Norm Halliwell's latest e-mails

[mattrox]

Sun, March 6, 2011 10:16:28 AM

Declaring huge numbers of ornamental fish as NOXIOUS

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.

Right now, the Government members of OFMIG/TWG are about to declare huge numbers of ornamental fish species as NOXIOUS as they are about to discuss species from the Blue and Yellow list of ornamental fish the Industry/Hobby currently trade in, as to the risk that OFMIG/TWG believe these species will pose to the environment. When this occurs NOBODY will be allowed to keep, breed or sell any such listed species, as we in the Industry/Hobby have done for the past 100 years, whereby NONE of them have been released into the Australian environment, or caused any concerns to the Australian environment whatsoever. I received the Options Control Papers some months ago, and I have already made my comments known about the options included, as have numerous other Industry/Hobby people, so I attach them in this email for you all to look over. A number of the options are being looked into BUT, when all is said and done they still intend to ban huge numbers of ornamental fish as NOXIOUS, even after Industry/Hobby protestations, and there will be nothing we can do to prevent it from occurring, unless you all follow through with the email and letter campaign as shown below.

These kinds of dramatic decisions are being made by OFMIG/TWG on unsubstantiated and unscientific data that does not stand up to close scrutiny. None of these species are declared NOXIOUS anywhere in the world, so what is the cause for concern here in Australia . Currently they have not listed any names of species as yet, but they have indicated that when they are listed as NOXIOUS nothing can be done to prevent it from occurring.

All ornamental fish species are destined for in-house aquaria and not for release into the environment, unlike ALL native and non-native aquaculture species that are “dumped” directly into the Australian environment by Aquaculture agencies around Australia that have shown their propensity to create heavy damage to areas in which they have been liberated, eg, Trout, Sooty Grunters, Saratoga, and the like..

The Industry/Hobby co-exist in this whole issue when it comes to ornamental fish species. One cannot survive without the other, and if OFMIG/TWG get their way, our Industry/Hobby will be obliterated to be only allowed to sell the common goldfish species and a few other tropical species eg, Tetras, Sharks and Catfish varieties. This cannot be allowed to happen to an Industry worth in excess of $400 million P.A. and which employs around 35,000 people Australia wide.

The Industry/Hobby have now reached a fork in the road ahead whereby we are asking each and everyone of you to become heavily involved in this issue by sending out YOUR OWN COMMENTS to the people listed below, in order for you to express your own concerns on how this WILL AFFECT YOUR BUSINESS, HOBBY AND INCOME. It should not take you too long to type out a letter or email, and send it out and it will be very beneficial to your Industry, Hobby, and Income.

Make sure you put a paragraph in your email or letter stating how OFMIG/TWG actions are going to affect your Business and Hobby and the income you derive from it. It would also be advisable to send an email and letter to your local member of Parliament about this issue for them to put pressure on from the Parliamentary side.

Also, make sure you send your responses to Neil Hughes, whose email address is listed below, because he is the Secretariat to the Marine And Coastal Committee (M.A.C.C.) who have employed OFMIG to carry out these unnecessary intrusions into our Industry/Hobby. I’m presuming that OFMIG will be asking MACC to endorse their Control Options Paper, before proceeding to ban huge numbers of our fishes. We simply have to get MACC to seriously look at these OFMIG proposals and get them to tell OFMIG to re-consider their approach and further listen and heed to Industry/Hobby requests, and not to “rubber stamp” these controls. If possible please email me a copy of your correspondence to the people listed below, so I can follow them through if need be.

There are a lot of these people listed, and they all have to be contacted to get your concerns across. Your emails should be followed up with a hand written/typed letter in order that they have to reply to you by mail. An email simply will not suffice on its own, as a standard letter can be answered in bulk by the people you are sending it to. This is your chance to stop the authorities from preventing you from earning an income and/or from breeding and selling your fish Australia wide. Failure to do this, you cannot say why was I not told on how this could have been prevented. Well, this is the only avenue we have left to try and prevent this from occurring, so, it is now up to you all to do the necessary emailing and letter writing.. These people are as follows:

Frank.Antram@environment.gov.au Biosecurity Australia , GPO. Box 858 , Canberra . ACT 2601.

Michelle.Vandervoort@environment.gov.au “ “ “ “

Alyson.Burgess@environment.gov.au “ “ “ “

Melinda.Thompson@environment.gov.au “ “ “ “

Melissa.Walker@industry.nsw.gov.au NSW Industry and Investment, locked bag 1, Nelson Bay NSW 2316

Jane.Fances@industry.nsw.gov.au “ “ “ “ “

Graeme.Bowley@dpi.nsw.gov.au “ “ “ “ “

Joyce.Patterson@dpi.nsw.gov.au “ “ “ “ “

Heidi.Alleway@sa.gov.au Pirsa Aquaculture, Level 14/25 Grenfell Street , Adelaide SA. 5001

Mehdi.Doroudi@sa.gov.au “ “ “ “ “ “

Alex-mcnee@grapevine.com.au Bureau of Rural Sciences, G.P.O.Box 1563, Canberra . ACT. 2601

Roslyn.Bowker@aph.gov.au S.E.W.P.A.C, P.O.Box 6022 , Parliament House. Canberra . Act. 2600.

