Sad thing is that it probably end up like all government bullshit. I dont
know what to say in the respect to the matter. After all I am bad person
cuz I tossed a platy that Peter said to get rid of or something smart
assed. The waterways are ruined at the hand 1 person and 1 little half dead
fish.
Money talks in America with politicians. I do have the recipe for a way to
get something done....
Is there an association of aquarium keepers? If not there should be.
Dues should be as high as possible but to where most people can afford
them.
Seek out donations from aquarium companies.
Do what ever fund raising you can.
When you have a shit pot full of cash start donating it to the re-election
funds of the people you feel can do you the best good.
Threaten to cut them off unless you get a favor or two.
Call your card.
Then things will amazingly start to happen.
Its the American way and it works like a charm. You can, and it has been
proved here, get away with murder if you have enough MONEY.
Lobbing is the best way I know to make things happen but you need to be a
sizable force and packing with cash in order to play. I have never seen
common sense make any difference with ANY government.
tootles' , ole', or something like that
Roy Hunter
Co-Chairman
ANGFA of North America
visit the ANGFA website at:
http://www.angfa.org
reach me at:
roy at angfa.org
----------
> From: Bruce Hansen <bhansen at ozemail.com.au>
> To: rainbowfish at pcug.org.au
> Subject: Re: [RML] Banning all PNG fish
> Date: Friday, September 12, 1997 5:01 PM
>
> > From: peter.unmack at ASU.Edu
> > To: rainbowfish at pcug.org.au
> > Subject: Re: [RML] Banning all PNG fish
> > Date: Friday, 12 September 1997 9:05
> >
> > Yet. It's not a question of whether a species has been introduced or
> > not, it's the risk that if that species was released that it would
> > establish / cause some problem.
> > I fully understand your point, that
> > there has been no evidence of releases (although what are our chances
of
> > knowing in some cases?) for ~20 years, therefore what is the likelyhood
> > of there being any in the next 20 years. I think you will agree though
> > that given enough time someone will eventually release some somewhere
(or
>
> > 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