Coral ban ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Endangered Species Listings Could End Trade in Stony Corals
URGENT Call for Concerned Aquarists to Write Objections

Will U.S. Fish & Wildlife inspectors be able to ID incoming stony corals?
Photo Credit: Scott W. Michael/Aquarium Corals (Unidentified Acropora, Indonesia.)
PIJAC, the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council, issued a call to action on April 3rd, 2013, for everyone involved in the aquarium industry and hobby to submit public commentary in response to the NOAA Proposal to list 66 CORAL Species on the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as we first reported late November, 2012.

You have less than 48 hours remaining to submit your public comment (electronic submissions are closed after 11:59 PM EDT, April 5th, 2013). Mail submissions must be postmarked April 6th.

Public commentary is a fundamental core part of the ESA listing process, so don’t think what you say won’t make a difference – it certainly could.

We are providing expanded commentary on the NOAA ESA Coral Petition issue in another article today; if you’re unfamiliar we encourage you to become invested in the implications this proposal has for you as an aquarist.

For those already familiar with the issue and simply looking for instructions, you can view the full PIJAC press release with instructions. We’ve also excerpted a portion here.

Recommended Action:

PIJAC urges people involved with the ornamental marine trade and hobby to not only submit their personal comments, but also forward this PetAlert to others involved with marine organisms, marine products, and marine retailers. COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED BY APRIL 6, 2013. See below for instructions on how and where to submit your comments.

Comments should include a brief description of your involvement with coral activities. Your comments should be in your own words – do not simply copy the talking points.

Comments should be addressed to:

Regulatory Branch Chief
Protected Resources Division
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pacific Islands Regional Office
1601 Kapiolani Blvd.
Honolulu, HI 96814
Attn: 82 Coral Species Proposed Listing

Or

Assistant Regional Administrator,
Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service,
Southeast Regional Office,
263 13th Avenue South,
Saint Petersburg, FL 33701,
Attn: 82 coral species proposed listing

Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments NO LATER THAN APRIL 5 via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal www.regulations.gov. To submit comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, first click the “submit a comment” icon, then enter NOAA-NMFS-2010-0036 in the keyword search. Locate the document you wish to comment on from the resulting list and click on the “Submit a Comment” icon on the right of that line. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only. E-submissions must be filed by 11:59 pm EDT on April 5 when the system shuts down. If you encounter problems filing electronically FAX and mail a copy.

Mail: Submit written comments to Regulatory Branch Chief, Protected Resources Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, Pacific Islands Regional Office, 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814; or Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, FL 33701, Attn: 82 coral species proposed listing. Must be postmarked no later than April 6 and to be safe send April 5.

Fax: 808-973-2941; Attn: Protected Resources Regulatory Branch Chief; or 727-824-5309; Attn: Protected Resources Assistant Regional Administrator.
Postal or Fax Submissions: If responding by mail, make sure the envelope is postmarked/date stamped on or before April 6. PIJAC recommends that you also FAX a copy to NMFS.

For any questions about this proposal and responding to it, contact PIJAC at info@pijac.org or Marshall Meyers at marshall@pijac.org.

Download or view the full PIJAC release

COMMENTARY:
What's Being Proposed and What's An Aquarist to Do?

Acropora verweyi, one of 66 stony coral species proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act.

Opinion By Matt Pedersen,
Aquaculturist & CORAL Magazine Senior Editor
EXCERPT

"Don’t overlook the at-home implications of an ESA listing. Being listed as an endangered species under the ESA makes it illegal to own or propagate the species under the “Take Prohibition”—”Endangered species, their parts, or any products made from them may not be imported, exported, possessed, or sold” according to the Earth Justice Citizen’s Guide to the ESA.

"It is unclear that there would be any legal way to provide exceptions or grandfather in past legal ownership or propagation. Could your next “20,000 Leagues Lokani” frag be your last, or worse, do you have to grind your entire Candy Cane Coral colony into a pulp or risk jail time or fines for owning it, despite having purchased it legally years prior?

"Should these listings go into effect, will the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have a “Reefer’s Amnesty Day” where we can all turn in our then contraband livestock?

"Pragmatically, the aquarium-industry implications of this proposal are such that we could quite literally all return to keeping fish-only marine aquariums. That is, we’ll be fine with fish until we have to deal with any successful efforts by the Center for Biological Diversity to list Amphiprion percula as an endangered species under the ESA (at which point am I required by law to flush the 200 baby Percula Clownfish I spawned and reared in my basement or risk civil and criminal penalties for owning a newly-dubbed “endangered species”?)." Read the full commentary...
 
Will U.S. Fish & Wildlife inspectors be able to ID incoming stony corals?
No^

Wouldn't it be more beneficial for reefers to keep and propogate these endangered species? If a native bird becomes endangered we don't go around culling them do we.
 
I understand that banning fresh reef harvested corals would change the hobby, but there are tons of aquaculture facilities housing a huge number of these species, and while it would likely raise the costs associated with reef keeping, I feel like it would deter just anybody from buying, killing, and just buying again. Granted we have all had our mishaps and killed stuff, but maybe it would be motivation to try harder If was twice as expensive to repurchase what we had lost. Just half of my two cents.
 
