Is it possible to get new fish onto the allowed list?

[breakaway]

Is there a guide somewhere that details the procedure for putting an organism on the import list? I've seen sporadic information about it posted here on the forums but nothing detailed / official.

[Jennifer]

This is a question that is asked quite frequently. I think the FNZAS fish committee might be working on something soon that will clarify the issues and at least provide answers to some of the most common questions.

[alanmin4304]

They are prohibited for the same reason that they would be very difficult to get approval granted to import I would think. Just because it is pretty is not sufficient reason for Maf and Erma to look on import approval favourably.

[Nymox]

What I gather from looking into the forms and such for the legalisation and importing of new species is thats its not too difficult to get a new species on the import list provided that sufficient research has been done on the species, this needs show that the species shows no threat to our natives, through disease and contamination of our streams, to the possibilities it has of surviving in our waters should a situation come where it might end up in our streams or rivers. The main goal is to make sure we dont end up with more things like gambusia, if it can be proven that that wouldnt happen then I dont see any reasons as to them not letting them be imported.

There are plenty of well educated people on this forum that could provide a significant amount of the research data, that would cut costs down as well as the overall time to process the request. If enough people want the rays, then why dont we do something about it?

[Ira]

So, what you gather is that it's not that hard once the difficult, expensive, time consuming part is done?

[breakaway]

Damn Ira, do you always have to be so negative, All he's getting at is that some of us who share a passion could maybe donate a few hours of our time to getting forbidden species (things like stingrays, freshwater tropical shrimp) etc on the import list.

I'm sure there is slot of work an slot of technical/report writing involved in getting these species approved.

Also once it's all done, no one stands to gain anything from this bar the fact that they get to keep the fish. This ispprbay why no one has bothered with it - once the species is on the approved list anyone can import them. You don't get exclusive rights or anything, so definitely no monetary gains to be had

[livingart]

so definitely no monetary gains to be had

except to be first to sell them

[Jennifer]

I would like to explore some of these ideas further as areas for action by the fish committee. Perhaps we could move some of this thread to a more suitable location so we can continue the discussion.

[Rob]

Damn Ira, do you always have to be so negative, All he's getting at is that some of us who share a passion could maybe donate a few hours of our time to getting forbidden species (things like stingrays, freshwater tropical shrimp) etc on the import list.

While you might be able to (with a bit of work) get tropical freshwater shrimp on the allowed list - stingrays would be an entirely different matter.

I suspect that the stingrays would fall under Schedule 2 of the HSNO act. Schedule 2 is the list of organisms specifically prohibited from being bought into NZ and includes:

"Any venomous reptile, venomous amphibian, venomous fish, or venomous invertebrate. (In this item, venomous means capable of inflicting poisonous wounds harmful to human health.)"

Full Schedule 2 list is here: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/publ ... _resel&p=1

So you can also stop dreaming about having a pet squirrel, gerbil or cane toad.

[David R]

I think Rob is right about them being not allowed in because of the potential risk to people (even though it would only be to people keeping them in aquariums as there is no chance of them surviving outside). There are countless other species that could and should be allowed in. Henward and I looked at getting the rest of the genus Polypterus added and the hardest part is finding the peer reviewed scientific papers to prove they aren't a threat, which is pretty ridiculous given that 4 species of the genus are already allowed in. IMO they should be able to grant generic dispensations.

[Rob]

IMO they should be able to grant generic dispensations.

This used to be how the old allowed list worked e.g. Corydoras species (as a generic listing) meaning any old cory could come in. But then with ERMA/HSNO and the updated list it changed to having to be individual species. If you look on the current allowed list there's a large group of corys all listed as individual species.

In some cases generic listings make sense (to us as hobbyists) e.g. Corys. However, if I recall correctly, on the old allowed lists barbs (genus Barbus +others) were a generically allowed group - problem with that is Barbus barbus is a large (upto 4') coldwater species that produces thousands of eggs in a spawning.

[HaNs]

Then again how many would retailers be able to sell?

