Help me legalize the importation of the asian arowana!!!!

How many years?

  • One

    Votes: 12 24.5%
  • Two

    Votes: 10 20.4%
  • Three

    Votes: 7 14.3%
  • Four

    Votes: 3 6.1%
  • Five

    Votes: 5 10.2%
  • Other; please specify w/ justification.

    Votes: 12 24.5%

  • Total voters
    49

Guinness

Piranha
MFK Member
Dec 5, 2005
354
207
76
44
Oak Lawn IL
I think an ideal solution would be to allow the import of captive bred specimens if the buyer also sponsored one from the farm to be released into the wild and help rebuild the wild population since the farms won't do it themselves.
Guinness
 

fishcatch22

Feeder Fish
MFK Member
Nov 1, 2006
850
0
0
anchorage, alaska
AroW;585925; said:
Who needs legalization
people who don't want to get caught and potentially face jailtime and a hefty fine.
 

T1KARMANN

Giant Snakehead
MFK Member
Sep 19, 2005
10,105
127
147
56
London UK
AroW;585925; said:
Who needs legalization

If you got the cash you can always get them, especially in california
if you are going to brake the law with a banned fish in your house you may aswell sell crack from your house at the same time the law is the law
 

Chaos32

Jack Dempsey
MFK Member
May 14, 2006
616
47
31
Singapore / Malaysia
Guinness;586157; said:
I think an ideal solution would be to allow the import of captive bred specimens if the buyer also sponsored one from the farm to be released into the wild and help rebuild the wild population since the farms won't do it themselves.
Guinness
Then I am afraid u would be paying double the already crazy prices it would go for in the states. :)
 

wizzin

Feeder Fish
MFK Member
Oct 10, 2006
1,027
0
0
East of Pittsburgh
as stated already, the USFWS DOES have an interest in an Asian Arowana permit program, as it could be a potential revenue for the USFWS. They have been working on this a lot in the past few years, and I was told by a high ranking USFWS officer that the only thing preventing the legalization is that the range countries provide a plan for species recovery in the wild.

The USFWS has made this clear to the range countries, but they don't have any interest in saving this species in the wild. If the native countries of the Asian Aro would just put together a concrete plan for protecting areas of wild habitat and show that they are working to prevent further loss of wild stock, we could see aros in the us. Will this happen? Who knows. It's up to the range countries.

I do, however, disagree that the USFWS should have any say over what qualifies an overide of CITES. CITES is a worldwide governing agency. As always, the US thinks they are above the rest of the world. The US thinks they have say over everything. I don't know why they don't realize they are sustaining the black market of non-tagged fish by keeping the ban though.
 

Chaos32

Jack Dempsey
MFK Member
May 14, 2006
616
47
31
Singapore / Malaysia
wizzin;586323; said:
as stated already, the USFWS DOES have an interest in an Asian Arowana permit program, as it could be a potential revenue for the USFWS. They have been working on this a lot in the past few years, and I was told by a high ranking USFWS officer that the only thing preventing the legalization is that the range countries provide a plan for species recovery in the wild.

The USFWS has made this clear to the range countries, but they don't have any interest in saving this species in the wild. If the native countries of the Asian Aro would just put together a concrete plan for protecting areas of wild habitat and show that they are working to prevent further loss of wild stock, we could see aros in the us. Will this happen? Who knows. It's up to the range countries.

I do, however, disagree that the USFWS should have any say over what qualifies an overide of CITES. CITES is a worldwide governing agency. As always, the US thinks they are above the rest of the world. The US thinks they have say over everything. I don't know why they don't realize they are sustaining the black market of non-tagged fish by keeping the ban though.
While we agree that something has to be done for conservation sake, it is a lot easier said then done in this part of the world. For one, there has been no recent census on the population. What some might think as endangered might already have been so severely depleted that there is close to nothing left.

Secondly, there is a lot of area to enforce this protection net over. In some areas, it's so remote, accesibility is not for the faint hearted.

