Legal Asian Arowana?

[Jesse]

I keep reading about CITES and, am I correct in saying that a US citizen can purchase an Asian Arowana that is microchipped and given a certificate of authenticity. They are captive bread on farms and may be quite expensive. Is this correct or am I just telling myself this?

The CITES certificate just gets you past the Lacey Act, not the Endangered Species Act. Until Asian arowanas are either delisted under the ESA or the USFWS adopts a different policy regarding CITES-certified Asian arowanas, they will remain illegal in the U.S.

 

[lookyloo]

any legal eagles out there? just want to put in my veiw in a legal matter, if one truely wants a asian legally one needs to really read and understand what are the requirements (or loopholes), remember all laws have remendies you just have to know how to apply them

 

[AROWANABE]

i wished that was true

 

[Jesse]

any legal eagles out there? just want to put in my veiw in a legal matter, if one truely wants a asian legally one needs to really read and understand what are the requirements (or loopholes), remember all laws have remendies you just have to know how to apply them

In August 2003, the USFWS proposed a policy whereby "enhancement of survival" permits could be issued for certain species, including Asian arowana:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/03-20941.htm

That draft policy received much criticism and has not to date been adopted by USFWS. Here's the discussion provided on the Asian arowana:

Asian Bonytongue

The Asian bonytongue (Scleropages formosus) is a tropical
freshwater fish native to Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia, and
islisted as endangered under the ESA and included on Appendix I of
CITES. Although the species was historically harvested for consumption,
its demand for the aquarium pet trade, along with other factors such as
habitat loss, resulted in significant declines throughout its range.
Reclassification of the species under the ESA is not likely due to
continuing concern for its overall status. However, since the greatest
single threat to the species is illegal collection for the pet trade,
captive propagation that results in a controlled legal supply of
specimens could significantly reduce the pressure on wild populations.
Additionally, the breeding of native species in captivity for
commercial purposes may, in some cases, facilitate the eventual release to the
wild of a percentage of the progeny from such operations.
In 1986, efforts began on the development of captive propagation
techniques for the Asian bonytongue. In 1992, the first captive-
breeding facility was registered under the requirements of CITES, and
legal exports began. There are currently 28 registered breeding
facilities in these three countries, reportedly with an annual
production level of around 300,000 fish. Each exported specimen is
marked with a coded microchip to assist law enforcement efforts to help
ensure that only legally produced fish are traded. The CITES
requirement for certifying facilities as bred in captivity is designed
to remove collection pressure on wild populations and ensure that trade
is not detrimental to the survival of the species, but CITES does not
require in-situ conservation projects.
Since the approval of the first captive-breeding facility, we have
denied several permit applications for the import of captive-bred Asian
bonytongue. As one of the world's largest importers of aquarium fish,
the United States could play a significant role in encouraging
conservation of the Asian bonytongue through the issuance of permits if
we require, as a condition of issuance of an import permit, that the
specimens are bred in captivity and, a program is established to
conserve the species in the wild . Our willingness to consider allowing
import of captive-bred fish under ``enhancement of survival'' permits
could provide an incentive for development of new conservation
programs.

 

[wizzin]

In August 2003, the USFWS proposed a policy whereby "enhancement of survival" permits could be issued for certain species, including Asian arowana:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/03-20941.htm

That draft policy received much criticism and has not to date been adopted by USFWS. Here's the discussion provided on the Asian arowana:

the USFWS has actually always had the ability to issue these permits. The draft was to change the way the USFWS looked at "enhancement of survival". To date, no commercial permits have been issued for import of Asian Aros. You can apply for a permit to import ANY endangered species, but unless you can prove that by importing the animal there is some benefit to the survival of the species, you won't get one.

This is about conservation. The USFWS isn't bad, they're trying to get people to conserve the fish. I'm frankly upset that close to half a million fish are raised annually, each selling from $250 to $5000 (est) and not one red cent of that money goes to conserving the fish in the wild. If people would be more interested in conservation, I bet things would change.

 

[slowlyburn]

Well put.

 

[Zoodiver]

I agree. It would be easier to defend keeping them if ANY of the money was put back into conservation. Since it is all for the profit of the breeders, we'll never see legal Asain Arowana in the US.

 

[Chaos32]

It would be good that both sides of the argument are presented. As I have pointed out many times before, conservation in this sense is not something is quite feasible in certain areas. There are many factors that are unique to a certain extent to this region that has to be considered even thought the longevity of pure wild stock is something I would like to see happen too.

 

[zennzzo]

the USFWS has actually always had the ability to issue these permits. The draft was to change the way the USFWS looked at "enhancement of survival". To date, no commercial permits have been issued for import of Asian Aros. You can apply for a permit to import ANY endangered species, but unless you can prove that by importing the animal there is some benefit to the survival of the species, you won't get one.

This is about conservation. The USFWS isn't bad, they're trying to get people to conserve the fish. I'm frankly upset that close to half a million fish are raised annually, each selling from $250 to $5000 (est) and not one red cent of that money goes to conserving the fish in the wild. If people would be more interested in conservation, I bet things would change.

I hear ya bro...just because they sell 100's of thousands of "farm raised" Aros, they cannot possibly think that many are being saved from wild stock harvesting by doing so...
I see it as them protecting their revenue not the specises or habitat

 

[zennzzo]

It would be good that both sides of the argument are presented. As I have pointed out many times before, conservation in this sense is not something is quite feasible in certain areas. There are many factors that are unique to a certain extent to this region that has to be considered even thought the longevity of pure wild stock is something I would like to see happen too.

Good Ol' USA dollars can buy enough consevation nessasary to proliferate the specises...
Just the right people have to take intrest and get it done...