> I don't think many arguments would convince
> you that PNG rainbowfish are not going to become a danger to our Australian
> streams.
Again, let me say this, I don't think that all IJ/NG rainbows are a
significant threat to the Australian environment. For instance, I
wouldn't expect most Chilatherina or Glossolepis to do very well in
Australia. But, this is only a gut feeling. I would expect something
like M.s. rubrostriata to do just fine.
> I think you pretty much hit it on the head in an earlier posting where you
> referred to yourself as a "purist" - I think it was
It was and I'll always stand by it. :-)
> I think that we can dream the utopian dream but it's
> not going to happen.
He who never tries can never achieve.
> I for one - and I am sure you too Peter - have seen western streams so
> degraded by cattle that it's a wonder fish can ever swim back into them.
> But the beef industry doesn't give a stuff about fish
Well that's not exactly always true. Elizabeth Springs in western Qld
was seriously degraded by cattle. When I approached them to see how
they would feel about allowing them to be fenced off they were more than
happy to agree to it. Rob Wager is slowly achieving similar concessions
at Edgebaston. Same goes in parts of South Australia with fencing off
certain springs, and I think Bryan Pierce has been able to win some
pastoralists over too. I'll agree though, some don't really care, but
with some education and persuasion many don't mind doing a little bit to
help. It's a very difficult balance between not coming across as a
greenie as all pastoralists are justifiably worried about, versus one who
is looking for a balanced compramise.
> Believe me - it is a fact that the majority of our city/town rivers/streams
> are already degraded and populated with feral species. Australia is no
> utopia - you'd best remember that.
Yes, but urban areas only make up a small percentage of Australia. Most
of Australia is still largely a utopia in terms of exotic species.
Unfortunately you are right, most urban areas are probably screwed just
by the fact that they are urban and all the problems associated with people.
> Now that doesn't mean that we should just disregard the problem, but I can't
> see PNG rainbowfish being introduced into the "pristine" areas that Peter is
> worried about.
I don't disagree with you here at all. Although, some areas such as Cape
York are being opened up more and more though. If they ever put in that
stupid space station up there you can bet they'll build a good road to it.
You also have to consider, and plan for the future too.
> Ask Roy and Peter how difficult it can be to transport fish over that
> distance and terrain and keep them healthy.
Don't ask me, I had nothing to do with it. :-) John (Rob's Wager's
brother) did just fine with his. :-) Mind you, most weren't
rainbowfish.
> So to summarise:-
>
> I support the environmental argument about Australia's "clean" waterways but
> remind you that the areas of highest risk for dumping are already filled
> with feral species.
Like Nick Thorne said, two wrongs never make a right, but I also
understand what you are saying.
> I reiterate the difficulty of "dumping" a self supporting population of
> Rainbows in an area of greatest threat ie., our "clean" streams that are
> remote from settlement.
Agreed as long as we recognise that some areas near larger human
populations will just be written off as pointless to try and save. I
guess we could always just pour rotenone down them all annually. That
would solve the problem once a year.
> I argue that the threat of disease can be combated with a well designed
> quarantine system.
Agreed.
> Based on the arguments above I am in favour of a well regulated and
> controlled importation of PNG rainbowfish into the Australian wholesale
> system.
Agreed once a reasonable assessment of the degree of threat has been made
of all aquarium fishes coming into this country.
Overall I'll agree with you Barry. Your points are all largely valid. I
guess all we are really argueing about now is what constitues a
reasonable degree of threat to the environment which will always have a
large degree of subjectivity attached to it for some fishes. And further
to that, what is a reasonable way of assessing that degree of threat.
Maybe a good way to start to educate people, especially ANGFA members
would be to have a special issue of the Bulletin devoted to this based
upon our discussions here? After all Adrian has been complaining about
the lack of support he has been getting regarding articles. I think that
at least this time around (what is it, the third time around on this
list!?) we have clarified many of the issues and are a lot closer to
agreeing as to what the crux of the issue is. Unfortunately, I cannot
volunteer to do this as I just don't have the time. Also, it would
probably be best if it was done by one who hadn't really gotten too
involved in the discussion. All I would request is that all the
contributers have a chance to see/edit/change the text until we can all
agree that we have a fair representation of our various views.
Tootles
Peter Unmack