Reefkeeping is NOT under attack

[JPMagyar]

While I am generally skeptical of this process, I'm not sure that the accusation of a fishing industry representative, Mr. McKeon, characterizing Dr. Lubchenco as "turning a blind eye" to an OIG investigation in 2010 indicts the methods and motivations of NMFS in this specific issue dear to us or the methods and motivations of the entire NOAA agency.

No I agree. But, it's one piece of the puzzle.

 

[joshky]

I'm all about the conservation of our oceans reefs, all of my stony coral, and even a lot of my softies are either maricultured or aquacultured. That being said, this is what truly has me worried.

Similarity of Appearance Provisions of the Endangered Species Act

This Subpart of the ESA regulations allows for species that are not Endangered or Threatened but closely resemble an Endangered or Threatened species to be designated as "de facto" Endangered or Threatened species if the director of the USFWS or NMFS determines the listing is necessary

How long, and how closely do you really think they will have people looking at these shipments? I don't even have to mention the added stress it will cause, bound to be a higher death rate for shipping due to inspections.

Is this not a concern?

I'm sure I'm just being another selfish-minded, crazed-aquarist with entitlement issues.

 

[alin2]

I almost forgot to mention the process by which the 20 corals were selected. How would the average layman guess a species is deemed to be threatened? Most likely you would think scientists would count the animals and then make a decision based on the facts. Well that's not how the NOAA works. First they took the "extrapolated" data from a half dozen scientists, and they asked 70 other "scientists" to vote on the data provided by the original half dozen. The vote was "What do you think is the probability of this coral becoming extinct by 2100" and if a coral got enough votes it was listed as "threatened". So votes by people who read papers about double extrapolated data not actual eyeball surveys were the determining factor for "threatened" or not.

Yeah, that's "science".

To push back a bit, many fields of science, especially when public policy is at stake, rely on "expert opinion."

For instance, many medical treatments and recommendations are made on imperfect clinical science and can be, at times, based on "best opinions" by leading experts within that particular medical field. Sometimes that "expert opinion" ends up being wrong upon further study, but that is the nature of incremental progress.

Who better to make judgements on coral survival than scientists studying coral and reef biology in the face of imperfect or incomplete data?

Should we only wait for "perfect data" before making policy decisions?

Who is to judge when data becomes adequate? Surveys of one coral reef, 2? 5? 10? All pacific reefs?

 

[mussel and hate]

Well, that went downhill fast.

You guys are misinformed by all the FUD. No one is going to come and confiscate your corals. In fact, it will not be illegal to own any of these species in your current possession. Ex post facto laws prevent this, and all new ESA prohibitions explicitly have ex post facto written into the language. You simply can't trade them anymore.

So I can't trade my property anymore and thats ok? Even though I fragged it from a frag from a local aquarist who had it for over 25 years. Well then I totally misread the intention of this proposed legislation. It's not like they're going to infringe my property rights for no benefit of wild reefs after all...

 

[JPMagyar]

Who better to make judgements on coral survival than scientists studying coral . . . . ?

That is the fact that is most important. The decision was not made by scientists studying coral. It was made by 70 scientists of varying backgrounds, and even if it was made by Wilkinson himself there are biases involved that I may or may not agree with. Wilkinson believes in Global Warming caused by man, I do not. Therefore I would not necessarily draw the same conclusions when presented with identical data. Am I less intelligent than Wilkinson? I would argue not. Can I interpret data as well as he can interpret data? Yes, I believe I can. Will we come to the same conclusion when presented with the same data? No, not necessarily.

This issue is political not scientific. Science is "provable" and irrefutable. I can predict and measure the flight of a cannon ball. I can not measure and predict the future of Euphyllia Paravisa.

 

[alin2]

This issue is political not scientific. Science is "provable" and irrefutable. I can predict and measure the flight of a cannon ball. I can not measure and predict the future of Euphyllia Paravisa.

I agree that this policy decision will be political. But, I would argue that almost ALL policy decisions are, in the end, "political."

My point is that even when policy decisions are made on best knowledge available, future knowledge may prove that policy decision wrong. That fact doesn't obviate the need to have to make policy decisions in real time.

Maybe I'm getting too philosophical about this...

 

[alin2]

Science is "provable" and irrefutable.

