Jump to content
Sclero p

Is it legal to import, sell, buy, breed or trade in asian Scleropages species ?

Recommended Posts

Not able to keep these cites listed species without a permit/microchip and if you do have a permit/microchip then this proves it has been smuggled in so either way your not able to keep these fish legally here. They are being kept and breed here readily though. They have a lot of cultural significance to Asian people so no amount of legislation is going to stop some people keeping and breeding these.

Simple answer is NO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will note that keeping is not part of my question the one grey area in the legislation. Keeping/having one with a chip is a fait accompli, selling one, buying one, breeding them and trading in them is not legal. Interestingly the last prosecution was for buying a chipped fish with certificate though the seller somehow escaped prosecution...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Semi rhetorical question brought on by the obvious trade in, buy and sell, on and by this forum which often ends up in a beautiful fish being euthanized humanely.

Totally disagree with the current legislation and how it is enforced myself, crying shame that the OMFIG RA on them stalled with the rest of the process.

Would love to have the Nine myself, unfortunately constrained to what I have.

Edited by Sclero p
had to change destroyed to euthenized humanely

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what's the penalty/legal implication of owning an arowana which was in the country prior to chipping/certificate rule and their subsequent offsprings/spawns which are not chipped? Is this an exceptions on laws being applied prospectively? I know proving age will be difficult.

just a thought.. Possible loophole?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bred at CITES approved farms and controlled by the relevant authority in those countries. Need to be on the allowable import list here first. When the list was enacted RA stated hybridisation with native Scleropages as a concern among other incorrect assumptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bred at CITES approved farms and controlled by the relevant authority in those countries. Need to be on the allowable import list here first. When the list was enacted RA stated hybridisation with native Scleropages as a concern among other incorrect assumptions.

Ok but why are they are on cities in the first place? over seas I mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Article

Microsatellite Analysis of Wild and Captive Populations of Asian Arowana ( Scleropages formosus ) in Peninsular Malaysia

Rahman Shafiqur, Zakaria-Ismail Mohd, Pek Yee Tang, Muniandy Sekaran

Journal of Biological Sciences 01/2008; DOI:10.3923/jbs.2008.517.525

Source: DOAJ

ABSTRACT The genetic variability of wild populations of green arowana ( Scleropages formosus ) from Tasek Bera Lake and Endau River and a captive stock of Malaysian golden arowana as an out-group population was studied. The average number of alleles per locus was low, ranging from 2.33 in the Endau River population to 2.56 in the Tasek Bera Lake population. Departures from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium were observed in these three populations depending on the locus. Among nine loci, seven significantly deviated from Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium (p<0.05) in the Tasek Bera Lake population whereas five significantly departed from HWE (p<0.05) in the Endau River population. A deficit of heterozygosity was observed from the analysis of these nine loci. This genetic data indicate the wild population may be under stress due to inbreeding, over fishing and deterioration in the breeding environment. The estimates of FST and RST were statistically greater than zero for each comparison and this suggested the existence of three genetically distinct populations. However, the values of FST is low between Tasek Bera Lake and Endau River populations, reflecting historical patterns of connections between river systems in Peninsular Malaysia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having a chip only applies to international trade

It has nothing to do with domestic trade

Having a chip in Australia would prove the specimen was illegally imported

Having a specimen without a chip is legal in Australia if it descends from pre-convention stock

They were CITES listed due to the trade endangering wild populations

Chipping them was a requirement to allow trade in farmed specimens

Basically down-listing them from no commercial trade to commercial trade allowed

It is not hard to check facts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are sharing info rather than having a go at lack of knowledge....and this is obviously one very grey area when it comes to fishkeeping.....if people want to share good reliable sources of information for these guys then it would be great not only for those who would eventually like to own one but for those curious to know more about the situation with these guys...has anyone personally contacted the DPI in regards to keeping/acquiring these guys?????

and why the fuss.....an example of a sexy fish

post-2649-14711630165789_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did contacted Dani a few months ago on a plan to acquire a green arow from Sydney. Her reply is I need to be confortable on the "Source" being CITES listed, of the fish and it is not "noxious" here as a consolation. It's a bit risky and it lies on the keeper to prove beyond doubt on the legal origin of the fish. End of the day, Ive ended up parking this hunt. Would still want to own one of this mid/top level swimmers one day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Having a chip only applies to international trade

