Legalizing Asian Arowana Petition !!
- Thread starter ArowanaLover69
- Start date
I'm #382!! I wish i could sign it twice!! LOL!! I'll take it to other websites and try to get other people to sign as well!!
It has been decided against releasing any captive bred fish into the wild for a few reasons, potential for disease, potential for
incorrect or undesirable genes making their way into the wild population.
The best way to increase the wild stocks is no longer take them and to stop degrading or regenerate the habitat.
as far as farms taking wild stock, i was under the impression that this was no longer allowed because there was enough stock around that could be bought as breeders. It does make me wonder about the breeding program that john mentions because as far as i know, injecting fish into the wild is no longer considered a good practise.
further to all this, check out the recent posts under bring back arowana to the US in the sticky section.
i can not see how they claim that keeping pets is considered a commercial purpose any more.
incorrect or undesirable genes making their way into the wild population.
The best way to increase the wild stocks is no longer take them and to stop degrading or regenerate the habitat.
as far as farms taking wild stock, i was under the impression that this was no longer allowed because there was enough stock around that could be bought as breeders. It does make me wonder about the breeding program that john mentions because as far as i know, injecting fish into the wild is no longer considered a good practise.
further to all this, check out the recent posts under bring back arowana to the US in the sticky section.
i can not see how they claim that keeping pets is considered a commercial purpose any more.
This quote is taken from the scientist working for the USWLFS which was posted on page 2 of this thread.
"While captive-bred populations of S. formosus may be abundant in Southeast
Asia, their use does not necessarily encourage the conservation of wild
populations and may result in unsustainable harvest for breeding stock.
These fears have been echoed by Indonesian scientists who I've consulted
while visiting the country and examining arowana farms."
Ok so fair enough right? it seems that because the farmers took brood fish from the wild, it is apparent to the USWLFS that this would be such a bad thing that would lead them to not encouraging imports from the breeding farms.
Well i like to check laws and see what they say rather than opinions or later interpretations of the law which are being used to justify the USFWLS from not taking on the CITES resolutions and plans for regulated trade.
This below is taken from the ESA, specifically it is taken from the definitions section.
look closely at what the act defines as "conservation" and then consider what this actually means and then ask yourself, is taking brood fish from the wild an actual conservation effort in itself in that has been allowed under CITES, specifically for the purpose that is has allowed the farms to produce captive bred specimens so that wild stock going into the aquarium trade are able to be replaced with that legal alternative.
DEFINITIONS
SEC. 3.
(3) The terms “conserve”, “conserving”, and “conservation” mean to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary. ( the full trade ban is no longer deemed neccesary by CITES) Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources management ( scientific resource management would surely entail management of the progeny in the detailed ways that CITES ensures) such as research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where population pressures (wild poaching) within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking.
"While captive-bred populations of S. formosus may be abundant in Southeast
Asia, their use does not necessarily encourage the conservation of wild
populations and may result in unsustainable harvest for breeding stock.
These fears have been echoed by Indonesian scientists who I've consulted
while visiting the country and examining arowana farms."
Ok so fair enough right? it seems that because the farmers took brood fish from the wild, it is apparent to the USWLFS that this would be such a bad thing that would lead them to not encouraging imports from the breeding farms.
Well i like to check laws and see what they say rather than opinions or later interpretations of the law which are being used to justify the USFWLS from not taking on the CITES resolutions and plans for regulated trade.
This below is taken from the ESA, specifically it is taken from the definitions section.
look closely at what the act defines as "conservation" and then consider what this actually means and then ask yourself, is taking brood fish from the wild an actual conservation effort in itself in that has been allowed under CITES, specifically for the purpose that is has allowed the farms to produce captive bred specimens so that wild stock going into the aquarium trade are able to be replaced with that legal alternative.
DEFINITIONS
SEC. 3.
(3) The terms “conserve”, “conserving”, and “conservation” mean to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary. ( the full trade ban is no longer deemed neccesary by CITES) Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources management ( scientific resource management would surely entail management of the progeny in the detailed ways that CITES ensures) such as research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where population pressures (wild poaching) within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking.
Someone should contact the people with the petition and get them to totally reword the intro so that it shows that the ESA needs rewording. I wouldnt mind working with them to produce something that refers to the current ESA and shows where it conflicts with CITES and the intent of the ESA.
Hell no. They should never become legal here. They are already endangered and that will give them the rest.
ok, so you suggest that when cites decides there should be exceptions to the rue of no trade so that fish can be captive bred and supplied in place of the wild poaching that they are doing the wrong thing? and that if they never bred all these fish there would be more around in the wild today? there are a lot of cases where regulated trade has been determined to be the go so that people can enjoy the resource more sustainably. with this fish being so desirable for cultural reasons etc etc i would say that prices would dictate that poaching would have been much greater had they not been regulated. different story if fish boxes were never checked for tags once entering USA. but that would be checked everytime as part of the rule.
and only licensed farms would supply. so how does making the supply of captive fish, being regulated by international treaty give the wild fish a rest? a lot of work has gone into these programs because they identified that without them, the fish would be further hit in the wild through lack of regulation and by leaving the species at the hands of the black market completely. i could only agree with you IF the US policy and what they pointed towards as reasons actually made sense. when the US first made the Endangered species act, it was supposed to be an interim measure because at that time there were no programs to allow regulated trade. this is precisely why they stuck all cites listed species on the ESA and had no provisions for any trade whatsoever. your way of thinking is almost like how the uSA thinks they have no black market problems for drugs. I mean drugs are fully banned, so people give drugs a rest in america right? i think if you checked the useage of illegal drugs in america, they have the highest user rates in the world.
So No, there are more harms created by the outright prohibition because the money is in the product and there are always poor people that are willing to take the risk.
In the black market arowana trade, poor people take the fish to sell for a pittance to traders.
who make big bucks. This does not take into count that the wild rivers have been rooted by human useage of the lands in the areas. ideally, money would be added to the price of the captive bred fish, so that it can accrue and then be used just like the ESA says it should.
there is nothing to suggest that lump sum payments should be put forth by farms. Lump sum payments can be made by the USA though. but i dont think this is a USA species so i dont agree with this..Once trade is allowed, money can be taken peice by peice and stuck in a recovery program. Even that is a good system in america law and its not being used.
and only licensed farms would supply. so how does making the supply of captive fish, being regulated by international treaty give the wild fish a rest? a lot of work has gone into these programs because they identified that without them, the fish would be further hit in the wild through lack of regulation and by leaving the species at the hands of the black market completely. i could only agree with you IF the US policy and what they pointed towards as reasons actually made sense. when the US first made the Endangered species act, it was supposed to be an interim measure because at that time there were no programs to allow regulated trade. this is precisely why they stuck all cites listed species on the ESA and had no provisions for any trade whatsoever. your way of thinking is almost like how the uSA thinks they have no black market problems for drugs. I mean drugs are fully banned, so people give drugs a rest in america right? i think if you checked the useage of illegal drugs in america, they have the highest user rates in the world.
So No, there are more harms created by the outright prohibition because the money is in the product and there are always poor people that are willing to take the risk.
In the black market arowana trade, poor people take the fish to sell for a pittance to traders.
who make big bucks. This does not take into count that the wild rivers have been rooted by human useage of the lands in the areas. ideally, money would be added to the price of the captive bred fish, so that it can accrue and then be used just like the ESA says it should.
there is nothing to suggest that lump sum payments should be put forth by farms. Lump sum payments can be made by the USA though. but i dont think this is a USA species so i dont agree with this..Once trade is allowed, money can be taken peice by peice and stuck in a recovery program. Even that is a good system in america law and its not being used.