Ah...as a scientist...this is really not true.

You need to read Michael Polanyi.

 

[JPMagyar]

But then it becomes an issue of bias .

 

[JPMagyar]

Ah...as a scientist...this is really not true.

You need to read Michael Polanyi.

Now you are arguing semantics.

 

[alin2]

But then it becomes an issue of bias .

Of course it does. As it has been since humanity organized itself into communities.

Do you really think that public policy can only be made when we know "THE TRUTH?"

And, even when we KNOW certain things such as the efficacy of childhood immunizations and the complete refutation of a link between autism and vaccines, if the US government MANDATED childhood vaccines (which would be public policy based upon best scientific knowledge), there would be a sizable segment of the population that would balk. Some would balk on POLITICAL reasons. Some folks just can't be convinced despite all the data available and would point to "science" that casts doubt.

 

[alin2]

Now you are arguing semantics.

Not really.

I'm not discussing the "meaning" of science, but rather epistemology.

That said, I DO think you would be intrigued by Polanyi...

 

[Leonard]

Joe, your position is essentially that since scientists get it wrong and people are flawed/biased, it's all invalid. And until we have complete knowledge, we can't act.

Suffice it to say that I disagree.

It may surprise you that I'm not in total agreement with NMFS' data assessment. A lot of data is insufficient and extrapolated, and you know my stance on extrapolation My personal belief is that a higher bar must be set by the NMFS to warrant additional protective measures. However, I am all for Threatened listing because, as Rich Ross says, it gives "some more teeth into the battle to fight the major problems facing ocean animals." The point of my op-ed isn't to say I agree with NMFS' decision. I simply respect what they do and to some degree defer to their decision-making as they process much more data and have more experience than I do. I also wish aquarists would stop perceiving them as the enemy. I also want aquarists to better understand who they are and their process, hence all my reading links.

BTW, I don't know what you're referring to when you say you've attacked me for placing corals instead of growing them from frags

 

[Leonard]

I'm all about the conservation of our oceans reefs, all of my stony coral, and even a lot of my softies are either maricultured or aquacultured. That being said, this is what truly has me worried.



How long, and how closely do you really think they will have people looking at these shipments? I don't even have to mention the added stress it will cause, bound to be a higher death rate for shipping due to inspections.

Is this not a concern?

I'm sure I'm just being another selfish-minded, crazed-aquarist with entitlement issues.

It's a reasonable concern, but the USFWS does not have the resources to inspect the vast majority of shipments. USFWS seizures and inspections is going to account for very little of the enforcement. A lot of USDOJ's ESA/Lacey Act prosecutions originate from undercover operations. Unfortunately I've written about too many such USDOJ prosecutions related to reef smuggling in the past year

It's important to note that the MACNA "round table" was purely industry representatives and PIJAC. It was as biased a discussion as you could get.

 

[Leonard]

My understanding is the Hawaiian reefs are some of the best managed reefs in the world with constant monitoring of sustainability. Yet they still want a ban. Why?

You are confusing West Hawaii's local Council with NMFS/NOAA. It is a completely different issue with different players involved, and I agree the attacks on our hobby in West Hawaii are attacks ... and bogus. The whole assault is championed by Rene and Bob, as I briefly talked about in my my op-ed.

Unfortunately, and the same goes for the proposed rule, I'm affraid many people are having trouble comprehending the fact that there are motivated people who do not believe any animal should be kept in captivity. Especially ornamental marine animals. Therefore they will do anything in their power to try to put an end to it. This was a calculated approach at banning the coral trade and it is working as planned. They've made it this far with conjecture and no science to back up their claims. The process for which they determined this whole mess is so far removed from science it's silly.

Can you support this assertion?

I agree comments need to be intelligent, pointed, well written and individuals should refrain from any derogatory remarks, but also keep in mind, while we may be making our claims in the comments on this, there is another side who are pushing everyone to make comments for a ban. You can bet this is being shared on social media to provoke "anyone" to comment for the passage of the rule. Are they ignoring these comments too? Even if they don't provide any science. I have to disagree with this article. I've seen this first hand in court where parties have just sat there silent, by the advice of their council, and then the ruling came down and of course then they wanted to be vocal and the judge looks at them and says with a smile, "well you should have said something when you had the chance." Just because you don't have exact data to add to your comment does not mean someone should refrain from making a comment and sharing their thoughts.

