>The previous definition of commercial aquaculture was related to surface
>area (I think) and was impactical and unacceptable to many when it came to
>the minimum end of the scale ( broadacre operations didn't seem to be a
>problem - even if for tax purposes they didn't seem to make any money)
>
>After considering this vexed question a lot over the past year or so it
>seems to me (since the purpose of licensing revolves around money, profit
>and taxes) that the only reasonable way to define a commercial operation is
>one that makes a profit above a certain minimum.
>
>Most hobbyists that I know seem to spend between $10 and $50 aweek over the
>year on food, power, updating equipment etc so probably sales up to $2000 a
>year would not be unreasonable before calling it a commercial operation.
>Obviously there are some hobbyists with extensive collections that spend a
>lot on them and would need to sell a lot of fry to make a profit and there
>are small intensive commercial outfit that are very profiable e.g. breeding
>thousands of Neon tetras per week in a 3mx3m room.I am sure there will be a
>thousand exceptions/objections to the above but to me it is a reasonable
>starting point.
>
>I think there would be some resistance to the shopkeepers only buying from
>those people who were prepared to supply their tax-file number and I guess
>there will be some resistance from the commercial breeders to the idea
>that there is any place at all in the market for the "backyarder".
>
>However there are many non-commercial species that would disappear from the
>hobby if it wasn't for the regular "handfuls" produced by the hobbyist
>breeder. Often ( but not always) they also produce a superior quality
>product.
>
>The truly "commercial breeder" should be able to produce a predictable
>number of a nominated quality of each commercial species regularly at a
>fair price from the wholesaler and make a reasonable living from it without
>sqeezing out the hobbyist breeder who is often a significant part of his
>market. Some wholesalers have been known to play off the commercial
>breeders against each other too and eventually that leads to bad end
>results all round.
>
>I don't think it would be too difficult to have an orderly marketing scheme
>for the ornamental fish industry if there was enough goodwill and
>co-operation out there but there always seems to be someone who wants to
>make the quick buck and sabotage everbody else.
>
>Regards,
>Bruce.
>bhansen at ozemail.com.au
>
>----------
>> From: Rob Wager <raintree at mail.cth.com.au>
>> To: 'Rainbowfish Mailing List' <rainbowfish at pcug.org.au>
>> Subject: [RML] Licencing fish breeders
>> Date: Wednesday, 16 July 1997 14:34
>>
>> Many Queenslanders are aware of our stupid law that states that any one
>breeding any number, or any type of fish must have an aquaculture licence
>if they intend sell or trade them. The law was never intended to apply to
>hobbyist breeders, but it does. Hobbyists cannot afford, and shouldn't
>need, to be licenced.
>>
>> I was contacted (off the record) by a concerned government employee, who
>wanted to know if I had any ideas how to define a hobbyist or commercial
>breeder so that the law could be amended to exclude hobbyists from
>requiring a licence.
>>
>> A positive step I feel.
>>
>> But after considerable discussion we could not come up with a workable
>definition.
>>
>> CAN ANYONE HELP?
>>
>> Does anyone have any knowledge of laws in any state in any country about
>breeding fish for sale? Anyone have an idea how distinguish between people
>in the hobby and people who are trying to make a buck out of breeding fish.
>>
>> I'm sure all the Queensland hobbyists would appreciate your help.
>>
>> p.s. This is not a paying job for me, just something I would like to see
>cleared up as soon as possible.
>>
>> Rob Wager
>>
>> Raintree Aquatics Pty Ltd
>> Aquatic Environment and Aquaculture Specialists
>>
>> 1002 Caboolture River Road
>> ROCKSBERG QLD 4510
>> AUSTRALIA
>>
>> Phone: 07 5496 7939 Facsimile: 07 5497 0022
>> Email: raintree at mail.cth.com.au
>>
>
>