Bangaii Cardinalfish ruling coming soon

[Sharkey18]

Interesting article of the fate of the Bangaii in the aquarium trade.  Was also in a recent issue of Coral magazine. 

 

http://www.reef2rainforest.com/2014/03/31/banggai-cardinal-moves-closer-to-endangered-species-listing/

[Jason Rhoads]

Thanks for the link Laura, drives home the importance of what you are working on with these fish! Thanks again for your role in getting captive bred Bangaii to us aquarists! 

[dave w]

Seeing the wild populations plummet from 15 million to 2 million should give every aquarist the resolve to buy aquacultured fish wherever possible.  Bangaii cardinals are often available captive bred, and we should stop buying wild caught if we have a choice.

[YHSublime]

Seeing the wild populations plummet from 15 million to 2 million should give every aquarist the resolve to buy aquacultured fish wherever possible. Bangaii cardinals are often available captive bred, and we should stop buying wild caught if we have a choice.

We are lucky to have Laura and pants (I don't know his real name) breeding them for WAMAS, we really are lucky with all our members!

[Sharkey18]

It will be interesting how they rule. 

 

If the fish is declared endangered it will no longer be legal to breed and sell them. It's sort of a catch 22 when this happens. While it does offer protection to fish in the wild it can curtail the efforts of those like me who are interested in small scale breeding programs, not to mention large scale breeding operations. 

 

I am not sure if it will be illegal to breed and give them away. 

 

If they are only listed as threatened, breeding and selling could remain legal. 

[gmerek2]

It's only illegal to breed and sell if you get caught. Even if you get caught someone still has to care lol I have done worse. I saw that Petco sells tank bred ones. Illegal makes it more fun and Makes me want to pick up a couple up off you.

[howaboutme]

Wow Laura....That would be awful if the ruling curtails private breeding efforts. If the ruling is meant to prevent extinction or otherwise harmful activities of the species (in the wild), it doesn't make sense to eliminate breeding efforts...That sounds like a negative loophole and probably is not meant to do exactly that. I'm glad you guys are doing what you're doing and happy w/ my fish. Ironically, mine doesn't truly hoover..he/she likes to swim around! Keep us informed and thanks!

[gmerek2]

Wow Laura....That would be awful if the ruling curtails private breeding efforts. If the ruling is meant to prevent extinction or otherwise harmful activities of the species (in the wild), it doesn't make sense to eliminate breeding efforts...That sounds like a negative loophole and probably is not meant to do exactly that. I'm glad you guys are doing what you're doing and happy w/ my fish. Ironically, mine doesn't truly hoover..he/she likes to swim around! Keep us informed and thanks!

I agree but I guess there is no where to tell where they come from if you have a load of them :(

[howaboutme]

I agree but I guess there is no where to tell where they come from if you have a load of them :(

 

Ah...that's right and good point. I see now. Still...it'll be our little secret..just put this in the members only thread.

[gmerek2]

. CLOWNFISH for sale!

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[morgan175]

. CLOWNFISH for sale!

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I got to have one of these. Cool clown. Never saw markings like that before.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gmerek2]

I got to have one of these. Cool clown. Never saw markings like that before.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well it's one of my new designer clowns. Yea I think it's important that they ban import of the fish but breeders should be able to sell with proof of breeding program.

[Sharkey18]

LOL... you guys crack me up. 

 

 

It's an interesting conundrum.  The issue is that there is no way to identify tank bred bangaii from wild caught.  This means that someone bringing in bangaii illegally just need to get them across the border and then can claim they are "tank bred".  There is no way to really know.  

 

Wild parrot conservationists are facing the same issue. No one thinks catching wold birds is a good thing, but declaring them illegal to import also makes it illegal to have and sell. 

 

 

I like the clownfish angle.... 

