Gauteng members - pet hobby in danger

Comments on Gauteng Nature Conservation Bill, 2013 Herewith receive my commentary on the proposed bill. The commentary is given from perspective of an active Aquarist, thus the focus will mainly be on proposed regulations involving ornamental fish keeping. The activity of fish keeping better known as the Aquarium Hobby involves the contained and controlled keeping of fish, plants and invertebrate organisms in a system or tank setup whereby an environment is created for the safekeeping and wellbeing of selected specimen with the main purpose of replicating natural environments in the closed confines of a duly purpose build container. The aquarium, whether fixed or movable, would operate in isolation and apart from other water bodies, whether man made or natural. The resultant effect of the hobby creates by chance or by intention, the resultant effect that the fish, plants and invertebrate organisms will multiply. This situation can be detrimental to the environment should the wrong specimen be introduced into water systems either by accident or by intent, by the aquarist. Regulation of this hobby is crucial, however it is the scope of this regulation that concerns me, and upon which I want to comment. Definitions: Adequately Enclosed In the proposed bill, specifically under the definitions, there is no specific mention of the aquarium. Reference is made of a land area being adequately enclosed, but by definition it does not provide for fixed and or moveable structures such as aquariums or such purpose build devices. Was this omission created by intent and to what purpose? Aquaculture The definition relates to farming of aquatic organisms. Does this definition include commercial farming only, or will it be applicable to small scale and or household incidental and or intended breeding and multiplying by the aquarist as well either in a pond or fish tank? Aquatic system The definition refers to manmade impoundments, inclusive whether the area is wet or dry. Is this definition applicable and inclusive of the aquarium system, where in some instances, in order to create a specific specialised environment, a series of alternative tanks or other enclosures are used to create the required conditions. Keeping in mind, that such a system would normally operate in isolation of other water bodies whether natural or manmade. Keep The definition to keep an animal refers to “wild Animal” where the definition specifically excludes fish. Further with reference to “aqua culture”, it refers to farming activities. Where is provision being made for the keeping of fish for non agricultural purposes? This could imply that either it is legal to keep fish or illegal to keep fish in Gauteng. Statutory heritage would adopt the stance of the National acts, wherein keeping the prescripts as proclaimed by the National Acts would be upheld in court. Chapter 4 : Aquatic Biota and Aquatic Systems Section 44: Restricted activities involving alien fish Practical problems are created by not including specific fish, plants and invertebrate under “schedule 4 -unrestricted animals" of this Bill. All fish not indigenous to South Africa has been declared as alien and requiring permits to import, transport, trade in or release into any aquatic system. By implication of not including "keep", and not withstanding National Legislation, the keeping of alien fish is thus allowed without a permit. In so far as the issuing of permits for transport of alien fish within the Province, this pose logistical and practical problems, especially if the fish was procured from a Pet Shop or a fellow aquarist who wish to dispose of unwanted fish either through trade or as a gift. Then, if you ended up with fish in your tank, breeding, you would not be allowed to take excess fish to the Pet Shop, or, for trade amongst fellow aquarists. Further to that, by stating “may not release in any aquatic system” it implies that the fish so bought or received as gift, may not be placed in the aquarium it was intended for. Section 45: Catching of fish Reference is made to the term “any aquatic system” Should this section be applicable to the aquarium hobbyist, one would not be allowed to catch out of the tank any fish for placing it in another tank for whatever reason, including the sale of fish by a pet shop or breeder, and you would not be allowed to drain the tank for maintenance or repairs, as this would automatically result in the fish contained in the tank, having to be caught for safe keeping. If fish did spawn, one would not be allowed to remove the eggs from the tank, whether wanted or not. Practical solutions: Not all alien fish and plants are of a threat to our systems should they by mishap end up in our river systems. Quite a number of alien fish and aquaticplants are so sensitive to changes in temprature and water condition, that they would perish in a very short time. Then others would not be able to spawn or breed or propagate due to extremes in our climate, which of course mean that these fish and plants would die without multiplying. It is agreed that some fish and plants are of invasive nature, most of which, have already been restricted by National Regulation. Then others have the potential of being invasive. It is suggested that the lists as announced according to The National Bio Diversity Ac, sections 65-67 be incorporated into this Bill. Further reference can also be made to the United Nations "Red Lists" in effort to prevent endangered species in other countries from being exported to South Africa and Gauteng in specific unless certified as bred in captivity. The current waiting period for a permit, when applied for at Gauteng, is 15 days. Should a workable solution regarding the de-regulation of some species, some already accepted in the mainstream pet fish industry and in accordance with National Legislation, not be found, the economical impact, as well as pressure on an already loaded justice system will by astronomical. To be concidered will also be the cost of removing from site, and the safe keeping of specimens wich are to be declared to be in unlawfull possesion, pending outcome of court decisions, should the bill be enacted in its current form. As a whole the issue of permits is viable, but should be concidered only for species which are found to be invasive or potentially invasive in future. A window period should also be allowed for current owners to apply for permits in instances where deemed necessary, now and in future. Where commercial trade is involved, decsion should take into consideration as to what fish, plants and invertebrates are currently accepted as legal trade stock. Then consideration also needs to be given to owners who unexpectedly end up with fish stock due to chance breeding. A method of approach would be to encourage membership to accredited clubs, which focusses on the aquarium industry and hobby.
Regards

