whetu Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 The reason we dont have all the cool stuff is MAF and Bio-security (i think) are :evil: The reason we don't have a lot of plants from other countries is that we live on a bunch of isolated islands. As a result we have unique plant and fish species of our own, and if introduced plants were to get loose in our waterways they would out-compete native plants, and cause a lot of problems. This has already happened often in the past, and we are trying to make sure it doesn't happen any more (although we still have problems with people importing plants illegally). I think it's a small price to pay - so we miss out on a few exotic, quirky plants. I'm happy to live in a country where we have our own unique species still thriving. Sorry about the lecture. :oops: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BK Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 Whetu is that why we have bee mite, sea squirt etc as they are doing such a good job. The reason why most things are banned is because they think that they should be and don't have to back this up with fact. I’d like to import parrots but they are banned, there is not one reason why domestic bred parrots that have been through a quarantine system can't be imported but they are still banned. If there where good reasons why things are banned may be people wouldn't be so pissed off. NZ is not as green as you think, the Kea’s numbers are reducing which is a concern, but this doesn’t stop DOC from poison them or dropping 1080. Tropical fish are tropical because they can’t live in cold water but some are still banned but you can still bred goldfish? If the laws of the land reflected what the facts are more people would buy into them and there would be more support for those people that enforced them. The only reason why there are not more people caught smuggling things into NZ is because people now that the laws are not right and in turn do not support the people that enforce the laws. So I have to disagree with your post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tHEcONCH Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 The reason we don't have a lot of plants from other countries is that we live on a bunch of isolated islands. As a result we have unique plant and fish species of our own, and if introduced plants were to get loose in our waterways they would out-compete native plants, and cause a lot of problems. This has already happened often in the past, and we are trying to make sure it doesn't happen any more (although we still have problems with people importing plants illegally). I think it's a small price to pay - so we miss out on a few exotic, quirky plants. I'm happy to live in a country where we have our own unique species still thriving. Sorry about the lecture. :oops: Don't apologise - your right on the mark. Ever seem a bunch of European nature lovers ooing and arghing over our 'amazing' plants? Its all relative - perhaps we just get a bit blind to our very cool homegrown stuff in our own back yard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David R Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 Tropical fish are tropical because they can’t live in cold water but some are still banned but you can still bred goldfish? Bingo, its a flawed system made by beaurocrats that are clueless about the subject they are dealing with. Why are we allowed to keep goldfish but not fresh water stingrays? I doubt there's a chance a ray would survive long in NZ's waters, let alone enough of them to breed and become established... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BK Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 I think your missing the point conch, I think 99.9999% of the people in NZ are proud of these little Islands but would like to be able to work with MAF/DOC to insure the best outcomes for NZ rather than being lied to about what is good for NZ when a lot of the time we know the truth. I'm 100% for banning any thing that will effect NZ badly but government departments seem to take the easy options. Like the police focusing on catching people speeding rather than other crime when the police tell us there’s not enough time in the day to do every thing but always have the time to write out tickets. There needs to be balance. While some plants aren’t good for NZ I’m sure there are some that will be fine. Would it help if the government was in for longer than 3 years as it current works first year in get use to things do some things in the second year and the third year work on getting elected again. The post was started buy some one for the states who has some really nice looking tanks, I think they are in power for 5 years over there, how does this work? Do you think more gets done on average (don’t just base this on Bush)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Afrikan Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 Oh oh... lets not let this thread go way off topic Remember this is waterfallers thread for showing her tanks... I think we are/have been all guilty of going off topic sometime or another on someones thread... but hmm maybe the debate over other things should be started in another post? 8) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tHEcONCH Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 I think your missing the point conch, I think 99.9999% of the people in NZ are proud of these little Islands but would like to be able to work with MAF/DOC to insure the best outcomes for NZ rather than being lied to about what is good for NZ when a lot of the time we know the truth. I'm 100% for banning any thing that will effect NZ badly but government