acanthurus

Beautiful animals alanmin and insectdirect. Love the colour coming through on the water dragon. ( and Dave+ Amy for that matter!).

(moved from lizard pics thread) It is a shame that the nature of this hobby is one that requires a certain level of secrecy, even on behalf of the law makers. How many of you have asked for a simple list of what is allowed? Im sure that most of you who have been in this hobby in NZ for any amount of time would admit to considering keeping or even actively seaking animals that have an uncertain status. In doing so we are exposing ourselves to a legal grey area. For the sake of arguement lets say someone does choose to keep an animal that has an undetermined status. Are they engaging in something that by definition is illegal? No. Could they in doing so be charged and convited of a crime? Yes. This is compounded by the fact that many sellers are also gaurded about their identity (and therefore sell anonymously) for the same reasons posted above. A good example of this was in the recent white tree from case (that some of you may have heard of ). In this case the basis of one of the chrages was that while the frogs were not defined as illegal, the accused should have known that they were anyway. There was documented evidence of the accused asking MAF on more than one occasion to define what animals are legal. The frogs were declared an unwanted organism (i.e. defined as illegal) 3 months after they were confiscated. One of the main reasons for this delay was that the experts that MAF employed could not agree on if they should be here or not. Despite this fact MAF went forward with the charges as they stood. I challenge anyone to come up with another example from anywhere else other than those that fall under MAFs jurisdiction where this would be allowed to take place. It must be rememberd that MAF in many ways have more powers than the police. They are allowed to search your home without a warrant and do not seem to be as answerable to their shortcomings. It also must be remembered that many of their jobs are outcome based i.e.they must be seen to be actively convicting people to justify their existence. I'm sure that it is this pressure to perform that causes them to push forward (at great expense to the public) with charges that have no actual legal backing. Normally this would simply not stand, but you must realise they also have the power to make the laws under which they operate (once again not even the police have this power). As has been seen on more than one occasion they tend to make these laws during the course of an investigation in order to secure a conviction. We should all be very worried about the future of our hobby, and unless someone is willing to put themselves on the line, I cannot see things improving any time soon.

Sorry mods, Will leave it at that. (Sorry but do need to point out repto's little bit of hearsay above )

Sounds good. Its a shame that the other posts kept getiting side tracked with what was essentially a side note that in the end had very little to do with with the outcome of the case. I do agree though that after the original post had been left up then Haisley did have a right of reply. If I had read garbage like that written about me I would have probably used some colourful language too. I would even argue that the reply was a little restrained. Particularly when you consider the choice not post certain witness transcripts and copies of email transcripts that paint a somewhat different picture to those claimed by certain 'innocent' bystanders. I know he has his reasons. I guess you will have to make up your own mind who you believe, and hopefully we can move on to a more productive open conversation.

Just having a read now, I admit I can see some heated discussion, but a fail to see anything I would call slanging on the thread as it stands currently. Many of the topics were important in regard to the future of our hobby and to dispel some commonly held myths. I would have thought that this forum was a perfect place for this discussion. Could you please clarify your position, in particular regard to what is off limits for further discussion. Cheers.

Come on guys, please keep the personal shots off the thread (we were doing so well)....

Actually you could argue that the Whites were infact less dodgy as there is well documented evidence of them being both imported and released into the wild in NZ by a certain government department. They are thought to have died out in the wild, but no one is sure given they were last seen in the 70's and can live for decades. I am sure there are still some in peoples collections, but I'm not picking anyone to be game enough to speak out.

Thanks sneaky, I was hoping someone would pick up on this. Unless you have the actual documents of importation then you could theoretically be charged. One of the things that is obvious when looking at the evidence in the case is that MAF does rely heavily on one thing. Their faith in their ability to outmatch anyones budget. During the case vast volumes of "evidence'' was collected and sent. Im sure Haisley will be able to tell you in more detail, but I do know that it was many thousands of pages. When you read the pages you realise that more than 90% of it has very little to do with the case, or is simply repititious. Many of the "witnesses" lack credibilty, contradict themselves, or provide no useful information (and some succeed in all three), yet these are sent anyway. Much of the information has not been proof read and either supports Haisley's case or is almost unreadable. Why would they do this? One simple reason. They send all this "evidence" to a lawyer who then has to be paid to read it. The more they send, the more you pay. There are not many who can afford legal costs of tens of thousands of dollars. All they have to do then is keep sending and wait for a white flag, i.e. chose one of the free lawyers, or plead guilty (same outcome either way).

Steady on Henward, Please read the title. No slanging please. You are welcome to post, although I'd rather your involvement in the entire affair stays off this thread as I think its been pretty well discussed already. My post above was a simple statement of facts. As I have stated, unless you know what you are saying is true then please keep it to yourself, or state that it is based on your own opinion. MAF was going to pursue a charge on the zoophoba (giant mealworms) that were found. They decided not to when they realised half of the keepers in NZ had them and they were being openly sold (i.e. no case). Nothing to do with a 'smaller issue'. It is true that the original source of the frogs was not determined, but the judge found that this was not due to any wrong doing on Haisley's behalf, hence offering the discharge without conviction. There are several witness statements in both Haisley's and (believe it or not)MAF's evidence that state the frogs have been know in private collections in NZ for some time. There is reference to a MAF official who did know of the frogs being in private collections and believing them to be legit. The same difficulty in origin could be said for many reptiles in NZ and I would argue this is more a fault of the system in place than the keepers. Keepers in NZ are as a group very gaurded. I would argue with good reason, for fear of theft and over zealous MAF employees. As for "legal stuff" being argued and "sometimes never cut and dry or clear cut" (love the wording here), I once again urge people to read the judges findings. Lets just say it doesn't leave much room for interpretation, and as stated above was quite scathing towards MAF. As for my identity, lets just say I'd rather keep in private. I'm sure those of you who have been unfortunate enough to have contact with MAF would understand why. Please note that everything I am saying here is freely available through the freedom of information act. Cheers.