Anna.Battese@dpi.vic.gov.au Dept. of Primary Industries, G.P.O.Box 4440, Melbourne . Vic 3001.

Benjamin.Bowman@dpi.vic.gov.au “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “

John.Robertson@dpi.qld.gov.au Fisheries Queensland , Level 2 Primary Industry Building G.O.P.Box 46. Brisbane.Q’ld 4001.

Zafer.Sarac@dpi.qld.gov.au “ “ “ “ “ “ “

Mathew.beitzel@act.gov.au Australian Quarantine Inspection Service, G.P.O.Box 858, Canberra. ACT 2601.

Bill.Bardsley@fish.wa.gov.au Dept. of Fisheries Level 3/168 St Georges Terrace. Perth . W.A. 6000.

Ainslie.Brown@aqis.com.au Australian Quarantine Inspection Service, G.P.O.Box 858, Canberra . ACT. 2601

Jdiggle@ifc.tas.gov.au Tasmanian Inland Fisheries Service, P.O.Box 575 , New Norfork. Tas. 7140

Tim.Farrell@ifs.tas.gov.au “ “ “ “ “ “ “

Rachel.Davies@nt.gov.au Dept of Primary Industries and Mines, G.P.O.Box 3000 Darwin . NT. 0801

And please do not forget to email, fax, and send a letter to the Minister in control of this whole issue, as well as the Secretariat of MACC (Marine and Coastal Committee) that are the group of individuals that OFMIG/TWG report to. They are listed below:

Senator.Ludwig@aph.gov.au Minister for S.E.W.P.A.C., P.O. Box 6022 . Parliament House Canberra . Act. 2600.

Neil.Hughes@environment.com.au Secretariat of MACC, C/- G.P.O.Box 787, Canberra . ACT. 2610.

Yours Sincerely,

Norm Halliwell.

[mattrox]

* attachment to above e-mail

Discussion of Control Mechanisms for the Regulation and Management if Noxious Ornamental fish and rare fish already In circulation in Australia.

This paper has been formulated as part of recommendation five of A strategic Approach to the Management of Ornamental Fish in Australia, to develop control mechanisms for the regulation and management of noxious fish and rare fish (e.g.CITES listed) already in circulation in Australia.

The Strategic Approach (S.A.) suggests the following available options for the management of undesirable species.(from Norm-.Undesirable to whom I might ask)

. Education/Awareness

. Amnesty

. Buy-back.

. Permit.

. Registration

. Ban.

. Sterilization and microchipping.

. No sale, No translocation and No breeding.

. Reporting existence (Dobbing in )

DEWHA has been tasked to discuss these options in light of previous schemes and control options that have been administered by the Department.

AMNESTY;

There may be two options for an ornamental fish amnesty:

1. Whereby all illegal ornamental fish could be handed over without prosecution (with or without compensation).

2. Where there is no handover of fish, but all existing fish would be declared legal.

(from Norm- Not likely to be used)

The second of these options would not be feasible as it would go against the proposed outcomes of the S.A.

Previous Amnesty examples.

Retile Amnesty:

In Sept.2003 this amnesty allowed holders of exotic reptiles to surrender animals without prosecution, and a media campaign to raise awareness of the risks posed by illegal imported specimens ie, pest and disease and lack of anti-venom being available for exotic species was commenced.

During the eight week reptile amnesty period (29/3/04 – 24/5/04) only 40 specimens were handed in.(whoppy do)

Bird Amnesty:

During the pre-implementation period members of the Exotic Bird Advisory Group (EBAG) recommended that any amnesty would need to run for a 4-6month period to allow time for exotic bird keepers to hand over or identify and disclose specimens in their possession. If specimens were handed in they would become the property of State or Commonwealth Government. Some may be placed in Zoos or Wildlife institutions but most would be euthanased, as not all could be relocated.

The conclusion of the Advisory Group on amnesty options were that:

1. There would be a risk that the level of participation in an amnesty would be low and would therefore not be a cost effective or successful option.

2. Illegal trade/smuggling would continue to occur despite the amnesty.

3. Amnesty options may not be supported by all Government agencies and State Governments.

4. Stakeholders, Industry and Hobbyists would object to the disposal of specimens and the manner in which it was done..

5. There may be an incentive for people to hold onto and breed species that were supposed to be surrendered in order to make a profit. This could encourage illegal trade after an amnesty due to low numbers of a species remaining in Australia.

6. It could potentially broaden the exotic species kept in Australia illegally and therefore could increase the risk of exotic pests and disease and

7. Amnesties are difficult to implement effectively due to the need to cover all Australian States in a consistent manner.

BUY-BACK or EXCHANGE.

The Commonwealth has not introduced any formal buy-back or exchange schemes for any exotic species to date.

Buy-back:

The cash incentive that would be needed to be given in compensation for handing in fish would need to be dependent on the species concerned. Numerous factors need to be taken into consideration.

