NOAA announces the proposal to list 66 stony coral species as endangered ..

[Reef_Geek]

There'll be permits & records pain for importers (of aqacultured corals)... say, from wholesalers and producers in the US. So landed costs will increase. However, this will promote, for example, local Canadian growers because the market prices become more favourable.

[saltcreep]

Originally Posted by Reef_Geek

There'll be permits & records pain for importers (of aqacultured corals)... say, from wholesalers and producers in the US.

How so?

[Reef_Geek]

Originally Posted by saltcreep

How so?

Importing species on the endangered list, whether they are captive bred or not, produced in the US or from abroad, all requires CITES permits. There is no practical way for authorities to distinguish between captive produced and wild specimens. Permitting typically involves added costs and added processing (order lead times).

Not saying this is a bad/good thing... just the way it is.

[saltcreep]

Originally Posted by Reef_Geek

Importing species on the endangered list, whether they are captive bred or not, produced in the US or from abroad, all requires CITES permits. There is no practical way for authorities to distinguish between captive produced and wild specimens. Permitting typically involves added costs and added processing (order lead times).

Not saying this is a bad/good thing... just the way it is.

But you still haven't explained how it will increase costs. Permitting is already required under CITES. One thing to consider, this is an American piece of legislation.

[Reef_Geek]

Originally Posted by saltcreep

But you still haven't explained how it will increase costs. Permitting is already required under CITES. One thing to consider, this is an American piece of legislation.

Oh. I'm not aware that CITES permit is currently required, but I've been out of the fish business since 2008. Then this is simply US regulations catching up to international regulations and it's impacts no more different than the current level of compliance with CITES.

[Samw]

I think the implications of being placed on the endangered species list under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) would be a complete ban on commercial import/export of those corals in the US. Currently, stony corals are in Appendix II which means the species are not necessarily threatened with extinction globally and trade is allowed but regulated (meaning permits are required). If those proposed corals are listed as endangered under the ESA, then I think those specified corals will be relisted into Appendix I of CITES which essentially places a ban on commercial import/export of those corals and that would affect all countries that follow CITES as well. That is my interpretation. But I don't know. These things are confusing.

http://www.coralmagazine-us.com/cont...-coral-species

"If listed, the corals would be banned from collection in U.S. waters, banned from import into the United States; interstate shipment would become illegal. Captive propagation would require a federal permit, and corals could only be bought and sold within states. “Effectively, this would end the international trade in stony corals to the United States,” Meyers said in an exclusive interview with CORAL Magazine."

[Samw]

Now that they are moving forward with their proposal, it sounds like it is getting closer to reality.

[saltcreep]

Originally Posted by Samw

I think the implications of being placed on the endangered species list under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) would be a complete ban on commercial import/export of those corals in the US. Currently, stony corals are in Appendix II which means the species are not necessarily threatened with extinction globally and trade is allowed but regulated (meaning permits are required). If those proposed corals are listed as endangered under the ESA, then I think those specified corals will be relisted into Appendix I of CITES which essentially places a ban on commercial import/export of those corals and that would affect all countries that follow CITES as well. That is my interpretation. But I don't know. These things are confusing.

Bang on. However, I'm not sure whether the corals would be listed in Appendix I solely due to the ESA legislation (at least not right away). The CITES secretariat is an independent body with their own protocols.

This still may not have any affect on the trade into Canada (save for increased permitting) as evidenced by the trade in Arowanas. This is still permissible in Canada, but not in the US.

Only time will tell.

[kien]

[Reef_Geek]

I for one am in favour of added fisheries protection. More specifically, not of a no-take position, but a managed fisheries position.

I've been in a debate within my tank journal thread on this topic. Here it is pasted from there:

Here's some eye openers from my article in Freshwater and Marine Aquarium Magazine (FAMA):
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2j...jRieDNlcnQyU2M

The point is... the hobby can be a sustainable wild fishery so long as wild captures are properly monitored, enforced, and managed. Within the article, you will read about MPAs (Marine Protected Areas) that serve to protect small regions of the whole area, and also provides recruitment to the surrounding areas. Outside the article, hobbyists would be wise to be aware of what and where they support. There are nations that have poor records of fisheries management, and there are nations that have achieved sustainable fisheries.

-Two divers used to be able to harvest 1000 Mandarins in 3 hours, now two divers typically catch about 30 in 3 hours.
-Average size of mandarins caught is 3 cm (down from 6 cm), this is near sexual maturity
-118,000 Banggai cardinals are exported per month, but this is after an 85% mortality rate post-catch
-Arraial do Cabo (Brazil) used to land 600 Condylactis per week, now they are locally extinct
-Cebu (Philippines) have protected and unprotected areas. Differences between fished and unfished Sebae anemones (Heteractis) is density (1 per 200 square yards vs 1 per 40 square yards) and size (16-32 square inches vs 64-80 square inches)
-same comparison above for clownfishes... density (1 per 10 square yards vs 1 per 200 square yards) and size (6 cm vs 2.5 cm length)