Reefkeeping is NOT under attack

[Leonard]

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.

No Cuzza, they are not considering reclassification of the listing. They are trying to determine if any further conservation measure is required for the species newly listed as Threatened. This is standard procedure for any newly listed species.

We're talking about a tiny handful of corals that anyone ever sees in this hobby. This is hardly the end of the importation of corals or the hobby. The fear mongering has to stop.

I'm not upset in the least. I enjoy these discussions and believe it's one we must have. Just avoid the political and ideological slants (at least for the sake of the moderators).

 

[PIPSTER]

FWIW, I have always been in favor of a heavy import tax for wild corals which funds conservation and restoration projects.
...Just avoid the political and ideological slants (at least for the sake of the moderators).

Removed. If you have a comment, make it. BrianD

 

[Spyderturbo007]

Cuzza, The CBD's petition largely relied on IUCN's assessment of these species.

I spent about an hour going through their supposed "data" and pulled out a few of my favorite pieces of "data"

Species-specific population trend data are not available for the vast majority of coral species across their distribution ranges. Only, five species had sufficient species-specific population trend data (Hughes and Tanner 2000, Patterson et al. 2002, Sutherland et al. 2004, Koenig et al. 2005)

Specific population trends are unknown but population reduction can be inferred from declines in habitat quality based on the combined estimates of both destroyed reefs and reefs at the critical stage of degradation within its range (Wilkinson 2004).

An overall decline in population can be inferred from estimates of habitat degradation based on the estimated destruction and critical degradation of reefs within its range.

It’s limited range places it at high risk from anticipated climate-related disease outbreaks and habitat degradation in the future.

This one I especially like since I found it about 10 times:

There is no species specific population information available for this species.

The words Inferred, estimates, extrapolated, unknown, not available and anticipated run rampant in their "data" and the papers I read.

My primary job as a Chemist is method development, validation and finally accreditation of that method. If I rolled into a method validation meeting and threw around "data" like that, I would get laughed right into the unemployment line.

Their "data" and "research" is a pile of trash in my opinion. The only actual "numbers" I found were estimated percentages that were based on nothing. There is no basis for any of their claims. Not one study, statistic, or anything else to be found. All just "estimated" and "inferred" percentages.

 

[Leonard]

Coral population data unfortunately will always be heavily extrapolated. There is no method to accurately survey underwater populations with any degree of certainty. Biological assessment is nothing like chemistry. A lot of coral research is transect coral coverage surveys, sampling, and extrapolation. But I fully agree we do need more data, and I agree that the bar set is a bit too low for some of these species. Note: The majority of the original 83 petitioned corals were rejected because of insufficient or inaccurate data.

 

[alton]

Wow, this sounds like an argument over Gun control? They can have my Frogspawn when they pry it from my cold dead hands. Just joking of course.
It is great that we have passionate people in our hobby today. It would get boring if we all sounded the same. The agencies that are trying to protect the coral in the wild are not the problem, it is the Federal Judges who have become so powerful that they have the power to overrule laws, and or create their own. The following attachment is what happens when you leave it to the federal government.
http://www.petersenshunting.com/big-game/60-minutes-on-hunting-endangered-oryx-in-texas/
Now I believe some things have changed since this article came out, but this is what happens when common sense is lost, and that happens a lot today.
On a side note I did like the comment on Fluoride and wearing an aluminum hat since in many cases Fluoride is a byproduct of aluminum

 

[Bilk]

I'm as interested in conservation as the next person, but Bureaucrats always use a sledgehammer to fix something. I mean if they aren't regulating anything they aren't justifying their existence. So instead of looking at each situation as a unique entity, they make blanket decisions and let the little guy sort it out if he can. I have first hand experience with this.

During the 1980s the wetlands were the target of choice. I owned a lakefront house in northern NJ. I also owned the empty lot next to it - about 1.25 acres. A lot that was similar in size and terrain to my house lot and the developed lot on the other side. I purchased it with the intent to build in the future. Paid taxes on the lot for 10 years and then decided I would sell it as is, rather than do the development myself. I had previously done perk tests for sewage, installed septic rings and containment and tapped for a well. Most all of the land was good upland and like any lakefront property, it had wetland vegetation near the shoreline.

Well during the 1980s when wetlands were considered vulnerable to development, the EPA used satellite images and aerial photography to make determinations of wetland zones. They looked for signatures of certain types of vegetation to make their determinations without ever walking those lands.

