Even though it is greater the risk is still probably extremely LOW. This is
the
crux of the whole argument. All the intellectualising in the world is
useless
unless it is translated into a risk assessment that can be used on a
comparative basis e.g. 5 in a 100 etc.Then this can be measured against an
agreed on acceptable risk scale. Then a decision can be made as to whether
the various possible benefits for that species (e.g. decorative, commercial
etc
etc) outweigh the risks enough to allow permission to import.
> So, why doesn't ANGFA have a code of ethics at least
> which shows we are responsible and aware of the potential threats of our
> actions and demonstrate that we are educating our members how to minimise
> this threat?
I think that over the years we have demonstrated to some degree that we
have.
However I agree that we need to crystalise these ideals and emphasise them
more.
Cheers
Bruce Hansen