Good or Bad?

[Anonymous]

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/singapore/story/0,4386,244994,00.html


Expect to pay more for sea horses
Prices likely to go up as traders of live sea horses, and dried sea horse for medicinal purposes, will need a permit

By Sharmilpal Kaur

PERMITS will soon be needed here to trade in sea horses as these marine animals will be protected under an international wildlife treaty from May 15.


Sea horses will be protected under an international wildlife treaty, which seeks to ensure that the marine creatures are obtained legally and not caught in the wild.
Cites, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, seeks to ensure that sea horses imported here for the local market or for re-export are obtained legally and not caught in the wild. Singapore signed the treaty in 1986.

Last year, Singapore imported about 47,700 live sea horses worth $40,000, which were sold to aquariums or for re-export.

Another two tonnes of dried sea horse, worth $170,000, were imported for use in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM).

Mr Lee Tiong Sa, acting chairman of Singapore Traditional Chinese Medicine Organisations Committee, an umbrella body for TCM importers and retailers, said practitioners prescribe dried sea horse as part of a concoction to strengthen weak kidneys. Sea horse is also used to treat asthma, injuries, swelling and impotence.

But it is only a small part of TCM ingredients, said Mr Lee. 'I don't think it will affect the industry very badly as the amount of sea horse used is very small.'

Importers who bring in live sea horses do not expect the permit requirement to hurt the ornamental fish industry, although they do expect the prices to go up.

Sea horses make up only 2 per cent of the ornamental fish trade, said Mr Tan Cheng Hock, secretary of Marine Aquarium Association (Singapore).

Common sea horses, which can cost from $3 to $10 each depending on supply and freight, may soon cost about $20 each as companies will need to pay for permits and stricter rules may curb supply.

Mr Steve Chong, 36, who has been selling exotic sea horses from Brazil and other countries for more than two years, said that almost 80 per cent of sea horses are from the wild.

Now, suppliers will need to get a permit to catch them or buy them from sea-horse breeders. Countries can restrict or ban supply if they think the sea horse has been over-harvested.

Said Mr Chong: 'We sell our sea horses, like the red and orange ones, for $60 each. The price could now go up to $70 or $80.'

There are 32 sea-horse species worldwide. They eat small shrimp and fish, but not dried feed.

With proper care, they may survive in an aquarium for five to 10 years, but many die much sooner.

Their dwindling number in the wild has caused widespread concern and this is why they are being protected under Cites.

Though it may hurt his business, Mr Chong approves of the stricter rules. He said: 'Serious hobbyists will still buy them, but the higher prices may discourage the novice who is buying one on a whim.

'This may not be a bad thing as sea horses are difficult to take care of and many die within a year. This way, only those who know how to take care of them will buy them.'

 

[naesco]

Great News Rover and it is about time.
Although, in my opinion it does not go far enough.
Unless a fish on CITES (Ditto for the USL) is specifically order by a hobbyist or institution for research, it should not be imported.
In addition it would be nice to see the many impossible to keep species (USL) on CITES list as well.

 

[Anonymous]

i doubt that any legislation will have any impact whatsoever on china's continued raping and pillaging of seahorses

japan is still whaling remorselessly, as is russia

just look at canada and the bloody seal harvest

given the successes of private breeding efforts, there's really no longer any reason whatsoever for the MO biz to import wild seahorses any longer, anyway

those who have any intent to keep them successfully should have no problem w/avalability from the private breeding sector

the MO biz can stop bringing in horses tomorrow, and all that will happen is that the idjits who 'buy and toss' horses won't bother anymore, and the wild populations will still be pillaged for folklore based viagra

waste of time to even pass the legislation, imo

 

[naesco]

given the successes of private breeding efforts, there's really no longer any reason whatsoever for the MO biz to import wild seahorses any longer, anyway

those who have any intent to keep them successfully should have no problem w/avalability from the private breeding sector


I knew we would agree on something. I too support a total ban.

 

[Anonymous]

given the successes of private breeding efforts, there's really no longer any reason whatsoever for the MO biz to import wild seahorses any longer, anyway

those who have any intent to keep them successfully should have no problem w/avalability from the private breeding sector


I knew we would agree on something. I too support a total ban.

you agree w/me?

i just said a ban is a useless crock that will achieve nothing

can you read? :lol:

 

[MaryHM]

In addition it would be nice to see the many impossible to keep species (USL) on CITES list as well.

You're supposed to be a lawyer, Wayne, but you can't even grasp the simplest of concepts. Do you even know what CITES is? Probably not unless someone from here has sent you the information on it, so let me explain. It is the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. It's not the Convention on What Some People Say Is Too Difficult To Keep In Captivity. CITES is concerned with the sustainability of the trade of fauna and flora. Whether said fauna/flora leaves the country of origin as dead (as in decorative coral, meat, etc....) does not matter one bit to CITES. Please, please, please Wayne. Do some research prior to spouting off fantasy scenarios.

