NOAA might end the coral trade - please comment!!!

[asylumdown]

Guys the comment period for whether or not to list some of the most common stony corals we keep with a "no take" provision is right now. As of yesterday there were only 12 comments.

That's ridiculous. If they do this it will instantly become illegal to own, propagate, or transport corals as common as branching frogspawn, and some of the most common acroporas in the trade. We're literally talking about the end of the marine aquarium hobby as we know it. And it's happening now.

Please submit your comments before it's too late:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014-0158-0001

 

[maoiwowie]

I agree with the "conservation of threatened corals." We should not collect threatened species of anything.

 

[asylumdown]

NOAA might end the coral trade - please comment!!!

Me too. But before you look at the words in the title of the proposal and make a decision, look in to it a bit further.

A) the decision to list these corals as threatened is hotly contested, probably political, and where accurate (though we actually know next to nothing about most of these species' real distributions or population health), has nothing to do with the aquarium hobby

B) a "no take" provision is a blunt instrument. It has no nuance, or ability to differentiate between mariculture and wild harvesting. It also places inordinate amounts of power and responsibility on fish & wildlife officials to be able to differentiate between species of corals that even coral taxonomists have trouble with. These 20 species will be more of a blanket ban on acropora and euphyllia in practice.

C) the primary motivator to list these species as threatened is the general decline of coral reefs. A no take provision won't stop climate change. It won't stop coral bleaching events. It will legally require every salt water tank owner in the U.S. to destroy any of the listed specimens they might own. For some of these species, that likely represents the majority of their global population.

This issue is more complicated than "it's threatened don't take it". That's a grade 3 understanding of a law that was designed to protect bald eagles. This couldn't be more different.

 

[DSMpunk]

Also, possession, transport, sale etc. will most likely be illegal. The wording is very heavy handed. There is ZERO impact to the reefs when I cut up my bali slimer for my neighbor. When is the last time any of you bought a wild specimen?

 

[asylumdown]

The point is - we need to comment. The NOAA doesn't read forums or fish blogs. 12 comments on that proposal is like the reef hobby collectively asking them to take this away from us.

 

[maoiwowie]

You might have your point, but this is a hobby, for our pleasure. It is nothing more than that. Sure, there are some businesses that will suffer, but they will adapt some how. There are more dire proposals like banning bluefin tuna fishing. The people behind these bans might be a little worried that we will collect, fish, hunt until extinction. It wouldnt be the first time humans have done so. There will always be two sides to an argument. Im sure there are some that say Rhinos are doing fine. I will er on the side of caution.

 

[CuzzA]

Me too. But before you look at the words in the title of the proposal and make a decision, look in to it a bit further.

A) the decision to list these corals as threatened is hotly contested, probably political, and where accurate (though we actually know next to nothing about most of these species' real distributions or population health), has nothing to do with the aquarium hobby

B) a "no take" provision is a blunt instrument. It has no nuance, or ability to differentiate between mariculture and wild harvesting. It also places inordinate amounts of power and responsibility on fish & wildlife officials to be able to differentiate between species of corals that even coral taxonomists have trouble with. These 20 species will be more of a blanket ban on acropora and euphyllia in practice.

C) the primary motivator to list these species as threatened is the general decline of coral reefs. A no take provision won't stop climate change. It won't stop coral bleaching events. It will legally require every salt water tank owner in the U.S. to destroy any of the listed specimens they might own. For some of these species, that likely represents the majority of their global population.

This issue is more complicated than "it's threatened don't take it". That's a grade 3 understanding of a law that was designed to protect bald eagles. This couldn't be more different.

Well put. Don't forget government permitted pollution, shipping, agriculture, etc. the same government that claims they're trying to protect the reefs is killing them.

I've been working on my comment for a few days now.

 

[TigeBell]

I'm not sure you understand what the OP is suggesting. Watch this YouTube video from Julian Sprung. He does a great job at explaining the issue at hand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdBUvMGqqhE

 

[St Pete John]

They make coral trade illegal while simultaneously destroying artificial reefs all over the gulf of mexico.

If science was behind these laws i would gladly follow suit but it really looks to me like its all politics.

 

[asylumdown]

You might have your point, but this is a hobby, for our pleasure. It is nothing more than that. Sure, there are some businesses that will suffer, but they will adapt some how. There are more dire proposals like banning bluefin tuna fishing. The people behind these bans might be a little worried that we will collect, fish, hunt until extinction. It wouldnt be the first time humans have done so. There will always be two sides to an argument. Im sure there are some that say Rhinos are doing fine. I will er on the side of caution.

Fine. Please don't comment then. I think you're missing the point. This isn't a "two sides to an argument" thing. It's not even an argument. This is a specific and imminent decision that will have immediate and far reaching implications for an entire industry, including the forum you seem to think is worth your time to be a part of.

And one major difference between rhinos and branching frogspawn: we know to within a few individuals exactly how many rhinos are left on planet earth and where they all are. It's a very small number. We don't even know the full extent of branching frogspawns range, let alone how many of them there are or what their population is doing globally year over year.

There was virtually science behind these listings. It. Was. Political.

 

[jrp1588]

Well, I put in my 2 cents. Ban collection, but allow us to continue trade in captive grown coral. If I read the terms correctly, they said they were open to compromise.

