this almost happened to us : Australia

[Uncle.Ned]

this almost happened to us

below is the Australia version
of a similar problem
that DID become law
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/lists/import/index.html (http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/lists/import/index.html)

note that Cherry Barbs are allowed
and that Odessa Barbs are not allowed

Oto cats are allowed
Peckoltia cats are not allowed

Weitzmani tetras are allowed
BUT only males

Lamp. Leleupi are allowed
BUT not BABY Lamp. Leleupi
(see it makes a big difference because, um, well, um,
well it just does make a big difference)

etc
etc etc etc

what lunacy is this ?

[Jory]

thats just ridiculous!

[neonfish]

They are highly restricted now on both fish & reptile pets. Scary that things like this actually get passed...:WHOA:

This is why everyone needs to stand up against these laws when they are possible.

[dingoofus]

I'm actually for this list. I love the Australian wilderness and wildlife so much. I've seen the effects of what feral animals can do, Cane toads, rabbits, pigs, foxes, mosquito fish, carp, etc. So if I'm not allowed certain fish or animals in order to protect our envrionment and the way it is, so be it.

I mean surely people can understand why this law is in Australia?, there is no where else in the world with the landscape or animals we have. Australia only has one chance, if we muck up and lose all our animals because of it, there will be no backup for us. I'm for this law in Australia. 8)

[neonfish]

I'm actually for this list. I love the Australian wilderness and wildlife so much. I've seen the effects of what feral animals can do, Cane toads, rabbits, pigs, foxes, mosquito fish, carp, etc. So if I'm not allowed certain fish or animals in order to protect our envrionment and the way it is, so be it.

I mean surely people can understand why this law is in Australia?, there is no where else in the world with the landscape or animals we have. Australia only has one chance, if we muck up and lose all our animals because of it, there will be no backup for us. I'm for this law in Australia. 8)

Yea, Australia is probably one of the contries who's invasive wildlife has caused the most amount of damage. Although I am against laws like this I don't like to say it but it was necessary for the protection of the whole ecosystem. :(

[dingoofus]

Yea, Australia is probably one of the contries who's invasive wildlife has caused the most amount of damage. Although I am against laws like this I don't like to say it but it was necessary for the protection of the whole ecosystem. :(

Australia is unique, with our wombats, kangaroos, emus, koalas etc. So I believe this law deserves a medal for Australia's sake. lol. It may be crap to introduce the law into other countires, I'll let youse decide that. But I wan't people to realise, for Australia, it is a really good thing.

I can see why some people would want to introduce the law to the U.S. I think youse would be for this law if the U.S was as unique as Australia in terms of flora and fauna. But for this law to have any effect, wouldn't the likes of Canada and mexico have to introduce it too?

[Cholly]

The U.S. is so varied in climates, it's not funny, we have desert, tropics, arctic and everything in between. It really needs to be done at the state level, one massive cookie-cutter law is not going to cut it. Washington State, where I live, the laws are already restrictive beyond sanity. Piranha are illegal and yet there is literally nowhere in the entire state that they could survive. We had 5 feet of snow last December alone. That's well over a meter and a half.
I dunno. There are a lot of ignorant s***heads out there that think only of themselves and not of the animals they keep or the world they live in. I don't want to be restricted/punished because of idiots though.

[Allan01230]

Well when you think of it everyone that is of English decent is an invasive to Australia. The law sucks and is way too vague.

[Uncle.Ned]

this law is important
in that it will slow down the
attacks on wombats by baby African cichlids
(apparently adult African cichlids don't eat wombats,
so they are allowed)

look forward to similar
common sense rules regarding american pets anytime now

[ceeej31]

I'm actually for this list. I love the Australian wilderness and wildlife so much. I've seen the effects of what feral animals can do, Cane toads, rabbits, pigs, foxes, mosquito fish, carp, etc. So if I'm not allowed certain fish or animals in order to protect our envrionment and the way it is, so be it.

I mean surely people can understand why this law is in Australia?, there is no where else in the world with the landscape or animals we have. Australia only has one chance, if we muck up and lose all our animals because of it, there will be no backup for us. I'm for this law in Australia. 8)
while i feel that some of the fine points of the law are strange (the baby cichlid one is a prime example) i do agree with you on the importance of the law

[Zander_The_RBP]

Australia is unique, with our wombats, kangaroos, emus, koalas etc. So I believe this law deserves a medal for Australia's sake. lol. It may be crap to introduce the law into other countires, I'll let youse decide that. But I wan't people to realise, for Australia, it is a really good thing.

