Dramatic new changes for 2010

A good point, but I think TWRA is the only one with enough beef to step up to this plate. So I'd like to see some action there. If I were a resident (and I may be some day), I'd spend some of my time pushing for this.

Todd

TWRA seems to try to stay away from land use issues. TDEC is overstretched. A lot of regulations are on the books but utterly unenforced, or token efforts are accepted. If you're ever driving through the new construction on US 79 between Clarksville and Dover, notice how the silt barriers are placed along the crests of ditch banks, often on the far side of the ditch from the constuction. Those fences are actually on some of the highest points of land in the area, and certainly have zero effect on silt heading south to the Cumberland or north to the Red. And that's the way it's done in plain sight! I've worked on new housing developments and around farms and the token efforts there are even more pitiful.

This is sad news for the good guys (responsible folks that make sure of the ID of the fish and take a couple secure fish home).
I am stunned that it really seems I can still photograph fish, provided the car isn't away from the stream or I don't take the fish to my photo equipment. I just need to make sure I take the photo equipment to the stream now.

... I brought up Arkansas and Virginia's enlightened responses to this topic, and he said he tried fighting for that, but it wasn't going to go. ...
Todd

Have Arkansas and Virginia had recent changes?

Is this a big problem?

Susan,

As Nathan already said, due to the enormity of species listed in some manner (probably about 1/3) and the high endemism it can be. I'll use my example in a little more detail. Say I'm around middle Tennessee, north of Cookeville in a tributary to the middle Cumberland watershed and I collect Etheostoma c.f. stigmaeum (Longhunt darter). I then swing 30 minutes to the south and get into the Caney Fork watershed and all of a sudden the practically identical fish is federally listed (Bluemask darter). That sort of pattern exists with many darters and some madtoms as you move east-west and between Tennessee and Cumberland basins.

I must say that I'm not surprised by this move, as it seems that TN is a bit more touchy on the subject of non-game fish. However, as a person that lives close to TN and enjoy's their fish, I am saddened by this. (I guess Dollywood is the only thing left to do in the Pigeon Forge area) I had a large, male adult Warpaint shiner that I've had for nearly a year that passed away last weekend. I have another juvenile, but was looking forward to collecting another this year. Where else can you readily find warpaints and saffron's, VA?

What I don't understand is that, according to the guide, is that you can catch a class 3 and use them for bait on the spot. How is this any worse than catching one and putting it in an aquarium. I understand that putting in this rule keeps fish from being transported from one stream to another. It seems like they have taken out the personal collector in order to more easily accomplish their goal. I wish they, and other states would be more blunt like VA.

VA Regs

Taking aquatic invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, and nongame fish for private use**

It is lawful to collect and possess live for private use** only, and not for sale, no more than 5 individuals of any non-listed species of amphibian and reptile, and no more than 20 individuals of any non-listed species of aquatic invertebrate and nongame fish (4 VAC 15-360-10). Non-listed terrestrial invertebrates may be taken in unlimited numbers for private use** only. NO Threatened and Endangered Species may be held for personal use.

** private use means for use in the home, not for scientific, research, survey or educational purposes (which requires a permit).

Edited by jblaylock, 11 March 2010 - 09:16 AM.

Have Arkansas and Virginia had recent changes?

Not within 5 or so years(?) The rules are clearly written and acknowledge people might keep them at home or at a school etc.

Now Tennessee's rules are clearly written and acknowledge that people might keep them at home or at a school etc and that they don't want you doing that.

Todd

I will have to talk to some of my TWRA buddies and see what the best route for public comment on policy is. Matt mentioned that these blanket bans often loosen up later on, but I doubt that happens without some sort of external suggestion that people would appreciate a change in the rules.

How does this new ruling impact those people who have legally purchased captive bred specimens from licensed dealers?

How does this new ruling impact those people who have legally purchased captive bred specimens from licensed dealers?

It isn't explicit, but those specimens should be grandfathered in, I think. Just make sure you hold on to your receipts.

I am sorry to hear about these new regulations; and I really hope other states dont follow suit.

It isn't explicit, but those specimens should be grandfathered in, I think. Just make sure you hold on to your receipts.

I'm thinking that the question isn't just about grandfathering specimens already owned, but specimens yet to be acquired. Surely there is some precident/exception for licensed dealers - after all, how does one buy a sailfin molly or American flag fish at the pet shop? Would whatever rules are followed there allow me to buy yellowfin shiners from a licensed dealer?

I could be worng, but I feel reasonably certain that the rules apply to Tennessee native species, not all US native species. So, all three species you mentioned would be treated just as any exotic tetra or cichlid or gourami would be. The only Tennessee natives common in the pet trade (that I have seen in local stores) are channel catfish and fathead minnows. I don't think TWRA is likely to concern itself with these. They have also historically not bothered with the many Tennessee native herp species sold in pet stores, as long as there was no reason to believe the critters were collected locally. These rules seem to be aimed squarely at bait sellers and anglers.

