Hello fellow koi friends ,

Some of you would know by now that the Australian Government is considering a nation-wide ban on koi in Australia. I am hoping that all of you might help just a little to prevent this from happening. I hope you will be able to write a letter or send an email to those who are pushing this proposal forward

Link to the government proposal
http://www.daff.gov.au/ornamental

Discusion on the Australian Koi Forum
http://ksakoi.com/bb/index.php?board=29.0

The most important person to send your email and letters to is:

Mr Richard Tilzey
Ornamental Fish Working Group
Bureau of Rural Sciences
GPO Box 858
Canberra ACT 2601

Email: richard.tilzey@brs.gov.au

If you want to use this sample letter below to get you started, please do

Dear .............

"I am writing to you to lend my support to my fellow koi keepers in Australia. I have become aware that your government is considering banning the keeping of koi in all of Australia. I think this would be a major disappointment. Australian koi keepers are amongst some of the best in the world. They are both dedicated to responsible koi ownership and maintaining the Australian way of life. I urge you to allow the keeping of koi in Australia, in those states where it is currently legal. It would be a major loss to Australia and to the international community if there was a total ban on keeping koi in all of Australia.

Yours Sincerely

Wow, Mango - I didn't realise you were in Australia! Beautiful fish.

I'll look at the proposal and write a letter.
Do you have particular points you believe we should rebut and push?

This...makes me mad!! koi are beautiful!! :sick: :angry:

Why?!

wtf why ban koi??

are they eatinmg all the native fish???

are people smoking them to get high???

What's the harm of koi? I'm in the US. I just don't see why they would be banned

my guess is we in the US hanvent learned thatif you smoke them you can halucinate or so i speculate cause i cant think of any other valid reason. besides compared to our cark koi are dwarfs . we have carp that get 5 feet long or so

Koi are a massive ecological problem in Australia. We spend millions of taxpayer dollars every year trying to correct problems with introduced species. So the government has many species of animal on the banned list and are considering a country wide ban on koi also (allready banned in some states I beleive).
The problems we have with an accomodating climate (and native species of animal that don't compete well with imports) is also why we have some of the strictest customs and import laws in the world even regarding legal imports.

This mentions a few of the reasons why they are a problem...

http://www.fisheries.nsw.gov.au/threatened...ent/fn_carp.htm

They shouldn't ban koi when cats are still allowed. ;)

Banning koi because some people let them go is like banning driving because some people drink and drive.

Did this sortof thing happen in the states? I think I heard something about people releasing oscars into the florida canals and now oscars compete with bass and other species which is causing ecological problems.

I'm not for the ban but I posted because it was asked why and if people in other countries are going to oppose it, then in fairness, they need to know the whole story to make a judgement on the issue. It's not as it may seem on the surface that some politician is sitting at his desk one morning and says "ok, today because I am cold hearted and mean I will put a stop to these people keeping those fish in their living room and have a good laugh". There's two sides to the story and there's definately some very understandable reasons why the proposal has been put forward.
Cats are a big problem as you hinted at and there's no denying that, but whether or not they were to be banned, if someone did suggest doing so they would have a pretty good arguement to back their veiw up, wouldn't you agree?.. and it's just like those who propose a ban on any animal that poses a risk, be it koi, a reptile, a bird or whatever.

I think perhaps there should be more regulation or something to attempt to find a middle ground with gornment legislation rather then a full ban and a full opposition to it.
To use your analogy about drinking and driving ... To drive you need a licence and if you break the rules you are not allowed to drive. With koi anyone can buy them so perhaps something like a licencing arrangment would help both hobbiest's keep the fish and the government prevent having so many issues with them. Even if a licence to keep koi is fairly superficial it would at least offer an oppotunity to provide the fish owner with the rules, just like obtaining a learners permit and drivers licence informs a driver of the rules that he/she should adhere to.

It sucks that it could go ahead and make keeping these fish illegal as it has with so many other species of fish that are on our ban list, but argueing that "well if your going to ban those then how come you don't ban these too" or "don't be such a spoil-sport" is not really going to stand as an arguement when it comes down to it.
It's basically hobbiests (and probally breeders supplying the hobby) with an interest in the fish verses the government who has an interest in protecting the eco-system and saving taxpayer money. Someone need to make the call on issues like this so the countries representatives in this area need to weigh up the options and try and decide the best course of action.

Not sure about Oscars but there was a big issue with Snakeheads which are now outlawed in some U.S states because of their ecological impact. They were obtainable here years ago too but are also one on our ban list due to the risk they pose.

Carp is the original species...when koi is a mutation.

Well...IMHO...even if they ban koi...people will just get more into koi. Just like how pleco, some cichlids and other fish are illegal and some even noxious! People like them more than the non illegal ones. I know many people from SA which comes in NSW on a regular basis just to buy koi! What can the government do?

Its just we cannot show off our koi as much as now! We have never been allowed to import koi, that why we only have local bred ones...its very weird how if a fish is illegal...if bred locally then they arnt illegal. Thats what happened with cichlids and plecos. I dont see bristlenoses being illegal? Once released into the environment...it can do more damage than koi!

Just like Arowana, Snakeheads, Rays and some other fish. They are illegal and some are noxius with heavy fineds...but to obtain these are so easy. Most LFS has these, thats the funny thing!

Yep that is true with many cich species (frontosa being an excellent example allthough adult specimens recently removed from the ban list). In all honesty I think you would stand a much better chance trying to appeal for some sort of middle ground rather then a strait out opposition to the proposal. It's been seen many times before that protesting a species ban strait up as a hobbiest doesn't often work and the government has strong veiws and logical reasoning behind this one that they haven't really even had with others like certain species of cich.

