Coral Reef Conservation Amendments Act

[Luiz Rocha]

So you guys want to keep trading the 83 species listed as threatened by the IUCN?

 

[organism]

So you guys want to keep trading the 83 species listed as threatened by the IUCN?

/facepalm

You haven't really taken the time to look over that list, that was put together by scientists fully funded by an environmentalist group and who have admittedly never even once been to the indo-pacific, have you? It was paid for by "Conservation International", and lists some of the most common corals in the hobby.

If you wanna stop trading "extremely rare" hammers, frogpawns, yellow turbinarias, and pocilloporas feel free. In all honesty it's people that take environmentalist claims at face value without a hint of cynicism that are almost as dangerous as environmentalists themselves.

I can tell that you care and have good intentions, so if you want to work to make a difference with something that really affects our hobby, then sign the petition to ban DHMO (dihydrogenmonoxide). It's a huge concern for reefs being that it's a major component of acid rain and is even showing up in some hobbyist tanks. Don't you feel this would be a better cause to focus on? Keep me posted if you want more info and I'll post up links to their site and the petition so that you can really start making a difference working for a worthwhile cause to save our reefs.

* Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
* Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
* DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
* Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
* Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
* Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.

 

[Luiz Rocha]

Actually I did take the time and I personally know 95% of the scientists that wrote that list. I can tell you with 100% certainty that none of the authors of the paper or specialists that evaluated those species are funded by environmentalists, most of them, at least the Americans, are funded by the National Science Foundation. The only thing Conservation International partly funded was the workshop to put all the scientists together to discuss the threats to those species. I know it as I participate in many of these workshops to evaluate fishes.

The only criteria that puts corals in those lists is whether they are declining or not, regardless of how common they are. It is perfectly possible for a species to be common and to decline. Many of the large grouper species are threatened by overfishing (and listed in the same red list) because they are declining, and most of them are common.

As for DHMO, I am not an expert, but would gladly sign it (as I would sign any petition to ban any other harmful chemical). I just don't see why I can't sign a petition to ban DHMO and at the same time want to protect threatened species of coral.

 

[organism]

Actually I did take the time and I personally know 95% of the scientists that wrote that list. I know it as I participate in many of these workshops to evaluate fishes.

The only criteria that puts corals in those lists is whether they are declining or not, regardless of how common they are.

Their "studies" have been widely panned by reef experts across the board and are commonly considered flawed, but ok, I can see why being an active participant in the process and personally knowing its contributors might give you a different opinion on things.

As for DHMO, I am not an expert, but would gladly sign it (as I would sign any petition to ban any other harmful chemical). I just don't see why I can't sign a petition to ban DHMO and at the same time want to protect threatened species of coral.

I completely respect your drive to want to protect both corals and ban DHMO. Here's the petition if you want to sign it, I'll track down the videos a group made that really highlights its dangers. Please let me know the signature count that pops up after you sign since I can't seem to find the total and I don't know how far along we are so far. Thanks again for your efforts, together we can make a difference

Here's the link for you.

 

[Cerastes]

DHMO has also been implicated in deaths of people who went swimming in water containing a high concentration of the compound.

 

[organism]

Good to see someone else has been following the controversy and cover-up, we need to get as many signatures as possible on this petition before it's too late

 

[Luiz Rocha]

There, mine is number 1043.

Their "studies" have been widely panned by reef experts across the board and are commonly considered flawed, but ok, I can see why being an active participant in the process and personally knowing its contributors might give you a different opinion on things.

The quote above is a very serious accusation. I have enough contacts with the IUCN to recommend a review of those coral species evaluations if you can provide data that shows how the evaluations are flawed. Let's take one example, Pocillopora eydouxi, a very common coral in shallow reefs throughout the Indo-Pacific. It is listed in the IUCN redlist as Near Threatened, which I assume makes it count towards that number of 83 species:

http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/133407/0

The presence of this species in the list is linked to documented declines of it's entire population by approximately 20%. Those declines are mainly caused by physical destruction of the coral through destructive fishing, by a recent increase in intensity and length of coral bleaching events, and by habitat degradation, which is mostly a combination of factors including coastal development, pollution and sedimentation. So, how is this "study" flawed?

And don't take me wrong, knowing the evaluators has nothing to do with my opinion of the process, if you show me data that indicates that their assessments are flawed I will bring this to the attention of many people at the IUCN. What I said is that I personally know 95% of them and know for sure that they are not taking money from any conservation agency to change their assessments in any way as you implied.

 

[organism]

There, mine is number 1043.

Just so you know, this has been a test of the emergency credibility system. It's a critical test for deciding whether someone readily accepts environmentalist claims at face value and does zero fact checking of their own. Here's a happy video for you, see how easy it is to get people to agree with your point of view when you just phrase things in a way that's convenient to your agenda?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

Let's take one example, Pocillopora eydouxi, a very common coral in shallow reefs throughout the Indo-Pacific. It is listed in the IUCN redlist as Near Threatened, which I assume makes it count towards that number of 83 species:

http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/133407/0

The presence of this species in the list is linked to documented declines of it's entire population by approximately 20%.

