> high and/or intense rainfall. That is of course unless you don't care if
> your fish escape. :-) But you know me, forever pessimistic when it
> comes to these topics. :-)
That covers a small fraction of the total area of Australia where
aquaculture of ornamental species is likely to be pursued but still doesn't
absolve us from trying to devise a reasonable set of rules, principles and
guidelines no matter how pessimistic we are ;-)
>
> > PS The fact that they are "banned Species" has hardly stopped the
arrival
> > of numerous species to these shore to date and won't in the future ;-)
>
> No, but I think if there are stiff penalties for having them in your
> possession it is more likely to prevent you having them in the first
> place. Making them illegal also drives the price up, people are less
> likely to release a few hundred dollars to never see it again.
Exactly the argument I wanted to hear.How stiff is stiff? The more illegal
they are the higher the desirability and the higher the price and the more
likely to be smuggled in for profit and the greater the risk of disease.
Whether it is fish, birds, reptiles or whatever. The idea is to make a
reasonable assessment of the real risk to the environment Vs the possible
gains or savings and make a transparent decision with the cards on the
table
Regards,
Bruce.
Bruce Hansen, ANGFA, caring for our aquatic ecosystems.
Please visit us at http://www.ozemail.com.au/~fisher/angfa.htm