NOAA proposes 66 reef building coral on endangered list

[GreshamH]

Unfortunately, most of the listed species are largely found in the waters of small island nations that are not bound to abide by our regulations.

I do agree that the treatment of aquacultured specimens should be the primary concern for hobbyists. I have a difficult time believing that a growing industry would be hamstrung, if not destroyed, by a single stroke of the pen.

I hope that common sense will prevail in the enforcement of this new regulation vis a vis aquacultured corals.

One just has to look at the reptile and bird hobby to see the history of growing industries pretty much hamstrung by a single stroke of a pen.

Its not a new regulation either.... read the title of the thread... NOAA proposes....

 

[GroktheCube]

One just has to look at the reptile and bird hobby to see the history of growing industries pretty much hamstrung by a single stroke of a pen.

Its not a new regulation either.... read the title of the thread... NOAA proposes....

True. Though if the worst case scenario is ending up like parrots where bands are needed, or (some) herps were a license is needed to breed, that is not as dire as some are suggesting.

 

[Selt1018]

Didnt they start trying to pass this in like 2009 and have just kept evolving it to keep it alive? I saw another they were trying to pass with like 1 or 2 less endangered corals listed that was dated 2009.

 

[Ldagger]

Taking away one of the few incentives for indigenous people to protect the reef is a bad idea. They after all need income from the aquarium trade. Many biologists themselves are pointing out the only way to protect reefs is the local people who live there doing it themselves. They have to become invested in the cause. You can make all the marine protected areas you want, but if the local people do not have incentives for protecting it then WHO will enforce it?
Using the endangered species act is a very 1980's idea that does works well in some situations and not at all in others. In fact it can do more damage which I believe in this instance in this case. Most biologist agree that protecting the whole local environment is of most importance. The major thing that will happen if this comes to pass is hobbyist will not be able to propagate alot of corals anymore. Taking some frags from a real reef will not and should not endanger corals. They grow back fast in healthy reefs. AND another thing- do you really want your tax dollars going to enforce a law to bust a bunch of animal lovers over things they are growing in their aquariums? seriously that money could be better spent to protect the environment. I do think they need to improve the laws, but be smart about it.
NOAA should look for ways to include the large, educated, already trained reef hobby community in ways to research, replace corals and educate the public. Crowd sourcing has had great success in other areas; isolating and ****ing off the very people who believe in the environment as well is misguided.

 

[alton]

People in third world countries dont care about corals and fish. All they worry about is feeding there families. If they can't export coral for food what are they going to do? Hoping the Government will use common sense is a joke

 

[Fizz71]

My big problem with the whole ordeal is they always seem to take the easiest route to "correct" the problem rather making legislation that has to work for a real solution. Example: I have to prove a coral was captive grown rather than them having to prove it was harvested illegally. When that happens, only the innocent get burned and no benefit ever happens.

Prove to me I bought the coral from a somebody who harvested illegally by arresting them and I will willingly hand over the coral. Making it illegal for me to sell 30 heads of a coral that I bought as one head from some other hobbyist 2 years ago is not going to fix the problem.

Catch the bastards stripping the reef, not the family of 5 with 2 mortgages to support his tank hobby.

 

[atreis]

My big problem with the whole ordeal is they always seem to take the easiest route to "correct" the problem rather making legislation that has to work for a real solution. Example: I have to prove a coral was captive grown rather than them having to prove it was harvested illegally. When that happens, only the innocent get burned and no benefit ever happens.

Not saying it's the case here, as I don't know, but I encounter it a lot at work: It amazes me how many people who make statements like this are the same people that complain about high taxes. The route you suggest would cost the government a lot more money than the other route, and therefore to propose it you have to be willing to pay for it.

As for the regulations, there are a few factors:

1. To ban importation of the particular corals in question, but not trade in frags or captive bred corals of those types, increases the difficulty (and therefore cost) of enforcement. The feds then have to spend time (hence people, hence money) verifying that the claimed frags and captive bred corals really are.
1.a. I am willing to pay higher taxes in order to support the added cost of such a regulation, but many other people are not.

2. The world's reefs really are under stress - this is well documented. I'd rather not be permitted to keep the animals I keep in captivity today than to see them die off in the wild. My hobby is just that - a hobby. I get pleasure from it, but can certainly live without it. If the animals can't live with it, then out goes the hobby.

 

[GroktheCube]

A ban on imports and stamped frag plugs sold to aquaculturers would do it. If sold on a per-plug basis it would easily cover the cost of implementing it.

 

[atreis]

It could, and would raise the cost of corals for hobbiest (not necessarily a bad thing, given the alternative).

However, it would also increase costs for the feds. They would have to work to prevent (e.g. detect) black market trade in stamped frag plugs, and make sure the plugs used are really stamped, and are not counterfeits.

The costs of the stamped plugs could be set such that this additional cost is covered, but it would not be cheap.

 

[Selt1018]

Any idea how long it usually takes for them to make a decision or start legislation to implement something like this?

 

[r1racer]

Taxpayer dollars working at their best...smh.

 

[KafudaFish]

Nm.

 

[atreis]

smh ... Merrill Lynch's Semiconductor fund?

Nm ... New Mexico?

Someone in New Mexico wants to invest?

 

[HumbleFish]

I was shocked to learn just the other day that it's illegal to keep most corals in Hawaii. SPS and LPS are completely banned. You can keep zoas, palys, anemones and fish.

 

[Fsurocks99]

The problem, as I see it, is all coral started in the ocean. It's not like we've ever found a frag while walking through the forest.

Chop-shopping wild corals, into frags that are then sold as aquacultured happens all the time. It's an undeniable fact that coral populations, world wide, are in decline. At the end of the day I'd rather be able to show coral, living in the ocean, to my grand kids than fight for my "right" to have it in my tank now. NOAA isn't attacking hobbyists, they're trying to protect something that has no voice of its own.

Completely agree!

 

[Luiz Rocha]

The problem, as I see it, is all coral started in the ocean. It's not like we've ever found a frag while walking through the forest.

Chop-shopping wild corals, into frags that are then sold as aquacultured happens all the time. It's an undeniable fact that coral populations, world wide, are in decline. At the end of the day I'd rather be able to show coral, living in the ocean, to my grand kids than fight for my "right" to have it in my tank now. NOAA isn't attacking hobbyists, they're trying to protect something that has no voice of its own.

+1 And even if those 66 species are added, there are another 300+ that are in better shape and won't be...

 

[Fsurocks99]

+1 And even if those 66 species are added, there are another 300+ that are in better shape and won't be...

Exactly!

 

[Steveb]

and suppose they determine it is to difficult to identify said protected/endangered corals at the species level and it really costs a whole lot to train all of the folks in the field doing enforcement. So then they decide you know what from a cost perspective lets just expand enforcement to cover at the the genus level. That way we know none of the endangered species get by us... There go those other 300+...

I'm also not sure I buy the argument that stopping all collection is going to prevent eventual demise... Yes I am sure it would take some pressure off of of said species but I think a whole lot of other things would need to change to make a real long term change. My position is let the nations that the corals come from determine the level of take that can be supported.

 

[Luiz Rocha]

and suppose they determine it is to difficult to identify said protected/endangered corals at the species level and it really costs a whole lot to train all of the folks in the field doing enforcement. So then they decide you know what from a cost perspective lets just expand enforcement to cover at the the genus level. That way we know none of the endangered species get by us... There go those other 300+...

That is a lot of ifs... I do work with issues like those constantly, and enforcing agencies will not ban anything at the genus level just because they cannot identify them (at least here in the US, but that is what we are talking about). What enforcing agencies such as fish and wildlife do very often is send photographs (or samples) of shipments to specialists that can determine the species identity when their own technicians cannot.

I'm also not sure I buy the argument that stopping all collection is going to prevent eventual demise... Yes I am sure it would take some pressure off of of said species but I think a whole lot of other things would need to change to make a real long term change. My position is let the nations that the corals come from determine the level of take that can be supported.

Should we make it legal to commercialize rhino horns and tiger "private" parts then? There is no way we can save them just by prohibiting commerce. Habitat destruction (just as what happens with corals) is the biggest threat.

Unfortunately, the nations where coral (and tigers and rhinos) come from are not run by people that actually think about future generations, so we cannot leave these decisions for them if we want to see coral in the future. Most of those nations are run by people worried about immediate gain. And since education (again for the most part) is not very good on those countries, I don't see this situation changing any time soon.

Don't take me wrong, I am not proposing a ban on coral or fish trading, I defend the aquarium trade every chance I have, and I do have a reef tank. It is a great educational tool, people relate to coral reef conservation issues with much more passion after they see a reef (or even a tank). All I am saying is that those specific 66 species are declining, so why put the additional pressure on them? Quite frankly, I don't see this as a threat to the hobby and I sincerely think that most hobbyists should be behind this.

Now here is something that a lot of people don't know: the IUCN Red List, which provided the information that led to this entire debate, constantly re-evaluates the conservation status of those species (at least once every 10 years, sometimes after just 5 years if there is reason to suspect changes). If they start to recover (or even if they stop declining) in the future, it is very likely that they will be removed from the threatened category.

 

[Steveb]

Very nice reply! and good info. I sure do hope you are right. My main concern is no provision for aquaculture/mariculture in existing endangered species act. Not the wild take prohibition so much..