NOAA might end the coral trade - please comment!!!
- Thread starter asylumdown
- Start date
joshky
Acros & Wrasses
If you really want to help and have the means, donating to PIJAC is an easy way of helping.
http://www.pijac.org/ADF
http://www.pijac.org/ADF
asylumdown
New member
I do respect your opinions, in fact I agree with many of them. But you're still missing the point. This isn't about opinions or feelings. 99% of what gets posted on the Internet is meaningless. Like totally meaningless. We post about this method or that technology and get all worked up about imagined biological processes that make us feel like little gods for having a small box of water in which we control an entire ecology. Then engage in a lively debate amongst ourselves about the ethics of keeping an animal that can swim 20k in one day in a 5' box vs. a 6' box.
This is different. This isn't a zero stakes forum argument over whether deep sand beds might harbor magical gremlins that will one day devour your tank that no one cares who wins. Literally none of that matters in the face of what the NOAA is debating RIGHT NOW.
This is a real, acute, imminent decision by the U.S. government about the way federal law treats 20 specific species of stony corals and likely all corals that look sort of like them. It is a decision based on bad policy and bad science that in one fell swoop could put every eco-conscious, community based coral farming aquaculture initiative out of business. It tells the islanders of Fiji that dynamite fishing really is the better use of a reef. It tells the worlds reefers that the 10,000 tons of live branching frog spawns currently growing in US tanks have no value compared to the 2,000 tons that might be growing in the ocean, whom this law has no capacity to protect anyway. It says that all the time, effort and money we have invested in to figuring out for ourselves how to keep finicky acroporids alive in captivity was a wasted effort. It says we're totally giving up on maintaining any kind of a bank of these animals in exorbitantly expensive chemistry-controlled life support systems that few institutions have the budget for, even though this legislation has no hope in the world of preserving them where they natively live. It says that anyone who thinks otherwise is as much of a criminal as the people murdering the last few rhinos for the chemical equivalent of toe nail clippings.
If you have a serious ethical issue with the aquarium hobby, you are free to leave it. The NOAA is not debating a ban on the trade in wild caught ornamental marine fish over animal welfare concerns. They are debating whether or not to add a Section 4 (d) "no take" provision to 20 species of stony corals based on a (at least according to many experts) scientifically dubious listing of said species as "threatened". This decision will have abrupt and specific consequences for the marine aquarium industry, and the hobby that relies on it. I wrote my original post for the benefit of people who have a stake in this one way or the other, so if you agree with the no take provision, convey that to the NOAA - the comment period is open until March. The rest of either of our opinions on the reef hobby are, for all intensive purposes, totally irrelevant.
asylumdown
New member
asylumdown
New member
NOAA might end the coral trade - please comment!!!
I agree with all of this. Another major point - a "no take" provision makes perfect sense when you're talking about wolves or bald eagles. In those cases "take" means "kill", and the resulting "trade" is all in the parts of their dead bodies. Every eagle "taken" from the environment is an eagle that is no longer a part of the gene pool.
Corals couldn't be more different biologically. If I "take" coral from the wild and bring it to a mariculture facility, both the piece that gets left behind and the piece I'm now investing time and money to grow are still alive. The "parts" I'm now trading are the living animals themselves, the captive biomass of which exist only because there is a thriving hobby to house it. A "no take" provision is the wrong legal instrument for these kinds of animals and context.
Eta: for certain kinds of corals. Funnily enough, this legislation is targeting some of the easiest to frag/leave living specimens behind species in the sea. Again, this legislation lacks nuance.
I agree with all of this. Another major point - a "no take" provision makes perfect sense when you're talking about wolves or bald eagles. In those cases "take" means "kill", and the resulting "trade" is all in the parts of their dead bodies. Every eagle "taken" from the environment is an eagle that is no longer a part of the gene pool.
Corals couldn't be more different biologically. If I "take" coral from the wild and bring it to a mariculture facility, both the piece that gets left behind and the piece I'm now investing time and money to grow are still alive. The "parts" I'm now trading are the living animals themselves, the captive biomass of which exist only because there is a thriving hobby to house it. A "no take" provision is the wrong legal instrument for these kinds of animals and context.