[TrueTricia]

Wow Laura....That would be awful if the ruling curtails private breeding efforts. If the ruling is meant to prevent extinction or otherwise harmful activities of the species (in the wild), it doesn't make sense to eliminate breeding efforts...That sounds like a negative loophole and probably is not meant to do exactly that. I'm glad you guys are doing what you're doing and happy w/ my fish. Ironically, mine doesn't truly hoover..he/she likes to swim around! Keep us informed and thanks!

 

Actually, not a negative loophole. While I agree, Laura not being able to breed them will suck (I've seen her gorgeous babies!), there is a very real rationale applied here.  We live in the US, a great country where for the most part, our supply chains are heavily regulated and transparent (compared to other countries).  But in countries like Indonesia, government corruption means the labeling difference between "captive-bred" and "wild-caught" Bangaiis are only a bribe away.  Furthermore, there is no way to actually tell whether a particular specimen has been captive bred or not.  We don't include an affixed tag that tells us (maybe Laura should think about some glowing green genetic markers?).  If captive populations were allowed to be bred, maintained, and sold, it would make it virtually impossible to enforce the very protections that the ESA status is trying to give the fish.  Stores/People would only have to forge paperwork to show that their specimens are captive bred.  The blackmarket in this fish would ensure that the wild populations would see no conservation effect from the ESA listing. 

 

In other words, go hard or go home.  If you don't provide for realistic applications and enforcability of the ESA listing, there is no point in bothering in the first place.  I've worked on animal trafficking cases, and having lived in Miami for 10+ years, the blackmarket for animals is thriving and a major industry even in the US.  DOJ Environmental Crimes deals with hundreds of trafficking cases a year, and that's just the smugglers they catch!  When I worked with them, I was flabergasted at the lengths people will go to illegally transport and sell animals.  Horrifying.

 

What I'm more interested in finding out is how the ESA listing will apply to those of us who already have the fish.  If I buy one from Laura now, can I keep it?  In many cases, a grandfather permit can be used, but how do you track that with fish?  If mine dies, can I sneak another one from Laura and still use the permit (not technically, I know).  But cases like that highlight why even allowing "grandfather" rules for the Bangaii may be problematic.  As acquarists, we need to be conscious of the effect our hobby has on the wild.  I got into reefing because I love diving.  If there are no fish and no diversity left in the ocean, then it's a sad sad day.  I would much rather lose my rights as an aquarist than see the wild devoid of such beautiful diversity. 

 

That being said, Laura, I'm still buying one/two off of you!  Let me know when they're ready. 

[sen5241b]

Does it make sense for the law to allow captive bred and disallow any imports of it? BTW, I've seen first hand the incredibly lax enforcement of environmental laws in foreigh countries.

[Sharkey18]

I agree Tricia, I was never saying that I disagreed with the ruling if that is what happens. It's a very interesting problem. I agree that efforts to protect wild populations requires that captive populations also be controlled because of the inability to identify one from the other. 

 

Sen, i understand what you are saying,  but that will only encourage the smuggling of the fish, because once they are in the country you can just claim it was tank bred. 

[ctenophore]

I think banning wild caught banggais would be very bad for the species.  They come from one tiny geographic area that is otherwise unremarkable in its natural resources.  It is not a significant tourist destination, so asking the world to forget about the banggai cardinalfish so it can live in its little corner of the world is just asking for the island to be otherwise exploited for timber, limestone, and similar reef destroying resource extraction activities.  Instead, why not a tax on import which might help fund a well monitored marine protected area and fishery management agency in the banggai archipelago?  It's not like they'd have to patrol some immense area- the fish only live in 34 square kilometers of ocean.  I would pay an additional $5 per fish if that $5 went towards outfitting a suitably empowered enforcement group overseeing the collection areas.  It would be easy enough to enforce the tax fairly.  The fish are very recognizable at any point in the supply chain.  Rather than taking 100,000 fish per month in the existing free-for-all, a 10k fish/month quota backed by a MPA with a police force with a 50k/mo budget overseeing 34 kilometers would result in a very well managed fishery.

