Pies Posted February 22, 2004 Report Share Posted February 22, 2004 I would like to know the answer to these questions, just the facts no speculation please: What would happen if MAF found out that I was in possession of an animal/plant that was not on the 'allow' list. What, if by taxonomic reclassification, I was in possession of an animal/plant that was 'legal' and is now 'non-legal'. If a animal/plant exists in the wild in NZ, but is not on the 'allow' list for importation, and I am in possession it, what can MAF do? Do/must MAF provide scientific evidence that the animal/plant has been correctly identified prior to intervention? Just the facts. Does anyone have or know of a contact in MAF I could talk to on the subject? I know we all know people who are/were in possession of animals/plants that are not strictly 'legal' but I would like to know what, if anything they could do. An example - "I have a Koi, I caught it in the Hutt river." Assuming this statement was true, what if anything could MAF do? Is it MAF or is it customs or NIWA that deal with such things? Cheers Pie EDIT - Sorry accidently posted this is freshwater but should have been in 'technical'. PErhapps a kind modrator will move it for me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajbroome Posted February 22, 2004 Report Share Posted February 22, 2004 Pies said... > ... Does anyone have or know of a contact in MAF I could talk > to on the subject? You could try [email protected] but I've never had much luck... Someone at ERMA (http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/) may be worth talking to as well. I'd probably set up an HOTMAIL or equivalent e-mail address or ring them... Who, me paranoid? Andrew. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Posted February 23, 2004 Report Share Posted February 23, 2004 I'd do it from some one eles puta I am paranoid Alan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pies Posted February 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2004 I have nothing to hide, or at least I don't think I do. I would welcome a visit from MAF Pie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Posted February 23, 2004 Report Share Posted February 23, 2004 Until they see your tank and for reasons known only to them decide that yellow tangs need to be eradicated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabuce Posted February 23, 2004 Report Share Posted February 23, 2004 Hi There, The agency that deals with the potential pesty (ie plant/animal not on the allow list) is dependent on what that pesty is. For aquarium types then MAF or ERMA would be your bet and chances are they would just ask that it is destroyed. For Koi and Gambusia (mosquito fish) then the agency is the Department of Conservation. Again they would most likely ask that the animals are destroyed. It is illegal to hold live koi, gambusia and some aquatic plants that have been declared 'unwanted organisms' (see www.maf.govt.nz/biosecurity) with a potential fine of $10,000, but as I said it is more than likely that they just ask you to destroy them. I hope this is of some assitance. Gabuce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Posted February 23, 2004 Report Share Posted February 23, 2004 Hi Pies, just some comments (sorry Pies - I know you wanted facts): the Koi question (as Gabuce as implied) is slightly different in that it is listed as an unwanted/pest organism with associated fines for keeping/breeding/distributing. As for the not on the allowed list - you wont find Goldfish or whitecloud mountain minnows on the allowed list but you're still allowed to keep them - just not import them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pies Posted February 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2004 OK that is interesting and makes sense. So it sounds like there is the likleyhood than MAF/whoever would not care if you were in possession of an animal/plant as long as it wasn't on 'unwated/pest' list? So to answer my question about catching a Koi, they would say 'distroy it'. But for example it was a white cloud mountain minnow, they would say 'don't care' but act responsiby or somesuch? And this would also resolve the question I had about taxinomic changes etc. Thanks. I may still persure MAF and see whats what if I can find some spare time. Cheers Pies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Posted February 23, 2004 Report Share Posted February 23, 2004 My turn. You are allowed to import goldfish, BUT, they must be kept in Q conditions all their short remaining years. (3 I think). Then they are then destroyed and checked by MAF, or whom ever, that they are destroyed. Like where are the bodies?? But the off-spring are then the rising stars. Reason it's not done? Too much trouble with the work and security involved. Alan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pies Posted February 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2004 I'd love to meet the people who come up with this stuff. There is some insane rules and regs out there... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Posted February 23, 2004 Report Share Posted February 23, 2004 Yeah with Koi if you land it, you kill it, same with mosquito fish - there's something about it being illegal to have them alive in your possession - so any one collecting them for live food should ideally have discussed things with a local DOC representative (some of them seem to appreciate that the mosquito fish aren't going to live too long after being added to a tank with a borneo tiger or similar). MAF used to have a banned species list (as well as the allowed list) but they took it off their website as they said it confused the issue - I'm not sure if they still use in house though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pies Posted February 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2004 Its a shame there isn't a 'banned list', and the remainder is allowed. Because from what i've seen on the lists so far there seems to be little science or thought having gone into the selections PARTICULARY where marine is concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Posted February 24, 2004 Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 The only things I can logically see being banned for Marines is anything particularly venomous or poisonous. I can't imagine there is much in a marine tank that would survive being dumped in a local river. Which seems to be most of the reasoning behind banned FW fish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Posted February 24, 2004 Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 As NZ also has a coastline it's possible to dump marines straight into the ocean so the same reasoning should apply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Posted February 24, 2004 Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 I'd think practically everything would have gotten into NZ waters without human assistance at some time in the last hundred thousand years and either survived or died. Someone dumping a few clowns into the water isn't likely to have a different result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Posted February 24, 2004 Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 I guess people around the Black Sea thought similarly before the Comb Jelly wiped out their fishing industry (250,000 tonnes p.a. down to 30,000 tonnes p.a.). I expect it's also very comforting to the Tasmanians, that no one thought that seastar (Northern Pacific Seastar) would do too much hamr - now that it's spreading along their coastline devouring any bivalve it comes across. Admittedly a few clowns released isn't likely to do too much harm - but did you also have some Caulerpa taxifolia in the tank with them when you dumped them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pies Posted February 24, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 It is worth mentioning that those Tasmania Sea Stars came from bilge water not aquairums. Taxifoloa is already here, and if you know who to talk to you may be able to get some, but I do see your point Rob. Ira. I don't see why they would/should ban things that are poisonous. If people eat stonefish overseas and you can't go into a restraunt without tanks full of live ones I don't see why I shouldn't be able to own one here. I think we all agree that the chance of something being dumped surving is low/0. My problem with these lists and rules is the massive inconsistancy. For example not being able to bring in Royal Gramma (Loreato somethingorrather). Awesome fish, just not on our allow list. Why? no one knows. Can it be added? No one knows? Does this force and ilegal trade in such animals. Absoultly. The rules (in many cases) are doing more damage than good. And more to the point they seem unfair. The status of live rock is the most insane thing. Not allowed it. Dumb. Whilst MAF and other organisations have rules that are inconsistant and unfair, they will never win the support from people like myself. Now back on topic. What can they do when they visit me and find a tank with a Lion Fish and a sump full of Calurpa Taxifola (no clowns as I dumped them in the harbor). Pies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kylefish02 Posted February 26, 2004 Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 heres a site to fish allowed in new zealand http://www.maf.govt.nz/biosecurity/imports/animals/standards/fisornic.all.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.