Reefkeeping is NOT under attack

[hart24601]

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

I am happy to see this version! I was pretty harsh in my criticism of the other one, which was only because I see AA as a leader for the hobby and many people look up to the site and its authors, including me, and I thought that was the wrong message to send and was insulting to us, although the base message was, as always, valid.

I didn't comment on the proposed regulations page, and I will not since I don't really have anything of value to add they can't get from googling.

 

[Leonard]

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 don't find it weird at all. All industries have been known to exploit natural resources to the brink (or sometimes past the point) of extinction. Our hobby is no less guilty of this. Bangaii cardinals, for example, are endangered but we aggressively harvest them ... even though they're easily captive bred. Let's make no pretenses that our hobby is noble.

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.

Sure. And if you have an informed opinion on the economic impact by a proposed policy, submit it. They'll consider it, but it will not weigh too heavily in their decision making process in and of itself. It's tantamount to anyone asking to delist Bald Eagles because feather dealers are economically harmed by trade prohibitions.

 

[CuzzA]

I don't find it weird at all. All industries have been known to exploit natural resources to the brink (or sometimes past the point) of extinction. Our hobby is no less guilty of this. Bangaii cardinals, for example, are endangered but we aggressively harvest them ... even though they're easily captive bred. Let's make no pretenses that our hobby is noble.

Sure. And if you have an informed opinion on the economic impact by a proposed policy, submit it. They'll consider it, but it will not weigh too heavily in their decision making process in and of itself. It's tantamount to anyone asking to delist Bald Eagles because feather dealers are economically harmed by trade prohibitions.

Yes and no to your "noble" point. I think the mature and educated hobbyist cares very much about collection, handling, etc. and of them, most will pay the extra money for aquaculture, Aussie or Hawaiian species and will try to avoid some Indo collected species. Personally I waited a month before purchasing my captive bred Bangaii and other inhabitants. More pressure needs to be put on the average hobbyist to only buy aquaculture when possible. I'm ok with the tang police and likewise would be ok with the aquaculture police. If no one is willing to buy the wild Bangaii, no one will collect it. Of course the problem is we have zero control over collection and only government can regulate sustainable proper collection through fines and jail. Feathers from a Bald Eagle is poor example as we know the exponential growth and distribution of corals through fragging.

As far as finding it weird, I disagree. How many people own Bald Eagles, Polar Bears or Manatees? How many people own one of the proposed coral species? It's unprecedented and a big difference. Not to mention, if "for example" they did rule and enforce "no take and full protection" for the proposed species, technically it would then become illegal for us to continue the distribution and growth of the species, much different than a Bald Eagle as no one is actively breeding and distributing them.

But to each his own. Like I said, I don't disagree with the follow up article. We'll have to see what they do. I've enjoyed the conversation as it's an important one to keep front and center regardless how they rule.

 

[JPMagyar]

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 you got it wrong again.

I am arguing that the science is bogus and this entire endeavor is political. Did you read my posts? Respond to the methodology. You don't have to be a scientist to see that using mathematical formulas based on prior surveys of entire reefs and extrapolating that data to a single species is absolutely ludicrous. Just because someone has a "masters" or a "doctorate" does not make them honest or correct. I know a ton of "scientists" that graduated from my local community college and sport a PH. D. by their name, but I wouldn't trust a single word from their mouth. Scientists don't get "ratings" so how can you tell the good from the bad? You have to use common sense, and in this case common sense tells you the science of the NOAA is baloney, and everyone should be yelling from the highest mountain top that this threatened species ruling is silly.

 

[OrQidz]

JP, I don't think you can obtain a doctorate degree from a community college...but I suppose that's beside the point. I would argue that scientists do get "ratings" in the sense that they are measured by years of experience, published, peer reviewed literature, whether anyone can replicate their results, whether they have been found to have lied about data, etc. They certainly aren't perfect, or always right. But better than a random guess.

I shudder to think that "you can't tell good from bad science so just use common sense" is what people are thinking these days. Yes, question things, think about things, look for more information. But I will take a group of trained scientists over some random guy on the street's "common sense" any day.