It has nothing to do with domestic trade

Having a chip in Australia would prove the specimen was illegally imported

Having a specimen without a chip is legal in Australia if it descends from pre-convention stock

They were CITES listed due to the trade endangering wild populations

Chipping them was a requirement to allow trade in farmed specimens

Basically down-listing them from no commercial trade to commercial trade allowed

It is not hard to check facts

No not hard to check facts.

CITES 1 animals which includes fish come under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 administered by the current Department of the Environment since it was established on 18.9.2013. CITES 1 animals can not be bought, sold, bred or traded in without the relevant permits.

"having a specimen in Australia without a chip is legal if it descends from pre convention stock" at best if you can prove such provenance to the departments that enforce the Act you might get to keep the fish could not sell it though, the provenance source will be dealt with under the act unfortunately.

Edited by Sclero p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies for late reply, family and work trumps.

I still think you are confusing issues, or possibly I can't see what you are disputing with me, or some other confusion

Please feel free to enlighten.

At the risk of appearing arrogant I will mention a couple of things.

First I have been involved with CITES issues for nearly 20yrs, advising scientific and management authorites etc... I was even an official delegate at a CITES COP.

Second I routinely deal with Federal and State Environment Authorities and their respective legislation and regulations.

Do I know everything no, but I do have a very good working knowledge.

I never comment on a public forum unless I am very certain what I am saying is correct.

If I am at all unsure I would rather pose a question than state a fact.

What I said in my prior post is true and what you wrote below does not contradict that.

I will go even further and say it is LEGAL to import, sell, buy, breed, trade Scleropages in Australia.

Though doing so can be at times difficult, but it is possible if done correctly.

Obviously it can be illegal as well, but the two scenarios are not mutually exclusive.

No not hard to check facts.

Not sure where you are going with this, maybe you are implying I was having a dig at you, dont know its a faceless forum.

It was a simply statement on my behalf no emotion at all

Check facts and you know things correctly

Read/write with emotion and you make mistakes

CITES 1 animals which includes fish come under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 administered by the current Department of the Environment since it was established on 18.9.2013. CITES 1 animals can not be bought, sold, bred or traded in without the relevant permits.

OK, what you say is correct.

Again what you wrote does not contradict my original post.

Australia's responsibilities to CITES came into effect during 1976

Scleropages were App I listed in 1975

After 1976 if you imported/exported one/some they would have required App I documentation for non commercial purposes.

But note as I mentioned above that only refers to international trade, not domestic trade.

Various countries since around 1990 have ranched this spp and thus are considered App II listed spp.

Due to control issues the use of microchips came into effect.

So a fish exported/imported post approx 1990 as ranched would require a microchip

Again as I mentioned, having a chip is not required in Australia only for International trade

If you can show me somewhere in the legislation or regulations that says otherwise please correct me.

The DEH is mainly concerned with imports and exports thus CITES.

They have nearly nothing to do with domestic trade etc...

"having a specimen in Australia without a chip is legal if it descends from pre convention stock" at best if you can prove such provenance to the departments that enforce the Act you might get to keep the fish could not sell it though, the provenance source will be dealt with under the act unfortunately.

This is a very tangled scenario and not best dealt with on a public forum

I do disagree with your statement though mainly in it's simplicity.

I refer you to the handling of birds in this regard.

There are ways to prove within reason and to the dept standards

If Rolly Mackay is on here he can add some cents.

Scleopages have been in Australia for a very long time and have/are being bred here.

If I have the post # correct your post #5 states it is illegal

I propose that the reason you came to this conclusion was you were thinking of what you presume to be illegal fish

If you come at the problem from simple legislation reading you may see why I say what I say.

The next thing is think why people are not prosecuted, in that detail you may see the understanding

Bottom line I guess is it is not so clear cut and illegal as you state

There is enough grey to not worry, unless you have a chipped fish, which would prove it illegal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...