> get flooded out). This is almost inevitable. It is what happens to that
> species when it gets out that I am concerned about.
What I understand by your assertion above is that since it is inevitable
that someone will eventually establish a population of PNG Rainbows in the
wild (even if it takes hundreds of years) that no-one should be able to
keep any of them in captivity, no matter how carefully they look after
them. And of course by logical extension of this argument it can be argued
that any Rainbowfish (or even any other species of Australian Native fish
for that matter) from any other than the watershed that you live in is
equally a danger. And so on. In fact if we disregard the "genetic
POLLUTION" bogeyman that is waved around behind the scenes but doesn't get
aired too much openly because of lack of evidence
and we go back to the discredited disease bogeyman we could argue that
no-one should keep fish at all.
But Peter, who would they blame for all the problems with our waterways
then ;-)
BTW do you keep any fish at all, from anywhere? That is anywhere other than
the watershed on which your domestic residence is located? if so why?
Perhaps some Dickhead in 200 years time will ( no better still inevitably
will) successfully release some of those very species into the last
pristine waterway (if such a thing exists or will then)
and there might be a measurable environmental consequence. Of course there
may not be also.By your argument the Government should make it illegal for
you to have your hobby and you will be totally convinced by their
pronouncement (without any evidence that it will happen, or any evidence of
what will happen but they are experts and they know) and like a good little
boy you will bundle up your precious little treasures lovingly pack them
into bags and deliver them up to whatever fate awaits them.I know you
wouldn't keep them against the law. Even if the law is an ass ;-)
And really it doesn't matter what species it is - because sooner or later
the disease or the genetic argument can be waved and there will be support
for it from on high.Only trouble is that if there are no fish lovers around
there will be no support for conservation of little fish and stocking
programs will be voted in by the power of the fishing lobby at the ballot
box and we will have the Trout, Carp, Gambusia scenario all over again. But
fortunately it will be OK because those damn aquarists aren't responsible (
nor were they last time).
>
> > Surely
> > a decision made in good faith based on all the available evidence after
15-
> > 20 years is a reasonable one. Especially when it is compared with some
of
> > the arbitrary and inconsistent ones from the past.
>
> Please define what this evidence is that has been gathered over the last
> 20 years. Remember the weatherloach. :-)
You are fond of asking for evidence for example of damage that Carp are
causing, so what evidance is there of the damage/harm that the Weather
loaches are causing? Evidence doesn't just consist of positive findings, it
also emerges from lack of findings. But since the main argument for banning
PNG rainbowfishes seems to revolve around crossbreeding in the wild what
sort of evidence would convince you Peter.Have you seen convincing evidence
of rampant crossbreeding in the wild in the various places where you have
collected?
I suspect that this whole issue is an exercise in futility as the people
offer the advice to the people who make the laws haven't the courage of
their convictions and don't want to be "blamed" for approving anything that
may be held against them in the future ( even if it does take 100 years). I
fear it is not about risk assessment at all ( that is risk based on
evidence) but on fence-sitting.
Theoreticaly ANCA's new approach should provide a structured pathway for
reasonable risk assessment. However something tells me ( perhaps cynicism)
that since the same people will be giving the advice that things will not
turn out to be too much different in the future. But then I have always
prided myself on being an optimistic fatalist ( But then I have noted some
grateful opportunism creeping in of late).The problem I do see is the cost
of these applications and the consequent appeal process.
BTW Peter, I tried to send you that paper but it was rejected by the system
at your end as being too long.
Does anyone out there have any ideas on what might be a nice hobby for a
mature gentleman who likes to have a little bit of nature around him that
won't eventually be banned because a boffin somewhere feels that the
enjoyment is far outweighed by the risks posed to the environment because
sometime in the future some idiot ( even one of those same boffins who BTW
don't always practice what they preach) might do something stupid, sorry
inevitably might do something stupid.
The future is going to be a bit hard to envisage with all the people of
European extraction repatriated back to their homelands ( together with
their domestic animals, plants etc) and all the cities bulldozed to allow
environmental regeneration etc etc
Wow! This stuff really gets to you ! It's a pity it is so serious ;-)
Seriously Peter, if they can't produce some evidence instead of academic
posturing why the hell don't they just come out and say that although there
are theotetical potential changes possible these are unlikely to be
significantly damaging, esapecially when compared with the monumental
official blunders of the past such as Carp, Trout etc
Cheers
Bruce Hansen