Jump to content
thaiga

Asian arowanna now we know.

Recommended Posts

...and best way to stop smuggling...don't let the smuggled goods be legal once they are smuggled in...pretty contradictory set of laws right there...

That is the point and that has been raised time and time again. That was a stance taken at one point - whatever is not on the importable list is banned. It potentially could still be position taken - is that really what you want?? If that is what happens then we may as well all leave the forum as the Africans and Americans will all be gone bar a handful of species.. Rustys / Auratus / Blue Dolphins/ Peacocks anyone?? (In case of Malawis).

If I had my say they'd look at what is here - re-assess fish like Electric Yellows (I'm just using these as an example as they are relatively harmless - certainly far more harmless than a Rusty), and draw a new list. Some existing species not on the "Banned" list would be banned. Take larger predatory Malawis as an example.

Thing is this is / will happen anyway. They can't take everyones Electric Yellows - well they could - but it would create an outcry.

GOLDENSWIMMERS:pretty contradictory set of laws right there...there are many great fish that aren't legally allowable as imports yet would not thrive here as conditions required are too specific and even then does this factor in the personality of native fish in anyway...some of these guys would just supply feeders to make bigger barramundi or even gudgeons....Australian fish have quite pretty nasty personalities from what I have seen...

The laws are far from perfect. Contradictory no. The laws address specific things. CITIES laws are completely different from QLD Fisheries laws. Different jurisdiction.

I'd like to see an example of these fish. What are you thinking - Rays?? Theywould survive / thrive in numerous spots. There are native waterways ranging from pH of 4.5 (or lower) to over 8.2. That covers virtually all fish. There are native waterways from freezing cold to over 40 degrees - that well and truly covers all fish. So what is your example??

Barramundi do not live in all Australian waterways. Other than Impoundments where they are stocked (another can of worms); they live in Northern rivers and the sea. Not small creeks, ponds - the most vulnerable places. Other than a few species of Gudgeons that grow big (Snakeheads / Spangleds / Sleepy Cod) most Gudgeons are of moderate size. Your point is invalid anyway as they are native - are part of the ecosystem and are supposed to be there. Gudgeons hardly compare to introduced species.

In many waterways there are no large fish (well there weren't prior to Tilapia anyway). In these instances - particularly is small waterways home to endangered species the potential for catastrophe is huge. One example - and I won't name creeks nor places and please - nobody else do either - if exotics got into just one drainage system in QLD - Two species would become extinct and two varieties of a Rainbow subject to extinction. Is it worth the risk???

Edited by none

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously very passionate about this and I do understand a lot of points you are raising and agree and I also guess I am not being specific to the fish in question..ie arowana....its more a rant about current situation in the industry..the barramundi was a very broad example..but to think these decisions lie solely on native protection causes is naïve..like I said many oscars and mollies come over but other more niche fish are excluded...I'm personally not worried about a ban on fish that are here as you mention with the Africans/Americans etc because that's actually unrealistic both financially and physically....and the outcry would come from the entire industry and you may as well ban fishkeeping in the process(and the government would think about revenue lost Oz wide...which is actually more important than the environment to tell you the ugly truth).... I guess my main point is these laws are not solely designed for environmental protection and some exist solely to feed the aquarium trade that most on here aren't even involved in...ie Oscars,mollies,guppies(sorry any keepers of such great fish!)...yes a big part of the industry but also the most detrimental on our waterways and the easiest to get here because its LEGAL..that seems contradictory to me....do you think we don't have problems with other fish because we are not allowed to import them???... but yet its obvious we already breed them here in decent numbers :noidea: ..or by coincidence could it be because more educated fishkeepers deal with these less common fish?...and don't forget the people managing let alone creating these laws don't have a deep understanding of the fish they are actually talking about either....its the same problem on both sides of the fence...there is just no education going on...the people who hold people accountable have little knowledge in terms of what they are dealing with...and no one knows of penalties involved let alone the effects of dumping unwanted pets in the waterways...I don't know how you could manage the industry with such a jumbled mess personally...I would just have a big list of yes fish(meaning legally importable too) and a big list of no fish(these guys should be obvious environmental threats)..then look at educating people(signage/brochures etc ...which you never ever see so 99% of newbies have no idea) so then people actually know what they should be doing when they take these guys home....just think we could even teach humane ways to deal with these fish! :behindsofa: but yep maybe I'm wrong its just a rant and opinion :eek:

