I did not mean to be insulting Barry, in effect I pointed out that
ANGFA has attracted "boffins" because of the very objectives that you
have kindly resurrected for all of us to see.
Sorry If I appear a bit touchy Walter, but I was a bit hot under the collar. After all we are from different backgrounds and have a similar interest in the middle, I suppose we all must learn to be a bit more tolerate of the other fellows thoughts, opini
ons etc.
My extention of knowledge
has resulted in a publication of 55 scientific papers on Australian
fish fauna of which at least 4 were due to the help and kindness of
ANGFA members. None of these publications has given me any financial
gain but I do hope that I have, in a minor way, contributed to
the knowledge of Australian fish.
I didn't mean to mention anything pecuniary or financial, sorry if I misled you. The work that you have done and the small assistance some of our members may have been is definately appreciated. After all ANGFA members are well aware of the lack of scie
ntists that take an interest in this arena.
I think you have noted that Peter Hughes and Peter Unmack's missives
suggested that we should exercise caution about importation because little
is known about the effects introduced species may have on the natives.
I have just been to the Ichs and Herps conference where a whole session
was devoted to introduced species in the United States (about 200 species) and there were a number of papers which indicated that some of the species hybridise in the wild. There is also a lot of evidence that introduced fish frequently outcompete the nat
ives and alter the habitat to the detriment of all the fauna.
Yes I suppose we have all seen what can happen, ie., gambusia, tilapia, guppy's etc. But I think Bruces earlier point about PNG rainbows/blue-eyes having been in the country for a long time with no problem is a very strong argument for "our side" if you
will (talking specifically about importation of rainbowfishes/blue-eyes).
No one is saying that any one in the hobby would wilfully cross fish
and then release them into wild. But imported fish will reach the
remainder of the community sooner or later and who knows what will happen then?
I think Peters arguments on introduction of virii (viruses?) and harmful pathogens is probably the strongest arguments against importations, however we shouldn't be expected to be satisfied with "whirlybird?" disease in trout in America as the justificati
on. (you can tell I am highly oblivious to these studies)
As I understand it, this example was used to illustrate a harmful disease not present and not wanted in Australia, however I also am led to believe it only affects trout so I don't see the relevance.
As difficult as it may be there should be "scientific" evidence bought forward to say that "M. lacustris" (species specified) is susceptible to pathogen X or virus Y and these are considered dangerous to our Australian environment because of ABC (be it th
e risk of introduction to wild fish in Australia, whatever). Therefore lacustris should not be available in Australia. (This is a very simplified example I know but this is in terms I understand)
Puerile desire for just another pretty fish without a justifialble
reason doesn't seem to fit into the eleven objectives that you have
kindly typed up for all to see, does it?
Well it does as I see it, because it is a part of the fauna I am interested in. I suppose I could say I was interested in oktediensis as it is probably endangered (maybe even extinct?) within the Oktedi river. Likewise the scare with boesemani when it w
as discovered just how many males were being ripped out of the Ajamuru system for worldwide distribution, or who knows what is happening to lacustris on L Kutubu since the explosions in those oil tanks last week.
But the real truth is that I like some of these PNG species (no justification). I suppose this is one of those areas where we are unable to see? the other persons view. Because I like them is enough justification to me to want some, as I am a "hobbyist"
. It is what I do for enjoyment, satisfaction etc. (this does not mean that I am going to break the law and go and smuggle them in). Whereas I believe you would probably be thinking "Well they are nice or pretty, but there is this unknown risk and it is
better to be safe (and not have them) than sorry (and introduce god knows what)"
The above is in no means knocking your viewpoint, I am just trying to see things from the other side as it were.
Regards,
Barry.