Reefkeeping is NOT under attack

[justinky]

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.

It's sad to say, but in this day and age the way the media demonizes the constitution, if you believe in it they basically make you out to be a conspiracy theorist, extremist and even a terrorist according to the DHS.

 

[Leonard]

I'd like to ask that we try our best to steer clear of political rhetoric. The last few responses have all been very politically and ideologically charged, and I will play no part in it.

 

[FraggledRock]

It would be interesting. Would someone like to review the comment I left on this thread?
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2474457

Things get that much more interesting..

 

[Bilk]

The end results may be similar the to Gibson Guitar raids. Heavy-handed tactics are the norm at this point in time. Read the news.

 

[CuzzA]

Reefkeeping is NOT under attack

I'd like to ask that we try our best to steer clear of political rhetoric. The last few responses have all been very politically and ideologically charged, and I will play no part in it.

Yes, but they have there place in the conversation. And much of what the CBD asserts as fact is nothing more than rhetoric.

Leonard, show me the real scientific data where these coral species are in fact declining. One of my LFS's recently posted videos of forests of Euphillia growing crazy in Japanese shipping channels. I can't tell you the exact species, but they're thriving. Last year we discovered corals are growing in Miami right smack on filthy ports. Some of the proposed species are deep water corals which makes determining their distribution and number extremely difficult. Did anyone evaluate these sites?

The whole process by which we came to where we're at today discussing this is my problem. If the NOAA and the NMFS is to have any credibility when it comes to determining whether an animal is threatened or endangered they damn well better use every resource to collect and evaluate true data.

If say for example, the CBD, NOAA, NMFS et al. conducted research on a number of reefs and sampled DNA for correct identification and determined that there were X amount of this species distributed throughout the world in a specific year, say 2010 for example. And then repeated that process over Y amount of years and came to the conclusion that the evaluated species is in fact declining. We had X number of corals and now there's only Z. I think 99% of hobbyist would absolutely be FOR that species to be listed on the ESA (With an exemption for permitted mari/aquaculture facilities to be the only commercial distributors within the US territory, while also exempting the average hobbyist from trade, as they simple don't have the means or access to obtain wild species). But unfortunately that is not what has happened. And that's why there is so much push back.

Also, some would argue, well it's better to just side error on the side of caution. No. There are 10's of thousands of families who rely on this hobby to feed their families. They will be directly effected so the NOAA and NMFS better be damn sure they are right.

In my opinion, the NOAA/NMFS should halt any decision on this rule and request the proper scientific data. Then revisit the issue.

 

[CuzzA]

I'll also add that by banning one species it will put even greater pressure on another. If we can't keep X coral then we'll just buy Y. It will no doubt be a domino effect.

 

[HiFidelity]

haha we're talking about a proposed LAW, brought forth by a GOVERNMENT agency paid for by TAX dollars but we shouldn't let our conversation be "political"

riiiight, I suppose next time my dog gets sick I'm taking him to the plumber for repairs

If this country spent its resources on science and research BEFORE legal, legislative and political dog fights we'd have a heavenly society. oooops, that was a political comment wasn't it?

 

[Leonard]

Cuzza, The CBD's petition largely relied on IUCN's assessment of these species. You seem to enjoy "poison the well" arguments, but I hope you don't believe the IUCN is politically or financially motivated.

I provided links to both the petitioned data and NMFS' published findings earlier in this thread. I agree we need more data and I even agree that a higher bar must be set to enact additional conservation measures. I also agree that some of the data may need updating and review. But I strongly disagree that the NMFS is politically or ideologically motivated. They do take into account every data that people submit. If you or anyone had data to contest the petition claims, you should have submitted it during NMFS' multiple public comment periods. Realize that the data submitted by PIJAC significantly affected the outcome of NMFS' decision.

Your response reminds me of someone who argues that if it's snowing in their backyard, climate change can't be real (note: I'm not taking a position on climate change, only that this line of reasoning is a logical fallacy). Arguments about local financial impact is also a red herring. I understand and sympathize with economic concerns, but it is immaterial to a discussion about species conservation. We don't chose to conserve species only if no one's pockets gets lighter.

 

[PIPSTER]

Your response reminds me of someone who argues that if it's snowing in their backyard, climate change can't be real. I understand and sympathize with economic concerns, but it is immaterial to a discussion about species conservation.

:worried:

From Alinsky's rules for radicals... RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

Subject matter at hand: Whether a potential ruling by the secretary of commerce could result in guilt of criminal lawbreaking by very innocent hobbyists for possession, trade, domestic propagation, ...etc, and if so, how we can include comment that our hobby does not infringe upon, but rather contributes to the conservation of said species in an effort to limit their proposed ruling to just wild collection bans.

Your response: Hobbyists are not scientists, so they have no business commenting without "scientific proof" that the proposed ruling could actually decimate conservation if ban is extended to domestic propagation, trade, possession, etc.
You equate domestic propagation, trade, possession, etc. to economic concerns, but disregard the fact that it contributes, better than a ban on wild collection, to conservation.

Which is it? Does domestic propagation, trade, possession, etc. contribute to conservation, or is it just selfish "economics" that are irrelevant to the proposal?

 

[CuzzA]

Look. I don't think my points are way off base. The data needs to be new. Things change, especially in the ocean.