 

jj-law A very well written reply that needs to be send. You pretty much asked everything that is on my mind.

 

I hope you added some paragraphs before sending. Because it is one big wall of text...

 

Thank you for the effort, I have formatted this a bit better. If others would like to copy paste and send, please do so before mignight to:

Ms. Abimbola Olowa, Legal Services, abimbola.olowa@gauteng.gov.co.za
Ms. Annetta Gansallo, NCB Project Secretariat, anetta.gansallo@gauteng.gov.co.za


Comments on Gauteng Nature Conservation Bill 2013

Dear Sir or Madam:

Herewith receive my commentary on the proposed bill.

The commentary is given from perspective of an active Aquarist, thus the focus will mainly be on proposed regulations involving ornamental fish keeping. The activity of fish keeping better known as the Aquarium Hobby involves the contained and controlled keeping of fish, plants and invertebrate organisms in a system or tank setup whereby an environment is created for the safekeeping and wellbeing of selected specimen with the main purpose of replicating natural environments in the closed confines of a duly purpose build container.

The aquarium, whether fixed or movable, would operate in isolation and apart from other water bodies, whether man made or natural. The resultant effect of the hobby creates by chance or by intention, the resultant effect that the fish, plants and invertebrate organisms will multiply. This situation can be detrimental to the environment should the wrong specimen be introduced into water systems either by accident or by intent, by the aquarist.

Regulation of this hobby is crucial, however it is the scope of this regulation that concerns me, and upon which I want to comment.


Definitions:

'Adequately Enclosed'

In the proposed bill, specifically under the definitions, there is no specific mention of the aquarium. Reference is made of a land area being adequately enclosed, but by definition it does not provide for fixed and or moveable structures such as aquariums or such purpose build devices. Was this omission created by intent and to what purpose?

'Aquaculture'

The definition relates to farming of aquatic organisms. Does this definition include commercial farming only, or will it be applicable to small scale and or household incidental and or intended breeding and multiplying by the aquarist as well either in a pond or fish tank?

'Aquatic System'

The definition refers to manmade impoundments, inclusive whether the area is wet or dry. Is this definition applicable and inclusive of the aquarium system, where in some instances, in order to create a specific specialised environment, a series of alternative tanks or other enclosures are used to create the required conditions. Keeping in mind, that such a system would normally operate in isolation of other water bodies whether natural or manmade.

