lduncan Posted June 12, 2005 Report Share Posted June 12, 2005 As many of you probably already know, importers throughout NZ received a letter from MAF regarding the importation of corals on Friday. It effectively said that for any coral being brought into the country attached to a piece of live rock, the importer would have to prove that the rock is totally free of hitch-hikers which are not permitted as per the allowed list. Clearly this is not a good situation at all. I have however heard rumours of a new rule which may be introduced, which would classify this as substrate?Has anyone heard this, or have any details of it? Layton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kermit Posted June 12, 2005 Report Share Posted June 12, 2005 I too have heard rumors on this subject i don't know much more than mentioned above, but maybe just maybe members of this board could hold back from commenting on the subject in any negative way till after the importers have spoken to MAF to confirm the details and have tried to get the ban lifted or softened as anything said that may offend MAF could work against the hobby in end. I know it's hard but if people want to share their anger maybe we could all PM the people we want to share it with. Lets give the importers a chance to comprimise with MAF on this a, i'd hate to see this happen to the hobby. Robert. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted June 12, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2005 I know what you mean. I thought all yesterday about whether I should post the question. Layton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pies Posted June 12, 2005 Report Share Posted June 12, 2005 I don't really see it being a big deal. Technically this is the way its always been (or at least for many years). MAF - If your reading hear this. The harder you try and restrict harmless imports for legitimate business's the more you will fuel the necessity for ilegal/smuggled goods to come into the country. I would urge you control the importation not overly restrict it. Pie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reef Posted June 12, 2005 Report Share Posted June 12, 2005 don't really see it being a big deal. Technically this is the way its always been (or at least for many years). It is a very big deal and coral importing could stop due to too many idiot importers trying to bring in live rock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RnB Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 how would an importer go about proving the rock is free of hitch hikers.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chimera Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 they... would... get... out... a... big... magnifying... glass.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misnoma Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 Or a blowtorch? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suphew Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 too have heard rumors on this subject i don't know much more than mentioned above, but maybe just maybe members of this board could hold back from commenting on the subject in any negative way till after the importers have spoken to MAF to confirm the details and have tried to get the ban lifted or softened as anything said that may offend MAF could work against the hobby in end. I haven't ever dealt with MAF but having seen first hand the underhand way local councils work in some situations I'm not sure if I completely agree with this. Unless interested members of the public start making submissions right from the start and keep pushing their case they will be ignored. All to often in this country the government thinks the majority is the guys who's shouting the loudest, the way to get what you want is to be that guy. Standing back and hoping they will "do right by us" wont work. My 2 cents.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Control Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 To my knowledge Live Rock has to sit dry for three weeks to kill any hitch hickers. however I don't know if that is still current. My issue with the never ending [edit=cees]word removed[/edit] maf is the way they restrict and police our hobby yet don't police whether or not the ships dump there bilge water where they are suppose to that is the threat not our hobby. The other problem is that allot of thier rules are based on possibilaties and asumption without any proof in research, I seem to remember them either suggesting or setting it up so an importer could pay for things to be tested. The problem with that is one would pay and everyone else would benifit without paying anything towards the testing. Stopping things because they could cause a problem with our inviroment is not a problem to me as long as they show proof. Stopping things because they can be danderous to humans of which our medical system has no knowledge of, well I think this one could be debated for many reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kermit Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 Suphew , i agree with you but we don't know full detail and maybe the importers can let us know when they hear the full detail and what the situation is. Maybe the importers can respond to this post and let us know if they want us to hold fire or start the S*&% F*&%. Robert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suphew Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 yet don't police whether or not the ships dump there bilge water where they are suppose to I work for the largest shipping company in New Zealand, and have to say this is [edit=cees]word removed[/edit]. There are HUGE fines for doing this and dumping bilge water in harbours hasn't been done for years. Pleasure boats proberly dump more waste into the harbours as a lot vent there toilets directly into the water, plus spilling fuel and cleaning chemicals etc etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Control Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 suphew wrote I work for the largest shipping company in New Zealand, and have to say this is crap. There are HUGE fines for doing this and dumping bilge water in harbours hasn't been done for years. Pleasure boats proberly dump more waste into the harbours as a lot vent there toilets directly into the water, plus spilling fuel and cleaning chemicals etc etc. Who said anything about harbours Are you saying that stuff dumped further out to sea won't find it's way to our shores with the currents. It does't have to be dumped in the harbours to be a problem. If the rules state that they can dump along our coast line just not in our harbours which is what you seem to be saying then it just adds to my arguement of how stuppid maf really is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookie extreme Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 if there are huge fines in doing so doesn't that mean that ships have been doing it for quite a while and are now warned not to anymore? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmatix Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 This is all such a mess, as you stated Aaron, more harmfull matter comes in on ships than from Marine reef keepers in NZ. I cant remember the exact figure from my marine sci, stage 2 papper but its something like 15 out of 25 sp of urchin found in Hawaii are also found in NZ waters, has MAF even looked into the sp of small motile inverts etc in the por knights / kermadecs ? I dont think so. All of the reefers i know and or sell to are responsible they would rather giver stuff away than biff it into the ocean and freeze to death, a big part of the problem is from introduced sp in tropical climates where unwanted algaes/hitch hikers will settle. Im just so frustrated that so many ppl in higher places really dont know what they are looking at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracker Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 Unfortunately its typical in all government departments and will never change. I deal with a lot of these departments all the time and get frustrated beyond belief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted June 13, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 Don't forget the legitimate reason why these regulations exist in the first place. Although for the most part it is clear to most people in this hobby that the real threat to New Zealand's environment from importation of this stuff is almost zero. Layton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drifty Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 I have a good friend whose a mucky muck with maf, must have a word to him on wendesday when I see him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveA Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 Many (in fact something over 10) years ago they briefly went the other way and for a period of a few months, decided that rock could come in without going through any sort of quarantine. During that time I managed to get 3 boxes (probably over 100kg) of rock that had only been out of the water 36 hours. This had its +s and -s. While 5 of the corals in my tank are actually grown from tiny colonies (2-10mm dia) I found on these rocks I also ended up with a worm that grew to over 1m long and was about as thick as a finger and had a mouth at least as big as that on a full grown clown fish plus a crab that chewed itself a hole to live in by going in through the side of a Tubipora musica and generally made a pest of itself tipping over unattached corals. The worm suffered the fate of a long freshwater swim and the crab ended up in my ‘fuge’ but for some reason only lived about a year in there. I feel a bit guilty about the demise of the crab, as I feel I could have looked after it better and perhaps trained it to be a traffic officer. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brianemone Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 i dont mind not being able to get liverock but banning the little rocks that sps/lps/softie colonies are attached to is a little bit overkill imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted June 13, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 I agree. Not being able to get "live" rock doesn't bother me at all. But stopping coral imports does. Layton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suphew Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 OK when I stated "dumping with-in the harbour" I meant not dumping with-in the zone set by MAF. This changes by location depending on currents etc, for example I understand that because of the very high flow in the cook straight they are allowed to purge there. The reasons the fires are so high isn't a reflection of them having to enforce, but because of the amount of $ involved in the industry. For example a container ship sitting docked doing nothing (i.e. when there are strikes on or bad weather, or queues for cranes) costs (last time I asked) about $80,000 a day. Therefore there would be no point setting a fine at $1000. Container (and other large ships) get a bad rep because they stand out, but the fact is they are by the most environmentally friendly way to transport goods by a long shot. The ships coming into NZ can carry 4200Teu (standard 20 foot containers) at up to about 30 ton per teu, a plane would be lucky to carry the weight in freight of one container, so that means over 4000 flights to do the same job! Imaging what that would do to the environment, and our coast lines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wok Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 Most 20 ft containers only hold 20 tonnes gross NOT 30 In New Zealand you can get to 26 tonnes but that is max due to our road carrying limits. In the US and Asia it is 20 tonnes Gross. as their road limits are only 20 tonnes. Even the 40 ft containers have a maximum weight of 26 tonnes gross. Once again due to Road carrying limits. Thought I would clarify this point. I do a lot of exports to different coutries, so have to check max loading weights of various containers. But either way it is still a heck of a lot of product to move by air or sea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suphew Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 I did say, upto about 30 tons, but the point remains the same. MOving fright my ship is by far the most environmentally friendly way to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregb Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 Maybe we could launch a partion for or against importation of LR. 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.