I can see why some people would want to introduce the law to the U.S. I think youse would be for this law if the U.S was as unique as Australia in terms of flora and fauna. But for this law to have any effect, wouldn't the likes of Canada and mexico have to introduce it too?

australia is unique cause it has some species native only to it ?:screwy: almost every country on earth has some species native only to it. Australias no more unique than the US or any other country on this planet

and comparing canada and mexico to the US thats like comparing strawberries to apples to oranges..... nowhere even close

no offence

[dingoofus]

Well when you think of it everyone that is of English decent is an invasive to Australia. The law sucks and is way too vague.

Mate really, common sense prevails. From an Australian actually living in Australia, the law does not suck and it's a key factor in protecting the Australian wilderness.

this law is important
in that it will slow down the
attacks on wombats by baby African cichlids
(apparently adult African cichlids don't eat wombats,
so they are allowed)

look forward to similar
common sense rules regarding american pets anytime now

Australia does have native fish mate, many of which have already suffered due to introduced species, it's not only for the wombats and koalas that this law is in place. That rule you speak of would be there for a reason,I'm not an expert of cichlids but the reason adults would be allowed is that you mightn't be able to tell cetain cichlids apart when younger? and some cichlids are banned outright, so to stop accidently shipping over banned cichlids they have made the rule that only adult cichlids are allowed.

australia is unique cause it has some species native only to it ?:screwy: almost every country on earth has some species native only to it. Australias no more unique than the US or any other country on this planet

and comparing canada and mexico to the US thats like comparing strawberries to apples to oranges..... nowhere even close

no offence

Mate, Australia is indeed unique, Name one country that has the same animals as us? If the other countires truly are as unique as you say they are, then why are they not putting in laws to protect their natural heritage as well? I could fill this whole page up with animals only unique to Australia. We live on an island so our animals can't cross borders like they can in your country of canada. Also I wasn't comparing Canada to mexico and the u.s, I was trying to get across that youse all border each other, so it'd be easier for animals to find their way into each of the countrys via another, so surely if this law was introduced in the U.s, wouldn't bordering countires have to employ the law too? due to that border thing..

[Zander_The_RBP]

Mate really, common sense prevails. From an Australian actually living in Australia, the law does not suck and it's a key factor in protecting the Australian wilderness.



Australia does have native fish mate, many of which have already suffered due to introduced species, it's not only for the wombats and koalas that this law is in place. That rule you speak of would be there for a reason,I'm not an expert of cichlids but the reason adults would be allowed is that you mightn't be able to tell cetain cichlids apart when younger? and some cichlids are banned outright, so to stop accidently shipping over banned cichlids they have made the rule that only adult cichlids are allowed.



Mate, Australia is indeed unique, Name one country that has the same animals as us? If the other countires truly are as unique as you say they are, then why are they not putting in laws to protect their natural heritage as well? I could fill this whole page up with animals only unique to Australia. We live on an island so our animals can't cross borders like they can in your country of canada. Also I wasn't comparing Canada to mexico and the u.s, I was trying to get across that youse all border each other, so it'd be easier for animals to find their way into each of the countrys via another, so surely if this law was introduced in the U.s, wouldn't bordering countires have to employ the law too? due to that border thing..

im not saying theres anotehr country that has the smae animals as you im merely saying having animals native only to your country dosent make you unique in the slightest. your landscape however is very unique

yes your animals are indeed unique but we too (canada and the states) have our own unique animals examples include the american black bear, banded geckos and the bald eagle

what im trying to say is that however nessicary the law is, it would be jsut as nessicary here (north america). However the law im looking at (yours) seems far to extreme to me


i do find austrailian native animals fascinating (bearded dragons saltwater crocodiles and all those lovely marsuipials) theres alot up here but not any of the things that really intrest me you guys get all the good stuff lol

im for any law that helps wildlife and stops invasive species but not if it also limits good knowledgable people in what they can own. lets face it the vast majority of invasive species didnt come through the pet trade and thereby limiting it and stoping good people from having the pets they want dosent make sense to me

in canada (and im sure the states too) weve had a unwelcomed geust end up in our country recently, the Asain Longhorned Tree Beetle and this beetle is doing tremdous damage to our forests but it didnt get here via the pet trade it came here through "tainted" wood from china

i hope im not coming off too harsh and i hope you realise i support the intention of that law completly and you do have soem amazing animals and plants but its far to limiting (i mean seriously only males of the what ever its called tetra lol) on the good and decent people who just want an interesting pet

