GTR73 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Not sure if this has been discussed on ACE as yet, but check out this proposal from the Dept of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in regards to the Aquarium hobby(be sure to read the PDF file): DAFF proposal If it becomes reality, it’ll have implications for us all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 About 90% of the fish on the Grey list and proposed noxious fish I currently have swimming around in my tanks. Soon aussies will be able to keep little bar natives. Better throw trout on that noxious list too then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I think it has been mentioned on here before. It will be very interesting to see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ducksta Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Yea its on page 2 - the sudden influx in new threads in the last few days booted it down a tad. I can't see a need to change any laws at all. And most foreseeable changes aren't going to change much for the 'end users' (ie. us) anyway. What I would like to see is the laws we currently have effectively policed so that the few shady operators are stopped and hobbiests as a whole could change the perception that we are environmental terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 But Ducky, just like terrorism & racial violence in Sydney, more laws are the answer to everything! Click for other thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 But Ducky, just like terrorism & racial violence in Sydney, more laws are the answer to everything! Click for other thread ← Exactly right. Every time their is seen to be problem; 100 new laws are passed. I can't wait for the day that we are all walking around with bar codes tattoo'd on our behinds! maybe we should all go in on a group buy make the coding cheaper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parkap Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 But Ducky, just like terrorism & racial I can't wait for the day that we are all walking around with bar codes tattoo'd on our behinds! maybe we should all go in on a group buy make the coding cheaper? ← well the gov't has just today started to talk again about an ID card. quite funny timing really. at the moment the draft regulation is only that. it looks like they have both a hobbiest and an industry rep on the working group. depending on who these people actually are you'd expect them to raise the issues you're concerned about as they're pretty obvious one's, particularly around the noxious and grey lists. at the moment it also looks as though any new licencing will only effect people with a certain amount of litres they use for aquaculture and i don't think most, if any, hobbiest would fall within that limit. looks more like a commercial limit to me. but if you are concerned about the impacts of any part of the draft regulation, avail yourself of the democratic process and make a submission to the working group. contact details are available at the end of the draft regulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucifersJester Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Honestly, there isn't alot wrong with the new draft regulations - apart from the licencing of hobbiests who have more than 10,000 litres of water for fish... This is ludacris but there will be a few draft replies going in from aquaria keepers I know. Who else is planning on replying to this draft regulations? Is there a collaborated effort from ACE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Remember 10000l is more than 50 standard 4 footers - how many people here hit that limit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Remember 10000l is more than 50 standard 4 footers - how many people here hit that limit? ← I currenlty have 14,000litres of heated water in my house/fishroom. Another 2000 unheated. Their would be far more people then you think who would hit this limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 you keep tankbusters though - imagine how many piddly africans could be kept in that volume! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ducksta Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 It's Ok Alex, tell them they're indoor swimming pool's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Hydrotherapy maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piracu Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 After looking at the list of proposed noxiouse sp one thing came to mind; What sort of buy back scheme will be initiated for people holding species that are currently legally kept that hence become noxiouse? Also, who will decide the value off a given species should such a buy back scheme be initiated? I feel that to truely get rid off a large number of these specimens already kept in the hobby would be futile should addequate compensation not be offered. Many species are valuable for instance some arowana specimens are worth 5k etc and many species catfish up to and over $1000...plus millions and millions of dollars worth of other species given that the DAFF information says that roughly 60% of the species avail are not on import lists and the gross turnover of the industry is $350,000,000 PA ...that would add up to a lot of money even if that 60% constituted just 5-10% of the actually species being currently traded. Basically I think the regulation scheme proposed is ridiculouse and that it will just be another hoop for hobbiests and industry alike to have to jump thru. Australia already has some of the toughest laws to my knowledge regarding wildlife licensing, quarantine and allowable import of species. Just because the quarantine people are not doing their job properly they are trying to make us all suffer and in the end they would love to impose regulatory fees etc on breeders and would also like to be able to gain access to premises where it is believed any fish species are kept without approriate warrants etc I will email my thoughts on this issue to Mr Tilzey and let him know how ridiculous this really is...I mean if the goverment doesnt even have the resources to adequately police illegal fishing in Australian waters and to adequately staff public hospitals, shortage of child care places so its better for mothers to be on the pension rather than work...how will they possibly be able to devote the funds needed for the exhaustive resources required to police this ridiculouse proposal in the first place. This is just another case of goverment agencies wanting to justify their existence... pathetic..pathetic James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTR73 Posted January 22, 2006 Author Share Posted January 22, 2006 After looking at the list of proposed noxiouse sp one thing came to mind; What sort of buy back scheme will be initiated for people holding species that are currently legally kept that hence become noxiouse? Also, who will decide the value off a given species should such a buy back scheme be initiated? I feel that to truely get rid off a large number of these specimens already kept in the hobby would be futile should addequate compensation not be offered. Many species are valuable for instance some arowana specimens are worth 5k etc and many species catfish up to and over $1000...plus millions and millions of dollars worth of other species given that the DAFF information says that roughly 60% of the species avail are not on import lists and the gross turnover of the industry is $350,000,000 PA ...that would add up to a lot of money even if that 60% constituted just 5-10% of the actually species being currently traded. Basically I think the regulation scheme proposed is ridiculouse and that it will just be another hoop for hobbiests and industry alike to have to jump thru. Australia already has some of the toughest laws to my knowledge regarding wildlife licensing, quarantine and allowable import of species. Just because the quarantine people are not doing their job properly they are trying to make us all suffer and in the end they would love to impose regulatory fees etc on breeders and would also like to be able to gain access to premises where it is believed any fish species are kept without approriate warrants etc I will email my thoughts on this issue to Mr Tilzey and let him know how ridiculous this really is...I mean if the goverment doesnt even have the resources to adequately police illegal fishing in Australian waters and to adequately staff public hospitals, shortage of child care places so its better for mothers to be on the pension rather than work...how will they possibly be able to devote the funds needed for the exhaustive resources required to police this ridiculouse proposal in the first place. This is just another case of goverment agencies wanting to justify their existence... pathetic..pathetic James ← Yeah I agree that buy-back scheme they mention is certainly "pie in the sky" stuff. However the way things are progressing, all life in Australian rivers and creeks will get wiped out soon anyway, and I think Govt agencies have got a lot more to worry about than ornamental fishkeepers. The fact remains our inland aquatic environments are in far more danger of being destroyed from industry/farming/development etc, then they are by noxious fish. I read somewhere (could have been Australian Geographic), that at the current rate of development there will be widespread destruction of most species in the majority of our freshwater environments within the next 20 years. Sadly, what this proposal aims to regulate could end up being a bit of a non-issue in regards to keeping our waterways pristine. Like you say - this proposal in some aspects is the result of someone trying to justify their job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piracu Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Yes GTR, maybe i was a bit excited when I wrote my post yesterday but I still stand by what I said in that its just not practical to implement such a proposal in the real world terms...its like the Australian customs fiasco that recently occurred in which Customs spent tens of millions on a new computer system that no one was trained to or had time to use. Many things are just fine on paper!!!! Your write in that to look at a problem sensibly you have to break it down into the different component....number 1 would be the environmental impact on freshwater fisheries buy industry and agriculture with the impact on freshwater fisheries buy ornamental/aquarium species paling in comparison. Hence the scant resopurces available should be targeted towards the greatest threat to the environment not the one that seem the easiest on paper. PLus they dont have the balls to go after industry and agriculture in a get tough sort of way cause it would cost them!! james Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTR73 Posted January 24, 2006 Author Share Posted January 24, 2006 Yeah I guess we all gotta keep reminding ourselves the "Govt" is a huge beauracratic machine that is broken up across the different Federal depts, States, Councils and Shires; and further spilt into organisations, offices, committees, consultancy firms and outsourced business. DAFF is but one little cog in this great machine, and it can be kinda frustrating the things that are produced by this machine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.