Red Arowannas...

[ctoychik]

At my LFS there are about 50 silver aro's. They are selling for about $20 each at about 10" long. They also had 4" going for $10. I had no idea these were endangered species! truly magnificent fish!

(before any1 asks I live in the middle east, not the US)

Silver aros are not illegal in the US. The thread is about red asian aros which are illegal in the US

They look quite different. It is not just the color - it is the fish as well

 

[jlnguyen74]

At my LFS there are about 50 silver aro's. They are selling for about $20 each at about 10" long. They also had 4" going for $10. I had no idea these were endangered species! truly magnificent fish!

(before any1 asks I live in the middle east, not the US)

It doesn't matter if you live in middle east, or the US, silver arowana is not illegal!

 

[fishlover111]

fish amateur over here guys!

 

[HighBackRTG]

The DNR's ESA would have nothing to do even if they wished to throw the space program budget at the wild aro population study. The US government has no jurisdiction in the areas the asian aros occur in. It's up to the gov't of the countries where the species occurs to commit to and accomplish the population study. To date, a total of zero agencies have stepped up to take on this responsibility. And, frankly, if the US decided to interceed and fund such a study, I'd be against it. There are far more important things to spend US money on right now in this country than to pump additional money away from the US.
As far as aro farms releasing stock to the wild, ...again, there's no incentive to do so. With no gov't department overseeing wild stocks, it leaves a big "HOW?" to the farms on the procedures for releasing their stock. There is no agency willing to oversee the transportation, accounting, release, and post-release studys of captive stock back to the wild. The farms also have no incentives to release expensive stock to the wild because they, currently, would receive no gov't credits or tax incentives to do so and most of their releases would result in increased poaching which would benefit the poachers with profits lost by the farms.

Everything you said makes quite a bit of sense however your line about the USA having no jurisdiction in other countries confuses me. It's not the other countries who refuse to export to the USA, it's the USA who refuses to import. Canada like the USA had the asian arowanas banned, but in 1990 they legalized it. Now in Canada you can own an asian arowana as long as you have a CITES permit. The problem at hand is that the USA is still part of the ESA in regards for this fish. Which like you said will probably be for a long time because as you said no one wants to step up and do a study. If farmers release into the wild, more fish for poachers to catch. If farmers don't release into the wild then the already dwindling population still gets poached. Honestly IMO legalizing the fish would destroy the money poachers would make. If everyone had access to the fish, no one would pay 3000 dollars for a 650 dollar fish. The poachers would lose all if not most of their profits. Further poaching would be risky and probably not worth it.

 

[Chaitika]

Everything you said makes quite a bit of sense however your line about the USA having no jurisdiction in other countries confuses me. It's not the other countries who refuse to export to the USA, it's the USA who refuses to import. Canada like the USA had the asian arowanas banned, but in 1990 they legalized it. Now in Canada you can own an asian arowana as long as you have a CITES permit. The problem at hand is that the USA is still part of the ESA in regards for this fish. Which like you said will probably be for a long time because as you said no one wants to step up and do a study. If farmers release into the wild, more fish for poachers to catch. If farmers don't release into the wild then the already dwindling population still gets poached. Honestly IMO legalizing the fish would destroy the money poachers would make. If everyone had access to the fish, no one would pay 3000 dollars for a 650 dollar fish. The poachers would lose all if not most of their profits. Further poaching would be risky and probably not worth it.

Farms would not be able to meet the demands of a market as large as the US of A. This would raise prices on the legal market and then poachers would strip the rivers clean.

 

[scriving]

doubt it^ i dont think the wild fish are the same quality

 

[Chaitika]

doubt it^ i dont think the wild fish are the same quality

Poachers don't care about quality, and many desperate buyers won't either.

 

[Orthopod]

Thought they were still illegal. The aquabid adds had me questioning that. Someone should really go after the dbags posting that shiz on a public site to entrap people.

 

[Chaitika]

Is there no way to notify aquabid? I'm sure they don't support illegal transactions on their site.

 

[Oddball]

Everything you said makes quite a bit of sense however your line about the USA having no jurisdiction in other countries confuses me. It's not the other countries who refuse to export to the USA, it's the USA who refuses to import. Canada like the USA had the asian arowanas banned, but in 1990 they legalized it. Now in Canada you can own an asian arowana as long as you have a CITES permit. The problem at hand is that the USA is still part of the ESA in regards for this fish. Which like you said will probably be for a long time because as you said no one wants to step up and do a study. If farmers release into the wild, more fish for poachers to catch. If farmers don't release into the wild then the already dwindling population still gets poached. Honestly IMO legalizing the fish would destroy the money poachers would make. If everyone had access to the fish, no one would pay 3000 dollars for a 650 dollar fish. The poachers would lose all if not most of their profits. Further poaching would be risky and probably not worth it.

I noted that the US had no jurisdiction to interceed in the study of wild populations in response to your comment about the ESA. How would the US justify an incursion into a foreign country with the intent of completing a fish count? As to the farmed species being on the endangered list, ...that due to the wording of the US law which bans the species without consideration of selectively bred and farm raised color morphs. The US is not willing to alter the law until a population study is completed. With that kind of restriction to a possible easement of the existing law, we're in for a long wait.
And, the part about the aro farms having no incentive still stands. If they release fry back to the wild, that's sales money out of their pockets for zero compensation. So, why would they want to go through the expense of releasing young stock if there's nothing in it for them other than increased competition from poachers?
BTW, I like your statement; "no one would pay 3000 dollars for a 650 dollar fish." Back just before the ban, asian aros sold for a retail price of $30-$60US in SoCal for an 8"-12" specimen. Not $650.