Cichlabxr Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 I know this is going to be slightly controversial but felt I would like to hear others opinions. It is obvious to all who frequent this board that illegal imports are still coming into the country. In fact it seems to have increased in the last couple of years. Are we harming the hobby (those of us who have access to them) by buying them at ridiculously high prices, knowing we can sell the F1 at high prices, which see us soon recoup our outlay. Should we make hay while the sun shines so to speak? Therefore expanding the list of avaiable cichlids in the country. I must admit it is very hard to resist when a species you would dearly love to keep suddenly becomes available. It is also very tempting to "cash in", if you can afford the upfront cost when these new species appear. It is obviously very hard to police such practices but will it lead to a harsher knee-jerk reaction from the powers that be. Referring here to the original restriction on cichlid imports back in the 80's. Will the political impact be that it is harder to get the Import List expanded? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinky Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 honestly, i dont think ppl not importing more new species would have made a big difference in the import list being expanded or not. the authorities would have better arguments using problems like the Tilapia situation or the hazelwood pond to limit the number of species being able for import. plus aquarist could argue that who would wanna release new imports, that would have costed them an arm or a leg. this is all just my oppinion though. slinky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benno Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 I was reading a South Australian fishing magazine yesterday, and apparently last week a 30cm oscar was landed by a fisherman in a well known trout stream in the Adelaide hills. They said that the oscar took a live yabby as bait and appeared to swim of perfectly fine health so could this mean there are more bans in store for some of our fave cichlids. Benno Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevkoi Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 But.. but...but, Oscars are on the importable import list! The argument that is used to restrict importation of fish can apply to ANY fish currently on the importable list. How are Whitecloud mountain minnows not a threat? They can live in temperate climates, the are prolific breeders.... yadda yadda yadda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r.d.m Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 my cootamundra wattle blew over in the last storms so i went up to the national park nursery (i wont give the location as i dont want to get anybody into trouble) to be told that the c. wattle was now a noxious weed and banned from sale ,but , if i hang around for a few minutes " i'll get you one from out the back" and this is a native tree, my point being , if the authorities are going to flout the law how can they expect us not to! a few years ago the only macaws available could be traced back to the hallstrom collection , and if you knew the right people one could be had for $23,000 ,then some influential people set up a quarantine station in victoria ,the result being they now cost $5,000 now im not the sharpest tool in the shed but i would think a macaw is more likely to escape than a rampant oscar .on another note in every state but victoria pet greyhounds have to be muzzled , why not victoria ? because a chief justice now has a pet greyhound and thinking muzzles were cruel got the law changed-just like that!!! so maybe if someone can get bob or jonny interested in cichlids who knows what might happen. back to your question cichla , if you buy these fish yes your going to justify the smuggling , on the other hand , the fish are safe in your tank held by a responsable person ,those same fish could have been bought by an idiot who tires of them and thinks its a good idea to set them free in the hawkesbury, and you would have prevented that ,concience is a terrible thing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pride Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 so maybe if someone can get bob or jonny interested in cichlids who knows what might happen ......I can just picture a huge umbee as Kym Beazley's Labour Party mascot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbeer Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 This is a real interesting question. Three points. Firstly everytime this issue is discussed we here about the dreaded tilapia, convicts red devils. I believe the worst releases have been carp and goldfish. Why not ban goldfish. Because too many upset voters. Secondly, if no one buys ilegal imports, no market, no illegal imports. Thirdly, fish breed so damn fast if cared for well, I believe the only effective means of control is education. If fish are baaned they go underground. Imagine if guppys were banned. Everyone who has a couple will end up with a hundred with nowhere to sell them. Where will they all go??? Conclusion - I'm buggered if I know whether or not I would buy illegal imports. I don't have any at the moment though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquaman Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 They said that the oscar took a live yabby as bait and appeared to swim of perfectly fine health Why the heck did the fool let it go? He should have destroyed it being a non native fish! Especially since he obviously recognised it as an Oscar... Cheers Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cichlabxr Posted February 24, 2005 Author Share Posted February 24, 2005 reddevilman, I take your point. I feel as a responsible fishkeeper I have a duty to buy these fish. It is after all my way of keeping our environment safe. As for Johnny becoming interested in cichlids I have always thought he looks more like a Takashi Amano type of person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r.d.m Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 too right cichla, and