Arowana is not illegal as the one's you usually see in LFS's are native (Australian "Saratoga"/Jardini).

Guess will we see in the future if this goes ahead...maybe I should transferr my 2 car garage into an indoor koi pond :P

fnser - Sorry for the confusion. I wasn't meaning 'your arguement sucks' but 'that reasoning sucks' - even though it's not so much your own... But the government's position... Y'know? I hope that made sense. :unsure:

I don't like this ban...
what's the point of it...?
...why not ban cats, dogs, birds, and other fish?

pit bulls are banned in many places in the US

All cool.

The point is what i was talking about above. They've been allowed to enter our natural water ways and have been destrtuctive to the environment (erosion, plant life destruction, compete with native species etc. etc.) so the whole point of the ban is to help reduce this problem.

They do ban other fish. Certain breeds of dog and bird are also banned.

It's not really a good arguement to say "if your going to ban koi, why not ban this and that aswell", If that's the line of arguement then it can also be reversed and someone could say "well if your going to allow koi, why not just allow any exotic animal at all regardless of it's destructive capability" which would be devistating to our eco-system which is pretty fragile. It's true that there are still other animals allowed that can be just as destructive, but ask yourself 'in the overall scheme of things is it better to have 3 problems or 2?'. It's not a proposed ban to completely rid the country of all ecological problem species, it's a specific ban to rid it of THIS particular one which in the government's eyes is a positive step and that is understandable in my thinking.

and yeah that really sucks. :(

There are lots of sides to look at.

My cousin was bit by a dog that was mostly pit-bull. I it was your little girl that got bit, you probably wouldn't think that the ban sucked. Not trying to be rude, just an example.

In Florida, another problem they have is giant snakes such as pythons and stuff that become very large are being released and can survive in the climate and are reproducing. Even thought there are some responsible owners, many people release them. I had a friend who used to have an 18 foot snake that lived in her house. She (the snake) had her own bedroom with a little pond and special heaters and stuff. When they were home, she would let the snake out and just make sure she didn't crawl under the furniture where they couldn't see her or she might get stuck. They would feed her 3 chickens once a month- she had to be left alone in her room for about 5 days so that she could eat and digest them in privacy. Imagine if that snake was on the loose in Florida breeding in a climate it could thrive in. They were responsible pet owners, but imagine the pet owner buying the snake at 3 feet and then releasing it once it got too big! There was even one siting of a snake that was large enouth to eat an alligator- the snake got ripped open as the alligator was on its way down as the gator was too sharp and the snake was found dead with an alligator portruding from it!

African Clawed Frogs are another example. Not the dwarf frogs, the clawed frogs that can grow to the size of your fist and will eat anything that will fit inside it.

I know that in Texas, you can get a permit to have carp, but they are sterile.

In the US it is actually against the law to release any non-native fish or animals such as most aquarium fish.

Just some examples. I can see both sides of the argument.

Why ban koi? I read that a law had been introduced in a state here in the US to hunt domestic house cats. They had overpopulated and there we're too many to deal with. I say put tighter restrictions to make sure that species AREN'T introduced. You shouldn't ban a particular species because someone decides they want to put it in their local pond or river because they don't want to take care of it anymore.

No, I would still think banning american pit bull terriers suck. It's a knee-jerk reaction to a problem with the solution of responsible pet ownership for all dogs. The problem is with the owner, not the dog. Unfortunately, too many don't see this.

I've seen A LOT of nice Pit Bulls on TV!

Judge the Deed, not the Breed!

I was not trying to start any argument about pit bulls, I was just making an example. Please don't be offended anyone. :)

Here the humane society states some fact that would actually be much more pertinent:

"There is an 8 out of 10 chance that a biting dog is male. (Humane Society of the United States.) There is a 6 out of 10 chance that a biting dog has not been neutered. (Humane Society of the United States.) No fatal dog attack involving an altered dog was ever reported."

I really think that based on these statistics, a better solution possibly involving neutering and spaying could come about. In my opinion, if someone is not planning to breed their dog, it needs to be fixed. Others may disagree and I am not trying to offend anyone.

Many responsible dog breeder- as each litter is born they carefully screen all the puppies and the ones that are not totally healthy or of ideal breed standards are fixed (neutered/spayed) and then sold as "pet quality dogs" Then the best puppies of the litter (some litters don't even end up with this quality) are used as breeding dogs and/or show dogs. Also, problems occurr if a breeder isn't making enough money, they will start breeding dogs that are not extremely healthy and then selling the offspring as "breeding/ show quality" dogs.

Many of these breeders also will spay or neuter a dog that is agressive or does not have a good temperment. The dog we have now was showed and retired as a Grand Champion, but not bred because he is too shy for Australian Shepherd standards. He was removed from the kennel because other dogs were constantly biting him and bullying.

And I got off track there, but there is not a solution that can be set in stone based on the temperments of a few dogs of a certain breed.



Some of the "pet quality dogs" are trained as therapy dogs.

I think something should be done about toads first. Then again there is probably nothing that can be done. Maybe they should make toad wacking day.

I think it's terrible they are doing this. Perhaps they could require that all Koi be registered, then if they have wild releases they can impose strong fines against that person... They could use the microchip to track them, the kind they use in cats and dogs, since Koi live so long anyway, it should work, as long as it can still be injected.