more on asian aro's

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
W

wizzin

Feeder Fish
MFK Member
Oct 10, 2006
1,027
0
0
East of Pittsburgh
I posted this question on another forum too, but wanted you're opinion.

I've found that the 2 new species names for the asian arowana (Scleropages aureus and Scleropages legendrei) are actually listed in the ICZN as seperate species. Unless CITES has their own list that they observe, and ignore all other international listings, this means that these 2 species are not protected by CITES and the ESA. The way I see it, if you imported a fish with a certificate that it is a Scleropages aureus then you would not be importing an illegal fish.

The question is, whether the USFWS observes the new names. I bet they don't. I'm trying to find out what would happen in this senario by asking the USFWS. I haven't got an asnwer yet (usually, they answer quickly) and as soon as I know, I'll be sure to post here.

Anyone else notice this, or look into it further?
 
I have already contacted them, and they are all under an umbrella. All four species are listed as observed as s. formosus. I deleted the email a while back, but unfortunately it isn't a loop-hole that will work.
 
WyldFya;611052; said:
I have already contacted them, and they are all under an umbrella. All four species are listed as observed as s. formosus. I deleted the email a while back, but unfortunately it isn't a loop-hole that will work.
Click to expand...

Darn It!!!!! Did they give any reason as to why they don't follow the international taxonomy for the species? Or did they just say "because we say so".

I'm obsessed with these fish and I'm just frustrated.

I'll see what they say.
 
wizzin;611079; said:
Darn It!!!!! Did they give any reason as to why they don't follow the international taxonomy for the species? Or did they just say "because we say so".

I'm obsessed with these fish and I'm just frustrated.

I'll see what they say.
Click to expand...
It's not a function of international versus U.S. It takes a few years for new species names to get into regular usage and a few more for laws and regulations to be updated in response to taxonomic changes. S. formosus was listed under the Endangered Species Act in 1976, when all Asian arowanas were recognized as being S. formosus. S. aureus, S. macrocephalus, and S. legendrei weren't described until 2003. USFWS can't just change their regulations overnight. The Administrative Procedure Act sets for the requirements for the promulgation of federal agency regulations. Before USFWS can adopt new regulations, they have to publish a draft in the Federal Register and an explanation of the reasons for the proposed changes, take public comment on those proposed revisions, respond to public comments, make any necessary tweaks to the regulations, and then publish the final rule and responses to comments in the Federal Register. It takes time.
 
icthyophile;611106; said:
It's not a function of international versus U.S. It takes a few years for new species names to get into regular usage and a few more for laws and regulations to be updated in response to taxonomic changes. S. formosus was listed under the Endangered Species Act in 1976, when all Asian arowanas were recognized as being S. formosus. S. aureus, S. macrocephalus, and S. legendrei weren't described until 2003. USFWS can't just change their regulations overnight. The Administrative Procedure Act sets for the requirements for the promulgation of federal agency regulations. Before USFWS can adopt new regulations, they have to publish a draft in the Federal Register and an explanation of the reasons for the proposed changes, take public comment on those proposed revisions, respond to public comments, make any necessary tweaks to the regulations, and then publish the final rule and responses to comments in the Federal Register. It takes time.
Click to expand...

God Bless America! :nilly:
 
from my friend at the USFWS.

According to what I could quickly find on these "species," they are really
only redesignations of Scleropages formosus into different groupings, and
assigning new scientific names to different strains or varieites of S.
formosus. Therefore, these would still be covered under both the CITES and
ESA listings, and subject to the same restrictions. In fact, what I found
on-line suggests that these were actually identified from wild specimens in
2003, in Indonesia, so it is somewhat clear that these are really
"splittings" of S. formosus into different groupings based on color. I
also found information to suggest that these designations are not
considered valid by some scientists.
Click to expand...
 
wizzin;610992; said:
I posted this question on another forum too, but wanted you're opinion.

I've found that the 2 new species names for the asian arowana (Scleropages aureus and Scleropages legendrei) are actually listed in the ICZN as seperate species. Unless CITES has their own list that they observe, and ignore all other international listings, this means that these 2 species are not protected by CITES and the ESA. The way I see it, if you imported a fish with a certificate that it is a Scleropages aureus then you would not be importing an illegal fish.

The question is, whether the USFWS observes the new names. I bet they don't. I'm trying to find out what would happen in this senario by asking the USFWS. I haven't got an asnwer yet (usually, they answer quickly) and as soon as I know, I'll be sure to post here.

Anyone else notice this, or look into it further?
Click to expand...

Like your persistence. One day it will pay off I am sure. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom