OMG 40 clipperton angelfish, Holocanthus limbaughi,
- Thread starter espocrespo
- Start date
jmaneyapanda
Commencing hatred
WHat are some tests that could be done? Especially considering these fish may likely be in transit, so opening and reclosing shipment bags would be problematic, if not catastrophic? I am curious, not critical of your statement.
jmaneyapanda
Commencing hatred
I very much would like to hear your "side" of the story and account on this, when you feel it is appropriate. For example, what was said and discussed when the USFWS agent indicated that these were not Passer angels, as labelled. What was your response? Did you immediately admit they were not, but it was a paperwork error? Where did you collect them? And where did you claim and indicate that you collected them (to USFWS)? I am very curious of the progression of this interaction, as EVERY account I have had with USFWS has been a simple and easy process. I am still completely dumbfounded and cannot comprehend why in the world a shipment of this caliber would attempted to be brought in under false pretenses. If such an enormous expense, both financially and personally, needed to be installed for this venture, why would you not make sure every "i" was dotted and "t" crossed? Especially with something as simple as a USFWS declaration of import, for a non CITES species?
Im glad to hear this come from the "horses mouth", so to speak. I everyone can tell from my previous posts, I dont feel this was an innocent mistake, nor a improper reaction by USFWS. They did EXACTLY what they are in place to do, in my opinion.
Vili_Shark
New member
Does it really matters to you?
You already took Steve to court, been the jury and the judge , convicted him based on assumptions you made, and even decided that what he did is equal to smuggling fish in a skirt through an Aussie airport or smugling hundreds of thousands pounds of Queen conch meat...(what kinda logic behind that I wonder).
From one side you're mister know it all.
From the other side you're asking here questions that even the FBI still didnt think of.
I wonder how can Steve and these boards can tolerate your posts, nothing personal really, its just that what you're doing here is basiclly some kinda one man court martial while Steve himself is saying the case is still under review , why dont you wait a little bit?
jmaneyapanda
Commencing hatred
Im sorry Vili, I didnt realize that I couldnt ask Gresham something to learn more about it. FWIW, I know more about this case and instance than I am typing, to be fair to Steve.
I didnt realize that asking questions on why this occurred was so improper either. You, and others, seem so excited and blinded at the prospect of acquiring these fish, that the fact that it was attempted to be done illegally is unimportant, for some reason. That disturbs me.
Tell you what, if you ahve an issue with ME, PM me. If you want to try to attack me in a thread, I am going to respond. If you are going to make claims that what Steve did was totally proper, and that the beaurocratic USFWS is flexing some unnecessary muscle, I will argue that, because I believe that to be total nonsense.
I didnt realize that asking questions on why this occurred was so improper either. You, and others, seem so excited and blinded at the prospect of acquiring these fish, that the fact that it was attempted to be done illegally is unimportant, for some reason. That disturbs me.
Tell you what, if you ahve an issue with ME, PM me. If you want to try to attack me in a thread, I am going to respond. If you are going to make claims that what Steve did was totally proper, and that the beaurocratic USFWS is flexing some unnecessary muscle, I will argue that, because I believe that to be total nonsense.
Vili_Shark
New member
Why dont you read my last post again???
I wrote:"Nothing personal really".
There's a way to ask question, you didnt ask question, you already convicted Steve while the case is still under review.
Just check the way you're asking the questions, check what you're doing, chill, relax, the case is in the good hands of USF&WLS, Im quite sure they'll do a good job without your help.
I will not post in this thread anymore, its redicilous.
jmaneyapanda
Commencing hatred
Vili, I have nothing personal against you either. However, when you call someone a "know it all", that is a very personal comment. The reason my "questions" are so persistant, is that they will either vindicate Steve, or will show that he is what I am presuming. Very simple. I dont understand how a "case under review" would prohibit him from clearing his name. He has posted several times on this thread already.
My purpose is not to "assist" the USFWS, as you accuse them of doing. My purpose is to enlighten others, as well as myself. I happen to understand this process. Other dont. Other dont and support Steves apparent actions. Yet other dont, support Steves actions, and blame other parties. Why cant that be discussed? Why cant I attempt to inform people what the process is, and why this occurred? Overall, why cant people on this forum be informed as to what fish smuggling is, who may (or may not) be involved in it, and how it may effect the people in question, the hobby, and beyond?
