Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebthet
Actually to add on to the previous, what I am finding interesting, after going through and reading all of the CITES appendices, On page 32 of the Appendices lists where it states the regulations on corals, it states only SCLERACTINIA spp. under Appendices II for stony corals.
Scleractinia Spp. Are Maricultured corals. Meaning all stony corals taken directly from the Sea.
|
This is a flawed interpretation. When you get a CITES permit individual stony coral species are identified in the documentation. Scleractinia Spp is used as a catch all for things like live rock, any thing that was at some point live coral. Things like soft corals and mushrooms do not need a CITES permit to import provided they are not attached to any rock at all. If they are attached to rock, maricultured or not then a permit specifying so many pieces of Scleractinia Spp is required.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebthet
The only thing I can think of to do in a situation like this, to allow us as Canadians to get access to more tank bred fish and more aquacultured corals is to ask CITES to look into creating allowances for aquacultured/farmed corals.
I am going to look into anyways.
|
The requirement for importing cultured stony corals from the US is very simple but a complete PITA for the exporter to handle. Every time they export a frag they need to resubmit the original import permit for the colony. Obviously this is not always possible but it's there for a reason, it keeps people from doing a chop shop re-export thing.
Changing this will require amending an international treaty, it won't be simple. It probably won't accomplish anything either. Any framework that has good enough documentation requirements to stop the chop shop style abuse is going to put enough of a burden on US exporters that they won't want to do it. ORA and Tyree and waiting lists now, why would they want to go through the hassle?