View Full Version : Arowana Legal Issues....
Gothyc_samurai
04-05-2006, 7:39 AM
can i just ask, why is asian aros illegal in the US and silver and jardinis are legal?
is it coz, silvers and jardinis are more likely to die if they are released into the wild? i mean are they not at hardy as asians for weather wise etc.? any help would be great, im just curious.. thanks :confused:
btw my 1 eyed jardini is now doing great :)
gomezladdams
04-05-2006, 7:52 AM
Theyre illegal cause us law prevents selling importing or owning endangered animals
ckk125
04-05-2006, 8:10 AM
yes, asian aros are an endangered species...not only because of the aquarium industry but also habitat destruction.
Gothyc_samurai
04-05-2006, 8:23 AM
ooh. thats to bad.. this is why i think humanity in general are just dumbf*cks lol we can leave anythng alone
Jesse
04-05-2006, 12:44 PM
Asian arowanas are specifically listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) Therefore, even if you have all of the necessary CITES paperwork, you still can't get past the ESA issue.
WyldFya
04-05-2006, 3:12 PM
once again Icthyophile hits the nail right on the head!
Some of us have been lobbying the us goverment for years to lift the ban on farmed/chip'd asian aro's.
Unfortunately half my friends involved in this have been arrested :(
Some of us have been lobbying the us goverment for years to lift the ban on farmed/chip'd asian aro's.
Well, the splitting of S. formosus into four species may give you another angle. In the past arguing that the sale of captive bred Asian arows doesn't harm the wild-caught population has been rebuked by USFWS responding that it doesn't promote the WC population either. However, the recent splitting of S. formosus, as discussed in the pinned thread, allows you to argue that S. aureus (RTG), S. legendrei (Super Red), and S. macrocephalus ("silver" varieties, including those w/ yellow and grey tails) are not even subject to the Endangered Species Act, because the ESA expressly lists only S. formosus.
WyldFya
04-05-2006, 6:40 PM
If anything I would think that the three new forms would be listed, and the S. Formosus, or green Asians would be lifted, becuase of how common they are. I suspect that the three new types have already been listed.
That would require that the USFWS formally promulgate such regs through Administrative Procedure Act and the Federal Register comment process. Thus far, the only ESA listing is the original 1976 listing of Scleropages formosus:
USFWS profile - Asian bonytongue (http://ecos.fws.gov/species_profile/servlet/gov.doi.species_profile.servlets.SpeciesProfile?sp code=E01U)
Zoodiver
04-06-2006, 9:19 AM
I'm sure they'll tag on the new species name, saying the same animals are all still under the act. A name change didn't remove them.
Fried_fish
04-06-2006, 9:38 AM
who knows we'll have to wait and see. I knew one day they will be more specific than the general S. formosus for asian aros. Its a good sign that in our lifetime, people in the USA will be able to obtain asian arowanas legally.
Jesse
04-06-2006, 12:48 PM
I'm sure they'll tag on the new species name, saying the same animals are all still under the act. A name change didn't remove them.
Unfortunately administrative law is not that simple. You don't just tag new names onto the regulation. As stated earlier, any regulatory changes will have to go through the Adminstrative Procedure Act and the formal Federal Register publication, review, and comment period. Thus, if USFWS chooses to address the name change, it will likely also require that USFWS address whether its intent is to regulate only greens and x-backs (S. formosus) or the other Asian arowana species as well. To date, USFWS has been unwilling to revisit the issue based solely on the wild-caught versus captive-bred debate. The revised taxonomy gives a new potential "battlefield" for aquarists to encourage a revamp of the regs, IMO. :thumbsup:
Infblue
04-06-2006, 1:03 PM
are xbacks really still S.formosus? i read your post in the other forum with the abstract, which doesn't address xbacks. but i know wikipedia says it is. if it's true and even if the other 'new' species can be legalized, that would still suck :( since xbacks are my fave color variety.
catfish
04-06-2006, 2:02 PM
so if some asian aros are given a different scientifc name does that mean u can not be arrested for having them if they dont change the law by the time the change the names?
