unpleasant and much more concerned that people release fish, but it's against the law as already stated. You either need stormtroopers or you need to educate. Why not spend a few bucks on education? Why not make permits available to responsible people that are willing to pay quite a few bucks towards the millions spent in cleaning up the mess of the irresponsible? Until I see a single state allow for the activities of NANFA and it's members, I will assume they have no concern for people that want to learn, enjoy and participate in the local wilds with conservation and environmental responsibility at the top or their agenda. In any case you assume more law will prevent the ignorant from doing what is already illegal. That simply makes no sense. There seem to be far too many people that feel as though only the privileged few with next to impossible to obtain permits are the only people that should be allowed to engage in NANFA activities.

A portion of the NANFA mission statement reads:
"to encourage and defend the legal and environmentally responsible collection of native fishes for private aquaria as a valid use of a natural resource"
Where do you stand on this? I for one encourage you and other permits holders to speak on behalf of responsible activities NANFA members participate in as a valid use of both resources and in turn ask NANFA members to assist with education. People that come here learn and spread the word.

If you can tell me how responsible NANFA members are somehow violating this portion of the mission statement by taking a few fish via fishing license for home use that will never see natural waters again, I will concede my point. I find your position on this matter to be elitist in that you have the permits so who cares about the rest. If you can, please imagine yourself without permits and this great love of fish and other wild aquatic animals we share.

Edited by Uland, 01 August 2009 - 09:52 AM.

<clip>
You either need stormtroopers or you need to educate.
<clip>

Or you can keep (ignorant or not) people from ever getting their hands on fish.
(I am just pointing out an option.)

Even if all bureaucrats and politicians were stupid,
that is not a reason to pretend invasive species are not a problem.

Edited by PhilipKukulski, 01 August 2009 - 10:25 AM.

<clip>
As far as reasonable permits...are there any states that allow casual collectors to easily obtain a permit for the activities that are not afforded under a fishing license?
<clip>

http://www.agfc.com/...regulations.pdf

"37.07 AQUATIC PET RESTRICTIONS. It shall be unlawful to take or
08-02 attempt to take by any method other than those described in 37.04 Baitfish
Tackle Restrictions, or by hand, and possess alive any aquatic wildlife species
other than six (6) of each species per household."

If you're talking about preventing the next Silver Carp introduction from even entering the country...I'm with you Phil. But if you're talking about preventing people from getting their hands on Bluntnose minnows, I can't go along with that. The big problem is differentiating the ignorant from those who respect wild waters. I see no measures from any state to separate the two and you know what that means...no more fish for you or anyone.

Or you can keep (ignorant or not) people from ever getting their hands on fish.
(I am just pointing out an option.)

Even if all bureaucrats and politicians were stupid,
that is not a reason to pretend invasive species are not a problem.

The goal should not be to keep all people from ever getting their hands on fish. It should be to keep those who would break the current laws from ever getting their hands on fish. Responsible fish collectors and anglers are not the problem. Current laws and more restrictions will not stop the problem just hinder those who do care.

Who's pretending invasives are not a problem!

Matt, Phil,

I don't disagree that something has to be done. I just disagree with how they are going about doing it. Releasing fish into Wisconsin waters is already illegal. It has been for years. Do people still do it? Here and there, yes. Realistically, are these few people the problem, no. The invasives in Wisconsin that the DNR site as problems, zebra mussels, round gobies, carp, etc. have been introduced to the state by things like ballast water dumping and people not cleaning their boats as they move from water body to water body. And in case the DNR has forgotten, they stocked carp in many waters of the state in the early part of the last century. "Great food fish" and the like! Is the responsible aquarist the problem, no.

I've been reading the legislation on-line regarding this law. The DNR states that they are using a "science-based" approach. They also state that they are calling all fish not-native to Wisconsin invasive species, but are permitting the posession, transport, and sale of selected "white-listed" species. A specie's "white-listing" is determined by a committee. "Non-viable" life stages of tropical fish of the aquarium trade are going to be allowed. They are also making an allowance for goldfish and koi. How "science-based" is that?

Brian

Brian, I also agree something needs to be done but with a whole lot more thought and wisdom. I seriously question the amount of damage caused by native collectors though admit it could potentially be a problem. I wonder if some well written letters of comment listed here as samples could be made available for whoever might desire to submit a comment on this issue whether in Wisconsin or not. Not everyone is comfortable or feels adequate at writing but they may want to be heard. You and Uland have brought some very good points as have others. Lets try to have some impact.

The goal should not be to keep all people from ever getting their hands on fish.

The goal is to stop (try to stop) invasive species.

It should be to keep those who would break the current laws from ever getting their hands on fish. Responsible fish collectors and anglers are not the problem. Current laws and more restrictions will not stop the problem just hinder those who do care.

Who's pretending invasives are not a problem!

"Current laws <snip> will not stop the problem just hinder those who do care."
Yes

"<snip> More restrictions will not stop the problem just hinder those who do care."
You have overstated your point.
All the logical choices:
More restrictions
Same restrictions (plus education?)
Different restrictions
Fewer restrictions

Phillip, you still haven't answered his concern. So far, you do not dispute that 100% of invasive introductions have been made by 1) people breaking the law because they don't care, 2) people who do not know the law, or 3) government agencies. Which of those categories will be reduced by the proposed legislation?