Leonard, I appreciate your passion and I probably actually agree with you on most counts. But your first op ed was out of line in my opinion. I felt somewhat personally insulted that my public comment (which said I believe in conservation but also that trade in aquacultured stock should be allowed) is a "useless comment" and I shouldn't waste their time by posting it. I realize that you are not speaking to me personally, but it felt insulting and derogatory.

I feel rather defeated about the whole subject after reading this thread. I would hope that the NMFS scientists would use scientific data and not act against due to a perceived insult or annoyance by public comments. It's kind of making me feel like, what's the point to any of this?

 

[Raul-7]

http://scapeclub.org/forum/showthre...nts-California&p=196405&viewfull=1#post196405

The same exists in FW, yet many people have these plants in their various restricted states.

 

[OrQidz]

Indeed - my LFS always has a crop of nice sunset hygro polysperma, and is happy to take in your extra to resell it. No one seems to be policing this
OTOH I have never seen an Asian Arowana...

 

[Leonard]

JP, I don't think you can obtain a doctorate degree from a community college...but I suppose that's beside the point. I would argue that scientists do get "ratings" in the sense that they are measured by years of experience, published, peer reviewed literature, whether anyone can replicate their results, whether they have been found to have lied about data, etc. They certainly aren't perfect, or always right. But better than a random guess.

I shudder to think that "you can't tell good from bad science so just use common sense" is what people are thinking these days. Yes, question things, think about things, look for more information. But I will take a group of trained scientists over some random guy on the street's "common sense" any day.

Leonard, I appreciate your passion and I probably actually agree with you on most counts. But your first op ed was out of line in my opinion. I felt somewhat personally insulted that my public comment (which said I believe in conservation but also that trade in aquacultured stock should be allowed) is a "useless comment" and I shouldn't waste their time by posting it. I realize that you are not speaking to me personally, but it felt insulting and derogatory.

I feel rather defeated about the whole subject after reading this thread. I would hope that the NMFS scientists would use scientific data and not act against due to a perceived insult or annoyance by public comments. It's kind of making me feel like, what's the point to any of this?

I apologize if I offended anyone in my first op-ed. Clarification is a big reason I wrote my follow-up op-ed. The first op-ed was actually not directed at hobbyists but rather those at the "top" disseminating misinformation about the process and (what I deemed) excessive fear-mongering. It's led hobbyist down the wrong path IMHO, including misguided encouragement to flood NMFS with comments that they (not I) deem useless. If our hobby's media/experts had better explained the process, this wouldn't be an issue.

FWIW, I don't think NMFS will make their decision based on nonconstructive comments. I'm sure they see plenty of it in each public comment period (from all sides). I just wanted hobbyists to better understand the process. NMFS has enough on their plates that they don't need filter through a bunch of angry or immaterial comments.

This is all, of course, my opinion. I don't speak on behalf of the industry or NMFS or even Advanced Aquarist

 

[CStrickland]

A friend of mine was an intern at the Capital two summers ago. One of his jobs was to read the comments on bills such as this. He got a lot of funny ones from tin foil hat people who just hate anything the gov't does, and also some that made no sense at all. He basically sifted through to find ones that were somewhat relevant, and entered that data so a report could be made by someone else.

If someone is thinking of commenting, I would suggest they use the format provided because that made my friend's job easier. When you structure the feedback as "economic effect ____" then they can just put that right into the form so it has a better chance of moving up the chain of command. Interns like easy

 

[Leonard]

http://scapeclub.org/forum/showthre...nts-California&p=196405&viewfull=1#post196405

The same exists in FW, yet many people have these plants in their various restricted states.

Truth be told, there is very little chance any hobbyist will be prosecuted for violating coral trade prohibitions (and it's important to note that no such prohibitions exist at this time except Atlantic stoney corals, which has been the case for 2 decades already). No one is going to come knocking on your door to confiscate corals; no one is even going to get in the way of frag swaps. The USFWS/USDOJ doesn't have the resources. They're not going to bother with hobbyists and probably not even commercial intrastate trades. But again, we're getting way ahead of ourselves :fish1:

 

[Peter Eichler]

Does anyone know how the trade of captive bred endangered species of parrots and birds works? I know many of them are readily available commercially despite them being endangered and protected.

