The biggest threat to our hobby
 

I normally don't like to get all Chicken Little about things, but I think everyone should read this Reefbuilder's article carefully:

http://reefbuilders.com/2013/04/03/r...coral-listing/

RB has written about this rule before, but the public comment period is about to close, and so far there's only 46 comments from the public. If this is passed, it could very well mean the end to the US coral trade, which can only have horrific consequences for us up here in Canada.

I'm very much in favour of conservation, and this hobby is by no means free of ethical dilemmas, but the NOAA has already acknowledged that the big threats to the species they're trying to list as threatened climate change and habitat destruction, neither of which have any hope of being resolved, addressed, or even influenced by this regulation. Furthermore, the science used to classify many of these species as endangered or threatened is so flaky it can't even be called science. I'm not saying they're not threatened, but the work to prove it absolutely has not been done. This is how the IUCN has evaluated the risk status of Acanthastrea ishigakiensis:

"There is no species specific population information available for this species. However, there is evidence that overall coral reef habitat has declined, and this is used as a proxy for population decline for this species."

Translation: we never actually did any work with this species, but we're guessing it's in trouble.

Making it illegal to grow these - or any other species - in home aquariums will absolutely, under no circumstances, prevent the destructions of reefs due to climate change. In fact, 99% of what we know about coral propogation and mariculture (techniques that are being used to restore reefs the world over) are the direct result of and funded by the hobby aquarium trade. When it comes to corals, the hobby is one of the biggest allies reefs have in terms of encouraging non-destructive reef related economic activities, which in turn funds the facilities and fosters the know how to repair reefs that are on the edge.

Obviously we need rules, but this is a bad one. I hope everyone takes a moment to comment on the regulation while there's still time. There's a link on the RB article to the comment page.

agreed +1

Done. Thanks for the link

Only 46 from the public? Man I even put a comment in. I'm thinking that figure is not updated.

No, I think you're right though. It's not like this sort of thing hasn't come up before, but everytime something like this comes up, it gets a little closer to sticking. I think the will come that the hobby will be changed. It might not be today, or next year .. but eventually having corals in a captive reef in a home may become something that only exists in past tense.

Hoping that common sense and reason will eventually prevail, but .... well, like I said, I put my comments in already. We'll see where things go.

Well at least it's not actually only 46 comments. The webpage shows 481 but when you do start looking at them there are 530 comments. Good, at least we are seeing some numbers.

I completely support the opinion that a potential ban on aquacultured species is ridiculous, but I do have some concerns with MASNA's stance. Specifically the "they should to be listed as "species of concern" and studied". This is just not possible.

I posted under the ReefBuilders article saying as much. The vast majority of fisheries have to make due with insufficient data and analysis. It is unreasonable to wait for those species to be thoroughly studied, in my opinion, because it will just never happen. There are not enough resources (people and money) to do the work. In my opinion, that stance is not one that is based on the reality of commercial fisheries.

It is a mistake to say that the problems are created by the environment and to blame others.

The fish/coral industry is a problem and a serious one because they ignore the problem.
There are many examples including importing fish and coral that has no reasonable chance of success.

We should not be bringing in any wild fish or coral where aquacultured are available. The mining of live rock must also stop.

If we ignore the problem we will be left with trading brown frags amongst eachother.

If the species on the list are deemed threatened we as hobbyists should be the first to fully support the legislation!!

yah you're right, it was only showing the comments from yesterday, not all of them. There's about 500. Most of them seem to be against the ban. The ones I read in favour of the ban did not read as though the authors really understood the issue - "evil humans bad, mother nature good! Yay nature!"

And yah, the whole legal structure surrounding endangered species needs work. There clearly should be some sort of legislative structure governing the conservation of reef species, but it seems like there's just no appropriate tool in place for them. The ESA is a smothering blanket that is blind to the nuance of the aquarium industry, but there's no question there's an over-harvesting of some species that are hard to propagate, like elegance corals.

