For fish lover like us then yeah its a waste and stupid to do so but for other its not, and people have different believes and there own way so for some they think release the fish is a good spirit rather then give it away or having it in a small tank. We can't just assume everyone will act the same and you don't need many people like that to ruin the habitat.
Help To Bring Asian Aros Back To The US...
- Thread starter Oddball
- Start date
For fish lover like us then yeah its a waste and stupid to do so but for other its not, and people have different believes and there own way so for some they think release the fish is a good spirit rather then give it away or having it in a small tank. We can't just assume everyone will act the same and you don't need many people like that to ruin the habitat.
You can't think that this species will cost thousands if allowed back in the US. Before the ban, these aros sold for about $30 for a 6-8 incher. The selectively bred morphs will cost more, but US breeders will find a quick profit in offering lesser grade fish to most US customers.
I still think they would at least be a few hundred dollars for even something like a green or banjar red.
Who knows, I would love to see them legal again though - asian aros seem to grow slower, and reach an over all smaller size than SA aros from what I've seen.
Who knows, I would love to see them legal again though - asian aros seem to grow slower, and reach an over all smaller size than SA aros from what I've seen.
I am going to present some information as to why i believe the USFWLS has a lot of conflicting circumstances when it comes to their assertion that arowana can not be imported into the USA as pets.
lets start with the permit system that they say blocks the import, or more so should i say that they claim applications under these permits must be denied.
This is the permit application/system.
http://www.fws.gov/forms/3-200-37.pdf
lets start with the permit system that they say blocks the import, or more so should i say that they claim applications under these permits must be denied.
This is the permit application/system.
http://www.fws.gov/forms/3-200-37.pdf
Now we will look at some sections of this application.
What activity are you requesting authorization to carry out (Indicate appropriate activities): EXPORT IMPORT INTERSTATE COMMERCE* FOREIGN COMMERCE TAKE
*Interstate Commerce permits authorize the sale of endangered and threatened species across State lines, but only for activities that will contribute to enhancing the propagation or survival of that species. Captive- breeding alone will not generally meet this requirement.
Now we can see that they are telling us that their policy is not to allow the trade of this species by way of interstate commerce, that being for commercial gains, which the explanation for commerce would be set out within the Endangered Species Act under the definitions of terms section.
We are not to be put off by the claim that captive breeding is not enough reason in itself to stop the application succeeding because we do not want to import specimens to go to a captive breeding program ok..
So we would want to tick the IMPORT BOX.
Now if we go further down their application page we can see the following information.
10. For import of CITES Appendix I listed species provide information to show the import is not for primarily commercial purposes as outlined in Resolution Conf. 5.10 (www.cites.org).
Now this CITES resolution is slightly outdated but we will now go there and see what its take is on whether the import for keeping as a pet is to be considered as a commercial purpose.
Lets assume that we are not an importer or an aquarium store but are the applicant that wished to import the fish to keep at a private home as a personal effect or pet.
Now it has been written in some USFWLS information type pamphlets/ internet FAQs that keeping CITES or more so Endangered species in the USA as pets is not part of the scope of the Endangered Species Act. I will rebutt this later on.
So for now, let us go and see what CITES resolution 5.10 has to say..
General principles
1. Trade in Appendix-I species must be subject to particularly strict regulation and authorized only in exceptional circumstances.
Asian arowana is indeed a special or exceptional circumstance to the rule that no trade is allowed. It is captive bred to supply the hobbyist...
What activity are you requesting authorization to carry out (Indicate appropriate activities): EXPORT IMPORT INTERSTATE COMMERCE* FOREIGN COMMERCE TAKE
*Interstate Commerce permits authorize the sale of endangered and threatened species across State lines, but only for activities that will contribute to enhancing the propagation or survival of that species. Captive- breeding alone will not generally meet this requirement.
Now we can see that they are telling us that their policy is not to allow the trade of this species by way of interstate commerce, that being for commercial gains, which the explanation for commerce would be set out within the Endangered Species Act under the definitions of terms section.
We are not to be put off by the claim that captive breeding is not enough reason in itself to stop the application succeeding because we do not want to import specimens to go to a captive breeding program ok..
So we would want to tick the IMPORT BOX.
Now if we go further down their application page we can see the following information.
10. For import of CITES Appendix I listed species provide information to show the import is not for primarily commercial purposes as outlined in Resolution Conf. 5.10 (www.cites.org).
Now this CITES resolution is slightly outdated but we will now go there and see what its take is on whether the import for keeping as a pet is to be considered as a commercial purpose.
Lets assume that we are not an importer or an aquarium store but are the applicant that wished to import the fish to keep at a private home as a personal effect or pet.
Now it has been written in some USFWLS information type pamphlets/ internet FAQs that keeping CITES or more so Endangered species in the USA as pets is not part of the scope of the Endangered Species Act. I will rebutt this later on.
So for now, let us go and see what CITES resolution 5.10 has to say..
