Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DFishkeeper

Proposed laws to make hobbyists register as pet shops

Recommended Posts

Wow, how ridiculous

Plenty more fish will get dumped into our river systems 

Dogs and cats into the bush 

Birds to the sky's etc etc 

Just because people wont know what to do with them 

The ecological impacts to our native environments would be huge if this goes ahead 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will send it further underground.
I noticed the article mentions animals sold at "markets". I wonder if The NSWCS has had a read of the current rules to see if what they do is legal.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cichlid society were told about this a couple of months ago. There response was that it will not include fish.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, malawi sand diver said:

Everyone should just continue as normal. There is no way the beaurocrats can police everyone.

You're right, DPI probably don't have the resources to proactively police fish hobbyists. However, If somebody makes a formal complaint the DPI are obligated to investigate it. They are already obligated to investigate complaints now, they just don't have the legislation in place to impose the penalties and/or shut you down.

If this is put in place and you advertise fish for sale on facebook, gumtree etc you may well be approached by DPI to check you have the registration in place. They already monitor online sites looking for people selling prohibited animals.

All it takes is somebody envious of your success or a dissatisfied buyer, or even a nosey nasty neighbour etc and it won't matter if you are underground or not. And unfortunately the modern world seems to be full of mean spirited people who will do just that. This is a dangerous piece of legislation

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they do put a lot of resources into policing this, we should be outraged that our taxes are funding something so ridiculous. Over-regulation is a big problem these days. Not sure of they could justify a fine for selling a fish online and if so it would make a great idea for a story on a current affairs show. E.g. a case study of a kid that sells his goldfish to a friend then gets slapped with a fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was brought to the attention of the committee before the Febuary meeting.

As I said earlier they told me fish would not be included in the new legislation.

Still waiting for someone to verify that. My understanding is that fish are included in the new proposals. If they are there will be no more auctions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this isn’t going to make me popular with some.  Years ago our aquarium clubs were the voice of our hobby.  They were proactive in promoting fish keeping, helped to guide and mentor newbies in the game, and advocated for the interests of hobbyists.  Yes, they also provided a means for breeders to make contacts with buyers, but that was only one facet, and certainly wasn’t their primary reason for being. 

Back in the 1980s and 1990s when the hobby of cichlid keeping came under the real threat of a complete ban on the import and trade in cichlids, it was the cichlid societies who negotiated with state and federal governments and had the proposed restrictions scaled back.  Without these groups, and the hard graft put in by certain individuals, none of us would be keeping the fish we have today. 

The internet, and in particular Facebook, has been great for the hobby in some ways.  It has allowed far easier communication between people, and makes the dissemination of information easier.  But the downside is that the “mentoring” role that the clubs and shops used to play with newbies has greatly diminished.  But even more so, the hobby has become far more fragmented.  There are no longer strong clubs which can (or perhaps “will” is a better word) stand up and provide a voice for the hobby. 

The iridovirus testing debacle is a case in point.  There was no strong, unified lobbying from the aquarium hobby at a time when it could have made a difference.  As a result we have all lost out big time. 

This proposed legislation is another example.  Ideally, the hobby should have a strong voice in submissions to government the instant the first hint of something like this comes along.   This has the potential to become just what the iridovirus debacle ended up as.  Shrug your shoulders and assume it will never happen . . . until it’s too late to have any meaningful input.

I’ll be blunt. At a time when the hobby is under severe threats from many directions - threats from diminishing participation because of rising electricity costs etc, where indiscriminate hybrids are posing a threat to the survival of pure strains, where species are being lost to the hobby at an alarming rate purely through lack of custodianship, and the threats posed by ever increasing state and federal legislation – it’s pretty disappointing that most of the country’s aquarium clubs have become little more than yet another avenue for members to flog fish.

Come on guys - this isn’t new news.  Work towards this particular legislation has been underway since early 2015.  Three years, and how much input has the NSW aquarium hobby had to date???

From the small amount of digging I’ve done, its clear that fish ARE included in the proposals. Government is allocating resources for enforcement.    While to some it may seem a bit far-fetched, don’t forget that Tasmania already has established legislation limiting fish sales to licenced individuals only.