Here's another way to look at this and I would be all for it. There once was a major problem with overfishing of wild clams. Not only are they an ornamental aquarium animal but they also feed millions of people every year. Including the collectors villages and families. The solution was so simple and it didn't even require a scientist. Setup mariculture clam farms. Sell the ugly ones for food and the pretty ones to the marine aquarium trade. Now it's a completely sustainable industry and everyone is happy. The farmers feed their family and make a living. We get to dine on some delicious clams in a creamy buttery garlic sauce and the hobbyists have remarkably beautiful clams thriving in their living room. Brilliant. Wild clams are no longer threatened. But no one would waste the time collecting them when they're sitting there easily accessible at the farm.

Again, this whole approach is wrong. We are so much more capable of solving problems. Do what I mentioned above with proposed species and no one cares if these species are listed on the ESA. Everyone is happy.

 

[Leonard]

You equate domestic propagation, trade, possession, etc. to economic concerns, but disregard the fact that it contributes, better than a ban on wild collection, to conservation.

Which is it? Does domestic propagation, trade, possession, etc. contribute to conservation, or is it just selfish "economics" that are irrelevant to the proposal?

Domestic propagation does not contribute anything to wild conservation.

 

[PIPSTER]

Domestic propagation does not contribute anything to wild conservation.

OMG!!! :rolleye1: read the post before your's by CuzzA
All credibility is just gone, gone with the wind.

 

[Leonard]

Look. I don't think my points are way off base. The data needs to be new. Things change, especially in the ocean.

Here's another way to look at this and I would be all for it. There once was a major problem with overfishing of wild clams. Not only are they an ornamental aquarium animal but they also feed millions of people every year. Including the collectors villages and families. The solution was so simple and it didn't even require a scientist. Setup mariculture clam farms. Sell the ugly ones for food and the pretty ones to the marine aquarium trade. Now it's a completely sustainable industry and everyone is happy. The farmers feed their family and make a living. We get to dine on some delicious clams in a creamy buttery garlic sauce and the hobbyists have remarkably beautiful clams thriving in their living room. Brilliant. Wild clams are no longer threatened. But no one would waste the time collecting them when they're sitting there easily accessible at the farm.

Again, this whole approach is wrong. We are so much more capable of solving problems. Do what I mentioned above with proposed species and no one cares if these species are listed on the ESA. Everyone is happy.

I am all for aquaculture and mariculture. If any of these species warrant additional protection, I advocate split-listing Acroporids (Read the last section of my op-ed). This is entirely within the purvey of the NMFS for Threatened species.

FYI: Tridacna maxima and crocea were never threatened.

 

[hbrochs]

Domestic propagation

Domestic propagation

Domestic propagation should ease demand for wild collection.

Domestically cultivated corals could eliminate the demand for wild corals.

 

[Leonard]

OMG!!! :rolleye1: read the post before your's by CuzzA
All credibility is just gone, gone with the wind.

We create a demand and then partially supply our demand with propagation. How is this a net benefit for wild conservation?

 

[Leonard]

Domestic propagation should ease demand for wild collection.

Domestically cultivated corals could eliminate the demand for wild corals.

Nice in theory, not remotely true in practice.

The best we can do is curb some of our own pressures on wild stock. For example: We breed clownfish like rabbits these days, yet clownfish are one of the top five collected species.

 

[justinky]

Nice in theory, not remotely true in practice.

The best we can do is curb some of our own pressures on wild stock. For example: We breed clownfish like rabbits these days, yet clownfish are one of the top five collected species.

Which is weird because here in the states most people I know get aquacultured clowns. Only the hardcore clownfish/anemone enthusiasts go after wild caught for special color patterns only found in certain locations. Percula for instance is found in many reefs but only in reefs where S. Gigantea live you will find the wild onyx clownfish as it has to do with the anemone/clownfish relationship. In other locations or even the same where clownfish are being hosted by H Magnifica you will see the light orange/orange Percula specimen.

Do you have documentation backing that most those clownfish are being sold in the states? Or are they going elsewhere and we are getting the blame.

 

[Leonard]

Which is weird because here in the states most people I know get aquacultured clowns. Only the hardcore clownfish/anemone enthusiasts go after wild caught for special color patterns only found in certain locations. Percula for instance is found in many reefs but only in reefs where S. Gigantea live you will find the wild onyx clownfish as it has to do with the anemone/clownfish relationship. In other locations or even the same where clownfish are being hosted by H Magnifica you will see the light orange/orange Percula specimen.

It's a matter of dollars too. Wild caught as it currently stands is often cheaper. This is especially true of corals. $50 for a 1" fragment or $80 for a 6" colony? It's never been a fair fight in the marketplace.

FWIW, I have always been in favor of a heavy import tax for wild corals which funds conservation and restoration projects.

 

[CuzzA]

This is entirely within the purvey of the NMFS for Threatened species.

Your twisting this. They're already listed as threatened. The issue is all about listing them as endangered. That changes everything. There is no exception. None. Nil. Nada. NO TAKE/POSSESSION/TRADE/SALE. No different than owning a polar bear.

And now we're circling the wagon again because it comes back to differentiating between species. If the NOAA and NMFS can't ID a shipment it's going to sit at the port and die. The wholesaler just lost a ton of money and isn't going to take that risk again. And there you have it. The end to importation of corals.

Leonard, I hope you're not getting upset by the responses. People who agree with you are less likely to voice a similar opinion. Those who see it differently are no doubt going to speak up.

 

[justinky]

It's a matter of dollars too. Wild caught as it currently stands is often cheaper. This is especially true of corals. $50 for a 1" fragment or $80 for a 6" colony? It's never been a fair fight in the marketplace.

FWIW, I have always been in favor of a heavy import tax for wild corals which funds conservation and restoration projects.

If they allowed aquaculture coral but banned importation of wild. I could see huge aquaculture farms over time bringing the prices to a more acceptable range for larger colonies. It just depends on supply/demand.