Jump to content

Asian Arowana Import Listing Chances?


Nornicle

Recommended Posts

Very promising report -> http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity...s-formosus.html

negligible impact and risk to environment, and low impact to native land due to mass artificial breeding...

The report was draft in January and closed in March, does anyone know when the biodiversity guys make a decision

and more important when I can I start spending my $3k on a REALLY good fish instead of an RTG? (still a good fish no less!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not sure how they dont pose a risk to the togas environment if they get wild. (and they almost certainly will if they come in with large numbers)

also not sure how having a monopoly on import will help price

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you Gav - I think they pose a serious threat to native Osteoglossids, and phrases in the proposal such as:

The Scleropages formosus (Asian Arowana) are in demand because of the Chinese beliefs and good feng shui, it therefore exist in the home and in home they remain for the rest of their lives and would not be release in the wild. The fact that they are high price so they are very well taken care of.

make my skin crawl. I am glad you have brought this to our attention though, my research group is involved with Saratoga; we will be on the Fitzroy River for most of October studying their breeding behaviour in an attempt to understand their limited distribution patterns and, perhaps now, their vulnerability to introduced exotics. Although the manuscript is closed for comments, we are going to prepare a submission to Dept of Environment strongly opposed to this application which will hopefully be considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong, nothing to do with their aesthetic value or association with Eastern beliefs. I think the fact that people value them (for whatever reason) is a very, very poor reason to expect they will not be released into the wild. I imagine many people are very attached to their dogs and cats, but these are turned out of home each day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the risk of a feral population of asian arowana populating australia?

I feel it's quite hypocritical to marginalise certain fish but not others, I would say that there at least a dozen other fish (read: cichlids) already on the import list with a higher risk of being released and with a higher impact (read: cichlids) on the Saratoga's environment than the Asian Arowana.

How does high price and high aesthetic and intrinsic value make your skin crawl? If anything this increases the value of the fish at home and not in a river system. That and the fact that they do not mass breed (a la everyone's favourite 'cichlids')

I think the fact that the fish themselves will cost over $200 (and more likely in the thousands) each is enough to make sure they aren't going to be released into the wild, we're not talking $2 bristlenose kept by kids with nets in the nearby pond here.

what makes my skin crawls are general statements like 'crossing is a high possibility' I doubt anyone even knows if this is possible as although they are by evolution long distant cousins, their respective lands have been separated by millions of years.

I'm all for a healthy discussion but please park ignorance and knee jerk reactions at the door.

edit:

2nd try.

Adding to the list will also reduce two things

a) the current smuggling of arowana into the country (and not through quarrantine facilities mind you) can you imagine the risk this currently poses? water in the bag from the mother country, fish with no quarrantine period... waste water ... etc?

b) the smuggling of wild caught arowana (strictly CITES protected)

what adding the fish to the list would do would legitimise and proceduralise something that has already gone on for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are all for healthy discussion, too - This is one of the most helpful and entertaining forums you will find!

But everyone is entitled to an opinion - no one slammed you personally, they merely expressed concern at a topic you raised.

IMO there are already enough unstable populations of native fish in this country due to irresponsible aquarium fanciers that all decisions about introducing more species to the trade need to be considered very carefully, and everyone has a right to support or disagree with those decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to express a definitive opinion on whether or not arowana will pose a material risk to native Osteos, but it is a little concerning that you have already preconceived a conclusion to your proposed submission prior to the research being done. I would imagine that such research is now going to be pretty arbitrary at best and extremely biased at worst?

Your analogy on cats and dogs is a bit misleading. It would be rare to see a $2000 pedigree dog turned loose on the streets. For purely monetary reasons alone I believe it would be extremely unlikely for an arowana to be released into the wild, given that you could recoup a fairly large chunk of your initial investment by selling it instead.

In addition, as I understand it these fish are sold microchipped on an individual basis and would be fairly easy to track as far as ownership and source goes.

I must admit I have not delved into this issue in depth, but on a superficial level if you're proposing a ban on this fish, I'd be willing to bet that there would be a large number of other importable fish you would have to place at a higher risk level than an arowana.