 

[OrQidz]

I appreciate all that you're doing Leonard. The tinfoil hat folks are usually pretty obvious and I suppose they get used to all sorts of comments. I think reading this whole thread in one go yesterday put me in a funk. Anyway you are a champ at taking flak and responding in a constructive manner so I give you props for that!

 

[mussel and hate]

Truth be told, there is very little chance any hobbyist will be prosecuted for violating coral trade prohibitions (and it's important to note that no such prohibitions exist at this time except Atlantic stoney corals, which has been the case for 2 decades already). No one is going to come knocking on your door to confiscate corals; no one is even going to get in the way of frag swaps. The USFWS/USDOJ doesn't have the resources. They're not going to bother with hobbyists and probably not even commercial intrastate trades. But again, we're getting way ahead of ourselves :fish1:

The same has been said regarding laws that curtail a variety of freedoms, but then the doorkickers came and arrested some average nonviolent otherwise law abiding citizens for doing what they had done for decades or even generations previously despite assurances to the contrary.

Assurances that pending legislation won't result in criminal prosecution for casual hobbyists isn't at all reassuring. Selective enforcement of existing law is common practice. I'd rather not see more bad legislation penned only to not be enforced or worse to be selectively enforced.

Regarding the impossibility of conducting counts of sea life I'm going to say perhaps it's impractical but certainly possible. It's merely a question of incentive and budget. If the incentives aren't adequate to compel solid science then why should I accept speculative authority appeals from so called scientists who aren't conducting science?

Science is a methodology, not an accreditation. Scientific experiment and observations are repeatable, such require no faith or authority. Anyone doing science is a scientist whether or not they have a PhD.

 

[hbrochs]

Data

Data

This was the first document on the subject I've read that has anything resembling real species specific data.
Written by Charlie Veron, and after this was submitted, the list of corals on the endangered species list diminished from 83 to 20.

http://www.pijac.org/sites/default/...Coral_Submission_LtrLowRes_WebREV03022014.pdf

Clearly it is possible to get hard species specific data, its just a matter of time and money.

Howard

 

[Leonard]

This was the first document on the subject I've read that has anything resembling real species specific data.
Written by Charlie Veron, and after this was submitted, the list of corals on the endangered species list diminished from 83 to 20.

http://www.pijac.org/sites/default/...Coral_Submission_LtrLowRes_WebREV03022014.pdf

Clearly it is possible to get hard species specific data, its just a matter of time and money.

Howard

Right. This is the information the NMFS wants. Veron was essentially arguing that we are too data-deficient on most of the petitioned species for the NMFS to make judgment on new ESA policies, and for the most part the NMFS agreed. It's possible to get better data, but it's impossible to do a physical headcount (as you would, say, Amur Leopards). Like it or not, undersea surveys extrapolates its conclusions. The question is how good/current the data it is extrapolating from is.

Minor correction: 66 to 20, not 83. Some corals didn't make it into the review stage (rejected by the NMFS from their initial review).

 

[JPMagyar]

Leonard,

Allow me to summarize a few key points:

1) Veron himself says the data the NMFS used was "inconsistent" NOT deficient. That's scientific speak for "bunk", but yet they NOAA felt ok to make the listing. Tell me again that's not political.

. Closer examination of several proposed species highlight NMFS’ inconsistent application of the distribution scale. For example, NMFS categorized Acropora jacquelieae as “narrow” with justification that the species’ distribution is “limited to part of the Coral Triangle”. However, the species map used in NMFS’ SRR indicates that the species is distributed throughout most of the Coral Triangle. Veron’s updated map confirms that the species is distributed throughout the Coral Triangle and occurs in 17 ecoregions, similar to the number of ecoregions within the Coral Triangle boundary.

