OMG 40 clipperton angelfish, Holocanthus limbaughi,
- Thread starter espocrespo
- Start date
DamnPepShrimp
Moved On
Tim, what kind of fish is that? Its obviously in a tank, not really yours is it?
Last edited:
copps
Premium Member
It's a queen angel morph(Holacanthus ciliaris) from an inbreeding population of queens off shore of Brazil at tiny Saint Paul's Rocks... they're noted for their unique "koi-like" color morphs and shortened dorsal and anal fins... the color of this blue morph possibly represents convergent evolution with it's cousin on the Pacific side that's the topic of conversation in this thread...
Dante_JoseCuerv
New member
That looks like some crazy color morph. COOL!
DamnPepShrimp
Moved On
Wow, thanks Copps. That is crazy! I didn't know they had color morphs like that! Pretty impressive having something to do with the clippertons on the other side, that must have been a long time ago! Any other colors besides the blue that you have seen? Wish my queen was a color morph!
copps
Premium Member
Not to derail the thread, but I'll quickly respond... St. Paul's Rocks makes tiny Clipperton (which is a little over two miles in diameter) look huge... it's a small rocky outcropping of about four acres. Queens are VERY common there... much more so than anywhere else, but the color morphs are still rare. 95% of them are all yellow... of the amazing morphs the blue one shown above (from an aquarium in Japan) is the most common of the remaining 5%, with all white and koi-like specimens a fraction of 1% like this specimen below...
Perhaps clippertons have a similar story... I'd bet clipperton was once full of passers that made their way there... after being isolated with no recruitment from elsewhere the species has evolved. Perhaps the "blue morph" was chosen through evolution and we have a new species... similar to Centropyge resplendens at Ascension in the middle of the Atlantic, which was traced back to Centropyge aurantonota of Brazil, which was traced back to Centropyge acanthops of East Africa (as were all three Centropyge species of the Atlantic). Recently, after years of speculation, Brazilian flamebacks were scientifically documented off the coast of West Africa in the Atlantic... amazing!
Copps
Perhaps clippertons have a similar story... I'd bet clipperton was once full of passers that made their way there... after being isolated with no recruitment from elsewhere the species has evolved. Perhaps the "blue morph" was chosen through evolution and we have a new species... similar to Centropyge resplendens at Ascension in the middle of the Atlantic, which was traced back to Centropyge aurantonota of Brazil, which was traced back to Centropyge acanthops of East Africa (as were all three Centropyge species of the Atlantic). Recently, after years of speculation, Brazilian flamebacks were scientifically documented off the coast of West Africa in the Atlantic... amazing!
Copps
The speeding analogy above is my point with what has happened with the Clippertons. When I drive to Vegas I generally drive at around around 85 which is the speed traffic is traveling. The speed limit is 70 but you will not be pulled over until doing over 85. Everyone traveling over 70 knows that they are breaking the law but they also know that it is not enforced until 85. If an officer gets an itch to pull someone over he can do it at 71 and issue a ticket. It is selective enforcement. If they started enforcing the letter of the law then traffic flow would slow to 70. If I were to get a ticket doing 80 in a 70 zone when traffic was flowing along at 85 I would take the ticket and accept responsibility as I knew that I was breaking the law but I would feel a little wronged because of the selective enforcement with traffic flowing at 85. This is pretty much what happened with Steve, what he did was wrong but it is generally passed over. He knows that he was wrong and he took the result without complaint. He learned a lesson and will do it correctly next time.
Also there were more than Clipperton angels in the shipment. The Clipperton angels were listed seperatly on the paperwork which is further proof that they were not trying to smuggle them. Many of the other fish were listed on the paper work as assorted fish. This was not a singular species shipment.
The analogy of slipping in a few Leafy Sea Dragon into a shipment of assorted marine fish is ridiculous, Leafy Sea Dragons are CITES listed animals and it is absolutly not legal to ship them without proper CITES paperwork. That would be a gross violation and indeed smuggling. Adding in any species that is not listed, not protected in any way, and fully legal to ship does not break any law when listed as assorted fish species or when listed to genus level. That is the way fish are shipped, however when you do list a fish to species name on import paperwork then it does need to be that particular species of fish. However it is not required to list to species level, you have the option of listing to family or genus level if you wish.
Dave
Also there were more than Clipperton angels in the shipment. The Clipperton angels were listed seperatly on the paperwork which is further proof that they were not trying to smuggle them. Many of the other fish were listed on the paper work as assorted fish. This was not a singular species shipment.
