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

[JPMagyar]

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.

Absolutely true Minh, but you missed my point. Just because the folks in Bali don't get to argue about rules affecting US ports doesn't mean they don't have friends in the US or the US Congress who DO have the ability to make public comments on ESA hearings and to demand hearings in their district. Unlike the Ivory trade we can grow corals quite successfully in captivity and I suspect it will be difficult to ignore that simple fact which makes the rule making process very complicated.

Take for example the rule making process on drones. Initially the FAA was set to outright ban all drones, but the Academy of Model Aeronautics got involved and the final rules were vastly altered to accomodate remote control airplane hobbyists. I honestly don't expect any restrictions at all, but if there were to be restrictions I bet there will be significant BUTs that give the aquarium trade some breathing room.

If it did come down to an outright ban I actually would love to take part in some type of lawsuit to get DNA testing done to try and minimize the impact. Biologists can't even agree amongst themselves if 2 corals are the same species so how the heck can the government expect to tell whether I have a weird shaped acropora echinata or a true acropora speciosa which by the way would need to be defined by a DNA holotype since arguably the coral could be considered an animal.

Like I said I may be totally wrong and you all can laugh in my face when the regs come down hard on our hobby, but honestly I just don't see it happening any time soon.

Where's Dustin from ORA? I bet he has a thing or two to say on this topic

 

[ryanrid]

In aus it is illegal to import ANY invert, however R.Florida have made there way over here and are blatently being sold on facebook and other sites with no action being taken so far.
If US gov is like aus it will just stop the LEGAL importation of the banned piece.

 

[organism]

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.

Then prepare to be very shocked since you're basing your opinion on well funded lobbyists working for the energy industry and drones vs the EPA. There is no comparison between money and laws on those things and this issue. You have no experience regarding endangered species, laws on commerce of regulated wildlife and marine protection legislation nor how it works.

I have about 6 years of dealing with this exact kind of thing, so honestly at this point what you're saying isn't nearly as confusing as the certainty with which you're saying it.

 

[JPMagyar]

Then prepare to be very shocked since you're basing your opinion on well funded lobbyists working for the energy industry and drones vs the EPA. There is no comparison between money and laws on those things and this issue. You have no experience regarding endangered species, laws on commerce of regulated wildlife and marine protection legislation nor how it works.

I have about 6 years of dealing with this exact kind of thing, so honestly at this point what you're saying isn't nearly as confusing as the certainty with which you're saying it.

Whether intentional or not your last comment comes across as a personal attack. You have absolutely no idea what background experience I may or may not have other than that which I have listed so far. To me you are a nameless, faceless, voice on the internet who might as well claim to be a French Model. Maybe other folks on RC know who you are, but I do not.

Who are you and what are your credentials that make your opinion so valuable?

You are correct. I do not have first hand experience dealing with the ESA, but that doesn't mean I can't have an "informed" opinion. Your opinion may have a higher probability of outcome IF you are better informed, but that doesn't give you the right to put down my opinion.

The nice part about this argument is that time will give us a definite answer.



EDIT: The author of Practical Coral Farming, might that be you? Any relation to the Tolosa vineyards?

 

[Eric Boerner]

I work for NOAA and do have first hand experience working with the ESA and the marine mammal protection act. NOAA is constantly being sued by non-governmental organisations to list, stop takes, or anything having to do with science for species they've decided to champion that year. Although there may be zero foundation for the suit, NOAA must capitulate to the legal action. The office of protected resources takes a very conservative stance when it comes to decisions that might get them sued again (even more so for NOAA researchers). It's not that NOAA wants to willy-nilly list everything, it's that a suit does tie up NOAA in the courts and stops all research across the board for that species while it's in court (not to mention wasting millions in tax dollars). For NOAA, this can put a halt to some major research projects for several years to decades, destroying the research project in the process (again wasting hundreds of millions in research dollars). Groups likes the Nature Conservancy does this kind of action all the time just to stop interference with the species. As long as those groups are funded, NOAA will continue to take a very conservative stance regarding ESA decisions.

