USL?

[mkirda]

Greetings.

Was the Unsuitable Species List ever published anywhere?

I understand that it was submitted to the MAC a while back. Can anyone summarize how it the committee came to be formed, how long it took to create the list, when it was submitted to the MAC and what ever happened from that point?

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[MaryHM]

Do a search in this forum, Mike. It's all in here.

 

[dizzy]

Mike,
Maybe we should just let the CITIES guys build the list for us.

 

[Kalkbreath]

They have{ CITES}.made a list, and none of our hobby fish are on it.......most of the fish on the "unsuitable list" are the most abundant on the reef.............There are no fish collected for this hobby , that are in danger of being over collected. CITES knows this and that is why they have not placed any of the pet fish on any protected list. Well maybe the leafy seadragon......
_________________
save energy

 

[Chucker]

kalk- your standard reply is the same one you've been raising every time these issues come up. No one will ever believe a word of it until you bring a FACT to the table.

 

[kylen]

I actually have to agree with Kalk for once. CITES lists items that are in danger of being overharvested (fished) and are in need of protection. Add seahorses to the list as well. CITES is not concerned whether a grouper is going to grow too large for an aquarium, but rather if their numbers are threatened. After all, CITES is an acronym for The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.

 

[Kalkbreath]

kalk- your standard reply is the same one you've been raising every time these issues come up. No one will ever believe a word of it until you bring a FACT to the table.

Im sorry ,perhaps I missed a QUESTION? What is it that is not fact in any of my remarks?
_________________
Honda Beat

 

[Chucker]

They have{ CITES}.made a list, and none of our hobby fish are on it.......most of the fish on the "unsuitable list" are the most abundant on the reef.............There are no fish collected for this hobby , that are in danger of being over collected. CITES knows this and that is why they have not placed any of the pet fish on any protected list. Well maybe the leafy seadragon......

What is your source that states CITES has left pet fish off?

 

[MaryHM]

Here is the link to the CITES species database: http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/species.html


To my knowledge the only fish that are on the list that are considered to be "pet fish" are seahorses. The primary CITES animals in this industry are hard corals.

 

[Anonymous]

I thought USL was more of a feel-good ethical thing to keep newbies from needlesly killing stuff that will die anyways.

 

[Anonymous]

Mary, if this is truly the case, then it would appear that the CITES list is incomplete, yes?

Therefore, if hobbyists have little say/input for what gets listed, a list of our own seems necessary.

 

[MaryHM]

CITES only addressed animals that are:

Appendix I includes species threatened with extinction. Trade in specimens of these species is permitted only in exceptional circumstances.


Appendix II includes species not necessarily threatened with extinction, but in which trade must be controlled in order to avoid utilization incompatible with their survival.


Appendix III contains species that are protected in at least one country, which has asked other CITES Parties for assistance in controlling the trade.

Hobby fish don't fall into any of these categories.

 

[dizzy]

According to a PJAC Alert seahorses are being considered for Appendix II, as there was notice that they were accepting public comment back a few months ago. It seems certain to pass. It should be noted that Chinese medicine is primarily responsible for their decline, and not us.

 

[kylen]

Seahorses were added to the CITES appendix back in the middle of November, if memory serves me correct, not just being considered. There is a six month period before the full implementation of CITES restrictions are applied, according to the Canadian CITES people. That means that seahorses will not require CITES permits until about the middle of May. Until then, seahorses can be imported as they have in the past. I was told that the CITES listing will apply to both wild caught and captive bred horses. Still, I would caution anyone to check with the appropriate authorities to receive the correct information.

 

[naesco]

Once the cyanide issue is dealt with you can be assured that the USL (the impossible to keep species list) will be dealt with.
A lot of work has been done by Mary and others to come up with a reasonable list of species which ought not to be imported. This list is made up mostly of obligate species
Anothe list containing some tangs and other near impossible to keep species is in the works. :wink:

 

[mkirda]

Do a search in this forum, Mike. It's all in here.

Ya know, Mary, before I posted this question, I did just that.
What I found was disjointed and mostly unusable.
Yes, obligate coral feeders should be on the USL, but you need to have the species names listed. Common names too.
An example: Nudis. Most of them. Um, not exactly helpful.

Was there a database ever made up? A published list with species names, common names, and maybe a reason why it should be on the USL?

Now, it is possible I didn't dig deeply enough- I only spent like 15 minutes or so reading the posts, but I never did find a real 'list'. If you tell me it really is there, I'll go back and dig for it. Is it? Might you have a time-frame for when it was posted (to help me narrow it down a bit)?

Thanks.
Mike Kirda

 

[MaryHM]

We were working on it and compiled a lot of obligate feeders. No formal list though, but many species are listed. I can't list every single nudibranch species known to mankind. The vast majority of them are obligate feeders and it would be easier to list the ones that aren't. After the Los Angeles MAC meeting, the USL kinda fell apart. I asked for volunteers to work on the "too large" category and no one really stepped up to take it over. I have enough to do without having to do all of the work on the USL too!!

 

[dizzy]

Seahorses were added to the CITES appendix back in the middle of November, if memory serves me correct, not just being considered. There is a six month period before the full implementation of CITES restrictions are applied, according to the Canadian CITES people. That means that seahorses will not require CITES permits until about the middle of May. Until then, seahorses can be imported as they have in the past. I was told that the CITES listing will apply to both wild caught and captive bred horses. Still, I would caution anyone to check with the appropriate authorities to receive the correct information.

Kyle,
I just received a Pet Letter from PJAC and it discusses the seahorse listing on CITES Appendix II. It says there is an 18-month delay in the implementation date, so I presume we will still be able to get the wild ones until May 2004 or there about. Inform the Canadian CITES people if you want your extra year.

 

[naesco]

Mitch am I to assume that you are seriously advocating reefers or LFS purchase wild seahorse?

We are not talking about beating a tax loophole closure deadline.

We are talking about preserving this species which professionals have already indicated as being endangered for God sakes

 

[kylen]

Mitch,

I was talking with Canadian CITES people this morning about another issue, so I asked about seahorses. The implementation date has been pushed back the year to mid-May 2004.