On the issue of hybridisation - given Asian breeder's apparent obsession with hybridisation the fact that this does not appear to have occured at a commercial level would appear to suggest that it would again probably unlikely that the natives would hybridise with the asian aros. I'm sure someone has tried to do so in the past.

Would suggest keeping an open mind from a scientific point of view. All too often these issues become far too emotive! ;)

Cheers

Vincent

I agree with you Gav - I think they pose a serious threat to native Osteoglossids, and phrases in the proposal such as:

The Scleropages formosus (Asian Arowana) are in demand because of the Chinese beliefs and good feng shui, it therefore exist in the home and in home they remain for the rest of their lives and would not be release in the wild. The fact that they are high price so they are very well taken care of.

make my skin crawl. I am glad you have brought this to our attention though, my research group is involved with Saratoga; we will be on the Fitzroy River for most of October studying their breeding behaviour in an attempt to understand their limited distribution patterns and, perhaps now, their vulnerability to introduced exotics. Although the manuscript is closed for comments, we are going to prepare a submission to Dept of Environment strongly opposed to this application which will hopefully be considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad to see that people feel strongly about this topic, but let's keep what Limegirl has said in mind; while I don't think Aro's should be imported, it's not a personal attack on you Nornicle. I agree that the import list as it stands is foolish - there are fish on there, known to have established feral populations, that are stilled allowed through the door while others, most certainly more innocuous, are banned. A particularly amusing example I think is that N leleupi are allowed, but only if they are the yellow morph; the ecological difference among morphs is beyond me. That the list is already flawed is not a good reason to make it worse. If a review of the list was undertaken, I would feel just as strongly about getting some cichlids off it as you may. So, this is not a knee-jerk reaction, nor is it a battle between cichlids and aro's or whatever else. I love my dwarf South Americans, but I would take a lot of convincing to add more to the import list because of the risks they pose to natives. Rather, my concern is that we simply don't know what impact Aro's will have on Saratoga populations, and that is reason enough to leave them off the list until we do know. Arguments that they are too valuable to be let go by hobbyists are beside the point. The question is whether they pose a threat if they are released (however unlikely that may be), and if they do, I don't believe they should come in.

I do agree with you that the illegal smuggling of aro's is worse than proper quarantine procedures, but legalising them for that reason is the same as legalising drugs - admittedly a much bigger problem, but the same argument - they are coming in anyway so we should push them through proper channels. I guess the reply to that argument is that if we don't want them here (drugs, fish, whatever), security is the thing that should be looked at. Arowana in their natural habitat should be just as well protected as Saratoga (and perhaps more because as you say they are already under threat).

Vincent, your insinuation that research my group conducts would be arbitrary and biased is simply offensive. The fact is that almost nothing is known about Saratoga; there are fewer than ten published scientific papers about them, and most of this research was conducted in the 1980s and focussed on aquaculture rather than natural history and conservation. This dearth of information should be a cause of great concern for anyone interested in Osteoglossids. An objection to the proposal would be based on precisely the arguments I have presented here - we don't know what the impact will be, and until we do, their addition to the import list should wait. As far as I'm concerned, this is as open-minded as it gets - I have no reason (and no evidence) to believe that Aro's pose a threat to natives, but, with exactly equal weight, I have no reason or evidence to suggest that they don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my concern with the aros is that they are closely related to the togas. as such they have similar environments, relatively similar feeding patterns and one would assume fairly similar breeding patterns. that to me would put them in direct competition with the togas. i never considered any hybridisation, and wouldnt know if its possible. i am talking simply about direct competition

also, once asians are on the import list, who is to say that south americans (ie silvers) wont then end up here? i mean heck, since the last lot of changes, and allowing new catfish here, there seems to me more illicit catfish available than EVER before. every other week there is someone with stuff that can only have been gotten through smuggling. so if silvers start arriving, based on the asian prices of them you could easily get them for 30 to 40 bucks a shot. that then means there is a considerably larger risk of these fish being released.

and i agree, there are many other fish that pose more risk, and as such they should not be allowed in either. I also wish that somehow aqis would grow some balls and start hammering the people that are smuggling in the aros, catfish, cichlids and the like that seem to be arriving like there is no tomorrow. its simply a joke how much is getting in these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Australian saratoga is far more agressive and dominant than the asian arrow, so i mean no real threat there, i say start importing them already, enough with all the red tape.