My purpose is not to "assist" the USFWS, as you accuse them of doing. My purpose is to enlighten others, as well as myself. I happen to understand this process. Other dont. Other dont and support Steves apparent actions. Yet other dont, support Steves actions, and blame other parties. Why cant that be discussed? Why cant I attempt to inform people what the process is, and why this occurred? Overall, why cant people on this forum be informed as to what fish smuggling is, who may (or may not) be involved in it, and how it may effect the people in question, the hobby, and beyond?
Dante_JoseCuerv
New member
Woah woah woah, calm down guys. No need for attacks. I don't want a mod coming in here warning us to simmer down.
had anyone else had asked that I would feel it was a valid question but considering you have been in threads I have posted such info in the past I kinda feel you on your own FISHING expedition
If not I apologize but it sure feels that way.Person pet peeve, I hate posting the same info over and over and over. People need to learn to use Google if they won't pay for premium RC service. It's nothing to fear. In fact you can search RDO for the answer, it's been posted dozens of times.
One of the current tests puts the fish in a blender then tests the "fish meal slurry" for CN byproduct. Wait long enough said byproduct is gone. Simple solution for dirty divers is to simply hold onto their catch longer. This is the test they used in PI for many years of which Dr Peter Rubec helped create the SOP. Google Dr Rubec and read his papers on it.
jmaneyapanda
Commencing hatred
So be it. Sorry for distraction.
In my opinion you guys are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. In the trade it is extremely common to ship fish without the correct scientific name. I would guess that 25% of the fish that come in have an improper name. Fish and Wildlife pays no attention to it. It is a non issue to them for most fish imported. We generally list the fish from the South Pacific as "general marine fish" on the export permit and list them on the import declaration on one line as "assorted marine fish".
The problem that Steve had is that he went too far and listed them under a scientific name - Holocanthus passer. Once you declare them as such it has to be that species even though Fish and Wildlife generally does not pay any attention to it. I am sure that because these were such high profile fish and they had been burned by the clariongate of a few years ago (where fish were brought in without collecting permission from Mexico) so that they closely inspected Steve's shipment. If the Mexican exporter had only listed them as Holocanthus species or simply as assorted marine fish there would have been no problem. Instead he did the lazy thing and listed them as passers which normally would not be a problem but due to the high profile nature of the shipment Fish and Wildlife decided to go with the letter of the law.
If the export paperwork lists passer angels and your import declaration is different and lists the fish as Clipperton angels it is a violation so you definitly don't want to do that. Given the same situation I think that I would have done the same thing, generally it is no problem, every day fish come in with the wrong name and no one seems to care. Steve found out the hard way that in some cases they do care, it was an expensive lesson but he learned it. He is not whining about it, he thought that it would be fine, it was not - they held this shipment to a different standard from normal - and Steve learned his lesson. I would bet that next time they use the correct name and everything will go smoothly. Things like this happen all the time with Fish and Wildlife, they use selective enforcement every day, it is a way of life to any importer of wildlife. It is definitly not an indication of intent to smuggle anything.
Dave
The problem that Steve had is that he went too far and listed them under a scientific name - Holocanthus passer. Once you declare them as such it has to be that species even though Fish and Wildlife generally does not pay any attention to it. I am sure that because these were such high profile fish and they had been burned by the clariongate of a few years ago (where fish were brought in without collecting permission from Mexico) so that they closely inspected Steve's shipment. If the Mexican exporter had only listed them as Holocanthus species or simply as assorted marine fish there would have been no problem. Instead he did the lazy thing and listed them as passers which normally would not be a problem but due to the high profile nature of the shipment Fish and Wildlife decided to go with the letter of the law.
If the export paperwork lists passer angels and your import declaration is different and lists the fish as Clipperton angels it is a violation so you definitly don't want to do that. Given the same situation I think that I would have done the same thing, generally it is no problem, every day fish come in with the wrong name and no one seems to care. Steve found out the hard way that in some cases they do care, it was an expensive lesson but he learned it. He is not whining about it, he thought that it would be fine, it was not - they held this shipment to a different standard from normal - and Steve learned his lesson. I would bet that next time they use the correct name and everything will go smoothly. Things like this happen all the time with Fish and Wildlife, they use selective enforcement every day, it is a way of life to any importer of wildlife. It is definitly not an indication of intent to smuggle anything.