. Similarly, NMFS categorized Caulastrea echinulata as “narrow” indicating that its distribution is“limited to the Coral Triangle”. However, maps used in the SRR show that the species is distributed throughout and extending beyond the Coral Triangle. Veron’s updated map shows a similar distribution of the species range extending over 27 ecoregions including all of the Coral Triangle and out to southern Japan, northern Australia, Fiji and Sumatra. The designation of Caulastrea echinulata as having a narrow distribution is contrary to NMFS’ designation of Acropora tenella as having a “moderate” distribution despite the latter having a very similar range, described by NMFS as “somewhat broadly distributed latitudinally (Japan to Indonesia) and longitudinally (Sumatra to Fiji)”6 and covering a slightly smaller number of ecoregions (24 ecoregions) than the former.

. The inconsistencies likely resulted from the use of older distribution maps and the lack of quantitative measures of distribution available to NMFS at the time the proposed rule was drafted. NMFS’s distribution categories can be reassigned more objectively using Veron’s measure of distribution in terms of the number of ecoregions (Table 3). Given that the Coral Triangle contains 16 ecoregions and a “narrow” distribution is restricted to a portion of the Coral Triangle, species occurring in 10 or less ecoregions could be assigned to this category. Similarly, given that a species distributed throughout the Coral Triangle is to be rated as “moderate”, 11-20 ecoregions could be assigned to this category. Species occurring in 21 or more ecoregions would therefore be assigned to the “wide” category. Using this revised category, most (85.5%) of the Indo-Pacific species proposed for ESA listing are classified as having wide distributions, whereas only two species are assigned to the narrow distribution category.

2) Your editorial has garnered responses from many other interested parties similar to that shown below, and still you think folks should refrain from commenting unless they have "data"?

For better or worse, lawmaking in this country is a democratic process and if there are a large number of comments on an issue, law makers and regulatory agencies take note (sometimes more than they do with data unfortunately.)

3) Lastly the hypocrisy of your final sentence screams from the highest mountain top given the "data" presented by Veron.

Data is king, and quite frankly our hobby is doing a very poor job of contributing to conservation data.

It's not our job as hobbyists to provide data. It's the job of government scientists to determine if the data they have is worthy of an ESA listing, and clearly they have shown that they will allow their opinions to cloud their judgement. All we can do as hobbyists and citizens is point out the obvious.

Dear NOAA,

You are making a big mistake. Any Fifth Grader can tell you that the data you used to make your recent ruling was flawed. I suggest you start over.



. . . nahh, they wouldn't do that 'cuz they are scientists and I'm not cool like Fonzie so why listen to a concerned citizen?

 

[FraggledRock]

This thread is still going on?

LOL

 

[justinky]

Right. This is the information the NMFS wants. Veron was essentially arguing that we are too data-deficient on most of the petitioned species for the NMFS to make judgment on new ESA policies, and for the most part the NMFS agreed. It's possible to get better data, but it's impossible to do a physical headcount (as you would, say, Amur Leopards). Like it or not, undersea surveys extrapolates its conclusions. The question is how good/current the data it is extrapolating from is.

Minor correction: 66 to 20, not 83. Some corals didn't make it into the review stage (rejected by the NMFS from their initial review).

Why do you think Julian Sprung and others have let hobbyist know about this list and focused on the fact we may or may not be able to keep certain types of coral if it passes? To get the people informed about PIJAC so they can donate to the cause of getting the proper data.

 

[JPMagyar]

This thread is still going on?

LOL

Meaning what exactly? You support the NOAA's listing? You think it will go nowhere? You think we can't do anything so no one should care? What exactly did you mean?

 

[FraggledRock]

Meaning what exactly? You support the NOAA's listing? You think it will go nowhere? You think we can't do anything so no one should care? What exactly did you mean?

Im just laughing that everyone is still debating in this thread, but I doubt anyone is actually taking any more initiative than writing blog posts on the matter.

because if they were, they wouldn't be on RC ranting about their perspectives on the issue LOL

Leanoard obviously feels no threat from the listing and everyone else feels a threat.

given the thread title and responses.

Unless someone decided to rally troops and protest somewhere, this is all hearsay and irrelevant to anything.

Governing bodies will do what they want no matter how hobbyists feel about it. No matter how the general public feels about it.

if there is money to made, money will be made. Other than that, no one cares.

I don't wear a tin foil hat either.

just being realistic.