nick!

my concern with the aros is that they are closely related to the togas. as such they have similar environments, relatively similar feeding patterns and one would assume fairly similar breeding patterns. that to me would put them in direct competition with the togas. i never considered any hybridisation, and wouldnt know if its possible. i am talking simply about direct competition

also, once asians are on the import list, who is to say that south americans (ie silvers) wont then end up here? i mean heck, since the last lot of changes, and allowing new catfish here, there seems to me more illicit catfish available than EVER before. every other week there is someone with stuff that can only have been gotten through smuggling. so if silvers start arriving, based on the asian prices of them you could easily get them for 30 to 40 bucks a shot. that then means there is a considerably larger risk of these fish being released.

and i agree, there are many other fish that pose more risk, and as such they should not be allowed in either. I also wish that somehow aqis would grow some balls and start hammering the people that are smuggling in the aros, catfish, cichlids and the like that seem to be arriving like there is no tomorrow. its simply a joke how much is getting in these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact is that almost nothing is known about Saratoga; there are fewer than ten published scientific papers about them, and most of this research was conducted in the 1980s and focussed on aquaculture rather than natural history and conservation. This dearth of information should be a cause of great concern for anyone interested in Osteoglossids. An objection to the proposal would be based on precisely the arguments I have presented here - we don't know what the impact will be, and until we do, their addition to the import list should wait. As far as I'm concerned, this is as open-minded as it gets - I have no reason (and no evidence) to believe that Aro's pose a threat to natives, but, with exactly equal weight, I have no reason or evidence to suggest that they don't.

Your claims about lack of scientific journals surprises me although I am not in a position to dispute this. However the claim there is a dearth if information is misleading since there is a huge amount of anecdotal knowledge both here in Australia and overseas since saratoga (both S. jardini and S. leichardti) have been kept AND captively bred for quite a while now. A simple google search will provide optimum spawning conditions, natural habital conditions, breeding seasons, diet and behavioural information. If there is a lack of scientific publication it is simply because there has not been the money or the need since they are an ornamental fish of limited export and commercial value. - Its much cheaper to farm them overseas with less red tape....! The QLD state government has been spawning and releasing the S. leichardti for recreational sport fishing into areas they do not naturally occur and I have leichardi spawning in my backyard dam each year. Even if we know all about the saratoga, the real unknown is what may happen if Asian arowana are released. There is no way to know the impact without some trials which would require limited importation approval. This uncertainty is not grounds to withhold importation IMO although I am sure all the fish smugglers and current asian aro breeders would be anxious to stop importation.

make my skin crawl. I am glad you have brought this to our attention though, my research group is involved with Saratoga; we will be on the Fitzroy River for most of October studying their breeding behaviour in an attempt to understand their limited distribution patterns and, perhaps now, their vulnerability to introduced exotics. Although the manuscript is closed for comments, we are going to prepare a submission to Dept of Environment strongly opposed to this application which will hopefully be considered.

I am not attacking you (AlexJordan) or your scientific groups integrity but it appears you have already made your decision about this import application despite October research being weeks away.

Anyway, I clearly remember all the years of lobbying that went into recent schedule 6 submission being accepted. If thats any indication the next addition will be several decades and countless rejections away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said Fishdance. I agree that actually getting Saratoga to breed is easy enough (given the space) - our closest collaborator in QLD has been doing it for years on a commercial scale (as have our collaborators in Singapore with Aro's). The problem here is one that threatens fish research in general - the disparity between anecdotal evidence from captive keepers (of which I am most certainly a part!), and actual empirical studies that can be presented as evidence in any debate. As you may know, there is a great deal of research into the guppy, and studies using these guys show that experimental, captive trials translate only loosely into the situation in the wild. If this field research had not been done, decisions made on captive data would be misleading. Hence, even when much anecdotal evidence exists, field studies are essential (and hopefully can be informed by evidence from breeders).

You are right - I have made a decision about the application, based as I have said, on the fact that no information yet exists about what the interaction will be. This is the opposite of jumping to conclusions however. I don't assume (nor have I ever in this debate) that Aro's will displace Saratoga, I don't assume they will hybridise, I don't assume that they will interact in any way at all with the native populations. Moreover, I don't think my research in October will go any way to informing this particular problem. As you say, that would require impact trials. My key argument is that these are necessary before a decision is made. I have no vested interest either way. I don't think economics or the wishes of illegal smugglers should come into this though, it should be purely conservation-minded.

