David R

That is exactly what I am concerned about, they would be looking for any excuse to dump fish importing in the too hard basket and ban or restrict it further. I'm surprised they let you add something without a valid species name, wonder if they even realise.....

Anywhere selling water garden stuff should have them, try the local garden centre or a place like Stone and Water world if you have something similar down there.

Actually a study has shown that heavy use leads to [on average] a 4 point drop in IQ. (and yes light use can actually lead to a small increase...)

Yep, need dimensions to be sure, its all about footprint with territorial cichlids. I'd leave out the "jurupari", their mouths are designed for sifting fine sand rather than lip-locking and battling for territory like the other more aggressive central american species you have. If you get rid of that you should have room for the jewel.

Might be pushing it a little, height isn't a problem for 6mm but it is quite wide. If it were me I'd go 10mm and use less bracing.

Yes this was sorted long ago, and since getting the 600L tank from Greg (who did it in 12mm for about quarter the cost of tough tanks IIRC) I have had an 800L tank from HFF, a 1400L tank from Greg (awesome price as he had a piece of tinted 12mm glass for the base!), a 400L tank from HFF, and am now looking at options for an 1800L tank to be built on-site here in Whangarei (still trying to find time to catch up with the local guy, then will try Greg if thats a no-go). From that past experience I have concluded that you can't go past HFF for quality steel stands (have had three now and intend on getting one for my nest tank too), and Gregs tanks are usually a little cheaper than HFFs. It depends on what the lights and filters are, but it doesn't sound like a rip off to me if they were reasonable gear for a tank that size.

I've never had a tank from goldfishman, but greg is usually pretty good bang-for-buck. Henward and I and probably many other people would pay ridiculous sums of money if you could somehow get rays in [legally], but its highly unlikely as they're "poisonous". The real issue is the list, and the fact that in many areas (probably more so with SA and CA cichlids than others) it hasn't been updated to reflect the changes in taxonomy and the new species that have become available in the hobby over the 15 or so years since it was done. There are lots of things available overseas that could/should be on the list but aren't, many would be undistinguishable to anyone not well schooled on that particular genus, and in some cases could possibly even be justified by being a new species derived from one already on the list that has since been split. But they still aren't on the list so that is that. There's many plecs, dwarf cichlids that could be brought in, as well as other "high end" stuff like wild-type discus, wild angels etc that would be nice to see, but probably very expensive and very fragile. All the best, it is nice to see someone willing to take the plunge and show an interest in getting some unusual stuff here!

Exactly, thats the problem. Say nothing and put up with the current system and its "flaws" that work in our favour, or inform them of those flaws and propose a better system and run the risk of either it being accepted or rejected in favour of a total ban or tighter restrictions...

That would sure get the real cichlids in there growing nicely...... :digH:

Gregs/Tanks2U is fairly handy to your location and is usually pretty well priced. His details are in the commercial T&E section. Don't limit yourself to African cichlids, there are plenty of us keen on the SA's...

More to the point how could they formally identify a fish with no scientific description? There are many approved species on the list that are simply Genus L#, no species name...

I think we need an option that says "none of the above", and if over a certain % of voters choose that the polys have 12 months to go away and figure out what we want then come back to us, and in the mean time the country runs on auto-pilot with the previous government keeping the seats warm but not making any changes except by binding referenda...

So could we somehow use this to draw attention to the woeful system they have in place, or do we risk having a blanket ban until they figure something better out?

I'm not sure there is an option to vote for where the country won't be run by morons... (oops is this turning into a political debate?)

God/bigbang also created hops/malt/yeast/water, man just combined it together. One could argue that is far more natural than genetically modifying a plant to contain very high levels of a certain chemical, setting fire to it in a steel bowl and breathing in the fumes from the combustion....

I'd seriously consider flicking off the Jagers (or some of them) and just going for a single big heating element like Reef suggested, yes you lose the safety of a back-up inbuilt thermostat but they probably aren't that reliable anyway, especially when they're not being used regularly.

I just can't fathom that they wouldn't check for synonyms before launching a raid for a supposed illegal species. :facepalm: It does make you wonder about the implications for our hobby though, the number of incorrectly identified species that manage to find their way in....

I think rays are a long shot at best, best to focus on expanding Genera already allowed with similar species (Geophagus, crenicichla, Polypterus, probably plenty of Africans etc). There hasn't been much action on the Fish Committee thread regarding the updating of the list since April, people [myself included] seem to be lacking in free time. I've been busy renovating/retraining/relocating/house-selling/house-hunting/house-buying/house-setting-up etc etc for the best part of this year so have hardly even thought about it. Hopefully once my next big tank is up and running (which is my immediate focus now) I'll have a bit more time to look at it.

