> I think we are blaming the wrong guys when we blame Customs - it is
> the scientists( who advise the Bureaucrats) that will need to admit that
> they don't have any evidence ( that stuff they like others to produce to
> verify their assertions) if we wish to have the laws changed next time they
> are reviewed. And the likelihood of them admitting they may have been
> mistaken is slight
I look at your statement differently. I think that the scientists will
be the first to admit they don't have sufficient evidence. But not as
you assert to keep fish out, but insufficient evidence to be sure that
imported fish aren't an unreasonable risk to the Australian environment.
In other words, it appears as if you feel we should allow everything to
come into Australia until proven that they are a reasonable risk.
Scientist/beaurocrats look at it oppositely, keep everything out until they
are shown to not be a reasonable risk. That is considered a safer and thus
more cautious/conservative approach.
Obviously the difference in thinking/definitions comes down to defining
reasonable risk. The list was first established to remove fish that may
pose a reasonable risk. Thus today, to get a fish back on the allowable
list evidence needs to be presented demonstrating that that species is
not a reasonable threat if released into the environment.
Unfortunately I don't have the relevant documentation here but off the
top of my head I'll try and come up with some criteria that I think were
used in determining what represented a reasonable risk. These are not in
any order of importance either.
1/ Known to have caused feral populations/problems overseas (obviously,
the most popular aquarium fish were excluded from this as it was seen as
being unreasonable to ban guppies etc, however most other livebearers are
illegal I believe)
2/ Have extremely broad environmental tolerances. Pupfish fit this
criteria perfectly, some cichlids also and cyprinids, poeciliids etc.
3/ Have spines or venom that could be dangerous to humans. This rules
out most loaches and many catfish. However, exceptions were made such as
clown loaches. The fact that we already have spiny fish in Australia is
irrelevant.
4/ Closely related species to those found in Australia. This is the
hybridization thingy that removes all NG and New Zealand fishes. These
countries, due to some similar habitats also increase the risk that fish
will survive if released.
5/ All trout releated products. Purely done to keep Australian stocks
disease free as ours are the cleanest in the world I believe. However,
there have been recent moves to change this one that are presently being
fought out.
Cheers
Peter Unmack