Thank you for this excellent example to what I just wrote above. Nowhere does it say it's "entire population" has declined by 20%, it says the "estimated habitat loss of reefs within its range" is 20%. Read it over again, it's the vaguest thing ever written. It could mean 1% of the population. Notice how sneakily they announce that it's "near threatened":

This inference of population reduction over three generation lengths (30 years) does not meet the threshold of a threat category. However, this species is susceptible to bleaching and is collected for the aquarium trade, therefore it is listed as Near Threatened.

Do you know which other species fall into that category? Every single coral species on the planet that's "collected for the aquarium trade". You read what you wanted to read out of the article, just like you read what you wanted to read out of DHMO. There's a huge critical thinking gap though between what was written and what you read into it. For instance, "Near Threatened" is a term they just pulled directly out of their asses, and it seems only relative to a coral being collected for the aquarium trade.

It doesn't mean anything, you've just assigned it a meaning because of their suggestive writing, just like you assigned DHMO a meaning of "as I would sign any petition to ban any other harmful chemical". I'm going to go back to what I initially said, it's people that take environmentalist claims at face value without a hint of cynicism that are almost as dangerous as environmentalists themselves. Your "scientist" buddies would already know that the aquarium trade affects about .001% of corals on a reef, so there's no scientific basis for it being included into the article, it would be like me saying bees farting affects the atmosphere. There is, however, an agenda purpose for putting it in there. Be more cynical

 

[Luiz Rocha]

And yet you offered me no data to show that their report is faulty. By the way, the category "near threatened" means that the species is not threatened yet, but if current levels of decline continue, it will be threatened. If we know that shallow reefs in the area of occurrence of this species declined by 20%, we can infer that the species declined by that amount, it is that simple. I am serious when I say that when you do show me data that bleaching, pollution or sedimentation don't affect this species (or are not destroying reefs) I will make a huge effort to have it's assessment redone. And please stop calling them "scientists", all of them have earned their PhDs and work in respected institutions and conduct scientific research, so for all intents and purposes they are scientists and not "scientists".

It is a well-known phenomenon in conservation that when you add stress to a species already in trouble it will go down faster. This is proven, by data, that's why this type of assessment is accepted. Aquarium trade alone would do nothing to this (or any other) coral species, but aquarium trade + all the other threats indicated do something. If you go through the assessments of all 83 threatened species you will see that collection for the aquarium trade is not considered a major threat for any of them, and it is only mentioned when the species is already hit my some other threat.

Oh, and I am not going to even get into the DHMO issue, after you challenge someone like you did by calling my entire profession "scientists" I would sign any kind of obscure petition you could come up with the way you did. And I guarantee that if I came up with a fictitious petition to stop environmentalists from doing something you didn't agree with, you would sign it in a heartbeat too.

But this is getting way off-topic, so, here is my challenge again, show me, with data, that any of the 83 species is not threatened and I will answer again in this topic, otherwise this is the last you hear from me. Is it really that hard to understand that coral reefs are declining at an alarming rate? I dive not only in the Indo-Pacific, but in the Caribbean too and I see this happening all the time. I saw with my own eyes one of the most beautiful reefs that I ever dove on not long ago be completely destroyed by dynamite fishing in Indonesia, and that reef was full of many species now in the IUCN list.

 

[organism]

Aquarium trade alone would do nothing to this (or any other) coral species, but aquarium trade + all the other threats indicated do something.

That's strange, their article didn't mention "the aquarium trade plus all other threats that we'll list out now", as a scientist would do, it said "susceptible to bleaching and collection for the aquarium trade", as a "scientist" would do. Someone having a phd doesn't preclude them from dispensing propaganda that fits their narrative, which is why they listed "aquarium trade" up top but left it conspicuously absent from the "major threats" section. Apparently it's enough of a threat to get first and only mention aside from bleaching but not enough to actually list it as a threat, weird...

Oh, and I am not going to even get into the DHMO issue, after you challenge someone like you did by calling my entire profession "scientists" I would sign any kind of obscure petition you could come up with the way you did.

As any true "scientist" would

Interesting, now it's "your entire profession"... Oh wait, there it is, you're on several IUCN commissions too. Didn't realize I was having a debate with an "unbiased observer" that happens to work for the group in question.

But this is getting way off-topic, so, here is my challenge again, show me, with data, that any of the 83 species is not threatened and I will answer again in this topic, otherwise this is the last you hear from me.

Hopefully I can take you at your word on that one

Is it really that hard to understand that coral reefs are declining at an alarming rate?

Not at all, but it's really hard to understand why a "scientist" who values their credibility would try to convince people that collection for the aquarium trade is the only thing that affects a coral aside from bleaching in their main assessment when they don't even consider it a major threat.

 

[coralfish]

Everyone here should support this.

Luiz, Do you have a saltwater aquarium or are you here just because its a cool place to hang out?

These extremists are determined to kill the aquarium trade, at any cost.

