Bump. Let's show our passion. Their decision will likely set precedence for the future.
The conservation of natural resources is paramount, and I feel "take" regulations should be enforced. However, aquaculture should not be penalized. Aquaculture and Mariculture should be utilized as means to reverse and curtail damage, while providing economic benefits.
Acknowledgment of 4(d) flexibility appears to indicate receptiveness for allowance of aquaculture activities, but they still want to see a show of hands.
"While 4(d) rulemaking could end all commercial activity related to the species in question, there is also the opportunity for NMFS to issue “limited specified exemptions.” While NMFS is now considering whether protective regulations are necessary for the conservation of the 20 species, they also emphasize that they have “flexibility under section 4(d) to tailor protective regulations based on the contributions of other existing conservation measures.” Even if they apply certain “take” prohibitions, NMFS points out they can “provide exceptions for certain circumstances in which extending the take prohibitions is not necessary and advisable.”"
"In addition to public comment regarding prohibitions, NMFS is requesting comment concerning “specific activities that should be excepted from any prohibitions that may be applied because they either provide a conservation benefit or do not detract from the conservation of these species.” They are also interested in learning about the economic costs and benefits likely to result from any protective regulations and prohibitions resulting from 4(d) rulemaking."