The analogy of slipping in a few Leafy Sea Dragon into a shipment of assorted marine fish is ridiculous, Leafy Sea Dragons are CITES listed animals and it is absolutly not legal to ship them without proper CITES paperwork. That would be a gross violation and indeed smuggling. Adding in any species that is not listed, not protected in any way, and fully legal to ship does not break any law when listed as assorted fish species or when listed to genus level. That is the way fish are shipped, however when you do list a fish to species name on import paperwork then it does need to be that particular species of fish. However it is not required to list to species level, you have the option of listing to family or genus level if you wish.
Dave
Dave,
Actually, Leafy Sea Dragons are not listed in the CITES appendices. They are only listed in the IUCN Redlist as "near threatened". Problems with importing this species all stem from very strict laws in Australia. Without those permits, it would be a Lacey Act violation to bring them into the U.S. direct from Australia.
You actually COULD list them on a 3-177 as "misc fish" if they were originating from a country other than Australia (From Japan for example).
Jay
Actually, Leafy Sea Dragons are not listed in the CITES appendices. They are only listed in the IUCN Redlist as "near threatened". Problems with importing this species all stem from very strict laws in Australia. Without those permits, it would be a Lacey Act violation to bring them into the U.S. direct from Australia.
You actually COULD list them on a 3-177 as "misc fish" if they were originating from a country other than Australia (From Japan for example).
Jay
That is good to know Jay, when I brought in weedy sea dragons from Australia they had them listed on a cites permit along with some other animals. Fish and Wildlife here cleared them with no problems, we had the cites permits approved by them in advance. I just assumed that they were cites listed as the Australia shipper used that as the Australian export permit. It could be that there was another Australian permit along with the cites permits but the dragons were definitly listed on the cites permit.
Now I am curious what the stand of Fish and Wildlife would be if there was a shipment from Japan with Leafy Dragons listed as Misc. fish. This is not the same situation that Steve had where he mis-identified the fish on the declaration but it would be interesting to know what their stand would be on it. If the dragons are not cites listed then is it legal to trade in captive raised dragons born outside of Australia? Other than regular fish export and import declarations is there any further permit requirments for sea dragons outside of Australia?
Dave
Now I am curious what the stand of Fish and Wildlife would be if there was a shipment from Japan with Leafy Dragons listed as Misc. fish. This is not the same situation that Steve had where he mis-identified the fish on the declaration but it would be interesting to know what their stand would be on it. If the dragons are not cites listed then is it legal to trade in captive raised dragons born outside of Australia? Other than regular fish export and import declarations is there any further permit requirments for sea dragons outside of Australia?
Dave
jmaneyapanda
Commencing hatred
Fish_dave,
We will agree to disagree. In my speeding analogy, you are proving my point. The law is teh law. And just because it isnt enforced every time, doesnt mean that you can willfully break it. The fact that you dont get pulled over for speeding means you are lucky for breaking the law, not that the law doesnt exist, or that its acceptable to break the law with consequences.
I do think it is a requirement to list the genus and species. If USFWS agents accept "misc fish", then they are using their judgemnet to allow a vague generalization for bulk shipments. However, if it werent required, it wouldnt be on the form. Regardless, in this case, I feel the importer did not inadvertantly vaguely label the shipment for easiness sake, I believ they were pruposefully mislabelled to prevent USFWS from knowing their true identity. You seem to be aware of some of the facts in this case, so you likely know what Steve said to the USFWS about these fish, and where they were caught.
Regardless, Im sure to the chagrin of many of you, I recently spoke with a well respected and knowledgeable reefer, and he did convinmce me that I am wasting my breath here. Those who disagree with me, will always disagree with me, for some reason. Despite what the facts which have been stated have shown. I will gladly discuss this more with anyone who wants to discuss it with me by PM.
We will agree to disagree. In my speeding analogy, you are proving my point. The law is teh law. And just because it isnt enforced every time, doesnt mean that you can willfully break it. The fact that you dont get pulled over for speeding means you are lucky for breaking the law, not that the law doesnt exist, or that its acceptable to break the law with consequences.
I do think it is a requirement to list the genus and species. If USFWS agents accept "misc fish", then they are using their judgemnet to allow a vague generalization for bulk shipments. However, if it werent required, it wouldnt be on the form. Regardless, in this case, I feel the importer did not inadvertantly vaguely label the shipment for easiness sake, I believ they were pruposefully mislabelled to prevent USFWS from knowing their true identity. You seem to be aware of some of the facts in this case, so you likely know what Steve said to the USFWS about these fish, and where they were caught.
