> The same problem applies to some pathogens that are already here e.g. TB .
> Of course this risk also applies to every fish that is imported, whether on
> an officially sanctioned list of species or not and the legal importer puts
> his sanctioned fish in his quarantine room for the requisite time and tries
> to lessen the stresses on the fish so they won't show the pathogens that
> they may be harbouring. I agree with your general thrust Peter but for my
> money I would like to see a consistent set of logical guidelines for the
> selection of species to be imported and a quarantine approach that truly
> matches up with the pathogens they are purporting to prevent .
There is problem with that because everybody in the fish trade has a
degree of self interest and so any decision is not going to be agreed on
by all and this corespondingly leaves us vulnerable to people wanting to
bring it in.
>
> I agree that some of the illegal imports are allegedlyattributed to ANGFA
> members and M. praecox is a good example. I understand that there were at
> least 3 and maybe 4 different entry points for this species all around the
> same time and they were not all associated with ANGFA members. At least 2
> of those were not for overtly commercial motives. I also resisted the
> "possession obsession" for praecox until they were given to me and I just
> couldn't say "no". So I can understand the temptations involved.
Maybe my information is somewhat biased here because I am within ANGFA
circles and hence only hear about what ANGFA members are suppsed to have
done. However having said that we are also the group that is most likely
to do so because we want the fish in.
>
> A1. Worth clarifying in the auction rules - certainly needs considering.
>
> A2. Before we do all this "unholy but for a?good cause" crossbreeding is
> there some way we can find out if it will be acceptable proof and what sort
> of statistical parameters will be required e.g. how many times and in how
> many places will each cross need to be performed ( also other factors such
> as each way crosses - e.g. male incisus with female pygmaea but also need
> to do the opposite cross i.e. male pygmaea with female incisus).
That is where ANGFA may need to get a liason officer to deal with that
exact problem and have them deal with that problem alone. The planning of
the experiments would not be all that tedious. The hassle comes with the
collation and writeup, as long as everybody who contributed to the data
pool did not insist on being involved in the editing process it would be
ok.
> > A3.I agree that we have to put more effort into the poorly known
> "endemics"and a lot of the fishes proposed for the A-Z list fit into this
> category e.g. Bostricthys zonatus.But there will always be those who wish
> to obtain forbidden treasures.
I understand that this fish is a real beuty, however its teeth and
disposition make it somewhat less desireable.
> A4. This gets back to the old problem - the new "pretty" fish will always
> be sought after more than the less attractive existing species that
> "everybody" has already got. Your point is well taken about the narrow
> genetic base and this can only really be overcome if sufficiently large
> samples could be imported from the wild ( not from 5 fish carried back to
> Germany and then distributed all over the world).
There are definetly some very nice autralian species that have the same
sort of limited collections and are thus also vulnerable.
>
> Bruce Hansen
>
> ANGFA Q+N