That is why my "opinion" is that we are going to see some sad days ahead for the hobby. I know the folks were talking about here and the only motivation on their mind is to keep NOAA out of court. If the NGO's aren't happy with the ruling and the amount of 'perceived' protections the species will get, they'll take NOAA to court again. You can bet if that is threatened against NOAA, that the hammer will come down hard from NOAA law enforcement agents.

And again as my sig denotes, "My opinions and views do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of my employer."

 

[JPMagyar]

I work for NOAA and do have first hand experience working with the ESA and the marine mammal protection act. NOAA is constantly being sued by non-governmental organisations to list, stop takes, or anything having to do with science for species they've decided to champion that year. Although there may be zero foundation for the suit, NOAA must capitulate to the legal action. The office of protected resources takes a very conservative stance when it comes to decisions that might get them sued again (even more so for NOAA researchers). It's not that NOAA wants to willy-nilly list everything, it's that a suit does tie up NOAA in the courts and stops all research across the board for that species while it's in court (not to mention wasting millions in tax dollars). For NOAA, this can put a halt to some major research projects for several years to decades, destroying the research project in the process (again wasting hundreds of millions in research dollars). Groups likes the Nature Conservancy does this kind of action all the time just to stop interference with the species. As long as those groups are funded, NOAA will continue to take a very conservative stance regarding ESA decisions.

That is why my "opinion" is that we are going to see some sad days ahead for the hobby. I know the folks were talking about here and the only motivation on their mind is to keep NOAA out of court. If the NGO's aren't happy with the ruling and the amount of 'perceived' protections the species will get, they'll take NOAA to court again. You can bet if that is threatened against NOAA, that the hammer will come down hard from NOAA law enforcement agents.

And again as my sig denotes, "My opinions and views do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of my employer."

Eric,

I read the decision today and I have a simple question. How will the NOAA determine what is an acropora speciosa?

The reason I ask is because I was recently involved in a discussion here on RC regarding a new species of wrasse. Many "experts" here on RC with science backgrounds were convinced the wrasse I featured was the same as a previously known species but the truth came out after DNA testing that the wrasse differed by a mere 6 genomes which was enough to call it a new species. My point is I suspect that if the NOAA picks acropora speciosa from American Samoa I would bet very good money that the DNA of speciosa from Australia is not the same. My belief is they may well restrict some coral but the limit of the restrictions will not have a measurable impact on the hobby as importers will quickly challenge what is defined as a protected specie and given the diversity in the acropora genus the restriction will ultimately prove meaningless.

So what do you think of that hypothesis?

 

[GroktheCube]

I work for NOAA and do have first hand experience working with the ESA and the marine mammal protection act. NOAA is constantly being sued by non-governmental organisations to list, stop takes, or anything having to do with science for species they've decided to champion that year. Although there may be zero foundation for the suit, NOAA must capitulate to the legal action. The office of protected resources takes a very conservative stance when it comes to decisions that might get them sued again (even more so for NOAA researchers). It's not that NOAA wants to willy-nilly list everything, it's that a suit does tie up NOAA in the courts and stops all research across the board for that species while it's in court (not to mention wasting millions in tax dollars). For NOAA, this can put a halt to some major research projects for several years to decades, destroying the research project in the process (again wasting hundreds of millions in research dollars). Groups likes the Nature Conservancy does this kind of action all the time just to stop interference with the species. As long as those groups are funded, NOAA will continue to take a very conservative stance regarding ESA decisions.

That is why my "opinion" is that we are going to see some sad days ahead for the hobby. I know the folks were talking about here and the only motivation on their mind is to keep NOAA out of court. If the NGO's aren't happy with the ruling and the amount of 'perceived' protections the species will get, they'll take NOAA to court again. You can bet if that is threatened against NOAA, that the hammer will come down hard from NOAA law enforcement agents.

And again as my sig denotes, "My opinions and views do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of my employer."

Would another opposing advocacy group have standing? If a group like PIJAC could go to court in place of/along with NOAA, it could lead to a substantial savings of time/money for NOAA and lead to a better outcome for hobbyists.

I know advocacy groups are sometimes granted standing in other settings, but I'm not sure what the precedent is here.

