Arowana Legal Issues....
- Thread starter Gothyc_samurai
- Start date
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.
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.Zoodiver said:
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.
since xbacks are my fave color variety.
catfish said:
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.
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.catfish said:
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.Infblue said: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
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.
icthyophile said: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...
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.WyldFya said:Wikipedia as acurate a site that is...
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.