Jump to content


SEWNFC - August Mtg. - Invasives Legislation


34 replies to this topic

#21 Guest_PhilipKukulski_*

Guest_PhilipKukulski_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 August 2009 - 05:27 PM

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?


My concern is invasive species. Something needs to be done, but probably won't be, even if current bills are off-track, over-broad, inflexible, and put the power in the wrong hands.

A white list law would reduce invasive species by 1, 2, and 3
and 4) species that are kept legally but escape due to some accident, human or natural.

#22 Guest_BTDarters_*

Guest_BTDarters_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 August 2009 - 06:15 PM

Uland,

=D> =D> =D> =D>

My concern is invasive species. Something needs to be done, but probably won't be, even if current bills are off-track, over-broad, inflexible, and put the power in the wrong hands.

A white list law would reduce invasive species by 1, 2, and 3
and 4) species that are kept legally but escape due to some accident, human or natural.


Phil,

I've gotta disagree with you. People who are already breaking the law because they don't care aren't going to care now that there's yet another law "prohibiting" them. 2) People who do not know the law are probably still not going to know the law. Of the 100+ people I've contacted about this, I have only come across 1 person who had even heard about this. 3) Government agencies are probably still not going be "error-free" and I bet that there are going to be some invasives that get out there because of them (I mentioned the Wisconsin DNR stocking carp in the early part of the 20th century). 4) Species that are kept legally but escape due to some accident, human or natural are still going to escape.

...On the education front, I thought that people would like to see the documents that I ship with all of my live shipments.

Habitattitude info card. Provided to me from the Wisconsin DNR about a year ago after I requested them. The DNR's actions would seem to indicate that they don't think that this is helping???
Habitattitude-671x487.gif

"Protect" document and my "Re-homing" policy. I have always shipped these.
Protect-Re-homing.gif

Brian

#23 Guest_ashtonmj_*

Guest_ashtonmj_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 August 2009 - 03:46 PM

Get over the example of fisheries management from 1900-1950 already. It is a poor argument. Recreational and commerical fisheries and whole ecosystem, biodiversity, conservation management aren't compatible when it comes down to it. Find a different way to bash your state agency for doing something that was done by every state at the time because it was the prevailing practice of the time and current fisheries knowledge was lacking or just come out and say your own political views are against government intervention and regulation and you have a financial stake in this decision. No one is error free so saying any proposed program, this or any other, won't be perfect therefore shouldn't be done is rediculous. Hindsight is also 20/20 and it must be easy for someone to say now 'you screwed up 100 years ago stocking _______' so I don't trust you to make a decisions now. More education won't work either. A majority of our highschool students in this country are not proficient in math and sciences so what makes you think that handing out cards explaining the ecological and economic consequences of non-native species introduction watered down into 200 words or less will make one bit of difference. Informational cards have been around for at least a decade if not two. I spent a week posting signs at every boat ramp and bridge about invasive crayfish. You could drop flyers from the sky and send a post card to every house reminding people to not have invasive species, don't support their commercial sale (aquaculture, horticulture, etc., to stop ballast water dumping, and eliminate every other avenue for cross basin transferse of already exisiting invasives and the impact will be minimal.

It's great that you send out those cards Brian, but how many customers do you have a year? Just saying 'No I'm against this' certainly won't help you and your business out in the long run when it comes down to formulating legislation. When I go a year without finding a 'new' species in this state I'll be a little less jaded.

#24 Guest_schambers_*

Guest_schambers_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 August 2009 - 05:43 PM

Just to throw in my 2 cents, where I live there is currently a local government agency giving away non-native fish for mosquito control. Yes, I'm talking about gambusia. So, No, I don't trust government agencies to do the right thing concerning invasives. I'm sorry, but there it is. I know that we shouldn't give up, but I don't think that going after the pet industry is the right thing to do. I think this is just legislating away more of our freedom.