[dave w]

I think Justin has a great idea here, if it could be enforced.  But in response to Tricia's point, why not just put a maximum size limit on the fish?  Captive bred fish are sold at small sizes because each day's growout means more food cost and fewer baby fish.  So why not make a ruling that bangaiis could only be traded if they were under, say, 20 millimeters in size it would ensure that only captive bred fish were available in the market.  

 

Usually in the wild small fish are much harder to find and are more cryptic than adult fish.  It would be impractical for Indonesian divers to capture, handle and transport only small fish when they should be available by the thousands from captive breeders.

 

I think a mazimum size limit would restrict the wild trade, so the price of bangaiis would go up making aquacultured cardinals more available and more profitable.  That's what worked with wild caught exotic birds in the 1980's.  Once people figured out how to breed and grow the chicks the price of birds plummeted.  While there will always be destitute collectors and shady middlemen in the third world trying to make money, lowered prices takes much of the incentive away.

 

.

[ctenophore]

I used to be very pro-domestic-aquaculture, but after seeing fledgling programs like the PNG Seasmart type managed fisheries attempt to bring sustainably caught fish to the ornamental market while providing strong economic incentive to the village fishermen, I now feel that correctly managed fisheries in source countries really do represent one of the best avenues of general reef protection available.  If they can realize great value from a few boatfuls of tiny colorful minnows, that is going to be way more sustainable than fishing for apex predators or cutting down all the forests and causing mudslides into the reefs.  While captive breeding is certainly worth learning, I feel that it is actually better to rely on the 34 square kilometers of the banggai's natural range to provide the majority of the fish to the aquarium trade- but to do so in a careful manner, so that the populations of fish can actually be increased by proper resource management, like Hawaii's yellow tang or Florida's snook fisheries.

[MBVette]

Justin I think this works in the US b/c we actually have a good amount of people who care and the gov't is not corrupt like they are in Indonesia and throughout where most of our livestock comes from.  I just have no faith the Indonesian gov't would not take some money here and there and let people fish for what they want.  That is my only issue with your idea, b/c I think its a great idea just don't believe it will work.

[dave w]

Justin has a good point.  Many permanent third world jobs could be created if Indonesian divers were retrained as local aquaculturists.  However it is a competitive world and I for one would like to see a little aquaculture success right here in our own back yard.  The cost of raising a fish in Indonesia is small compared to the cost of air freighting it 4,000 miles to our market.  

 

Both Justin's model and local aquaculture are more sustainable than the current model, which is to pay local divers nearly nothing to deplete wild fisheries.

 

One other point about putting a size restriction on bangaiis, it would leave all the big mature fish on the reef to replenish wild populations.  Which is how it should be.

[Sharkey18]

Such great info! 

[Sharkey18]

From the article:

 

So what happens if the Banngai cardinalfish is listed as either endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act? Based on precedent, it seems clear the captive-bred population would not be treated as distinct from the wild population in any legal sense. If it were, WildEarth Guardians would likely litigate that decision. That leaves it up to special rules, and then only if the species is listed as threatened. Would aquarists keeping Banggai Cardinalfish have to get rid of them at once, or would captive-held populations be grandfathered? Overall, FWS is not generally supportive of listed animals being kept as pets, but keeping an endangered or threatened species as a pet is not illegal so long as prohibited activity (e.g., commercial activity) does not occur.

 

“While the Service discourages keeping listed species as pets,” a spokesperson said in a prepared statement, “permits are not required to keep or breed endangered or threatened animals as pets provided that you are not attempting to carry out any prohibited activities. The purpose of the Act is to conserve and protect listed species and recover wild populations. While not illegal, using protected species as pets is not consistent with the purposes of the Act.”