Perhaps now’s the time to take some of the focus off of auctions, and place a bit of attention on fighting to ensure that those auctions might remain legal into the future?

Edited by humbug
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case anyone is in any doubt about whether this applies to fish, or to ANYONE who is in any way involved in their sale (ie the Society itself when conducting an auction), here are a few definitions from the proposal. 

 

pet shop means any premises used for the conduct of animal trade for which an animal is kept for the purposes of sale, and includes:

(a) a shop,

(b) booth or stall at a market, and

(c) premises used for residential purposes and any associated structures.

 

sale means the transfer of ownership of an animal or animals, and includes:

(a) selling by wholesale, retail, auction or tender, or

(b) barter or exchange, or

(c) supplying for profit, or

(d) offering for sale, receiving for sale or exposing for sale, or

(e) consigning or delivering for sale, or

(f) having in possession for sale, or

(g) causing or allowing any of the above to be done

 

animal means a member of a vertebrate species (other than an amphibian) including any:

(a) mammal (other than an human) and including a dog, cat, rabbit, guinea pig, rat or mouse.

(b) bird,

(c) fish,

(d) reptile

 

There is even a whole section relating to specific requirements for fish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can’t say I’ve read the whole proposal, but I’ve now skimmed it.
 

I’m wondering if the retail guys understand the implications for them.  Even if sense prevails for hobbyists, this may result in a bit of a shakeup for the industry. 


The requirements for housing, water quality etc are pretty straightforward, and you would hope are already being practiced by shops.  If the aren't, they shouldn't be in business.

The proposal potentially places a very high burden on shops for record keeping including source of fish, breeding, illnesses, medical treatments, deaths etc. 

The “humane destruction” section is completely inappropriate for fish, requiring “intravenous administration of an overdose of pentobarbitone sodium” by a veterinary practitioner.  I assume someone will be pointing that one out as a problem.

But there are some interesting requirements regarding staffing, including the requirement that during all hours of operation of a pet shop at least one staff member is present who holds as a minimum qualification a current Certificate II in Animal Studies, or equivalent competencies that have been formally assessed by a registered training organisation. 

I’m rather hoping the retailers are talking amongst themselves about the implications, and are working on a submission while they have the chance!!

Edited by humbug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes this will apply to fish. This is part of a strategic, co-ordinated and long term well funded implementation plan by state and federal governments to reduce the overall population and number of exotic species in Australia. Having unregulated, uncontrolled and unknown (invisible) movement of exotic plants and animals freely accross the states and the country is bio securities worst nightmare. They have learnt the hard way through bitter experience than sudden sweeping legislation does not work but a slow co ordinated multi approach plan will. This does not apply just to fish. Talk to any exotic bird keeper however all exotic species are targeted. 

Do a search here and on any australian fish or pet forum and you will see this has been gradually occuring through a variety of well thought out schemes. Some advertised with consultation periods. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The equivalent legislation in SA is already in operation. While based in part on the draft NSW and Victorian legislation, ours expressly precludes fish, and very clearly states that it only applies to wholesale or retail trade from public places (other than for cats and dogs, where private sales are also covered).

Looks like the Victorian legislation is similar.  It defines a pet shop as any permanent shop that sells dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, mice, reptiles and caged birds.

Fish are included in the Queensland code of practice, but a pet shop is defined as “ a retail outlet where a companion animal is offered for sale for commercial purposes.”

I can’t find reference to a similar code in Western Australia.

 

Edited by humbug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not just this legislation. It's a combined methodical strategic approach.

Hindering importation through cost, additional regulation, higher penalties, increasing noxious lists, discouraging domestic breeders, reducing markets, 

It is all working too. So enjoy the hobby while you can. Luckily I don't keep any exotic fish, birds or pets (for all those government forum reading lurkers out there ). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good news but it's just a temporary stall. The underlying intention is still there and will not go away.  It's even acknowledged.

Luckily the cat & dog owners have a much bigger voice. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×