k9outfit Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 I just read an article in the "Alberta Game Warden" summer 2005 issue, involving Arowana smuggling into the US. Apparently the Arowana were purchased legally and imported into Canada, then exported illegally and sold in the States, where owning them is illegall. Under the CITES, they are considered an endangered species. So, my question is this... If the Arowana are bred and farm raised, microchiped and then sold legally in (I'm assuming) a number of countries, why would it be illegal in others? How would the sales of farm raised (and individually identified) fish have any effect on the natural population? That is the reason for the restriction in the 1st place, is it not? If this is a dumb question, forgive me; must then be missing an obvious point.... Please enlighten me... gently.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reza Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 I agree, I've never understood how a farmed fish could be considered endangered. So let me get this right, no one in the states can enjoy watching arowanas in their aquariums???? ~Reza~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodsboys Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 Arowanas are sold in the States.Each state is different though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midgetwaiter Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 The US and Canada has exactly the same law. It's just that US customs has chosen to interpret the law differently and therefore don't allow importing of farmed animals. This only applies to asians, I am pretty sure jardini and black / silver arrowanas are legal in most places, I think maybe Florida has banned them because they could live quite comfortably in the natural waterways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toirtis Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 The US and Canada has exactly the same law. It's just that US customs has chosen to interpret the law differently ... Actually, no. The United States had the Lacey Act in existance prior to the formation of CITES in 1974...it is the Lacey Act that makes Scleropages formosus illegal to own in the US. Because of the way the Lacey Act is worded and how CITES works, despite a lot of captive farming of S. formosus, they will not be dropped to a CITES appendix II listing (and therefor legal under the Lacey Act) until wild populations rise, and based on the non-interest of the appropriate governments in doing anyting about it, that will not likely be anyime soon, if ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toirtis Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 Arowanas are sold in the States.Each state is different though. On the black market.....the Asian arowana is illegal federally, so it is legal in no state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodsboys Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 On the black market.....the Asian arowana is illegal federally, so it is legal in no state. Guess I never lived there or went into any petstores or even worked at any petstores.I must have been smokin crack when I saw arowanas or scooped them out and sold them to customers. Man those petstores sitting right out in the open are sooooooo black market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toirtis Posted June 18, 2005 Report Share Posted June 18, 2005 On the black market.....the Asian arowana is illegal federally, so it is legal in no state. Guess I never lived there or went into any petstores or even worked at any petstores.I must have been smokin crack when I saw arowanas or scooped them out and sold them to customers. Man those petstores sitting right out in the open are sooooooo black market. Only Asian arowanas are illegal there...all other species are perfectly legal. If the store that you were at was selling Asian arowanas (and not jardinis) openly, then yes, they were commiting a felony, and you just publically admitted to assisting them in doing so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnsmith Posted June 18, 2005 Report Share Posted June 18, 2005 you just publically admitted to assisting them in doing so. So that's why you're in Canada now ... :guns: you're running from law! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k9outfit Posted June 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2005 So, if the Asian Arowana is successfully being bred on farms, then why couldn't farm bred fish be used to restock depleted wild populations, thereby removing them off the CITES list? Or are they endangered due to habitat loss or disease or some such that would affect farm raised & released populations also? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toirtis Posted June 18, 2005 Report Share Posted June 18, 2005 So, if the Asian Arowana is successfully being bred on farms, then why couldn't farm bred fish be used to restock depleted wild populations, thereby removing them off the CITES list? Or are they endangered due to habitat loss or disease or some such that would affect farm raised & released populations also? Good questions...there are a couple of reasons. First is lack/loss of natural habitat...and the governments there are not interested in devoting the money to restoration and conservation. Second is that the only aros that really could be re-released would be wild-type (greens), and since there is no profit in breeding them, very few farms produce even a small amount...and even if they did, I am sure that any reintroduction project (as funded by government....not that it is likely at all) would pay very little for the fish. It is possible that at some point the aro farms may decide that it would be financially worthwhile to recreate some habitat, re-introduce the fish, and get them downlisted on CITES to open the US market, but with the UK, Australian and Taiwanese markets all opening up fairly recently, there is currently far more demand for the fish in those markets than the farms can supply anyways, so they are rolling in cash with no worries for the immediate future. You should see what an exceptional A+ grade red crossback sells for on the Taiwanese market...more than you make in a year, easily....imagine the profit margin. The funny part is that the US black market trade continues, even though a few people have been busted and received some nasty sentences ($25,000+ in fines and 5 years in prison for a couple of them.). There was a chap in Edmonton that owned a business called "Emperor Pond" (or something similar) that got nailed after he conspired with a 19 year-old California kid (I actually knew this kid online from a predatory fish board) to smuggle some Asian aros.....the plan was to mix a dozen Asians in a couple of bags with a similar number of same-sized jardinis and label them all as jardini (yeah, like no-one had ever tried that before). They got caught on the US end, and the guy in Edmonton got charged with falsifying CITES export documents and conspiracy to smuggle endangered species...he got fines (something typically pathetic like $10K), and, possibly worse, the government blacklisted him so he could no longer procure CITES I import permits, so his business was terminated. But the kid in California faces up to 20 years in prison and $500,000 in fines...now based on the previous Cali conviction for the same thing about 2 years ago, he will likely get (they won't go lighter on him, but probably not a lot heavier, either.) about 5-7 years in prison, $25,000-$40,000 in fines, and possibly worse, a felony record that