#25 Guest_Uland_*

Guest_Uland_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 August 2009 - 06:13 PM

Get over the example of fisheries management from 1900-1950 already. It is a poor argument. Recreational and commerical fisheries and whole ecosystem, biodiversity, conservation management aren't compatible when it comes down to it. Find a different way to bash your state agency for doing something that was done by every state at the time because it was the prevailing practice of the time and current fisheries knowledge was lacking or just come out and say your own political views are against government intervention and regulation and you have a financial stake in this decision. No one is error free so saying any proposed program, this or any other, won't be perfect therefore shouldn't be done is rediculous. Hindsight is also 20/20 and it must be easy for someone to say now 'you screwed up 100 years ago stocking _______' so I don't trust you to make a decisions now. More education won't work either. A majority of our highschool students in this country are not proficient in math and sciences so what makes you think that handing out cards explaining the ecological and economic consequences of non-native species introduction watered down into 200 words or less will make one bit of difference. Informational cards have been around for at least a decade if not two. I spent a week posting signs at every boat ramp and bridge about invasive crayfish. You could drop flyers from the sky and send a post card to every house reminding people to not have invasive species, don't support their commercial sale (aquaculture, horticulture, etc., to stop ballast water dumping, and eliminate every other avenue for cross basin transferse of already exisiting invasives and the impact will be minimal.

It's great that you send out those cards Brian, but how many customers do you have a year? Just saying 'No I'm against this' certainly won't help you and your business out in the long run when it comes down to formulating legislation. When I go a year without finding a 'new' species in this state I'll be a little less jaded.


Get over the example of fisheries management from 1900-1950 already. It is a poor argument.

It might be a poor argument if all of those ideas had been purged from the ranks. The fact is, some of these practices exist to this day and you know it. Schambers provides a fine example but there is far more going on at the state level than tossing gambusia over their shoulders.

just come out and say your own political views are against government intervention and regulation and you have a financial stake in this decision.

I'm not sure what to say but sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. You seem comfy with legislation that would not allow for NANFA members to take home a single fish native to the state. I could go out on a limb and say your political views might suggest you have not seen a regulation that prohibits people from typical NANFA activities that you didn't like. Do you really believe our membership is so irresponsible we should not take any fish from our home state?

Perhaps flyers are not the right approach.

#26 Guest_ashtonmj_*

Guest_ashtonmj_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 August 2009 - 07:27 PM

Susan never said 'state' she said local government. What county soil and water conservation districts do is often far different from what the state does and intends. County health agencies in California are throwing them in pools because of forclosures and look at that states current regulation structure. I didn't say the state doesn't still introduce non-native gamefish either. I flatly said that recreational and commercial fisheries are still not compatible with whole ecosystem conservation and biodiversity integrity. Maryland determines the use of all water bodies by trout temperature tolerance, mostly non-native. Michigan will throw non-native trout into a stream if it meets certain cold water criteria. Ohio developed a major steelhead fishery within the last 15 years while stumbling across a relict native brook trout population. At absolutely NO point did I say states still do not encourage and develop fisheries that bring them revenue. There are a few million more fisherman so you guess where their interests are directed. The species still distributed by states in question, for the most part, and in most states, do not exhibit the same ecological characteristics as round goby, zebra mussel, eurasian watermilfoil, silver carp, black carp, etc.

