How about if we gather together & take them to court so they can overturn the law?? Thats if any1s here an experience lawyer.
Help To Bring Asian Aros Back To The US...
- Thread starter Oddball
- Start date
I dont know exactly because i am not an american citizen but i think the only process to challenge it directly in a way that would lead to them to allowing the fish is to make a claim against the people in control of all of this. or it might be a claim against the one person that is head.
That is of course if you hit a brick wall after filling out an application properly and then being told no, and then explaining why their no answer is not suitable going by their own paperwork explanation and directives to look toward CITES 5.10 to see what can be allowed.
If it was me, i would fill out the papers, expect to be told no and then formally write to them and explain why they have to say yes. That way you can have a reason to challenge it all if they do not take steps to set up trade.
The way it is now, they are of the belief that they could allow trade only if there is further conservation efforts, dollars.. going to help save the fish on top of just supplying fish to meet the demand to offset poaching supply. For example, they might have gone to meet with arowana farmers and tried to get them to put up lump sum donation to be sent toward some kind of conservation programs. this would then ensure trade could be allowed. Going by their law, this is an incorrect assertion that this is required before trade can be allowed as well. so yes, it is not all going by the plan at all.
That is of course if you hit a brick wall after filling out an application properly and then being told no, and then explaining why their no answer is not suitable going by their own paperwork explanation and directives to look toward CITES 5.10 to see what can be allowed.
If it was me, i would fill out the papers, expect to be told no and then formally write to them and explain why they have to say yes. That way you can have a reason to challenge it all if they do not take steps to set up trade.
The way it is now, they are of the belief that they could allow trade only if there is further conservation efforts, dollars.. going to help save the fish on top of just supplying fish to meet the demand to offset poaching supply. For example, they might have gone to meet with arowana farmers and tried to get them to put up lump sum donation to be sent toward some kind of conservation programs. this would then ensure trade could be allowed. Going by their law, this is an incorrect assertion that this is required before trade can be allowed as well. so yes, it is not all going by the plan at all.
I will continue to show some more stuff...
"CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, 27 U.S.T. 108) -- Establishes a system of import/export regulations to prevent the over-exploitation of plants and animals listed in three appendices to the Convention. Different levels of trade regulations are provided depending on the status of the listed species and the contribution trade makes to decline of the species. Procedures are provided for periodic amendments to the appendices.CITES was signed by 80 nations in Washington, D.C., on March 3, 1973. United States ratification occurred on September 13, 1973, with documents submitted to the depository government (Switzerland) on January 14, 1974. CITES entered into force on July 1, 1975.
Implementing legislation for the United States was provided by enactment of P.L. 93-205, the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Executive Order 11911, signed April 13, 1976, designated Management and Scientific Authorities to grant or deny requests for import or export permits."
Public Law 96-159, signed December 28, 1979 (93 Stat. 1255) designates the Secretary of Interior, acting through the Fish and Wildlife Service, as both the Management and Scientific Authority for implementation of CITES.
Public Law 97-304 also requires the Secretary of State to report to Congress when a reservation is not taken to the inclusion of a species in the appendices when the United States votes against it. In addition, these amendments require certain scientific authority findings to be based upon the best available biological information, but no State is required to make population estimates for such determinations.
As of November 28, 1999, 146 countries were party to the Convention, and they had held ten biennial meetings of the Conference of the Parties. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hosted the Ninth Conference in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, in 1994.
reference http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/treaties.htm#CITES
"CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, 27 U.S.T. 108) -- Establishes a system of import/export regulations to prevent the over-exploitation of plants and animals listed in three appendices to the Convention. Different levels of trade regulations are provided depending on the status of the listed species and the contribution trade makes to decline of the species. Procedures are provided for periodic amendments to the appendices.CITES was signed by 80 nations in Washington, D.C., on March 3, 1973. United States ratification occurred on September 13, 1973, with documents submitted to the depository government (Switzerland) on January 14, 1974. CITES entered into force on July 1, 1975.
Implementing legislation for the United States was provided by enactment of P.L. 93-205, the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Executive Order 11911, signed April 13, 1976, designated Management and Scientific Authorities to grant or deny requests for import or export permits."
Public Law 96-159, signed December 28, 1979 (93 Stat. 1255) designates the Secretary of Interior, acting through the Fish and Wildlife Service, as both the Management and Scientific Authority for implementation of CITES.
Public Law 97-304 also requires the Secretary of State to report to Congress when a reservation is not taken to the inclusion of a species in the appendices when the United States votes against it. In addition, these amendments require certain scientific authority findings to be based upon the best available biological information, but no State is required to make population estimates for such determinations.
As of November 28, 1999, 146 countries were party to the Convention, and they had held ten biennial meetings of the Conference of the Parties. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hosted the Ninth Conference in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, in 1994.
reference http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/treaties.htm#CITES
Under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), Trade, which is defined as import, export, or re-export, of a long list of such threatened animal and plant species, is either virtually prohibited or restricted.
reference USWLFS web page http://library.fws.gov/Pubs9/wildlife_laws.pdf
In America, exceptions may be granted by Federal permit for scientific research, breeding, or similar acceptable purposes that contribute to the species conservation.
These permits are to be issued by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
reference USWLFS web page http://library.fws.gov/Pubs9/wildlife_laws.pdf
In America, exceptions may be granted by Federal permit for scientific research, breeding, or similar acceptable purposes that contribute to the species conservation.
These permits are to be issued by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
This is probably my favourite one.
"Acting upon the May 22, 1975 request from the funds for animals inc. to place all appendix 1 species on the United States List of Endangered Fauna and Flora, the Fish and Wildlife Service published in the Federal registar on September 26, 1975 a proposed rulemaking that would determine all of the 216 taxa on appendix 1, that are not already on the US list, as endangered species...
The United States government recognised this endangerment when it signed the final act, when the senate gave its final advice and consent and when the president ratified the convention. The species herein determined to be endangered could enter or could have potentially enter heavily hitherto unregulated international commerce."
Given the precarious position of each species (Arowana -appendix 1), international trade could be detrimental to the survival of the species, but presently (edit 1976)no satisfactory mechanism to control of regulate trade is in effect" (edit, we know that today there are now regulation measurements that have been formed by CITES that are in now in place, would you not think that they should have been added since 1976? seeing as the Endangered species Act is supposed to be pursuant to CITES)
The convention has now been ratified by a sufficient number of nations to make it functional.. The high commercial importance of each species herein determined to be endangered and the inadequacy of the existing regulatory mechanisms to control international trade continues to be factors of major concern. ( edit - do the same concerns exist today seeing as CITES have put in much consideration and now put in place a regulated system in place of the zero trade allowed stance?)
(edit And here we are again below, it tells that the addition of species to the ESA and the result of that would be that no trade be allowed, this was decided to be done as an INTERIM measure and was a supportive measure of the convention at that time during the mid seventies.
so let us think that today, why is the same old ESA in place when it no longer supports the convention because the convention has changed to allow the regulated trade while the ESA has not.)
"It is primarily for these reasons that the listing action is imperative, eg, to provide an interim regulatory mechanism to restrict US trade in these species and ultimately a supportive measure to further ensure the intent of the convention."
http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr103.pdf
"Acting upon the May 22, 1975 request from the funds for animals inc. to place all appendix 1 species on the United States List of Endangered Fauna and Flora, the Fish and Wildlife Service published in the Federal registar on September 26, 1975 a proposed rulemaking that would determine all of the 216 taxa on appendix 1, that are not already on the US list, as endangered species...
The United States government recognised this endangerment when it signed the final act, when the senate gave its final advice and consent and when the president ratified the convention. The species herein determined to be endangered could enter or could have potentially enter heavily hitherto unregulated international commerce."
Given the precarious position of each species (Arowana -appendix 1), international trade could be detrimental to the survival of the species, but presently (edit 1976)no satisfactory mechanism to control of regulate trade is in effect" (edit, we know that today there are now regulation measurements that have been formed by CITES that are in now in place, would you not think that they should have been added since 1976? seeing as the Endangered species Act is supposed to be pursuant to CITES)
The convention has now been ratified by a sufficient number of nations to make it functional.. The high commercial importance of each species herein determined to be endangered and the inadequacy of the existing regulatory mechanisms to control international trade continues to be factors of major concern. ( edit - do the same concerns exist today seeing as CITES have put in much consideration and now put in place a regulated system in place of the zero trade allowed stance?)
(edit And here we are again below, it tells that the addition of species to the ESA and the result of that would be that no trade be allowed, this was decided to be done as an INTERIM measure and was a supportive measure of the convention at that time during the mid seventies.
so let us think that today, why is the same old ESA in place when it no longer supports the convention because the convention has changed to allow the regulated trade while the ESA has not.)