'Keep'

The definition to keep an animal refers to “wild Animal” where the definition specifically excludes fish. Further with reference to “aqua culture”, it refers to farming activities. Where is provision being made for the keeping of fish for non agricultural purposes? This could imply that either it is legal to keep fish or illegal to keep fish in Gauteng. Statutory heritage would adopt the stance of the National acts, wherein keeping the prescripts as proclaimed by the National Acts would be upheld in court.


Practical Concerns:

Practical problems are created by not including specific fish, plants and invertebrate under “schedule 4 -unrestricted animals" of this Bill.

All fish not indigenous to South Africa has been declared as alien and requiring permits to import, transport, trade in or release into any aquatic system. By implication of not including "keep", and not withstanding National Legislation, the keeping of alien fish is thus allowed without a permit. In so far as the issuing of permits for transport of alien fish within the province, this poses logistical and practical problems, especially if the fish was procured from a Pet Shop or a fellow aquarist who wish to dispose of unwanted fish either through trade or as a gift.

Then, if you ended up with fish in your aquarium, breeding, you would not be allowed to take excess fish to the Pet Shop, or, for trade amongst fellow aquarists. Further to that, by stating “may not release in any aquatic system” it implies that the fish so bought or received as gift, may not be placed in the aquarium it was intended for.

Section 45: Catching of fish

Reference is made to the term “any aquatic system”. Should this section be applicable to the aquarium hobbyist, one would not be allowed to catch out of the tank any fish for placing it in another tank for whatever reason, including the sale of fish by a pet shop or breeder, and you would not be allowed to drain the tank for maintenance or repairs, as this would automatically result in the fish contained in the tank, having to be caught for safe keeping. If fish did spawn, one would not be allowed to remove the eggs from the aquarium, whether wanted or not.


Practical Solutions:

Not all alien fish and plants are of a threat to our systems should they by mishap end up in our river systems. Quite a number of alien fish and aquaticplants are so sensitive to changes in temprature and water condition, that they would perish in a very short time. Then others would not be able to spawn or breed or propagate due to extremes in our climate, which of course mean that these fish and plants would die without multiplying. It is agreed that some fish and plants are of invasive nature, most of which, have already been restricted by National Regulation. Then others have the potential of being invasive.

It is suggested that the lists as announced according to The National Bio Diversity Act, sections 65-67 be incorporated into this Bill. Further reference can also be made to the United Nations "Red Lists" in effort to prevent endangered species in other countries from being exported to South Africa and Gauteng in specific unless certified as bred in captivity. The current waiting period for a permit, when applied for at Gauteng, is 15 days. Should a workable solution regarding the de-regulation of some species, some already accepted in the mainstream pet fish industry and in accordance with National Legislation, not be found, the economical impact, as well as pressure on an already loaded justice system will by astronomical.

To be concidered will also be the cost of removing from site, and the safe keeping of specimens wich are to be declared to be in unlawfull possesion, pending outcome of court decisions, should the bill be enacted in its current form. As a whole the issue of permits is viable, but should be concidered only for species which are found to be invasive or potentially invasive in future. A window period should also be allowed for current owners to apply for permits in instances where deemed necessary, now and in future. Where commercial trade is involved, decsion should take into consideration as to what fish, plants and invertebrates are currently accepted as legal trade stock. Then consideration also needs to be given to owners who unexpectedly end up with fish stock due to chance breeding. A method of approach would be to encourage membership to accredited clubs, which focusses on the aquarium industry and hobby.

I thank you for your attention to the matter and look forward to my, and my colleagues, ability to continue with the aquarium and fishkeeping hobby in full support of reasonable legislation.


Regards,

Dieter #####
ID 760427#########

100 B######
Lakefi######
Benoni
GAUTENG

 

Expecting their mail server to be functional I guess is too much to ask.