I hope it doesn't pass. The group who nominated these corals for the ESA did it pretty much for pure political reasons to try to force the US government to act meaningfully on the topic of CO2 emissions. 99 times out of 100, I'd have been on their side, but they're effectively holding our hobby ransom for political gain. Heck, if listing those corals as threatened or endangered had one lick of a hope of affecting global CO2 emissions, I might actually support it, but it won't and never will.

Excerpt from the Coral Magazine newsletter this today
 

PIJAC, the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council, issued a call to action on April 3rd, 2013, for everyone involved in the aquarium industry and hobby to submit public commentary in response to the NOAA Proposal to list 66 CORAL Species on the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as we first reported late November, 2012.

You have less than 48 hours remaining to submit your public comment (electronic submissions are closed after 11:59 PM EDT, April 5th, 2013). Mail submissions must be postmarked April 6th.

Public commentary is a fundamental core part of the ESA listing process, so don’t think what you say won’t make a difference – it certainly could.

We are providing expanded commentary on the NOAA ESA Coral Petition issue in another article today; if you’re unfamiliar we encourage you to become invested in the implications this proposal has for you as an aquarist.

For those already familiar with the issue and simply looking for instructions, you can view the full PIJAC press release with instructions. We’ve also excerpted a portion here.

Recommended Action:

PIJAC urges people involved with the ornamental marine trade and hobby to not only submit their personal comments, but also forward this PetAlert to others involved with marine organisms, marine products, and marine retailers. COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED BY APRIL 6, 2013. See below for instructions on how and where to submit your comments.

Comments should include a brief description of your involvement with coral activities. Your comments should be in your own words – do not simply copy the talking points.

Comments should be addressed to:

Regulatory Branch Chief
Protected Resources Division
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pacific Islands Regional Office
1601 Kapiolani Blvd.
Honolulu, HI 96814
Attn: 82 Coral Species Proposed Listing

Or

Assistant Regional Administrator,
Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service,
Southeast Regional Office,
263 13th Avenue South,
Saint Petersburg, FL 33701,
Attn: 82 coral species proposed listing

Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments NO LATER THAN APRIL 5 via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal www.regulations.gov. To submit comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, first click the “submit a comment” icon, then enter NOAA-NMFS-2010-0036 in the keyword search. Locate the document you wish to comment on from the resulting list and click on the “Submit a Comment” icon on the right of that line. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only. E-submissions must be filed by 11:59 pm EDT on April 5 when the system shuts down. If you encounter problems filing electronically FAX and mail a copy.

Mail: Submit written comments to Regulatory Branch Chief, Protected Resources Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, Pacific Islands Regional Office, 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814; or Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, FL 33701, Attn: 82 coral species proposed listing. Must be postmarked no later than April 6 and to be safe send April 5.

Fax: 808-973-2941; Attn: Protected Resources Regulatory Branch Chief; or 727-824-5309; Attn: Protected Resources Assistant Regional Administrator.
Postal or Fax Submissions: If responding by mail, make sure the envelope is postmarked/date stamped on or before April 6. PIJAC recommends that you also FAX a copy to NMFS.

For any questions about this proposal and responding to it, contact PIJAC at info@pijac.org or Marshall Meyers at marshall@pijac.org.

Download or view the full PIJAC release












Opinion By Matt Pedersen,Aquaculturist & CORAL Magazine Senior Editor
EXCERPT

"Don’t overlook the at-home implications of an ESA listing. Being listed as an endangered species under the ESA makes it illegal to own or propagate the species under the “Take Prohibition”—”Endangered species, their parts, or any products made from them may not be imported, exported, possessed, or sold” according to the Earth Justice Citizen’s Guide to the ESA.

"It is unclear that there would be any legal way to provide exceptions or grandfather in past legal ownership or propagation. Could your next “20,000 Leagues Lokani” frag be your last, or worse, do you have to grind your entire Candy Cane Coral colony into a pulp or risk jail time or fines for owning it, despite having purchased it legally years prior?

