Hi Mike (and everyone), I'm not a "fan" of electroshocking, but I do support it as a tool. Like many other tools, I believe it has its time and place. I wouldn't use a sledgehammer to do dentistry (although, the concept is amusing). Likewise, I feel it is overkill (no morbid joke intended) to use electrofishing on waterways unnecessarily. Having also worked for the PA DEP and having e-fished often (daily?) across the state, I do know of the devastation it CAN bring, if not used correctly. My morbidity and mortality rates were in the 3 to 4% range, personally, but that may have been luck. As for the Mayfly (and stonefly) nymphs, I've done e-fished seines both before and after treatments with pesticidal bacteria (Bacillus thuringensis israeleii) and those fish and nymphs shocked and collected are 'quite healthy'. I guess why I reply is to emphasize that it is a tool, and that when used correctly the "pros" outweigh the "cons". Yes, there are downsides (like the 10% loss). But when taken in context of the ecology of the surroundings, and the benefits thereof, the tool is but a necessary evil. Clinical trials on humans hurt people; to have a control to compare to, half of those humans in a clinical trial receive sugar-pills (placebo). In the case of AIDS or some other illness, those persons likely die. I look at it (again, just my view) as benefiting mankind, or at least that portion which has AIDS. The deaths of humans in the placebo group is aiding us to better the world for all of us. In a small ecological region, the harm of some of the water- population is needed for the betterment and sustinance of the whole.
Again, just my two cents... feel free to state your views. Tight wraps, Pete ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