Yes, my lakefront property fell into that category of course because of certain types of grass along the shoreline. And even though the local township had earlier given approval for lot development, the EPA stepped in and said no. It wasn't a reasonable determination, but was one made with prejudice as I would find out. The neighbor on the other side, a local judge, didn't want a house next to him and much preferred the view of my trees. He had some connection in the EPA and used it. Of course no one admitted to this, but in small localities, word gets around. In the end, a reasonable judge ruled in my favor, but that was after a few more years, more taxes paid and money spent on representation.

So in this instance and as others have intimated, there are agendas at work aside from the goal of conservation. Our voice needs to be heard as well or those who view keeping a fish or coral in a tank as cruel and inhumane, will have the only voice and give further reason to justify the actions of the Bureaucrats looking to justify their jobs and their salaries. JMO of course.

 

[PIPSTER]

-Leonard...are you for or against the wild collection of non-threatened, plentiful species, fish or coral?

 

[Leonard]

-Leonard...are you for or against the wild collection of non-threatened, plentiful species, fish or coral?

I'm heavily in favor of sustainable collection because it provides economic incentives to local communities to conserve their reefs.

 

[FraggledRock]

: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?

Also keep in mind LEONARDS ammendment of his blog post:

"For any NMFS official who may read this ...

I understand the ESA does not usually make exemptions for protected species. I even understand the merits of the "all or nothing" approach to regulation. But please consider corals, especially Acroporids (as it pertains to 50 CFR Part 223), are an unique animal, which can and has been traded en masse within the hobby via asexual propagation (AKA fragging). This technique was pioneered and refined by reefkeepers and is now in use in coral restoration projects around the world.

Please consider making an exemption for the trade of living Acroporid fragments should any of these species warrant further conservation measures. Simply implementing a size-based trade restriction (e.g. prohibiting the trade of protected Acroporid larger than 2" in diameter) would suffice to conserve species in the wild while allowing the propagation of threatened species in captivity. This type of policy is also easier to enforce than trying to differentiate similar Acropora sp. species from one another - a task that proves difficult even for scientists under laboratory conditions.

Another option is to prohibit the import of species that warrant additional protection but allow interstate trade. This type of policy would have a similar conservation effect as a no-take policy.

Acroporids are an unique animal (they are fast growing, easy to propagate, and captive-sustainable), and thus are deserving of species-appropriate policies.

Thank you for your consideration."
-LEONARD


that sound like a very serious Opinionated, Biased, Cherry picked species to keep OUT OF THE BAN...

EVERYTHING he claims to NOT be doing with his standpoint... hmmm...

 

[Leonard]

You're fighting a strawman, FraggledRock. I've never advocated an Acropora ban, and that section was not an amendment to my op-ed. It was written from the get-go.

 

[FraggledRock]

You're fighting a strawman, FraggledRock. I've never advocated an Acropora ban, and that section was not an amendment to my op-ed. It was written from the get-go.

huh?

smh

you DONT want acropora banned...

thats is what I am saying.

you cherry picked which coral to not ban...

yes, strawman indeed. carries no weight.

by amendment i refer to it as it is not supportive to the blog post, it was added for your personal gain, not in the traditional form of ammendments.

 

[PIPSTER]

No. In fact, I'm heavily in favor of sustainable collection because it provides economic incentives to local communities to conserve their reefs.

Ok, you're just kinda hard for me to figure out. No disagreement on your quote with me.

We will agree to disagree on the comment period.

I think it's appropriate for a reef hobbyist to comment to petition that if the secretary does make a ruling, they rule for collection ban at worst only. It is plainly stated on their website that they have discretion to allow domestic propagation, possession, etc., and a comment that uses rationale and logic to show allowing continuance of everything except "unsustainable" wild collection would be best for conservation, and least harmful for all parties affected.

 

[Leonard]

I'm difficult for you two to figure out because you guys are arguing strawmen based on strong personal convictions instead of what I actually wrote. Or maybe the world is binary for you guys. :shrug:

 

[PIPSTER]

I'm difficult for you two to figure out because you guys are arguing strawmen based on strong personal convictions instead of what I actually wrote. Or maybe the world is binary for you guys. :shrug:

The only thing to me that is binary is liberty vs. tyranny.

