23 replies to this topic

[Bristly]

XINGUINSIS

Chris,

you have a point which has been raised elsewhere as well, Brisbane and Melbourne, I think.

There are, however costs in importing and if a fish has a restriction to its ownership, I can't see the wholesale importers rushing to bring them in because it is much easier and cheaper to bring in the tetras, barbs, etc that come in in bags of 1000 or more at a time. Shipping costs are weight-related, so to bring in one large pleco in a bag costs the same in freight as maybe 3000 cardinals.

We need to think deeper about this aspect. Thanks

Milton

[xinguinsis]

Hi Milton,
Having worked in different facets of the trade for quite some time I am familiar with how it works.I don,t see to many serious breeders working with Crytocara moori,kribinsis ,Melanochromis auratus to name a few that are now importable .This is where I was going with the auctioning of(restricted) shipments with profits going to the government.
Yes like some of the other cynics that have dealt with these beuracrats I don't think you stand a snowballs but on the of chance I thought I put my concerns across as I'd hate to see you pull of this massive feat to the detriment of many.
Regards Chris

[chuckmeister]

While I was going to write a considered response, I'll put my opinion simply.

Hang on, I'll pay money to a bunch of bureaucrats for something that is free already.... yeah right.

While I apologise for the simplicity, whether this was brought in or not, they wont get a brass razoo off me. I'm happy with the fish I have and are also happy with the new fish that are coming in!!

I applaud your lateral thinking but ask any South Australian what they think of paying a fee that has crept to about $80 Per year I believe,that once started at $20. Also their list has reduced in size!!
Its a complicated task you have taken on and good luck with the goal but I'll keep my fish keeping simple

Charlie

[Link 2 Hell]

The factor you need to consider in factioning for this idea is
the main push for or against aquarium fish imports is $$$$
the industry is only concerned with turn over (consider why Oscars are an allowable import and non piscavore species are rejected) so unless PIJAC members can cash in for the oulay involved it is considered too hard
You only have to read the EI reports for the last submissions, what a joke, the consultants summed up a possible risk on every species on the tabled list and had no idea of the species or their history in Aust. so the required government answer was the final out come of the report = rejected

Aquaculture is big business with large cash backing and with scream "eco risk" if there is any chance of a disease being brought in with ornamental imports that could be a threat to them, that way it makes them appear the only interest is in the local enviroment not just their business

Ask any QLD'er that kept fish pre 1990 when they had liscencing, I don't think they want it back
Any cichlophile in SA would like to keep large Americans but most of these species have been legislated noxious in SA
The end result may not be of out choice now as I hear submissions for the proposed national noxious listing need to be tabled by 26 June, thanks SA fisheries ..... not

Like any legislation, interpretation plays a large part and the bio diversity bill that was passed the other year is all they need to remove 60% if not more of the cichlids in the hobby from our tanks, find it and have a good read
Any species that has never been listed for legal import or the species progeny can be considered to contavene the bill
This includes species imported prior to the allowable import listings when there was just a non allowable listing

L2H

link2hell2002ATyahoo.com


Despite all my rage
I'm still just a rat in a cage
Smashing Pumpkins - Bullet with Butterfly Wings