 

[GroktheCube]

Eric,

I read the decision today and I have a simple question. How will the NOAA determine what is an acropora speciosa?

The reason I ask is because I was recently involved in a discussion here on RC regarding a new species of wrasse. Many "experts" here on RC with science backgrounds were convinced the wrasse I featured was the same as a previously known species but the truth came out after DNA testing that the wrasse differed by a mere 6 genomes which was enough to call it a new species. My point is I suspect that if the NOAA picks acropora speciosa from American Samoa I would bet very good money that the DNA of speciosa from Australia is not the same. My belief is they may well restrict some coral but the limit of the restrictions will not have a measurable impact on the hobby as importers will quickly challenge what is defined as a protected specie and given the diversity in the acropora genus the restriction will ultimately prove meaningless.

So what do you think of that hypothesis?

I think our goal as hobbyists should be to limit the restrictions placed on aquacultured specimens. Given the current regulatory environment, it seems like trying to find loopholes for wild collection might only lead to tighter crackdowns. Taking that route might lead to entire genera being listed, at which point we'd REALLY be sunk.

A strong objective case based on evidence can be made for aquaculture having a neutral (or even net positive) effect on the health of wild reefs. Most hobbyists I know purchase exclusively or almost exclusive cultured corals anyway. Aquaculture and hobbyists coming together to make this case, and perhaps even working with conservation groups to set up repopulation programs where aquaculture organizations donate a portion of their stock to repopulation efforts might be our best bet at this point.

 

[JPMagyar]

I think our goal as hobbyists should be to limit the restrictions placed on aquacultured specimens. Given the current regulatory environment, it seems like trying to find loopholes for wild collection might only lead to tighter crackdowns. Taking that route might lead to entire genera being listed, at which point we'd REALLY be sunk.

A strong objective case based on evidence can be made for aquaculture having a neutral (or even net positive) effect on the health of wild reefs. Most hobbyists I know purchase exclusively or almost exclusive cultured corals anyway. Aquaculture and hobbyists coming together to make this case, and perhaps even working with conservation groups to set up repopulation programs where aquaculture organizations donate a portion of their stock to repopulation efforts might be our best bet at this point.

I totally agree. Aquacultured and maricultured corals can be grown both for purposes of trade and conservation so I see a compelling argument why those sources will survive regardless of potentially limited restrictions on individual species.

 

[organism]

You have absolutely no idea what background experience I may or may not have other than that which I have listed so far.

You are correct. I do not have first hand experience dealing with the ESA, but that doesn't mean I can't have an "informed" opinion. Your opinion may have a higher probability of outcome IF you are better informed, but that doesn't give you the right to put down my opinion.

That's a surreal grouping of comments in one post. I'm not putting your opinion down, but you've already said you have no experience with things like this and it's highlighted by that fact that every single person who actually does have experience with this making the opposite point that you are. There's no one here arguing but you.

I mean, I don't go to my doctor and get angry with him for not taking my opinion seriously because my wife works with chiropractors, and if I did I'd better be prepared to hear that I'm uninformed. I don't know why you feel a need to get angry with people disagreeing with you, but it's not helping nor changing anything.

To me you are a nameless, faceless, voice on the internet who might as well claim to be a French Model.

You already found my name, face and book on the internet.

 

[organism]

That is why my "opinion" is that we are going to see some sad days ahead for the hobby. I know the folks were talking about here and the only motivation on their mind is to keep NOAA out of court. If the NGO's aren't happy with the ruling and the amount of 'perceived' protections the species will get, they'll take NOAA to court again. You can bet if that is threatened against NOAA, that the hammer will come down hard from NOAA law enforcement agents.

Exactly, over the past 6 years every single lawsuit-based environmental issue I've had to deal with has gone that same route. The agencies get sued into submission every time because the extremist environmental organizations have bottomless pockets and will just keep suing until the end of time. Their track record is nearly flawless on this.

The other thing is that the NOAA is bound by law to take action here, so already the door is open to the inevitable "you're not taking enough action" lawsuits. In my opinion, the only real question about what's coming is whether or not we'll be able to domestically sell these corals because imports are almost a guarantee to get shut down, and I'd have to see legitimate applicable evidence otherwise from anyone saying "nothing's gonna happen."