You missunderstand: endangered species cannot be bought, sold, kept; it doesn't matter if it's been in your care for thirty years.

These things come up because of powerful organizations like the U.S Humane Society (which is NOT a United States government organization) Groups like this take in and distribute monies under the guise of caring for the welfare of animals, while this is true they do care for animals, but it is in such an extreeme way that the groups core is the belief is that using an animal for ANY reason is exploitation of animals. As long as animal loving people get sucked in by the sad eyed pets stuck in a pens and send in their money for what looks on the surface to be a good cause these groups will continue to use their political influen$e trying to push through yet more legislation on us, and one day, a single vote may be needed that could piggyback a bill into law that will make many of us keepers and trifficing in endangered species.
 
I don't know much about this particular case, but these things do seem to recur. Sounds like just another over-reaching effort to control the masses. What bothers me most about this is that there is no scientific evidence to support any of the species even being on the list. I think we could all agree that if a species was truly endangered, we should avoid collecting it. I have a hard time believing that the harvesting of corals has any kind of noticeable effect on coral populations. Show me the evidence. The problem is, the list is arbitrarily created by a bunch of government leaches. I truly believe that one day we will be telling our kids about how we used to house real living corals in our tanks!

As for the government leaches:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
-Upton Sinclair
 
I did misunderstand. That seems a bit extreme. I didn't really fully understand that they were basically trying to abolish the hobby altogether. Politics...... Sheesh.
 
This seems to be a good topic of discussion on a site dedicated to Reef related subjects. However, being as politics are a forbidden topic I suspect it will be shut down soon. Perhaps RC will consider / figure out how to allow for Reef related politics on the site, but the conversations always turn sour...
 
As previously mentioned, this topic comes up regularly.
I think past discussions focused on the fact of coral ID: collectors and government officials will have a difficult time regulating what they cannot identify properly.
 
true

true

but if my memory is correct... that's the reason pursuit of this legislation was dropped previously.

I also recall discussions regarding the left leaning governments of several European nations and their long standing ban on certain Butterflyfish, Angelfish etc.

There is no doubt that knowledge is power.
I know why my great grandfather left Europe.
 
It's serious from what I can tell. MACNA and others have expressed concerns about the data used and have submitted written responses .

Wild collection is and should be regulated, imo. CITES
is in place to do that.
This EPA action would stop any trade in a long list of species even aqua cultured specimens traded and sold at frag swaps or otherwise including some euphylia, aropora ,caulastrea , acanestrea and many others from what I have read. Very intrusive and armed with high fines and worse.

I think if it goes into effect, it will have a chilling effect on aquaculture for the effected species which is counter to the expressed intent which is to insure their survival.
 
So, I guess I'm having a bit of trouble wrapping my head around how this change will actually impact us as hobbyists. From what I've gathered, no new legislation is going into effect, simply the listing of some species of reef-building corals on the Endangered and Threatened species list which would fall under the current legislation "Endangered Species Act." If this needs to be done to protect our reefs, I'm all for it, but then there is the issue of aquaculture and how the law handles that.

I'm reading the act, and Section 9. PROHIBITED ACTS makes the following illegal for any creature on the endangered species list (among other things)

(A) import any such species into, or export any such species from the United States;

(B) take any such species within the United States or the territorial sea of the United States;

(C) take any such species upon the high seas;

(D) possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever, any such species taken in violation of subparagraphs (B) and (C);

(E) deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the course of a commercial activity, any such species;

At first blush, this looks bad, but under Section 10. EXCEPTIONS, subsection it says

(A) "any act otherwise prohibited by section 9 for scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of the affected species propagation or survival of the affected species"

This considered, wouldn't captive-propagation be protected under the existing legislation? Furthermore under section 10, it protects businesses via the following:

(B) "substantial economic loss to persons who, for the year prior to the notice of consideration of such species as an endangered species, derived a substantial portion of their income from the lawful taking of any listed species, which taking would be made unlawful under this Act;..."

It seems unlikely that the government would have any interest or the manpower to involve themselves in our frag swaps or home aquariums, especially considering captive propagation is protective to the species and if brought to court would likely fall under the first exception. I mean, when my euphyllia cristata outgrows its spot in the tank, does the EPA really have any interest in making sure I don't trade pieces of it? It also seems the larger coral aquaculture facilities will probably be protected by the economic and captive propagation exemptions.

Can someone with more knowledge than me about the law comment?

link to full text of ESA: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/esa/text.htm
 
Thanks for the breakout on the act.
It's helpful.

The link in post 1 includes some additional information :

a summary in post #22 of that link or a discussion with a NORA representative . This is from it:

You can give or receive any specimens on the list for free but no money or services/goods can be exchanged.

Basically no commerce of any kind for species on the list, I think. Like most regulations you need a team of lawyers to make sense of it. Whether or not it's needed or properly targetted is a whole set of other issues.

The MACNA reponse is also there along with teh Coral magazine response.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top