yes, more on asian arowanas in the US

[Jesse]

As Phil mentioned, the USFWS' jurisdiction only extends to activities in the U.S. They have no jurisdiction over what occurs in the native range of Asian arowanas. Therein lies the problem. That's precisely why I believe the ESA should never have been applied to species whose native ranges are entirely outside of the U.S. The Asian arowana was one of the earlier listed species, back in 1976, when USFWS had some pie-in-the-sky notions about the ESA and what it could do.

The Lacey Act and its protections against the importation of wildlife prohibited by international law or laws of other countries should have been enough to ensure that wild Asian arowanas aren't imported into the U.S. Regulation of Asian arowanas under the ESA created a silly situation where captive bred Asian arowanas with CITES documentation are legal under the Lacey Act but illegal under the ESA.

 

[rottbo]

cant be done I have tried every route to get this to happen there is one way to get them but is very expensive and alot of loopholes to jump through... the non profit wya wont work first of all the asian aro farms are suppose to help relplenish the wild populations but to date not one has complied and they will not enforce it so you are fighting a never ending battle.......

 

[wizzin]

Actually, Conservation international (a Washington DC operation) is in full swing of a conservation effort. They even have a job posting for a field officer to conduct wild population studies right now in Cambodia. The USFWS (I am actually in contact with the chief regularly) acknowledges their efforts. I am waiting for the director of the management authority to return to his office (29th of Jan) to talk to him about whether the monitary donations to C.I. would satisfy the USFWS's criteria for the E.O.S. permits. The ESA EOS permit language states that 4 species: (Morelet’s Crocodile,Straight-horned Markhor, Asian Bonytongue, Wood Bison, and Asian Elephant) would all fall under the EOS criteria and states that:

habitat. For example, if trophy hunters are allowed to harvest a limited number ofanimals, and if funds generated by their activities (e.g., through permits or taxes) aretransferred to a conservation program that supports a population of the same species, thensome contend, the limited take of individuals through hunting could enhance the speciesbyproviding an incentive for conservation. According to the FWS, the authorityto issuethese types of permits alreadyexists. However, in the past, the guidelines allowing thesepermits to be issued have been interpreted narrowly, which has resulted in few permitsbeing issued.9The proposed policy is expected to provide a “new” way of looking at thebasis of findings under existing regulations that allow for enhancement-of-survivalpermits.10(The specific guidelines to apply for an enhancement-of-survival permit arefound at 50 CFR §§17.22 and 17.32.)

That text was from April 2006, when the draft was not implimented. As of now, the draft policy has been adopted (no site is updated, but talking with the USFWS confirmed) and the USFWS will issue permits if the criteria for the EOS permits are met. The missing link as of now is how the purchase of farm raised animals could benefit the wild specimines. If there were money transferred to the Conservation International Asian Arowana fund, then the USFWS "SHOULD" issue a permit. Like I said, I'm waiting until the gentleman that handles permitting returns on the 29th to talk to him about whether this is true or not.

 

[b-man]

any updates.......