Bangaii Cardinalfish ruling coming soon

[Sharkey18]

Yep Tricia, you are spot on. 

 

What I am guessing, but will have to look into in more detail, is that for individuals like me, I could continue to breed and give away the fish, which I would be happy to do. But it would shut down large breeding operations who are selling for profit. 

[TrueTricia]

Hopefully, if Bangaii get added to the ESA, it will entice local fisherman to convert from catching these guys to showing them off in their natural habitat to local divers and snorkelers.  Not that the ESA rules in other countries, but I imagine US is one of the larger importers. 

 

Dave, there are many legal issues that totally hamper the practical solutions for the world's problems.  Sux.

 

Laura, let me know when your batch is ready!  And Allison says hi!

[Origami]

What I am guessing, but will have to look into in more detail, is that for individuals like me, I could continue to breed and give away the fish, which I would be happy to do. But it would shut down large breeding operations who are selling for profit. 

Maybe without the economic pressure, the species would have a chance to recover. After all, that's what the law intends to do.

 

This is a great discussion. Tricia, you've brought a lot to it, as has Justin and Dave.

 

Next question: What is it exactly that so severely restricts the distribution of this species to such a small area? Could it be just the physical / geographic isolation by large bodies of deep water that keep the species confined? Such limited distribution seems to me to be a significant risk, both environmental as well as a political. From this Wikipedia article, it looks like it's in several places, but most interestingly, also is found 400 miles north of its natural range of distribution. This other population appears to be the result of intentional or unintentional release by the aquarium trade. Such geographic diversity could be the key to keeping the species around because of the reservoir that it provides. Not unlike reintroduction of the gray wolf back into the US at Yellowstone National Park from Canada a few years back. The obvious difference, of course, being that this outlier population of Banggai Cardinalfish is not part of the natural range of the species as was the case with the Gray Wolves from Canada.

[dave w]

One always has to be careful about introducing a species into a new area because of the unintended consequences.  For all we know, the new Bangaiis might displace another endemic fish or disrupt an eco-system like lionfish in the Caribbean.  Given that Bangaiis have probably been around for a few million years, mother nature has probably already found a way to distribute them to other areas and there may be a good reason they didn't become more widespread.

[Origami]

One always has to be careful about introducing a species into a new area because of the unintended consequences. For all we know, the new Bangaiis might displace another endemic fish or disrupt an eco-system like lionfish in the Caribbean. Given that Bangaiis have probably been around for a few million years, mother nature has probably already found a way to distribute them to other areas and there may be a good reason they didn't become more widespread.

I agree. But this has happened already, and it doesn't sound like they're doing anything about it. My point was that the limited geographic distribution for this species is probably amongst the highest risks it faces. That's also what makes it so vulnerable to exploitation.

 

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk

[derek.litchfield]

Greetings all,

I have been meaning to start posting on WAMAS for some time. And to start providing more news and story links, which I will do. It's rather late at night, so bare with me.

 

I am a Chief within International Conservation at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

 

My unofficial response to this story is unfortunately in agreement. Even as a hobbyist myself, I am conflicted to say the least. There are obvious benefits to the aquaculture trade. However, the hard line approach for trade of animals on ESA or IUCN Redlist is necessary to curb declining species. Not for all, but for some species, the ability to differentiate between wild-caught and farm-raised animals is too difficult, and provides too many loopholes.

 

FYI, along with ESA and CITES, the main weapon for international conservation is now the Executive Order on Wildlife Trafficking. http://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/07/01/executive-order-combating-wildlife-trafficking

 

This is the single biggest step the U.S. has ever taken against international wildlife trade. And other countries are following suit. Right now the major targets of the E.O. are the big African species such as Rhino and Elephant. However, the goal is to spread action to many other endangered species throughout the globe, and to assist established international conservation organizations.

 

A relevant example to the Bangaii case is the hard line stance we are taking on the the domestic importation, trade and sale of elephant tusk within the U.S. Many many organizations are very angry at us for halting ALL sales of non-antiquity elephant tusk. This action will have an immediate impact on many industries. However, hard line strategies must be made if we are to save a very quickly vanishing species.

 

The same goes for many other species.