This is some topic - I know I am not a moderaptor but it is obvious that
there is a lot of emotion out there keeping this topic on the boiler. I was
hoping to see some positive directions come out of the discussion. I
personally think we should step back and look what we are doing - I feel
both sides ( or are there more?) are painting themselves into corners and
being rather defensive. I wouldn't like to see it get personal because that
usually polarises opinions even more.
Lets get back to the reasons for the policies that are excluding the
importation - they are LAW and if we are to get those laws changed we need
to understand as fully as possible the reasons for those laws. If there are
diseases that need to be excluded then we need to be informed what those
diseases are, what the appropriate quarantine periods should be, what the
effects on others could be ( realistic likelihoods, not over-dramatised
worst case ever imaginable scenarios please) and of course these
considerations should apply to all importations of all live fish .
If the beaurocrats want their laws adhered to then they need to sell them
to the public - or risk having the laws flouted. However the law makers are
advised by scientists and they are the people who should be able (and
willing) to tell us the reasons for the laws. If the reasons are
well-founded and consistently applied then not too many will ignore them.
There will always be some. Perhaps a smuggler who understands what to look
out for both before and after poses a smaller risk than the one who is
totally ignorant of the risks. I would like to see an end to the " mushroom
" approach (i.e. keep us in the dark and feed us on bull----) it has not
worked so far and is not likely to do so in the future.
The old cross-breeding chestnut still won't go away. Instead of hundreds (
perhaps thousands will be necessary to convince some) of cross-breeding
trials and the attendant collation of evidence etc I feel we need the
scientists who advise the law makers to tell us what convinces them that
there is a significant (not theoretical/trivial) risk of PNG species being
better adapted to our habitats or out-compete our species. We have had
numerous "legal" PNG Rainbow species commercially available in this country
about 20 years now and is there a convincing case of a problem so far?How
many Years does it take? Or how many species does it take to prove that the
risk is minimal?
Peter ( either/both) where is the convincing scientific evidence that
justifies this stand on cross-breeding ? It must be pretty good to have all
these hard-nosed scientists so entrenched in their opposition to the
importation of those "dangerous" Rainbowfishes from PNG which after all was
until recent geological times a part of Australia . Why several species
that co-occur in both countries co-exist with several species in each
country and where is the evidence of rampant cross-breeding in either co
untry.
The most likely situation is that each species has evolved with patterns of
behaviour and habitat preference ( as well as numerous other factors) that
make significant cross-breeding in the wild extremely unlikely. If the
worst possible outcome ( a mass release of a PNG species) permitted a
viable population to become established it is more than likely that it
would co-exist and not cross-breed with the existing species. There are
numerous examples of habitats that support 3 or 4 species of Rainbowfish
in both countries.
ANGFA is by definition interested in the fishes of BOTH countries a fact
that some of us forget at times. It seems a shame to me that eminent
scientists are on the one hand happy to have us help them whenever we can
but on the other hand telling us that we have "little or
no relevance to the understanding of our native fish" because we are mere
hobbyists. Just because we are hobbyists doesn't mean we don't care about
our fish. In many instances our behaviour towards the habitats and
inhabitants on collecting trips and the subsequent treatment of the fish
shows a lot more "understanding" of a different sort.
I would like to close with an appeal to our scientists - please try to see
that a law needs to pass the test of "reasonability" to be seen as relevant
and appropriate to most thinking members of the concerned public and a
"father knows best" approach is unlikely to be convincing.
Bruce Hansen
ANGFA Q+N.