1. Sentimental value and emotional attachment, ie, regarded as part of the family.

2. Cultural value (as in Arowana’s)

3. The actual retail value of the fish eg, Arowanas can cost in excess of 10K and up to 30K depending on size and colour of specimen( eg Super Chilli Red) and fish keepers would not be willing to give up their fish for an amount less than what they paid.

Buy-backs also condone illegal holding of some species. Keepers should not be compensated for any species ILLEGALLY OBTAINED. It can also increase activities in breeding a species so listed depending on the length of the amnesty, and conversely it can encourage illegal smuggling if the buyback price is far greater than the cost obtained from overseas suppliers.

Exchange:

The exchange of a noxious species for a different species, perhaps a captive bred native, may be another plausible option, especially if the native is from a captive bred source and not taken from the wild. ( From Norm- this is likely to happen, yeah right!)

REGULATION:

The success of a regulatory scheme depends on how effective compliance measures upholding the scheme can be enforced. Without successful enforcement any scheme would not achieve its objectives to protect our biodiversity. There are no incentives for exotic animal keepers to “do the right thing” when people doing the “wrong thing” do not get found out or penalized. (No mention here that Australian aquarists currently do the right thing in returning fish species no longer wanted to aquarium shops from cash or credit, as the case may be. This is the major reason why very few feral populations of exotic species exist in the wild right now.).

For a number of reasons the States currently have not adopted a common or consistent approach to regulating exotic animals. All exotic animals require the species “ORIGIN TO BE VERIFIED” as any registration of that species implies it is a legal specimen to Australia or State.(from Norm- Shopkeepers and Aquarists have to show the authorities where they got the species from and whether it was previously an allowable species, and if they can’t the species would be seized and destroyed and a heavy fine applied to the owner of such animals)

SELF-REGULATION

Self-regulation involves little or no Government involvement, and shifts the responsibility to regulate back onto the Industry and individuals keepers.

Self-regulation can involve aspects like Codes of Ethics and specimen record keeping similar to that in play with bird keepers. Such documents also help animal keepers to meet their requirements under the EPBC Act, where they are required to verify the ORIGIN of specimens.

The extent to which keepers comply in a self-regulatory scheme will affect the ability of that scheme to provide effective self-regulation. In a self-regulatory scheme, the cost burden to the sector as a whole, as well as to individuals should be low to encourage participation.

Critics of this approach assert that self-regulation without a legislative framework would not adequately address problems within Industry as in consistent standards across the country would be observed (from Norm- I’d like to know what problems they believe the Industry has?) Self-regulatory schemes being voluntary, generally have low participation and this would be seen as a risk to such schemes. IF PEOPLE ARE NOT FORCED to participate and not everyone choose to participate, then some individuals see no point in participating themselves.

In a self-regulatory scheme OFMIG would need to be confident that a significant majority of exotic fish keepers would be willing to participate to minimize illegal trade activities to help address pest and disease risk that may affect Australia’s biodiversity (from Norm – these people have not a clue= These fish have not been shown to have any diseases that are not already endemic to Australia, nor have they shown us where they are a pest in any other part of the World). Without the support of Industry, Hobbyists and Pet owners, a self-regulatory scheme would soon become unviable, as would any other control option. (from Norm_ This could easily be reduced if the authorities allow more species to be legally imported every 12 months as that which occurred when ACOLF (Advisory Committee on Live Fish) used to do way back in 1982-92 when I was involved in this process on behalf of the whole Industry. Most of the species we are able to sell today, is because of this involvement. The current protocols for importing a new species means it has to have approximately 200 questions answered completely, and if this information in not supplied the species import status would lapse for insufficient information supplied, so don’t tell me these are the only options available to authorities!)

Comments from the bird keepers indicated that it was probably only the really honest breeders/traders that would participate in any such scheme, and that those involved in illegal activities would continue to trade on the black market.

There is also difficulty in dispersing information about a self-regulating scheme to an Industry that has a fragmented nature of fish keepers in Australia, the majority of which do not belong to an Aquarium Association, so getting the information out would be difficult.

For a self-regulatory scheme to work all species would need to be clearly and individually identified for appropriate records to be kept. This would be achievable for large specimens like Arowanas which are CITES listed and MUST BE MICROCHIPPED. (from Norm – Good luck with that option!) However, smaller fish, including prolific breeders this would be difficult, and would not be practical.

BAN:

This option could be approached in two ways:

1. Ban the keeping and trade of all exotics fish species (this option would represent a simple but extreme approach to control illegal trade in exotic fish by banning the import of exotic fish in Australia for trade or hobby purposes),(from Norm- they would have a hard time implementing this option, as trade would simply not agree and would soon involve QC’s to fight it), and

2. Ban the keeping of certain species of individual fish species.

The risk of this option include:

1. Lack of support from Industry and hobbyists (from Norm – do you think!)

2. Level of compliance by fish keepers could be low and difficult to enforce across Australia, and

3. It may increase risk to biodiversity (through competition, predation and habitat destruction) if captive held fish are released into the wild. (from Norm – what we have been saying all along to these clowns that this could eventuate and in an organized manner if their options are implemented)

For this option to be implemented, there would need to be a significant “pestiness” risk to Australia’s biodiversity, or a pest or disease risk identified.

