any potential farms in the US?

[Oddball]

I never said every hatchery would shut down.

There's just no profit (especially with US high operating costs) to be made in aros. In the space you'd need for raising 20 aro brood stock you can raise a concentration of 5,000 blue gouramies. There is a much greater market demand for these nickle and dime fish than there is for aros. And the reality is that aro prices WILL drop once there's a legitamate operation based in the US. When that happens, the overseas markets (with much cheaper operating costs) will drop their prices just to compete and still make a larger margin of profit as compared to a US hatchery. We see that everyday with SA and African fry being shipped to Asia for their grow-out phase and then coming to the US much cheaper than if US hatcheries farm-raised or grew-out the fish here.
The only way to make any profit would be for a small private hatchery, with low operating costs, to get involved. The numbers would be low to keep the prices up. The only stumbling block would be in licensing a small non-institutional private operation for producing a non-native threatened species. To abide by the provisions of the threatened species act, the hatchery would have to mark certain numbers for replenishment of wild populations. That wouldn't be an easy requirement to meet when there's no regional department tasked with the release operations. Also, the US hatchery could only raise wild-strains of the aro. So, you would only have greens and blues legally raised and sold.

 

[wizzin]

Thanks guys. The fact is i've been talking with USFWS for a while now. Some of what you are saying is true and some isn't. First, the only way they're going to be legal is if the range countries prove to USFW that they are attempting to protect the native habitat and prevent further harvesting of wild fish. Second, nobody wants to stock the fish. That would be a huge mistake. No fish would be farm raised and then released to the wild. That is not the answer, and not what I am talking about.

It's a matter of economics. The point would be to reduce their costs, and while what you are saying about operations is true, it's what oddball just said that is true. The costs of operation in the east are less than here, but the only way to reduce their costs is by opening trade in other countries, even if those countries loose in the end. The species wins. It's the money that causes the problems. That's why it would need to be a well established farm that isn't on the fence with bankrupcy that would need to do the work. Yes, there would be an eventual breakdown and the US farm would loose, but in the meantime, the costs of the fish would fall, reducing the poaching factor (not entirely, but somewhat none the less).

The US farm idea is only the secondary action necessary. The first is that the governments in the range countries need to prove they are working on preserving the species. They haven't yet. They're talking about it now, but haven't provided the USFWS a concrete plan.

Yes, we are talking about the USFWS and the ESA. CITES already legalized their trade. It's the USFWS that upholds the ESA laws. The USFWS is interested in allowing the trade here, and legalizing farms here, but it can't happen until the Asian governments create a "save the Arowana" campaign.

 

[Jesse]

My personal opinion is that the ESA should not apply to species that do not occur naturally in the U.S. The USFWS has no jurisdiction to carry out the requisite critical habitat designation and recovery plan adoption for a species that occurs in a foreign country. The listing of Asian arowanas, IMO, is leftover baggage from when the USFWS had a broader view of the purpose of the ESA, a purpose that I would argue is already served by CITES and the Lacey Act.

 

[wizzin]

My personal opinion is that the ESA should not apply to species that do not occur naturally in the U.S. The USFWS has no jurisdiction to carry out the requisite critical habitat designation and recovery plan adoption for a species that occurs in a foreign country. The listing of Asian arowanas, IMO, is leftover baggage from when the USFWS had a broader view of the purpose of the ESA, a purpose that I would argue is already served by CITES and the Lacey Act.

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!! I agree 100%

The other problem with the ESA is that it does not stop the demand for the animals and products. It only makes them more expensive. Where there is a will, there is a way. IMO the way to stop this sort of thing is via monitory just like what CITES is doing. The farms pay for the program (the consumer in the end) to support it. It makes sense. Also, if it's working in half the other countries on the planet, then it probably would work here too.