In the end, this is a government decision, and hence democratically decided. I can shout as much as I want, but if there are two people shouting against me I will lose the debate, and that's fair enough. I hope that you have leant your support to the application - it's just a shame it may have come to our attention too late.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

good discussion :) I think what rubbed people the wrong way was the 'im doing research in the future, but have already come to a conclusion for the submission prior to the research and will fight the application' i.e.

Although the manuscript is closed for comments, we are going to prepare a submission to Dept of Environment strongly opposed to this application which will hopefully be considered.

I don't think you meant it like that but there is definitely something to said for not letting fish willy nilly into the country

but $2000 super red? yes please!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what makes my skin crawls are general statements like 'crossing is a high possibility' I doubt anyone even knows if this is possible as although they are by evolution long distant cousins, their respective lands have been separated by millions of years.

High possibility is just that a possibiity and you cannot just discard that possibility. Years ago I was sent a picture of a supposed jardini x formosus. It had 5 rows of scales and a pink spotted tail. There are numerous inter-species hybrids in the animal kingdom even if they have been seperated for millions of years.

Remember that it only takes small changes in genetic sequence or the expression of genes to change the look of a particular organism. A single codon change (A, T, G or C) in a gene can change the amino acid coded and which can therefore change/inhibit/reduce the function of the protein. A codon insertion or deletion can render the protein non-functional. Look at how different chimps are to humans but their genomes are 95% the same and share a 99% similarity in coding DNA sequence.

In regards to letting an expensive fish go... all it takes is someone trying to breed them in a pond. There are numerous accounts of farmed fish escaping into local waterways. All is needed is a flash flood.

The Australian saratoga is far more agressive and dominant than the asian arrow, so i mean no real threat there, i say start importing them already, enough with all the red tape.

This is based on a tank environment. You cannot compare this to the wild. e.g. bettas. From everyone I know who has kept asians, they say they are pretty agro themselvees.

Don't get me wrong. I would love to see them on the import list and I would get one, but I do think we need to look at and discuss all potential issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is a good chance Aro will survive in warmer part of australia such as north of australia. but the chance of them surviving in wild in NSW or Victoria during winter is not possible due to the chilling water.

i think the best way is for experiment to be done by Saratoga breeders on their farm. in a control environment where they could study the behaviour of saratoga and formosa together will give us a good understanding of the fish living together.

never rule out anything or come to a conclusion without hard facts as mention above.

there are always pros and cons. :clap

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read that article a while back and was be wondering how it went. I do not think it was a convincing article. It seemed to be more of an emotive article rather than scientifical backed.

It seems you have all raised valid points, so I'll put my observations through.

Would it be a fact that the asian arowana were imported before the import list became law?

I do not believe that to place an animal onto the import list, we must negate all possibility of a feral population being established. This is foolhardy simply because Australia spans a fair distance in longitude and lattitude, so it provides a large varied environment for practically any exotic animal to establish a feral population. If that was an absolute condition, then all exotic animals would be on the noxious list, which would make many of our arguments biased simply because I'm sure most of us keep exotic fish.

What goes on to the list, I believe would have many elements to be considered, including value to the general population, economic gains and of course also protecting our native animals and our environment. At present, we import and farm many animals which are highly destructive of our environment, however it is deemed a necessity to carry us in our way of life (which tends to be a high consumer society). So when a fish is placed upon the list, all of these elements would be judged, and I find that the article did not fully address those fields. I was looking forward to a large number of field surveys, multiple surveys of the arowana's environment compared to our native lands. I was looking for forecast and mathematical models of economic gain or loss and also human-behavioural scientist accounts of the benefits of an ornamental fish. Basically, I thought that the document past forward was slightly vague and needed to be more indepth.