A total ban on keeping particular fish species would not be seen as favourable as it could restrict trade (if established) under the World Trade Organisation Agreement (WTO) and may encourage more people to start keeping these species because “they are not allowed to”.

There would be an ongoing education campaign about the possession offence under the EPBC Act in conjunction with any ban Holders of these specimens would need to be made aware that it is illegal to hold or trade any specimen, WHICH WERE NOT LAWFULLY IMPORTED INTO AUSTRALIA! (from Norm – which applies to about 80% of all the cichlids and other species already in Australia).

The person in possession HAS THE ONUS OF PROOF to verify that the specimen was not illegally imported.

PHASE OUT:

The phasing out of species (note from Norm- this is the preferred method from Industry) may be another method to deal with the range of exotic fish species already within Australia. This method may be more attractive to fish keepers as all other methods which involve either specimens being handed in or seized, would be likely to attract severe emotional anguish by fish keepers.

Fish keepers have already expressed concerns of declaring all fish on the “grey list’ as noxious in the October 2008 campaign (from Norm - Started by me and continued on by others). Many expressed that if a species they held were to be declared noxious and were no longer allowed to be kept, that they would release these into natural waterways and the Governments would have a larger issue on their hands. They also indicated that this could be done in an organized manner ( from Norm – exactly what I have been telling these people for upteen years- but do they listen! Not on your nelly!).

Therefore to reduce this potential threat, fish declared noxious would need to be slowly removed by attrition from trade by:

1. Planning the order of species to target. This may involve obtaining indications of how many species of each species are present in Australia (from Norm – good luck!) and where they might be located. This in itself will be a difficult task as fish keepers are not willing to disclose what species are in their possession that may be a noxious species or a grey listed species.

2. Ceasing the trade of these species through retail outlets (even though these species are illegally in the country and it is currently an offence to sell them).

3. Allowing hand-backs of specimens to State authoritory drop off points. Specimens would be humanely euthanized (which would be an issue for many fish keepers) (from Norm – could you seriously believe Asians handing over the precious Chilli Red or other colour Arowana’s – I can’t).

4. Allowing certain specimens to be licensed for individuals to keep for the remainder of the specimen’s life (albeit long lived species may persist for a long time). These would not be allowed for trade or breeding. However, there would be difficulties in ensuring that the specimen was still the same one and had not been replaced without effective individuals marking techniques. It would also be difficult to know whether the species had been bred and the progeny passed on. Random audits would need to be carried out.

5. Providing incentives for reporting intelligence on people holding illegal species (from Norm – in other words Dobbing In of people).

6. Including a grace period – if anyone was found holding illegal specimens without a license after this date, they would potentially receive severe fines and penalties.

EDUCATION of PUBLIC and INDUSTRY;

The fragmented nature of the sector through loosely aligned clubs and association across Australia is a major ongoing communication challenge.

The most appropriate way to help protect Australia’s environment is through education of the public and Industry. Educational programs would need to be rolled out with THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY CONTROL OPTIONS.

Education needs to revolve around the risks species pose if released into the wild. (from Norm – they should also implement an education program to all stocking agencies that release native and non-native species into just about every waterways across Australia, and police it diligently, because they are good “on the end of a line”, without the need for a “precautionary principle” being applied to their operations, many of which are still occurring all around Australia in today’s terms).

The illegal trade message should also warn about the severe penalties associated with illegally importing such specimens, but also the penalties that apply if you are found with these species in your possession.

These messages would need to be carefully targeted to ensure that the specimens are not deliberately released into the wild to avoid seizure and possible prosecution if they were declared illegal

The education strategy would need to additionally focus on using outdoor ponds to hold any illegal species, as these can presumably present the highest risk of establishment if released.

INDIVIDUALLY IDENTIFYING/MARKING of SPECIMENS.

Any marking technique should not affect growth, survival or behaviour of individual species.(from Norm – Good luck as I don’t know of any that exists).

Marking techniques that have been used for capture-recapture studies of fish may include :

1.Banding.

2.Dyes and pigments.

3.Mutilation of fins or other bony parts.

4.External attachments or internal implantation of number tags, and

5.Visible Implant Elastomer (VIE) marking.

External tags or fin clipping works for larger species such as Perch. For smaller fish these methods are less suitable due to the relatively invasive manner of applying the marks. VIE marking uses a series of coloured polymers that are injected as viscous liquids into transparent tissues. They then harden to form a visible external mark. The use of 4 different colours will only result in a combination of 64 unique individual codes. Therefore to be able to use this method would mean the use of many different colours to be able to be applied to all the specimens in the Industry. This may also detract from the physical appearance of specimens so marked, and may make aquarist unlikely to comply to this method.

VIE marking also requires anesthetization of a species as the method requires needles to be inserted underneath the skin. This would be costly and there would be a risk of mortality to any specimens subjected to this method, especially any smaller species.

STERILISATION:

Sterilization could potentially be undertaken through surgery, immunology, radiation or with chemicals. Sterilisation could also be undertaken through genetic modification, however, this would not be feasible at an adult stage, (from Norm – as it may kill your specimen).