Delivery to the following recipient has been delayed: abimbola.olowa@gauteng.gov.co.za Message will be retried for 2 more day(s) Technical details of temporary failure: The recipient server did not accept our requests to connect. Learn more at 'The recipient server did not accept our requests...' - Gmail Help [(0) gauteng.gov.co.za. [69.43.161.174]:25: Connection refused] ask.

 

@iamdieter: Eh good luck, it means their e-mail address is inactive or does not exist. So I am guessing no one sending e-mail will have their opinion heard.

 

Hi all.

Thanks for the feedback, it is a summary of my submission, and well in need of the formatting provided by IAMDIETER, as i just could not get to doing that after posting it. Formatting went lost when I copied and pasted from MSWord.

The original did go with proper type set etc. I forwarded my reply via work, so I did not follow up as yet on delivery reports.

In my opinion they would only tend to the emails on Monday, so please submit, even if you missed the deadline. Then to that, we only got wind of the bill a short while ago, and that could also be reason for late submission.

Now, the "black list" as declared by the Minister is up for commentary till 14 March 2014, look on DAFF website under documents. This list will affect ALL of us. Look and submit your commentary if so desired.
Regards

 

@jj-law: The error he got means the mail did not reach the mail box because it is either full or it does not exist after 2 days it will stop trying to send the mail. And by then you have missed the deadline. My suggestion get an alternative address.

 

There were two addresses, the other one did not bounce.

 

Will that new list of species replace the old blacklist?
I don't see Nothobranchius rachovii listed which is good news

 

I see in my gmail both those addresses bounced in the end, so sending to those has been a waste of time. This government is just pathetic.

 

Like I said earlier, I know how they operate. All those e-mails that were sent will never have reached their inbox's. They do this on purpose they want to push this through because someone on the other end is going to profit from this be it tenders or money. So my moto is why play by the rules when they clearly aren't.

 

Don't really think there is a tender to be had here, just pure incompetence. Problem with this one is that even if you choose to not obey the regulation, the hobby will be dead as there will not be any imports or LFS's operating.

 

Everything revolves around tenders. If this bill passes I can assure you someone is going to need to do the paperwork and setup systems and programs. In as it always works the tender goes to family and friends. I know I work with government each and every day.

 

Amen, its all about someone's pocket guaranteed.... was at a lfs the other day and the owner told me it is common knowledge in the industry who is behind this - someone is just waiting for the bill to pass to make a lot of money out of it.... my emails came back as well, how abosloutelty PATHETIC ARE THEY LIKE ALL GOVERMENT DEPARTMENTS!!!! @Swagasuarus I get enquiries from gov depts every day - my standard response: p.ss off!!!

 

SPCA

 

SPCA is not government run, it is a private initiative. They are going to need a whole new department to start this initiative, it will need furniture, computers consumables ect. All those things can be tendered for. And that is were the money lies. Don't you find it strange that the e-mail stopped working right after the meeting was held?

 

I agree, some palms will meet, and bankrolls increase..
My e-mails all got returned as well, including a hand delivery! WTF..?
Our hope now, passive organised resistance.

 

Government cannot enforce this new initiative when it comes into law. They can even enforce the current blacklist, so how will they manage the man power and hours which will be needed to enforce this? They wont be able too that simple, so we can just work around it. I mean are they going to setup road blocks near petshops and pull people over to see if they have a license for transporting fish? I really really doubt that.

 

Hmmm, when I saw that the "Gazette draft" had been done and sent on the 12th February 2014, I knew that there is very little chance of anything we put forward making any impact on their decisions...

I'm sorry if what I say shakes the proverbial tree, but these are my opinions
As soon as I heard the quote about the poor systems that had been built during the "apartheid regime" I realized that this was going to turn into a "racial" thing...

It's all about money and how much of an impact they can make in the "white" man's interests. Even though there are some black people that do own tanks, they are few and far between, so trust me, the minority are going to be overruled by the majority.

Very, very sad that this is being railroaded by people that have no regard for animals and/or pets...