> It is hard to provide evidence on our part because there is, after some 20
> years or so (perhaps more or less) no suggestion of environmental problems
> associated with the PNG species that are already here. Rainbows, Blue-eyes
> or Gudgeons.
Yet. It's not a question of whether a species has been introduced or
not, it's the risk that if that species was released that it would
establish / cause some problem. I fully understand your point, that
there has been no evidence of releases (although what are our chances of
knowing in some cases?) for ~20 years, therefore what is the likelyhood
of there being any in the next 20 years. I think you will agree though
that given enough time someone will eventually release some somewhere (or
get flooded out). This is almost inevitable. It is what happens to that
species when it gets out that I am concerned about.
> There is none from the opposition to support their contention
> except vague misgivings that IF they approve then THEY may be held
> responsible IF there are environmental repercussions in the future.
This sounds a little like the government taking responsibility for
it's actions and a cautious approach given that they lack information.
Gee, how often do we criticise them for not taking this approach?
> Surely
> a decision made in good faith based on all the available evidence after 15-
> 20 years is a reasonable one. Especially when it is compared with some of
> the arbitrary and inconsistent ones from the past.
Please define what this evidence is that has been gathered over the last
20 years. Remember the weatherloach. :-)
Tootles
Peter Unmack