20 species of coral added to the US Endangered Species List

What I find more concerning is the US Senate Bill SB 1153 and its companion bill in the House of Representatives HB 996 which directs the Director of Fish and Wildlife and the Secretary of Interior to establish an improved regulatory process for injurious wildlife to prevent the introduction and establishment in the United States of nonnative wildlife and wild animal pathogens and parasites that are likely to cause harm "to humans or animals". Defines "nonnative wildlife taxon" in general as any family, genus, species or subspecies of live animal that is not native to the U.S., regardless of whether the animal was born or raised in captivity. Exempt from the term nonnative wildlife taxon are several common and clearly domesticated species including: cats, dogs, ferrets, gerbils, guinea pigs, goldfish, hamsters, and rabbits. With the broad wording being used this can easily be used to prevent not only coral imports but also coral propagation. I am reminded of the proposed USDA regulations a few years ago in response to bird flu fears that if implemented would have required EVERY domestic bird in the US to be registered and permits required prior to moving it with a $1000 per day per bird fine. An obvious first candidate if these bills become law would be all of the order zoantheria because of the possible risk of a species or specimen having palytoxin.
 
Last edited:
Elkhorn and Staghorn are protected under section 9 of the ESA 'as if' they were listed as endangered, as of 2006. Any coral listed under the ESA after 2006 will fall under that ruling as well. After that ruling, the only two known captive stands of staghorn are at the national aquarium's R&D lab, and another university research lab. All other 'parts' of those species are considered black market trade.

Not so. There are other permits out there. Many Project SECORE members have them.
 
But from a hobbyist perspective they are for all intents and purposes not available. Correct?
 
But from a hobbyist perspective they are for all intents and purposes not available. Correct?

For the most part correct. Though that has to do with additional protections on Tropical West Atlantic hard corals beyond the two Acro's being listed as "threatened" under the ESA. However, if any of them show up on aquacultured LR, they are legal to keep and grow...though not to sell.
 
Not so. There are other permits out there. Many Project SECORE members have them.

It is also possible for university researchers to get cultured specimens from permit holders without the need to actually get a permit themselves. One of our labs has several staghorn frags from CRF via that means.
 
I sure hope NOAA makes some provision for aquacultured specimens. I was speaking with one of my LFS today at lunch and we got on the topic of Euphyllia paradivisa. He said all of the ones he gets now are aquacultured. They all have a cement base and tag on them so I am assuming he is correct. Not to mention that he trims his two large colonies on occasion and mounts them.
 
I sure hope NOAA makes some provision for aquacultured specimens. I was speaking with one of my LFS today at lunch and we got on the topic of Euphyllia paradivisa. He said all of the ones he gets now are aquacultured. They all have a cement base and tag on them so I am assuming he is correct. Not to mention that he trims his two large colonies on occasion and mounts them.

Aquacultured, but what generation? Hacking off a wild colony and mounting is really not much different then wild collections. Its been a few years since I dealt with CITES so I am unsure of the new Bali-Indo rules for this.
 
Aquacultured, but what generation? Hacking off a wild colony and mounting is really not much different then wild collections. Its been a few years since I dealt with CITES so I am unsure of the new Bali-Indo rules for this.

Agreed. I don't know the answer to that. It would be disingenuous to represent that type of coral as aquacultered but I'm sure its done. I was thinking more along the lines of parent colonies that are kept and farmed.

So my answer would be generation two or later, or at the very least generation one that has been in captivity for some long period of time. But I get the difficulty in policing that.
 
I donated $150.00 to the PIJAC Marine Ornamental Defence Fund. I encourage everyone to donate what they can.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Love the gov. They restrict the aquarium trade that could possibly save the species but then approve dredging operations, dumping, and all sorts of other operations that directly are the cause of these endangerments......
 
Give me a break

Give me a break

First of all, they aren't going to police the LFS. The ones that are currently being aquacultured from hobbyists are being discussed to preserve the population in case the conditions get worse. This is not a collection problem they have identified it is a pollution issue. As a matter of fact they reported just today that there isn't going to be a ban on collections on current reefs, except for the protected areas, which can't be harvested from anyway. This is an alert to try to get people to realize the condition the oceans are currently in, and continue to spiral downward.
 
First of all, they aren't going to police the LFS. The ones that are currently being aquacultured from hobbyists are being discussed to preserve the population in case the conditions get worse. This is not a collection problem they have identified it is a pollution issue. As a matter of fact they reported just today that there isn't going to be a ban on collections on current reefs, except for the protected areas, which can't be harvested from anyway. This is an alert to try to get people to realize the condition the oceans are currently in, and continue to spiral downward.

I was told that some wholesalers have already been contacted about this.

I will have to look into this more.

If true they have not yet policed the LFS but have started to police the wholesalers that bring stuff into the country.
 
Love the gov. They restrict the aquarium trade that could possibly save the species but then approve dredging operations, dumping, and all sorts of other operations that directly are the cause of these endangerments......


That happened to me. CITES put a spider on the list just as we were about to use it in a breeding program. We couldnt get them, and the forest was destroyed, eliminating their habitat.
 
That happened to me. CITES put a spider on the list just as we were about to use it in a breeding program. We couldnt get them, and the forest was destroyed, eliminating their habitat.

Perfect example.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/reef_fish_in_peril/index.html

That is the most miss guided dribble I have read in a long time. So they are endangered by the raising CO2 levels. So you're going to put restrictions on them that would prevent their being bred in captivity preserving the species and do nothing about what's killing them in the wild........... Well when the captive breeding programs end and the continued CO2 levels kill them off in the wild we'll still be able to see them in museums, and our old Youtube videos. We'll be able to thank places like the Center for Biological Diversity directly contributing to the extinction of many species that could have easily been saved had it not been for their interference and actions.
 
Last edited:
On the bright side, unlike with "endangered", they could exempt existing aquarium specimens and future aquaculture of them from regulation while still restricting imports of wild collected specimens.

Hopefully you're right Bill and they add that exemption. I'm afraid they are going to throw a blanket over the entire thing and ban us from buying / selling / trading aquacultured.

that Fish Guy said:
So they did ban Frogspawn.

That was a mistake. They updated the article to reflect that error.
 
I think I'm just going to move to the tropical coast, build a big swimming pool, pump water in from the ocean, and "aquaculture" a bunch of stuff. What do you all think? :)
 
Back
Top