Stella Posted October 20, 2008 Report Share Posted October 20, 2008 Indeed, that is true, there are things that could not survive here. Then again other things you don't really know if they will go nuts like possums or die out like moose. I was talking to a DOC guy yesterday who said something about people being employed to assist in establishing possums in certain areas! Apparently they thought they needed help if they were going to establish! Some things grow in VERY different conditions in their native habitats but do extremely well here. In the case of pinus radiata, they grow much, much better here than where they evolved! Ok, so while I agree that The List may be a poorly thought-out list, it is the law at the moment. I would MUCH rather have that than random people deciding all by themselves whether something should be in the country or not. As Museeumchick says, there are so many cool natives here that can be kept as pets etc. There is this mindset that natives are boring, but most haven't the foggiest what startling variety we have here, and I include fish, plants, invertebrates etc. Sorry, I have no idea if frontosa is animal, vegetable or mineral.... :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave+Amy Posted October 20, 2008 Report Share Posted October 20, 2008 Frontosa is fish After 3 years in my biology degree (swinging into the ecology side) even though animals that thrive in hotter temps do not mean they cannot establish here, fire ants have colonised alright despite our colder climate. Doesn't hurt to be cautious... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livingart Posted October 20, 2008 Report Share Posted October 20, 2008 ants know how to stockpile food and keep themselves warm in winter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David R Posted October 20, 2008 Report Share Posted October 20, 2008 Doesn't hurt to be cautious... How about we start by banning goldfish, hillstream loaches and other temperate/cold water fish? and replacing them with endlis and other lower jaw polypterus! :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix44 Posted October 20, 2008 Report Share Posted October 20, 2008 and replacing them with endlis and other lower jaw polypterus! :lol: lol. imagine that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmsmith Posted October 20, 2008 Report Share Posted October 20, 2008 I don't see why there can't be some sort of screening process. I don't know if any of you have been to the butterfly house in Thames, but they have heaps of exotic butterflies, and they have to have facilities that don't allow things to escape, and have to account for each body when it dies. There's no reason why we couldn't allow people who have the knowledge and facilities to look after exotic species, and have systems in place to ensure that they remain in captivity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livingart Posted October 20, 2008 Report Share Posted October 20, 2008 How about we start by banning goldfish, hillstream loaches and other temperate/cold water fish? and replacing them with endlis and other lower jaw polypterus! :lol: good replacement don't forget to ban introduced trout as well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stella Posted October 20, 2008 Report Share Posted October 20, 2008 well yes, rivers and lakes are full of pest goldfish from irresponsible fish keepers 'releasing' them when they got tired of them! It is annoying seeing deliberate releasings of animals like this (admittedly I have also done this in my irresponsible and poorly-informed early days... :oops: ) I find the wild molly and swordtail populations ethically interesting. They shouldn't be there, but on the other hand they are not competing with native (fish) species, and are fully contained by the limits of the thermal pools. No risk of spread, no threat to native animals. Still out of place therefore kinda wrong, but much less wrong than goldfish in streams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stella Posted October 20, 2008 Report Share Posted October 20, 2008 don't forget to ban introduced trout as well You wouldn't believe the number of people who think trout are native :evil: :roll: Water possums! Sadly without the trout, and the anglers wanting big healthy trout, out rivers and streams would be in an even sadder state than they are now. Slow death of a dirty brown river: http://www.stuff.co.nz/4730958a7693.html Sorry, Varranophile, we are getting rather off topic, but it is an interesting tangent! (thanks mods for re-allowing it) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David R Posted October 20, 2008 Report Share Posted October 20, 2008 I heard today that a damsel fish had been spotted at the poor knights! Bring on global warming, soon I'll be able to keep an emperor snapper in a pond outdoors! Imsmith; your idea could work with reptiles and its something that has been discussed by some people. There is already a permit system for native reptiles, why not extend it to exotics? Its a really strange situation, no body wants to ban cats, dogs, pigs, sheep or cows, or roses, pine trees or grape vines. They all have big potential to establish themselves here, and some have. The list is very incomplete, the people monitoring it are clueless, the people who designed it even more so, and at the end of the day its local businesses that suffer the most from it. What was this thread about again? :-? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livingart Posted October 20, 2008 Report Share Posted October 20, 2008 There's no reason why we couldn't allow people who have the knowledge and facilities to look after exotic species, and have systems in place to ensure that they remain in captivity. its called a resource consent and environmental risk management requiring deep pockets and long arms and then you need to build the facility Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmsmith Posted October 20, 2008 Report Share Posted October 20, 2008 its called a resource consent and environmental risk management requiring deep pockets and long arms and then you need to build the facility Is there a way to do exotics on an individual scale though? Maybe you would have to belong to a certain club or whatever, and every animal has to be documented and microchipped or something - I'm sure there's a way it can be done without a blanket 'no' put on everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave+Amy Posted October 20, 2008 Report Share Posted October 20, 2008 its called a resource consent and environmental risk management requiring deep pockets and long arms and then you need to build the facility same people who hold up biotechnology advances Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stella Posted October 20, 2008 Report Share Posted October 20, 2008 Is there a way to do exotics on an individual scale though? Maybe you would have to belong to a certain club or whatever, and every animal has to be documented and microchipped or something - I'm sure there's a way it can be done without a blanket 'no' put on everything. I would support that The permit system for native reptiles seems sensible (what little I know of it). It is easy enough to get but you have to prove you have suitable housing and ability. David R: and extend the permit to cats and dogs EDIT: and for keeping CHILDREN! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Posted October 20, 2008 Report Share Posted October 20, 2008 Now if we are going to about how MAF is run i can safly say its naf... Being a island we are cut of from the rest of the world. Thus it makes it far more easier to protect and keep safe from all sorts of nastys. In New Zealand we have some of the worlds most strangest wildlife such as our frogs and what not. They do need protecting and they should be. When it comes to the fish list is does annoy me. We can import livebearers riddled with disease and can and do live in our waterways when fish that wont even stand a chance cant be? Doesnt make sense? If we want to add fish to the list, take a number and waite what 3 years? when someone completes all the paper work it would take a few hours for the qualified scientist to look over it. These documents cost us money so its not like they do it out of their own pocket. I dont like how we cant import goldfish, it does annoy me. we have them already but for the lovly fancy ones that cost upwards of a few hundread each? why not? of they are disease free? why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmsmith Posted October 20, 2008 Report Share Posted October 20, 2008 EDIT: and for keeping CHILDREN! FINALLY! Someone who realises that not every idiot should have kids! :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix44 Posted October 20, 2008 Report Share Posted October 20, 2008 FINALLY! Someone who realises that not every idiot should have kids! :lol: agree 100% who saw Dr.Phill today? !!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Posted October 20, 2008 Report Share Posted October 20, 2008 yup its called a containment facilty. Then you can keep what you want in it to a extent. Like if i wanted to import reptiles... I would need a IHS to import them, this doesnt mean i can sell them though just import them. Then i would need to keep them in the containment facility then apply through IMER to release them... (please note far more complicated then this) Also when i talked to MAF about the costs. $2000 for the licence every year, then you have to pay for MAF to come out and check it every so often to make sure its all up to date... Yes you can but VERY expensive... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stella Posted October 20, 2008 Report Share Posted October 20, 2008 If we want to add fish to the list, take a number and waite what 3 years? when someone completes all the paper work it would take a few hours for the qualified scientist to look over it. These documents cost us money so its not like they do it out of their own pocket. But that is for ONE FISH SPECIES. How many billions of fish/plants/animals/invertebrates are there? How much other work do they have to do? It is not a case of just flicking open a book, checking out temperature requirements and ticking a box. Allowing new species in is hardly of huge concern when you look at the wider picture. Yeah it annoys you, but would you rather your taxes go to getting more scientists to research what pet species are allowed in, or to paying nurses enough so they stop leaving the profession? (random probably bad example, hoping it won't start another tangent) The goldfish thing is because little ones can't be distinguished from koi (noxious pest), isn't it? If that is the case, surely the fancy ones look as un-koi-like as possible... Someone know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insect Direct Posted October 20, 2008 Report Share Posted October 20, 2008 The goldfish thing is because little ones can't be distinguished from koi (noxious pest), isn't it? If that is the case, surely the fancy ones look as un-koi-like as possible... Someone know? most if not all fry look the same when first hatched but who knows like with alota other things :-? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navarre Posted October 20, 2008 Report Share Posted October 20, 2008 I guess its hard to argue both sides of this. And it is easy to forget that both posums and rabits were introduced with the idea for food and fur ie the intent was to manage and harvest them. Now look where we are. But we have moved on. Point taken re where to next. Lets take weka that are extinct on the east coast of the main land but a gene pool was establised on the chatams 100 yrs ago (they ate all theirs). From 12 birds there are now 60000 with free range harvesting. We are now bringing birds back here. Same for Tuatara. Breeding populations are being "managed" as the inter breeding is now starting to cause probs in some areas. However we cant bring non related animals back from LA or Germany to increase the gene pool as these would be "introduced". Rediculous. Also cant keep em in private(lol) so what do you do with extra eggs? extra adults etc. I agree that the natives are under valued whole heartedly. But how do you lift the profile? Sell em..make em worth something and then ppl will want em? Maybe but then natural populations are at risk. 25 yrs ago the things that arent here now (lmao) were here. Theoretically they are permissible orgainisms. But try keep/get one..roflmao. As for fish...well thats a joke. There used o be a permit and non permit list. They got rid of one by combining them. Alot of fish are here ilegally. Fronts,Cichlisoma, Haps, Auloanocara, paradise fish,hill stream loaches, chocolates (how dare they) D. Comps...just to name a few. Then we coudl take Auckland Island pigs and Enderby rabit and cattle or Arapawa sheep and goats. So isolated they are gene pools of their own and are now invaluable to the world of Farm breeds and medicine. Goes both ways Just somethings to think about Nav Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanmin4304 Posted October 20, 2008 Report Share Posted October 20, 2008 I think they stopped the importation of goldfish because of a disease (which I forget the name of) that was discovered on fish in Australia. They thought it was a threat to trout and salmon and the fishing lobby has a lot more pull than the fish keeping lobby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
repto Posted October 20, 2008 Report Share Posted October 20, 2008 whirling disaese? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
museeumchick Posted October 20, 2008 Report Share Posted October 20, 2008 good point there i think i mentioned earlier about captive parrots as a source for diseases in natives? even if there is no way a species can establish in the wild, let alone compete with our natives (although as stella mentioned, how can you really tell, some things act unpredictably) there are indirect impacts on our native wildlife. there are a whole lot of inconsistancies in these 'lists' of allowed and banned species (plenty of exceptions are made to anything of economic importance) and often they are obviously unfair but there is time and money that needs to go into changing these, and maybe one day it might happen (?) but for now i wonder whether we 'need' to import these species? so i'm not a serious hobbiest, so i probably dont get it, but i just wonder. while possums and rabbits were introduced with an initial purpose, things like heather and gorse were introduced to make settlers more comfortable (make it more homey here) and now they are quite serious pests. correct me if i'm wrong, not stirring (much ) just wondering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanmin4304 Posted October 20, 2008 Report Share Posted October 20, 2008 No, it was not whirling disease but something else I had not heard of. They love to quote whirling disease for all sorts of problems (including banning the sale of live tubifex to the North Island many years ago) but I understand it is indemic in some coastal marine fish and since most of our native fresh water fish spend time at sea it all seems a little pointless. Some importers don't import some types of allowed fish because of the frequency of them having it. 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.