Jump to content


Our Foot Print


4 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_centrarchid_*

Guest_centrarchid_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 February 2010 - 05:34 PM

The natives that I rely upon or catch my interest are impacted by not just direct users of the same species (fishers, fish farmers, Army Corps Engineers, etc...). Some individuals / organizations have impacts that are non-target or non-point impacts. Parties (i.e. Yellow Tail) that use irrigation for plant production in arid areas can draw down water tables to the point native stocks in the region are denied access to waters. In reality, such activities are widespread and it usually takes more than one producer to damage a watershed. The environmental foot print for such activities I like as a factor for deciding which products I decide to purchase and consume. Otherwise, through my own ignorance, I am part of the problem. I would like to have information to choose "green" producers of products and part of the defintion may in part be developed by those of us interested native species.

Also, if talk about Yellow Tail is to be stiffled, then so should talk about states activities of manipulating waterways (i.e. Chicago River). Both are potentially political in nature.

#2 Guest_fundulus_*

Guest_fundulus_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 February 2010 - 05:47 PM

I don't think objections are related to "political" discussions, but rather the tone and relevance of such discussions. Land use decisions hugely affect native aquatic communities. The scale of farming in the midwest and west of this country affects the quantity and quality of surface waters, and coal mining in the Appalachians is often utterly destructive of existing streams. Any of this is a legitimate topic here, but not if we focus on how much we hate farmers or miners, for instance. We want to encourage discussion and awareness of problems rather than launching a series of two-minute hates. People with other interests or agendas might not like us or think we're crazy, but that goes with any kind of advocacy.

#3 Guest_centrarchid_*

Guest_centrarchid_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 February 2010 - 06:19 PM

Everything we do impacts the natural environment. I can't even walk down the sidewalk without smashing a few ants. It would nice to see efforts made scrutenizing impacts not only of parties operating in the immidiate vicinity of our native systems (we do this all the time) but also our wants for products beyond our needs. Otherwise, we are placing all the burden on others (producers).

I see / hear / smell the tone. The intepretation of relevance will have to be left to the moderators discretion which I will abide by and / or choose to address in another forum. Some of the perceived "hate" is a function of intolerance of differing views. Sadly, I am one of the percievers.

#4 Guest_jase_*

Guest_jase_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 February 2010 - 11:53 PM

I don't think objections are related to "political" discussions, but rather the tone and relevance of such discussions.

I heartily agree. The original post called for a boycott simply because Yellow Tail is in some way associated with an animal rights group. Starting a conversation from the standpoint that "animal rights is bad" doesn't lead to a very constructive discussion.

Centrarchid's follow-up pointing out water use issues with Yellow Tail was at least constructive (if still a bit of a tenuous connection to North American Native Fish). As it turns out, HSUS does directly oppose keeping wild fish in aquariums. I'm sure if the original poster had pointed that out in a tone not outright hostile to anything associated with "animal rights" the moderators would have had absolutely no problem with the thread.

#5 Guest_wargreen_*

Guest_wargreen_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 February 2010 - 01:26 PM

I heartily agree. The original post called for a boycott simply because Yellow Tail is in some way associated with an animal rights group. Starting a conversation from the standpoint that "animal rights is bad" doesn't lead to a very constructive discussion.

Centrarchid's follow-up pointing out water use issues with Yellow Tail was at least constructive (if still a bit of a tenuous connection to North American Native Fish). As it turns out, HSUS does directly oppose keeping wild fish in aquariums. I'm sure if the original poster had pointed that out in a tone not outright hostile to anything associated with "animal rights" the moderators would have had absolutely no problem with the thread.

Hsus sounds like its really misdirected....as far as some pupfish and Banded sunfish go aquariums maybe the only way in the future that they are saved!



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users