departments seem to take the easy options. Like the police focusing on catching people speeding rather than other crime when the police tell us there’s not enough time in the day to do every thing but always have the time to write out tickets. There needs to be balance. While some plants aren’t good for NZ I’m sure there are some that will be fine. Would it help if the government was in for longer than 3 years as it current works first year in get use to things do some things in the second year and the third year work on getting elected again. The post was started buy some one for the states who has some really nice looking tanks, I think they are in power for 5 years over there, how does this work? Do you think more gets done on average (don’t just base this on Bush)? I'm not sure where your going with that BK, but I don't think its as simple as that. Governments change every three years, but their advisors don't. Successive governments get advice from MAF, or Treasury, or whomever - that's why some things take far longer to change than a government (thankfully). Personally, I'm in favour of erring on the side of caution and I'm OK with not having access to every single critter on the planet. The point I'm trying to make is that there is already a lot of cool stuff here - we just overlook it in favour of what is considered 'exotic', precisely because they aren't readily available. If they were, I suspect they'd lose a lot of desirability anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tHEcONCH Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 Oh oh... lets not let this thread go way off topic Remember this is waterfallers thread for showing her tanks... I think we are/have been all guilty of going off topic sometime or another on someones thread... but hmm maybe the debate over other things should be started in another post? 8) Yarr... can you split it off? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinsonMassif Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 Well this topic does get thrashed doesn't it?! I am all for NZs native ecology and precious biodiversity. I do agree it should be protected. However it seems that the agencies endowed with this task are bundled up in a massive amount of bureaucracy and red tape which is seemingly unnecessary in such volume. Are these processes and restrictions really justified or is it merely another archaic system that has been in place too long and is overseen by people who ought to have been moved on long ago? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livingart Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 all the money is tied up in bearacracy and legislation and none to save the flora and fauna they are supposed to protect give them another 10 years and they will have run out of things to protect Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreedingFrenzy Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 . NZ is not as green as you think, the Kea’s numbers are reducing which is a concern, but this doesn’t stop DOC from poison them or dropping 1080. . As I just did an assignment on this, SERIOUSLY, 1080 does not kill kea. 1080 is more likely to kill humans than kea, so please get your facts straight before you make this kind of judgement call Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreedingFrenzy Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 AND also BK with regards to the parrots and such not being allowed in is because New Zealand has such an expansive array of different plants and trees here, if we were to have these parrots imported, and then illegally released into the wild, our native birds would once again in a competition for food. Not to mention we don't know if they would get along with our native birds. It is just common sense, so don't try and say "give us facts" there are facts, DO research before you make these accusations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaNs Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 1080 does not kill kea. What about indirectly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 AND also BK with regards to the parrots and such not being allowed in is because New Zealand has such an expansive array of different plants and trees here, if we were to have these parrots imported, and then illegally released into the wild, our native birds would once again in a competition for food. Not to mention we don't know if they would get along with our native birds. It is just common sense, so don't try and say "give us facts" there are facts, DO research before you make these accusations Agree 100% but I believe that... If there was an assigned importer that imported parrots where they where THROUGHLY quarantined in a facility that caters to nuclear missiles where they are tested for anything and everything possible... Then there was a controlled release such as neutered males only or spayed females. Even if released they couldn’t breed and establish themselves here. For what they would sell for I highly doubt anyone would even consider letting them go... Just simple controls and regulations! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 AND also BK with regards to the parrots and such not being allowed in is because New Zealand has such an expansive array of different plants and trees here, if we were to have these parrots imported, and then illegally released into the wild, our native birds would once again in a competition for food. Not to mention we don't know if they would get along with our native birds. It is just common sense, so don't try and say "give us facts" there are facts, DO research before you make these accusations Agree 100% but I believe that... If there was an assigned importer that imported parrots where they where THROUGHLY quarantined in a facility that caters to nuclear missiles where they are tested for anything and everything possible... Then there was a controlled release such as neutered males only or spayed females. Even if released they couldn’t breed and establish themselves here. For what they would sell for I highly doubt anyone would even consider letting them go... Just simple controls and regulations! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kokako Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 MAF have too err on the side of caution. this is because we really dont know the full potental impact of exotic fauna and flora establishing here. we already have more exotic plant species natrilised in NZ than we have natives and introduced animals have already massive destruction and are costing millions to attempt to control. introduced parrots in New Zealand such as eastern rosellas, S-C cockatoos and galahs are allready vectors for diseases such as PBFD which could potentially wipe out some of the most unique parrots in the world. 'proving' a plant or animal safe is difficult and better safe that sorry when you concider whats on the line! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreedingFrenzy Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 What about indirectly? Nope. The poison 1080 seriously does not hurt birds. There have been studies done, and to my knowledge only one weka died as a result of1080. Mammals are far more susceptible to 1080 than birds (and fish- yes studies have been done) - hence why dogs and deer have SUCH a high bykill and secondary kill, although this is no concern to DoC because they are not endemic species. I'm not sure if I'm wording this right because it's been awhile, but 1080 only stays in the environment for normally around 24 hours and then it decomposes (- thats the word im not sure is appropriate). But really, all the media hype about it killing our native species is BOLLOCKS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaNs Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 Agree 100% but I believe that... If there was an assigned importer that imported parrots where they where THROUGHLY quarantined in a facility that caters to nuclear missiles where they are tested for anything and everything possible... Then there was a controlled release such as neutered males only or spayed females. Even if released they couldn’t breed and establish themselves here. For what they would sell for I highly doubt anyone would even consider letting them go... Just simple controls and regulations! But remember just one person has to cheat the system and it turns to crap. Cant go back without millions/billions of tax payers $$ TRYING to get rid of them. Its not as simple as just enforcing controls and regs Charlie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreedingFrenzy Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 Just thought I'd also add, thats why we use it here... Just be thankful the possums they introduced weren't from WA because there are plants there that those little buggers feast off that have 1080 in them... so if they were the possums that we had here.. we would be no closer to culling them off Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreedingFrenzy Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 Hans - thats exactly why they're not being introduced, too hard to control, way too hard to trust people . . . when we all know there are idiots out there! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kokako Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 1080 has saved alot more native birds than it has killed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaNs Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 Nope. The poison 1080 seriously does not hurt birds. There have been studies done, and to my knowledge only one weka died as a result of1080. Mammals are far more susceptible to 1080 than birds (and fish- yes studies have been done) - hence why dogs and deer have SUCH a high bykill and secondary kill, although this is no concern to DoC because they are not endemic species. I'm not sure if I'm wording this right because it's been awhile, but 1080 only stays in the environment for normally around 24 hours and then it decomposes (- thats the word im not sure is appropriate). But really, all the media hype about it killing our native species is BOLLOCKS! Errr 1080 does kill/hurt native birds. Look under the heading "The effect of 1080 on native birds" www.forestandbird.org.nz/dawnchorus/108 ... t_1080.pdf We are on a tangent :oops: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 I agree that no country should risk its biosecurity, and yes you can argue that everything is a risk when it comes to importing/reptiles/birds/mammels I dont see why we cant have species that cant possible survive in NZ waters/air/land!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreedingFrenzy Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 Errr 1080 does kill/hurt native birds. Look under the heading "The effect of 1080 on native birds" www.forestandbird.org.nz/dawnchorus/108 ... t_1080.pdf As it says, few are killed AND nowhere near as many that would be killed from the possums and stoats. Take your pick. Get rid of pests that kill NZ native flora and fauna or kill a few birdies for the greater good Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaNs Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 1080 has saved alot more native birds than it has killed Correct, but it does kill. Im not against it. Its a catch 22 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.