Regardless, Im sure to the chagrin of many of you, I recently spoke with a well respected and knowledgeable reefer, and he did convinmce me that I am wasting my breath here. Those who disagree with me, will always disagree with me, for some reason. Despite what the facts which have been stated have shown. I will gladly discuss this more with anyone who wants to discuss it with me by PM.
jmaneyapanda
Commencing hatred
Fish_dave,
We will agree to disagree. In my speeding analogy, you are proving my point. The law is teh law. And just because it isnt enforced every time, doesnt mean that you can willfully break it. The fact that you dont get pulled over for speeding means you are lucky for breaking the law, not that the law doesnt exist, or that its acceptable to break the law with consequences.
I do think it is a requirement to list the genus and species. If USFWS agents accept "misc fish", then they are using their judgemnet to allow a vague generalization for bulk shipments. However, if it werent required, it wouldnt be on the form. Regardless, in this case, I feel the importer did not inadvertantly vaguely label the shipment for easiness sake, I believ they were pruposefully mislabelled to prevent USFWS from knowing their true identity. You seem to be aware of some of the facts in this case, so you likely know what Steve said to the USFWS about these fish, and where they were caught.
Regardless, Im sure to the chagrin of many of you, I recently spoke with a well respected and knowledgeable reefer, and he did convinmce me that I am wasting my breath here. Those who disagree with me, will always disagree with me, for some reason. Despite what the facts which have been stated have shown. I will gladly discuss this more with anyone who wants to discuss it with me by PM.
We will agree to disagree. In my speeding analogy, you are proving my point. The law is teh law. And just because it isnt enforced every time, doesnt mean that you can willfully break it. The fact that you dont get pulled over for speeding means you are lucky for breaking the law, not that the law doesnt exist, or that its acceptable to break the law with consequences.
I do think it is a requirement to list the genus and species. If USFWS agents accept "misc fish", then they are using their judgemnet to allow a vague generalization for bulk shipments. However, if it werent required, it wouldnt be on the form. Regardless, in this case, I feel the importer did not inadvertantly vaguely label the shipment for easiness sake, I believ they were pruposefully mislabelled to prevent USFWS from knowing their true identity. You seem to be aware of some of the facts in this case, so you likely know what Steve said to the USFWS about these fish, and where they were caught.
Regardless, Im sure to the chagrin of many of you, I recently spoke with a well respected and knowledgeable reefer, and he did convinmce me that I am wasting my breath here. Those who disagree with me, will always disagree with me, for some reason. Despite what the facts which have been stated have shown. I will gladly discuss this more with anyone who wants to discuss it with me by PM.
I think that you do not understand what I am saying. Steve broke the law when he listed the fish as H. passer, no argument there. If I speed I break the law, no argument. But if I am speeding at 71 MPH while traffic is going 85 and I get pulled over and receive a ticket I feel wronged, that it was selective enforcement. No argument that I was not breaking the law, I was and I would accept the ticket and move on but I would feel that the enforcement was not fair. Fish enter the country every day with improper names with no problem, not even a mention to try to get it right the next time. This shipment was held to a different standard than normal fish shipments. Steve admits that he made a mistake by listing the fish as H. passer, he should have either listed it by the correct name, or by simply Holocanthus species, or put the whole lot on as simply Assorted Marine fish.
You are wrong about it being a requirement to list fish by genus and species. It is not a requirement. A simple listing of assorted marine fish is all that is required on the 3-177 form from Fish and Wildlife which is the form in question. Even if the shipment is of a single species of fish it is not required to list it to genus or species. We quite often do list it either to genus or to species if it is a single species shipment or even a few different species but it is not a requirement. There are other restricted animals that are required to be listed either to genus or in some cases to species level on the form. Marine fish are not. If Steve had wanted to prevent USFWS from knowing the true identity he would have included the Clipperton angels in the count for the Clarions or the other assorted fish that were included in the shipment. Remember, other fish collected at Clipperton that were not listed to species were approved for import by Fish and Wildlife. Their issue was that the Clipperton angels had been misidentified as H. passer, not that they had been collected at Clipperton atoll. The facts show a stupid mistake naming the fish, not an attempt to smuggle.
Dave
You are wrong about it being a requirement to list fish by genus and species. It is not a requirement. A simple listing of assorted marine fish is all that is required on the 3-177 form from Fish and Wildlife which is the form in question. Even if the shipment is of a single species of fish it is not required to list it to genus or species. We quite often do list it either to genus or to species if it is a single species shipment or even a few different species but it is not a requirement. There are other restricted animals that are required to be listed either to genus or in some cases to species level on the form. Marine fish are not. If Steve had wanted to prevent USFWS from knowing the true identity he would have included the Clipperton angels in the count for the Clarions or the other assorted fish that were included in the shipment. Remember, other fish collected at Clipperton that were not listed to species were approved for import by Fish and Wildlife. Their issue was that the Clipperton angels had been misidentified as H. passer, not that they had been collected at Clipperton atoll. The facts show a stupid mistake naming the fish, not an attempt to smuggle.
Dave
jmaneyapanda
Commencing hatred
http://www.fws.gov/le/pdffiles/3-177ins.pdf
Here are the instructions for the 3-177 Decelaration for import/export. Note box 16A. I dont see where it says that the scientific name is not needed. Nor where you can use "misc fish". I do not doubt that shipments ahve been made in this manner, but I think this is akin to the police officer letting you go for going 70 in the 65. Just because you were not punished for it, doesnt mean its not wrong. If you are aware of a contradiction to this, please let me know.
FWIW, I think it is a very moot argument to say that he was not trying to smuggle the fish. I acmnnot "prove" he was, and you cannot "prove" he was not. I have heard a very credible account of Steve's actions and comments to teh USFWS agent, as well as using some comments STeve has made on this thread, which lead me to believe what I did. But saying that because he didnt put "Misc fish", that proves h wasnt smuggling does not show that at all.
Here are the instructions for the 3-177 Decelaration for import/export. Note box 16A. I dont see where it says that the scientific name is not needed. Nor where you can use "misc fish". I do not doubt that shipments ahve been made in this manner, but I think this is akin to the police officer letting you go for going 70 in the 65. Just because you were not punished for it, doesnt mean its not wrong. If you are aware of a contradiction to this, please let me know.
FWIW, I think it is a very moot argument to say that he was not trying to smuggle the fish. I acmnnot "prove" he was, and you cannot "prove" he was not. I have heard a very credible account of Steve's actions and comments to teh USFWS agent, as well as using some comments STeve has made on this thread, which lead me to believe what I did. But saying that because he didnt put "Misc fish", that proves h wasnt smuggling does not show that at all.
I am aware of a contradiction. It is not required to list fish to genus or species name on the 3-177. I do it every day both on import and export. The form 3-177 is a generic form for all kinds of imports and exports that have anything to do with wildlife or wildlife derivatives (parts or products derived from wildlife). There are many cases where the wildlife is required to be listed to species name, marine fish is not one of those cases. Anything CITES listed is required to be listed by at least genus and often to species level. The Sea Dragons talked about above would need to be listed to species name in my opinion, I guess that there is a possibility that that would not be a requirement if they were coming from a country other than Australia as noted by Jay in a previous post.
I get the feeling that you have never had dealings with Fish and Wildlife and that you have never filled out a form 3-177. If you had experience with this process you would have a better understanding of what happened and why the fish were confiscated from Steve. Steve would not have a problem if he had listed the fish as Holocanthus species. The problem is the word "passer", the fish were not H. passer and that is why they were confiscated. If they had been listed as Holocanthus species it would have been a correct statment on the 3-177 and the fish would have been cleared just as the other fish in the same shipment listed on the same 3-177 were cleared and Steve received possesion of.
Dave
I get the feeling that you have never had dealings with Fish and Wildlife and that you have never filled out a form 3-177. If you had experience with this process you would have a better understanding of what happened and why the fish were confiscated from Steve. Steve would not have a problem if he had listed the fish as Holocanthus species. The problem is the word "passer", the fish were not H. passer and that is why they were confiscated. If they had been listed as Holocanthus species it would have been a correct statment on the 3-177 and the fish would have been cleared just as the other fish in the same shipment listed on the same 3-177 were cleared and Steve received possesion of.
Dave
jmaneyapanda
Commencing hatred
Dave:
You are very wrong, I deal with USFWS all the time. I import and export animals (both CITES and non CITES) frequently, and am very familiar with the laws for such.
So, your contradiction is your experience? So kinda like saying "I drive 70 every day on this road, and I never get a speeding ticket. Therefore, its not wrong to drive 70- in a 65". You just dont get attentiion to it. You are very right, it is selective. But, it is still a requirement, as far as I can see. And unless you can show me otherwise, I have no choice but to not believe it , and say you are lucky.
Regarding Steve, again, I go to my original question, why would he write Holcanthus species? Not Holacanthus limbaughi? Why NOT follow the instructions for the 3-177? Like I said, I dont doubt that you have imported or exported fish without listing the species, as indicated to do on the 3-177 instruction, but you have also driven 70 in a 65 zone without ticket. Furthermore, in Steves case, he did say some things that directly conflict with your proclamation of innocence for him. I am leaving them out of this thread, but can PM you with that info, if you like.
Are you, by chance, a customer of Steves?