General principles
1. Trade in Appendix-I species must be subject to particularly strict regulation and authorized only in exceptional circumstances.
Asian arowana is indeed a special or exceptional circumstance to the rule that no trade is allowed. It is captive bred to supply the hobbyist...
Then the real clincher comes in the examples as to what is a commercial purpose.
remember that in the ESA their definition of commercial purpose does not cover keeping of pets either.
There are laws or acts, then there are policy documents that the federal agencies have created that they think follow the laws or acts...but funnily enough, so far it seems that they are paving the way for the import application possibility for asian arowana. This is because they have pointed to CITES work as a guide, yet they have at the same time got an ESA that does not fit exactly with every wish or recommendation of CITES.
Quoted below is also taken from resolution 5.10 that we are directed toward within the application form.
"Annex Examples
The following examples recognize categories of transactions in which the non-commercial aspects may or may not be predominant, depending upon the facts of each situation. The discussions that follow each example provide further guidance in, and criteria for, assessing the actual degree of commerciality on a case-by-case basis. The list is not intended to be exhaustive of situations where an import of specimens of Appendix-I species could be found to be not for primarily commercial purposes:
a) Purely private use: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Convention contains special rules for specimens "that are personal or household effects". The exception mentioned does not apply when specimens of Appendix-I species are acquired by the new owner outside of his or her country of usual residence and are imported into that country. It can, however, be deduced from this provision that specimens imported for purely private use should not be considered to be for primarily commercial purposes."
So above we can see that importing for pets is not stopped by the so called "that comes under commercial use" claim that is being made by the USFWLS
remember that in the ESA their definition of commercial purpose does not cover keeping of pets either.
There are laws or acts, then there are policy documents that the federal agencies have created that they think follow the laws or acts...but funnily enough, so far it seems that they are paving the way for the import application possibility for asian arowana. This is because they have pointed to CITES work as a guide, yet they have at the same time got an ESA that does not fit exactly with every wish or recommendation of CITES.
Quoted below is also taken from resolution 5.10 that we are directed toward within the application form.
"Annex Examples
The following examples recognize categories of transactions in which the non-commercial aspects may or may not be predominant, depending upon the facts of each situation. The discussions that follow each example provide further guidance in, and criteria for, assessing the actual degree of commerciality on a case-by-case basis. The list is not intended to be exhaustive of situations where an import of specimens of Appendix-I species could be found to be not for primarily commercial purposes:
a) Purely private use: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Convention contains special rules for specimens "that are personal or household effects". The exception mentioned does not apply when specimens of Appendix-I species are acquired by the new owner outside of his or her country of usual residence and are imported into that country. It can, however, be deduced from this provision that specimens imported for purely private use should not be considered to be for primarily commercial purposes."
So above we can see that importing for pets is not stopped by the so called "that comes under commercial use" claim that is being made by the USFWLS
Now as i said earlier, CITES has resolutions that they make to add to the convention to better explain what they want to achieve. The ESA tells that federal agencies are supposed to consider the newest add ons because they are part of the Convention that the ESA is pursuant to.
When the ESA was first conceived, in 1973, there was no captive breeding programs for the regulated sale of species listed on the IUCN list. So they had not yet introduced any efforts to regulate trade in such endangered species. That is not to say that the ESA should never allow for trade in these species, especially not if CITES, being a treaty that the USA is signatory to, develops once it identifies it is a better idea to allow balanced use of a captive bred species to offset poaching etc.
So now lets look at once of these newer resolutions.
Keep in mind though, that america is allowed to have stricter domestic measures on species, and can stop all trade if they wish.. but within the ESA, where they can have such stricter measures, they do wish to follow CITES. I am just going to assume for now that they never got round to changing the ESA through congress to allow for regulated trade of the listed species, i dunno, maybe the secretary was being slack, or maybe they had never really understood the intent or background to why the ESA was formed.. BUT i have found what the intent was, and it sure was not to ban all species forever from trade. I will get to that another day..
for now enjoy...
This is from CITES resolution 12.10
RECOGNIZING that Article VII, paragraph 4, of the Convention provides that specimens of Appendix- I animal species bred in captivity for commercial purposes shall be deemed to be specimens of species included in Appendix II;
You can see above without me going and showing Article VII, paragraph 4, that the USA is recommended to stop looking at captive bred species, as in for example our asian arowana, as an appendix 1 species when it comes to trade. They should look at it as an appendix 2 species, which there is regulated trade allowed, now another snippet from 12.10..
"NOTING that, in accordance with Article VII, paragraph 5, the import of specimens of Appendix-I species bred in captivity not for commercial purposes that are covered by a certificate of captive breeding does not require the issuance of an import permit and may therefore be authorized whether or not the purpose is commercial;"
and more..
