All Fish Hobbyists - You Need To Know This Urgently
#21
Posted 23 October 2008 - 11:36 AM
#22
Posted 23 October 2008 - 01:01 PM
#23
Posted 23 October 2008 - 05:07 PM
The point behind fish been moved from the Grey list to the Noxious list is that you will not be allowed to sell or even own one of that species. They will need to be turned in and destroyed. The fines for owning a noxious fish are extremely heavy per individual fish kept and there is a possibility of jail. Those who think they will hold on to their fish without consequences’ are naive, those who think they will not allow anyone to take their fish are foolish. Fisheries have more power than the police and can come onto your property and seize your fish without a warrant. Don’t think it won’t happen, it already has begun. A number of fish have been taken and destroyed from some wholesalers and shops.
The fish listed on the “grey list” are the beginning. The intention is to have any fish that has not been approved for import moved onto the grey list until a decision is made to make it noxious or an allowable import. Those involved in the industry understand how difficult it is to get a fish put on the allowable list. So the possibility is that in a short period of time only those few species that are allowable will be available to buy or own. You never know even the humble goldfish may disappear!
We shall see how the story unfolds
#24
Posted 23 October 2008 - 06:01 PM
plus who dumps a $500-$1000 fish in a lake or creek? thats stupid.
#25
Posted 23 October 2008 - 06:57 PM
With enough letters and emails they will take notice. It is also important to send correspondences to your local member AND the Federal Opposition for fisheries. But the most effective way is to send correspondence by mail.
Don't think that letters or emails are ineffective, they are very effective. Since they get logged and recorded under the State/Commonwealth Records Acts and various legislations, they are not allowed to discard any form of letter.
Sent mines in, keep them coming
#26
Posted 23 October 2008 - 08:42 PM
i think this is one point that is highly irrelevnt, if you look at the list there is plenty of cheap fish on there as well; ie spiny eels which go for about $10
#27
Posted 23 October 2008 - 10:10 PM
I got the following back from Anthony Moore:
'Andy is currently out of office. For urgent please contact Neil Bensley neil.bensley@brs.gov.au or 02 6272 4243'
So I forwarded my original email to Neil Bensley stating that I did consider the matter urgent.
#28
Posted 24 October 2008 - 06:05 PM
'Thank you for providing me with a copy of your email regarding a proposed extension of the Australian and National Noxious Fish list. As your local state government representative I will remain cognizant of your views should the matter come before me.
May I suggest that you contact the office of your local Federal Member of Parliament, Hon Gary Gray MP (phone: 95279377)and seek his assistance in advancing your views with Federal government.'
As suggested I have now sent a copy to Gary Gray - might be worth more people emailing him as well.
#29
Posted 24 October 2008 - 06:33 PM
Keep those emails and letters coming!
#30
Posted 25 October 2008 - 01:16 AM
#31
Posted 25 October 2008 - 08:16 AM
True, but fish most won't survive due to temperature, water, pH conditions. The "experts" seems to think people love to drive to the Pilbara and dump their fish there when they get bored of their fish.
While it is true that there are people who dump fish into the natural waterways (koi and goldfish) but those are cold waterfish and can survive in most waterways. However the damages caused by hobbyists are far less than other feral species. To give some example:
Cane toads - introduced into Australia in the 1930s to control beetles that were destroying sugarcane crops by the government not by hobbyists
Gambusia holbrooki - introduced in Australia in the 1920s as a mosquito control agent by the government not by hobbyists
Red Fox - introduced. to Australia for recreational hunting in 1855
Camel - imported to provide transport through inland Australia in the 1840s and they have since made it their domain. While they do not appear to be as destructive as other introduced herbivores, their increasing numbers may affect native vegetation, and they are also minor agricultural pests.
The lists goes on and on
#32
Posted 25 October 2008 - 05:20 PM
This law is total BS.
They worry about the harm some fish MIGHT do IF they are released and HAPPEN to survive in wrong conditions, yet anyone can own cats that can and do destroy our native birds and other wildlife and many turn feral.
And there is no conditions on rabbit ownership.
Why should I, as a responsible fish keeper need a licence like reptiles require. I dont agree with native reptile keepers needing a licence either... but that is another topic!
Typical, uneducated prats thinking they know whats best. The day I turn my Dimi comps in is the day that all cat owners turn their cats in.
Fudge them all I say.
Emails sent by my email address, 9 other email addresses I have access to, my work email, and about 20 random hotmail accounts using different names.
OK... vented now.... GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Andrew
#33
Posted 25 October 2008 - 05:34 PM
So write emails, print them out and send them in via snail mail as well.
Also contact media outlets like the papers. Even local ones.
You wouldn't believe how many feathers can get ruffled by one reporter asking for a comment.
#34
Posted 25 October 2008 - 06:45 PM
After being contacted by The West Australian newspaper who told her of the volume of letters, emails & phone calls received from people who are concerned over this issue.
She told me that after Nov 6th the species on the Grey List WILL NOT automatically be moved to the Noxious list.
The meeting on Nov 6th will be a discussion by "Fish Scientists" and representatives from the "Pet Industries Assoc' of Australia " on the species on the Grey List.
It shows that the pressure from all the hobbiest is having some effect, We need to keep the pressure up until we get our view taken into account. I am not sure I would take it as gospel that it will not happen on Nov 6, but, if we can create enough noise it may never happen. I am also not sure if the "Fish Scientists" and representatives from the "Pet Industries Assoc' of Australia " that they have envolved are fully aware of the complete picture and the best representatives to make such decissions.
Tony
#35
Posted 25 October 2008 - 09:07 PM
Pet industries assoc used to be known as PIJAC and they have done very little for the fish hobby in W.A. . Does anyone even know who the state rep is? Where were they when the cichlids were found in Altone Park?? If it was an issue with the petshop selling fluffy cute animals, they'd be right on it but because it's fish, it's too hard.
Nikki
#36
Posted 26 October 2008 - 04:49 PM
I wonder if our names are being noted so that if this is made law, we will be some of the first to have the government heavies knocking on the door.
IMO cats cause far more damage to the environment but because they are 'cute and fluffy' and are kept by little old ladies etc the government knows it has no chance of enacting such draconian laws on the cat lovers. The only good cat is the one that is in a craypot at the bottom of the ocean.
#37
Posted 26 October 2008 - 05:00 PM
Be it your opinion/belief/joke, cruelty to animals shouldn't be joked about IMO....
There does seem to be quite a bit of conflicting information floating around a few forums at the moment as to whether this "threat" is as serious as people are making it out to be, so I'm unsure what to think of it all, if it is a genuine threat and does go through, then we will be affected.
#38
Posted 26 October 2008 - 05:11 PM
There does seem to be quite a bit of conflicting information floating around a few forums at the moment as to whether this "threat" is as serious as people are making it out to be, so I'm unsure what to think of it all, if it is a genuine threat and does go through, then we will be affected.
Didn't take long for a bite there. Of course the cat would have been humanely dealt with before being put to use.
Seriously we need as many people as possible to voice their opinion and opposition to the government proposals.
#39
Posted 26 October 2008 - 06:38 PM
#40
Posted 26 October 2008 - 06:54 PM
has anyone thought of contacting the RSPCA on this, it might be worth while bringing it to there attention
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users