Reefkeeping is NOT under attack

[Leonard]

Joe, if you have the data to refute the petition claims, you should have submitted it to NMFS. I'm not the one you should be debating.

I think your general distrust of federal agencies (which is very apparent in your post) clouds your judgment, no offense intended. I'm confused why you would think a review board of scientists making this decision based on the data presented to them is a bad thing.

 

[woodnaquanut]

This is what I consider an attack on the hobby. The inability of someone to captive breed fish and aquaculture coral. Ban the importation, collection or whatever else happens on the reef, but banning captive breeding and aquaculture is an attack on the hobby if I've ever seen one.

I'm not exactly sure how you can possibly support such an action... :uhoh3:

As explained in one of the articles linked by Leonard, the problem is distinguishing wild from captive. Let's just take the clownfish as an example. Although they are widely captive bred, they are still taken from the wild. ESA will not stop locals from taking CF from the reef. If those CF are then shipped to a 'breeder' and that 'breeder' rebags and relabels them as CB, they bypass the protections of the ESA. NOAA/NMFS does not have the budget to prevent/patrol this.

Dang it! Leonard types fast and hit this better than I did. Perhaps that is why he is paid to write!!

 

[PIPSTER]

As explained in one of the articles linked by Leonard, the problem is distinguishing wild from captive. Let's just take the clownfish as an example. Although they are widely captive bred, they are still taken from the wild. ESA will not stop locals from taking CF from the reef. If those CF are then shipped to a 'breeder' and that 'breeder' rebags and relabels them as CB, they bypass the protections of the ESA. NOAA/NMFS does not have the budget to prevent/patrol this.

You need to keep going and conclude correctly that their only alternative is to ban trade altogether, along with possession, and then enforce it on sellers and prominent\famous organizations....and Leo agrees with them on interstate restrictions....? WE DO NOT NEED REGULATIONS ON ACROS!!!

No comment on my comment about private property?

 

[justinky]

Joe, if you have the data to refute the petition claims, you should have submitted it to NMFS. I'm not the one you should be debating.

I think your general distrust of federal agencies (which is very apparent in your post) clouds your judgment, no offense intended. I'm confused why you would think a review board of scientists making this decision based on the data presented to them is a bad thing.

That's ignorance, if someone has data to refute the petitions they SHOULD post here and call you out while at the same time submitting it to NMFS. You would be spreading misinformation getting hobbyist who care about the coral reef and understand the reefs come before the hobby to side with the same people who are being refuted with scientific data.

 

[Leonard]

You need to keep going and conclude correctly that their only alternative is to ban trade altogether, along with possession, and then enforce it on sellers and prominent\famous organizations....and Leo agrees with them on interstate restrictions....? WE DO NOT NEED REGULATIONS ON ACROS!!!

No comment on my comment about private property?

I have no comment on your ideology. I also can not make out any logic in your argument.

 

[JPMagyar]

Joe, if you have the data to refute the petition claims, you should have submitted it to NMFS. I'm not the one you should be debating.

I think your general distrust of federal agencies (which is very apparent in your post) clouds your judgment, no offense intended. I'm confused why you would think a review board of scientists making this decision based on the data presented to them is a bad thing.

Leonard,

I am an MBA/BSEE from Dartmouth College. I have reviewed my share of "data" in my years, and I can tell you "scientists" are every bit as human as you and I. The fact that I have seen "frogspawn" in vast fields in places where it isn't listed in the scientific papers is irrelevant and would not sway the folks at the NOAA one iota because I don't have time to do a "survey" and publish my findings nor can I prove that the coral I saw was actually Euphyllia paradivisa and not some close cousin.

If you really want to help reefers here's a "back of the envelope" exercise I was saving for later.