"ENCOURAGES:
b) importing countries to facilitate import of Appendix-I species from registered captive-breeding operations;"
So now it becomes clear to us why say Canada or the UK can trade in these species even though its an appendix 1 species and it also makes us wonder why the ESA has not been updated or atleast the policy of the USFWLS should be updated. if they are going to go directing people towards CITES resolutions, then why not follow though with the aims or encouragement or urges of CITES. I suggest it is only because of the way that they are interpreting their laws when forming policy.
When the ESA was first conceived, in 1973, there was no captive breeding programs for the regulated sale of species listed on the IUCN list. So they had not yet introduced any efforts to regulate trade in such endangered species. That is not to say that the ESA should never allow for trade in these species, especially not if CITES, being a treaty that the USA is signatory to, develops once it identifies it is a better idea to allow balanced use of a captive bred species to offset poaching etc.
So now lets look at once of these newer resolutions.
Keep in mind though, that america is allowed to have stricter domestic measures on species, and can stop all trade if they wish.. but within the ESA, where they can have such stricter measures, they do wish to follow CITES. I am just going to assume for now that they never got round to changing the ESA through congress to allow for regulated trade of the listed species, i dunno, maybe the secretary was being slack, or maybe they had never really understood the intent or background to why the ESA was formed.. BUT i have found what the intent was, and it sure was not to ban all species forever from trade. I will get to that another day..
for now enjoy...
This is from CITES resolution 12.10
RECOGNIZING that Article VII, paragraph 4, of the Convention provides that specimens of Appendix- I animal species bred in captivity for commercial purposes shall be deemed to be specimens of species included in Appendix II;
You can see above without me going and showing Article VII, paragraph 4, that the USA is recommended to stop looking at captive bred species, as in for example our asian arowana, as an appendix 1 species when it comes to trade. They should look at it as an appendix 2 species, which there is regulated trade allowed, now another snippet from 12.10..
"NOTING that, in accordance with Article VII, paragraph 5, the import of specimens of Appendix-I species bred in captivity not for commercial purposes that are covered by a certificate of captive breeding does not require the issuance of an import permit and may therefore be authorized whether or not the purpose is commercial;"
and more..
"ENCOURAGES:
b) importing countries to facilitate import of Appendix-I species from registered captive-breeding operations;"
So now it becomes clear to us why say Canada or the UK can trade in these species even though its an appendix 1 species and it also makes us wonder why the ESA has not been updated or atleast the policy of the USFWLS should be updated. if they are going to go directing people towards CITES resolutions, then why not follow though with the aims or encouragement or urges of CITES. I suggest it is only because of the way that they are interpreting their laws when forming policy.
We seem to have a situation where USFWLS is claiming that they can not allow trade in this species or import for pets by private citizens. They are claiming that captive breeding of fish to be sold to the aquarium hobbyist is not enough of a conservation effort, it is not being recognised as being enough, even though there is no such law that says this is required.
For this we would need to look into the ESA itself and see whether this is even true and we should also look to see if the ESA was maybe even an INTERIM act that was designed at the time to stop trade in any of the appendix 1, 2 or 2 species until a time that things changed.
I have done this research as well and i will get back here with the important stuff later on when i have more time.
For this we would need to look into the ESA itself and see whether this is even true and we should also look to see if the ESA was maybe even an INTERIM act that was designed at the time to stop trade in any of the appendix 1, 2 or 2 species until a time that things changed.
I have done this research as well and i will get back here with the important stuff later on when i have more time.
I should also point out that if USFWLS desire to come into line with CITES fully, they can, they need to make motion and have it go through congress, this is different than having congress people coming up with a bill or something because enough people complained to them. This would be a case of where the federal agency realises that it should alter the situation to suit CITES wishes.
Of course, they would also want to make sure that the species is not going to run feral and establish pest populations. we all know this isnt going to happen. the species does not breed or has not bred outside its native zones.. they would also need to check and see if the species would breed in peoples tanks and then see if they would need to oversee a system of tagging those specimens.
This is not to say this is a bad thing.. breeding of endangered species should be encouraged or promoted, but they do need to document them and maybe tag them etc..
Is it too much to ask of them? No it is not, because the ESA states that they should spend money and time on ensuring the survival or recovery of the species.
then you also have the issues of making sure that only legal specimens are entering the country.
well if we look back to the import application you can see that they ask for documents/approvals from the export country and also tagg numbers. so this is a well established system and in fact i know that they have been impressed by it.
Of course, they would also want to make sure that the species is not going to run feral and establish pest populations. we all know this isnt going to happen. the species does not breed or has not bred outside its native zones.. they would also need to check and see if the species would breed in peoples tanks and then see if they would need to oversee a system of tagging those specimens.
This is not to say this is a bad thing.. breeding of endangered species should be encouraged or promoted, but they do need to document them and maybe tag them etc..
Is it too much to ask of them? No it is not, because the ESA states that they should spend money and time on ensuring the survival or recovery of the species.
then you also have the issues of making sure that only legal specimens are entering the country.
well if we look back to the import application you can see that they ask for documents/approvals from the export country and also tagg numbers. so this is a well established system and in fact i know that they have been impressed by it.