Surgical sterilization would involve large labour expenditures with the high possibility of mortality. This method would also be extremely difficult with smaller fish species that are often kept in aquariums. Some species have the ability to regenerate gonadal tissues after they have been removed, and therefore this method is not feasible.

Sterilisation using gamma rays, irradiation, x-rays and by chemosterisation have shown some success, but sometimes the method have been only temporary. Studies have found that an overdoes of anabolic steroids and hormones can interrupt the production and release of gonadotrophins. (from Norm – but none of these have been applied to the species we all keep in aquariums, from anywhere in the World, as there has been no need for it to occur, but only Australia wants to apply these measures, because we have a very stringent import protocol, so they want our fish to have these measures applied to them. It is SIMPLY AN OVER-KILL reaction to the species we all keep, breed and sell.)

These are all the option methods that OFMIG will be looking at when it comes to all the fish species we all keep, breed and sell. It will now be up to all of you to look into these options very carefully, because SOON you may all be having some or all of these measures applied to the fish you keep, regards Norm Halliwell.

[mattrox]

Sun, March 6, 2011 12:18:53 PM

Re Banning ornamental fish as NOXIOUS

Dear All

I enclose an attachment for you all to read, and hopefully send your comments to the people mentioned in the attachment, so that you may be able to prevent it from occurring, regards Norm Halliwell.

Further to my previous email to you on this matter, if you feel that there are too many people to send letters and emails to, may I suggest that you at least send your letters and emails to the following important people, which are necessary.

Senator.Ludwig@aph.gov.au

Neil.Hughes@environment.com.au

Frank.Antram@environment.gov.au

Heidi.Alleway@sa.gov.au

Mehdi.Doroudi@sa.gov.au and finally

Alex-mcnee@grapevine.com.au

Thank you for your participation, regards Norm Halliwell

*Note the attachment to this e-mail was the same information contained in the first.

[Brettmck]

If they do this to us then I will make sure they ban cats in Australia! they do more damage then any other domestic animal. How is it that this can be imposed on one group of hobbyists and not others... I'd like to know what the industry members are really doing to stop this rubbish.

[mattrox]

It's not up to just industry members. They are doing their part. It's up to hobbyists as well. If everyone wrote to their MP then something can be done so they look closely at each species rather than imposing bans.

No use comparing to cats, dogs etc as they will not even entertain these arguments. It won't be in any terms of reference... ie cats to x amount of damage to the environment, will this fish do more or less. This is focused on fish, because they have dealt with birds and reptiles already.

What they do with fish will be up to us as hobbyists. You can only voice you opinions in a logical way without resorting to a rant.

[Brettmck]

I was involved in writing many a letter back in 2008 here in NT, and every response was 'not interested' or 'not worth the votes'. using more traditional domestic pets like cats and dogs is a perfectly good tactic as it generates a much greater emotional response. Have you ever dealt with cat people! Imagine telling them that they could no longer own their precious pets. You would get death threats.

Hobbyist involvement is like having the general public oppose the mining tax, not going to be listened to. But when the mining company CEO's get together and talk about job losses and removal of money from the economy at the lowest level then people listen.

Agree we need to keep the rant out of the argument but there is no harm in playing the emotional and economic cards, everyone else does.

[gianniz]

someone start a facebook group and we can promote this through sunrise etc if we get enough supporters.

email doesn't work so don't waste your time. these days goverments and bodys just cannot ignore what media exposure, particularly when 10000's jobs are on the line if the aquarium industry is going to crash (it will if these keeps up).

However the class 1 list that was shown in the march auction didn't really suprise me and were well warranted to be NOXTIOUS. Only problem I see is if they keep adding fish to this list if they don't know enough about it!

[cobaltcraig]

Does anyone know whats on the blue and yellow lists

Cheers

Craig

[mattrox]

I know this isn't strictly kosher but this thread contains a list of species that are being reviewed. The have been identified as of interest to the hobby or not of interest.

http://auscichlids.com/forum/index.php?topic=2260.0

This has the grey list.

http://auscichlids.com/forum/index.php?topic=2494.0

There is another list with the risk assesmment but I will need to find it.

[mattrox]

Here is some more info.

http://www.qcichlid.org/OFMIGR_GreyList.pdf

http://www.qcichlid.org/OFMIGR_Attach_A.pdf

http://www.qcichlid.org/OFMIGR_HighRisk_Interest.pdf

http://www.sardi.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/p...ish_species.pdf

[mattrox]

One more.

http://adl.brs.gov.au/data/warehouse/pe_br...rt2010_ap14.pdf

[mattrox]

This thread has the list with the risk assessment. Look at the blue and yellow listed fish with the red coding.

Also, go down the list to family cichlidae.... those are ones not reviewed at the time of publishing. The Parachromis species are included there.

Although the list looks tiny in the thread, you just save the picture... right click save as..... It is clear when you open it to have a look.

http://auscichlids.com/forum/index.php?topic=144.0

EDIT* I found the above list in the PDF of the previous post.... LOOK at page 57........... Look at all those cool Cichla sp and their risk rating... those are the ones that we risk losing. As well as the Parachromis on pg 61

[Cichlabxr]

If people are seriously worried about this situation. It should be talked about as an industry not just a hobby.