 

[rekn]

Whether intentional or not your last comment comes across as a personal attack. You have absolutely no idea what background experience I may or may not have other than that which I have listed so far. To me you are a nameless, faceless, voice on the internet who might as well claim to be a French Model. Maybe other folks on RC know who you are, but I do not.

Who are you and what are your credentials that make your opinion so valuable?

You are correct. I do not have first hand experience dealing with the ESA, but that doesn't mean I can't have an "informed" opinion. Your opinion may have a higher probability of outcome IF you are better informed, but that doesn't give you the right to put down my opinion.

The nice part about this argument is that time will give us a definite answer.



EDIT: The author of Practical Coral Farming, might that be you? Any relation to the Tolosa vineyards?

im sure you would've listed the experiences if you had them. why else would you bring up the other stuff?


back on topic...im really hoping they make an exception for people who already own some of these species. what would they have us do, kill them?

 

[organism]

back on topic...im really hoping they make an exception for people who already own some of these species. what would they have us do, kill them?

I'm sure we could keep the ones we have and imo it's possible but unlikely that they would make it illegal to sell them nationally, I think even for the lawsuit-happy environmentalists that would be a stretch. My guess is they'll keep suing until importing is banned, create some protected closure areas in US-territory waters and put the hammer down hard on anyone caught bringing them in. Then again the fact that we even got to this point is mind-boggling...

 

[GroktheCube]

Exactly, over the past 6 years every single lawsuit-based environmental issue I've had to deal with has gone that same route. The agencies get sued into submission every time because the extremist environmental organizations have bottomless pockets and will just keep suing until the end of time. Their track record is nearly flawless on this.

The other thing is that the NOAA is bound by law to take action here, so already the door is open to the inevitable "you're not taking enough action" lawsuits. In my opinion, the only real question about what's coming is whether or not we'll be able to domestically sell these corals because imports are almost a guarantee to get shut down, and I'd have to see legitimate applicable evidence otherwise from anyone saying "nothing's gonna happen."

In your experience, are other opposing advocacy groups ever given standing in court to present arguments/evidence against the PETA types? Other than donating to groups like PIJAC, I'm not sure what the average aquarist can do. Is letter writing to elected officials even worthwhile? I'm not sure how much authority they have in these matters.

 

[joejoe1055]

i watched the mrsaltwaterfish video on youtube today, he made some really good points on the subject.

 

[Eric Boerner]

Grok, PIJAC 'could also' sue NOAA to put a provision into the ruling based on domesticated corals, protecting the aquaculture trade. Taken from a commerce stance, bolstering the US aquaculture and mariculture trade, they'd be forced to consider it.

JoeP, interesting question on genotypic stock structures. "If" there is "substantial" differences in mitochondrial DNA, then it is possible to sub-class a species based on the stock location. However the mitochondrial DNA has to show that there has been no overlap of haplotypes in several hundred generations. NOAA could designate stock classes to the sub-species level, then measure population densities based off those stock locations. In my experience however, this usually is what allows a threatened species to get listed as endangered, since you are reducing the total population of the species into stocks. One stock may have an abundance, while the sub-stock may have few, but there is still the same net population, just one stock-set is endangered, while the other is threatened. So in a nutshell, DNA testing may create sub-species, but then it would also put a bigger 'threatened' bulls eye on the species overall.

Again.... My opinions and views do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of my employer.

 

[JPMagyar]

That's a surreal grouping of comments in one post. I'm not putting your opinion down, but you've already said you have no experience with things like this and it's highlighted by that fact that every single person who actually does have experience with this making the opposite point that you are. There's no one here arguing but you.

I mean, I don't go to my doctor and get angry with him for not taking my opinion seriously because my wife works with chiropractors, and if I did I'd better be prepared to hear that I'm uninformed. I don't know why you feel a need to get angry with people disagreeing with you, but it's not helping nor changing anything.



You already found my name, face and book on the internet.

I'm not sure if RC has an ignore function, but you have definitely earned the award.