[dingoofus]

im not saying theres anotehr country that has the smae animals as you im merely saying having animals native only to your country dosent make you unique in the slightest. your landscape however is very unique

yes your animals are indeed unique but we too (canada and the states) have our own unique animals examples include the american black bear, banded geckos and the bald eagle

what im trying to say is that however nessicary the law is, it would be jsut as nessicary here (north america). However the law im looking at (yours) seems far to extreme to me


i do find austrailian native animals fascinating (bearded dragons saltwater crocodiles and all those lovely marsuipials) theres alot up here but not any of the things that really intrest me you guys get all the good stuff lol

im for any law that helps wildlife and stops invasive species but not if it also limits good knowledgable people in what they can own. lets face it the vast majority of invasive species didnt come through the pet trade and thereby limiting it and stoping good people from having the pets they want dosent make sense to me

in canada (and im sure the states too) weve had a unwelcomed geust end up in our country recently, the Asain Longhorned Tree Beetle and this beetle is doing tremdous damage to our forests but it didnt get here via the pet trade it came here through "tainted" wood from china

i hope im not coming off too harsh and i hope you realise i support the intention of that law completly and you do have soem amazing animals and plants but its far to limiting (i mean seriously only males of the what ever its called tetra lol) on the good and decent people who just want an interesting pet


The thing is, not everyone out there is you or me, there are some dumbarses, who aren't responsible lol. So if I'm limited to only keeping basic fish and natives to prevent certain people releasing introduced species into the wild, for the sake of our wildlife, which can't be brought back if something goes wrong, so be it.

[dogofwar]

"im for any law that helps wildlife and stops invasive species but not if it also limits good knowledgable people in what they can own."

Would you propose that this be the focus of legislation (i.e. testing whether people are responsible and knowledgable enough to keep certain species)?

[Zander_The_RBP]

"im for any law that helps wildlife and stops invasive species but not if it also limits good knowledgable people in what they can own."

Would you propose that this be the focus of legislation (i.e. testing whether people are responsible and knowledgable enough to keep certain species)?

i think that should be the aim of the legislation. perhaps a permit system where if proved competent you recive a permit for the species. generaly this would only be nessicary for large fish species that have the possibility of outgrowing there tank and therefore a chance of being released by incompetent owners for example most of the species on MFK i belive should have a permit system (a permit that is available to the general public when a person is proved competent) where there is some sort of application (in a test format) where you are asked soem basic things about care and tank size (this of course would be different for non fish species) to prove if you are competent or a better idea perhaps an exotic pet license where you take 1 be all end of competence test and then are allowed to own certain exotic pets (large species of fish large reptiles amphibeans etc)

examples of fish that idealy should have a permit system are: pacu,piranhas,arowannas,large plecos and most otehr fish that have the potential to outgrow that huge 20 gallon tank

[Uncle.Ned]

"...the reason adults would be allowed is that you mightn't be able to tell cetain cichlids apart when younger?"

good point

I concede

[Liam]

these laws aren't stupid, they're put into place because of your stupidity. I'm all for these laws, like Dingoofus said. There's tilapia everywhere in south east queensland's waterways, it's like putting a species of lion or tiger in our bush, it'd kill all our mammals.

[syddakyd]

actually i would say australia/new zealand is more important in the sense of mammalian evolutionary history with having most marsupial species that live on the planet living there (we only have the virginia possum here) plus predatory marsupials and lets not forget the extremely primitive monetremes which are a link b/w mammals and other branches.

[matt_a]

Oh come on dingoofus, you live here you would have to realise how totally farcical these laws are. They are written by beurocrats that have absolutely no idea about what they are writing.

Some little nerd sitting in an office in Canberra did a google search for Boulengerochromis microlepsis, saw that it grew to more than a foot so decided it must be noxious. Given the issues people have keeping them alive in an aquarium I don't see that they could establish themselves in the Jardine River. Also take into account a 4cm fry still sells for $600ish, I don't see people being in a hurry to flush them down the drain.

I just don't see how they can consider a fish like that not only to be not allowable as an import, but 'noxious' as well, but then allow Astronotus ocellatus to be imported, despite the fact they are not in short supply in Australia and have a strong gene pool, and do actually pose a serious threat to our waterways.

They need to scrap all this legislation and assemble a group of industry experts and start again from scratch.

[rainbowfishpc]

8)

This is how you do it: : )

[rory_068]

Some little nerd sitting in an office in Canberra did a google search for Boulengerochromis microlepsis, saw that it grew to more than a foot so decided it must be noxious. Given the issues people have keeping them alive in an aquarium I don't see that they could establish themselves in the Jardine River. Also take into account a 4cm fry still sells for $600ish


just to clear it emperors arnt worth that much anymore you can get 12cm1s for $60

im totaly against the law its a stupid blanket ban

[mell]

the laws were put in place, apparantly, to help protect and preserve native australian wildlife. i've heard of how the mosquito fish has been detrimental to some of our native fish, and the bell frog or something. so i guess i can understand, but i think they went to extremes. there are many fish and other animals that i have really wanted, and some that i still want, that have been made illegal. i don't even know if you're able to get a permit for them. pretty annoying to live in australia right now :/