The biggest threat to our hobby

[Jakegr]

Originally Posted by asylumdown

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.

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.

[toytech]

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.

[Dearth]

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

[asylumdown]

Originally Posted by Dearth

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

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.

[saltcreep]

Originally Posted by asylumdown

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).

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.

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

Nope.

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.

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).

[asylumdown]

Originally Posted by Jakegr

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Jakegr

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Jakegr

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.

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.

[Jakegr]

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

[Dearth]

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

You can continue to own any coral on the list

You can continue to transport them across state lines but not internationally and not for commercial purposes

You can give and receive any coral on the list but must be done for free and no money or services can be exchanged (ie. trade frags with someone else or friends but must be done with no monetary value or services exchanges)

Exception from certain rules/regulations if you already own any of the above coral

Any coral not farmed from native environment is excluded(ie. if it is grown in your tank and parcelled out)

The new law affects sellers and collectors of coral adversely (stores, wholesalers, coral farmers in US territorial waters)