> 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)
I thought the whole argument was that most NG/IJ rainbows wouldn't
survive in the Australian environment? Certainly most of them would
probably be marginal, at least in most places.
> 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.
Unfortunately, that is absolutely true based on the logical extension of
this argument. Education is the best solution. But is anyone doing any?
> But Peter, who would they blame for all the problems with our waterways
> then ;-)
Doesn't matter who you blame. Once you are at the point of blaming
someone it is too late.
> 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?
In Queensland life is certainly more difficult. Whereas in Victoria most
of these things are a complete non issue as very few if any tropical fish
could survive, let alone breed.
> 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?
Call me a purist, but I don't want to see foreign fish in our rivers
whether they be beneficial or detrimental. Like I've said before, in
the western USA you are hard pressed to find a place that is exotic fish
free. Not very aesthetically pleasing really. It really pisses me off
and sometimes makes me wonder why I bother at all trying to anything to
conserve fishes as there will always be some dickhead who'll fuck things
up just to spite you. Sometimes I wonder why I don't go off and mess
around with some trivial useless bullshit that really benefits no one.
> 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.
Set up some large scale natural experiments, toss in two or more species
and lets see what happens. Spend time observing the fish and look for
any evidence of hybridisation. If you've run the experiment
appropriately (which you could argue over how to do for a long time) then it
should give a fair result.
> Have you seen convincing evidence
> of rampant crossbreeding in the wild in the various places where you have
> collected?
No, but I've never been anywhere where rainbows have been introduced.
> 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.
I'm not going to disagree with you there.
> Theoreticaly ANCA's new approach should provide a structured pathway for
> reasonable risk assessment.
Or at least the commitment to develop one as it's not the kinda thing you
come up with overnight.
> BTW Peter, I tried to send you that paper but it was rejected by the system
> at your end as being too long.
I'll have to teach you how to ftp it then I guess. That'll be a
challenge. :-)
> 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
I think part of it is because we seriously lack alot of the neccessary
information on which to base these decisions. Who pays is the other
question. I really don't have much of an answer for you Bruce I'm
afraid. Like most things, it's as much politics and personalities with
science usually coming a distant third behind them. When you do get the
science to support something the other two factors will override you.
You just can't win either way sometimes.
Tootles
Peter Unmack