NOAA lists 20 coral species as threatened under the endangered species act.

[Borderjumper]

Branching frogspawn is on the list? Wow

[Scythanith]

I have already email PIJAC, my MLA and all the Senators from Saskatchewan asking them what their stance is and what they are doing about it. I will be donating to PIJAC if they respond to my email. Honestly there are good amount of hobbyists that won't flinch to spend $250 on a coral, so you shouldn't flinch to donate the same amount to PIJAC as they are the ones who will be lobbying government on our behalf.

Here is the email I sent.

Hello Mrs. ???,

I am a reef aquarium hobbyist that is very concerned about the current upgraded NOAA list of Corals listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. This list is a slippery slope and is poised to severely cripple the marine aquarium trade and all the business that goes along with it.

I understand how our hobby can have a negative effect on the reefs of the world but we are hardly the biggest offender! Drag net & dynamite fishing, tanker bilge dumping, cruise ship/tourist anchoring, agricultural run-off, mining the reefs for cement materials, etc. are all much worse than coral collection for the aquarium trade. In the past all sorts of aquarium collection techniques (fish & coral) were harmful to the environment. Cyanide fish collecting and the destruction of the reefs for live rocks collection have for the most part been eradicated from our hobby due to the concerns of the hobbyists themselves speaking through their actions. It’s a new era of sustainable, educated collection! Mari-cultured corals, tank propagated corals, hobbyist funded ocean research, and some fish breeding programs are all thanks to the passion of hobbyists. I have a tough time accepting that legally collected corals can be made illegal to trade from one hobbyist tank to another.

Environment Canada implements CITES on behalf of the federal government, and the Canadian Wildlife Services administers CITES. Please let me know if your office can or is interested in lobbying against this change in legislature.

[KPG007]

Originally Posted by Scythanith

I understand how our hobby can have a negative effect on the reefs of the world but we are hardly the biggest offender!

From the Reefbuilders article I linked to above:
For its part, NOAA did state that “collection and trade [for the aquarium industry] was ultimately ranked as a low level threat to corals in general.”

[KPG007]

A good article on Reef Builders: Here

From the article:
This ruling does not automatically ban the trade of these corals for the time being, those decisions are still in the pipeline and will come out soon enough, but they do state that “we will evaluate whether there are protective regulations necessary and advisable for the conservation of any of the 20 species newly-listed as threatened in this final rule, including application of some or all of the take prohibitions.”



Also, I believe, this is a US ruling and does not apply to Canada. That said, as most of our corals come through the US....

[DAVE]

Originally Posted by KPG007

A good article on Reef Builders: Here

Also, I believe, this is a US ruling and does not apply to Canada. That said, as most of our corals come through the US....

This is not true. It will apply to Canada, and I would say 80% of the corals in Canada are not from the US.

[MitchM]

I would be interested to hear how they intend to identify the various acropora species that are listed.
Depending on the acro's environment, the coral skeleton may develop differently.
An acropora that develops in a lower light, lower water flow environment can have a different skeleton growth pattern than one that develops in a high light, high water flow environment.

[Scythanith]

Originally Posted by MitchM

I would be interested to hear how they intend to identify the various acropora species that are listed.
Depending on the acro's environment, the coral skeleton may develop differently.
An acropora that develops in a lower light, lower water flow environment can have a different skeleton growth pattern than one that develops in a high light, high water flow environment.

Unfortunately it won't matter. The customs/border agent see's a "stick like" coral and holds up the shipment for a CWS agent to come and look at it. By the time CWS gets there to look at it it's like been a couple days and the coral will be dead. The risk to store owners/importers will become too great.

[MitchM]

Originally Posted by Scythanith

Unfortunately it won't matter. The customs/border agent see's a "stick like" coral and holds up the shipment for a CWS agent to come and look at it. By the time CWS gets there to look at it it's like been a couple days and the coral will be dead. The risk to store owners/importers will become too great.

Dead is the only way you can accurately identify an acropora anyways.

....

....sounds like the inspection process itself will become a hazard to corals.

[Masonjames]

Did anyone who attended macna attend Julian Sprungs presentation? I understand it was on this exact subject? And why all the recent buzz. Apparently his presentation was also one of the least attended. Lol. Go figure.

Couldn't find anything from the presentation besides others writings and responses to it but I did find Sprungs public commentary he submitted to NOAA following the original proposal.

Interesting read anyways.

http://www.reef2rainforest.com/wp-co...AA_letter4.pdf

[Scythanith]

Originally Posted by KPG007

Also, I believe, this is a US ruling and does not apply to Canada. That said, as most of our corals come through the US....

If the species are successfully added to the CITES Appendices then Environment Canada uses the Canadian Wildlife Services to enforce them. Canada signed on with CITES in 1975.

Now my question is since the NOAA and ERA are american, do they now have to apply to CITES to have the corals upgraded from Appendix II to Appendix I?