WyldFya
04-06-2006, 4:03 PM
so if some asian aros are given a different scientifc name does that mean u can not be arrested for having them if they dont change the law by the time the change the names?
No. Regardless of the fact that these fish now have new names, they are still the same fish. Unfortunately that is how the government is going to look at it.
so if some asian aros are given a different scientifc name does that mean u can not be arrested for having them if they dont change the law by the time the change the names?
No. I was merely suggesting different arguments that could be used towards getting USFWS to revisit whether they would enforce the ESA against non S. formosus Asian arows. However, absent anything written from USFWS, it would be prudent to assume that all Asian arowanas regardless of species are listed under the ESA.
are xbacks really still S.formosus? i read your post in the other forum with the abstract, which doesn't address xbacks. but i know wikipedia says it is. if it's true and even if the other 'new' species can be legalized, that would still suck :( since xbacks are my fave color variety.
It's precisely because the abstract doesn't address x-backs that I'm assuming that they're still S. formosus because they don't appear to fit into the descriptions for S. aureus (RTG), S. legendrei (Super Red), or S. macrocephalus ("silver" varieties, including those w/ yellow or grey tails, whatever those are). You'll also note that the abstract doesn't specifcially address greens either, but everyone assumes they're still S. formosus.
Please don't misinterpret my prior comments I was just speculating regarding possible future avenues for legalizing the other three Asian arowana species. However, that doesn't change their current legal status, which we can only assume is regulated under the 1976 ESA listing for S. formosus/Asian bonytongue. I would strongly caution people from jumping to any other conclusion and potentially running afoul of the ESA. :(
WyldFya
04-06-2006, 6:21 PM
It's precisely because the abstract doesn't address x-backs that I'm assuming that they're still S. formosus because they don't appear to fit into the descriptions for S. aureus (RTG), S. legendrei (Super Red), or S. macrocephalus ("silver" varieties, including those w/ yellow or grey tails, whatever those are). You'll also note that the abstract doesn't specifcially address greens either, but everyone assumes they're still S. formosus.
Please don't misinterpret my prior comments I was just speculating regarding possible future avenues for legalizing the other three Asian arowana species. However, that doesn't change their current legal status, which we can only assume is regulated under the 1976 ESA listing for S. formosus/Asian bonytongue. I would strongly caution people from jumping to any other conclusion and potentially running afoul of the ESA. :(
Wikipedia as acurate a site that is... :thumbsdow does say that the Green aro is still listed as S. Formosus.
Wikipedia as acurate a site that is... :thumbsdow does say that the Green aro is still listed as S. Formosus.
Yeah, I know. The Wikipedia discussion also lists Malayan bonytongue, which is an x-back, as S. formosus, for what that's worth. :P My prior comments pertain only to the abstract of the December 2003 article published by Pouyard, Sudarto, and Teugels in the French ichtyological journal, which only identifies what falls into the three new species, not what stays as S. formosus.
rtomber
04-06-2006, 9:35 PM
I have also read that each aro that is allowed to america is implanted with a chip for recognition. Good news however, reds are now being farmed in south florida under federal supervision and they belive aros will be available for sale in 2-5 years under special conditions which include large tank inspections
Infblue
04-07-2006, 12:17 AM
icthy, i understand these are just speculation regarding their legality, not that i can afford one any time soon anyway unfortunately :(
you are referring to the abstract you posted on WW? it actually has the following
"Scleropages formosus (Müller & Schlegel, 1844) is restricted to the green variety and is characterised by long maxillaries reaching far behind the eyes...."
which is why it's odd that xbacks aren't even mentioned since i think they address all of the other non-hybrid color varieties.
icthy, i understand these are just speculation regarding their legality, not that i can afford one any time soon anyway unfortunately :(
you are referring to the abstract you posted on WW? it actually has the following
"Scleropages formosus (Müller & Schlegel, 1844) is restricted to the green variety and is characterised by long maxillaries reaching far behind the eyes...."
which is why it's odd that xbacks aren't even mentioned since i think they address all of the other non-hybrid color varieties.
