Listing of 20 coral species as threatened under the Endangered Species Act

[Eric Boerner]

NOAA announced today that 20 coral species have now been listed as endangered under the ESA.

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2014/08/corals_listing.html

For those not wishing to read the full article:

US Waters
Acropora cervicornis (Staghorn)
Acropora palmata (Elkhorn)
Mycetophyllia ferox
Dendrogyra cylindrus
Orbicella annularis
Orbicella faveolata
Orbicella franksi

Pacific Waters
Acropora globiceps
Acropora jacquelineae
Acropora lokani
Acropora pharaonis
Acropora retusa
Acropora rudis
Acropora speciosa
Acropora tenella
Anacropora spinosa
Euphyllia paradivisa
Isopora crateriformis
Montipora australiensis
Pavona diffluens
Porites napopora
Seriatopora aculeata

We can expect import trade of these species to halt in the coming months. Of the listed species, several are commonly traded in the hobby: Euphyllia paradivisa, Acropora jacquelineae, Acropora speciosa, Acropora lokani, Montipora australiensis, and Seriatopora aculeata.

The rumors of Frogspawn imports coming to and end is certainly true.

Secondly, it also brings on a new set of dangers for us as hobbyists. While the ESA states plainly that any trade of endangered species 'live' or as 'parts' is a federal felony, it does not state plainly about animals already in captivity when the species is listed. So we do know that any 'trade' of these corals be it live or skeletons, will result in a NMFS special agent tracking us down. They set up stings all the time to rope in people they think are dealing in the back-market. Any coral traded on that list will be considered BM trade, regardless if it was self-propagated or not.

As much as I hate to say it, it's a pretty bad day for the hobby. A great day for the reef ecosystems in the wild, but a really bad day for the aquaculture trade.

 

[animalkingdom]

If one legally obtained a species before it was put on the endangered list I don't think it would be easy to come after them legally, but I'm not a lawyer. Its definitely going to impact the imports though and possibly the captive trading selling.

 

[Eric Boerner]

Typically with ESA animal parts, you need the part to be certified as collected prior to the ruling. The few amounts of ivory and whale bone that was in collection prior to the 1970's has all been certified. Anything not certified that shows up is considered black market trade. Once certified it cannot be resold or traded again.

What I don't see happening is the regulatory agency accepting that some of these species are being captive bred at an astounding rate and traded without harm to the reef systems.

 

[Wazzel]

There has to be some kind to ruling existing. This is not the first time corals already in the hobby trade have popped up on a protected list, or is it?

 

[Eric Boerner]

It is. The only coral that has been listed as threatened before was Caribbean staghorn and elkhorn back in 2006. But it's always been a crime to take those from the reef sanctuary waters where they can be found, so there really hasn't been any Caribbean staghorn or elkhorn in the hobby. Plus those species 'really' are threatened, so they'd be rare anyway. Not to mention not so desirable looking.

Here is the ruling from the 2006 listing.

The two coral species were listed as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act in May 2006, but since they are not listed as “endangered,” they do not qualify for ESA Section 9, which makes it illegal to import, export or take endangered species for any purpose, including commercial activity.

The new rule, which is set to go into effect Nov. 21 2006, will afford elkhorn and staghorn corals equal protection under Section 9 of the ESA, with some exceptions for certain scientific research and restoration activities.

Notably, the rule extends the ESA's broad definition of “take” to the corals, meaning they will be protected from a range of potentially harmful activities including water contamination. Unlawful behavior could result in up to $25,000 in penalties and six months in jail.

The rule applies to both living and dead corals.

 

[OrionN]

I think in general, once a species is listed as endangered, regulation trading or selling of those species also included those that raised in captivity..
Even if there is a distinction between raised in captivity vs illegal wild caught, there will be a lot of paper works to prove that the label raise in captivity is t rue and accurate. Not wild caught chop up and sell as captivity raised.
It is too bad. I got A. lokani and E. paradivisa in my tank.

 

[Wazzel]

Thanks Eric. I just figured this had happened before. Do we as hobbyist need to worry about those pieces being confiscated or facing jail and/or a fine if we happen to have any of those pieces in our tanks already?

 

[OrionN]

I am going to take picture of these two and notarized them so that if anything happen in the future, I can proof that I have had them sin before they lised in the endanger species thus banned.

 

[xtlosx]

I am going to take picture of these two and notarized them so that if anything happen in the future, I can proof that I have had them sin before they lised in the endanger species thus banned.