Edited June 8, 2014 by Sharkey18

[TrueTricia]

 

From the article:

 

So what happens if the Banngai cardinalfish is listed as either endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act? Based on precedent, it seems clear the captive-bred population would not be treated as distinct from the wild population in any legal sense. If it were, WildEarth Guardians would likely litigate that decision. That leaves it up to special rules, and then only if the species is listed as threatened. Would aquarists keeping Banggai Cardinalfish have to get rid of them at once, or would captive-held populations be grandfathered? Overall, FWS is not generally supportive of listed animals being kept as pets, but keeping an endangered or threatened species as a pet is not illegal so long as prohibited activity (e.g., commercial activity) does not occur.

 

“While the Service discourages keeping listed species as pets,” a spokesperson said in a prepared statement, “permits are not required to keep or breed endangered or threatened animals as pets provided that you are not attempting to carry out any prohibited activities. The purpose of the Act is to conserve and protect listed species and recover wild populations. While not illegal, using protected species as pets is not consistent with the purposes of the Act.”

 

 

So those of us that have them can keep them, but your breeding business, as a commercial activity, would be technically illegal.  Guess if you "trade" them, then it would be ok, but I would get a legal opinion on that (and not mine).

 

 

I think Justin has a great idea here, if it could be enforced.  But in response to Tricia's point, why not just put a maximum size limit on the fish?  Captive bred fish are sold at small sizes because each day's growout means more food cost and fewer baby fish.  So why not make a ruling that bangaiis could only be traded if they were under, say, 20 millimeters in size it would ensure that only captive bred fish were available in the market.  

 

Usually in the wild small fish are much harder to find and are more cryptic than adult fish.  It would be impractical for Indonesian divers to capture, handle and transport only small fish when they should be available by the thousands from captive breeders.

 

I think a mazimum size limit would restrict the wild trade, so the price of bangaiis would go up making aquacultured cardinals more available and more profitable.  That's what worked with wild caught exotic birds in the 1980's.  Once people figured out how to breed and grow the chicks the price of birds plummeted.  While there will always be destitute collectors and shady middlemen in the third world trying to make money, lowered prices takes much of the incentive away.

 

.

 

Dave.  I don't disagree with your point.  In fact, that might be a great way to manage it.  But, the reality is that it probably won't work.  Here's why: you would have to write in a whole new exception for the species to the ESA laws.  While laywers do love to argue, the fact of the matter is that exceptions to such wide-ranging laws rarely happen, because once you do, everyone wants one.  It would be hard to justify why the Bangaii Cardinal deserves one, but say the Black Rhino does not.  I know that's a crazy size difference, but the legal rationale would likely have to be the same.  The standard for granting the exceptions would need to be equally applied to all species.  As a disclaimer, i don't practice in ESA law, so I could be wrong.  But that's the first legal issue I spot with your idea.  Some other species-activist group may already have figured out a way around that, but I'm not sure. 

 

The other issue with the size is enforceability.  How many fisherman actually stick to the size rules (12" right?) here in the US?  How many take fish that are smaller than the minimum?  And this is a country that enforces it's rules effectively when compared to 3rd world countries.  Of course, the customs process would probably help to minimize that impact.

 

And maybe we could have a WAMAS fundraiser to build an aquaculture facility in Indonesia to breed up the little guys and release them back into the wild?  Otherwise, despite the great jobs that it creates, taking them out of the wild is nothing but a short-term solution.  Once the Bangaiis are no longer present in sustainable numbers, the population will drop, the species will be practically extinct, and all jobs created by catching them will be gone.  Do a search on the number of ocean species thought to be extinct or endangered due to overfishing.  The numbers are staggering, and that's just for the species we know about.  The oceans are teeming with new species constantly being discovered.  But the reality is for every new species we discover, there are dozens that we've killed off before even discovering them. 

 

The truth of the matter is that we humans as a species do a poor job at saving other species.  Sure, there are some great success stories, like the Peregrine Falcon or the Bald Eagle.  But for the most part, everything we touch dies and disappears.

[dave w]

Tricia you are right.  My idea of size limits is a practical solution that wouldn't work from a legal view.  Too bad there isn't a way to present a common sense solution in the international legal environment.