Dave
DFS
.Registered Member
I have done everything in my power to refrain from making any comments as of yet on this subject, and will continue to do so until USF&W completes their pending investigation. I am however compelled to add and respond to Dave’s comments in his post above.
Dave,
First off I hope all is well at PAF, and things are good with you. You have illuminated some very good points regarding the importation marine fishes from known exporting countries that have little to no restrictions on fishing or the harvest of marine fishes.
Marine animals imported from Mexico are an entirely different matter, and are a bit more complex.
Permitting issues from the Mexican gov. have been somewhat problematic over the years. It is my understanding that there is a good deal of "gray" area regarding what species of fishes and from what areas are listed as "allowable" and what species can be considered "by-catch". Combine this with the headaches for USF&W and controversy surrounding the poaching/importation/smuggling of endemics like Passer, Clarions, Blue Dot Jawfish, and Purple Linckia sea stars to name a few over the years makes this drastically different than the walk in the park scenario you have alluded to. Combine this with the illegal Leopard Sharks and Garibaldi in California, and USF&W has their hands full.
Correct me if I am wrong, but knowing the history, I personally would think that performing the proper due diligence would be of the utmost importance here. Having proper documentation and paperwork on the collection of these fishes from Clipperton, obtained directly from the fisheries department in Tahiti (French Polynesia) or from France itself would be very important. Additionally, obtaining and listing these fishes by the correct genus and species on a re-export permit from Mexico would also be imperative prior to pulling something like this off.
For an example for everyone participating in this thread of what I am referring about problems in the past please read below, which was written by By Matt Krasnowski and can be found HERE
September 11, 2005
LOS ANGELES â€"œ Admitting he smuggled five groups of illegal immigrants from Mexico to the United States by boat, a San Pedro man pleaded guilty Friday to a federal charge alleging he took part in a human trafficking operation cracked last year when authorities stopped a yacht stuffed with 50 Mexican citizens in Los Angeles Harbor.
Craig Lightner, 40, is the third person to plead guilty in the smuggling scheme. According to his plea agreement, Lightner helped organize the smuggling of immigrants on boats that left Ensenada and then transported the immigrants after they arrived at the Port of Los Angeles. He admitted to shipping at least 70 immigrants.
He pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Gary Feess to one count of encouraging and inducing aliens to enter the United States. Lightner also pleaded guilty to a separate charge of smuggling angelfish from Mexico.
In addition, court papers show that Lightner was arrested last year in an investigation alleging that he was purchasing large quantities of marijuana and cocaine in Mexico and shipping them across the United States. No federal criminal charges have been filed in the investigation.
Lightner, who is in custody, could face nearly three years in prison on the immigrant-smuggling charge. Court papers state he agreed to cooperate with prosecutors and under terms of his deal he could be eligible for a hefty cut in his prison sentence if prosecutors deem his assistance "substantial."
Feess, who doesn't have to follow the plea agreement recommendations, set a sentencing hearing for Dec. 5.
The immigrant-smuggling scheme unraveled Aug. 30, 2004, when U.S. Coast Guard and immigration officials, acting on a tip, intercepted a rented 44-foot yacht dubbed "C'est La Vie" as it entered Los Angeles Harbor.
Officials arrested Gregory Ray LaBono, 49, an accomplished sailor from Lomita, and Vernon Eugene Siegel Jr., 22, of Florida, and found 50 Mexican immigrants onboard. Officials called it one of the largest maritime immigrant-smuggling arrests in years.
LaBono and Siegel later pleaded guilty. Court papers filed after their arrests state that LaBono reportedly told authorities this was the first time he had hauled human cargo.
Lightner's plea agreement states that on Aug. 18, 2004, the three men used a 47-foot chartered yacht called "Soul Mates" to smuggle about 20 immigrants from Ensenada to the Port of Los Angeles.
The agreement also states that during the scheme Lightner "and others were involved in the smuggling of at least five groups of undocumented aliens from Mexico into the United States." The Aug. 18 and Aug. 30, 2004, shipments were the only ones spelled out in Lightner's agreement.
The agreement states Lightner and others would drive a van into Mexico through the San Ysidro border crossing and gather prospective immigrants in Tijuana. Later he would drive the immigrants to the docks in Ensenada, where they would board a boat piloted by LaBono.