Oops! I must have gotten the Malayan bonytongue info from that ever so credible source Wikipedia then. :screwy:
wright4lfe
04-07-2006, 3:44 PM
i've heard rumors of asians for sale from various friends in the aquarium business here in socal. the one thing no one ever knows or will speak about is price. has anyone ever heard what kind of prices an asian arro would demand?
*sigh* all these rumors over the yrs.
the last one i got was pretty funny. check it out
http://www.petitiononline.com/AsianAro/petition.html
*sigh* all these rumors over the yrs.
the last one i got was pretty funny. check it out
http://www.petitiononline.com/AsianAro/petition.html
WyldFya
04-07-2006, 5:17 PM
What type are you looking for, 1. They are illegal in the US to purchase, 2.
wright4lfe
04-10-2006, 11:24 AM
1. i know they are illegal. but here in socal its not unusual to see them in some of the more "ethnic" neighborhood fish stores.
2.probably one of the more red variety. i like the RTG and the chili reds.
got an answer to my question though, a friend of mine just paid 250 bucks for a 4 inch green arro. said they had chili reds as well, so i may go check the place out in the next week or so.
WyldFya
04-10-2006, 4:20 PM
I have also read that each aro that is allowed to america is implanted with a chip for recognition. Good news however, reds are now being farmed in south florida under federal supervision and they belive aros will be available for sale in 2-5 years under special conditions which include large tank inspections
All asian arowana's are required to have a microchip, as well as documentation that matches the microchip.
I haven't heard anything about this farm. Do you have a web page, or contact information about this?? Icthy have you heard about this?
All asian arowana's are required to have a microchip, as well as documentation that matches the microchip.
I haven't heard anything about this farm. Do you have a web page, or contact information about this?? Icthy have you heard about this?
I haven't heard about it, but I doubt its veracity for two reasons. First, to get around the ESA issues, such a breeding farm would have to be able to prove that their arowanas are descended from Asian arowanas that were imported into the U.S. prior to the 1976 ESA listing. Second, all osteoglossids are illegal in Florida without a permit (for scientific, educational, etc., purposes), so it's unlikely that such an operation would be allowed for commercial purposes.
WyldFya
04-10-2006, 5:50 PM
That's what I thought, just checking. Thanks
Heard a rumor that US will review within 1 year time. I think is all clap unless there is any US official doc to prove. Let's pray and hope we can get legal aro, so no more sky rocket price from black market.
Arofanatic
04-11-2006, 9:16 AM
The US govt does not allow AAs in the US not because it is an endangered species but because of other reasons which we may never know. Other countries allow importation of AAs, even though it is endangered- its only stipulation is that they must be captive bred, identifiable by a microchip. So really it all boils down to each country and its decision makers.
Opiate
04-11-2006, 9:49 PM
i stand for all these laws i really do but fark!!! over here in Aus, we need more fish !!! haha all the good ones are illegal to import! :(
Zoodiver
04-12-2006, 12:32 PM
The US govt does not allow AAs in the US not because it is an endangered species but because of other reasons which we may never know. Other countries allow importation of AAs, even though it is endangered- its only stipulation is that they must be captive bred, identifiable by a microchip. So really it all boils down to each country and its decision makers.
If you can somehow get around the ESA in the States, you'd still have to jump thru the CITES paper work hoops to aquire an Appendix I animal. This means proving you have the proper knowledge, funding and environmnet for one. (This eliminates all the hobbiests with 55 gallon tanks hoping to cram one in.) After you get by that, you'll have to abide by local regulations as well.
We all know how to apply for state paper work, and most likely could even get paper work for the CITES regs if you really put your heart into.
The ESA becomes the major limiting factor for us in the States. The other steps are realistic for some, but that first step has 100% stopped legal ownership for private hobbiests.
Aside from that, how many people really want to open their front door to a federal agent anytime they feel like checking your set up and paper work. As someone who has kept legal asian arows in the US: site inspections are not a fun process.