Going on, I believe that the asian arowana can be candidate to be on the import list. Firstly, it is held in high esteem by our Chinese community (insert data here) and also a growing number of people fascinated with keeping it as an ornamental fish (insert number of potential people here, also insert $$$ lol). I think what is important to point out is that the arowana was almost fished to extinction and was duely placed on CITES. This evidence points out that if there ever is a need to control this fish, then it would be possible. This fish is almost impossible to breed in an aquarium setup, so it's population will not increase via domestic means, so we can generalise that it's demand will have to be met by commercial means, since the demand will not necessarily wane due to a population explosion, this "reduces" the chance of the fish being released. Should this fish be released, it is a surface hunter and the methods to quickly capture and eradicate this fish from the wild are as follows (insert expert fishing accounts from oevrseas).

To summarise, if we base upon potential harm to native animals, it would not surpass cats. Harm to the environment, it would not surpass horses and cattle. It's value is above most farmed animals and it would retain it's value. We don't see many macaws (especially the hyacinths - drool) in the wild, do we? Whether we can control this fish and the ease with eradication of a population in the wild is something only an expert would know. There are many variables that I'm sure I have not thought of, but maybe more will be pointed out by people.

ps. Hmm, how come we can only import Dekeyseria pulcher (L168s)? You would think that they would look at the whole Genus of Dekeyseria sp. Weird but true, lol.

Cheers,

Vien.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following, from Lintermans (2004), raises two interesting points relevant to this discussion. First, the fact that a species is easily eradicated from it's own native habitat doesn't mean it will be as easily eradicated in a novel environment. Second, that the import list is inherently flawed with regard to the invasiveness of species listed. I maintain though that the fact there are species on there that are causing problems is not sufficient reason to place yet more on the list (especially those sharing ecological niches with Australian species).

One of the most recent aquarium species to establish is the white cloud mountain minnow (Tanichthys albonubes), which is on the permitted import list, suggesting it has undergone some form of risk assessment for establishment, yet has recently established in streams on the central coast of NSW, and in suburban Brisbane (ASFB 2003c). Ironically, this species is threatened with extinction in its native country of China but has developed a substantial population in a short period of time in NSW. Despite widespread recognition of the potential for establishment of aquarium species, this species was actively promoted in the Frogwatch field guide as suitable for stocking for mosquito control in outside ponds (Robinson 1991). Whether this species has

become established via the discarding of aquarium fish or escape from outside ponds where it was used for mosquito control is unknown. It is also somewhat ironic to note that of alien aquarium species established in Australia, more than 40% (nine out of 22 species) are on the permitted import list (McNee 2002).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fair enough, and all fair points because there are many fish that have invaded our streams.

but at what level do we balance human recreation and risk of envionmental damage? do we reduce the number of fish until we end up with fish that cannot survive in Australia as a whole, because nearly every fish that we have on the list has a chance of building a population in Australia...

so considering that we have every imaginable water environment in the world, I guess we can only keep arctic fish and we'll all need chillers :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fair enough, and all fair points because there are many fish that have invaded our streams.

but at what level do we balance human recreation and risk of envionmental damage? do we reduce the number of fish until we end up with fish that cannot survive in Australia as a whole, because nearly every fish that we have on the list has a chance of building a population in Australia...

so considering that we have every imaginable water environment in the world, I guess we can only keep arctic fish and we'll all need chillers :p

good point, where do we draw the line on balance.

lets eradicate all non-native species now, we still have time! :lol3:

lets permanently ban all imports from now on to make sure we dont have problem eradicating fish in novel environment! :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...or I guess we could just allow everything and anything into all countries and end up with monocultures of Gambusia, Carp, Tilapia and Lates, and drive Sartoga, Aro's, Tanganyikans, and any other non-robust species to extinction in the wild (as with many Lake Victorian's). Then we would see how expensive Aro's would become! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not think arowanas should be allowed just because people want them. The way i see it if asian aros can be breed to produce bright reds and golds then why can't saratogas? Start your own breeding program. Make a name for yourself! :lol2:

The risk is far to great in my opinion. For instance you cannot guarantee that the price on aros will remain in the thousands or even over $200 for very long. By this i mean after 5 years of heavy breeding silver aros will probably go for the same price as saratogas. So what will stop people releasing them then?I know of many people who would chuck out a $70 fish if they didn't know the proper channels to sell it through. :shock:

The argument that this fish is important to chinese beliefs is not relevant This is Australia not China and if Chinese people can't live with what we have here already then they should move to China instead of putting native fauna at risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...