All I'm saying is that "The sky is not falling." Yes there may be restrictions but the hobby is not coming to a screeching halt as a result. You on the other hand have all the answers because my guess is you come from a wealthy background and have never been taught the lesson of humility.

There's a line from my favorite movie Camelot where the queen asks Lancelot: "Have you jousted with humilite recently?"

*Name removed* you are NOT a nice person and I will not lower myself to ever answer another post you make which I am sure is mutually beneficial, BUT in 5 years time if this blows over with little result you can bet I will make some comments.


EDIT: And actually the doctor reference is kind of funny because I just had an interesting situation arise: I took my daughter to the emergency room on Sept 1 for abdominal pain. The ER doctor ordered an Ultrasound and sent us home because the pain was lessening. When we got home my daughter pointed out that the Ultrasound technician never examined the area where she had pain. The hospital was looking for Gallstone, Kidney Stones, or Appendicitis. I did a quick internet search of "upper left abdominal pain" and found that a swollen spleen is a common result of mono. I asked my daughter to lay on the couch while I gently touched her stomach and would you believe I could feel the edge of her spleen. Next day we went to her PCP and 1 week, a CT Scan, and a couple blood tests later we have a diagnosis of swollen spleen due to mono.

The experts don't always get it right. Sometimes standing back and examining the practical question yields a more reasonable answer.

 

[JPMagyar]

im sure you would've listed the experiences if you had them. why else would you bring up the other stuff?


back on topic...im really hoping they make an exception for people who already own some of these species. what would they have us do, kill them?

No I do not post my entire life's bio on every thread I join.


Let me start here . . .

High School Class Valedictorian
Dartmouth College/Tuck School Magna Cum Laude MBA/BE Class of '88
internationally published writer and photographer
worked in Washington for ALPA on the PAC
served on the AMA committee making rules for drones
OWN PROPERTY IN CA THAT HAS OWLS PROTECTED BY THE ESA AND HAVE HAD TO DEAL WITH ESA REGS FOR MORE THAN A DECADE . . .
and as a result have spent many hours researching how to "beat" the ESA.

so yes I know a thing or two about ESA . . .

EDIT: oh and in case you want to do some research: I was born the son of a Hungarian Refugee and my birth name was Csizmadia Joszef Andras.

 

[JPMagyar]

And yes. . . you bet I am angry because you and everyone else on this thread is trying hard to "put me in my place" when all I was trying to say was the end is not nigh. The ESA is a political structure and as a result you need to follow the rules, but for those who do the loop holes can be huge. The number and diversity and health of acropora world wide is unquestionable. I find it hard to believe that the naming of a few acropora out of hundreds is making folks question the future of this hobby, and frankly I think the concerns will prove to be totally overblown.

The actions of the NOAA do NOT spell the end of our hobby. That is my entire point, and I'm not sure why I am the bad guy in this discussion as I am the singular person willing to stand up and take an opposing view to everyone else in the thread. In our supposedly democratic society I would hope that educated individuals would welcome opposing views.

 

[Eric Boerner]

All I'm saying is that "The sky is not falling." Yes there may be restrictions but the hobby is not coming to a screeching halt as a result...

...The experts don't always get it right. Sometimes standing back and examining the practical question yields a more reasonable answer.

I am going to remove myself from this conversation after this, as I've already over-stepped my position.

I don't think anyone (eg, "I") was stating the hobby was coming to an end. I did/am stating that those particular species will no longer be imported soon. In addition, with the 2006 ruling on Caribbean elkhorn and staghorn, there is a possibility that domesticated clones of the newly listed species may also need to be removed from hobbyist tanks. I also mentioned that NOAA does have a law enforcement arm that takes it's job very seriously. Thus a warning to hobbyists as well.

I personally agree 'with you' that the well-being of the species is not being served very well if domestic clones will be required to be destroyed. I also agree with you that a lobbyist group 'could' help change that. And lastly.... I agree with you that "The experts don't always get it right". But I also need to state, that getting it "wrong" could have been for a very specific reason, IE being sued over and over again. It doesn't make it right, but the facts are, that is the world we live in.

I apologize if you felt attacked Joe, not at all what this thread was intended to do. It was simply a message to inform the hobby of potential outcomes with the decision.