> I agree and I'm pretty sensitive to others' feelings.  But, I can't
imagine
> what would be derogatory about Jewfish.  I have uncovered the original
> announcement by the committee that makes such changes, and it doesn't
> provide much information as to who was offended or why.

I'm not, by my nature, particularly aware of emotional injuries and,
therefore, tend to be a bit sensitive about the risk.  It's often all
together too easy to hurt someone's feelings, insult them or simply make
them feel bad through the use of terms that carry emotional impact to them.
I've tripped more than once.

> >Is Squaw considered a derrogatory term?
>
> Apparently so.

I guess so too.  Personally, I thought it was simply a reference to an woman
of American Indian descent.  Guess it's more.

> Regardless of these official positions, common names are still going to
> differ from one locale to the next and that keeps things interesting.  A
> standard common name is just a crutch for us fishheads who chose to take
> French in high school instead of Latin and can't remember the
> multi-syllabic scientific name of every critter we come across.

This could get interesting.  Jewfish are protected here in the U.S. and
Goliath Grouper aren't.  I wonder how long it will be before someone uses
this as a defense against prosecution for killing one.  I'm sure the
regulation uses the scientific name but am also sure that the kind of
fishing regulation and limit information most commonly used don't.

Lee