I remember a couple of years ago being told by a senior aquarium shop
owner that almost all the fish ANGFA members kept were useless from
a commercial point of view, they weren't popular enough in the retail
marketplace to be worth tankspace. In his opinion the most popular native
fish based on general aquarium shop appeal were Scats, Monos, Archers,
Salmon-tailed Catfish and then a poor 5th came adult Rainbowfish. The best
Rainbowfish was the local M. duboulayi and the reasons were that it was
large
enough to have decent colour and cheap enough to be good value for money.
Obviously we hobbyists have a different viewpoint about what we think are
the
most desirable and commercial species. In more recent years there is no
doubt
that PNG species have become more popular and cheaper but no matter how
attractive they are, they will only make it in the general aquarium retail
market
if they are colourful at a small size, not demanding in water and food
requirements
and breed easily enough that they can sell at the same price as all the
common
aquarium fish like Guppies, swordtails, barbs and tetras etc
Although we at ANGFA, RSG, IRG etc have all these ideals about knowing our
streams and keeping them clean and so on the likely future scenario for
Rainbowfish
in the commercial world is that several (or perhaps dozens of) colourful
crossbred
aquaculture creations are likely to be the only things on offer in aquarium
shops.
I am not sure how the bureaucrats will react to these as potential sources
of
"genetic contamination" should they get into our natural waterways. In my
opinion
they will at least be cheap enough that the owner will not have to think
twice about
dumping them in nearby waters. At least if $10 was paid for a PNG Rainbow
then
they are likely to think twice and perhaps try to get their money back
somehow.
I don't think the spectre of the disgruntled PNG Rainbowfish breeder
deliberately
sabotaging Australian waterways is a likely one and the chances of longterm
survival of these in the wild is minimal. However banning the keeping of
these fish
without a convincing set of reasons increases the likelihood of many more
people
being put in the position of having to make a choice about the fish they
already
have in their possession. It is unlikely that the Government will pay any
compensation
and the aquarium shops will not buy back fish that are now illegal for them
to have.
so the choice lies between killing them and dumping them. These are their
"pets"
that they have looked after for some time, cost them money to buy, house,
feed,
treat when sick etc. They are not likely to "bounce" them on the floor are
they?
Like Adrian said we need some sensible consideration of the whole matter. I
don't
think it really is a matter of native fish-keeping ethics but one of
discussion and
education. The "boffins" still seem to want to use the old "mushroom"
approach
(feed them on bullshit and keep them in the dark) allied to a "father knows
best"
paternalistic and often arbitrary administration of the rules that only
they had any
say in developing.
Under those circumstances it is no wonder that people find it hard to
respect the
rules.
Cheers
Bruce Hansen
PS Perhaps we could use Matthew Stanton's "designer Rainbowfish"
competition
as a model for the commercial people to consider :-)