Please don't take this as legal advice. I am NOT a lawyer. As I understand it, here in California, fishes sold by pet shops, for exclusive use in aquariums, are treated as ornamental fish and not subject to the same restrictions as wild caught fish. State licensed hatcheries made be treated differently because, traditionally, those fish were either used as food or more commonly for stocking in private waters. California requires a permit for ANY outdoor stocking of fishes. I have no idea how the law might be interpreted in Tennessee. Chances are, they haven't really considered the question, since there is no large sportsman's or business lobby demanding it. But to be realistic, if you keep a fish in your home, and have a receipt showing where you purchased it, you are _probably_ safe. First of all, how often do fish and wildlife folks show up at your door asking to inventory your fish collection? If they do, you have a receipt showing that you did not deliberately violate the wild-take laws of your state. Seems to me that at that point, your only exposure is whether your state has laws restricting the import or possession of certain species. That's an intricate legal question and varies widely from state to state. Never keep fishes that are listed in your state or federally as in any way imperiled. Avoid keeping game fish, such as trout and others that some states are touchy about. Don't trumpet to anyone what you are keeping. Not because it is illegal to do it, but because the squeaky wheel gets the grease, or the subpoena, as the case may be. I repeat, I am NOT a lawyer. Don't take my advice!

... channel catfish and fathead minnows. I don't think TWRA is likely to concern itself with these. They have also historically not bothered with the many Tennessee native herp species sold in pet stores, as long as there was no reason to believe the critters were collected locally. These rules seem to be aimed squarely at bait sellers and anglers.

I'm thinking there is likely a regulations somewhere else in the code that specifically applies to pet stores and the like. Like maybe in a "commerce" chapter or something. I'd be curious to see how it is worded and whether licensed vendors would fit under that category. I would think that native herps would be watched much more closely, if there were no such reg. Not that nobody would violate it, but that maybe fewer people would try. There may not be such a regulation, but it might be worth going through the state code and looking into. If I lived in TN, I think I'd be doing just that, to determine exactly what is allowed. Might be pleasantly surprised.

I just might do that. Reading legalese always gives me a headache, so I'll ge sure to keep a bottle of ibuprofen handy.

I don't think there's hard and fast rules in the Midwest about what allows a pet shop to sell ornamental fish. No one ever talked to me about that when I had my shop. Once something was through the border, it was good. That was the appeal for a lot of places to buy stuff wholesale from breeders in Florida. There weren't any rules. I'm not saying this was a good thing, it's just what it's been up to now. So you may be looking for awhile to find a rule about this.

I just wouldn't keep species (or close looking members of species complexes) native to Tennessee if you want to keep North American fish and be completely safe about it (receipt or not).

I would also watch any VHS lists, although they to this point pretty much cover species found in Tennessee.

Todd

Appreciate replies to my question. I would never take any "friendly opinions" as legal advice. My initial gut reaction is to be so aggravated over the whole situation as to be inclined to just forget about it, euthanize all my natives, and never buy another fishing license or go fishing in this state ever again. I'm sure that would hurt a lot of TWRA administration feelings and they would loose sleep over that. I do have some degree of empathy for what they're trying to accomplish, but disagree strongly with the way its being implemented. I just don't believe that native fishkeepers have a large enough impact on native fish populations to warrant technically being excluded from responsibly enjoying the fish resource in a slightly different way than the people who catch them and kill them to eat or catch them to kill them while using them for bait. Since all the natives I have kept for several years have been captive bred and purchased from licensed dealers, I have had even less of an impact than I might have otherwise. At any rate....happy fish collecting and keeping to those living in states that still allow this horrid activity to persist.

Rick you're probably right, native fish keepers don't have that impact, its the inadvertant movement and dumping of bait..

Appreciate replies to my question. I would never take any "friendly opinions" as legal advice. My initial gut reaction is to be so aggravated over the whole situation as to be inclined to just forget about it, euthanize all my natives, and never buy another fishing license or go fishing in this state ever again. I'm sure that would hurt a lot of TWRA administration feelings and they would loose sleep over that. I do have some degree of empathy for what they're trying to accomplish, but disagree strongly with the way its being implemented. I just don't believe that native fishkeepers have a large enough impact on native fish populations to warrant technically being excluded from responsibly enjoying the fish resource in a slightly different way than the people who catch them and kill them to eat or catch them to kill them while using them for bait. Since all the natives I have kept for several years have been captive bred and purchased from licensed dealers, I have had even less of an impact than I might have otherwise. At any rate....happy fish collecting and keeping to those living in states that still allow this horrid activity to persist.

My friendly advice is not to give up because of this legislation, and to contact the heads of the TWRA (or even later state government)to see if you can get revisions to the laws that have been passed. Ive seen in the past where they seem to be more open to revisions, than to rescind a law (unless a big legal war is fought or huge public outcry). I agree with Ashtonmj that its bait bucket introductions and livewells in boats or the boats themselves that are the primary problems; maybe we at NANFA could start and sign a petition, to send to the Tennesee state government, if writing letters to the heads at the TWRA and TN conservation departments dosent work.....or you all could move to Southern Mo. .

Edited by wargreen, 21 March 2010 - 01:37 PM.

The problem is that they don't want to deal with education permits, which is probably the only way around this issue. By saying that NANFA types or even educators are the exception, you're in effect proposing that the Division spend more time with an already strapped budget and personnel resources to work things out for us? I just don't see anyone buying into that, and I already tried the Jedi Mind Trick (these are the permits you want to be writing)

This is what the TN Permit fella told me straight up, and I don't know that I can disagree with him - although I think it sucks, but that's the reality.

Todd