BK Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 Conch, so does that mean we shouldn't increase the risk by importing more fish? Right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidb Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 anyway, why should learning from mistakes mean that it shouldnt be done? yeah rabbits and possums etc were a dumb move, but they are clearly not the same as a macaw so IMO not a good reason not too. You clearly do not know the amount of money that goes into pest management in NZ... I think it is totally understandable that MaF and DoC err on the side of caution when it comes to introducting new animals into New Zealand. Under the Hasardours Substances and New Organisms Act you need Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) approval. "New Zealand now has a comprehensive regime in place to assess the impact of all ‘new organisms' before they are introduced. The role of [ERMA] is to decide if they represent a threat to the environment, or to public health and safety. The emphasis is on assessing the risks of introduction – and then weighing up the costs and benefits to the environment, the economy and society." I suppose that answers your question BK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tHEcONCH Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 Conch, so does that mean we shouldn't increase the risk by importing more fish? Right? Yep, which is why I'm happy to go without freshwater Stringrays, marine Lionfish, etc. I'd love to have them, but not at any cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BK Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 But conch there is a risk with every importation that a new disease will come in so that means no to any importations of any live animal every again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slightly Blue Dalmation Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 the only thing comparable to them is they are both animals. fish would have a much greater change of surviving and populating as could get huge shipments in etc which is not the same as a dozen parrots of which more likely than not none would ever see the wild, and even if 2 did little to no chance they would do anything. as to disease quarinteen seems to work well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BK Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 But David they don't review it. They say they don't have the time and resource to do this. Which is the point they have banned without doing a full review. When they did Let a guy in Northland bring a whole shipment of birds in to the country a while a go he passed all the tests and then when they got here they said it wasn’t enough and put them all down. If we where given the chance on a level playing field I’m sure that there is a chance but we just never get given the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tHEcONCH Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 But conch there is a risk with every importation that a new disease will come in so that means no to any importations of any live animal every again. No it doesn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 Its great that we have these discussions but I think its worthless unless you say this to MAF... We cant have lionfish or anything that is noxious because its a danger to humans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tHEcONCH Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 Agreed - so I'm find with the powers that be banning their importation even though they'd look cool in my tanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BK Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 Conch what I'm saying is that with every importation there could be a disease that no one knows about so there is a risk with every importation of any live animal, so you can never be 100% sure there is no risk. Which is the reason behind people saying you can’t bring parrots in this also stands for every other live animal, you could even go so far to say that this also applies for people as well. You could say that ships also bring pest in so they shouldn’t be allowed into port either. No one has given any reason why parrots can’t be imported that doesn’t also apply to any other animal including humans. Going home for the weekend now so will have to review this Monday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David R Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 Surely you can understand that the greater number of alien species we have in New Zealand result in greater possible risks. How do you figure that? There are a whole bunch of central american cichlids commonly available overseas that aren't on "the list" and pose no bigger thread than the species on the list, the only reason they aren't on there is because of MAF's ignorance. Would it really pose a greater risk if we were allowed to import them? And as for birds, if macaws, budgies, african greys etc are already established and breeding here then why shouldn't they be imported? Disease? Isn't that what quarantine is for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tHEcONCH Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 Under the Hasardours Substances and New Organisms Act you need Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) approval. "New Zealand now has a comprehensive regime in place to assess the impact of all ‘new organisms' before they are introduced. The role of [ERMA] is to decide if they represent a threat to the environment, or to public health and safety. The emphasis is on assessing the risks of introduction – and then weighing up the costs and benefits to the environment, the economy and society." That doesn't mean they require a 100% guarantee - it means a balanced decision based upon the relevant factors, including other potential diseases being carried. The importation of some sorts of fish presents a demonstrably low risk, whereas (in the eyes of ERMA at least) the risks associated with some parrots is either too high, or there isn't enough information (or perhaps someone willing to invest the time and money to present it) to make a decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David R Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 Is it still a "new organism" if its actually been here for years without causing a problem? :roll: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinsonMassif Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 Is it still a "new organism" if its actually been here for years without causing a problem? :roll: In part I think so with regards to fish. The fish are coming from different breeding houses, and a fair amount may still be wild caught specimens. So definitely a *possibility* at least. As for equal rights for a hobbyist keeping allowed animals versus someone who wishes to introduce an entirely new species/animal, well not really in the same ball park IMO. And I don't agree with the repeated statement: only keeping one bird so it can't breed, or only letting in a dozen birds. What? That is nonsensical with respects the topic of introducing an entirely new species IMHO. I'm bored with this argument now. It is not like our discussion is actually going to change each others point of view, or change the outcome of any applications. Lets go have a beer instead, my shout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livingart Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 Lets go have a beer instead, my shout. put mine in a polybox with ice and courier please p.s. 9% woodys might pay to not open the can Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaNs Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 And why do we need exotic animal here? We have enough and cant control them! Why not get a native pet? I disagree. People need to stand up and report any illegal black market trade in animals IMO. Regulation of a trade in illegal animals is an not a positive suggestion IMO. Speaking of that....I found a site with pics of native NZ Geckos in Sweden last night The animals where indeed in Sweden and where natives of NZ Scary as! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanmin4304 Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 Some idiot released the rainbow loris around Auckland but a bigger idiot was the one who released trout and salmon then charged a fee to catch them on a line and torture them for a while. This gives the fishing fraternity more clout than the fish keeping fraternity and therefore all the laws about importing or keeping fish are done with the protection of trout and salmon in mind. There seems no concern that these introduced fish are competing with native fish for food and are indeed feeding on their young. The business of importing parrots is being handled the same way as any government handles a problem. If people complain you set up a committee to consider it and 2 years later release the conclusion when everyone has forgotten about it. I agree with BK that they are not realy considering the issue of importing parrots. A similar thing is happening with importing fish. They have established a new regime and it is becoming very difficult to keep previously given approvals let alone establish a new one. And the influence will come from the fishing fraternity who would like to see fish importations stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livingart Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 would be interesting to know the figures on total income from introduced fish angling and the total spent on fishkeeping in nz you may find the hobby wins out ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreedingFrenzy Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 FF buy the way DOC poisoned the Kea at the Arthur’s pass dump as they didn't like the tour buses turning up there to see the Kea on the rubbish tip. That is where the 2 that where nailed to the road sign came from as people where real pissed off that they could kill our native animals. So yes Doc do poison Kea and yes 1080 does kill other native NZ birds so you are wrong in your statement get your facts right. I said 1080 didn't kill Kea, you re-read what I write, kthxbye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David R Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 And why do we need exotic animal here? We have enough and cant control them! Why not get a native pet? Because MAF make it too difficult!! You don't need permits to keep exotic reptiles vs native ones, native fish aren't very widely available (or half as diverse and colourful as tropicals), not too sure about hte legality of keeping native birds, but I know you're not allowed to breed them to release. And as for tuatara... Thats a pretty stink attitude really, how many exotic pets are out of control? I haven't heard of beardies roaming free and eating native insects, or oscars taking over native streams and eating the native fish. Yes the rainbow lori's are a problem (and rosellas) but the fact is that many animals (cats, dogs, rabbits, guinea pigs, rats, mice, goldfish etc) are all perfectly legal to keep and breed, yet they pose a much higher threat to the native flora and fauna than a lot of "exotics"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livingart Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 cats, dogs an unregulated introduced animal probably been put in the too hard to handle basket or upset too many owners, ie: public backlash party that introduced that may end up on the bottom rung of the political ladder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zabman Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 Some idiot released the rainbow loris around Was about to say something about this but you beat me to it. These are a big problem in AKL now, they are out competing all the native birds and are very close to rplacing them altogether. Is a Rainbow Lorikeet not a parrot? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaNs Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 Because MAF make it too difficult!! You don't need permits to keep exotic reptiles vs native ones, native fish aren't very widely available (or half as diverse and colourful as tropicals), not too sure about hte legality of keeping native birds, but I know you're not allowed to breed them to release. And as for tuatara... Permits are not hard to get. Regulation is key, getting the right standards of regulation is hard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livingart Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 AFAIK technically Lories and lorikeets are parrots which make up the subfamily Loriinae. they have a specialised 'brush tongue" to feed on the nectar and pollen of flowers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kokako Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 If some one can come up with a reason why Green wing Macaws can't be imported in NZ please state them. I'm still waiting on the facts why GW Macaws shouldn't be imported well BK i think you answered it yourself what I'm saying is that with every importation there could be a disease that no one knows about so there is a risk with every importation of any live animal, so you can never be 100% sure there is no risk MAF have done disease risk assessments on introducing birds and have decided it is not worth the risk. for example if New Castle disease were to get in it would cost the poutry industry multi-millions (it is in Ozzy BTW). other potental diseases include parrot pox virus and avian influensa + the unknowns. its economic as well as environmental reasons quarintine for birds would require unbias staff to man it, negative pressure systems to control airflow, so not airborne disease could escape, etc. so quarintine would be very expensive. But not allowing importing of parrots just makes it worth more to smuggle the birds would remain expensive so smugglers would still be motivated, i think smuggling may even increase as it would be easier to explan where your new birds came from (i breed them from legally imported birds etc). As far as returning Macaws back to brazil, i think this is unlikely to happen from NZ for your example. as the Green Wing Macaws here are probably highly inbreed and many of the have been hybridized Scarlets (i do conceed that this is the result of not being able to import new blood lines to NZ). As far as these expensive birds not being released it is possible that some misguided animal rights activist releases your/someone elses birds because they think they are doing the right thing by freeing the birds. S-C toos, galahs, rosellas and rainbows lories have all established in NZ.(i think the rainbows have been culled) the most likey source is caged/aviary birds. wild S-C cockatoos and eastern rosellas are known to carry PBFD (these are facts BK). i agree that there is bias in the process. i guess it is to hard to stop ppl owning cats as too many ppl have them. 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.