LaBono would sail to the Port of Los Angeles, and Lightner would instruct him where to dock, according to the agreement. Then Lightner and others would unload the immigrants and transport them from the port.
Some of the immigrants on the C'est La Vie, which was bound for the Cabrillo Marina, said they each paid $3,000 for the voyage north, court papers state.
Kevin Jeffrey, the deputy special agent in charge for the federal Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the Los Angeles area, said the case highlights how difficult it can be to track smugglers who use pleasure watercraft to bring immigrants north.
In court, Lightner also pleaded guilty to one count of smuggling 160 Clarion angelfish, worth an estimated $360,000, from Mexico. He admitted arranging for the collection of the bright orange fish from Mexican waters without government permits and then shipping the fish to Los Angeles International Airport while trying to hide the content from authorities.
In addition, federal officials have filed a civil lawsuit seeking the forfeiture of Lightner's 38-foot sportfishing boat, called "Happy Hooker," roughly $5,000 in cash, a Honda minivan, a recreational vehicle, a Nissan sport utility vehicle and two Rolex watches.
Regards,
Dave,
First off I hope all is well at PAF, and things are good with you. You have illuminated some very good points regarding the importation marine fishes from known exporting countries that have little to no restrictions on fishing or the harvest of marine fishes.
Marine animals imported from Mexico are an entirely different matter, and are a bit more complex.
Permitting issues from the Mexican gov. have been somewhat problematic over the years. It is my understanding that there is a good deal of "gray" area regarding what species of fishes and from what areas are listed as "allowable" and what species can be considered "by-catch". Combine this with the headaches for USF&W and controversy surrounding the poaching/importation/smuggling of endemics like Passer, Clarions, Blue Dot Jawfish, and Purple Linckia sea stars to name a few over the years makes this drastically different than the walk in the park scenario you have alluded to. Combine this with the illegal Leopard Sharks and Garibaldi in California, and USF&W has their hands full.
Correct me if I am wrong, but knowing the history, I personally would think that performing the proper due diligence would be of the utmost importance here. Having proper documentation and paperwork on the collection of these fishes from Clipperton, obtained directly from the fisheries department in Tahiti (French Polynesia) or from France itself would be very important. Additionally, obtaining and listing these fishes by the correct genus and species on a re-export permit from Mexico would also be imperative prior to pulling something like this off.
For an example for everyone participating in this thread of what I am referring about problems in the past please read below, which was written by By Matt Krasnowski and can be found HERE
September 11, 2005
LOS ANGELES â€"œ Admitting he smuggled five groups of illegal immigrants from Mexico to the United States by boat, a San Pedro man pleaded guilty Friday to a federal charge alleging he took part in a human trafficking operation cracked last year when authorities stopped a yacht stuffed with 50 Mexican citizens in Los Angeles Harbor.
Craig Lightner, 40, is the third person to plead guilty in the smuggling scheme. According to his plea agreement, Lightner helped organize the smuggling of immigrants on boats that left Ensenada and then transported the immigrants after they arrived at the Port of Los Angeles. He admitted to shipping at least 70 immigrants.
He pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Gary Feess to one count of encouraging and inducing aliens to enter the United States. Lightner also pleaded guilty to a separate charge of smuggling angelfish from Mexico.
In addition, court papers show that Lightner was arrested last year in an investigation alleging that he was purchasing large quantities of marijuana and cocaine in Mexico and shipping them across the United States. No federal criminal charges have been filed in the investigation.
Lightner, who is in custody, could face nearly three years in prison on the immigrant-smuggling charge. Court papers state he agreed to cooperate with prosecutors and under terms of his deal he could be eligible for a hefty cut in his prison sentence if prosecutors deem his assistance "substantial."
Feess, who doesn't have to follow the plea agreement recommendations, set a sentencing hearing for Dec. 5.
The immigrant-smuggling scheme unraveled Aug. 30, 2004, when U.S. Coast Guard and immigration officials, acting on a tip, intercepted a rented 44-foot yacht dubbed "C'est La Vie" as it entered Los Angeles Harbor.
Officials arrested Gregory Ray LaBono, 49, an accomplished sailor from Lomita, and Vernon Eugene Siegel Jr., 22, of Florida, and found 50 Mexican immigrants onboard. Officials called it one of the largest maritime immigrant-smuggling arrests in years.