should really mess things up for him in future (not to mention an INTERPOL record that will likely stop him fdrom a lot of travel). The one that really gets me is the guy from back east (US) that got caught trying to smuggle in Asian aros that he bought in Toronto, then, while waiting trial on the first charge, tried again and got caught a second time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toirtis Posted June 18, 2005 Report Share Posted June 18, 2005 I just read an article in the "Alberta Game Warden" summer 2005 issue, PS, I love that mag...did you read the article in the spring issue on the orchid smugglers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k9outfit Posted June 19, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2005 (edited) Well, in all honesty, what's the harm in trying the smuggling game? Other than a bit of public humiliation should you get caught.... It says here in the Game Warden that the guy is being fined $30,000.00 plus another $30,000.00 which - even with my pathetic math - comes to a grand total of $60,000.00. No mention of jail time. So, a "total of 72 Asian Arowana were illegally exported from Canada". I'm assuming all by the same guy, and not including others not mentioned in this article. So - again using my less than adequate computing skills - if he sold them each for let's say $10,000.00 and each fish is valued between $1,000.00 to $5,000.00 CDN - which he obviously did pay - at worst he would make a profit of $360,000.00, less the $60,000.00 fines.... That's $300,000.00 in profits! Does the government actually believe that such a tap on the wrist would be a deterent? And it really burns me to read what you're saying about how the 19 year old California kid faces considerably worse (though at least he'll probably think twice about trying it again!), when I suspect he really wasn't the master mind behind the whole plan. If it's the "greens" that are endangered, and there's no profit in breeding them (this to me implies no one's willing to pay big bucks for them or they're not impressive enough to keep - wild caught or farm raised) then how would wild populations be affected by the fish hobby? Sorry for being so obtuse, but I really don't see any correlation between prohibiting the sale of arowanans that are in demand with protecting an endangered species, since they're not the same subspecies(?) or type, are they? Or if it's just a blanket law to avoid any loopholes or misunderstandings or wriggle room, then why are some species (jardinis) not prohibited? Sorry - don't know anything about these fish, so the reason (differences from 1 species to another - unless they're from a completely different location and prolific?) doesn't seem obvious to me. It all just strikes me like saying that wild turkey are endangered, therefore selling turkeys in Safeway is illegal. Yeah, it's an interesting mag. Amazing what people won't do... or how incredibly thick some are, thinking THEY invented the "drill holes in ice, stick your overlimit fish in it, and cover up the hole"! Game Wardems have never seen THAT one before.... Edited June 19, 2005 by k9outfit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toirtis Posted June 19, 2005 Report Share Posted June 19, 2005 $60,000.00. No mention of jail time. So, a "total of 72 Asian Arowana were illegally exported from Canada". at worst he would make a profit of $360,000.00, less the $60,000.00 fines.... That's $300,000.00 in profits! Yes, but now he will be banned from entering a good half of the world (thanks to his INTERPOL record), will probably never work at anything much better than rubbish man (unless you are really rich, you can't get much of a job in the US with a class A felony conviction following you around), and will have lost his vehicle (zero tolerance act)....so its at least a bit worse than it seems on the surface. Does the government actually believe that such a tap on the wrist would be a deterent? And it really burns me to read what you're saying about how the 19 year old California kid faces considerably worse (though at least he'll probably think twice about trying it again!), when I suspect he really wasn't the master mind behind the whole plan. Actually, he was the mastermind (if you can call it that), and jail time is actually pretty standard...the other guy got off quite lightly. Besides, it is a deterrant....think anyone with such a conviction is going to get across the US border ever again without a cavity-search (especially with the new US Homeland security measures)? If it's the "greens" that are endangered, and there's no profit in breeding them (this to me implies no one's willing to pay big bucks for them or they're not impressive enough to keep - wild caught or farm raised) then how would wild populations be affected by the fish hobby? They are not, but CITES works by species, not colour. Sorry for being so obtuse, but I really don't see any correlation between prohibiting the sale of arowanans that are in demand with protecting an endangered species, since they're not the same subspecies(?) or type, are they? Yes, they are genetically identical except for colour. Or if it's just a blanket law to avoid any loopholes or misunderstandings or wriggle room, then why are some species (jardinis) not prohibited? Sorry - don't know anything about these fish, so the reason (differences from 1 species to another - unless they're from a completely different location and prolific?) Jardinis come from entirely different countries and have big wild populations....and, if you are familiar with the two fish, you can spot the difference between the two species at a glance. It all just strikes me like saying that wild turkey are endangered, therefore selling turkeys in Safeway is illegal. Well, it almost is, which is why Canada's laws on the fish make sense and the US are idiots. LOL Amazing what people won't do... or how incredibly thick some are, thinking THEY invented the "drill holes in ice, stick your overlimit fish in it, and cover up the hole"! Game Wardems have never seen THAT one before.... Yes, I love those....each issue brings its own little show of "Alberta's Stupidest Poachers". I like the guy in the spring issue that was caught with a backpack full of fossils in Dinosaur Provincial Park....he claimed the fossils were from home and that he was more or less 'taking them for a walk' in the park to use as a comparison sample. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k9outfit Posted June 19, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2005 Yes, but now he will be banned from entering a good half of the world (thanks to his INTERPOL record), will probably never work at anything much better than rubbish man (unless you are really rich, you can't get much of a job in the US with a class A felony conviction following you around), and will have lost his vehicle (zero tolerance act)....so its at least a bit worse than it seems on the surface. That's the kid in the states you're refering to? Not the guy here in Edmonton, is it? Or did the local guy get more that just the $60,000.00 fine? Doesn't mention anything other than that. And it was a 19 year old kid that came up with this plan? Too bad he's on the wrong side of the law.... After all this about Arowana, I guess I'll have to do some research on them. Not my type of fish, but with all this background, it's bound to be interesting! Maybe I can think up more annoying questions once I know more about them! :smokey: Thanks for the enlightenning info! Guess that's what forums are all about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.