"It is primarily for these reasons that the listing action is imperative, eg, to provide an interim regulatory mechanism to restrict US trade in these species and ultimately a supportive measure to further ensure the intent of the convention."
http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr103.pdf
"Differing levels of trade regulation are provided for species on each appendix depending upon in part, the degree to which such forms are threatened with extinction and the contribution trade or international traffic makes to such a threat...http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr71.pdf
ummm, looking at the above today, we can see that CITES has decided that trade in captive bred species would probably reduce wild capture because it puts in place a legal alternative to wild stocks.
"For foreign species herein determined to be endangered species, the principle effect of this rulemaking will be to restrict the importation and exportation into and from the United States except under permit. It will be unlawful to import or export any of these species. In addition it will be unlawful except under permit to deliver, receive, carry, transport or ship in interstate commerce in the course of a commercial activity any of these species and to sell or offer them for sale.. Upon receipt of a complete application, the Fish and Wildlife service may issue a permit authorizing any of the above activities for scientific research or for enhancing the propagation or survival of the species determined determined herein to be endangered.
Persons who may be affected by this rulemaking are advised to consult 17.21 through 17.23 for details on prohibited acts and permits relative to endangered species listed under the act.
The determination of the United States species listed herein as endangered species will make them eligable for protection provided by section 7 of the act which reads as follows.
INTERAGENCY COOPERATION.
see 7. The secretary shall review other programs administered by him and utilize such programs in the furtherances of the purposes of this act.
All other federal departments and agencies shall in consultation with and with the assistance of the secretary, utilize their authorities in the furtherance of the purposes of this act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered species and threatened species listed pursuant to section 4 of this act and by taking such action neccesary to ensure that actions authorised, funded or carried out by them do not jeopordise the continued existance of such endangered species and threatened species or result in the destruction or modification of....
reference http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr103.pdf
Now if the USFWLS are fully banning trade, then their actions are such that any fish that are imported, because we know and CITES also knows that full prohibition does not work, could just as well be untagged fish.
This means that if any fish come into america while the full ban is in effect, and any of them happen to be untagged fish, then they have acted in a way that jeopordises the species in the wild. I suggest this is one reason that CITES has allowed for regulated trade.
We can see also that it says that THEY can carry out programs, as opposed to lets say trying to make farmers pay for extra conservation programs, the farmers are the ones producing the stock that offsets wild fish already and the price is dictated by supply and demand and not added conservation in situ programs, they also do research into breeding, gene work and also supply stock to other researchers. So as i see it, if the USFWLS wanted to carry out a program it might as well be the main program that CITES has desired and encouraged parites to come on board with.. and this would mean that maybe they should carry out the program of checking imported boxes with a scanner to make sure they are legally produced fish. It may also be that they impose an extra fee their end that they can use to send to a conservation fund. I imagine that US buyers would be happy to be paying toward some form of conservation effort within the price, but i do not see why the farmers themselves should invest this money in first in the hope that they break even or turn a profit.
ummm, looking at the above today, we can see that CITES has decided that trade in captive bred species would probably reduce wild capture because it puts in place a legal alternative to wild stocks.
"For foreign species herein determined to be endangered species, the principle effect of this rulemaking will be to restrict the importation and exportation into and from the United States except under permit. It will be unlawful to import or export any of these species. In addition it will be unlawful except under permit to deliver, receive, carry, transport or ship in interstate commerce in the course of a commercial activity any of these species and to sell or offer them for sale.. Upon receipt of a complete application, the Fish and Wildlife service may issue a permit authorizing any of the above activities for scientific research or for enhancing the propagation or survival of the species determined determined herein to be endangered.
Persons who may be affected by this rulemaking are advised to consult 17.21 through 17.23 for details on prohibited acts and permits relative to endangered species listed under the act.
The determination of the United States species listed herein as endangered species will make them eligable for protection provided by section 7 of the act which reads as follows.
INTERAGENCY COOPERATION.
see 7. The secretary shall review other programs administered by him and utilize such programs in the furtherances of the purposes of this act.
