Read further if you are concerned with a proposal to introduce a strain of herpes virus into Australian waters.

Barnaby Joyce - Federal Minister of Agriculture and Water Resources announced the passing of a $15m proposal to introduce a Koi Herpes virus in an attempt to control Carp numbers in Australian waters.  This matter has been explored by CSIRO and the Invasive Species CDC for a number of years. You'll see from the video of the announcement that this matter is being handled at the highest decision making level almost as a joke by the very people that represent the public.

Risk is inherent in any 'change' we do, we can predict the impact and mitigate the known risks but we never see the unknown impact until it's happened and it can be unrecoverable. I wish to petition the Federal Govt to reconsider this dramatic measure and explore alternative control measures with less unknown risks that could potentially introduce unstoppable environmental impact.

Why am I concerned?

1. Despite the reports of rigorous testing of the virus on Carp relative species, native species, amphibians, reptiles and even chickens, I don't believe any form of experimentation in controlled environments can emulate how this particular virus could behave in natural, ever changing, environmental conditions. Once it is released there are still unknown variables that could introduce risks to non-target aquatic species or worse.

2. Once introduced the virus will have a large initial impact on Carp, causing a high volume of dead carp that I don't believe the planned cleanup operation will be able to manage. The knock on affect of large numbers of rotting fish risks algal blooms which will introduce increased health risks to all aquatic life - this could also affect humans and pets that frequent affected waterways.

3. I can see no evidence that points to a realistic environmental, recreational or agricultural issue that warrants a $15m spend of public money. The purported evidence of Carp being responsible for the break down of river banks and muddy water is based on rhetoric. I can list many properly managed waterways and lakes across the UK and Europe that host very large Carp that are crystal clear! And as for Barnaby Joyce stating the economic cost of Carp being $500m per year is somewhat hard to believe - where is the evidence, who are the victims?

4. The only real benefit of this proposal is to the Invasive Species CDC, who can then justify this long, expensive and pointless battle with an introduced species that has less impact on native species than the frequent stocking of predatory non-native species like Trout and Redfin which prey indiscriminately on native fish fry - thus impacting their numbers.

5. In all countries where Carp are common, a successful multi-million dollar recreational fishing industry goes alongside them with properly managed fishing venues and lucrative fishing equipment sales. Australia has never exploited the potential to turn Carp fishing into an economically viable commercial advantage. Instead, our Federal government again decides that destroying at all costs is the best option.

So what does the Carp do?

Carp are a close relative of Koi and Goldfish, originating from Asia. They are a pervasive species that have historically colonised most of the worlds waterways including USA, South Africa, UK, Europe, Russia and Australia. Their main diet consists of aquatic insects, shell fish and snails. They are not a predatory fish.

It is suggested that Carp bury into river banks and lake beds to filter their food and cause the water to become turbid (muddy) which impacts all other species ability to target their own food by sight. I would challenge this by pointing towards poor agricultural management causing run off into our waterways and storm water, compounded by the monumental lack of counter measures from our waterways management bodies. I say again that there are MANY properly managed lakes across Europe that have very clear water.

The biggest concern is no matter what scientific assurances we are given there are still unknown variables with any virus unleashed in our environment, so what are the plausible alternatives?

 1. Divert the funds (if not to more pressing social issues) to promote industry in harvesting carp for fertiliser (example 'Charlie Carp Fertiliser' -http://charliecarp.com This is a sustainable measure that could exploit a natural source and create jobs particularly in rural areas.

2. Divert the funds to improving agricultural practices adjacent to waterways and increasing aquatic protection methods (example Silt fences -http://www.melbournewater.com.au/planning-and-building/standards-and-specifications/site-management/stormwater_management_during_construction/pages/sediment-management-measures-6.13.2.aspx

3. Divert the funds to increase restocking programs of predatory native fish, to naturally control juvenile carp. As it is, Carp are now naturalised and already a source of food for native predatory species.

4. No matter what method of control, it is evident that Carp populations will never be 100% eradicated, so divert the funds to promote recreational Carp fisheries where lakes are under utilised and do not attract an income for local communities (example Gigantica Fishery in France - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWkIXWa7W_o - note the gin clear water in this video.

So finally, I'm asking for a rethink on the real impact of Carp in Australia compared to the environmental impact the Federal Government are happy to wave by during their term as decision makers i.e. Coal Mining approval adjacent to the Gt Barrier Reef!  Once this virus is introduced to our aquatic system, it may produce an immediate result BUT what happens after that, good or bad, is truly down to nature and most likely unstoppable.