Before we run around in circles again over this issue let me just remind
you of where things ended last time as I remember it. Correct me if I'm
wrong.
We all agree that released aquarium fishes are a bad thing and that people
are not about to stop keeping fish.
Education of the public as to the impacts of releasing unwanted fishes was
considered to be the best option, while some work has already been
undertaken on that front, a more aggressive approach would be better such
as printing the information on aquarium bags or something like.
We also seemed to agree that no matter what we do, urban areas are to be
written off in terms of their natural fish communities. Eventually
someone is going to release other duboulayi populations or something that
will potentially screw up the local populations through translocation.
We also agreed that many non Australian rainbowfishes are not likely to be
a significant threat to Australian waterways as the most suitable habitats
for them are remote and restricted in nature. Some NG species like M.s.
rubrostriata probably would do just fine anywhere splendidas live, but
then so would any other splendida. In many respects Australian natives
fishes are a greater threat the IJ/PNG ones. We all felt though that the
benefits gained through groups like ANGFA in documenting these little
known species and their biology far outweighed the risks.
I don't remember if we ever agreed on the following items, but I think
they need to be considered.
The keeping of fish in outdoor ponds / farm dams in tropical areas should be
discouraged unless they are local native ones. Obvious exceptions to
this are properly designed facilities like Rob's fish farm that have the
neccessary features to prevent escapes during heavy rainfall.
Australian legislators need to improve their criteria for what fish are
permitted in Australia and which are not. The present system favours
illegal importation with it's higher disease risks since once the fish
are in they can be legally kept. Once a system has been worked out,
species that are considered to be of reasonable risk should be phased out
of the aquarium hobby. Sure, what's reasonable and how do you phase them
out without causing people to release them anyway. We could argue for
weeks over that. :-)
ANGFA should develop a policy statement on these issues both to show
government and industry where it stands on this issue and also to educate
it's members as to why ANGFA adopted it's position. Fortunately, the
North American Native Fishes Association (NANFA), our unknown "sister"
organisation in the US is presently developing this for their
organisation. It should easy to adapt it to ANGFA's needs so that it can
be put forth to the membership for comments.
My main emphasis in all this is be cautious with what we do. I've seen
both sides of the coin, natural fish communties versus places like
SWestern US where most fish you see are exotic. I know which one I
prefer.
On to a couple of your comments.
> I have looked in Freshwater creek - have you?
No I haven't, but I've seen a couple of fish from near Cairns (that you
suggested were from Freshwater Ck--the ones Rick Datodi's son collected)
and have the specimen of one of those that is thought to be a hybrid. You
are right, my information is not sufficient at this point in time and if
I gave the impression that I was certain of this then I shouldn't off, but
should it prove to be correct it should be cause for concern.
> Yes and they could have been Piranhas and Channas too, or perhaps Candiru
> or whatever your fevered imagination can dream up to support your case ;-)
Less likely to be since they are all banned species. :-)
You are right, I did contact a number of folks way back in time. None of
them ever got back to me with anything except Jerry. I think the volume
of our discussions scared them away. Jerry's letter was not electronic
and didn't contain any additional information that we hadn't already
discucced.
Tootles
Peter Unmack