 

[asylumdown]

They need our input if they are going to compromise. 12 comments is crickets chirping in an empty room. Unless a heck of a lot more people pipe up, they'll do whatever is easiest for them to do with the existing tools, which don't give a hoot if it was wild caught or not.

 

[jrp1588]

They need our input if they are going to compromise. 12 comments is crickets chirping in an empty room. Unless a heck of a lot more people pipe up, they'll do whatever is easiest for them to do with the existing tools, which don't give a hoot if it was wild caught or not.

I wonder how often that number is updated. It was 12 before and after I submitted my comment.

 

[asylumdown]

Once a day, so we'll see anything from today tomorrow afternoon I think

 

[asylumdown]

The goal by the march deadline should be hundreds of comments. Hopefully most of them to the tune of "yes, protection is necessary, but blanket restrictions aren't the right tool".

If you all post on other forums with lots of Americans, post the link there as well as. They accept comments from anyone but I think they weight American opinions a little higher

 

[OrQidz]

There may be plenty of comments submitted other than online - if I were a business person with a huge stake in this, I probably wouldn't post online but deliver documents via certified mail
It still says 12 comments as of now. There is an asterix but I'm not sure what they are saying when they explain the number of comments. I suspect many stakeholders have commented in various formats.

Honestly? I agree this is purely political and not science based. I also think that as reef hobbyists, we need a better argument than "we aren't the ones causing most of the damage". What are we doing that helps the reefs? Anything?? Taking fish out of the sea, with a huge mortality rate in shipping, etc, and putting them in our tanks doesn't help them. There is more and more captive breeding and that's great, and growing corals from frags is also great. It's really a privilege to be able to have these creatures.

I'm not against sustainable capture at all, and I don't think the reef hobby is destroying the reefs. But other things are, and people will use whatever leverage they can to force legislation into place if they think they can make changes that way.

I am planning on commenting (I am against it btw) but I also want to say, let's not be a soft target. Overcollection, cyanide use, shipping losses, poor conditions at chains and LFS's, people buying fish and creatures with a horrible survival record just because they want to.....this is all ammunition for the politically minded to use. No we aren't THE problem, but if we are A problem at all, let's not ignore that.

 

[Lonelyreef]

I agree keep this post at the top this needs to be heard and read make a statement people

 

[asylumdown]

Good points all. My only real rebuttal is that from the perspective of the NOAA, none of the rest of the ethics of the fish trade are relevant to this issue.

We are talking about something very specific. The NOAA is deciding whether to apply a "no-take" restriction to 20 species of stony corals that have recently been listed as threatened. That's all we should be talking about. Everything else is valid, but it's kind of a battle for a different war.

In our comments to the NOAA we need to be focused specifically on these corals, and why a "no take" restriction on them does not make sense. That is myriad and complex enough without confusing it by bringing the ethics of fish handling in to it

 

[maoiwowie]

OP... I love this hobby. I enjoy it very much. If there were a sustainable way to support my enjoyment, im all for it. Whether it be pollution, over-fishing, weather, political agenda, its always one view versus another. You dont agree with my view, i can respect that. Can you at least respect my view? I use the word argument not literally, but to define the difference in opinions. To be honest, im not too sure where I stand with the politics of this hobby.

And like you and everyone else in this hobby, we have killed many wild sea creatures because of ignorance, laziness, and accidents; only to be replaced the next day to start all over again. Walk into any LFS or Petco and you will see much death. Today, i do my best to collect only aquacultured corals, but never wild. But even as I claim this, there is still an element of hypocrisy because even those may have come from wild specimens... and the fish too. Im just suggesting to you that if there were any ounce of truth with this NOAA agenda, then it wouldnt kill me to collect something else or find another hobby; and this board may have a few less members. It isnt a big deal to me. You may be right and I hope you are; that our hobby has nothing to do with the destruction of reefs. But like OrQidz has suggested, we may be part of the problem.

 

[CuzzA]

So, if you're trying to find the positives that we bring to corals I believe there's actually quite a few.

1) Science. While some people treat their tanks as a trophy on a stand, many of us truly are seeking out what makes these animals tick. And really we've only scratched the surface. I'd like to believe this hobby has provided a wealth of information that would have never been known without it.

2) We are collectively the worlds largest coral seed bank. If the reefs needed replenishment and the government truly cared and was willing to coordinate it we could make it happen. This proposed ban is extremely unique in that animals that could potentially be on the endangered species list are thriving in 100,000's of tanks around the world.

3) Exposure. For the most part people don't care about what they can't see or understand. My tank has exposed many people to corals that they otherwise would not have known anything about. I like to believe when people leave my home after reef discussions they leave with a greater understanding and appreciation for these animals. Take that away and out of sight, out of mind. Reef decline to them would be just another story in the news.

These are just a few things that come to mind. Being a hobbyist, boater and angler I have a great appreciation for the oceans and its inhabitants. Sustainability is extremely important; however; if the government isn't careful I think they can do more harm with this ban than good. As already mentioned, there must be an exception to the rule including the exemption of aquacultured corals. In fact, if the government really wanted to put there money where their mouth is they would help fund more aquaculture facilities. And as I stated, if they really want to help save the reefs, that is if they really need saving, they need to stop and reverse the pollution being dumped on the reefs. Every year large freighters run aground smashing football field size area of reefs. Our hobby is a drop in a bucket compared to just one 200 foot long ship crushing these animals.