"Should these listings go into effect, will the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have a “Reefer’s Amnesty Day” where we can all turn in our then contraband livestock?

"Pragmatically, the aquarium-industry implications of this proposal are such that we could quite literally all return to keeping fish-only marine aquariums. That is, we’ll be fine with fish until we have to deal with any successful efforts by the Center for Biological Diversity to list Amphiprion percula as an endangered species under the ESA (at which point am I required by law to flush the 200 baby Percula Clownfish I spawned and reared in my basement or risk civil and criminal penalties for owning a newly-dubbed “endangered species”?)." Read the full commentary...

The problem is that there is next to nothing actually known about the population status of most of the corals on the list. They don't actually know if they're threatened or not, they're guessing. The other problem is that they're saying they're threatened because climate change is destroying reefs. Well, everything that lives on a reef is threatened because of climate change, why are they limiting it to these 83 species? They only plan to list them as threatened, they have no plan to further study, or actively engage in their conservation in any way. A legal designation as threatened without a plan to do something about it is useless and punitive. Also, climate change has nothing to do with the aquarium hobby, whether we grow and trade maricultured specimens or not, the reefs are going to continue to bleach. There are further issues with the fact that they've listed species from all the major aquarium genuses (geni?); I'd pay you 100 bucks if you could find me a US customs agent who could (or would bother to take the time) to differentiate two different species of acropora, many of whom can only be ID'd by examining their naked skeletons under a microscope. This legislation would halt the US trade in all acropora, all montipora, and all euphyllia, to name a few.

The point of this is for the Center for Biological Diversity to make some statement about global warming. It has nothing to do with the conservation of truly threatened coral species.

In general I would agree. In the case of this proposed legislation, perhaps not. There is no distinction being made as to wild-collected, versus aquacultured or mariculture.

Thus your statement here, for example:

... wouldn't even matter anymore if aquacultured or not .. it is simply a blacklisted species. A 1" frag of a coral that's been in a tank for the last 10 years is treated the same as a freshly collected wild colony. As hobbyists we know there is a difference, but if the legislation makes no effort to distinguish them then even aquacultured and captive propagation efforts are effectively shut down.

Not to mention that there is no such thing as maricultured or captive bred without sometimes decades of trial and error with wild caught specimens.

I've been reading the Centre for Biodiversity's website for the last little bit. By and large I agree with what they're trying to do, but they keep attempting to use the US Endangered Species Act as a way of 'protecting' marine species (most of which live thousands of miles from US waters) from global warming. That's not science, that's a political tool. Legislation can't protect an animal from an environment that is on a trajectory away from what it's adapted to, and listing something endangered due to climate change is not going to stop climate change.

They're petitioning to have True Percula clownfish added to the ESA, and since there are no true percula clownfish in the US (or anywhere that any US regulatory/conservation authority has any jurisdiction to do anything), the only thing that would do would make owning and breeding your tank raised clownfish illegal.

It's like trying to play piano with a sledgehammer.

Commented and facebooked

The two issues are not mutually exclusive. This industry still has an impact on the environment, albeit a much smaller one. The idea is that the reef will have more of a chance for survival if a no take approach is used.

You may be surprised at the level of knowledge of USFW officers at LAX. I'd take you up on that bet. There are a couple of them that can make identifications while corals are still in the bags.

Agree 100%. It's all politics and nothing more.