Honestly, I would be surprised if anyone came after any hobbyist for having corals in their tank. I could be wrong, but certainly would hope there are more pressing issues in the world for these bureaucrats than coming after hobbyists for acros... Not to mention there is almost a zero chance whoever were to give you an issue could tell a. lokani vs anything else.. just my thoughts.

 

[OrionN]

But let say if you want to sell some of it 10 years from now. Can you prove that you have it since before the ban?

 

[xtlosx]

But let say if you want to sell some of it 10 years from now. Can you prove that you have it since before the ban?

Who is going to question you ten years from now? I think we are being a little to nutty on this... heck if you want to technically call it something else, so be it. Give it the coral d'joure name (cool pink lemonade or something else) and problem solved. It's good to get it in writing, cover your butt legally, but I think we are all overthinking this. Not that I am advocating breaking the law. Just want to get that out there as I know the NSA is watching

 

[OrionN]

I just want to prove that I had it before the ban if there is ever any question about it.

 

[Borchers]

So if we have the above corals in our tank we are breaking the law??

 

[speedyron]

Ive got some frogspawn frags they can get to grow out and repopulate

 

[speedyron]

Euphyllia paradivisa = frogspawn one of the corals in the list

 

[Reefvet]

As much as I hate to say it, it's a pretty bad day for the hobby. A great day for the reef ecosystems in the wild, but a really bad day for the aquaculture trade.

It's a pretty strange day for the reef ecosystems in the wild.

 

[JPMagyar]

Me thinks thou dost protest too much (at least for the moment) Personally I suspect that once the countries and businesses involved get wind of this it will be tied up in politics perhaps indefinitely. They've been trying to get the Banggai Cardinals on the Endangered list since 2006 with no luck.


The corals in question have been listed as "threatened" NOT "endangered". . .

Because the newly listed species are being listed as “threatened” and not “endangered” under the ESA, there will be no additional prohibitions placed on conduct related to coral or coral reefs at this time as a result of the listing. This includes the direct harvest of coral for the aquarium, curio and jewelry trades, as well as the damage or destruction of coral secondary to various fishing techniques, construction projects and dredging operations. ESA prohibitions against “take” are not automatically applied to species listed as threatened, as they are for species listed as endangered.

 

[organism]

Me thinks thou dost protest too much (at least for the moment) Personally I suspect that once the countries and businesses involved get wind of this it will be tied up in politics perhaps indefinitely. They've been trying to get the Banggai Cardinals on the Endangered list since 2006 with no luck.


The corals in question have been listed as "threatened" NOT "endangered". . .

That's not how it works unfortunately. There are no politics involved from other countries that will play a role, now that they're classified as threatened species the NOAA is required by law to come up with conservations measures, or as they put it “Conservation measures provided for species listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA may include recovery plans (16 U.S.C. 1553(f)), critical habitat designations, Federal agency consultation requirements (16 U.S.C. 1536), and prohibitions on taking (16 U.S.C. 1538).”

The only thing that will "tie this up in politics" will be if the "conservation measures" they come up with aren't extreme enough for the extremist environmentalist group that filed the lawsuit to get these corals put on the endangered list in the first place. The time for our side of the hobby to tie it up in courts was before this got finalized.

For right now we don't know what they're going to do regarding whether we'll be able to import these corals or how sales will be made for ones grown here in the states, but something is definitely on the way pretty soon and chances are pretty good we're not going to be importing any more of them. Also, on a side note if anyone donates to animal rights groups, a lot of the time things like this are where your money is going.

 

[JPMagyar]

That's not how it works unfortunately. There are no politics involved from other countries that will play a role, . . .

Having worked for ALPA-PAC and also having a sister who is a Washington lobbyist for the nuclear energy industry I can assure you I am intimately aware of how Washington politics work. I don't have contacts inside this particular industry, but I would be shocked if the businesses involved do not have connections in Washington that are capable of either watering down the limitations or simply dragging the analysis out for years until a changing of the guard in the White House makes the issue moot. Of course, I have been wrong before so it wouldn't be a surprise if I'm wrong on this issue as well, but then you and Eric can say "I told you so"

 

[OrionN]

I think we can safely say that the Nuclear Industry and Reef Interests are a word apart. The US can declarer a species endanger without input from other country. The laws on endanger species only apply to US ports, which is only affect people in the US.
For example, one cannot bring Ivory products to the US. This law does not apply to other countries, unless they also have similar laws.