Eta: for certain kinds of corals. Funnily enough, this legislation is targeting some of the easiest to frag/leave living specimens behind species in the sea. Again, this legislation lacks nuance.
Reef Frog
New member
Of the 20 species listed, how many have made it in to the aquarium trade already? Are some of these species already being cultured in aquaria by hobbyists, or on coral farms? Are any highly desirable to hobbyists?
For example ORA has a farm facility in the Marshall Islands. Would they be prohibited from selling these species if they are already under culture now?
If this proposed regulation becomes law, would they be prohibited from trying to raise them for sale in the future? I just don't understand the benefits of blacklisting a possibly soon to be endangered species which is already being cultured successfully on a farm offshore on in an aquarium somewhere.
Granted, I have trouble treasing meaning out of government bureaucrat style prose, but where is it saying that colonies already in the trade or in a private aquariums can not be kept, propagated, traded or sold?
For example ORA has a farm facility in the Marshall Islands. Would they be prohibited from selling these species if they are already under culture now?
If this proposed regulation becomes law, would they be prohibited from trying to raise them for sale in the future? I just don't understand the benefits of blacklisting a possibly soon to be endangered species which is already being cultured successfully on a farm offshore on in an aquarium somewhere.
Granted, I have trouble treasing meaning out of government bureaucrat style prose, but where is it saying that colonies already in the trade or in a private aquariums can not be kept, propagated, traded or sold?
Sapelo
New member
Another serious issue is the "if it looks like it then it must be" contention wherein if a fish and wildlife agent is checking a shipment of imports and the see a coral that "looks like" a coral on this proposed list, then they are allowed to call it as such. Under this provision, two acropora might be listed as protected but if another acropora is similar then it could also be included. It's a major catch 22.
JPMagyar
New member
To the OP: It sounds like you may be a party with an economic interest in this issue if so why not create a form on a website to which RC members can sign their name and email to the appropriate authorities. Asking people to write their own letter is sadly a hurdle many will not jump.
To ReefFrog: There are 6 corals on the list common to our hobby:
To ReefFrog: There are 6 corals on the list common to our hobby:
phenom5
Member
Signed and commented, stressing that all of us are 100% behind the idea of protecting endangered species in the wild, but no need for legislation that kills our hobby, and has minimal impact on wild species.
One of the huge problems I see with this is our lovely government that would be enforcing this law. How exactly would they propose doing so? I envision tons of coral sitting in customs somewhere...dying...while the government agency(ies) responsible try to fight through red tape, and try to determine if the corals sitting on the shipping dock do in fact violate this legislation.
One of the huge problems I see with this is our lovely government that would be enforcing this law. How exactly would they propose doing so? I envision tons of coral sitting in customs somewhere...dying...while the government agency(ies) responsible try to fight through red tape, and try to determine if the corals sitting on the shipping dock do in fact violate this legislation.
@Reef frog - Unfortunately, I can read "government bureaucrat style prose" (I do it for a living - and respond to it as well). Here's the part you should be concerned about; I'll quote it first and then provide a "loose" translation:
//ESA section 9(a)(1) prohibitions are automatically applied to species listed as endangered but not to species listed as threatened. Section 4(d) of the ESA provides that, whenever a species is listed as threatened, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) shall issue such regulations as she deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the species. Such regulations may include any or all of the prohibitions in ESA section 9(a)(1) that apply automatically to species listed asendangered. Those section 9(a)(1) prohibitions make it unlawful, with limited specified exceptions, for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to: “(A) Import any such species into, or export any such species from the United States; (B) take any such species within the United States or the territorial sea of the United States; (C) take any such species upon the high seas; (D) possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever, any such species taken in violation of subparagraphs (B) and (C); (E) deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the course of a commercial activity, any such species; (F) sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any such species; or (G) violate any regulation pertaining to such species or to any threatened species of fish or wildlife listed pursuant to section 1533 of this title and promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to authority provided by this chapter.” Section 11 of the ESA provides for civil and criminal penalties for violations of section 9 or regulations issued under the ESA.//
What this says is that the Endangered Species Act has built-in actions that must occur if a species is listed as "endangered", but none for a species listed as "threatened" - the Act leaves it to the Secretary of Commerce to "issue such regulations as she deems necessary...for the conservation of the species"; i.e. regulate as she believes best to conserve the species. It continues that "such regulation *may include* "any and all" portions of the "ESA section 9(a)(1) that apply automatically to species listed as endangered". In other words, if she believes it warranted, she can activate *all* of the regulations to protect an "endangered" species contained in the Act for a "threatened" species. She hasn't thus far.