Again at NO point have I said I'm comfortable with legislation that will outright exclude the collection of non-game fish for bait and personal use. I said we should consider supporting invasive species legislation. People need to step up to the plate with well thought out scientifically supported arguments for their state agencies to direct legislation in such a way that the ability (it's not a right) to collect native fish isn't loss. For over a year I have advocated that NANFA take a lobbying position on such regulations so we have a voice and are not shut out, the very fear we are talking about. All I hear is a lack of alternatives, doomsday scenarios, and get chastised. We have some well respected people in this organization whose signatures on a letter would hold weight at a public hearing on a white list creation or legislation drafting session. Instead there is no talk that I know of or action by the board to draft such a letter. How about petitioning states to draft legislation like Virginia which specifically allows for fish for home aquaria because lets face it were not collecting bait. That is the exact reason why you need a permit in Illinois Uland. You're not collecting bait, plain and simple. Getting back to an earlier question of yours, yes Drew had a scientific permit in VA last year and I had highly encouraged him to renew it this year. It allowed us to use larger than normal gear and probably go places the average person might get chased away from. I was actually looking forward to writing up a small proposal for the permit application this year, but he decided against it. While many other people in NANFA do not hold nor would be given such permits I have also advocated to change that by petitioning states for a naturalist or educational permit instead of a scientific permit or fishing license. Wouldn't you rather have your license money go to the programs you support instead of state general funds or sport fish restoration? We'd be providing states information that they are having a harder time to collect because those are some of the first positions that get cut within an agency. Such a permit/license would direct funds to non-game, wildlife, and conservation programs. Why in the hell would I support regulations that prohibit typical NANFA activities that I don't like? Since when do I not like the activities of a typical NANFA member? I've been a member for almost 10 years. What I don't like is seeing 'I've got this mussel what is it and oh by the way I found it was illegal to keep them' or 'I've got this darter that might be federally listed but I can't ID it' or when a NANFA representative states on a public forum that the fish they are permitted to bring into the state and breed to export were given to someone who subsequently dumped them well out of their recent and probably historic range. One more stupid thing will ruin it for everyone.

#27 Guest_Uland_*

Guest_Uland_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 August 2009 - 10:13 PM

Okay Matt. Invasive fish like lets say silver carp..
More should have been done to prevent introduction in the first place. We're on the same page with exotics but this comment

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


This is really whats headed down the road isn't it? Blanket regulation on all types of fish especially the fishes native to ones home state. Your statement suggests that any fish native to ones state will have to go through a petitioning process and you're okay with that. We really aren't going to get any fish on that list are we? I know that's random and reckless speculation on my part but what is the purpose of the law again? I suspect legislation like this without provisions for me (the average Joe) will end this whole hobby.

I don't want to say laws that accommodate for NANFA types are impossible but they are unlikely if sweeping reform is made. Being selfish here....I won't be able to take any more photos at the least and forget about actually enjoying a fish at home.

Local vs. State....don't locals need permits to dump fish? Wouldn't the state issue the permit? Perhaps local governments are violating existing laws? On the back half of that...do you really believe the 1950's mentality is all gone from all states? I've seen it first hand Matt, don't kid us here.

Since when do I not like the activities of a typical NANFA member?

I didn't say that actually.

What I don't like is seeing 'I've got this mussel what is it and oh by the way I found it was illegal to keep them' or 'I've got this darter that might be federally listed but I can't ID it' or when a NANFA representative states on a public forum that the fish they are permitted to bring into the state and breed to export were given to someone who subsequently dumped them well out of their recent and probably historic range. One more stupid thing will ruin it for everyone.


You have shown fine examples of major mistakes but I honestly don't recall the fish release and I'm not sure why you bring up the NANFA representative since they were not involved in the release. The recent mussel issue...NANFA member or new forum member? Education will be the most powerful tool against these actions. I know two wrongs don't make a right but my goodness your examples pale in comparison to the wholesale propagation and movement of fish on the state levels. Where did the stock come from and what was native before the introduction? This is what I ask myself every time I sample locally. Many of my local introductions came within the last 20 years by stocking public lakes for recreation that are immediately next to natural waters. You really never know what you're going to catch. I really am curious where they found the stock for some of these lakes. They don't look at all like the wild fish that I can scrape up in natural water far from stocked areas.

I guess I just don't see the benefit in making tons of restrictions since it's already illegal to release fish on any kind at any time. Sure, restricting iportation of Silver carp would have been a good idea but making it so we can't take home a couple of darters and minnows is silly (in my case take photos).

#28 Guest_schambers_*

Guest_schambers_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 August 2009 - 10:37 PM

Yes, it's my County that is giving away the mosquito fish. I'd like to apologize to all the intelligent and knowledgeable people in government, state, local or federal, because I know you're there. I am too cynical for my own good. I think that industries with big money, like shipping and mining, get away with any mess they want to make with nothing but a slap on the wrist while us taxpayers get the shaft. Did I say I was cynical?