A national approach where all State Cichlid Societies and any other interest groups eg EDAS, co-ordinate their efforts, would seem to be the best approach.

As gianniz suggested a Facebook page would also be a great idea. It could be a central location that everyone can access to see what the latest news is.

Publicity is also required. My summation of the situation and I have not read all the material. The authorities have asked someone to assess the problem. Instead of a sniper to take out the enemies they seem to be suggesting "carpet bombing".

Yes we need to protect our waterways but do we need to destroy the ornamental aquarium industry to do so?

Am I reading this wrong or is this the direction they are heading? Also what does OMFIG stand for...surely not "Oh F--k Me Its Gone"...lol

[mattrox]

This is the first document I can find with the background of the Ornamental Fish Management Implememtation Group.

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pd...n-Australia.pdf

Here is a link with an explanation of OFMIG

http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/biosecuritysa/aqu...ntal_fish/OFMIG

Communique #1 May 2010

http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf...er_May_2010.pdf

Communique #2 June 2010

http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/biosecuritysa/aqu...e_2_-_june_2010

Communique #3 Novemeber 2010

http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf...mber_2010-2.pdf

They OFMIG has a TWG (technical working group) and as far as I can see they are up to the third trache of fish to be considered. From what I can see, they will be looking to make the high risk fish noxious. From reading between the lines I have the hunch that Crenichila species are likely to be declared noxious. I hope a few people have actually looked at the Cichla species and the risk rating assigned to them.... they may well be next.

If you don't want a potential aquarium species to be declared noxious then each individual has to act. I know e-mails can be dealt with easily, but if many people took time to craft a letter and email it to all the addresses provided, a flood of e-mails will be taken seriously. If the letter were then printed and addressed to individuals and snail mailed in as well then hobbyists would be taken seriously.

An individual letter would be taken more seriously than a form letter.

The industry does have representation, but do you think the likes of AI or Bay really care about the interests of the hobbyists? If some fish are banned the will continue to wholesale the allowed species. It will be fish keepers that are impacted. It is our right to keep the pet(s) of our choice that is being eroded. The industry is going to look after their own interests and Norm Halliwell is doing his part to try and lobby on behalf of Hobbyists and the LFS who will be heavily impacted.

It is now our turn to stand up for our rights. After all a fish can't be a threat to any environment when it is enclosed in a glass box of water. Birds and reptiles can escape but fish have to be deliberately released. That is one thing that hobbyists need to address as well when writing to individuals listed.

No use saying the Cichlid societies need to do something. Because from my reading NSWCS and PSC have been doing things to make their membership aware. But now at this stage its going to be up to individuals to step up and exctract the digit from the rear orifice and write in.

The third tranche is about to be dealt with and the way that these fish are dealt with will be most important and we need as many people in power to know our collective opinion.

[mattrox]

I have written this which I will e-mail to the people highlighted in Norm Halliwell's latest circular. Feel free to use it, but personalise it and add your flavour to it.

It doesn't take much to send an e-mail and that is better than nothing to help put forward our views as hobbyists.

To whom it may concern,

I understand that the OFMIG/TWG are about to review species that have been flagged as of interest to the hobby or industry. I am concerned that hobbyists are not being heard by the Group and their interests are being ignored. I am concerned that fish that hobbyists have been keeping for many years may be declared noxious with little consideration of the impacts.

An aquarium fish cannot just escape into the environment. Most hobbyist afford the care, attention and love towards their fish that any other cat or dog owner would. However, it seems that hobbyists are portrayed as fish-releasing environmental vandals. I would suggest that it is not hobbyists that are the concern. Many species of exotic fish are routinely released as part of fish stocking programs. And this is allowed despite trout and other species preying on and displacing native species. A double standard is being applied.

Moreover, it would be ludicrous to put forward that dogs should be declared noxious on the grounds that they have the potential to breed with dingos and this cross breeding threatens the survival of a native species. Imagine the furore if it were suggested that cats be declared noxious because of the swathes of native animals that die needlessly because our beloved pets are hunters too. This is what us aquarium hobbyists face.

Many fish have personalities and hobbyists truly interact with them like any other pet. For example it is not uncommon for some of the larger cichlid species to be trained to take food from their owner’s hand. Some fish can be patted as they are fed, others are trained to jump for food. These large fish are seen as a threat by some members of the OFMIG. But such a highly valued pet would never be released. And it is not as though they can escape from their glass box and just walk to the nearest waterway.

I would ask that the fish to be considered to be noxious be done so on a factual basis, not some theoretical risk matrix that if were applied to dogs and cats would put them as high risk species as well.

For fish that may be high risk, but of high value to aquarists perhaps a well thought out permit system could be applied. This way the species could be legally kept and bred for the hobby. It would mean the species would be more highly valued because of the restrictions and in turn this would significantly reduce the risk of release into the environment.