You are very wrong, I deal with USFWS all the time. I import and export animals (both CITES and non CITES) frequently, and am very familiar with the laws for such.
So, your contradiction is your experience? So kinda like saying "I drive 70 every day on this road, and I never get a speeding ticket. Therefore, its not wrong to drive 70- in a 65". You just dont get attentiion to it. You are very right, it is selective. But, it is still a requirement, as far as I can see. And unless you can show me otherwise, I have no choice but to not believe it , and say you are lucky.
Regarding Steve, again, I go to my original question, why would he write Holcanthus species? Not Holacanthus limbaughi? Why NOT follow the instructions for the 3-177? Like I said, I dont doubt that you have imported or exported fish without listing the species, as indicated to do on the 3-177 instruction, but you have also driven 70 in a 65 zone without ticket. Furthermore, in Steves case, he did say some things that directly conflict with your proclamation of innocence for him. I am leaving them out of this thread, but can PM you with that info, if you like.
Are you, by chance, a customer of Steves?
You didn't have to speak with some reefkeeper to know you are wasting your breath, you will pick a bone about anything geeze. We get your point about your "original" question that you don't even want an answer too. You just want him to be guilty of "smuggling" these fish.
And you say: "Those who disagree with me, will always disagree with me, for some reason." I wonder why.... you always know everything. Its awesome you know every little detail he said to them and blah blah blah, but if you know that much you mine as well say it. You bring it up so much, as if that should give you credibility, but either way your preaching here doesn't matter because you aren't deciding the case.
Who cares "why not" put H. limbaughi we can't go back and put that so just stop that question. We know the problem either that or Holacanthus sp. would have worked and they weren't passers but were labeled as such raising a red flag. Done! Enough. If you want to convict Steve great, then you mine as well say what you know, if you want to keep your mouth shut and not say what you know then drop it and quit saying I know this I know that.
You better never drive a mile over that speed limit...
And you say: "Those who disagree with me, will always disagree with me, for some reason." I wonder why.... you always know everything. Its awesome you know every little detail he said to them and blah blah blah, but if you know that much you mine as well say it. You bring it up so much, as if that should give you credibility, but either way your preaching here doesn't matter because you aren't deciding the case.
Who cares "why not" put H. limbaughi we can't go back and put that so just stop that question. We know the problem either that or Holacanthus sp. would have worked and they weren't passers but were labeled as such raising a red flag. Done! Enough. If you want to convict Steve great, then you mine as well say what you know, if you want to keep your mouth shut and not say what you know then drop it and quit saying I know this I know that.
You better never drive a mile over that speed limit...
AuroraDrvr
New member
My head hurts... :lol:
olemanwinter
In Memoriam
Umm. Speeding. Really?
Sorry to digress,
I'm still getting sidetracked by this 3-177 "misc. fish" listing - those of you who don't do importations will want to skip this:
jmaneyapanda is wrong about always having to list scientific names on the 3-177 - this is NOT universal throughout the U.S. Using the relative new online form, the importer has limited choices via pull-down menus. On a recent importation from Japan, I tried to over-ride that and input the actual species names, and USFWS flagged my form as denied. When I called and inquired, I was told to just select from the picklist. My choices for lines 16a and 16b ended up being CRUS for misc. crustaceans, NONL for non cites entry, other invertebrate and MATF for tropical fish (marine spp.). So in fact, I was not allowed to even enter species names for non-CITES animals that were not already in their database. I was allowed to enter MACK for the crab Macrocheira kaempferi, which was in their database. My guess is that H. limbaughi is NOT in the USFWS database - yet.
I think that either jmaneyapanda is either relying on outdated information, or that Hartsfield hasn't gone to the online form yet.
Jay
I'm still getting sidetracked by this 3-177 "misc. fish" listing - those of you who don't do importations will want to skip this:
jmaneyapanda is wrong about always having to list scientific names on the 3-177 - this is NOT universal throughout the U.S. Using the relative new online form, the importer has limited choices via pull-down menus. On a recent importation from Japan, I tried to over-ride that and input the actual species names, and USFWS flagged my form as denied. When I called and inquired, I was told to just select from the picklist. My choices for lines 16a and 16b ended up being CRUS for misc. crustaceans, NONL for non cites entry, other invertebrate and MATF for tropical fish (marine spp.). So in fact, I was not allowed to even enter species names for non-CITES animals that were not already in their database. I was allowed to enter MACK for the crab Macrocheira kaempferi, which was in their database. My guess is that H. limbaughi is NOT in the USFWS database - yet.
I think that either jmaneyapanda is either relying on outdated information, or that Hartsfield hasn't gone to the online form yet.
Jay
Similar threads