If lists were to believed I'd have true Geophagus surinamensis....

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=10840408 I'm just looking at my tank full of Geophagus altifrons, which aren't technically on the list, and wondering when the cops are going to pull into my driveway. Could this article be the catalyst we need to get some changes made to the way the import of foreign species of plant/fish are handled?

Where did you get that from reef? I've been thinking about the Jehmco ones (heater and controller) for my next tank, interested to hear what you're using and how you find it.

+1 for that!! Think there would be a few people keen for pikes if they came in (just about any kind!) I'd pay good money for TRUE Geophagus surinamensis, but given that they're almost never available in the trade as wild-caught fish from Surinam I can't see that happening any time soon short of me funding a collecting trip...

I guess it would depend how you define fail, from what I gather Jack is looking to do this for love not money, so profitibility isn't really an issue. Cost and affordability of fish would be big factors though. I would really like to know what is involved in setting up a facility, have often dreamed the dream but never looked into it seriously...

Interesting reading on the California laws, I didn't realise the extento to which they had decriminalised it, although I knew they had been using it medicinally for years. I agree its time to agree to disagree, all I'll say is I don't feel NZ is ready for legalisation/decriminalisation given our current drug problems with both illegal and legal substances, although in principal I agree with the right a persons choice to do as they please with their own body. Changing the subject to something I'd much rather talk about, I can understand how its hard to replicate a bourbon that is aged in charred oak barrels for over ten years, but making beer is far more simple. If you have the right hops, malt and yeast you should be able to replicate just about any beer fairly well. I haven't tried all-grain brewing yet, but using malt extract, grains and hops I've been able to make several very good brews that I would happily drink instead of off-the-shelf beer (especially the common kinds available at most supermarkets/liquor stores!!). Kits are cheap and easy and the results reflect that. Spending a bit more on good malt and hop pellets and the gear to do a good sized boil is money well spent if you want to make good beer. I haven't brewed anything since about febuary due to being way too busy moving etc, but am setting myself up at our new place with a big burner for doing a full 20L boil and an old freezer with an external thermostat so I can control the fermentation temperature. Hopefully that should yeild even better results!

It is anything but simple to work out, and I challenge you to find factual evidence to substantiate the claims you are making. Take the first point for example, you answered "yes" so simply and confidently, but based on what? I'm not even sure if studies have been done on this or if it would be even possible to predict. Assuming the profit margin and expenses around growing would remain the same on the standard $20 tinnie (in reality I would expect expenses to be higher due to the costs involved with growing and producing something for commercial consumption) how much tax would need to go on top of that to make it comparable to alcohol and tobacco, say 20%? Add GST and you have a legal retailer trying to sell something for nearly a third more than it can already be bought for on the well-established black market. Decriminalising it so an individual could grow a small quantity for personal consumption could partially counter this, but it would also make it easier for people to grow and on-sell for a profit and so we end up with a black market still. Home brew gear for wine beer and spirits is legal and widely available (and very cheap by comparison) yet the vast majority of people still prefer the ease of buying it off the shelf than making (or growing) it themselves. Same could be said for many things, fruit and veges for example. Why would cannabis be different? Second point, you are ignoring the long-term mental health effects that are still not clearly understood. Statistics indicate that if you regularly "binge on weed" you have a higher likelihood of developing psychotic illnesses, as well as an average drop in IQ of 4.1 points for regular heavy users. It still isn't understood if it is caused by the drug use or simply exacerbated by it, but until proven safe I think it is better to take the cautious approach. Saying everyone who binges on alcohol turns violent is also incorrect, yes there is an increase in violent tendencies for some people and that is not to be ignored, but at least try and be rational and present facts rather than hysteria. Third point; again, more facts needed. Studies have shown drug use is far more damaging to a developing brain than an adults, so how do you fathom it isn't a problem? And how can you prove that increased availability won't lead to more availability to under-age use/users? The lowering of the drinking age has shown the flow on effects of that quite clearly. Fourth point, how can the public be educated on the harms of something that is not clearly understood or agreed upon? Fifth point, I agree with you in some part, and perhaps if it were legal more testing would take place which could potentially make the workplace safer. However, if it were legal employers would no longer be able to refuse people employment for testing positive for THC in a pre-employment test. I guess studies and testing would need to be done to determine a "safe" level similar to the blood/alcohol levels for driving, as well as to find out how long the effects last for after the "stoned" feeling has worn off. And if you think I'm making it too complicated try imagine the hoops the government would try make you jump through to prove your point!!! Party Pills now have to be proven safe/low-risk by their manufacturer with scientific documents similar to those required for new medicines. Maybe looking at what is required for them would be a good start if you think it would be "simple" to prove cannabis safe enough to be legalised.