MrMikeB
New member
There is a current proposition on the table to label Staghorn (Acropora cervicornis)and Elkhorn (Acropora palmata)corals as endangered species (elevating them from thier current at-risk classification). If placed on endangered species list, and apply section 9(a)(1) prohibitions, as specifically mentioned in the proposal, the importation, taking, etc. of these corals would be illegal, save for scientific and conservation efforts.
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=0900006480379d4e
I find the following excerpt particularly interesting - NOAAs justification for labeling these as endangered species:
"As discussed above, the two coral
species have declined to less than three
percent of their former abundances and
are currently impacted by myriad
stressors that are acting simultaneously
on the species throughout their ranges.
We determined the major stressors (i.e.,
disease, elevated sea surface
temperature, and hurricanes) to these
species’ persistence are severe,
unpredictable, likely to increase in the
foreseeable future, and, at current levels
of knowledge, unmanageable. While the
lesser stressors, enumerated above, have
not been the primary causes of the
species’ decline, managing them will
contribute to the conservation of the two
species by slowing the rate of decline
and reducing the synergistic effects of
multiple stressors on the species.
Therefore, we believe that the ESA
section 9(a)(1) prohibitions are
necessary and advisable for the
conservation of threatened elkhorn and
staghorn corals, specifically to address
the lesser stressors that are amenable to
management."
Let me translate: "We know collection (lesser stressor) really means very little to the decline in the coral's abundance, but we do not know what else to do, but know we need to do something, so lets make it illegal." I also find the following excerpt as to NOAAs rationale for putting the restrictions rather... interesting:
"As discussed in the status review
document, prior to listing the two
species as threatened under the ESA,
there was no evidence of extraction of
live specimens from Federal or state
waters, nor evidence of trade of live
specimens taken from foreign waters
and imported into the United States for
aquaria or other uses. Lack of extraction
and trade of live specimens prior to the
listing of these corals can be attributed
mostly to existing laws and regulations.
However, it is possible that the ESA
listing might encourage a black market
for the trade of these species, as
evidenced by the trade of other
threatened and endangered species (e.g.,
sturgeon eggs, elephant ivory). The
increased public exposure to these rare
corals due to the ESA listing may make
the two species more desirable for
aquaria or other uses. Therefore, to
prevent this activity and to support
existing regulations concerning the
import and export of these corals, we
find it necessary and advisable to
extend the ESA section 9(a)(1)(A)
prohibition to elkhorn and staghorn
corals in order to provide for the
conservation of the two species."
:eek1: Translation: "Existing laws are working, but those aquarists will see the ESA classification and go start a black market and steal some from our protected waters where they are dieing."
Please read this article and proposal and lets discuss. I know its not something we like to do, but sometimes it is just as important as looking at all the pretty corals in our tank. We have an opportunity to comment on this per that link above. Any of you know me, know I am a conservationist at heart and have dedicated a lot of my time and resources to helping our reefs. I am all about action, but only where it makes sense. I am having a hell of a time understanding this move. Please help me see the light!
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=0900006480379d4e
I find the following excerpt particularly interesting - NOAAs justification for labeling these as endangered species:
"As discussed above, the two coral
species have declined to less than three
percent of their former abundances and
are currently impacted by myriad
stressors that are acting simultaneously
on the species throughout their ranges.
We determined the major stressors (i.e.,
disease, elevated sea surface
temperature, and hurricanes) to these
species’ persistence are severe,
unpredictable, likely to increase in the
foreseeable future, and, at current levels
of knowledge, unmanageable. While the
lesser stressors, enumerated above, have
not been the primary causes of the
species’ decline, managing them will
contribute to the conservation of the two
species by slowing the rate of decline
and reducing the synergistic effects of
multiple stressors on the species.
Therefore, we believe that the ESA
section 9(a)(1) prohibitions are
necessary and advisable for the
conservation of threatened elkhorn and
staghorn corals, specifically to address
the lesser stressors that are amenable to
management."
Let me translate: "We know collection (lesser stressor) really means very little to the decline in the coral's abundance, but we do not know what else to do, but know we need to do something, so lets make it illegal." I also find the following excerpt as to NOAAs rationale for putting the restrictions rather... interesting:
"As discussed in the status review
document, prior to listing the two
species as threatened under the ESA,
there was no evidence of extraction of
live specimens from Federal or state
waters, nor evidence of trade of live
specimens taken from foreign waters
and imported into the United States for
aquaria or other uses. Lack of extraction
and trade of live specimens prior to the
listing of these corals can be attributed
mostly to existing laws and regulations.
However, it is possible that the ESA
listing might encourage a black market
for the trade of these species, as
evidenced by the trade of other
threatened and endangered species (e.g.,
sturgeon eggs, elephant ivory). The
increased public exposure to these rare
corals due to the ESA listing may make
the two species more desirable for
aquaria or other uses. Therefore, to
prevent this activity and to support
existing regulations concerning the
import and export of these corals, we
find it necessary and advisable to
extend the ESA section 9(a)(1)(A)
prohibition to elkhorn and staghorn
corals in order to provide for the
conservation of the two species."
:eek1: Translation: "Existing laws are working, but those aquarists will see the ESA classification and go start a black market and steal some from our protected waters where they are dieing."
Please read this article and proposal and lets discuss. I know its not something we like to do, but sometimes it is just as important as looking at all the pretty corals in our tank. We have an opportunity to comment on this per that link above. Any of you know me, know I am a conservationist at heart and have dedicated a lot of my time and resources to helping our reefs. I am all about action, but only where it makes sense. I am having a hell of a time understanding this move. Please help me see the light!
:strooper: 
