Talk:Macquarie perch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Fish Portal This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Portal	Macquarie perch is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Neutral POV =

I added a POV tag because the Conservation section reads like someone anti-trout is giving their own analysis. I personally don't really feel drawn to either side (I might even be a little anti-introduced trout), but this section is not written in a neutral manner. Example: "and they have long neglected our native fish species".Rlax 17:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Please explain your experience WRT this species and the basis upon which you think the article is biased. I have re-read the section you seem to be critical of and it looks like a statement of facts to me. Australian inland fisheries departments have been highly trout-centric until very recent times. It is a fact that no government fisheries department has a current breeding program for Macquarie perch, the only one running at this time in fact the experimental one of Native Fish Australia, a volunteer organisation run on a shoe-tring. Whether you like it or not, it is a fact that trout have been and remain a significant negative factor in the recovery of this and a number of other Australian native cool water species. It is in fact neutral POV to point out and discuss all factors and to emphasise those factors that are most significant. It is not POV to state that trout are a significant negative influence on this species nor to state the fact that Australian authorities have abrogated their responsibility towards threatened endemic taxa. It is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. Nick Thorne 13:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the point of view tag because it is unnecessary and unwarranted. What you suggest is anti-trout bias is simply someone stating the dismal state of affairs, as it is, factually. Yes, it is an unpleasant story, yes, it is frightening the state a "trout-at-all-costs" management policy has left our upland native fish in. Stating these facts is not anti-trout bias, but is indeed an exercise in being accurate, comprehensive and factual in an article and highlighting the desperate change and action we need in freshwater fisheries management and native fish conservation in south-east Australia. Codman 05:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)