OMG 40 clipperton angelfish, Holocanthus limbaughi,
- Thread starter espocrespo
- Start date
AuroraDrvr
New member
Did I miss something?<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14973477#post14973477 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by adtravels
or how easily they make mistakes when distracted by an ex-president
Terra Ferma
New member
This is a very good question. In regards to the first question, mostly. I've always had an interest in fish, turtles, amphibians and unusual mammals that would be suitable as pets (i.e. the smaller ones). I could identify most. Insects, not so much. But if it was my job to identify things I may not know about on the spot (and I cared how I did my job), I would probably devote some effort to bulking up that which I did not know, and have reference material on hand. Or use the internet.
The Stegaste baldwini was labelled as a "non-restricted" species, of genus Stegastes. Mexico only restricts collection and import of species they label as restricted - obviously a great number of fishes fall under this category. And they clear just fine, as long as they are not CITIES listed, because it is perfectly legal to collect them, export them from Mexico, and import them into the USA.
Terra Ferma
New member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14973477#post14973477 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by adtravels
depends how much of a jobsworth the person is.... or how easily they make mistakes when distracted by an ex-president
I don't think anyone would bribe a Federal Agent to pass a damsel of dubious origin through inspection.
Terra Ferma
New member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14970205#post14970205 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by AquaKnight407
Eh.... Stealing a couple angels from the French... EEeewwww what are the French doing to do?
But seriously though, it the very least it shines a light on the subject. If the French maybe see how much Clipperton angels go for, they'll open up to some type of collection. Laws don't get changed by people following them. Ask Rosa or Susan Anthony....
It is legal to collect Clipperton Angels from Clipperton Atoll with a permit from the French Government. The permit is very easy to get and the French Navy patrol (which is often at Clipperton to prevent long lining) is very polite to those with proper documentation to be at Clipperton Atoll and collect live fish. You cannot fish commercially for food fish, as that is not permitted. To set foot on the atoll itself requires a harder to get permit, but they are all for it if you have a legitimate reason that does not harm the Atoll.
I used to import Appendix II chameleons from Europe. Up until a few years ago it was allowed and legal to list the species as Furcifer "sp.", Calumma "sp" on the CITES and 3-177 paperwork.
What I did to eliminate the possibility of getting in trouble was I stocked the Newark inspectors with books and posters for id's. It made their job easier and made things easier on me.
Carl
What I did to eliminate the possibility of getting in trouble was I stocked the Newark inspectors with books and posters for id's. It made their job easier and made things easier on me.
Carl
jmaneyapanda
Commencing hatred
Yes, as do I, but consider this, they need to not only know the common to pet trade animals, but also the NOT common to pet trade animals! How DO you know if its a restricted, less common, species, if you dont know what they look like? But, I know they do take many of the steps you mentioned, which is why they need the 48 houirs advanced notice request. If you tell them that you're bringing in "Stegastes baldwini", they probably wouldnt know what that is off the bat (I didnt), and would look it up, along with all the appropriuate regulations to be familar when they do have to actually inspect with animal in hand.
Bear in Mind, all Chameleons from the genera Furcifer and Calumma" are CITES appendix II, so it doesnt make a differentiation between the species is less critical, as all the species have the same import requirements. I know that if I omit one box, or am vague in one area, the Atlanta FWS agents will call me and make me resubmit wih clarification.
"Bear in Mind, all Chameleons from the genera Furcifer and Calumma" are CITES appendix II, so it doesnt make a differentiation between the species is less critical"-
That's correct - as evidenced by live rock that gets USFWS cleared (or not) at the order level as "Scleractinia". All CITES Appendix II species are treated equally, it's just that countries impose quotas on them at various rates. So - a CITES II listing by itself is just extra paperwork if the country of origin doesn't impose a quota. If they do, then I.D. to species level is VERY important if the same genus is found in other countries. Country of origin becomes vital if neighboring countries impose different quotas for the same species (as in Arapaima in SA - Brazil restricts their trade and Columbia does not).
Just to clarify some misconceptions that people may have: Clipperton angelfish are not listed under the ESA, CITES or the IUCN Red List. There is no international regulation governing their trade. While they are regional endemics, they are common in their habitat.
Regarding the ease of obtaining an export permit from France for Clipperton, I've obviously not tried it myself so I cannot say with first-hand knowledge, but by extrapolation, the ONE export I did from France itself was the most difficult international shipment I've ever encountered. The sticking point for me was veterinary health certificates that the French demanded I have (for fish LEAVING their country?). Can you imagine if the French kept this regulation in place for Clipperton? How do you find a French Vet. willing to go there to sign the health certs? The language barrier was also a major problem - through the entire process, the collector, shipper, broker, French customs, none of them felt any need to accommodate my inability to speak French, almost like they took delight in making things more difficult on that front.
Jay
That's correct - as evidenced by live rock that gets USFWS cleared (or not) at the order level as "Scleractinia". All CITES Appendix II species are treated equally, it's just that countries impose quotas on them at various rates. So - a CITES II listing by itself is just extra paperwork if the country of origin doesn't impose a quota. If they do, then I.D. to species level is VERY important if the same genus is found in other countries. Country of origin becomes vital if neighboring countries impose different quotas for the same species (as in Arapaima in SA - Brazil restricts their trade and Columbia does not).
Just to clarify some misconceptions that people may have: Clipperton angelfish are not listed under the ESA, CITES or the IUCN Red List. There is no international regulation governing their trade. While they are regional endemics, they are common in their habitat.
