I was not aware that the Carp phenomenon was only perpetuated as recently
as the 1960's and would appreciate some references to read further if
possible. Please don't see my enthusiasm for this debate as some kind of
personal preference for PNGspecies - I like the OZfish the best and hope in
my small way that I have contributed the odd little something to further
some aspects of knowledge about them.
I agree wholeheartedly that education is the key to the whole problem but
this whole "argument" started about smuggling into this country of
desirable aquarium species from other countries and especially from PNG (or
Niugini for the purists). Education is a two-edged sword - it advises us of
the existence and availability of these species and shows us their
desirability so it also creates a want that can only be fulfilled for some
by aquisition sometimes by any means.
Eductaion is also a key facet of conservation and it is almost impossible
to get the voting and tax-paying public to support revenues for aquatic
consevation if they are unaware of the issues or even of the existence of
the species concerned. I have never been comfortable with the "mushroom"
approach and hence my persistence with this debate especially when the
offical pronouncements smack of pontification.
I agree with any efforts to advise as widely as possible on strategies to
limit accidental and purposeful releases to the wild not only of exotics (
from PNG or elsewhere) but also of native species from other areas. But at
the end of the day unless there is a mechanism in place whereby relatively
inoffensive species like Blue-eyes ( which as far as I know don't readily
cross-breed even in the artificiality of aquaria but are still banned) and
rainbowfishes seem to have attracted this tag of being a major
environmental threat. I believe if we are serious about smuggling and the
attendant risks of intrroduction of literally hundreds of horrible diseases
because of lack of quarantine, that we need to raise the debate from the
present level of intransigence and start looking for practical suggestions
for policies.
Banning won't work, as the present situation so admirably illustrates.
Education is number one on my list and an orderly assessment of the present
huge number of unlisted species that are beeing freely traded and bred in
this country. By unlisted I mean not on the outdated schedule of allowed
imports ( Schedule 6 I think). These could be graded into 3-5 categories of
"desirability" hopefully agreed on by a panel of clubs/hobbyists,
scientists, bureaucrats and the ornamental fish breeders and trade
represenrtatives. The categories could be for example
1. Not wanted or allowed under any circumstances - current stocks to be
destroyed
2. Undesirable and current stocks to be kept only under permit for display
purposes and not to be bred or traded in
3. Allowed but appropriate safeguards on large numbers being kept or bred
outside etc. The environmental protection guidelines surely can be agreed
on.Messages via clubs and shops (on bags etc).
New species can then be considered on their merits but others in the genus
that are satisfactory should help in assessing.
The final thing that could be useful is a "zoning concept'' a bit like our
river drainage stocking system where certain species and races are
recommended for specific areas. I feel sure that there must be some regions
where large scale ornamental fish breeding is more of a risk than others
and perhaps the aquaculture advisory wing of the DPI could have appropriate
guidelines for this.
Overall I still feel that habitat degradation is the biggest threat to our
native fishes. A properly supervised importation policy is far preferable
to the current situation where dozens of illegal species are coming in to
this country outside the quarantine system and PNG Rainbows are a minor
player.
For the record my favourite community of native fishes would contain only
fish from SE Queensland even though I have no intention of releasing them
into the wild :-)
Cheers
Bruce Hansen