#29 Guest_BTDarters_*

Guest_BTDarters_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 August 2009 - 03:18 AM

*bump* for Saturday's meeting.

Brian

#30 Guest_PhilipKukulski_*

Guest_PhilipKukulski_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 August 2009 - 09:55 PM

Here is a relevant article
but it does exhibit some
- we can't enforce it
- the laws would be no good
fatalism.

Burkhard Bilger, The Natural World, “Swamp Things,” The New Yorker, April 20, 2009, p. 80

free access to full article

#31 Guest_BTDarters_*

Guest_BTDarters_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 August 2009 - 04:28 PM

So we're not supposed to keep anything that doesn't live within 50 miles of our house?

Brian

#32 Guest_BTDarters_*

Guest_BTDarters_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 August 2009 - 07:39 PM

All,

I apologize for not getting back to this topic sooner. The meeting went "interestingly". I hope to post some follow-up in the next couple of days. In short, Bill said that any species not native to Wisconsin, that could survive if it excaped in Wisconsin, will be prohibited. Prohibited meaning no posession, sale, transfer, raising, or breeding. However, species in the tropical fish trade, including fish that could survive if they escaped in Wisconsin, are allowed! Like I said, I'm going to post more info about this as soon as I can.

Brian

#33 Guest_schambers_*

Guest_schambers_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 August 2009 - 10:07 PM

Sounds like "interestingly" means "makes no sense." ](*,)

#34 Guest_BTDarters_*

Guest_BTDarters_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 August 2009 - 04:31 PM

Sounds like "interestingly" means "makes no sense." ](*,)


Yeah! I'm going to try to post the follow-up tonight.

Brian

#35 Guest_BTDarters_*

Guest_BTDarters_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 August 2009 - 08:53 PM

All,

Well, I've gotten around to putting all of the information that the DNR guy gave us all together. Basically, the breakdown is that all fish not native to Wisconsin are called "invasive" species. Based on that definition, the DNR gives themselves the authority to regulate the posession, transfer, keeping, breeding, and sale of all fishes in the state. However, they have given the green light to the tropical fish industry. They are giving the industry the right to posess, transfer, keep, breed, and sell any fish they like, including fish that could survive if released into waters of the state. There are a very few exceptions, though. The table presented in the next few images summarizes the info. This table was given to everyone at the Native Fish Club meeting. I asked the DNR representative later where this information would be posted on-line. He said that it wouldn't. He said that anyone with questions could look to the "greensheet package". This is the 72-page document found here. Very dry and might I say "confusing" reading by the way. And, incidentally, the information in the table is not all in the greensheet package. Anywaaaaaayyys...on to the table.

scan0002-L.gif
This is the title page, listing all of the information for the states compiled. The information for the states other than Wisconsin are just listed as ancillary information. The rule goes into effect September 1st, by the way. I had to write this down as it was not given in the table.

scan0003-L.gif
This page lists prohibited species in Wisconsin. No use or posession is allowed. You can see that I've circled the Starhead Topminnow. Apparently our speaker did not know that Starhead Topminnows are native to the state, and are on the endangered species list, by the way. You may notice that "all unlisted and tropical or marine nonnative species are prohibited". This contradicts the listing in the greensheet package. Maybe these are plans for the future??

scan0004-L.gif
This page lists more prohibited species, as well as some restricted species that use or posession is disallowed for, and one species whose use is allowed. You'll notice that I've circled the Blackside Darter. Apparently our speaker did not know that the Blackside Darter is native to Wisconsin and is the second-most abundant darter in the state. Hmmm.

scan0005-L.gif
...And on this page we have restricted species whose posession and use is allowed. You'll notice here the species that are in the tropical fish industry, whose use is allowed, even though they could survive if released in Wisconsin. Hmmmmm.

scan0006-L.gif
...And the final list of species.

If anyone has any comments, I'd like to hear them. This legislation is very contradictory and intrusive. It's this type of legislation that will kill the native fish keeping in the U.S.. Of course, you'll still be able to keep fish that you go out and collect in your home state....maybe.

Brian



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users