LaBono and Siegel later pleaded guilty. Court papers filed after their arrests state that LaBono reportedly told authorities this was the first time he had hauled human cargo.
Lightner's plea agreement states that on Aug. 18, 2004, the three men used a 47-foot chartered yacht called "Soul Mates" to smuggle about 20 immigrants from Ensenada to the Port of Los Angeles.
The agreement also states that during the scheme Lightner "and others were involved in the smuggling of at least five groups of undocumented aliens from Mexico into the United States." The Aug. 18 and Aug. 30, 2004, shipments were the only ones spelled out in Lightner's agreement.
The agreement states Lightner and others would drive a van into Mexico through the San Ysidro border crossing and gather prospective immigrants in Tijuana. Later he would drive the immigrants to the docks in Ensenada, where they would board a boat piloted by LaBono.
LaBono would sail to the Port of Los Angeles, and Lightner would instruct him where to dock, according to the agreement. Then Lightner and others would unload the immigrants and transport them from the port.
Some of the immigrants on the C'est La Vie, which was bound for the Cabrillo Marina, said they each paid $3,000 for the voyage north, court papers state.
Kevin Jeffrey, the deputy special agent in charge for the federal Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the Los Angeles area, said the case highlights how difficult it can be to track smugglers who use pleasure watercraft to bring immigrants north.
In court, Lightner also pleaded guilty to one count of smuggling 160 Clarion angelfish, worth an estimated $360,000, from Mexico. He admitted arranging for the collection of the bright orange fish from Mexican waters without government permits and then shipping the fish to Los Angeles International Airport while trying to hide the content from authorities.
In addition, federal officials have filed a civil lawsuit seeking the forfeiture of Lightner's 38-foot sportfishing boat, called "Happy Hooker," roughly $5,000 in cash, a Honda minivan, a recreational vehicle, a Nissan sport utility vehicle and two Rolex watches.
Regards,
Dante_JoseCuerv
New member
O_O Kevin... that... was quite insightful. With the possible gravity of the situation like that then I'm scared to see how this could end up.
Hello Kevin and thanks for your input on this, your replies are always well thought out and your depth of knowledge remarkable.
I was told that there was permission from the French government to collect the Clippertons, I have not seen this with my own eyes so I am making the assumption that it is true. If that is not true and the Clippertons were taken with no collecting permit then Steve is due a proper thrashing on the internet boards and whatever Fish and Wildlife throws at him.
Mexico does have a history of smuggled fish and that is what brought on the scrutiny of Steve's shipment. The thing is that this shipment was done with legal permits for the mexican fish, they had no issue with the clarions or other assorted fish that came in with the shipment, even those collected at Clipperton. The issue with Fish and Wildlife is that the clipperton angels were declared on the export and import paperwork as Holocanthus passer. This was a mistake that should not have been made but it is a mistake that is so commonly made every day on export and import paperwork that generally no thought is made of it. Everyday fish and wildlife ignores this same type of mistake on fish import paperwork. They should have declared them as Holocanthus species or just assorted fish in general.
There are many thousands of fish brought into the country every week with the wrong scientific name. There are even many thousands of fish brought into the country weekly that were caught in countries different than the exporting country. Fish and Wildlife chooses to ignore this because it really does not matter to them, the fish are not cites listed or regulated. How many fish does Singapore ship daily that were not collected in Singapore? How many shipped from Indonesia not collected there? Or from Hong Kong? The list is long. Even from the U.S. when we re-export fish to other countries we are not required to list the country of origin for fish species and Fish and Wildlife signs off on it. Many rare to the trade species of fish are shipped internationally without the scrutiny that this shipment attracted.
Fish and Wildlife choose to apply a different standard to this particular shipment than they do to other regular daily shipments. I am not saying that Steve was correct in his paper work, he was not and it should have been done differently. What I am saying is that it is understandable how this happened with no intent to smuggle or circumvent procedures as we the import community understand them. If we were required to properly name each fish imported and verify the country of origin it would shut down 80% of the marine trade until new procedures were developed. We are not generally held to this standard and until now there was no reason to think that a shipment would be held to this standard.
As I said above I think that Steve learned an expensive lesson. I think that any importer reading this thread has learned something, when dealing with high profile fish shipped via a problem country make sure the paperwork is done exactly by the book. Thing is until now there was no reason to think that it would be enforced by the book.