 

[coralfish]

I completely support this.

Aquaculture

ccube, I'd be interested to know what types of fish, corals, and inverts you have in your tank?

 

[coralfish]

The law is to stop careless exploration of reefs

Luiz, do you mean exploration or exploitation?

 

[Cerastes]

The scary thing about the DHMO thing is that Luiz's vote in an election about it counts just as much as the vote of someone who actually knows what they're voting on!

 

[coralfish]

I saw with my own eyes one of the most beautiful reefs that I ever dove on not long ago be completely destroyed by dynamite fishing in Indonesia, and that reef was full of many species now in the IUCN list.

If anyone thinks that this will stop this type of activity they are living in a fantasy world. These laws are only for those civilized countries that have the means to enforce it, and unfortunately the means to trickle it down to their citizens. Indonesia, the Phillipines, Thialand, Singapore, and others will never follow through.

 

[GreshamH]

So you guys want to keep trading the 83 species listed as threatened by the IUCN?

stop saying "83" :lol: 83 was the original number but it was downgraded to 82. Just nit picking.

The Bakini Atoll show was a good show, but, it didn't cover your subject enough AT ALL. Darn show should have been 50% centered on you and your subject If you want me to tell em, give me their email address

Thanks to Dr Peter Rubec for posting the below on Reefs.org's "IBTH"

Group sues feds to protect corals

BY TIMOTHY O'HARA Citizen Staff
tohara@keysnews.com

A national conservation group plans to sue federal fishery managers for not following through on a plan to protect 82 different species of coral, some of which are found off the Florida Keys.

The Center for Biological Diversity last week filed a notice of its intent to sue the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service in 60 days for its failure to protect the imperiled coral species under the Endangered Species Act, according to Miyoko ****, oceans director for the group.

The group in 2009 filed a petition to have NOAA Fisheries Service determine whether 83 coral species needed to be protected under the federal Endangered Species Act. NOAA ruled that all but one were in enough jeopardy to warrant being on the Endangered Species List.

Fishery managers had until October 2010 to determine whether to classify them as threatened or endangered. NOAA did "assemble a team" to do so, but failed to complete the task, **** said.

"These corals need protection now," **** said, adding that 2010 was a bad year for coral bleaching. "We never received a response. They have not met the deadline."

The corals include large boulder and mountain star corals found from the Keys and Hawaii to U.S. territories in the Caribbean and Pacific, **** said.

The pending lawsuit is "a good and bad story," said Millard McCleary, Key West-based Reef Relief's program director.

It will hold the government accountable for increasing protection for coral reefs, but the fact that so many need protection is a concern.

"That's a huge number and should be much more than a cause for alarm. It needs to be a call to action," McCleary said. "This needs to be done now or we may be seeing the last era of corals."

Corals face numerous dangers, but climate change and ocean acidification are the overarching threats to their survival, the center says. Their numbers in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary have decreased by roughly 37 percent since 1995. The decline has slowed in recent years, but sanctuary managers have said they have not seen much new growth.

In 2006, elkhorn and staghorn corals, which occur in Florida and the Caribbean, became the first -- and to date, only -- coral species protected under the Endangered Species Act. Their "threatened" listing, which came in response to a petition from the center, marked the first time the U.S. government acknowledged climate change as a primary threat to their survival.

As documented in the center's latest petition, many other corals are also at risk. Protection would open the door to greater opportunities for coral reef conservation, as activities ranging from fishing, dumping, dredging and offshore oil development would be subject to stricter regulatory scrutiny, **** said. Additionally, the Endangered Species Act would require federal agencies to ensure that their actions did not harm the corals, which could result in agencies that approve projects with significant greenhouse gas emissions to consider and minimize such impacts on vulnerable corals, she said.

tohara@keysnews.com

Part of the call was for scientific studies to be done. Given there is very little money put forth on this, and the burden lies on the exporting country, this very well could ban the import and trade of the majority of the trade by default. It's not the intention, but as written that can very well be the outcome.

 

[coralfish]

Why are names ***** ? If they said it why do you block them out?

 

[organism]

Protection would open the door to greater opportunities for coral reef conservation, as activities ranging from fishing, dumping, dredging and offshore oil development would be subject to stricter regulatory scrutiny, **** said. Additionally, the Endangered Species Act would require federal agencies to ensure that their actions did not harm the corals, which could result in agencies that approve projects with significant greenhouse gas emissions to consider and minimize such impacts on vulnerable corals, she said.

So if common corals are classified as "endangered species" enviros get to fill their wish list of having a hand in fishing, waste disposal and all kinds of federal projects they don't approve of while at the same time killing to reef hobby?

Well, what a happy coincidence that is

 

[organism]

The Bakini Atoll show was a good show, but, it didn't cover your subject enough AT ALL. Darn show should have been 50% centered on you and your subject

Care to expand on that

 

[GreshamH]

Why are names ***** ? If they said it why do you block them out?

Your assumption I did that is incorrect. Posted and quoted with one change, I removed the double spacing so it was easier to read.