Edited by goldenswimmers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you are going to smuggle in an endangered animal that's not legal to keep in Australia then hell yeah you better reap the consequences and hang your head in shame knowing that your stupidity caused that endangered animal to be killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But what if they're endangered and the only ones left are ones kept by hobbyist - their habitat might be destroyed due to other reasons but maybe people would be able to breed them

Or if they were tank bred then they wouldn't need to be collected from the wild, thus leaving populations in their natural habitat

Except, you need to know if they're endangered because of hobbyists or other reasons and the hobbyists are the way to increase populations (much like zoos breeding animals)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if you are going to smuggle in an endangered animal that's not legal to keep in Australia then hell yeah you better reap the consequences and hang your head in shame knowing that your stupidity caused that endangered animal to be killed.

Youre hurting "breeders" feelings. In investment the more risks you take the better the rewards. "Breeders" might close the back door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But what if they're endangered and the only ones left are ones kept by hobbyist - their habitat might be destroyed due to other reasons but maybe people would be able to breed them

Or if they were tank bred then they wouldn't need to be collected from the wild, thus leaving populations in their natural habitat

Except, you need to know if they're endangered because of hobbyists or other reasons and the hobbyists are the way to increase populations (much like zoos breeding animals)

I was waiting for someone to raise Zoos - so now it's been raised I'll raise anther point. Really there is no difference between keeping lets call them "exotic" (Asian Arowana) endangered fish subject to CITIES protection then say birds, primates, turtles or heck even Rhinos. (Yes I know size difference but I'm being specific in regards to some peoples belief that they have a right to have these (or any fish) and that by doing so they will save the species.)

Herein lies the problem. Red Arowana will not breed in a glass fish tank. They will breed in dams and large waterways. Zoos technically could get a licence to have an Arowana for display. It is a very heavily regulated at all steps by both outgoing and incoming governments. Underwater World had an entire tank of Pacus - even after they were banned. They didn't import them but took them for free from people and had permits to hold them for education purposes only. I was always uncomfortable with this given their size and breeding condition. Having not ever seen how they deal with their waste water we'll assume there was zero chance of accidental fry / egg release but therein lies the problem. It's all about risk evaluation.

Some people want to keep big cats (Lions / Cheetah etc) or Monkeys. General consensus is that should not be allowed but there seems to be quite a few people that would like the rules for fish wide open. It's not for Birds for obvious reasons so I don't know what the basis is for fish to be a free for all.

The best thing we can do to save endangered species is to enforce CITIES regs and do more to support the natural habitats of all threatened species and to get serious on poachers.

Forum members - if you want to save endangered species there are several in our own backdoor highly vulnerable to extinction. One member was recently giving away a morph of Rainbow that due to it's narrow range could easily become threatened. Just do not UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE take these fish from the wild.

I'm not suggesting everyone keeps natives - but for those passionate about endangered species - lets save our own first!! (For the record native threatened species can not be bought, swapped or sold. Some can be given away.) The exception is QLD Lungfish which come under a specific regulation and have to be mictochipped and bought from a licenced breeder.

shon982 and Goldenswimmers I welcome your input and posts and the opportunity to discuss these issues. Having done research on the effects of introduced species to our waterways for decades this is an issue that is of great concern to me. Goldenswimmers you are right about "allowed" species being in waterways and posing risk - I agree completely. With your Oscars example the risk posed by hole in the head disease alone - irrespective of their size and appetites has me dumbfounded why they are allowed in.