Think in your head how many reefers you know in one town that have Euphyllia paradivisa growing in their tank. Now extrapolate that to how many colonies are growing worldwide and further extrapolate the growth rate. (I throw out a basketball size colony of Euphyllia paradivisa every other year.) Next go find the definition of "Threatened". My guess is that just on the captive colonies alone you would lose the true scientific basis for claiming Euphyllia paradivisa is threatened, but by law the entire captive population doesn't count. How silly is that? And, what's worse that same silly law can have the exact opposite impact and cause the captive population to die out when all trading stops. Talk about a government "Catch 22"! If the scientists really cared about Euphyllia paradivisa they'd wouldn't be using the ESA. But I'll let you do the math . . . if you really want the truth that is . . .

 

[Leonard]

Leonard,

I am an MBA/BSEE from Dartmouth College. I have reviewed my share of "data" in my years, and I can tell you "scientists" are every bit as human as you and I. The fact that I have seen "frogspawn" in vast fields in places where it isn't listed in the scientific papers is irrelevant and would not sway the folks at the NOAA one iota because I don't have time to do a "survey" and publish my findings nor can I prove that the coral I saw was actually Euphyllia paradivisa and not some close cousin.

If you really want to help reefers here's a "back of the envelope" exercise I was saving for later.

Think in your head how many reefers you know in one town that have Euphyllia paradivisa growing in their tank. Now extrapolate that to how many colonies are growing worldwide and further extrapolate the growth rate. (I throw out a basketball size colony of Euphyllia paradivisa every other year.) Next go find the definition of "Threatened". My guess is that just on the captive colonies alone you would lose the scientific basis for claiming Euphyllia paradivisa is threatened. But I'll let you do the math . . . if you really want the truth that is . . .

If you can't differentiate between E.paradivisa and E.divisa, then you have no data. The IUCN and CI do surveys like this and (at least the IUCN) concludes that E.paradivisa is scarce and vulnerable. This is one of the few coral species they actually attribute threat to the aquarium trade and not global stressors.

As for your exercise, as someone who is familiar with data, you should know you can not extrapolate a conclusion from the information you submitted without committing all sorts of logical fallacies. If we're to "extrapolate" the way you want me to for red tailed black sharks (Epalzeorhynchos bicolour), we would conclude they are plentiful in the wild.

I now have a better understanding of what you perceive as "data."

 

[woodnaquanut]

Bottom Line: The NOAA is a left-wing tree hugger hang out where all the scientists who wanted to study whales but couldn't make a living hang out and collect tax dollars...

Don't hold back. Tell us what you really think!

That is such an insulting few lines. Do you really know all the NOAA employees? You have some personal knowledge of their 'tree huggieness'?

Who do we trust? Those who profit from an activity or those that oversee and implement laws, we as a people, put into action. Just a reminder, the ESA was proposed and implemented by a noted 'left wing tree hugger', Richard Nixon.

When you write statements like that you will not be able to discuss the issue with those 'tree huggers'. You loose all chance of having any say in the decisions made.

 

[Leonard]

It saddens me that even this can be made into a left/right political debate.

 

[gone fishin]

Leonard I surmise that it is a forgone conclusion that some form of protection will be put in place, is this correct. If so then I suppose that only time will tell the end result. I think I will dust off my passport and start marking places off on my bucket list.

 

[FraggledRock]

He who talks loudest and most often is the most official entity, moral of this story children!

Welcome to POLITICS!

=P

 

[JPMagyar]

Don't hold back. Tell us what you really think!

That is such an insulting few lines. Do you really know all the NOAA employees? You have some personal knowledge of their 'tree huggieness'?

Who do we trust? Those who profit from an activity or those that oversee and implement laws, we as a people, put into action. Just a reminder, the ESA was proposed and implemented by a noted 'left wing tree hugger', Richard Nixon.

When you write statements like that you will not be able to discuss the issue with those 'tree huggers'. You loose all chance of having any say in the decisions made.

No luckily I am not friends with anyone working for the NOAA, although my niece does do contract research for them in Washington State, but regardless I can read and do so quite a lot. My guess is you and I have very little in common other than reef keeping as I do not trust government agencies anymore than I trust corporations. I believe in individuals and I believe individuals will do what's right when given the chance. I have no such confidence when it comes to bureaucracies. As for the ESA and it's origins the problem with more and more law making is that even the best intentioned laws often have "unintended consequences".