aquaman too right hes a fool to let it go , i would have put him in the bait bucket ,driven him down to the nearest lfs and left the shop clutching a drum of cichlid pellets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benno Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 Firstly everytime this issue is discussed we here about the dreaded tilapia, convicts red devils. I believe the worst releases have been carp and goldfish. Why not ban goldfish. Because too many upset voters. Gingerbeer, you beat me to it mate. I was thinking the exact same thing yesterday. We have the fisheries etc banning and taking away all of these cichlids. And even if a cichlid gets into the wild there is no certainty that it is going to survive the colder climates and water quality etc etc. But you can just about guarantee that a goldfish released into the wild is going to survive. Yet we are yet to hear anything about outlawing the much loved goldfish. I understand cichlids are alot more aggressive than the humble goldfish but there is no doubt that there will be a few goldies in the Murray river or any other river chowing down on a few of our native fishes eggs and fry. But almost every petshop you go into more than 50% of the fish they hold are goldfish. And ive talked to alot of people that have got bored with theyre goldfish and thought it was ok to dump them off into the river. Wheres the justice in that we being hobbiests cant go and buy the cichlids that we want for display breeding and just the pleasure of having something different and exciting, but any idiot can go into the pet shop purchase a bag of goldfish get bored of them after a while and then just dump them off into our waterways with almost a 100% chance of all of them surviving. But what can we do, we will just have to make do with what we have got. It only takes a few silly people to ruin it for everyone. But thats just my point of view. Thanx Benno Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 Well said Benno , the sad fact is that we can complain about it as much as we want but i don't think it's going to achieve anything. We need to just preserve the species we have and do what we can. We also need to support the importation of new bloodlines (where legally possable), Thanks Nigel . Anthony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierced Soul Posted February 25, 2005 Share Posted February 25, 2005 Secondly, if no one buys ilegal imports, no market, no illegal imports. this is similar to the way the flowerhorn market o/s bottomed out, p[eople stopped buying them, wasnt wirthwhile breeding them or making money off them. HOWEVER people see the ends as justifying the means. If someone wants a fish which is deemed "illegal" then they'll get it. How many of us have stuff not on the import list? if it's bred in Australia i.e. bristle nose, does that really make it any different than if it was imported? i think there are fish who do cause a serious threat such as pirahnas but really is a 7 bar frontosa gonna eat all the fish in the hawksbury? it seems the only way to get new fish in these days is to illegally bring them in, breed them and then flood the market so they become part of the 'norm'. Not saying thats a good stance, but if you wiat for some govt agency to change the list you'll be waiting a long time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lv426 Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 Whenever i chat to American fish keepers (on another top notch forum ) Im always drooling over what they can keep. Im not clear on the American allowables law but it seems like it's alot easier to get everything from pirahnas to gars there. Yet they drool over the fish that are kept in Asia. ... . Why is it that our law is so strict? I am a 29yr old responsible fish keeper. I understand why certain species should be kept out of our water ways. In fact all aquarium fish should be lept out of our water ways, given most are born in captivity anyway. If I had pirahna and wanted them gone I would dispose of them appropriately. Is our laws the way it is because of a few uneducated idiots (because thats what they are)?. As far as the sale of illegal imports go it is a market that i believe is growing albeit underground. However even LFS are involved......$$$$ is what they desire. "If the people want it and there is a demand for it, then thats what they will get" I heard a LFS say. While there is money to be made it will not stop. In fact the people resonsible for this market dont care if it gets driven further underground it just means more $$$ for them for smuggling less fish. How good is that from their POV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrseby Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 See sadly it all boils down to THIS!!!! cane toads, Donkey, Fox, Rabbit, Gambusia, Goldfish, Carp, Cacti, Trout, sparrows, starlins, cammels etc etc etc ..+ all the other insects and plants NON native Thats the prob ... Sadly we pay for the few that do wrong !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ducksta Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 Looks like alot of Government idiots you listed seby, and not so many hobbiest error's Except those bloody goldfish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cichlabxr Posted February 28, 2005 Author Share Posted February 28, 2005 When the Wildlife Protection Act 1982 was first introduced representations were asked for from interested parties. Strangely enough the money making species were allowed but the rest were banned. Geophagus jurupari was originally on schedule 6. The hobby was not nearly as big as it is now (cichlidophiles) so we had nobody going into bat for that VERY SMALL side of the "Ornamental Fish Trade". Since then the schedule has been caught up in numerous reviews of protecting our environment. Some of this started in the early 90's because we were out of step with the Rest of the World. Try and find the papers submitted back in the 80's and we might no more as to why such a hatchet job was done on the cichlids. Not forgetting as in all things "money talks" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.