> On 30 Mar 98 Adrian R. Tappin hypothesised:
>
> > Gerry Allen has gone to New Guinea again for Conservation International
> > survey of an unexplored region about 100 km NE of Nabire in the northern
> > water shed. He also plans to visit Waigeo if possible. So we might end up
> > with some more new and interesting species of rainbowfishes :-)
>
> Which it would be illegal for any of us Australians to keep! :(
And everyone knows that nobody would do anything illegal, right? ;)
FWIU it is unlawful (old smartalec law student saying: "Illegal is a sick
bird") to smuggle the fish into the country... it is unlawful to possess
certain prohibited species such as Genus Channa and Clarias... but (and I
am no lawyer, and I don't even play one on TV) IMNSHO it is circular logic
to extrapolate from these two premises that it is unlawful to possess fish
whose ancestors were brought into the country unlawfully PROVIDING that
said fishes are not on the prohibited list. IAW while it is unlawful to
smuggle fish, and unlawful to possess (smuggled or descendants of
smuggled) prohibited species, it is not unlawful AFAIK to possess
descendants of un-prohibited smuggled fish....
Otherwise every petshop in Australia wouldn't have M. praecox, now, would
they? :)
This is not to say that I am condoning or supporting the breaking of the
law in any way shape or form, just applying a little predicate calculus ;)
Cheers, Andrew
andrew at pcug.org.au