If they make corals not only illegal to sell but even illegal to own there will a considerable drop in this hobby. I have never seen a wild coral in real life that wasn't on a tv. Seeing it on tv was cool but nothing beats growing and building a reef in your living room. Being able to see them in the stores and going to other people's tanks is what got me into this mess and now if you asked me to help with the ocean I might actually get off the couch and do something. Before it was just an image on the tv. They will do more damage doing this instead of maybe tightening down on coral harvesting and increasing enforcement on those rules. I can not disagree that it's people to blame, wether its harvesting, pollution or climate change ( not so much the last one but that's another argument ) maybe some of them emission credits all them big businesses are buying to pollute above current EPA standards should go to someone who can help nature a bit. I know people say we're supposed to let nature take its course but well we already got our hands in there so we may as well do something good. Just my .02

+1 not to mention all the dead rotting life that will be in the landfills. fine, ban harvesting and importation! Dont make us kill or otherwise dispose of cultured corals we have nursed and cared for.

There are obvious flaws in the ESA, but we have to keep in mind that climate change is not the only threat to coral reefs. It could be argued that human impacts such as dredging, run off, and over exploitation (in general) have damaged reefs to an even greater extent than climate change. Would the ESA protect these species from human impacts like those if enforced?

Regarding the True Percula clownfish... it would also ban import of the fish into the USA, and therefore eliminate the clownfishes largest market in the world, which presumably would reduce demand and collection. I completely agree that eliminating clownfish breeding in the US would be pointless, but I view it as a necessary sacrifice in order to achieve effective and timely protection for the species.

On a side note (not in response to you Asylumdown), I also just wanted to say that instead of the logic that MASNA is using:

"There is insufficient data on this species, therefore we are against its protection in the ESA"

To me it makes more sense to say:

"There is insufficient data on this species, therefore we are against its wild collection until the species is better studied"

Unfortunately, I'm doubtful you would ever hear MASNA say that.

Before a blanket ban is put in place , that as stated by some i should support to protect the reefs, i want to see a comprehensive study on what percent of the damage to the reefs is actually from the collection of coral.There isnt one , its far too dificult to quantify , and my bet the percent is very small . There is probably a bigger threat to reefs from improper ancorage and damage from fishing nets then there is from hobby collection. If global warming is going to wipe out the reefs then why dont we want a diverse collection of corals being propagated privetly to have on hand to restock the reefs?As far as im concerned CO2 is the least of the problems , there are much worse emissions and polutants that are damaging the environment but there harder to enforce regulations on so no one bothers.

Gave them my two bits

Question

Does this potential law cover North America or just the US? I understand the potential impact it will have on reefers in Canada but if the law only covers the US then any potential coral covered that would be deemed Illegal would apply only to Canadians if we tried to buy/sell or trade to anybody from the US or Protected US waters. If it covers North America then it's a different story

Just an observation

I totally agree, there are some species of coral that are vanishing from their home ranges because of over-collection, leading collectors to move to harvest specimens from less and less ideal collection sites. Elegance corals are a great example of that. But elegance corals are also an example of how different legislative environments in the countries they come from can lead to completely different levels of sustainability. Compare and contrast Australia with Indonesia, for example. The rub is that the ESA of the United States has no jurisdiction in either of those countries. The only thing it can do is all-out halt the import of a species regardless of whether it comes from a sustainable source. Is that good for the reef? Who knows. The people writing this legislation don't know that, I don't even think they're trying to suggest that it is, as this proposal is almost entirely about climate change. The reefs that these animals live on will most likely continue to decline at the same pace the've been declining for the past 50 years, as the decline in reefs has been global, irrespective of whether or not coral collection happens on those reefs. The key is that for most of the species on the proposed 'red-list', no more is known about them or the status of their wild populations than any other fish/coral/sponge in the sea. Why these species? I suspect they picked them because they were low hanging fruit, and a limited list of the most 'threatened' animals is far more politically palatable than saying 'all reef species must be declared endangered!'

If we base the future of the US coral trade on whether or not one of the few F&W officers who confidently know the difference between nearly identical acropora species happens to be on shift the day the shipment arrives, the effect on the market will be the same.