Getting it on the list is half the battle.

[Insect Direct]

Then again how many would retailers be able to sell?

Getting it on the list is half the battle.

atleast 1 or 2

[David R]

In some cases generic listings make sense (to us as hobbyists) e.g. Corys. However, if I recall correctly, on the old allowed lists barbs (genus Barbus +others) were a generically allowed group - problem with that is Barbus barbus is a large (upto 4') coldwater species that produces thousands of eggs in a spawning.

Yes, a generic dispensation isn't always appropriate, but with genera like Corydoras or Polypterus (and countless others) it would be fine.

[Rob]

This is a question that is asked quite frequently. I think the FNZAS fish committee might be working on something soon that will clarify the issues and at least provide answers to some of the most common questions.

I suspect that one of the few ways we will get new fish on the allowed list is through the federation (or similar body) putting in the effort. While wholesalers might like to have more fish on the allowed list, the disincentive is once they put in the effort then all the wholesalers could bring in the fish - not just the company who put the effort in.

I can sort of foresee two main issues if the federation wanted to persue this:

1) Cost - I keep hearing people say it's expensive but never seen any numbers bandied about (my suspicion is the application fee probably isn't too much, but the real expense comes from the expert investigation that would be required).

2) If the cost wasn't too bad then what fish(s) do we add - as many of us have our own particular fish interests and how do you decide between the cries of polypterus, killifish, plecos etc etc. Regardless of what gets chosen someone is going to be disappointed.

Let us work on the assumption that the FNZAS does successfully get a new fish added to the allowed list - it's just a name on a bit of paper - there are no guarantees that the fish will ever actually be imported. There are potentially some people who would like some Apisto's added to the allowed list - there are currently 76 or 77 (I may have counted one twice when I was scrolling though the list) different species of Apisto's on the allowed list of which I think I have seen about 18 imported in the last 15yrs.

Have a look at the allowed list here: http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/imports/ ... ic.all.htm (scroll down for the list) and see how many species are actually listed there, and then have a second look and consider how many are actually being imported.

Any effort to put new fish on the allowed list needs to involve a dialogue between hobbyists (what would we like), retailers (what do they think would sell) and wholesalers (what do they actually have access to). We've seen recently, with the effort that Hollywoods (in conjunction with one of their suppliers) went to with the imports from Germany, that the vocal minority get access to what they would like but then the shops/wholesalers are left with what the silent majority (who probably don't even know this forum exists) have little interest in.

[David R]

Its not expensive, its about $500 for a simple application or whatever they call it, and you can put any number of species on there. I have a sample application from the Palm and Cycad Society I can show you Rob, PM me with your email address if you want to see what is involved. I think one of the big things is that there has been a lot of research done on Encephalartos (the genus they were adding more species to on the allowed list) so they had plenty of reference material to quote, might be a different case with many fish, especially new varieties.

[Rob]

Yeah - I suspect the majority of the cost (or potential cost) would be from the 'follow on' from the paperwork. Being able to have multiple species on one application is good - do they have to be from the same genus or can multiple genera be on the one application (guess I should wait until you email through the example).

[livingart]

its about $500 for a simple application or whatever they call it

called rapid release

if you submit enough evidence backing up the application it can go through

[henward]

no one does it often because it may not be worth brining in new species.

not a big enough market.

also when they do, its bred locally and importation becomes useless.

only species that cannot be bred are big and sometimes not a.llowed in anyways.

[Stella]

There are plenty of well educated people on this forum that could provide a significant amount of the research data

Only if the actual research has been done. Educated guesses is not enough, and people here are unlikely to be able to access the species to do the required research.

So, what you gather is that it's not that hard once the difficult, expensive, time consuming part is done?

hehehehe bingo!

There are countless other species that could and should be allowed in.

"Should"?!

How is there any 'should' about introducing a foreign species to this country?

IMO they should be able to grant generic dispensations.

