See what a simple typo can lead to ? Obviously Adrian intended to type "he"
instead of "we" ;-)
Regards,
Bruce.
Bruce Hansen, ANGFA, caring for our aquatic ecosystems.
Please visit us at http://www.ozemail.com.au/~fisher/angfa.htm
----------
> From: Andrew Boyd <andrew at pcug.org.au>
> To: rainbowfish at pcug.org.au
> Subject: Re: [RML] Gerry Allen.
> Date: Monday, 30 March 1998 17:26
>
>
>
> On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, Matthew Stanton wrote:
>
> > 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
>