Why would this be important? Verbiage such as "...(A) Import any such species into, or export any such species from the United States; (B) take any such species within the United States or the territorial sea of the United States; (C) take any such species upon the high seas; (D) possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever, any such species taken in violation of subparagraphs (B) and (C); (E) deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the course of a commercial activity, any such species; (F) sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any such species..." makes it very clear that doing pretty much anything with any of the listed species, including having one in your home aquarium or giving one to a friend could be easily found illegal if the Secretary of Commerce deems protection of the threatened species warrants. This is where your question on "kept, propagated, traded or sold" comes into play. And that is *before* it is listed as endangered.
If the species are listed as endangered, the Secretary is taken "out of the loop" at that point, and all of the species listed are simply accorded all of the protections of the ESA, and all of these said activities would simply be illegal, no matter the best of intentions or not. Simply stated, for any species listed as endangered, it would automatically be illegal for them to be "kept, propagated, traded or sold".
So, what is happening now? The linked page at the beginning of this thread has the entire chunk of legislation (as you know), and also is requesting the public to comment on what they think the would be the best course of action. Of course, whether the agency listens to the public comment is completely up to them, but they are requesting it nonetheless. That said, what do you think the agency should do? Now is the time to put your two cents worth in and help them figure this stuff out. It really should be more than "I really like my coral in my aquarium" which falls into the same class as "I really like my Bald Eagle tied in my back yard" (used for example purposes, the Bald Eagle is no longer on the Endangered list http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/BaldEagleDelisting.htm and stands as a symbol of the success of the ESA). But here are a few things to consider commenting on:
Coral growth forms and coloration are highly effected by environmental factors such as lighting and it's relationship to turbidity and depth, nutrition, and current to name a few. How does the agency propose to accurately and scientifically identify said species if this provisions are enacted?
A surprisingly large number of these proposed species are currently in home and public aquariums and are being propagated on a routine basis. Has this been considered in any of the referenced studies and how does the agency plan to take common and frequent current ownership, propagation, and trade into account if these species are listed?
I'm not a lawyer in any sense of the term, I just deal with the government on a routine basis. There may be some ways around this that a good lawyer would be able to find, but remember that the bulk of the legislation that comes out has already been through a large number of lawyers' hands before the public ever sees it.
I hope this helps.
Please go to the referenced page and comment.
Ray
//ESA section 9(a)(1) prohibitions are automatically applied to species listed as endangered but not to species listed as threatened. Section 4(d) of the ESA provides that, whenever a species is listed as threatened, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) shall issue such regulations as she deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the species. Such regulations may include any or all of the prohibitions in ESA section 9(a)(1) that apply automatically to species listed asendangered. Those section 9(a)(1) prohibitions make it unlawful, with limited specified exceptions, for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to: “(A) Import any such species into, or export any such species from the United States; (B) take any such species within the United States or the territorial sea of the United States; (C) take any such species upon the high seas; (D) possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever, any such species taken in violation of subparagraphs (B) and (C); (E) deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the course of a commercial activity, any such species; (F) sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any such species; or (G) violate any regulation pertaining to such species or to any threatened species of fish or wildlife listed pursuant to section 1533 of this title and promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to authority provided by this chapter.” Section 11 of the ESA provides for civil and criminal penalties for violations of section 9 or regulations issued under the ESA.//
What this says is that the Endangered Species Act has built-in actions that must occur if a species is listed as "endangered", but none for a species listed as "threatened" - the Act leaves it to the Secretary of Commerce to "issue such regulations as she deems necessary...for the conservation of the species"; i.e. regulate as she believes best to conserve the species. It continues that "such regulation *may include* "any and all" portions of the "ESA section 9(a)(1) that apply automatically to species listed as endangered". In other words, if she believes it warranted, she can activate *all* of the regulations to protect an "endangered" species contained in the Act for a "threatened" species. She hasn't thus far.