The aquarium industry employs over 35 000 people. It is an important part of our economy. If swathes of fish are declared noxious I would foresee a huge loss of interest in the hobby, putting jobs at risk. In addition it would impact on our rights as citizens of a free and democratic country to keep the pets of our choice. Owners of dogs and cats do not have the risk that animals which they love (and are passionate about) maybe about to be declared illegal. This situation is most distressing to myself and many other hobbyists.

I trust and hope that my concerns do not fall on deaf ears as this issue is highly important to me.

Yours sincerely

[Ducksta]

Be careful when putting 'facts' in to emails like this.

Incorrect facts make your argument look emotionally driven, and not well thought out/planned/researched.

For example, saying that dog and cat owners aren't subject to any scrutiny is a stupid argument because as everyone knows there are now several breeds of dog which are no longer allowed to be traded. In this case they are cracking down on variants of a single species which is actually probably stricter than anything they could do with fish. (ie. imagine if comet goldfish were banned because of their adaptability but goggle eyed goldies weren't because they are easy pickings, etc.)

Also, given the problems associated with feral cats and dogs (as well as nightly roaming loyal family pets) making statements like aquarium owners provide the same care and responsibility as other pet owners is not really making a winning argument.

I still think the most interesting part of all of this is that goldfish/koi weren't the first one's banned. If they really had a purely environmental agenda then they would have been front runners as the ones proven to cause catastrophic problems when dams/ponds are flooded in to local waterways. The fact that goldfish and koi are not being declared noxious suggests to me that the retail aquarium industry is absolutely being well represented. Goldfish, koi, and community fish are the mainstay of aquarium stores. Trading in obscure species is never going to make a regular store a good deal of money. So by "supporting" a ban on all these species that don't make them any money, they are then able to protect their interests by defending the continued trade in goldfish.

Oh my God, is that a conspiracy theory? Have I turned in to Poulton in my old age?

[E4G13M4N]

Actually Ducksta Koi are only allowed in NSW and WA at the moment, and currently there is a impact study being done on them at this very moment..

Depending on those findings will determine wether they will be allowed Aust wide or banned Aust wide.

when there is 5 state govts still wanting them banned completly and a small group that determines their fate i wonder which way it will go

[Ducksta]

Ok so ultimately koi might make the national noxious list, but my point stands - if it was a concerted environmental push, species with known, damaging, feral populations across the whole country would have been first on the block - the feet dragging (to me) indicates that there are powerful people lobbying for koi to remain available. Nobody "powerful" cares about red tail catfish because moving a couple a year might be a nice bonus in the til that week but is nothing compared to the thousands of neon's they sell a year.

[mattrox]

Be careful when putting 'facts' in to emails like this.

Incorrect facts make your argument look emotionally driven, and not well thought out/planned/researched.

For example, saying that dog and cat owners aren't subject to any scrutiny is a stupid argument because as everyone knows there are now several breeds of dog which are no longer allowed to be traded. In this case they are cracking down on variants of a single species which is actually probably stricter than anything they could do with fish. (ie. imagine if comet goldfish were banned because of their adaptability but goggle eyed goldies weren't because they are easy pickings, etc.)

Also, given the problems associated with feral cats and dogs (as well as nightly roaming loyal family pets) making statements like aquarium owners provide the same care and responsibility as other pet owners is not really making a winning argument.

I still think the most interesting part of all of this is that goldfish/koi weren't the first one's banned. If they really had a purely environmental agenda then they would have been front runners as the ones proven to cause catastrophic problems when dams/ponds are flooded in to local waterways. The fact that goldfish and koi are not being declared noxious suggests to me that the retail aquarium industry is absolutely being well represented. Goldfish, koi, and community fish are the mainstay of aquarium stores. Trading in obscure species is never going to make a regular store a good deal of money. So by "supporting" a ban on all these species that don't make them any money, they are then able to protect their interests by defending the continued trade in goldfish.

Oh my God, is that a conspiracy theory? Have I turned in to Poulton in my old age?

The fact is that dogs and cats do pose a threat to the environment. Cats are one of the reasons the Bilby is almost extinct. Dogs are breeding with Dingos putting their genetics at risk, those are facts. The fact is that they will never be banned for emotional reasons, after all they are cute and fluffy. Why should aquarists be treated any different?

The fact is that stocking trout poses environmental risks. They are deliberately released. That will never be banned on sentimental reasons. Why should aquarists be treated any different?

If you have a better alternate letter to write, do it, let others use it if they see fit. Have you had your say and sent in an e-mail or letter? If my letter is flawed, then draft another one, a better one and send it in please. Don't stand back and criticise if you don't improve the situation.

Please get your facts straight too. Koi are noxious in SA because they are carp and carp are doing environmental damage in SA. SA and other states will move to protect their interests. And koi are not the only fish that will come under scrutiny. I for one, will not stand idly by and let things happen.

My feeling is that in a free and demcratic country everyone has the right to choose their pet. If there is a risk to our environment things can be done, such as a permit system. This is an emotional argument

[Ducksta]

Wow, way to completely miss a point. My comment was intended to help you make an argument that is more likely to be paid some attention when it hits a government department.