All I know is someone posts that the NOAA is considering disallowing hobbyists from owning, trading, buying certain coral, and we can comment on it to let them know we have thousands of these coral already under private domestic ownership, so no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, if they chose to ban collection. I saw a lack of comments of others, and couldn't believe nobody either was aware or didn't care. When some people, who aren't just riff-raff, started putting the pieces together and calling for more comments, you put out a blog saying we were basically overreacting. I wouldn't call putting comments on the .gov site that said we see no benefit to conservation by banning private ownership of these corals overreacting.

 

[Khemul]

I believe the point is that they don't really care about it from that angle. We can all comment that we keep them successfully as pets and there is no need to ban collection, and all it'll be is a bunch of people complaining that they want to continue keeping these things as pets. From their perspective, that is at best irrelevant to wild survival and at worst a negative point.

And if we do approach this from the angle of their being an agenda here lacking little scientific data as support, trying to argue that the proposal is unnecessary or hazardous is a bit silly. We're better off trying to nudge the proposal towards something we can work with rather then defeat it, since defeating it is essentially impossible.

 

[woodnaquanut]

The only thing to me that is binary is liberty vs. tyranny.

All I know is someone posts that the NOAA is considering disallowing hobbyists from owning, trading, buying certain coral, and we can comment on it to let them know we have thousands of these coral already under private domestic ownership, so no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, if they chose to ban collection. I saw a lack of comments of others, and couldn't believe nobody either was aware or didn't care. When some people, who aren't just riff-raff, started putting the pieces together and calling for more comments, you put out a blog saying we were basically overreacting. I wouldn't call putting comments on the .gov site that said we see no benefit to conservation by banning private ownership of these corals overreacting.

Binary, how about 1 and 0?

There is no such thing as absolute liberty (binary). As I stated in other posts we limit our liberty all the time. We as individuals do not get to do anything we want. Speed limits, drinking age limits, etc, etc, etc.

The fact that you want to give NOAA a piece of your mind does not matter in the least to NOAA. Read the guidelines for submitting comments. Since you and I have no informed opinion about the condition of, or survivability of the species in question, our comments will just be tossed out. It's like telling a judge all the reasons I ran a red light. The judge doesn't care. I ran the red light and have to pay the fine.

All your wanting the rules to be different doesn't make the rules change. There is a political process to change rules, but this is very far from it.

 

[Leonard]

FWIW, I wrote a follow-up op-ed:
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/blo...he-esa-process-and-actually-make-a-difference

 

[hbrochs]

Op Ed

Op Ed

I like your second Op Ed much better than your first one, and I just contributed to PIJAC. I understand what types of comments that they are looking for. I just don't see why its inappropriate to question the premise?

When the Rhinoceros was placed on the endangered species list, scientist photographed herds and made population counts. The decision was made based on hard data. There is no hard data here, and there is no talk of making efforts to gather data. These decisions are being made by extrapolations, and I have a problem with that. This really does appear to be a political process more than a science driven process. There is no telling where this will stop when agencies make sweeping changes without supporting data.

 

[Leonard]

You can not do population counts for corals. It's simply impossible. Sea life assessment has always been extrapolation based on surveys and transect sampling. Based on current data (limited as they may be and largely based on IUCN surveys), the NMFS found that these twenty corals warrant their current listing. I don't agree with most of the findings, but to suggest that it's political is wrong. I agree we need a lot more data for better extrapolation, which is what I dedicated my final paragraph to.

FWIW, no sweeping policy changes have been made on any reef life. So far, it's "business as usual" for everything. Still, I agree with you that it sets a dangerous precedent to implement any conservation policy based on insufficient data. If nothing else, I think this modus operandi undermines the ESA for all other species it serves to protect.

 

[CuzzA]

I can't disagree with much of what you've said in the follow up article. Perhaps "we" just want to make it abundantly clear that these species are doing just fine within our hobby through aquaculture and that is the area we are most concerned about. You must admit Leonard, it's an unusual circumstance that at least one of these species has a high probability of being in our tanks, yet at the same time is part of the ESA. I never thought I would own a possible ES.

I will add however, #7 of what they are soliciting comments for does state the economic impact, so from a LFS, Aquaculture facility or similar standpoint, those individuals could provide more persuasion to meeting our aquaculture exemption demands.

Finally, I totally agree more needs to be done to bring our hobby together. Especially from a public image standpoint. I don't know how much red tape there is for putting together reef restoration, but I would love nothing more than some of my frags going back into the ocean.