Why would this be important? Verbiage such as "...(A) Import any such species into, or export any such species from the United States; (B) take any such species within the United States or the territorial sea of the United States; (C) take any such species upon the high seas; (D) possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever, any such species taken in violation of subparagraphs (B) and (C); (E) deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the course of a commercial activity, any such species; (F) sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any such species..." makes it very clear that doing pretty much anything with any of the listed species, including having one in your home aquarium or giving one to a friend could be easily found illegal if the Secretary of Commerce deems protection of the threatened species warrants. This is where your question on "kept, propagated, traded or sold" comes into play. And that is *before* it is listed as endangered.
If the species are listed as endangered, the Secretary is taken "out of the loop" at that point, and all of the species listed are simply accorded all of the protections of the ESA, and all of these said activities would simply be illegal, no matter the best of intentions or not. Simply stated, for any species listed as endangered, it would automatically be illegal for them to be "kept, propagated, traded or sold".
So, what is happening now? The linked page at the beginning of this thread has the entire chunk of legislation (as you know), and also is requesting the public to comment on what they think the would be the best course of action. Of course, whether the agency listens to the public comment is completely up to them, but they are requesting it nonetheless. That said, what do you think the agency should do? Now is the time to put your two cents worth in and help them figure this stuff out. It really should be more than "I really like my coral in my aquarium" which falls into the same class as "I really like my Bald Eagle tied in my back yard" (used for example purposes, the Bald Eagle is no longer on the Endangered list http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/BaldEagleDelisting.htm and stands as a symbol of the success of the ESA). But here are a few things to consider commenting on:
Coral growth forms and coloration are highly effected by environmental factors such as lighting and it's relationship to turbidity and depth, nutrition, and current to name a few. How does the agency propose to accurately and scientifically identify said species if this provisions are enacted?
A surprisingly large number of these proposed species are currently in home and public aquariums and are being propagated on a routine basis. Has this been considered in any of the referenced studies and how does the agency plan to take common and frequent current ownership, propagation, and trade into account if these species are listed?
I'm not a lawyer in any sense of the term, I just deal with the government on a routine basis. There may be some ways around this that a good lawyer would be able to find, but remember that the bulk of the legislation that comes out has already been through a large number of lawyers' hands before the public ever sees it.
I hope this helps.
Please go to the referenced page and comment.
Ray
@phenom5 - I remember just that from the 80's (I was in Tucson at the time), when the Biosphere was going up they were bringing in boxes of coral that hobbyists couldn't even touch. I don't need to tell you the results of that fiasco.
Meanwhile, the local dealers would "lose" the occasional box or two at customs in LA where they stayed "to be disposed of" or were released after a few days - after they figured out the CITES permits really were in order and what the corals in the box were...other than dead by then, of course.
Meanwhile, the local dealers would "lose" the occasional box or two at customs in LA where they stayed "to be disposed of" or were released after a few days - after they figured out the CITES permits really were in order and what the corals in the box were...other than dead by then, of course.
PIPSTER
New member
1. They cannot possibly enforce keeping anyone from collecting corals in the wild.
2. They will use this to prohibit the sale of domestically tank-cultured corals, and possession of said private property, which they can enforce, somewhat, successfully.
3. Unless they only include business days in their comment count, there are still only the original 12 comments in there.
4. What do all the LFS think about this? Or are they unaware?
Hello, LiveAquaria, Blue Zoo, Neptune, AquaSD, Unique, POTO, Legendary, Extreme, Austinreefs, Tampa Bay, ...etc, where are you???
2. They will use this to prohibit the sale of domestically tank-cultured corals, and possession of said private property, which they can enforce, somewhat, successfully.
3. Unless they only include business days in their comment count, there are still only the original 12 comments in there.
4. What do all the LFS think about this? Or are they unaware?
Hello, LiveAquaria, Blue Zoo, Neptune, AquaSD, Unique, POTO, Legendary, Extreme, Austinreefs, Tampa Bay, ...etc, where are you???
phenom5
Member
1. Yes, true.
2. Yes, also true, although I doubt we'll hear about anyone's door getting broken down in an "illegal" coral raid. Technically, we as hobbyists could be seen as criminals, but there would be very little interest/ ability for the govt to go after the individual hobbyist.