Now then, all of that said and the insert of the following disclaimer "I do not and have never imported seahorses.", let me shed some light on the addition of seahorses to CITES. First of all, they are Appendix II animals- just like corals. That doesn't mean that they can't be collected, just that you have to have a permit to export them. Big deal. All that really requires for companies who already have to have CITES permits for corals is to have seahorses added on. It should not increase the pricing for seahorse by hardly anything. Now, countries like the Philippines which rarely export any CITES animals for the MO trade (if they even export any), will have a problem. It would be costly to get the seahorses from there because you would have to draw up a CITES just for seahorses. From my understanding, rock is now available from Brazil, so they are probably drawing up CITES permits for that anyway- all they have to do is add seahorses to it.

Now here's what I think is funny:

Said Mr Chong: 'We sell our sea horses, like the red and orange ones, for $60 each. The price could now go up to $70 or $80.'...He said: 'Serious hobbyists will still buy them, but the higher prices may discourage the novice who is buying one on a whim.

If someone is dropping $60 bucks on a whim, it's not a far jump to drop an extra $20. Now if they went up to $200, ok maybe less novices would buy. But in my experience, when someone wants something (and seahorses are one of those "got to haves" for many newbies), an extra 10-30% cost difference isn't that big of a deal. Unless we're talking about net caught fish for some reason. :?

 

[kylen]

Hey Vitz,

Why do you keep lumping the seal harvest into the other environmental issues? These animals are not endangered at all. In fact the populations have never been healthier. This is more of a "Bambi Syndrome". Aren't these cute and cuddly so people object to the fishery?

How about Washington state fisherpeople killing sea lions because they are eating too many salmon? What about the native whale hunt in Washington state? I think you were talking about a glass house or something. Don't start pointing fingers...remember...three will be pointing back at yourself.

 

[Anonymous]

Hey Vitz,

Why do you keep lumping the seal harvest into the other environmental issues? These animals are not endangered at all. In fact the populations have never been healthier. This is more of a "Bambi Syndrome". Aren't these cute and cuddly so people object to the fishery?

How about Washington state fisherpeople killing sea lions because they are eating too many salmon? What about the native whale hunt in Washington state? I think you were talking about a glass house or something. Don't start pointing fingers...remember...three will be pointing back at yourself.

ahhh...

exactly

thank you for stating it so eloquently-now mebbe naesco can chime in about his finger pointing? :wink:

it's not about just the harvest of the seals, it's the absolutely brutal and inhumane way they're harvested, the absolutely deplorable mismanagement of the cod fishing industry by the canadian gov't, etc etc, while a canadian is chiding the MO biz out of a platform of assumed 'higher morality'

:wink:

 

[Anonymous]

you know, that old 'glass houses and throwing stones' thing :wink:

 

[naesco]

I fully understand CITES Mary. I investigated it throughly. I wanted to find out if I could bring in fish and coral from the Philippines and Taiwan on business trips.
It may be easy for a wholesaler but for hobbyists it is a problem.
Think of how many fish and coral would enter the US from vacationers and their friends if not for CITES.
I am aware that CITES was not meant to cover USL. CITES exists and is effective and is therefor an excellent vehicle to use for the USL as well and will one day.
Think out of the box Mary. It's good for your soul.
Happy Easter Monday.

 

[MaryHM]

Then if you fully understand CITES as you claim you should immediately realize that they are not an organization that will ever deal with a USL. There are plenty of animals that are completely sustainable to harvest that may not be suitable for captivity. Thinking outside of the box is one thing- thinking outside of the realm of reality is another and I don't care to waste my time doing that.

Think of how many fish and coral would enter the US from vacationers and their friends if not for CITES.

It's this quote that leads me to believe you don't have a clue about CITES. The only fish I know that are CITES listed are the recently added seahorses. Fish aren't CITES protected, Wayne. So CITES is not the reason preventing vacationers from bringing back fish. It's export/import regulations and permits that are responsible for that. It has nothing to do with sustainability and everything to do with expensive paperwork. Using your example, we should see every vacationer coming out of Tonga, Solomons, Haiti, and other non-CITES participant countries with bags full of coral and fish. Again Wayne, please think before you post. And if you are thinking before you post, maybe you should research everything you post a little better. It would definitely help you to look a little brighter and people might take you more seriously.

 

[naesco]

Then if you fully understand CITES as you claim you should immediately realize that they are not an organization that will ever deal with a USL. There are plenty of animals that are completely sustainable to harvest that may not be suitable for captivity. Thinking outside of the box is one thing- thinking outside of the realm of reality is another and I don't care to waste my time doing that.

Think of how many fish and coral would enter the US from vacationers and their friends if not for CITES.

It's this quote that leads me to believe you don't have a clue about CITES. The only fish I know that are CITES listed are the recently added seahorses. Fish aren't CITES protected, Wayne. So CITES is not the reason preventing vacationers from bringing back fish. It's export/import regulations and permits that are responsible for that. It has nothing to do with sustainability and everything to do with expensive paperwork. Using your example, we should see every vacationer coming out of Tonga, Solomons, Haiti, and other non-CITES participant countries with bags full of coral and fish. Again Wayne, please think before you post. And if you are thinking before you post, maybe you should research everything you post a little better. It would definitely help you to look a little brighter and people might take you more seriously.

Of course and seahorses is what I had in mind when I said fish and coral.
I knew that because I read what is and what is not allowed.
I brought in fish from Taiwan but no coral.
Prior to leaving I was informed by Fish and Canadian Wildlife Service which handles the CITES (at least for hobbyists) that in order for me to bring in certain listed coral, I would need a CITES permit which would not be possible obtain from non-CITES conforming countries.
It had nothing to do with import/export or permits otherwise I could bring in stuff from the states easily.
If this is not the case, I was misinformed.

 

[Anonymous]

Great News Rover and it is about time.
Although, in my opinion it does not go far enough.
Unless a fish on CITES (Ditto for the USL) is specifically order by a hobbyist or institution for research, it should not be imported.
In addition it would be nice to see the many impossible to keep species (USL) on CITES list as well.

If you all ready knew CITES didn't deal with fish, why'd you post the above quote? You can't speak out of all your holes at once, it comes out unclear.

 

[naesco]

Great News Rover and it is about time.
Although, in my opinion it does not go far enough.
Unless a fish on CITES (Ditto for the USL) is specifically order by a hobbyist or institution for research, it should not be imported.
In addition it would be nice to see the many impossible to keep species (USL) on CITES list as well.

If you all ready knew CITES didn't deal with fish, why'd you post the above quote? You can't speak out of all your holes at once, it comes out unclear.

Because I should added "coral" just like I did in all the other posts sweet Gresham.

 

[Anonymous]

If that were true, you wouldn't have posted this after your mistake and after being corrected.

Think of how many fish and coral would enter the US from vacationers and their friends if not forCITES

and please stop coming on to me :wink: I'm straight.

 

[Anonymous]

troll v.,n. 1. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT. 2. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll." 3. [Berkeley] Computer lab monitor. A popular campus job for CS students. Duties include helping newbies and ensuring that lab policies are followed. Probably so-called because it involves lurking in dark cavelike corners.
Some people claim that the troll (sense 1) is properly a narrower category than flame bait, that a troll is categorized by containing some assertion that is wrong but not overtly controversial. See also Troll-O-Meter.

The use of `troll' in either sense is a live metaphor that readily produces elaborations and combining forms. For example, one not infrequently sees the warning "Do not feed the troll" as part of a followup to troll postings.

 

[devils advocate]

Not that I'm defending Naesco, but...CITES does list fish FWIW. Not many, but they are there.

 

[Anonymous]

Are those fish something that MO imports or the live reef food fish trade?

 

[devils advocate]

Here you go;


CLASS ACTINOPTERYGII
(FISH)
ACIPENSERIFORMES Paddlefish, sturgeons
ACIPENSERIFORMES spp. (Except the species included in Appendix I)
Acipenseridae Sturgeons
Acipenser brevirostrum
Acipenser sturio
OSTEOGLOSSIFORMES
Osteoglossidae Arapaima, bonytongue
Arapaima gigas
Scleropages formosus
CYPRINIFORMES
Cyprinidae Blind carps, plaeesok
Caecobarbus geertsi
Probarbus jullieni
Catostomidae Cui-ui
Chasmistes cujus
SILURIFORMES
Pangasiidae Pangasid catfish
Pangasianodon gigas
SYNGNATHIFORMES
Syngnathidae Pipefishes, seahorses
Hippocampus spp. (Enters into effect on 15 May 2004)
PERCIFORMES
Sciaenidae Totoaba
Totoaba macdonaldi
CLASS SARCOPTERYGII
(LUNGFISHES)
COELACANTHIFORMES
Latimeriidae Coelacanths
Latimeria spp.
CERATODONTIFORMES
Ceratodontidae Australian lungfish
Neoceratodus forsteri
P H Y L U M E C H I N O D E R M A T A
CLASS HOLOTHUROIDEA
(SEA CUCUMBERS)
ASPIDOCHIROTIDA
Stichopodidae Sea cucumbers
Isostichopus fuscus (Ecuador)

 

[Kalkbreath]

Great white sharks......leafy dragon fish .......Giant Sunfish {the ones that eat jellyfish} Whale sharks ......Nessy and salt water snakeheads. All of these fish are common carry ons all passenger flights ........just last week coming back from LAX ......the guy next to me had a leafy dragon fish sticking out of his shirt and one of those giant sunfish that he had disguised as a surf board.......SOMEONE REALLY SHOULD DO SOMETHING! :roll: