NOAA proposes 66 reef building coral on endangered list

[marinemike01]

I was saw this on the web and might interest all of us the care about our hobby / passion. Here is the link.

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2012/11/82corals.html

Click on the list of 66 species and it will surprise you what types of coral is on it.
Here is another link explain what will happen if it is passed and these species are place on the endangered / threaten list.

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2012/11/docs/press_release.pdf

Just something all of us "reefers" might want to think about.

Mike

 

[atreis]

Most of these are particularly easy to frag. There's no reason or need to collect them from the wild, nor any reason to raise alarm in the hobby.

 

[billsreef]

No surprises there. If anything, there will be more impacts to researchers working on some of those corals, rather than on the hobby. At the same time such listings might raise the level of importance for such research, it also hampers the research with increased permitting difficulties.

 

[DrPat]

I hope this will show how the hobby has increased coral farming which alleveates collecting wild corals and spurs economic developement in otherwise poor island nations.
The problem will arise if NOAA will not distingush between wild collected and farmed corals. Once they go down the path of listing corals more and more will be placed on the list in future years. we need to express to NOAA thru there website the green value of farmed corals and the economic impact that prohibition would cause

 

[DrPat]

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2012/11/82corals.html
heres the link to the page where you can submit a letter or attend a meeting

 

[Revmedia]

I hope this will show how the hobby has increased coral farming which alleveates collecting wild corals and spurs economic developement in otherwise poor island nations.
The problem will arise if NOAA will not distingush between wild collected and farmed corals. Once they go down the path of listing corals more and more will be placed on the list in future years. we need to express to NOAA thru there website the green value of farmed corals and the economic impact that prohibition would cause

This is what I'm worried about. Everyone just assumes there will be a clear differentiation between wild caught and captive bred. Even if there is, the onus will be on you to prove the frags you have are captive specimens. I'm not saying our coral reefs shouldn't be protected, of course they should be.

What I am saying is we need to let our voices be heard so that this gets done in the right way, and moves this industry ahead instead of setting it back.

 

[Ninong]

I hope this will show how the hobby has increased coral farming which alleveates collecting wild corals and spurs economic developement in otherwise poor island nations.
The problem will arise if NOAA will not distingush between wild collected and farmed corals. Once they go down the path of listing corals more and more will be placed on the list in future years. we need to express to NOAA thru there website the green value of farmed corals and the economic impact that prohibition would cause

Why would they need to distinguish between wild-collected and farmed corals? Has the ESA ever made a distintinction between wild-collected and captive-raised animals before? I'm just asking because I don't think it makes any difference.

Won't it be illegal to even possess an animal listed as endangered, much less try to take it with you across state lines or trade it or sell it. Is private captive breeding allowed without a permit of some sort? I believe they intend to list two Acropora species as endangered. I'm talking about two Indo-Pacific species (A. lokani and A. jacquelinae), not the two Caribbean species (A. palmata and A. cervicornis) that they intend to move from threatened to endangered because all Caribbean stonies are off limits to us anyway and have been for years.

So who's going to teach all the customs guys how to recognize one Acropora species from another? And if maricultured corals would somehow be granted an exception, how are the customs guys going to tell if a coral is wild collected or maricultured?

There is a big difference between threatened status and endangered status as it applies to animals and I'm just wondering how this will affect the hobby if any of the Indo-Pacific corals are listed as endangered, much less two Acropora species that are currently popular in the hobby. And how would you prove to the ESA police that the endangered species in your tank has been there for years?

I remember when we got into something similar with California back when they wanted to make ALL species of Caulerpa illegal just because C. taxifolia (the mutant variant released by the Monaco Aquarium into the Mediterranean) was a threat and had already been discovered near San Diego. Eventually the bill was changed so that not all Caulerpa species were banned. The state's initial reasoning was that it would be impossible for their inspectors to tell the difference between the various species so it would be better to just ban the whole genus. Their so-called science officer at the time was a woman who was openly opposed to the reefkeeping hobby and didn't think any corals or saltwater fishes should be kept in captivity at all.