My push is for a complete re-assessment of what is in Australia. Yellows to use the example I keep using - do not necessarily have to be added to the importable list. In fact there is no secret that they want to shrink not add that list. What they need to do is talk to serious responsible fishkeepers and find out exactly what is here. Make two lists - one of fish that are accepted as aquarium fish in Australia. Anything not on that list is banned. This will affect new species of Africans as well. Demasonii etc have not been here all that long. Thing is though fish could be added to that list of allowed via regular review. Fish clearly not on that list would need a grace period to besurrended or permit for private display. They could no longer be bought, sold or traded. High risk species - Peacock Bass would need to be dealt with in an urgent fashion. Noone is going to like it but someone has to have the balls to sort out the problems with the current system.

The penalties for illegally possession "HIGH RISK" species would then need to be made so severe that the smuggling industry would come close to ceasing. The $200000 fine for keeping noxious species and the jail option is already there. Fines need to be mandatory and not open to judicial variation. If you could risk losing your house over a fish - well.. pretty good incentive to not possess the fish..

Edited by none

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let em in, let em all in, keep the price high. Who the hell is gonna release a hbrtg. It's not exactly a blue dolphin or oscar.

Edited by mq_camo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that's the problem, 50 years ago people thought keeping corals and marine fish in a tank wouldn't be possible - let alone get corals to spawn eggs and fish to breed yet now it's all been done in a glass tank

So why can't it be done with arowana in this case?

Clearly the reason for not keeping large cats or rhinos is quite obvious, they're a bit big to manage and keep in a tank

Just recently there was a fish species that had gone extinct in it's own environment in south america I believe and a few people around the world still had some - together with aquariums they made an effort to collect them all and repopulate but I'm not sure how far it all got

It's going to be hard to convince people to keep native fish if they like another species, not everyone is the same

And I don't understand why there should be a blanket over species judged by the government who have no interest in the subject compared to a hobbyist. Next we'll have to be supervised doing a water change!

If you've done plenty of research then I imagine you've come to similar conclusions that there are MANY species which pose no risk yet are still banned

Also that some species from a genus are allowed yet others aren't - when the only thing that differs is the number of teeth and scales along the lateral line

That's my biggest I guess... confusion? As to who decides they pose a risk and yet they make a conclusion with no evidence at all - This is hardly real science

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't understand how lungfish can be bred here (on the cites listed) chipped then sold here and or exported to other country's but they won't let in arrows my opinion arrows should be allowed in but must be on a permit system like gars only sold by approved importers and if you need to sell yours do a similar thing to a movement advice like with reptile sales

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who are these breeders you always talk of? Seems that's your way of trying to be a smart a$$ because no one wants to involve you in the sales of any exotics. No wonder no one wants to sell you anything interesting. Sound like a fisheries nark to me. Must suck having to settle for poor mans "saratoga" because no one trusts you enough to sell you an aro.

was surprised to see this. As what ive said on post 22, i was supposed to buy the RTG Arowana last Dec13. Even contacted fisheries that I will be buying one as I don't want to get in trouble but didn't get a definitive answer. I even have a microchip reader borrowed just for it but I back out on the transaction. [MENTION=2572]mq_camo[/MENTION] Are you the lucky owner of this fish now so you seem to defensive.

Trust and respect is earned - buying an arowana is you just need $$$$$$ - no trust needed there. There's a few arowana showing up and even my interstate contacts don't want to touch them with the uncertainty of owning them.

Saratoga are nice fish and I'm going native now and ditching fish i dont need. I'm happy with my poor man's arowana and proud that I own it. Just because you are rich you can discount the saratogas being scrap as compared to your collection.

I have also been offered exotic fish but i turned them down as i'm more practical now. I'm not a hardcore collector and as rich as you that you can buy any exotics you want. I'd rather spend my money on food for the table and mortgage.