As for the matter of Mexico being a different case than most other fish exporting countries I disagree. Mexico being our neighbor has smuggling issues that do not exist with countries that require air travel to transport the fish. Malaysia has a huge problem with marine life smuggled into Indonesia and shipped out of Indonesia. Singapore and Hong Kong both have huge smuggling problems, to say that Mexico is different from other exporting countries is only because of our location and the fact that shipments can come in through undocumented means. U.S. Fish and Wildlife has not made it a requirement to list country of origin for fish species in a shipment nor are we required to have re-export permits for fish shipped from a country other than the country where the fish were collected. This happens every day both coming into the U.S. and being exported back out of the U.S. and Fish and Wildlife signs off on it every day with no issues. Steve's shipment is being held to a different standard.
Dave
I was told that there was permission from the French government to collect the Clippertons, I have not seen this with my own eyes so I am making the assumption that it is true. If that is not true and the Clippertons were taken with no collecting permit then Steve is due a proper thrashing on the internet boards and whatever Fish and Wildlife throws at him.
Mexico does have a history of smuggled fish and that is what brought on the scrutiny of Steve's shipment. The thing is that this shipment was done with legal permits for the mexican fish, they had no issue with the clarions or other assorted fish that came in with the shipment, even those collected at Clipperton. The issue with Fish and Wildlife is that the clipperton angels were declared on the export and import paperwork as Holocanthus passer. This was a mistake that should not have been made but it is a mistake that is so commonly made every day on export and import paperwork that generally no thought is made of it. Everyday fish and wildlife ignores this same type of mistake on fish import paperwork. They should have declared them as Holocanthus species or just assorted fish in general.
There are many thousands of fish brought into the country every week with the wrong scientific name. There are even many thousands of fish brought into the country weekly that were caught in countries different than the exporting country. Fish and Wildlife chooses to ignore this because it really does not matter to them, the fish are not cites listed or regulated. How many fish does Singapore ship daily that were not collected in Singapore? How many shipped from Indonesia not collected there? Or from Hong Kong? The list is long. Even from the U.S. when we re-export fish to other countries we are not required to list the country of origin for fish species and Fish and Wildlife signs off on it. Many rare to the trade species of fish are shipped internationally without the scrutiny that this shipment attracted.
Fish and Wildlife choose to apply a different standard to this particular shipment than they do to other regular daily shipments. I am not saying that Steve was correct in his paper work, he was not and it should have been done differently. What I am saying is that it is understandable how this happened with no intent to smuggle or circumvent procedures as we the import community understand them. If we were required to properly name each fish imported and verify the country of origin it would shut down 80% of the marine trade until new procedures were developed. We are not generally held to this standard and until now there was no reason to think that a shipment would be held to this standard.
As I said above I think that Steve learned an expensive lesson. I think that any importer reading this thread has learned something, when dealing with high profile fish shipped via a problem country make sure the paperwork is done exactly by the book. Thing is until now there was no reason to think that it would be enforced by the book.
As for the matter of Mexico being a different case than most other fish exporting countries I disagree. Mexico being our neighbor has smuggling issues that do not exist with countries that require air travel to transport the fish. Malaysia has a huge problem with marine life smuggled into Indonesia and shipped out of Indonesia. Singapore and Hong Kong both have huge smuggling problems, to say that Mexico is different from other exporting countries is only because of our location and the fact that shipments can come in through undocumented means. U.S. Fish and Wildlife has not made it a requirement to list country of origin for fish species in a shipment nor are we required to have re-export permits for fish shipped from a country other than the country where the fish were collected. This happens every day both coming into the U.S. and being exported back out of the U.S. and Fish and Wildlife signs off on it every day with no issues. Steve's shipment is being held to a different standard.
Dave
DFS
.Registered Member
Dave,
Your comments on the smuggling of marine life overseas is sad but unfortunately true and is a problem that has been happening for years, but is becoming much more prevalent these days. What is the most concerning about this practice is the smuggling of CITES Appendix II animals.
The policing of illegal fishing in other countries and/or territories' waters rests in the hands of both countries to try and curtail, police and enforce the laws of these said regions where this practice is commonplace. Little to no enforcement has statistically taken place in these exporting regions, primarily due to politics and a lack of funding.