All other federal departments and agencies shall in consultation with and with the assistance of the secretary, utilize their authorities in the furtherance of the purposes of this act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered species and threatened species listed pursuant to section 4 of this act and by taking such action neccesary to ensure that actions authorised, funded or carried out by them do not jeopordise the continued existance of such endangered species and threatened species or result in the destruction or modification of....
reference http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr103.pdf
Now if the USFWLS are fully banning trade, then their actions are such that any fish that are imported, because we know and CITES also knows that full prohibition does not work, could just as well be untagged fish.
This means that if any fish come into america while the full ban is in effect, and any of them happen to be untagged fish, then they have acted in a way that jeopordises the species in the wild. I suggest this is one reason that CITES has allowed for regulated trade.
We can see also that it says that THEY can carry out programs, as opposed to lets say trying to make farmers pay for extra conservation programs, the farmers are the ones producing the stock that offsets wild fish already and the price is dictated by supply and demand and not added conservation in situ programs, they also do research into breeding, gene work and also supply stock to other researchers. So as i see it, if the USFWLS wanted to carry out a program it might as well be the main program that CITES has desired and encouraged parites to come on board with.. and this would mean that maybe they should carry out the program of checking imported boxes with a scanner to make sure they are legally produced fish. It may also be that they impose an extra fee their end that they can use to send to a conservation fund. I imagine that US buyers would be happy to be paying toward some form of conservation effort within the price, but i do not see why the farmers themselves should invest this money in first in the hope that they break even or turn a profit.
The Preamble to the Convention states that the objective of CITES is to prevent the over- exploitation of species through international trade and to ensure their long term survival. The ultimate aim of the Convention is undoubtedly to promote species conservation, however, legally the convention only has jurisdiction over the regulation of international trade...
CITES regulates international trade by means of a number of trade measures, which include the listing of species on Appendix I, II and III, and the use of export/import permit requirements.
However, during the course of its existence, CITES has also adopted a number of so-called "innovative or positive" trade measures.
The Convention provides for a series of trade regulations according to the level of extinction threat which each species suffers: species threatened with extinction are listed in Appendix I and are protected from commercial trade; species which may be threatened with extinction if their trade is not strictly regulated are included in Appendix II.
( but i will soon show that CITES has decided that countries are to now view Arowana as appendix 2 species when it comes to trade regulation)
In the context of this study, "incentive" measures refer to those measures adopted, mainly as the Convention has evolved, to recognise the importance of facilitating in certain cases, carefully controlled trade to provide an incentive for the continued conservation of that resource.
Consequently the term "incentive" measure in this study does not imply an uncontrolled promotion of trade and is not at odds with the overall aims of the Convention, it simply recognises that in certain circumstances, economic reality dictates that wildlife conservation may be better served by facilitating a controlled limited trade rather than preventing all trade.
• The innovative measures include: commercial captive breeding for Appendix I species;
Effectiveness of Trade Measures
• The effectiveness of the trade and innovative measures are examined from legal, species conservation and economic perspectives, and suggestions are made for further research into the effectiveness of these measures.
• This analysis shows that CITES, through its monitoring requirements, has been very successful in providing the most comprehensive database on international trade in wildlife species available to date. Although there is room for improvement in the compilation of data, current levels of reporting have improved dramatically since the Convention was signed, and this database now provides a useful tool in combating over-exploitation of species.
• From this preliminary assessment, the effectiveness of CITES trade measures are examined for a selection of taxa. CITES, working with other mechanisms, has been very effective in reducing trade in certain species. On the other hand for some species, other factors have precluded CITES from being fully implemented and from improving the situation. Suggestions are made as to how a more systematic analysis of the effectiveness of CITES trade measures may be undertaken in the future.
Innovative Measures
• The innovative measures have been adopted through the adoption of Resolutions at successive Meetings of the Conferences of the Parties, and show that the Convention is evolving to meet new challenges associated with the regulation of international wildlife trade and is adopting pragmatic new mechanisms to achieve its objectives. The emerging flexibility of CITES to deal with different pressures appears to be a great strength of the Convention, which will come into play increasingly to ensure creative long-term solutions to some of the international trade and species conservation problems faced by the Convention.
CITES regulates international trade by means of a number of trade measures, which include the listing of species on Appendix I, II and III, and the use of export/import permit requirements.
However, during the course of its existence, CITES has also adopted a number of so-called "innovative or positive" trade measures.