Noticed also you've edited your post - but i did saw you quoting me as above. Again, Trust and respect is earned - buying an arowana is you just need $$$$$$ - no trust needed there. Thank you for your comment and feedback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let em in, let em all in, keep the price high. Who the hell is gonna release a hbrtg. It's not exactly a blue dolphin or oscar.

dont be surprised if people throw arrowana in a large pond or small dam on their property in order to try and breed them, an individual once expressed the idea to me of wanting to put RTC in a dam in order to try and breed them and make some dosh.

personally i think we need a comprehensive reviewed noxious fish list and what evers not on there is allowable. its nonsense that i cant import yellows but can buy breed and sell them. and yes hybrid peacocks are on the list when yellows are not, people can order "assorted peacocks" from asia and others africans are excluded why? i have a red empress right now that came into the country with assorted peacocks.

my last post was just to show its mainly the importable species that have established themselves in the wild, so the system is failing in its fundamental goals anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't understand how lungfish can be bred here (on the cites listed) chipped then sold here and or exported to other country's but they won't let in arrows my opinion arrows should be allowed in but must be on a permit system like gars only sold by approved importers and if you need to sell yours do a similar thing to a movement advice like with reptile sales

Just to clarify- They can't be legally bred and chipped here. They are bred and chipped in asia legally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to clarify- They can't be legally bred and chipped here. They are bred and chipped in asia legally

I didn't say anything about arrows being bred and chipped here I said about lungfish being bred and chipped here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't understand how lungfish can be bred here (on the cites listed) chipped then sold here and or exported to other country's but they won't let in arrows my opinion arrows should be allowed in but must be on a permit system like gars only sold by approved importers and if you need to sell yours do a similar thing to a movement advice like with reptile sales

for gars, ownership ends with the permit holder. I tried pushing my way to get the permit transferred to my name but it failed. even gratuitous donation not involving sale, and owning it and not knowing of the permit was disputed when I raised those arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But that's the problem, 50 years ago people thought keeping corals and marine fish in a tank wouldn't be possible - let alone get corals to spawn eggs and fish to breed yet now it's all been done in a glass tank

So why can't it be done with arowana in this case?

Because you would need a tank far in excess of the standard size available. Do you know how big they get? Do you know how they breed Saratoga / Arowana in Asia and Australia? In dams. In aquaculture facilities. Have you seen inside an aquaculture facility? I have - I've worked in them. Massive. Fish are bred in Aquaculture using hormone injections. In dams naturally.

Clearly the reason for not keeping large cats or rhinos is quite obvious, they're a bit big to manage and keep in a tank

Just recently there was a fish species that had gone extinct in it's own environment in south america I believe and a few people around the world still had some - together with aquariums they made an effort to collect them all and repopulate but I'm not sure how far it all got

And likewise these fish get massive - some on the banned list grow to larger than a Cheetah.. too big to be kept in a tank.

Again you want a different rule for fish than bird keepers have for birds; reptile owners have for reptiles and so on. It is unreasonable and will never happen. Period.

It's going to be hard to convince people to keep native fish if they like another species, not everyone is the same

And I don't understand why there should be a blanket over species judged by the government who have no interest in the subject compared to a hobbyist. Next we'll have to be supervised doing a water change!

Not trying to convince people to keep anything. You made the point of wanting to save endangered species - well if that is your concern you can help save natives. Thats is the point that was being made. Look at the Lake Eacham Rrinbow - saved due to aquarists.

The species in question is primarily endangered DUE to the aquarium industry!!!

You choose to live in Australia you live under the laws of the land. The Governments we elect make the laws. It is prepostrous to suggest they can make laws for everything else but not for fish.

If you've done plenty of research then I imagine you've come to similar conclusions that there are MANY species which pose no risk yet are still banned

You could not be more wrong! There are NO species that pose NO RISK! Every species poses a risk.

Also that some species from a genus are allowed yet others aren't - when the only thing that differs is the number of teeth and scales along the lateral lineThat's my biggest I guess... confusion? As to who decides they pose a risk and yet they make a conclusion with no evidence at all - This is hardly real science

There is evidence - clear evidence - by scientists used to make these decisions. I am referring to the "EXOTIC" list.

The importable list /allowable (NON "EXOTIC HIGH RISK / NOXIOUS") is another story and needs work as per my posts.

Edited by none

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But what if they're endangered and the only ones left are ones kept by hobbyist - their habitat might be destroyed due to other reasons but maybe people would be able to breed them

Or if they were tank bred then they wouldn't need to be collected from the wild, thus leaving populations in their natural habitat

Except, you need to know if they're endangered because of hobbyists or other reasons and the hobbyists are the way to increase populations (much like zoos breeding animals)

Hobbyists are the reason these fish are critically endangered.