Furthermore, being that this whole mess started based on opinion and "comments" who's to say how they're going to use the information... Tally up who is for and against? Or have they already made up their mind and they're just following the rules requiring a public comment period knowing full well what they intend on doing?

This process was not based on anecdotal opinion. It's based on the opinion of experts/scientists based on what data is available (mostly based on IUCN assessment). I agree some of the data is insufficient, and some is outdated. But it certainly wasn't a popularity contest. The current public comment period is also not a popularity contest. The problem is hobbyist are treating it like a town hall, and it's not helping our position. If you don't have an informed opinion, you definitely should NOT comment. Again, please understand what this process is. It's not your personal soapbox.

I said this on asylumdown's thread, I am 100% for protecting our oceans and environment. But, the marine hobby is a drop in the ocean compared to the real threats our reefs face. Like pollution and when that 200 foot freighter smashes a few hundred yards of reef every year. If you showed me science that revealed we are hurting our reefs then by all means ban the importation of the species in jeopardy. But also keep in mind, we are the worlds coral seed bank. If it came down to it and the government was willing to orchestrate collective reef restoration, WE would be the ones they would call on.

You are right. We are a tiny player in this multistakeholder process. It would make no sense for the NMFS to make policy primarily to target our hobby. Too many reefkeepers are failing to see the bigger picture. This process is not only about us. It's actually mostly not about us.

 

[CuzzA]

You are confusing West Hawaii's local Council with NMFS/NOAA. It is a completely different issue with different players involved, and I agree the attacks on our hobby in West Hawaii are attacks ... and bogus. The whole assault is championed by Rene and Bob, as I briefly talked about in my my op-ed.

I'm not confusing the two. I know the difference, my point is there is no doubt there are people who believe our hobby should not exist, regardless of the benefits it actually provides to the reefs through science and exponential growth of the species.


Can you support this assertion?

Absolutely. Lets just go straight to the source. http://www.biologicaldiversity.org Have a look around their site... I mean really look around and read some of the bs. Read all the battles they are waging against humanity. I would almost venture to say that they hate humans and everything we do. This group of like minded attorneys are absolutely politically motivated. Have a look at their staff. Tell me who the expert is that collected the data on the distribution of said species around the world and in addition found that the species was declining. I guarantee you won't find it because it doesn't exist. They are no different than Rene and Bob. The fact that the NOAA is seriously considering this rule is extremely troubling.

This process was not based on anecdotal opinion. It's based on the opinion of experts/scientists based on what data is available (mostly based on IUCN assessment). I agree some of the data is insufficient, and some is outdated. But it certainly wasn't a popularity contest.

I'm sorry but it was opinion. If you want to determine the threat to a species you first determine their population at a certain point in time. Then you do it again over a period of time to determine if the species is in fact declining. Show me this data.

Furthermore, I just read this month 2 new reefs were recently discovered. One down here in Florida. We don't even know where all the reefs are around the world. Perhaps these species are thriving around the world. We simply don't know. Also, not every reef is suffering. I've read reports there are reefs in Jamaica growing out of control, literally growing out of the water

The current public comment period is also not a popularity contest. The problem is hobbyist are treating it like a town hall, and it's not helping our position. If you don't have an informed opinion, you definitely should NOT comment. Again, please understand what this process is. It's not your personal soapbox.

You are right. We are a tiny player in this multistakeholder process. It would make no sense for the NMFS to make policy primarily to target our hobby. Too many reefkeepers are failing to see the bigger picture. This process is not only about us. It's actually mostly not about us.

I'm going to lump your two latter points together because I believe they are related.

It is absolutely about us! Our industry/hobby will be directly effected. In fact we will be the ONLY ones effected. Like I said, our comments need to be intelligent and provide good arguments against the unscientific rule, but they absolutely need to be made. When I read your article, it made me feel if I don't have any direct evidence or data then I should just be quiet. I completely disagree. We need to voice all of the wonderful things our hobby does for the reefs. I think Julian Sprungs MACNA speech really says it all. We have a public image problem, because 99% of us are for protecting truly endangered species and we truly care about our inhabitants.

