livingart Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 An example from Florida of why we have importation restrictions and what seem onerous hurdles to jump over to get new species put on "the list" http://www.reef2rainforest.com/2014/07/ ... ish-rules/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#!CrunchBang Posted July 31, 2014 Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 It's also because it is cheaper to do the science on the species before it is released, than it is to Eradicate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc254 Posted December 27, 2014 Report Share Posted December 27, 2014 Ah arguable I think the lion fish is a very poor example. on one hand they are the most evasive species on the planet, however they are also very well traveled. They can move from their 'natural habitats' and easily establish in another country without the help of man. So are they a pest or is this just mother nature? However please note I understand that most of these species get to water ways/reef systems through the hand of man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrienne Posted December 27, 2014 Report Share Posted December 27, 2014 I agree the Lionfish is a poor example as it travels widely by its own means - they are occasionally seen off the NZ coast. With the changing world climate and seas warming the invasion that is these fish is more likely to have occurred naturally than by the hands of marine keepers. There is little anyone can really do to stop marine fish from predating on endemic species. However as far as tropical freshwater fish and cold water fish go, that is something we do/can have control of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reef Posted December 28, 2014 Report Share Posted December 28, 2014 very poor example, does not really example why we have import rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livingart Posted December 28, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 28, 2014 the lionfish were not self introduced, introduced from unwanted fish let go by irresponsible aquarists Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrienne Posted December 28, 2014 Report Share Posted December 28, 2014 ah ha! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reef Posted December 28, 2014 Report Share Posted December 28, 2014 the lionfish were not self introduced, introduced from unwanted fish let go by irresponsible aquarists maybe, but could also be from ballast water from ships, so we should also ban all shipping. most damage is done by shipping and aquaculture , not always aquarists. Lion fish invasion is sad as they eat everything, but this is a extreme cases , as most species of fish we would like to add are harmless, but anything has some risk. Two possible explanations are releases from ballast waters from ships and releases of aquarium fish. Genetic work shows very little genetic variation which supports the aquarium releases as the source. Work in 2009 reports 8 "halotypes" which suggest the current population of lionfish originated from 8 females, again supporting a limited release from aquariums rather than a larger release from ballast waters. http://www.safespear.com/v.php?pg=59 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexyay Posted December 28, 2014 Report Share Posted December 28, 2014 maybe, but could also be from ballast water from ships, so we should also ban all shipping. most damage is done by shipping and aquaculture , not always aquarists. Lion fish invasion is sad as they eat everything, but this is a extreme cases , as most species of fish we would like to add are harmless, but anything has some risk. Two possible explanations are releases from ballast waters from ships and releases of aquarium fish. Genetic work shows very little genetic variation which supports the aquarium releases as the source. Work in 2009 reports 8 "halotypes" which suggest the current population of lionfish originated from 8 females, again supporting a limited release from aquariums rather than a larger release from ballast waters. http://www.safespear.com/v.php?pg=59 But the evidence just pointed towards aquarium release in the quote above? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reef Posted December 28, 2014 Report Share Posted December 28, 2014 Sure, but also could be released from ships ballast water. when a ship dumps millions of tonnes of water everyday in the ocean you will get unwanted organisms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David R Posted December 31, 2014 Report Share Posted December 31, 2014 Note that Florida only has a ban on a handful of species that would/could cause potential harm if established (such as lionfish, fw stingrays and piranha) despite there already being hundreds of popular aquarium species established in their waters. By contrast, the only ex-aquarium species established here are the mollies in the geothermally heated stream somewhere by Turangi (unless you include Koi as an aquarium species) yet we have far stricter restrictions than Florida governing our imports. Most of our wild populations of non-native fish have come from intentional releases for sport fishing, which is still encouraged and continued today... 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.