I guess I need to read up on the ESA to figure out if it's even legal to possess and "endangered" species. I don't think it is.

 

[Ninong]

Branching frogspawn (Euphyllia paradivisa) is another Indo-Pacific stony coral that they intend to list as endangered.

 

[Ninong]

I guess I should just list all seven of the Indo-Pacific stony corals that they intend to list as endangered:

Acropora lokani, A. jacquelineae, A. rudis, Millepora faveolata, Pocillopora elegans, Anacropora spinosa, Euphyllia paradivisa.​

Plus another 52 species (including 19 Acropora spp. and 7 Montipora spp.) that are slated to become threatened.

 

[elegance coral]

Most of these are particularly easy to frag. There's no reason or need to collect them from the wild, nor any reason to raise alarm in the hobby.

This is a huge cause for alarm in the hobby.

Once a species gets listed as threatened, or endangered, they can outlaw ALL trade in that species. It doesn't matter if that species is grown in captivity or not.

This raises some serious questions for our hobby.
Am I forced to euthanize the Ephyllia that's outgrowing my tank?
What happens to companies like ORA, or all the small "Mom and Pop" coral farmers around the country? Take away one or two of their big money makers, and this could force them out of business. Crippling these companies could increase pressure on other wild species like anemonefish, or corals that haven't made it on the list yet, but were once propagated by these companies.

I think we can all see that our coral reefs are in trouble, and most of us believe we need to do something. This isn't the answer though. It has been shown over, and over, and over again that through proper management, we can have the best of both worlds. Australia is a great example of this. By limiting the areas of collection, and the numbers being collect, Australia is able to utilize their natural resources to help feed their people, without raping the environment in the process.

Just my two cents
EC

 

[Ninong]

I hope this will show how the hobby has increased coral farming which alleveates collecting wild corals and spurs economic developement in otherwise poor island nations.
The problem will arise if NOAA will not distingush between wild collected and farmed corals. Once they go down the path of listing corals more and more will be placed on the list in future years. we need to express to NOAA thru there website the green value of farmed corals and the economic impact that prohibition would cause

Won't all trade be halted in a species once it is listed as endangered? Is there an exemption for farmed corals and, if so, does it extend to the importation of farmed corals?

The reason I ask is because I can't find anything in the ESA that would permit the import or export of any species listed as endangered. I found an exemption for personal ownership of a fish or wildlife species held in captivity on the date such species was listed as endangered, provided such holding and any subsequent holding or use of the fish or wildlife was not in the course of a commercial activity.

So it appears to me that the exemption would not apply to commercial trade after the date the species is added to the endangered list. Also, the law requires a rebuttable presumption that the fish or wildlife in your possession is not entitled to the exemption, so that means you are required to have documentation available for inspection upon demand to rebutt their presumption if you want to keep your endangered species that you claim you had in your possession prior to its listing as endangered.

This is how I'm reading the ESA, so please correct me if I'm wrong. After a species is listed as endangered, it is illegal to possess that species unless you can prove that you had it in your possession prior to the date it was added as endangered and provided it was not in your possession as part of any commercial activity.

ESA, Section 9

 

[elegance coral]

Won't all trade be halted in a species once it is listed as endangered? Is there an exemption for farmed corals and, if so, does it extend to the importation of farmed corals?

The reason I ask is because I can't find anything in the ESA that would permit the import or export of any species listed as endangered. I found an exemption for personal ownership of a fish or wildlife species held in captivity on the date such species was listed as endangered, provided such holding and any subsequent holding or use of the fish or wildlife was not in the course of a commercial activity.

So it appears to me that the exemption would not apply to commercial trade after the date the species is added to the endangered list. Also, the law requires a rebuttable presumption that the fish or wildlife in your possession is not entitled to the exemption, so that means you are required to have documentation available for inspection upon demand to rebutt their presumption if you want to keep your endangered species that you claim you had in your possession prior to its listing as endangered.

This is how I'm reading the ESA, so please correct me if I'm wrong. After a species is listed as endangered, it is illegal to possess that species unless you can prove that you had it in your possession prior to the date it was added as endangered and provided it was not in your possession as part of any commercial activity.

ESA, Section 9

That's the way I understand it as well.
My question is, what do we do with the corals we have now? They all grow and/or reproduce. It's illegal to kill an endangered species. It's illegal to sell or trade them. When an Acropora or Euphyllia becomes to large for us to care for, what do we do????? In a few years time, my tank will be busting at the seams. No matter what I do at that point, I will be forced to break the law.:wildone:

 

[arhyne]

ESA Classification:

Threatened: Agency can allow or disallow trade or other activities. They have a little wiggle room.

Endangered: Trade is prohibited. There is no wiggle room.


'Aquaculture' or 'Wild' does it matter? NO. If something is listed as endangered source does not matter.

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/esa_permits.htm

"Individuals planning to conduct any activity resulting in the "take" of an endangered or threatened species, whether or not deliberate, must possess a permit to perform that activity."

 

[yamaha16bw]

When will this go into effect if they do end up putting all of these on the endangered list?

I can really see this effecting the hobby in a big way. I myself think that people who "farm" coral would be helping the cause and this sounds like it will make that illegal which doesnt make since to me if so many people do with with success.

 

[trinity1012]

they should give us reefer's these endagered corals.we could grow them into colonies, ship them back to noaa and they can replenish the natural reefs.
in my mind seems like an excellet oppertunity to save what corals are in harms way.

like stated at the bottom of post#12 "what do we do with corals when they get to big" keep a small frag to regrow again and again and send the overgrown colonie back to the noaa...like i said in my mind thats seems to be an excellent idea.

 

[yamaha16bw]

Hopefully ideas like that are being taken into consideration.

 

[tripdad]

Comments Posted on NOAA Site!! It was easy to do, once you find the proposed documents just click on and the comment form comes up. I urge all to speak out in support of the aquaculture industry as we will most definetly need them in the future. I have spent my life in the automotive aftermarket and every few years some lawmaker writes a well intended piece of legislation without examining specific language and does not realize that they will, if passed into law, outlaw an entire industry that contributes MILLIONS of jobs to our economy. More often than not this is an oversight as they are rarely well versed in the ENTIRE ramifications. We have lobbied sucesfully to stop many of these laws thru awareness and education of those in the decision making process, but it takes many voices to be heard! There is no need for alarm but there is a need for action before a well intended piece of legislation destroys our support system of coral farmers and disributors. Please mention the positives we hobbyists as "coral farmers" on a small scale can provide, education, awareness, replenishment of wild stocks, etc. By aquaculturing our stocks is the only way to stop the removal of wild coral for all purposes, not just us reefers.

 

[trinity1012]

i submited my comment to NOAA.i hope it does some good

 

[alton]

The following is a list of links for something very similar, although not a fish or coral but the beautiful Oryx. This what happens when the government gets involved, common sense goes out the window and like the one link talks about it comes down to what a judge thinks

http://www.petersenshunting.com/2012/01/31/60-minutes-on-hunting-endangered-oryx-in-texas/

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/lo...ng-ban-could-see-last-of-unicorns-3453819.php

http://www.allaboutexotics.com/2010/04/save-the-species-campaign-update/

 

[tomservo]

The worst part is that those in posession of species reclassified as endangered would be committing a crime if they were to frag it, they would not be allowed to shut the tank down either as that would result in the death of the animal. It can't be legally transferred either from what I can tell. You might be entitled to some sort of conservation effort, though! That is, if you can figure out some way to "prove" you had the coral all along - I thought we were entitled to be innocent until proven guilty, but I guess that was some other place.

Unfortunately I don't think NOAA have ANYTHING to do with this other than being the body that decides what is endangered or not. The problem is more likely with the endangered species act having no exemptions. It's probably just something that was not considered at the time; the possibility of the animal doing better in captivity than in the wild. Didn't this already happen with a lake full of african cichlids?