The Convention provides for a series of trade regulations according to the level of extinction threat which each species suffers: species threatened with extinction are listed in Appendix I and are protected from commercial trade; species which may be threatened with extinction if their trade is not strictly regulated are included in Appendix II.
( but i will soon show that CITES has decided that countries are to now view Arowana as appendix 2 species when it comes to trade regulation)
In the context of this study, "incentive" measures refer to those measures adopted, mainly as the Convention has evolved, to recognise the importance of facilitating in certain cases, carefully controlled trade to provide an incentive for the continued conservation of that resource.
Consequently the term "incentive" measure in this study does not imply an uncontrolled promotion of trade and is not at odds with the overall aims of the Convention, it simply recognises that in certain circumstances, economic reality dictates that wildlife conservation may be better served by facilitating a controlled limited trade rather than preventing all trade.
• The innovative measures include: commercial captive breeding for Appendix I species;
Effectiveness of Trade Measures
• The effectiveness of the trade and innovative measures are examined from legal, species conservation and economic perspectives, and suggestions are made for further research into the effectiveness of these measures.
• This analysis shows that CITES, through its monitoring requirements, has been very successful in providing the most comprehensive database on international trade in wildlife species available to date. Although there is room for improvement in the compilation of data, current levels of reporting have improved dramatically since the Convention was signed, and this database now provides a useful tool in combating over-exploitation of species.
• From this preliminary assessment, the effectiveness of CITES trade measures are examined for a selection of taxa. CITES, working with other mechanisms, has been very effective in reducing trade in certain species. On the other hand for some species, other factors have precluded CITES from being fully implemented and from improving the situation. Suggestions are made as to how a more systematic analysis of the effectiveness of CITES trade measures may be undertaken in the future.
Innovative Measures
• The innovative measures have been adopted through the adoption of Resolutions at successive Meetings of the Conferences of the Parties, and show that the Convention is evolving to meet new challenges associated with the regulation of international wildlife trade and is adopting pragmatic new mechanisms to achieve its objectives. The emerging flexibility of CITES to deal with different pressures appears to be a great strength of the Convention, which will come into play increasingly to ensure creative long-term solutions to some of the international trade and species conservation problems faced by the Convention.
I shall finish up and leave you with this..
4.2.1 Captive Breeding and Artificial Propagation for Species Listed in Appendix I
Article III of the Convention prohibits international trade in specimens of species listed in Appendix I where the import is primarily for commercial purposes. However, Article VII.4 removes that restriction for trade in specimens of animal species bred in captivity, or of plant species artificially propagated, for commercial purposes and deems such specimens to be included in Appendix II. Hence, no import permit is required for such specimens, their housing in the country of import is not subject to any special conditions, and they can be imported for primarily commercial purposes.
So would the USFWLS please explain to someone then why is it that they block asian arowana imports by saying there is no commercial use allowed when CITES encourages them as a federal agency within the signature party of the convention treaty to not only allow import for pets but also for primarily commercial purposes.?????????????? I mean even the ESA says that the agents should pursue the goals of CITES.
4.2.1 Captive Breeding and Artificial Propagation for Species Listed in Appendix I
Article III of the Convention prohibits international trade in specimens of species listed in Appendix I where the import is primarily for commercial purposes. However, Article VII.4 removes that restriction for trade in specimens of animal species bred in captivity, or of plant species artificially propagated, for commercial purposes and deems such specimens to be included in Appendix II. Hence, no import permit is required for such specimens, their housing in the country of import is not subject to any special conditions, and they can be imported for primarily commercial purposes.
So would the USFWLS please explain to someone then why is it that they block asian arowana imports by saying there is no commercial use allowed when CITES encourages them as a federal agency within the signature party of the convention treaty to not only allow import for pets but also for primarily commercial purposes.?????????????? I mean even the ESA says that the agents should pursue the goals of CITES.
The law of usfws to ban captive bred obviously make no sence. we hobbyist can't do much about it, except lawyers.
Please, someone gather a group, collect donation create fund. let's fight this stubid law of usfws and US-Cites.
this could be done, and there is plenty enough ammo to get it corrected. but youd need to go and look at the legal stuff at the end of the act. From memory of sighting it, you take them to court for a judge to review their stance. probably not a bad thing being on your side is that the agents themselves, or some of them are looking into it, or have done so, but left to their own devices without a court order will take a heck of a long time and might decide in the end not to even bother, even though a court should find that they should have done so by now already.
