Jump to content
cogs

rtc on the noxious list

Recommended Posts

they were on the "grey list" but i am yet to find any movement yet from there. a case of "letting the cat out of the bag" before its made public maybe? i am pretty sure legislation needs to be made public before it can be enforced and would love to see some clarification of this new change. i am searching the net and cant find aanything legislative......... yet

http://adl.brs.gov.au/data/warehouse/pe_brs90000004189/OrnamentalFishManagementReport2010_ap14.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not on the known list yet........ a lil strange. no listing for phractocephalus hemioliopterus. can she provide a link?

Noxious fish | Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry | Queensland Government

11th of november last year was the last posted update

strictly speaking the website isn't the legislation and there may be a delay etc of getting things up there.

(given that a whole lotta fisheries people (in the order of 20%) are getting the "can't do" axing don't expect things to get updated quickly either...

sechedule 6 part 1 of the Fisheries regulation has the list of noxious fish:

http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/F/FisherR08.pdf

I can't find it there though.

BTW - changing/amending an Act has to go before parliment, whereas a regulation (i.e. the lists) can be amended anytime and doesn't go through the same process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

strictly speaking the website isn't the legislation and there may be a delay etc of getting things up there.

(given that a whole lotta fisheries people (in the order of 20%) are getting the "can't do" axing don't expect things to get updated quickly either...

sechedule 6 part 1 of the Fisheries regulation has the list of noxious fish:

http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/F/FisherR08.pdf

I can't find it there though.

BTW - changing/amending an Act has to go before parliment, whereas a regulation (i.e. the lists) can be amended anytime and doesn't go through the same process.

i do agree with you but........... the whole idea of making something illegal requires notification it is so or, you will allways have the very valid argument of "oh i had no idea". my point was there has been no amendment or public broadcast yet which effectively means they are not yet part of legislation or regulation (other then not being on the allowable import list and still appearing on the "grey list" ). as i said i agree with what you are saying but still am unable to find anything to suggest a change in status other then a verbal conversation between fish keeper and authority. i dont discount the converstation and appreciate the op posting the info but am yet to find anything regulation related on the interwebs. i hope to have this cleared up soon ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hey tuffy - thats my point exactly!

The regs have not changed to include rtc - so technically they are not on the noxious list (yet).

The change in the regs is all they need to do in terms of 'public broadcast', although with any change in regs etc, there is a minsiterial briefing (so the minister knows) as well as website etc also gets updated in time and their may be a press release which may or may not be picked up by the media. Acts and regs change/are amended all the time - some of this makes it to the media, but mostly it just goes on in the background and the media only report juicy things that make for a good story.

Unfortunately, "I had no idea" is not a valid arguement and it depends on how the regulators will approach any issue of non-compliance. Usually, with this sort of stuff, they look at your intent and what is reasonable (the basis of most legislation), so if for example, you weren't aware that RTC were on the list and you've had one for years it would often result in a warning and notice for correction action (i.e. get required permit in x period of time etc)....instead of prosecution. If however you were a shop selling them,they would probably expect you to be a bit more on top of things and may take it further.

so short answer - is if its not in the fisheries regs, its not on the noxious list (but they maybe intending to add it to the list in the future i.e. when the regs are next amended).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i know but all i was sayin was i got told from danny from pest fish i can give the number and the permit lasts a year now

so you need noxious fish permit for a fish that isn't on the a regulated noxious fish list?

I'm lost on that one then...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

me too but any how sorry just relaying what i was told

hardly your fault mate. you are only doing what you have been told to do to comply. as cram and i have pointed out however there seems to be no current ruling or atleast none that joe public is aware of (yet) . clarification would be good but hey........ at the end of the day it is not an offence to have a permit for a fish not yet noxious though it is to have a noxious fish without a permit :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"the fish keepers affairs were being watched from the timeless worlds of DPI hq.

no one could have dreamed that we were being scrutinised, as someone studies our hobby and the fish that we so much love.

few fish keepers even considered the possibilities of their fish becoming noxious, and yet... across in the DPI hq, minds immeasurably superior to ours regarded our hobby with devilish schemes.

and slowly... and surly... they drew their plans against us."

.....

DUN DUN DAAAAAAAAAA

DUN DUN DAAAAAAAAAA

Edited by scott95
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So can u get a permit to keep pacu?

Only if you already had one when they were declared noxious and then you'd be limited in breeding/selling etc.

You can't have one now (unless you are a zoo or educational institution etc).

Here's a ministerial media release from a few years ago - this is the sort of thing that the gov puts out when they change legislation (acts and regs).

Ministerial Media Statements

so if you want something thats not on the list - get it before it does appear.

You'll be able to keep it (under a permit), bit depending on the specifics of the permit, you'll be limited and prob not be allowed to breed/sell/giveaway.

Someone with a permit can correct me if I'm wrong (I'm guessing here), but you'd probably have to destroy it if you didn't want it anymore.

Once it appears on the list, its a no no.

re pacu - there was a show on tv a while ago where pacu were introduced into africa (I think) and were decimating the local fish (and biting the nuts of the villagers).

so, noxious fish lists aren't there to stop you having fun, they are there to protect Australia's bioversity (and your nuts).

Edited by cram
Link to comment
Share on other sites

not on the known list yet........ a lil strange. no listing for phractocephalus hemioliopterus. can she provide a link? 11th of november last year was the last posted update

Agreed - doesn't appear on the latest updated list we were privvy to at the QCG meet a coupla months ago during the noxious fish talk....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This surprised me as they are most definately not on the noxious list. Made some enquiries and it seems an error in classification was made, the old synonym Silurus hemioliopterus was being used and resulted in some confusion. Not on the noxious list still on the "grey list".

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...