Let me add that you are naive to believe there won't be enforcement of possessing/trading/selling these species. I can't tell you what the fine would be for possession, but these agencies are always looking for new revenue sources. Don't put it past the government for one second. We've had our issues down here in Florida with Fish and Wildlife targeting individuals for selling frags. Trust me, they would love another revenue source.

In addition, there is not going to be an exemption for aquaculture. It could be done this way under threatened status, but once it becomes endangered status that's it. Done and over. And as it's been mentioned, IDing these corals will basically put an end to the coral trade. Fortunately, IDing can also be a good defense for anyone who unfortunately finds the government charging them with dealing in endangered species.

I hate to say it, but sadly my intuition tells me the decision has already been made and the public comment is just following the rules.

 

[CuzzA]

I mean come on. Really?

Center for Biological Diversity:
http://action.biologicaldiversity.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=15751

Reality:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tic-Polar-bears-defy-concerns-extinction.html

Here's some more for you. Some of their statements and claims are outrageous. Basically every living thing on Earth is assumed dead.
https://www.facebook.com/CenterforBioDiv

Human population a problem. All of the oceans creature will be extinct. Enviroment is more important than protecting the border. I bet they wouldn't say that if a terrorist was slicing one of their family members throats in front of them. Well maybe they would... Population control. Oh, I could go on and on. SMH.

 

[joshky]

It's a reasonable concern, but the USFWS does not have the resources to inspect the vast majority of shipments. USFWS seizures and inspections is going to account for very little of the enforcement. A lot of USDOJ's ESA/Lacey Act prosecutions originate from undercover operations. Unfortunately I've written about too many such USDOJ prosecutions related to reef smuggling in the past year

It's important to note that the MACNA "round table" was purely industry representatives and PIJAC. It was as biased a discussion as you could get.

I'll have to go back and read some, thanks.

And I don't disagree that they are bias, but I believe the only people who will fight for our rights will be bias. Who in their right mind would waste a minute of sleep over us? I know I wouldn't if I was on the outside looking in. I fully support PIJAC and what they do, they are what we need to move forward.

 

[CuzzA]

Our government is huge and growing. Hell, they passed Obamacare and with the flick of a pen hired 100's of more IRS Obamacare enforcers. Don't forget our politicians don't give a crap about budgets, deficits and the national debt. I'm not trying to make this political, but it's the truth. So while the USFWS may not have the resources today, they'll lobby for more funding to hire more people. They'll argue that these people will pay for themselves through fines. And let's not forget there are a lot more agencies inspecting what comes in other than than just the USFWS. You have the NOAA, NMFS, EPA, FDA, USDA, ICE, DOA, and State FW. Obviously it's not, for example, the FDA's job to inspect coral imports, but they're there at the port and if they come across something you can bet they'll be on the horn calling Tom Dick and Harry at the USFWS, NMFS, and NOAA to take a look. It is crazy to believe that our government will pass a law and then turn right around and not enforce it.

 

[PIPSTER]

I think CuzzA basically laid out all the needed response there for me.

I hate having to do this, but when I get accused of being a tin-foil hat nut, or whatever, I will respond to clarify my stance because really we're just here to learn and progress with our reefing hobby. (Right?) And I don't want any of this to become personal where we are afraid of asking each other hobby-related questions that this forum is really here for.

So, about people as humans. I hate slavery. Who cares what the slave owners excuse for keeping slaves was, they deemed them as animals and mostly treated them as such, and it took shedding of blood and loss of precious lives to resolve the problem, not just "consensus". People are NOT animals, they are living souls. Animals have zero rights, we just choose to treat them one way or another. I keep chickens for hobby, and eggs. Any time I feel like it, I can go in my backyard, grab one, slit it's throat, bleed it out, pluck it, gut it, throw it in the deep fryer for dinner...it's my property. I am a responsible person, who has feelings, so don't worry about me becoming an animal torturer or something crazy, I'm not cruel.

Fluoride? I could care less if the city adds it to the water supply. I know all that matters is the concentration level. It has its benefits.