No, it wouldn't. The original intent of the ESA was to protect American species on American soil. That's why inclusion on the ESA has been so successful with some species, like the black-footed ferret, California Condor, and Bald Eagle, because adding a species to the list opened up all sorts of regulatory and financial tools for active conservation. In the United States. Adding corals that live literally on the other side of the planet to the ESA comes with none of those teeth. All it would do is ban their import and make it illegal to own them. Right problem, but wrong tool. If the conservation of threatened coral species is really something the United States Federal government cares about, there are so many other more appropriate international tools that they should be using. Encouraging sustainable use of the reefs by the people who live near them (ahem, mariculture and coral farming!), providing aid to poor countries to beef up waste-water processing capabilities, engaging with NGOs to encourage farming practices that aren't as harmful to offshore reefs, making meaningful progress on reducing domestic CO2 emissions, etc. etc. etc. The ESA will do none of those things, and will wipe out whatever positive contribution the knowledge and practice of coral aquaculture in the US is making along with all the bad, without addressing the root of the issue in the slightest.

Clownfish are the most popular aquarium fish globally. They're still going to be collected for every other market (and the Japanese market really can't be underestimated). It will take the pressure off wild populations, but it won't eliminate it, and since next to nothing is known about how the aquarium trade is really affecting global clownfish populations, there's no way of knowing whether or not shutting down the US clownfish market will even help. What it will do for sure though, is force all the US based commercial scale clown-breeding facilities and hobbyists - which have been world leaders on the boundaries on captive fish breeding and have zero impact on wild populations - to shut down and destroy their entire breeding stock. I can't think of a more perfect example of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I agree with you, but if that was their stance, they would have to be against wild collection of everything (which would spell the end of the hobby), because nothing has been studied well enough to know what a 'sustainable' catch for that species is. We don't even know that for the species we remove by the billions of tons for food.

The ESA is a US piece of legislation. However, I'm not sure how ESA and CITES interact with each other. If the inclusion of these species on the US ESA somehow gets them uplisted on CITES, then it would affect all countries who have signed that treaty (Canada being one).

In either case, it would likely put many of the coral wholesalers that Canadian retailers get their stock from out of business.

TBH, CITES would be a far more responsible and reflexive tool through which to regulate the international trade in these animals, as it leaves room for countries with well managed populations to split list them between the 3 Appendixes. CITES could theoretically be used to ban the export and collection of wild threatened species, but permit the trade and export of maricultured or farmed versions. However, it's pretty clear that the Centre for Biological Diversity's goals are largely political, and they're using these species as a pawn in their attempt to force US action on climate change, so I'm not surprised they're going the route they're going.

Thanks for the reply Asylumdown, that makes more sense to me. Other than reducing collection pressures by eliminating the US market for corals, the ESA listing would not be effective in many ways and may have negative impacts by banning coral aquaculture in the USA.

I do think closing the US market would significantly reduce collection, which may or may not increase populations. In situations where there is no data I tend to stay on the cautious side, which is why I am not as strongly against the ESA listing as other hobbyists are. Despite that, I've decided not to support the ESA listing due to the majority of the species being outside the USA's range of enforcement and it's negative influence on the development of coral aquaculture in the USA and abroad.

The main reason I do not want to write a comment on behalf of MASNA is because I do not want to be associated with them in any way. They seem to claim the scientific high-ground when it suits their interests, but when there is no science to support current practices their opinion seems to be "maintain status quo". Not a big fan of lobby groups.

On the bright side, coral culture will still be legal in Canada even if this passes :)

I visited several US forum reefing sites and if you can manage to make it through the whining and name calling crap what it boils down to is this copied from another forum

All these species are currently CITES listed. What the US does with respect to their own regulations would have little impact on CITES. CITES approach seems to be one that their decisions are based on data. All signatory countries to CITES would still have to follow the CITES regulations and not those of the ESA.

Nope.

This proposal is for A. percula only and seven species of damsels/chromis including green chromis (C. viridis). It will not affect any other clownfish species so by that, A. ocellaris will still be legal to import (for now).