URGENT Call to Protect Stony Coral Trade - April 5 Deadline

[AquamanE]

NO POLITICAL COMMENTS PLEASE!!!! Mods already closed another thread due to that.

Please see this on the Florida Marine Aquarium thread.

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?p=21367223#post21367223

 

[brandon429]

we decided that banning those corals doesnt matter there are plenty others to build good tanks with

 

[KeithB]

Submitted my comment. Be smart people. They're even trying to ban the sale of some Aqua-cultured species...

Your Comment Tracking Number: 1jx-84m0-clra

 

[KeithB]

we decided that banning those corals doesnt matter there are plenty others to build good tanks with

I got NP with your argument there. My issue is with banning the sale of aqua-cultured corals that happen to fall on that list. That's just foolishness.

 

[GroktheCube]

I already left a comment, and spoke with my representative. I have no problem with protecting corals in the wild, but aquacultured specimens should be excluded from these regulations.

 

[KeithB]

Just FYI - Harvesting of Corals for the aquarium trade is not even listed as one of the threats to the nations reefs:

http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/visions/coral/#solutions

 

[karsseboom]

we decided that banning those corals doesnt matter there are plenty others to build good tanks with

Sps is the foundation for this hobby. It is the pinnacle of reef keeping....

You take out the most important thing in this hobby and there will be no hobby.

 

[greg1786]

I went to the website to leave a comment and it said the " the rule your looking for cannot be found. It was either moved or taken down." What gives?

 

[KeithB]

http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=NOAA-NMFS-2010-0036-0469

Worked for me.

 

[Potsy]

Submitted my comment. Be smart people. They're even trying to ban the sale of some Aqua-cultured species...

Your Comment Tracking Number: 1jx-84m0-clra

Do you mean corals that are commonly aquacultured are on that list or that they are trying to ban the practice of aquaculture?

 

[KeithB]

Yes. Corals that are commonly aquacultured are on the list. Frogspawns, Hammers, and Candy Canes are on the list. As well as some commonly tank grown/fragged SPS species.

They're not saying that they're trying to ban aquaculture, just any sale of the the species listed. What bugs me is that there is no reason to prevent a aqua-culture shop from selling frags of specimens already in possession. This proposed ruling does just that.

 

[greg1786]

Ok i posted my comment. Im all for protecting the reefs so our children and so forth can enjoy what we all get to enjoy, however i agree with everyone that there is no reason to ban the aquaculturing of any species. Allowing farmers to aquaculture corals, in my opinion, can only help the cause of keeping these wild corals from becoming extinct. Perhaps someday these scientist and farmers can place aquacultured specimens in the ocean to help repopulate our depleted coral reefs. Through proper paperwork and such means it would be relatively easy to insure that any coral on the list traded in the future is strictly aquacultured and not wild caught. What do you guys feel are the chances our voices will be heard and the decision to ban aquaculturing said corals will be removed from the rule?

 

[bobssecrtsn]

That's the list, and by my count only 14 species on the list are common, 8 more are rare at best and the rest are even more rare or never even seen in the hobby. However, all on the list are important reef building species.

Just to take it one step further
I JUST called the NOAA and spoke with a rep to get clarification for myself, here's the gist......

You can own any on the list,

You can continue to own them,

You can transport them across state lines but not for commercial purposes,

You can give or receive any specimens on the list for free but no money or services/goods can be exchanged. (IE frag swaps and giving frags to friends),

Most on the list are being classified as "threatened" not "endangered" which means there will be even more "exclusions and circumstances" that allow for ownership and the likes,

Other rights and privledges are available if you own the specimen prior to the new classifications,

For more info on the ESA (endangered species act) or "Threatened" species classification and what it really means, go here......

(ESA) http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/esa/
("Threatened" species)
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-li...df/listing.pdf

If you would like to call them yourself, contact info can be found here.....

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ole/about/contacts.html

Hope this clears some things up for everyone
If you have any further questions, let me know. I kept that rep on the phone for close to 30 minutes



THIS IS NOT MY POST BUT SOMEONE POSTED IT THANK HIM NOT ME

 

[adiver]

Just great

 

[Steveb]

That's the list, and by my count only 14 species on the list are common, 8 more are rare at best and the rest are even more rare or never even seen in the hobby. However, all on the list are important reef building species.

Just to take it one step further
I JUST called the NOAA and spoke with a rep to get clarification for myself, here's the gist......

You can own any on the list,

You can continue to own them,

You can transport them across state lines but not for commercial purposes,

You can give or receive any specimens on the list for free but no money or services/goods can be exchanged. (IE frag swaps and giving frags to friends),

Most on the list are being classified as "threatened" not "endangered" which means there will be even more "exclusions and circumstances" that allow for ownership and the likes,

Other rights and privledges are available if you own the specimen prior to the new classifications,

For more info on the ESA (endangered species act) or "Threatened" species classification and what it really means, go here......

(ESA) http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/esa/
("Threatened" species)
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-li...df/listing.pdf

If you would like to call them yourself, contact info can be found here.....

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ole/about/contacts.html

Hope this clears some things up for everyone
If you have any further questions, let me know. I kept that rep on the phone for close to 30 minutes



THIS IS NOT MY POST BUT SOMEONE POSTED IT THANK HIM NOT ME

I understand this is not your post I know exactly where it came from and I along with others disagree with it.


If you check the MASNA letter and look at some of the replies by other big industry players the picture is not quite so rosy. Who was this person at NOAA? Are they even in a position to make that type of decision?

Just for arguments sake even IF all of the above are true the last time I checked commercial growers are in the business to make a buck. There is no incentive for them to continue to aquaculture or mariculture (commonly available corals on the list) them under this ban.

Will there be some other ruling that allows it? Maybe, maybe not.

Suppose they decide its just to difficult to identify the coral at the species level and with the stroke of a pen decide to ban importation of the whole genus to ensure the safety of the particular species within that genus?

 

[arhyne]

Just for clarification on the topic.

Endangered does not allow any take, transport, sale or transfer. No ownership you can prove you had the protected species in your possession prior to the final rule, but you cannot sale or give it to anyone unless perhaps that someone were to have a section 10 permit.

Threatened allows NOAA to by special rule (4d) to allow trade if they are inclined to do so.

Read the area on "Take" and prohibited acts.

and Special Rule (4d): Keep in mind the "necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of such species." Special Rule is a case to be made but it has to be made and there will be a lot of concern about this from the conservation NGOs.

These are not fuzzy grey lines. ESA is very clear with regards to "take". USFWS in 2003 tried to allow the trade of Endangered listed species where there was clear that trade benefited the species survival. This was never put into final rule because the conservation NGOs opposition.

With all honestly, I did not find the folks at NOAA that handled the questions during the Q&A call to be up to speed on 'trade'. The BRT's SRR was extremely weak on trade and had numerous errors both in fact and in interpretation of data. I would not expect them to be able to give a complete picture until they have to make final rules and work on special rules.