I don't know all the specifics but this my broad understanding.
In Australia we have a list system for importing non-native animal species into the country, there is the 'approved for import' and 'not approved'. So basically if someone wants to bring a certain animal into the country it must be on the list, it must be declared and it is quarantined. I strongly support this system, and in my opinion it works. We are not deprived of a variety of animals to keep or, I feel, restricted in the animal keeping hobbies by these laws.
Sure it can be a little annoying that we can't get certain fish here, for example dwarf puffers, marine crustaceans, those danios that glow etc. But each species is assessed on its risks and a conclusion is made on whether it should be allowed in or not. And the potential for disaster with a 'high risk' species is something to be well and truly avoided. Here we have carp and tilapia (amongst many other species) that have gone feral which cost the country millions of dollars (and jobs).
I wouldn't support a total ban on imports, that seems uneccessary and heavy handed to me, BUT accessing individual species and restricting high risk ones seems totally acceptable to me. Its the longterm outlook that is important. Obviously this is something for Americans to judge but from someone living in a country with fairly stringent import restrictions, if the laws are fair and in the country's best interest then I believe they are a good thing.
A recent example.
A bid was made to import Savannah cats into the country. Due to the increased risk to native wildlife the cat was denied for import into the country. Being larger and with better hunting capabilities, it was deemed that it would pose a greater threat than the standard tabby so was not allowed in. But we can all still keep, import normal cats.
In Australia we have a list system for importing non-native animal species into the country, there is the 'approved for import' and 'not approved'. So basically if someone wants to bring a certain animal into the country it must be on the list, it must be declared and it is quarantined. I strongly support this system, and in my opinion it works. We are not deprived of a variety of animals to keep or, I feel, restricted in the animal keeping hobbies by these laws.
Sure it can be a little annoying that we can't get certain fish here, for example dwarf puffers, marine crustaceans, those danios that glow etc. But each species is assessed on its risks and a conclusion is made on whether it should be allowed in or not. And the potential for disaster with a 'high risk' species is something to be well and truly avoided. Here we have carp and tilapia (amongst many other species) that have gone feral which cost the country millions of dollars (and jobs).
I wouldn't support a total ban on imports, that seems uneccessary and heavy handed to me, BUT accessing individual species and restricting high risk ones seems totally acceptable to me. Its the longterm outlook that is important. Obviously this is something for Americans to judge but from someone living in a country with fairly stringent import restrictions, if the laws are fair and in the country's best interest then I believe they are a good thing.
A recent example.
A bid was made to import Savannah cats into the country. Due to the increased risk to native wildlife the cat was denied for import into the country. Being larger and with better hunting capabilities, it was deemed that it would pose a greater threat than the standard tabby so was not allowed in. But we can all still keep, import normal cats.