I agree with Rob. Even if a genera is allowed, every single species within that genus has to be thoroughly explored for all risk factors before the genus can be allowed. And if you allow a genus, does that automatically allow any species yet to be discovered?

Far too risky and does not save any effort.

Just because it is pretty is not sufficient reason for Maf and Erma to look on import approval favourably.

YES YES YES

[alanmin4304]

The costs are not so much in the fees to go with the application but in obtaining the information to prove to the powers that be that that fish will not be a threat to the precious fishing (trout and salmon) industry either by the nature of the fish or the risk of it carrying diseases that could be a threat. The latter is the reason for the prohibition on the importation of goldfish after a disease was found on goldfish imported into Australia. There has always been a number of fish which some importers will not bring in because of their propensity to carry some diseases that can put Maf into a tailspin (like whirling disease), and there are fish approved at the moment which may become prohibited in the future for the same reason.

This, as stated earlier is a subject that will hopefully be investigated and reported on by the fish committee ---best of luck fellas and fallesses.

[David R]

"Should"?!

How is there any 'should' about introducing a foreign species to this country?

When the only reason they are not allowed in is because of the silly system that the authorities have put in place? Many of the fish that are regularly imported technically shouldn't be as they are no longer on the list because of taxanomic revision. Geophagus surinamensis is on the allowed list, Geophagus altifrons isn't. Years ago the name G. surinamensis covered a huge number of eartheaters from all over south america, over the years it has undergone much revision and G. surinamensis only refers to one fish from Suranime, and the others that were once considered part of the G. surinamensis complex have been reclassified as different species. The true G. surinamensis is almost never seen in the hobby (certainly isn't available from the kind of places our wholesalers source their fish, if they are available they are usually wild caught for specialist sellers in Europe and the US), the fish we get are most likely a variant of G. altifrons and are most likely the very same fish that has been imported for years, just with a different name. The reality is that G. surinamensis, abalios, brachybranchus, dicrozoster, winemilleri, and all the altifrons varieties and similar unidentified species are all very similar and one doesn't pose any more risk than the other.

There are many examples of this, if they want to maintain a list of names the very least they can do is keep it up to date and relevant.

I agree with Rob. Even if a genera is allowed, every single species within that genus has to be thoroughly explored for all risk factors before the genus can be allowed. And if you allow a genus, does that automatically allow any species yet to be discovered?

Far too risky and does not save any effort.

Saves plenty of effort, both for hobbyists and bureaucrats. As mentioned with the example above, there are many genera where the defining features can be assessed so it can be determined weather or not there is likely to be any risk of potential new species. With genera like Corydoras or Geophagus, you will never discover a new species that fits the criteria for that genus, thrives in cold water, grows to 4' and eats people. Its impossible, the characteristics that define that genus make it obvious that one species is not going to pose more risk than another. Obviously with a diverse genus like Barbus where the fish vary in size and the distribution covers a large area including temperate regions there is a much higher chance of finding something with pest potential.

The fact is that any new species of Corydoras or Geophagus could almost certainly be sent here under a name that is on the allowed list and no one would be any the wiser, the system is a joke in that regard.

[livingart]

with the current system in place all costs are incurred by the applicant not the government department

there is a greater chance from the current system that a new species put on the list will not pose a risk later

[David R]

The question is, when is a new species a new species?

Are Geophagus abalios, dicrozoster, and winemilleri new species? They were all described by López-Fernández & Taphorn in 2004, but prior to that would have been considered part of the "surinamensis" complex and therefore able to be imported. So Now that they're a "new" species, we're expected to just through hoops and produce papers that haven't yet been written so we can legally import a fish that was already able to be imported, simply because the authorities don't want to admit that they have set themselves an impossible task of keeping the list of allowable imports current and valid.

People [hobbyists and bureaucrats alike] seem to think that the classification of organisms is black and white, when in reality it is anything but. The effort it would require to keep a list of names such as the "allowed list" up to date would be huge, which, I guess, is why they don't bother.

[livingart]

basically summed it up there david