Thank you all for taking the time to
examine this difficult question. My
submission concerns the need for the committee to consider differentiating
between species previously introduced for trade, commerce, recreation or
aesthetic pursuits and those species that have been introduced and that impact
in a deleterious way but appear to have no benefit to our environment or
community. This will not be an easy
task as over time attitudes change and what previously was an acceptable impact
is no longer regarded as such. Some
species that have been introduced and that have become established and are an
accepted part of commerce and recreation include, rainbow trout, brown trout,
Atlantic salmon. Pacific salmon, Pacific oysters, blue mussels and so on. Between states there have been transfers
of species beyond their natural range for the same reasons as outlined
above. Consideration should be
given to these species also.
Finally we should not close the door to future imports though caution
needs to be exercised. There may
well be the case for example for introducing marine species into saline
impoundments in inland
In some instancies management
measures may be sufficient to reduce impacts of some species whether they are in
the acceptable category or in the unacceptable category. Whilst pathways for expansion and new
invasions are invariably complex and difficult to comprehensively cover we
should be prepared to focus on the most obvious areas warranting increased
security and at the same time focus on habitats and representative ecosystems
needing border protection from exotic species invasions and their broader
impacts. Ports and shipping come to
mind as important potential vectors but are not the only focus for the source of
introductions or range expansions.
Colin
Sumner