Illegal Corals
- Thread starter Darroll
- Start date
Myrphie
New member
That line is from the section describing wild-collected specimens without permit. Thus, I take that to mean no person shall possess any that were not collected legally. I could be wrong, but it seems like a tricky situation. If it was collected legally or harvested, it's legal to possess. If not, it's not.
AquaticFins
Premium Member
Yes, but then you need to read down to 2.a:
It's legal to have one only if YOU can prove it was collected legally.
jgoodrich71
Premium Member
From what I understand, there are permits that allow for collection for use in scientific/academic study. The problem comes about in how do you prove that this was a frag from a legally collected specimen. This is the area where I think it is going to take several years to work out.
So, unless you are the one with the permit for the coral, how do you prove that that particular coral was collected legally.
So, unless you are the one with the permit for the coral, how do you prove that that particular coral was collected legally.
Patwa
if anyone asks, it's $10
ricordea florida FROM florida cannot be sold with more than 1 square inch of liverock attached....i think there's a Florida based online retailer that sells strictly ricordea fl...her site mentions that 1 square inch clause
conversely...my lfs gets florida rics in all the time...massive rocks with tonnes of polyps ....but they don't come from Florida, but rather Cuba, Domincan and other such locales
Zach.
I would check Federal laws, since they supercede state! I think it's more of a ethical question, JMO..... it's still obviously illegal!
although if you are caught with aforementioned wildlife, you could (if paperwork is done correctly) be fined by city, county, state, and federal athourities!! again JMO...
although if you are caught with aforementioned wildlife, you could (if paperwork is done correctly) be fined by city, county, state, and federal athourities!! again JMO...
Weatherman
New member
At least in Florida, the burden of proof lies with the person in possession of the coral.
In other words, if someone identifies a coral in your possession as a restricted species, it is your responsibility to prove, to an appropriate law enforcement official, you can legally possess the animal.
But whos' to say that the coral was collected in FLORIDA waters and not in another part of the atlanic ocean that has the same species of coral growing in it?
I understand this whole illigal coral thing but I think, unless they actually find you standing in the waters collecting it, how do they know you didn't get it outside of florida waters which only goes out I think 2 miles from the coast.
Now if it's a coral that ONLY grows in Florida waters and has never been proven or found in any other waters of the Atlanic, then you might have a problem.
But then again, if it was collected leaglly before it became illigal, how would one know, since it was legal to collect at one time and they probably didn't have paperwork to specify where it came from because they didn't think that it would become illiegal to collect it.
Just some thoughts.
I understand this whole illigal coral thing but I think, unless they actually find you standing in the waters collecting it, how do they know you didn't get it outside of florida waters which only goes out I think 2 miles from the coast.
Now if it's a coral that ONLY grows in Florida waters and has never been proven or found in any other waters of the Atlanic, then you might have a problem.
But then again, if it was collected leaglly before it became illigal, how would one know, since it was legal to collect at one time and they probably didn't have paperwork to specify where it came from because they didn't think that it would become illiegal to collect it.
Just some thoughts.
GTR
Active member
The logic behind this has nothing to do with how the law is enforced. 
It could be similar to California laws banning the possession of many Caulerpa species. You just can't have them, period. Doesn't matter if it was in your possession prior to the law being enacted. If it grows from your LR or coral rock it's still illegal to keep.
SteveU
It could be similar to California laws banning the possession of many Caulerpa species. You just can't have them, period. Doesn't matter if it was in your possession prior to the law being enacted. If it grows from your LR or coral rock it's still illegal to keep.
SteveU
jgoodrich71
Premium Member
The burden of proof lies with the person in possesion. This would be one of those cases where you are guilty until proven innocent.
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6438856#post6438856 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by gtrestoration
The logic behind this has nothing to do with how the law is enforced.
It could be similar to California laws banning the possession of many Caulerpa species. You just can't have them, period. Doesn't matter if it was in your possession prior to the law being enacted. If it grows from your LR or coral rock it's still illegal to keep.
SteveU
Steve,
But wasn't that law out here brought about because of the dumping of a certin non native species of caulerpa that was taking over the native species? I know they went a bit overboard with it by banning all or most of the species.
I beleive, and correct me if I'm wrong, we are talking about a local species to Fla. that has been collected in the past. It's not a threat to the local enviroment like caulerpa but a threat to becoming extent so that's why it became illegal to harvest.
Weatherman
New member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6438872#post6438872 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jgoodrich71
The burden of proof lies with the person in possesion. This would be one of those cases where you are guilty until proven innocent.
The first burden lies with the person identifying the coral. They would need to prove it was a protected species.
Weatherman
New member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6438930#post6438930 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by alten78
Ive never heard of that (yes i live under a rock
http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/caulerpa.htm
matty0h_52
New member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6438856#post6438856 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by gtrestoration
The logic behind this has nothing to do with how the law is enforced.
It could be similar to California laws banning the possession of many Caulerpa species. You just can't have them, period. Doesn't matter if it was in your possession prior to the law being enacted. If it grows from your LR or coral rock it's still illegal to keep.
SteveU
One species i heard Cali banned because it can grow in fresh water and salt water and people where flushing it down the toilet to get rid of it because it was growing to fast. So bam sewer pipe... high nutrients......clogged pipes. Well thats what i heard but im no pro it may be all BS! you know LFS's right.
The most likely way for anyone to acquire a carribean stony coral at this time would be by buying cultured live rock to which it was attached. In that case however the above statute says you cannot remove it from the cultured rock. I am sure that is so it is possible to prove that it came from such rock. It would also suggest that it would be illegal to frag it because that would require removing it from the original rock, although I doubt that was the original intent of the law. It would seem likely that if you acquired a coral legally in that way and made very meticulous records of any fragging that was done, including providing a copy of those records to anyone you sold or gave the frag to, then it would probably be regarded as within the spirit of the law. The further frags got from the original, legally-obtained coral, however the more likely it would be that they would be considered illegal and the harder it would be to prove "chain of custody".
Allen
Allen
That is not the way I would read the law reprinted above. There clearly are circumstances where they can be kept legally, but VERY limited circumstances. As for corals obtained before they were outlawed, I suspect they would be legal, but only if you could PROVE that they were obtained legally. Who would have kept any records at the time since the corals were then free to take?
Allen