I don't wear a tin-foil hat, subscribe to conspiracy theories, or think there's an illuminati or whatever.
I do know there is, as CuzzA so eloquently stated, a huge move my radical environmentalists to make humans no more than brute animals, and give animals some kind of god-like rights. For instance, farmers in SoCal have been unable for several years now to have crops because the water was shut off to "save" an "endangered" little fish. Pathetic excuse. Now the fish have less water area to grow and breed. Real smart move. And there is a ruling class of political people who love to push tyranny. Read what Abraham Lincoln said about liberty and tyranny.

Leonard, you have to realize you are coming across as either defeatist, or on the side of prohibiting possession and what I would call domestic (non-wild collected) trade. I understand the point you are trying to make is that the comments are only for people to input "verifiable" info for or against making the species equate to the restrictions the endangered category has for these "threatened" species, but how are we supposed to come up with that data within a 1-2 month comment period? Especially when the proposers data is such a joke? It is probably a given that the rule will pass, but we've got to voice our opposition about the "domestic bans" part of the rule. The secretary of Commerce does have the ability to make the designation fall under just wild collection, and still allow domestic possession and trade, so WHY NOT BRING THAT UP IN THE COMMENTS? It can and should be done respectfully and articulately. I don't have any agenda against you, I'm not going to make silly comments about what you keep in your tank, as I think that is your personal private property and none of my business. I wish others would think the same of each other.

My beef with anybody, whether NOAA, ESA, etc., is unconstitutionally making any domestic growers, traders, sellers, owners guilty, when they haven't done any wrong. Once again, it is about private property OWNERSHIP, which is about liberty vs. tyranny...not some conspiracy theory.

 

[FraggledRock]

I think CuzzA basically laid out all the needed response there for me.

I hate having to do this, but when I get accused of being a tin-foil hat nut, or whatever, I will respond to clarify my stance because really we're just here to learn and progress with our reefing hobby. (Right?) And I don't want any of this to become personal where we are afraid of asking each other hobby-related questions that this forum is really here for.

So, about people as humans. I hate slavery. Who cares what the slave owners excuse for keeping slaves was, they deemed them as animals and mostly treated them as such, and it took shedding of blood and loss of precious lives to resolve the problem, not just "consensus". People are NOT animals, they are living souls. Animals have zero rights, we just choose to treat them one way or another. I keep chickens for hobby, and eggs. Any time I feel like it, I can go in my backyard, grab one, slit it's throat, bleed it out, pluck it, gut it, throw it in the deep fryer for dinner...it's my property. I am a responsible person, who has feelings, so don't worry about me becoming an animal torturer or something crazy, I'm not cruel.

Fluoride? I could care less if the city adds it to the water supply. I know all that matters is the concentration level. It has its benefits.

I don't wear a tin-foil hat, subscribe to conspiracy theories, or think there's an illuminati or whatever.
I do know there is, as CuzzA so eloquently stated, a huge move my radical environmentalists to make humans no more than brute animals, and give animals some kind of god-like rights. For instance, farmers in SoCal have been unable for several years now to have crops because the water was shut off to "save" an "endangered" little fish. Pathetic excuse. Now the fish have less water area to grow and breed. Real smart move. And there is a ruling class of political people who love to push tyranny. Read what Abraham Lincoln said about liberty and tyranny.

Leonard, you have to realize you are coming across as either defeatist, or on the side of prohibiting possession and what I would call domestic (non-wild collected) trade. I understand the point you are trying to make is that the comments are only for people to input "verifiable" info for or against making the species equate to the restrictions the endangered category has for these "threatened" species, but how are we supposed to come up with that data within a 1-2 month comment period? Especially when the proposers data is such a joke? It is probably a given that the rule will pass, but we've got to voice our opposition about the "domestic bans" part of the rule. The secretary of Commerce does have the ability to make the designation fall under just wild collection, and still allow domestic possession and trade, so WHY NOT BRING THAT UP IN THE COMMENTS? It can and should be done respectfully and articulately. I don't have any agenda against you, I'm not going to make silly comments about what you keep in your tank, as I think that is your personal private property and none of my business. I wish others would think the same of each other.

My beef with anybody, whether NOAA, ESA, etc., is unconstitutionally making any domestic growers, traders, sellers, owners guilty, when they haven't done any wrong. Once again, it is about private property OWNERSHIP, which is about liberty vs. tyranny...not some conspiracy theory.