Regarding the ease of obtaining an export permit from France for Clipperton, I've obviously not tried it myself so I cannot say with first-hand knowledge, but by extrapolation, the ONE export I did from France itself was the most difficult international shipment I've ever encountered. The sticking point for me was veterinary health certificates that the French demanded I have (for fish LEAVING their country?). Can you imagine if the French kept this regulation in place for Clipperton? How do you find a French Vet. willing to go there to sign the health certs? The language barrier was also a major problem - through the entire process, the collector, shipper, broker, French customs, none of them felt any need to accommodate my inability to speak French, almost like they took delight in making things more difficult on that front.
Jay
Last edited:
jmaneyapanda
Commencing hatred
I dont understand. Knowing the species was critical, yet they didnt require you to list it? I was not aware that USFWS had different crietrion for issuing permits within the species of a genera, if the entire genera is listed as CITES appendix II. It is my understanding that they have requirements for importation of different appendicies and special type animals (marine mammals, etc), but not for one species within an appendix and genera, as compared to another within the same genera and appendix. If I am msinformed, please point me in the right direction (by way of a link). I would like to see that and inform myself.
For the first couple of years they accepted just the genera. I was told that the law had changed and now I needed the CITES permit to state exactly the species name.
I have never seen it in print and was not about to take a chance on having the animals seized. It was just easier to list the full name of the species. The problem usually came from the Malagasy side. The CITES permit very seldon stated full species name. It took alot of phone calls to get things taken care of.
Even though Calumma and most Furcifer were banned from export (no quota's) the goverment would still issue permits with very little effort. Those permits are almost always rejected because USFW knows there is no quota.
Carl
I have never seen it in print and was not about to take a chance on having the animals seized. It was just easier to list the full name of the species. The problem usually came from the Malagasy side. The CITES permit very seldon stated full species name. It took alot of phone calls to get things taken care of.
Even though Calumma and most Furcifer were banned from export (no quota's) the goverment would still issue permits with very little effort. Those permits are almost always rejected because USFW knows there is no quota.
Carl
jmaneyapanda
Commencing hatred
Here is an example of a permit, which I have filled out for a CITES II animal import.
jmaneyapanda
Commencing hatred
cortez marine
In Memoriam
USFWS declaration not accepted
USFWS declaration not accepted
According to Kiyoshi Endoh in his book Angelfishes of the World; published 2007
"Holacanthus limbaughi is observed around Clipperton Island far offshore of Mexico . The body color of adult Holacanthus limbaughi is a dull blue-grey. The most colorful period is juveniles that are essentially a blue variant of Holacanthus passer."
"Blue passer" , the Mexican term for the fish was claerly indicated on our boxes along with the fish counts.
The fish was declared and accounted for but they didn't accept the blue passer declaration.
The commercial shipment of fish arrived in broad daylight on Alaska Airlines and was inspected as expected by USFWS as always.
"Descretion and leeway" could be given, apparently is was not.
My most appeciated pm so far is " thanks for sticking your neck and to try and make this fish availble to the hobby."
This was the most amazing and thrilling expedition of my life. It will be hard to beat.
We must find fish in the sea....not in books or the internet. This is a far different and more expensive, risky and dangerous thing to do.
We were so excited and exhausted and never thought it would go down this way on this non CITES, non ESA, non IUCN, fish.
I had expected a different kind of homecoming. It makes one feel that we should step back from the edge and just play safe all the time.
This may have a big effect on the possibility of going after rare [ but locally abundant ] fishes in the future.
The "mis-declaration on the name " is the sticking point and things are still pending.
Ahh, but what an adventure.
Whale sharks, real sharks, giant mantas, turtles, whales, huge lobster and I was witness to a dozen hours of observing the behavior of the H. limbaughi.
They took the fish away but the experience will alway be there. I'm 56 now and can still give those younger divers a battle. sigh...
Sincerely, Steve
cortez marine
{squat}
Posts: 3082
Joined: 15 Nov 2001 06:01
Location: San Francisco Bay, Calif.
USFWS declaration not accepted
According to Kiyoshi Endoh in his book Angelfishes of the World; published 2007
"Holacanthus limbaughi is observed around Clipperton Island far offshore of Mexico . The body color of adult Holacanthus limbaughi is a dull blue-grey. The most colorful period is juveniles that are essentially a blue variant of Holacanthus passer."
"Blue passer" , the Mexican term for the fish was claerly indicated on our boxes along with the fish counts.
The fish was declared and accounted for but they didn't accept the blue passer declaration.
The commercial shipment of fish arrived in broad daylight on Alaska Airlines and was inspected as expected by USFWS as always.
"Descretion and leeway" could be given, apparently is was not.
My most appeciated pm so far is " thanks for sticking your neck and to try and make this fish availble to the hobby."
This was the most amazing and thrilling expedition of my life. It will be hard to beat.
We must find fish in the sea....not in books or the internet. This is a far different and more expensive, risky and dangerous thing to do.
We were so excited and exhausted and never thought it would go down this way on this non CITES, non ESA, non IUCN, fish.
I had expected a different kind of homecoming. It makes one feel that we should step back from the edge and just play safe all the time.
This may have a big effect on the possibility of going after rare [ but locally abundant ] fishes in the future.
The "mis-declaration on the name " is the sticking point and things are still pending.
Ahh, but what an adventure.
Whale sharks, real sharks, giant mantas, turtles, whales, huge lobster and I was witness to a dozen hours of observing the behavior of the H. limbaughi.
They took the fish away but the experience will alway be there. I'm 56 now and can still give those younger divers a battle. sigh...
Sincerely, Steve
cortez marine
{squat}
Posts: 3082
Joined: 15 Nov 2001 06:01
Location: San Francisco Bay, Calif.
jmaneyapanda
Commencing hatred
Steve:
I dont understand- you labelled the fish as "Blue Passers"? What did you have as the scientific name?
I dont understand- you labelled the fish as "Blue Passers"? What did you have as the scientific name?
cortez marine
In Memoriam
h. passer
Similar threads