 

[FraggledRock]

No luckily I am not friends with anyone working for the NOAA, although my niece does do contract research for them in Washington State, but regardless I can read and do so quite a lot. My guess is you and I have very little in common other than reef keeping as I do not trust government agencies anymore than I trust corporations. I believe in individuals and I believe individuals will do what's right when given the chance. I have no such confidence when it comes to bureaucracies. As for the ESA and it's origins the problem with more and more law making is that even the best intentioned laws often have "unintended consequences".

Wear your seatbelts!

 

[gone fishin]

Since we are getting more political IBTL

 

[FraggledRock]

Ist ALWAYS about money ladies and gentlemen.

Someone Somewhere WILL BE MAKING MONEY FROM THESE LAWS AND BANS!

Does Nikola Tesla ring a bell? I wonder why that idea got banned?

or maybe Hemp seed for Marijuana Bans?
http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/

A little quote from marijuanas legality issues:
The actual story shows a much different picture. Those who voted on the legal fate of this plant never had the facts, but were dependent on information supplied by those who had a specific agenda to deceive lawmakers. You’ll see below that the very first federal vote to prohibit marijuana was based entirely on a documented lie on the floor of the Senate.

Sounds familiar to this story huh?

'Murka

 

[Leonard]

Leonard I surmise that it is a forgone conclusion that some form of protection will be put in place, is this correct. If so then I suppose that only time will tell the end result. I think I will dust off my passport and start marking places off on my bucket list.

No, it's not a foregone conclusion. It just seems that way because a lot of reefkeepers are buying into the FUD. Chances are, few if any of these species will warrant further protection in the foreseeable future. And we're really talking about 4-5 species that enters our hobby with any regularity. I can safely say 99% of you have not ever kept more than one of these newly listed species. Perspective has been lost and that's a big part of why I wrote my op ed.

 

[gone fishin]

Thanks, I looked through the proposed list and I know I do not have any of the listed corals.

 

[justinky]

What are your motivations for this blog and repost here? How is people speaking up for aquaculture and the ability to sustain/trade it undermining our hobby? Further on that note, why would you care? People here are not against reef conservation period.

You almost act as if you have something to gain from said ban. I don't know you but these are just my observations.

The NMFS and ESA are not attacking our hobby. You need to understand the reasons why the ESA doesn't generally grant split-listing of protected species. The first is difficulty in enforcement (with limited resources). The second is that studies have shown split-listing (two sets of rules for captive-bred and wild-collected) fuels black markets. The third is that allowing certain specimens to be traded devalues public perception of conservation efforts. This is why almost every trusted conservation group is also against split-level listing.

Now with all that said, Acropora is a whole different animal (pun intended) and it's why that I believe the NMFS should consider species-appropriate conservation measures. I'd like to see interstate/intrastate trade or size-based restrictions on trade. An Acropora is not a Black Rhino and we should look at different policies for different species.

Also split-listing does not create the black market, as soon as something is banned the black market is created. Split-listing just allows aquacultured coral to be legal to trade.

 

[hbrochs]

Data

Data

Someone please help me out with some data.

What are the current populations of the 20 coral species.

How does this compare with population density of these corals from 10, 20 and 30 years ago?

I've been reading quite a few of the referenced articles and I have yet to come across any hard facts at all. I'm all for protecting our reefs. Please just give me some factual information so that I know that these corals really are in danger.

Thanks,

Howard

 

[justinky]

Someone please help me out with some data.

What are the current populations of the 20 coral species.

How does this compare with population density of these corals from 10, 20 and 30 years ago?

I've been reading quite a few of the referenced articles and I have yet to come across any hard facts at all. I'm all for protecting our reefs. Please just give me some factual information so that I know that these corals really are in danger.

Thanks,

Howard

There is none.