Then, there is a question of the corrupt practices in this region that would severely hinder the restocking of the population. Sooner or later, whatever is put back into the system will come back out. This will be especially true when things have died down & forgotten.

All the farms involved will have to agree to restock the population willingly. They are strongly resisting what they deem as "tax" on their stocks. Smaller farms would also protest severely since they have no leverage. Also with the amount of line breeding they have been doing to aros, these "enhance" stock might not survive so readily in the wild.

In countries like Malaysia & Indonesia where these aros originate from, restocking might be possible. However, Singapore is a big producer as well. As far as I can verify, Singapore never had aros so the condition of restocking cannot be held against them. I have been told that the recent meeting between the Singapore & States official was more on the lines of bilateral trade to include aros. However, what is the outcome remains to be seen in 2007.
 

wizzin

Feeder Fish
MFK Member
Oct 10, 2006
1,027
0
0
East of Pittsburgh
Chaos, I understand and agree with you. Actually, the stocking idea is not the route the governments want to take. I thought that "saving the species" meant that the farms should re-stock the wild, but from talking to the USFWS, the range country governments (I don't think Singapore is a range country) do not want to use the hobby farms to restock the wild.

First, the points you mentioned. That wouldn't be fair to the ponds. Second, as you stated, a blood red aro probably wouldn't be the best suited for wild survival. Third is disease. The farm stock may introduce something to the wild stock that could be fatal.

I think the USFWS is looking for something along the lines of nature preserves and wildlife refuges (parks etc) where it is declared to be aro habitat forever, so that no development of the area may take place. I think if Indonesia and Malaysia would create some wildlife sancuaries for the aros, that would probably be enough.

Who knows. It's a problem that we can't fix. It's up to the gov.
 

Chaos32

Jack Dempsey
MFK Member
May 14, 2006
616
47
31
Singapore / Malaysia
wizzin;586349; said:
Chaos, I understand and agree with you. Actually, the stocking idea is not the route the governments want to take. I thought that "saving the species" meant that the farms should re-stock the wild, but from talking to the USFWS, the range country governments (I don't think Singapore is a range country) do not want to use the hobby farms to restock the wild.

First, the points you mentioned. That wouldn't be fair to the ponds. Second, as you stated, a blood red aro probably wouldn't be the best suited for wild survival. Third is disease. The farm stock may introduce something to the wild stock that could be fatal.

I think the USFWS is looking for something along the lines of nature preserves and wildlife refuges (parks etc) where it is declared to be aro habitat forever, so that no development of the area may take place. I think if Indonesia and Malaysia would create some wildlife sancuaries for the aros, that would probably be enough.

Who knows. It's a problem that we can't fix. It's up to the gov.
Indeed this problem is not up to the hobbyist to rectify. There are protected areas allocated. Guess where the wild stock for sale is coming from? ;)
 

Jesse

Feeder Fish
MFK Member
Mar 30, 2005
1,123
1
0
54
wizzin;586323; said:
I do, however, disagree that the USFWS should have any say over what qualifies an overide of CITES. CITES is a worldwide governing agency. As always, the US thinks they are above the rest of the world. The US thinks they have say over everything.
I've said it before in another Asian arowana thread, but it's my opinion that the ESA listing of the Asian arowana is just a relic from the initial years following the enactment of the ESA. IMO, the ESA should not apply to species whose native range is entirely outside of U.S. jurisdiction. The ESA provides for the listing of species, identification of critical habitat, and adoption of recovery plans for listed endangered and threatened species. Well, the U.S. can list the Asian arowana and identify critical habitat, but it can do nothing to encourage the recovery of the species because it has no jurisdiction over the critical habitat. IMO, Asian arowanas should be regulated solely by CITES and the Lacey Act, the mechanism by which CITES and the wildlife laws of other nations are inforced in the U.S.
 
zoomed.com
hikariusa.com
aqaimports.com
Store