4. No doubt those and other large livestock retailers are acutely aware of this, and are working to prevent it.
2. Yes, also true, although I doubt we'll hear about anyone's door getting broken down in an "illegal" coral raid. Technically, we as hobbyists could be seen as criminals, but there would be very little interest/ ability for the govt to go after the individual hobbyist.
4. No doubt those and other large livestock retailers are acutely aware of this, and are working to prevent it.
This can't be serious; the global financial ramifications are too strong.
People are not taking this seriously, how many of you are going to make a big investment on your reef tank in the near future? If this was a concern, you would have to be a god damned idiot to continue in this hobby.
People are not taking this seriously, how many of you are going to make a big investment on your reef tank in the near future? If this was a concern, you would have to be a god damned idiot to continue in this hobby.
liverock
RC Sponsor
Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Document Type: Nonrulemaking
Title: Conservation of Threatened Corals
Document ID: NOAA-NMFS-2014-0158-0001
Comment:
Protection of endangered and threatened corals is defiantly a step in the right direction for our earths oceans, however let's not put individuals and businesses that are in the aquacultured coral business, out of business. There is an exemption for possession of hard corals in Florida if and only if the corals are growing and attached to aquacultured live rock.
The same exemption needs to apply to the proposed new coral regulations if in fact they do become law. Persons/businesses that culture said corals are not impacting the environment but quite distinctly protecting the environment by culturing corals in the wild and in captive systems.
This culture activity relives the pressure on wild stocks and certainly benefits the environment and the economic climate of the United States.
Any proposed legislation must include and exemption for culture/possession/sale of the proposed restricted corals providing they are aquacultured in the wild or upland facilities to allow such activities to continue to the mutual benefit of all.
Richard Londeree
Tampa Bay Saltwater
www.tbsaltwater.com
Document Type: Nonrulemaking
Title: Conservation of Threatened Corals
Document ID: NOAA-NMFS-2014-0158-0001
Comment:
Protection of endangered and threatened corals is defiantly a step in the right direction for our earths oceans, however let's not put individuals and businesses that are in the aquacultured coral business, out of business. There is an exemption for possession of hard corals in Florida if and only if the corals are growing and attached to aquacultured live rock.
The same exemption needs to apply to the proposed new coral regulations if in fact they do become law. Persons/businesses that culture said corals are not impacting the environment but quite distinctly protecting the environment by culturing corals in the wild and in captive systems.
This culture activity relives the pressure on wild stocks and certainly benefits the environment and the economic climate of the United States.
Any proposed legislation must include and exemption for culture/possession/sale of the proposed restricted corals providing they are aquacultured in the wild or upland facilities to allow such activities to continue to the mutual benefit of all.
Richard Londeree
Tampa Bay Saltwater
www.tbsaltwater.com
maoiwowie
New member
OP, I must confess that I am a little ignorant as to the "issues" behind this proposal. I am perhaps a little swayed by the perception that Sprung eludes to in his opening, than the actual "truth". I did watch the video and my pedestrian conclusion is that our hobby is or will be collateral damage to a wider issue, that of reducing greenhouse emissions and global warming. Like the panel said we are but a minuscule concern to NOAA. I dont have any ethical issues with my tank, as I started keeping reefs 30 years ago when this hobby was just beginning, and collectively conservation was not a national agenda. We must all recognize the world is different now. And the difference for me happens in subtle ways like buying aquaculture; conserving water; not buying ivory (well i never bought ivory, but i hope you get the point.) These actions are perhaps moot. Its very complex when we think about it.
As i was watching the video my only wish was that the panel of speakers were neutral to the economics behind this hobby. Everyone on the panel had a money stake behind their stance. Having a panel of NOAA lawyers wouldnt sway me either. My only hope is that the lawyers and interest groups can find a compromise that will allow this hobby to continue while removing critical pressure on the environment. At this point anything i write will only sound like "let me keep my fishbowl", which is silly. What other conclusion can NOAA come up with from my hobbyist position? I do think the members posting on this thread are more conscience and passionate than the majority casual reefer and I am glad this has been brought to my attention. Ill keep my mind open.