Last year we all witnessed the new regulations imposed by USF&W on the importation of CITES Appendix II animals from "In Leu of CITES" Countries (Countries that do not abide by or wish to be a part of CITES). The new law requires these exporting regions have an Official Scientific Authority sign off on the exports of CITES Appendix II animals and accompany the export document for the shipment to the United States. This was implemented to try and curtail the smuggling of illegally harvested animals that are harvested from other regions, then smuggled into another country, then re-exported to the United States under a valid and accepted re-export permit that normally listed the said animal(s) as a very similar "endemic" legal species. One such animal is the solitary Azooxanthellae coral Rhizotrochus typus.
This thread here on RC, is becoming a high profile issue revolving around 40 blue fishes that have rarely every shown up in the aquarium trade. From my perspective, it surely gives our industry ANOTHER BIG BLACK EYE, regardless of the outcome. This can only add more scrutiny, and provide additional fuel to the hundreds of thousands of people who would love to see the marine aquarium trade shut down. The last thing that any of us need, especially during these challenging economic times which is affecting this industry is additional scrutiny on our trade. IMO there has been, and still are far too many folks who intentionally try and deceive USF&W, and this needs to change.
Dave wrote:
I think your words have reinforced the points made in my first post.
Regards,
Your comments on the smuggling of marine life overseas is sad but unfortunately true and is a problem that has been happening for years, but is becoming much more prevalent these days. What is the most concerning about this practice is the smuggling of CITES Appendix II animals.
The policing of illegal fishing in other countries and/or territories' waters rests in the hands of both countries to try and curtail, police and enforce the laws of these said regions where this practice is commonplace. Little to no enforcement has statistically taken place in these exporting regions, primarily due to politics and a lack of funding.
Last year we all witnessed the new regulations imposed by USF&W on the importation of CITES Appendix II animals from "In Leu of CITES" Countries (Countries that do not abide by or wish to be a part of CITES). The new law requires these exporting regions have an Official Scientific Authority sign off on the exports of CITES Appendix II animals and accompany the export document for the shipment to the United States. This was implemented to try and curtail the smuggling of illegally harvested animals that are harvested from other regions, then smuggled into another country, then re-exported to the United States under a valid and accepted re-export permit that normally listed the said animal(s) as a very similar "endemic" legal species. One such animal is the solitary Azooxanthellae coral Rhizotrochus typus.
This thread here on RC, is becoming a high profile issue revolving around 40 blue fishes that have rarely every shown up in the aquarium trade. From my perspective, it surely gives our industry ANOTHER BIG BLACK EYE, regardless of the outcome. This can only add more scrutiny, and provide additional fuel to the hundreds of thousands of people who would love to see the marine aquarium trade shut down. The last thing that any of us need, especially during these challenging economic times which is affecting this industry is additional scrutiny on our trade. IMO there has been, and still are far too many folks who intentionally try and deceive USF&W, and this needs to change.
Dave wrote:
I think your words have reinforced the points made in my first post.
Regards,
Last edited:
jmaneyapanda
Commencing hatred
Dave, I understand your point, and while it certainly may be true, it doesnt make it proper. Just because USFWS may be lenient on certain fish shipments, doesnt mean that it is the proper way to do it. To make an analogy, if I speed in my car every day, and get pulle dover today, it is not an appropriate excuse to say "well, Ive never been caught before, so it shouldnt be a big deal now" The law is the law. Furthermore, I would be weary of comparing apples and ornages here. Steve did not vaguely describe a large mixed collection of fish. He mislabelled a group of a singular species. Why should he have put "Misc fish" or "Holacanthus sp" rather than "Holacanthus limbaughi"?
Taking for granted that the USFWS will let you go on such issues is not a good course of action, in my opinion. even if it does "slip through the cracks" at USFWS, does that make it good? If someone ships a large lot of "misc fish" from overseas, and mixes in a few leafy sea dragons (for the sake of argument), they may make it in under the premise of FWS not inspecting every box and having every scientific listed on the declaration of import. But does that make the import any less improper, or any less illegal? In my opinion, no. That is still smuggling them in, as the purpose of declaring them is still the burden of the importer, and if left vague to purposesfully mislead, despite the probability of clearance, makes this importer just as improper as declaring them a different species altogether.
yellowslayer13
Premium Member
IMO if the fish clear USFWS then you are good to go, if the government wants to stop that they would required each individual fish listed then checked by the agent since they do not it is on them if something gets through
Similar threads