You also confirmed what I was saying. You're letter says aquarists are just as responsible as other pet owners and you then go on to point out that other pet owners aren't responsible at all. Why would you want aquarium hobbiests lumped with them? Maybe restricting the aquarium trade is a way to make a precedent. ie. we've improved waterways by controlling aquarium species, now we've paved the way to do the same to dogs and cats.

As for being allowed to choose your pet in a democracy - democratic governments are supposed to strike a balance between the needs of many. Not cater to the wants of all. Allowing a citizen to have freedoms so long as they are not causing harm to others - including ensuring that future generations are able to get a good quality of life.

As for having my say - I actually support anything that aims to improve the chances of the unique native flora and fauna we have in this country surviving for future generations. And personally I would love to see improvement in fisheries brought about by stricter control in quarantine of diseases that could potentially decimate local fish stocks. I don't support the aquaculture industry stocking trout and translocating barramundi and other sport species but that is kind of irrelevant in this case. (Let the hate flow...)

Also Re: koi - you are supporting my argument here. We're talking about a national noxious list and I question the people who are delaying a decision on a species that is already considered noxious in the majority states and territories. Meanwhile, less financially beneficial species have been rushed through stage one.

[mattrox]

Yes the species of no interest to the hobby have been rushed through the risk analysis.

By and large, most pet owners are resposible and I never say that pet owners are irresposible. But aquarists are being portrayed as responsible for wholesale dumping of fish. My argument is that aquarists should be afforded the same rights as other pet owners and that the risk analysis matrix is a flawed tool. If the tool were used in other contexts it would bring about results that would be politically unpalatable.

I am asking that they actually deliberate over the species to be declared noxious. And that if species are of high risk, that they put in place a mechanism where the environment is protected and hobbyists rights are protected too.

Please draft a better letter which explains this in a more logical and eloquent way so that your views can be put across to the powers that be.

[Rod54]

I believe this issue needs to be attacked with some logic....not emotion

Large cichlids that have huge spawns and aggressively protect fry ARE a danger to our natural environment

particularly in tropical areas.....

To argue they are not.....is going to be a losing battle

To argue they were legal last week so they should be legal next also has no merit

Responsible hobbyists would never allow them to enter the environment.....but laws aren't made for responsible people....and our system of government assumes everyone has the potential to act as if we were the worst/most stupid society has to offer.....because there are some nutters amongst us

Handguns are illegal......but under certain circumstance you can own and use one

The Best outcome will be a licence system so only dedicated hobbyist can (legally) keep these fish

You will never win a logical argument with emotion.....you may get elected into government that way....but it doesn't work on the bureaucrats

[mattrox]

I agree with that. And the whole point of the letter is to urge them to seriously consider options other than an outright ban. And to treat aquaists like any other responsible pet owner, rather than uneducated deliberate releasers of fish.

But to me, politicans can't afford to sign off on policies that are unpalateable to voters. If enough people do SOMETHING then those making decisions can gauge if their policies are "on the nose". Because after all everyone can't be a great letter writer, but if a sheer volume of letters are recieved then at least some will be considered

And again, I urge that if my letter is flawed, that people write their own. Those well versed in the public sector and the way to craft a letter, please put up something that you think will work. So far there has been plenty of comment, but I don't see anyone putting up an alternative.

Is this a common thing on this form? That is, people putting up ideas and statements, but no-one running with them

......... The NSWSC buying power thread....for example.

..... people making claims about hybrid fish (lithobates x fryeri), but when I ask where I can see one of these hybrid fish so I can compare the lithobates I have, no-one can say where they have seen them, or in fact confirm that they are actually hybrids, just a vague statement about "they are hybrids".....

[Josh]

I believe this issue needs to be attacked with some logic....not emotion

I totally agree.

It has been stated that the decision to ban fish is already based on "unsubstantiated and unscientific data". If this is true then maybe we should be suppling scientific/logical data to them. It would do more then sending 3000 copies of the same "copy and pasted" letter to 10 or so members of parliment that wont read it anyways.

I also believe that this will happen in some way, shape or form. I think that it would be a good idea to include some measures that we ARE willing to accept. It will be an easier fight to win if we are willing to meet on some common ground instead or resisting all the way. The Government holds all the power. IMHO they will wright the hobbiest off if we act like a crazy bunch of rednecks on this.

Take what happened to Norm as an example. He did jump up and down, he made noise about things and resisted the governments plans publically and that got him kicked of the panel. As hobbiest we need to be heard not ignored, pestering people will get us ignored

But to me, politicans can't afford to sign off on policies that are unpalateable to voters

The GST

Work Choices

The carbon Tax

Mining Tax

Flood levy

I can go on.

Remember there are groups out that want to protect their industries. The aquaculture sector is a much bigger money earner then the Aquarium hobby. Who do we honestly think the Government is going to look after?

[mattrox]

And not doing anything will not help either. And I would hope that each letter would be individualised to reflect each person's own views and circumstance.

Doing nothing will achieve nothing. Especially if we throw our arms up and say 'It's going to happen anyway'.

I am glad that discussion has been generated. But I'm sure that if there is a better way to get the point through, then everybody should at least have a format or starting point to follow if they choose to write in.