PROTECTED SPECIES Species that fall in to this category are just that; simply those that are either legally protected or carry a Department of Conservation (DoC) rating of Category C or higher (Molloy & Davis, 1992; Tisdall, 1994). These species generally include the following fishes; Category (A): Shortjawed kokopu Galaxias postvectis), Spotted mudfish (Galaxias sp. aff. diversus) Category (B): Giant kokopu (Galaxias argenteus), Dwarf inanga (Galaxias gracilis), Brown mudfish (Neochanna apoda), Canterbury mudfish (Neochanna burrowsius) Category (C): Black mudfish (Neochanna diversus), Banded kokopu (Galaxias fasciatus), Koaro (Galaxias brevipinnis), Longjawed galaxias (Galaxias prognathus), Tarndale bully (Gobiomorphus alpinus) These species should only be collected from the wild if they are to be used for demonstration purposes e.g. public displays to the end of increased public knowledge, or for research. Legally, any collectors of these species are also on shaky ground; as they should be! Most of us wouldn’t dream of taking a kokako or takahe from the wild; why then do we make excuses for ourselves when we simply want to possess a rare fish as a novelty 'pet' or conversation piece?

OTHER UNCOMMON SPECIES These fish species are those which are either uncommon nationally (this is usually reflected in their DoC ratings), regionally, or even locally. For example banded kokopu (Galaxias fasciatus) are not greatly threatened nationally, but are uncommon e.g. in the Waikato and Manawatu regions. Taking of fishes from populations in regions in which populations are likely to be fragile given their low numbers is therefore clearly strongly discouraged. Other species such as giant kokopu (Galaxias argenteus are reasonably common in the some Westland streams, but are much rarer nationally. The size of the local population from which the fish is being removed is also clearly important here.

COMMON AND UNPROTECTED SPECIES Taking of small numbers of such species as the often common and ubiquitous common bully (Gobiomorphus cotidianus) is unlikely to significantly damage the remaining population. The emphasis here, however is on the small numbers. Removal of large numbers of native fishes from a waterbody is obviously likely to have a significant impact on the viability of the remaining population. This is even more so when the population is non-migratory e.g. lacustrine. For example, whilst a given population of common bullies is likely to be able to rebound from a lowered population due to collection (or floods etc. for that matter) with young fishes arriving from the sea that spring, a non-migratory species such crans bully (Gobiomorphus basalis) will be more impacted as breeding stock has been removed. Numbers of young fishes arriving into their system for this species is directly proportional to the number of fishes already present. If these non-migratory populations become extinct (which over-collecting from will encourage) then how will they become naturally re-established? Other problems may be more subtle with a lowering of genetic diversity, causing an increased chance of inbreeding and deformities occurring when population size drops below a critical level. It is possible that this is already occurring with some Hamilton outskirts populations of black mudfish (Neochanna diversus). Although the effects of over-collecting from populations of migratory species will be less obvious (some of the damage being repaired by the influx of new fish e.g. during the next whitebait run), a dilution effect still occurs in which less fish from this population will then be available for other streams in the area. This is thought to be a reason whilst species such as giant kokopu are continuing to decline; because what few young are produced by the few remaining viable population left tend to be spread very thinly over all the streams into which their juveniles then run into.

CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, I feel that if we as a society are to be seen as a responsible and 'green' organisation, then we must rise above being merely 'fish hobbyists'. This is the only way in which we will achieve credibility in the eyes of both national and regional governing bodies, and also with the many other ecological groups with which we interact. It goes without saying that collecting should not occur from private land without permission. Other no-go areas include DoC land, regional council land, and any other land that exists in a faunal reserve. We also have a legal obligation to give thought to whether a specific iwi has Treaty collecting rights to fishes in the area, and even to simple fishing regulations e.g. when we go whitebaiting for kokopu to rear up. The concept of 'research' in this article here means simply that some form of dissemination of information gleaned about the species’ ecology, behaviour etc. occurs. An ideal way to do this is simply through keeping a notebook for each species that one has in aquaria, and noting down preferred foods, where they take these foods, how they interact with the other species present etc. And of course we all have the ideal vehicle at our hands available to distribute this information to other fish keepers, resource managers, and scientists to which a lot of this material is likely to be new. I am aware that some members are 'saving' their knowledge for books that they hope to publish one day on keeping native fish. Whilst I am personally unimpressed by the 'leech' attitude that this represents, feeding off the knowledge of persons whom do present their findings in this forum whilst holding onto their own to protect their own selfish interests, when we don’t present our findings simply due to laziness then we are probably just as bad. From this discussion then, the following recommended low-impact collecting methods are advised. Unless absolutely required only juveniles of any species that is not common should be collected e.g. 'whitebait' and 'whalebait'. No more should be collected than is able to be properly housed at that moment; if you don’t have room or a tank already waiting: then don’t get greedy. Uncommon or threatened species should only be taken if they are directly threatened in the area in which they have been found, for use in a public display for increasing public awareness, or for research e.g. insights into their breeding and ecology. Collecting should only occur where permission has been given e.g. private land with the owner’s permission, DoC land with a permit. Collecting and keeping native freshwater fishes along these lines of responsibility will not only make us more than fish hobbyists and a aquarium club that happens to specialise in native fishes, but will also open up a whole world that isn’t available to these hobbyists anyway. This is the reality that any one of us can make a valuable contribution to freshwater fisheries science in New Zealand and the conservation of one of our most little known components of our country’s natural fauna; all whilst achieving a depth of knowledge, respect, and appreciation of this valuable and internationally unique resource that a simple collector never could.

REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READINGS Tisdall, C. (ed.) 1994: Setting priorities for the conservation of New Zealand plants and animals (2nd ed.). Department of Conservation. Wellington, New Zealand. 64p. McDowall, R. M. 1990: New Zealand freshwater fish: a guide and natural history. Heinemann-Reed. Auckland, New Zealand. 553p. Molloy, J; Davis, A. (eds.) 1992: Setting priorities for the conservation of New Zealand’s threatened plants and animals. Department of Conservation. Wellington, New Zealand. 44p.