Sorry, Just a few more facts from the case. 1) There were never any "arrests", of anyone, in the entire case. 2) No one was 'fined'. The final judgement was that Hailsey was to be discharged without conviction and to share some of MAF's costs (probably more than $100,0000). 3) The vast majority of the search warrants (excluding those on Haisley and Henward) were based simply on being a contact on a mobile phone and having an interest in the hobby. (I always thought more was needed to tear someones house apart).

Hi all, Seems things ended up getting a little off topic today. In my original post I was honestly just trying to set people straight on the actual findings of the case, and clear up much of what seemed to be hear say both on the forum and in the media. I will repost my original (minus one line) and hope that poeple will take the opportunity to discuss the legal aspects of the case further. NO PERSONAL REMARKS/SLANGING PLEASE. Original post.....

Sorry guys just 1 more point... To quote Henward "Do you know how many people got roped in to this? I can tell you - MANY. I personally - and am not kidding as i have the search warrant at home. was raided by maf, underwear drawers searched, everything searched - just because he emailed him and phone him about the frogs." Henward you I and many others on this forum know that you have been actively seeking animals without much regard to their origins. My point is you have been trying to get "roped" into something for some time and come up short. Much of what transpired in this case came about because of you getting involved with no actual knowledge of the facts, and then making things up (maybe to seem more important?). In the end only you know why... and only you are to blame for your house being searched. Cheers. Thread locked, both sides have had their say but it would be against the rules and serve no purpose to allow a slanging match so it has been locked.

I can fully understand why Haisley was so annoyed when he first read Henwards statement. I have read it myself and must say I find it a little bizzare. Basically Henward was playing both sides of the fence and pretending to be everyones pal. His statement does not read as he has written on these threads though I must say. Henward states that he had befriended Haisley in the hope that he could obtain some unusual reptiles to add to his collection. In his statement he admits that he was desparate to get hold of some frogs and that he basically harrased Haisley to get them. He also states that he often calls MAF to inform them on what is going around in NZ in other peoples collections. He then goes on to say that he had offered Haisley a large some of money to buy some frogs. After MAF got involved Haisley then stopped the sale, at which point Henward offered more money for the animals. Haisley again refused stating that he could not sell them as per MAFs instructions. Henward then calls MAF about the frogs, at which point they bring him in to make a statement. The funny thing is that Henwards statement actually fully supports Haisley's account of events (even if he had not meant it to). As to why MAF included the statement as evidence I can only guess, as really only 3 conclusions can be made from it... 1) Haisley had followed MAFs instructions and not sold any frogs, contradicting one of MAFs accusations in court. 2) That despite being offered considerable amounts of money by Henward, Haisley had never supplied Henward with anything unusual, and for that matter ever given him a reason to think he had any usual or illegal animals. 3) That Henward was looking to pay large amounts of money for animals, with little consideration to the legal aspects. Anyway, you dont need to take my word for it. As Haisley said, this information is freely available to anyone who wants it, and please use this opportunity to make up your own minds...

After reading this thread with some interest over the past few months a though it was time to make a comment and to put some of those pointing fingers straight. I have to say its been a little sad to see how many of you have jumped on the band wagon with accusations based on no actual knowledge of the events. Even more disappointing are those who are willing to be dishonest to make themselves seem more important or squeaky clean. I also think its a little wrong that admin has allowed this thread to go on as it has with direct accusations. As they have left these up for some time I hope they will leave my comments up as a direct reply to those accusations and therefore hopefully save Haisley's name from being tarnished any further. I have been lucky enough to have read the judges statement, as well as much of the "evidence" in this case, including witness statements (yes Henward, this includes yours). I would like to make a point that this case was not a win for MAF as THEIR press release pretended to be, but was actually a major loss for them. Im sure many peoples jobs are on the line for this one and maybe they were hoping a few false statements would distract from this. Lets just say the judges findings were scathing of MAF to say the least and I only wish Haisley could put them up on here so you could all have a read. Just a couple of points the judge made: 1) Haisley had NO knowledge of any information that the frogs may be smuggled, and that MAF had shown no evidence that they were ever smuggled to start with. 2) He believed Haisley to be selling them openly and legally at the time, and that he had no doubts that Haisley did not know that it may be wrong to do so. He point out that Haisley was not being criptic with his dealings (they were advertised on trademe). 3) He points out that one of the accusations states that Haisley was knowingly selling an "unwanted oragnism". He notes that the frogs were only declared an unwanted oragnism by MAF 3 months after Haisley was found to have them. 4) He notes that another of the accusations states that Haisley as an expert in the field should have known that the frogs were not meant to be here. The judge points out that it took MAF a month and many many experts to work this out themselves ( a side point here is that one of the expert maked a statement that he did not think the frogs had been in NZ since the 70's. The same expert is found in a later statement to say that he had kept a group of these frogs into the 80's and that he had personally seen them in peoples collections in the 90's). 5) Haisley had stated where the frogs came from and that it was MAF who had not been able to track the source from here. 6) Haisley had not sold any of the frogs, more importantly none were sold after MAF put a hold on their sale. Event though he believed the case to be rubbish, a not guilty finding could only be delivered by a jury. In the end he gave Haisley 2 choices 1) Plead guilty and get discharged without conviction, move on and pay a share of MAFs costs. 2) Chose to fight the case in front of a jury at a later date - please note that this would have envolved legal costs of many tens of thousands of dollars. You all know which option Haisley chose, and Im sure given the choices most of you would have made the same one. Cheers.