Yes habitat destruction as a result of human population rise is the elephant in the room........... but the solutions to that cant be discussed without emotional thread derailment!

As it stands tho..........

If it wasnt for the smuggling trade removing these fish from the wild to sell for big bucks to hobbyists............. they wouldnt be in danger of extinction.

What % of smuggled arowana are spawned and the fry raised?

I'd say sweet **** all of them.

And of the tiny % that are spawned, the chances of the fry being released is almost none existant.

The only reason to spawn is to make money selling the fry.

Most of which will eventually die without ever producing fry.

Look at the flameback style cichlids.

Some are now extinct in the wild.

They are incredibly easy to breed in captivity, there must be captive populations in the millions world wide.

Hasnt solved the problem of being extinct in the wild tho.

As to zoo's, well CITES does allow for genetic broodstock trading to provide insurance in the case of wild extinction.

But this is done with documentation on a level no hobbyist would bother with.

And end of the day, theres no cash in it.

The smuggling trade is about money.

It aint about looking out for a species survival.

If the only living members of an aquarium species harvested for the hobby, are those that remain in aquariums.

Then we have failed that species in a very sad way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best thing we can do to save endangered species is to enforce CITIES regs and do more to support the natural habitats of all threatened species and to get serious on poachers.

That is a logical and historicly proven successful approach to protecting vunerable species.

Edited by Donny@ageofaquariums

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't understand how lungfish can be bred here (on the cites listed) chipped then sold here and or exported to other country's but they won't let in arrows my opinion arrows should be allowed in but must be on a permit system like gars only sold by approved importers and if you need to sell yours do a similar thing to a movement advice like with reptile sales

There is an absolute TON of documents you can pull related to the lungfish farm in Australia. Its a complicated tangled thing to understand.

You can check out the website here Ceratodus.com that goes into more detail.

There is total transperancy.

These fish are not coming into the country hidden inside someone!

eg........

We remind you that these fish are CITES listed.

Each of our lungfish juveniles is microchipped using an Allflex ISO compliant FDX-B passive internal transponder (PIT) tag. This number is stated on the export permit.

We require full payment with order because once we allocate the PIT Tag numbers to that order it becomes very difficult to sell those fish to another customer.

Before processing your order, we will need your full name, company name (if applicable), address, e-mail address, telephone and fax number for Environment and Heritage Export permit requirements.

Also what is your closest international airport?

The timeline after your payment is as follows:

It takes approx 3-5 days for your payment to arrive in our bank

It takes approx 10-14 working days for The Department of Environment and Heritage to process the application.

Then 4-5 days to arrange shipping.

We guarantee live delivery, and haven't lost a fish yet.

We will fax you a copy of the export permit when we receive it. (The original export permit travels with the fish.) We will email flight details and fax a copy of the airway bill a day or 2 before shipping.

Some countries may need an import permit . It is advisable to check with your relevant government department.

The big thing to remember though....... is that there is only one farm producing Australian lungfish in the entire world.

You dont get CITES approved unless you have jumped through thousands of hoops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is evidence - clear evidence - by scientists used to make these decisions. I am referring to the "EXOTIC" list.

The importable list /allowable (NON "EXOTIC HIGH RISK / NOXIOUS") is another story and needs work as per my posts.

Could you please post up the evidence :esmile:

Not having a go at you, but genuinely curious

All I've ever seen is a import list of fish allowed and not allowed without any reason than "yeah we figured they'd turn into monsters and eat all the precious native fish"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could not be more wrong! There are NO species that pose NO RISK! Every species poses a risk.

How is this tested? just by guessing?

If somehow there was a controlled environment to test this theory, I would happily donate some fish for the experiment :esmile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who in their right mind would dump a fish that is a minimum of 1200$-10k+?

if its endangered wouldnt encouraging captive breeding increase their survival?

more fish?

more fish captive fish to go around the hobby= less taken from the wild?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Captive breeding and restocking in most cases does not equal a healthy genetically diverse wild population.

Hence the attempts to severely limit or totally stop capture of remaining wild fish...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...