> > It would be more likely that the government would ban the trade and
> > reproduction. Thus, people would not be forced to kill the fish in their
> > possession. Probably after a few years they would then really start to
> > crack down if young fish were still around.
> >
> At the moment Peter they have all sorts of laws that are supposed to
> limit the introduction of undesirable fish and they are choosing not to
> implement them. Even if the scenario you suggest does come about how
> will it be different? The people will still have to decide whether to
> "bounce"
> their fish or "liberate" them ?
I think you missed my point. People would not have to destroy their
fish, just not trade or reproduce them. When they introduced this kind
of legislation in South Australia you applied for a permit that said you had
in your possession a, b, and c. You are not allowed to trade or breed
said species. For those who aren't aware South Australia has much
stricter laws regarding aquarium fishes than the federal govt. There are
many species that you cannot keep that you can in other states.
Tootles
Peter Unmack