if asian arowanas were allowed to be bred here in the US. i'm sure farms will pop up all over given the demand/price of these arowanas. it will drive down the price and may even contribute to repopulating the arowana in the wild if we have a surplus (make it a law to repopulate a % of what you breed if you must). it would also protect the arowana in the wild as it would be cheaper to breed them than it is to spend the efford to catch them in bulk
killing asian arowanas???
- Thread starter bfhslilred93
- Start date
thank you for agreeing with me. i honestly do think it's stupid theyre illegaliwiied;2503510; said:
If it were to happen, I don't see more than 1 farm pop up in the US. We don't have the outdoor climate here. And I really don't see an indoor facility working out well. If there were to be a farm with stock for reintroduction, they would be plain brownish / grey asian arowana - not the hyped up color phases that the hobby demands. How many people do you see buying those for their home collections? No fancy reds, chilis, greens, X backs..... just plain monotone animals like are found in nature.
My understanding was that a judge was to prosecute a case concerning an Asian Aro in the U.S. and told the feds he would only do so if the fish was presented in court alive. The fish was sent to a tropical fish wholesaler for care until the trial when it was brought in as evidence. After that its fate was unknown.
I can tell tell you that CITES (including CITES appendix 1) plants confiscated several years ago were sent to a botanic garden. Such gardens are designated as rescue stations, the plant material is considered saved for the public good and such rescue is not uncommon, with orchids, cacti, cycads, etc. being smuggled. I believe the original material could not be sold or traded, however cuttings made from the plants could be. Cutting could NOT, however be given to any of the parties involved in the illegal importation, and the parties were made known to the garden.
While CITES plants and animals are treated differently (since plants can generally be cloned through cuttings, or mass produced by seed), it seems that confiscated fish could be giving to a public aquarium, and that they could be bred. The legality, or lack thereof, of the offspring would be an interesting question if the feds allowed them in the country as rescued animals, but then perhaps they would only allow them to be distributed among other public aquaria. Destroying confiscated fish, especially endangered ones, seems dumb, as does preventing commercially raised fish from entering the U.S. if permits and proof of captive breeding are verifiable.
I can tell tell you that CITES (including CITES appendix 1) plants confiscated several years ago were sent to a botanic garden. Such gardens are designated as rescue stations, the plant material is considered saved for the public good and such rescue is not uncommon, with orchids, cacti, cycads, etc. being smuggled. I believe the original material could not be sold or traded, however cuttings made from the plants could be. Cutting could NOT, however be given to any of the parties involved in the illegal importation, and the parties were made known to the garden.
While CITES plants and animals are treated differently (since plants can generally be cloned through cuttings, or mass produced by seed), it seems that confiscated fish could be giving to a public aquarium, and that they could be bred. The legality, or lack thereof, of the offspring would be an interesting question if the feds allowed them in the country as rescued animals, but then perhaps they would only allow them to be distributed among other public aquaria. Destroying confiscated fish, especially endangered ones, seems dumb, as does preventing commercially raised fish from entering the U.S. if permits and proof of captive breeding are verifiable.
Zoodiver;2503469; said:
Zoodiver;2504015; said:
So one minute you're saying the law is there to protect wild aros by stopping people catching them and selling them in the pet trade, then you're saying that the wild coloured fish are so dull and boring that nobody would want them. Right, remind me how/what the law is doing again?
And as you pointed out above, a farm dedicated to breeding "wild coloured" aros wouldn't be economically viable, so why not fund it by the sale of all the "crazy morphs" that everyone does want?
*edit* and why doesn't somebody just hurry up and cross S. formosus with S. jardini and start breeding different colour strains from that stock so that they would no longer be S. formosus and be able to be imported.
The 'desired' animals in the pet trade are the bright colored/enhanced/bred animals. These are not colored naturally found in the wild.
However they are the same species non the less.
If someone was to be returning captive bred animals to the wild, they should be the natural colors found. That means captive breding of the 'dull' fish. Pet trade won't want those colors. So a farm would not be able to serve both the pet trade and introduction into the wild.
This will be one of the eternal battles between science and hobbiests when it comes to specific speices. It's very similar to the issue coming up with South American stingrays right now. There is a line between hybrids of odd patterns for high profit vs keeping the speices lines pure for the future.
However they are the same species non the less.
If someone was to be returning captive bred animals to the wild, they should be the natural colors found. That means captive breding of the 'dull' fish. Pet trade won't want those colors. So a farm would not be able to serve both the pet trade and introduction into the wild.
This will be one of the eternal battles between science and hobbiests when it comes to specific speices. It's very similar to the issue coming up with South American stingrays right now. There is a line between hybrids of odd patterns for high profit vs keeping the speices lines pure for the future.
I know what you're getting at, but I just can't/don't believe that with such a fool-proof identification system as the microchipping that allowing the importation of fish to the US would lead to an increase in the poaching of wild arowanas.
