The RML represents (in the most part) people who keep sahulian natives out of either fondness for the fish or else a desire to ensure that they are protected from exploitation and ultimate extinction.
Gordon, appears to represent the commercial breeder whose only interest is a fast buck and preventing anyone from doing anything that would interfere with their "divine right" to exploit a natural resource for profit.
I am totally against any form of regulation on the keeping of fish other than that necessary to to protect habitats - i.e I'd love to see a $100,000 fine/10 years gaol for releasing Tilapia in native waters, or European Carp/Redfin/Trout or any other non-
native fish for that matter.
The commercial breeders have to realise that the Government (and the general public) DO NOT owe them a living. He chose to go into a business that carries all the risks of any other form of primary production. If he can't stand the heat (or make a profit)
he should get out of the kitchen and leave the cooking to those who can. Bellyaching that Joe Bloggs and his pair of species X are ruining his market are absolute tripe... the dealers are also in the busines to make money and they will buy from whoever o
ffers them the best deal...and lets face it - how much "cash" comes out of your local aquarium shop - in my experience, most of it goes straight back into the same till. I suspect that a thorough investigation by independent auditors would place the effec
ts of "backyard breeders" on Commercial enterprises as almost nil except in a few specialist categories like cichlids.
Where are the commercial breeders of killifish? They don't exist because the market won't pay for a fish that lives for such a short space of time. yet, these proposals apply equally to fish that no commercial breeder would look twice at. If breeding was
left in the hands of the commercial operators we would see a regular progression of "fad fish" each season that would disappear from the hobby as soon as the next came along. And if nature can't supply a steady stream of fad fish, lets pretend we're a liv
ing in the EEC and design our own abominations. (Maybe ANGFA needs to pay those few renegade European commercial breeders not to breed sahulian crosses just like the French and the Americans pay farmers not to grow crops, or keep cattle....)
In conclusion, I find the suggestion that breeders should be licenced (to protect the "legitimate" businesses) as offensive as I find the idea of "Plant Rights" and "Biological Rights" - how dare they try to enforce "ownership" of a natural resource for t
he benefit of a minority.
What you end up with is a situation not unlike the current situation with Australian Native Plants - where Dutch breeders hold patents over virtually every flowering australian native plant by virtue of having sent large quantities of collectors here prio
r to the enactment of the legislation in Europe and America, and registering them under the biological patents legislation...
Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth.
----------
From: Bruce Hansen[SMTP:bhansen at ozemail.com.au]
Reply To: rainbowfish at pcug.org.au
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 1997 9:24 AM
To: rainbowfish at pcug.org.au
Subject: Re: [RML] Regarding the Rainbowfish Mailing List
Hello Gordon,
Welcome to the fray ! As in all friendly discussions you are entitled to
your viewpoint and I to mine. As "the Silver Budgie" says "never let the
truth get in the way of a good story !" It makes for a more animated
discussion. No one person has a monopoly on the truth.
Attachment Converted: c:\eudora\attach\RE [RML] Regarding the Rainbow