As i was watching the video my only wish was that the panel of speakers were neutral to the economics behind this hobby. Everyone on the panel had a money stake behind their stance. Having a panel of NOAA lawyers wouldnt sway me either. My only hope is that the lawyers and interest groups can find a compromise that will allow this hobby to continue while removing critical pressure on the environment. At this point anything i write will only sound like "let me keep my fishbowl", which is silly. What other conclusion can NOAA come up with from my hobbyist position? I do think the members posting on this thread are more conscience and passionate than the majority casual reefer and I am glad this has been brought to my attention. Ill keep my mind open.
tripdad
Frustrated Stick Gardener
Comment posted. I have been through this type of legislation before in my professional life. The problem is NOT what they set out to accomplish but what they WILL destroy because of vague language, non-specific language and mis- information provided by those with an agenda.These proposals are not specific enough in they're language to EXCLUDE things, like this hobby and it's attendant industry, that were never meant to be included in the legislation but are "caught up in it" because of the language used. I am not a lawyer but I have fallen in to a conflict because of language used in documents. The people charged with administering these laws DO NOT HAVE DISCRETION AFFORDED TO THEM. They must execute the laws as written, that is where the problem comes into reality and off the printed page. Even if common sense tells an agent that Bill Smith is not trafficking corals because he fragged his own colony, the LAW says he IS. And therefore he will receive the same punishment as someone who poaches an endangered species. Does that seem fair to anyone?
hbrochs
New member
My Comment
My Comment
I watched the video that was linked earlier in this thread.
It was very informative and it's pretty clear that this legislation is politically driven without scientific foundation. I honestly don't know how one could say that a species is endangered if we have no idea what the population size is now or in the past. I went to the linked government site and left the following comment.
Comment:
There is no hard scientific information about diminishing quantities of any of these corals.
These corals are being placed on this list based on guesses and conjecture.
There is a large and growing community that is growing coral in farms that greatly diminish harvesting wild corals. It makes no sense whatsoever to limit or diminish in any way corals that are grown in captivity.
Because corals can be quite difficult to accurately classify, many corals that are not on the list will be denied transportation and sale because they may be similar to an endangered coral. Many corals will perish while customs officials put them in holding areas, thus the act of attempting to protect corals will end up killing many living corals for no reason.
If NOAA is serious about this issue, then they should consider going into the field with dive teams and doing real scientific research on coral populations and the risks to them. I am in favor of protecting endangered species. I am not in favor of randomly placing species on the endangered list without any factual data to support that decision.
Thank you,
Howard Ochs
My Comment
I watched the video that was linked earlier in this thread.
It was very informative and it's pretty clear that this legislation is politically driven without scientific foundation. I honestly don't know how one could say that a species is endangered if we have no idea what the population size is now or in the past. I went to the linked government site and left the following comment.
Comment:
There is no hard scientific information about diminishing quantities of any of these corals.
These corals are being placed on this list based on guesses and conjecture.
There is a large and growing community that is growing coral in farms that greatly diminish harvesting wild corals. It makes no sense whatsoever to limit or diminish in any way corals that are grown in captivity.
Because corals can be quite difficult to accurately classify, many corals that are not on the list will be denied transportation and sale because they may be similar to an endangered coral. Many corals will perish while customs officials put them in holding areas, thus the act of attempting to protect corals will end up killing many living corals for no reason.
If NOAA is serious about this issue, then they should consider going into the field with dive teams and doing real scientific research on coral populations and the risks to them. I am in favor of protecting endangered species. I am not in favor of randomly placing species on the endangered list without any factual data to support that decision.
Thank you,
Howard Ochs
liverock
RC Sponsor
Great post Howard
unfortunately...once something gets this far in the system...as I have seen many regs instituted in my 40 years in the business...what they propose...happens....is sad as there is no science behind it...the only recourse is public retort...quick and concise...sometimes that works...but fighting big brother is tough...
Richard TBS
www.tbsaltwater.com
unfortunately...once something gets this far in the system...as I have seen many regs instituted in my 40 years in the business...what they propose...happens....is sad as there is no science behind it...the only recourse is public retort...quick and concise...sometimes that works...but fighting big brother is tough...
Richard TBS
www.tbsaltwater.com
