The Reef Hobby- An Endangered Species?

[Spiderguardnano]

Just read this article on reef2reef

 

anyone care to chime in on this. this is so scary and sad if it goes through

 

it basically stating that all Acropora, Euphyllia, and others will be illegal to trade to sell.

 

http://www.reef2reef.com/forums/unique-corals/171921-reef-hobby-endangered-species.html?utm_source=Reef2Reef+News+Letter&utm_campaign=cbf4528403-Free+Custom+Sump%2C+Shortcake+Acro....&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_52ba5d29d2-cbf4528403-62636417

[1.0reef]

Seems idiotic, why not just ban wild collection. Most fishing companies do more damage anyways, although they likely generate more profit and also food.

[Angeles]

The collection industry is so huge, and helps certain countries economies by as much as 2%. Fish and corals deserve to be protected, but not like this. I believe that the collection of these corals from the ocean can be banned, and should be. Propagation and aquaculture would thrive if this were to happen. However, some species are not yet propagated in aquaculture, so coral selection would have its limits..

[Angel<3Nanos]

Stupid government.

Why not ban the transportation of harmful chemicals through sea instead?

[gogo]

thanks for the post

[hey]

r2r has some out of touch members....

 

"I'm disgusted on a daily basis at the socioeconomic spectrum this hobby's tendrils dip down to. So many people that can ill afford to take on the endeavor of keeping a reef tank alive try it anyway because the cost is not enough to deter them. Hundred's of thousands of corals and fish are sentenced to their death because they simply fell below the economic pain threshold of some guy's flavor of the day. Same could be said for many hobbies like cars, etc. But, while you may see a new BMW or Porsche sitting in the drive of $150k house, I've never seen a new Lambo sitting in front of one. Conversely, the same effect happens for those with nothing but money to burn. They have a fish tank made out of a car, fill it with a bunch of livestock overnight, and watch it die when the cameras go off. Why? The fish were cheap and replaceable. No big deal."

[Tamberav]

[Mustang Boy]

If these laws are allowed to go into effect it will be a travesty to this hobby, it will effectively kill it for most of the super dedicated and will kill many many businesses who's entire livelihood is selling corals or aquaculturing corals/fish.

 

http://www.pijac.org/marine

 

This group is going to file a lawsuit trying to turn over these laws and any donations will help. My local club is holding their annual frag swap next weekend and they have decided to donate all of the proceeds(minus the costs to set up the swap) to this cause, and since MASNA is matching any donation to the organization that is sent in via their page, up to a $5000 donation, that is where we will be sending out earnings from the frag swap since they will be doubled by MASNA and help that cause that much more.

 

http://masna.org/pijac-marine-ornamental-defense-fund/

[Nano sapiens]

The way that I see it, there are two seperate issues going on here. One, we as a hobby can do a lot with...the other not so much.

 

The first issue is one we can effectively combat, namely the 'Sea Shephard' type environmental groups. When all is said and done, this battle will be won of lost based on public perception. Right now, we are losing. What we need to combat the anti aquarium hobbyist propaganda is a straight forward, no nonsense, scientifically valid documentary(s) highlighting the positive aspects of the hobby such as aquaculture, mariculture and the fish breeding efforts to alleviate pressure on the world's reefs. We need passionate, high calibre aquarists to be interviewed about their reef tanks (and the hobby in general) to show that the animals are exceptionally well cared for and live long, healthy lives. As for negative aspects of the hobby, well, they are and will continue to be highlighted by the opposition, no doubt. Perhaps this is the perfect opportunity for the hobby as a whole to 'clean house' and weed out abusers that help to give the hobby a black eye.

 

The second issue is much more difficult. As habitat is degraded it is inevitable that more and more species will make it onto the ESL (Endanger Speciest Listing). And rightly so, IMO, if it can be shown scientifically that a species is severely in decline and it's habitat needs protecting. The best we can do is attempt to make the NOAA aware of the hobby and how much is being done to culture animals without affecting the reef environment in the hope that species and/or genus restrictions won't extend to non-wild animals.

 

At the end of the day, the limited resources of the hobby need to be directed into battles that can be won and not squandered on those that can't. Discerning between the two is the test of good leadership.

 

Addendum: Read up on all the documentation sent to the NOAA to provide more up-to-date coral species information and I'm impressed. Without Veron's data I have no doubt that the most (or possibly all) of the original 66 species would have received threatened classification.

[khuzdul]

NOAA listed 20 species, less than half of the coral that had been submitted to them by regional concerns for protection. There were concerns raised with NOAA noted that listing species would cause problems with research and conservation efforts that are underway or planned to be underway. The main issues that NOAA mentioned for the listing was habitat loss/degradation and climate change, not the aquarium trade.

 

Though no one should put their heads in the sand, I think that there is no chance in hell that the listing will go to genus level, or that there will be broad protections enacted for coral genus. There are moneyed interests that would be devastated by that with far more lobbying power than the Aquarium trade. Specifically, ports need to have their waterways constantly dredged to keep sea lanes navigable, and also to keep on accepting larger and larger vessels. Ports would essentially be shut down throughout the USA if strong genus level protections were enacted. There is no way that NOAA will enact genus level protections that shut down all maritime shipping in and out of US ports.

[Mustang Boy]

Of those 20 corals there are over a half dozen different Acros, and a Euphyllia. If those are banned it will have a major impact since most people who will be checking the corals won't be able to tell which Acro is which and most won't know a hammer from a frogspawn.

 

Now not only do we have to worry about corals but also popular fish.

 

"In 2013, we received a petition from WildEarth Guardians [pdf] to list 81 marine species, including 23 species of corals. We found that the petitioned action may be warranted for 3 of the petitioned coral species (Cantharellus noumeae, Siderastrea glynni, and Tubastraea floreana) and are currently conducting a status review of these 3 species."

 

I snagged this from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/invertebrates/corals.htm and if you follow the links and read through the species you will see that 2 of the propose fishes are Banggaii Cardinals and Percular clowns.

 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/candidate.htm

 

So if these are placed on the threatened list and rules aren't changed about aquaculture and selling/trading of threatened species we may not be able to breed and sell these fish in captivity.

[atrox]

Can this happen sure, will it happen no. This argument has gone on for years and always the same outcome. It's a handful of extremists who moan and wail and cry about the injustice happening to the planet. Bottom line mariculture and off shore coral farms are saving reefs. International hobbyists make up a huge amount of money that pours into otherwise third world island economy's. All the while why collection is happening money from these collectors are pouring money back into conservation efforts. That list of acros that is confusing at best, how can they actually be certain what each acro is that is collected when even the seasoned marine biologist has trouble identifying sub species. I attribute these latest efforts to all these "water related" documentaries. A handful of uneducated watch these and say " I'm an expert because I watched this now, I need to make a difference". This will die down in legal channels and in the mean time a new documentary about the effects of caffeine will trigger a new out cry of experts saying that caffeine causes low sperm count and we should only drink water.

[RK_tek]

This will die down in legal channels and in the mean time a new documentary about the effects of caffeine will trigger a new out cry of experts saying that caffeine causes low sperm count and we should only drink water.

 

I'm going to start drinking more caffeine. I cant afford chilrun right now. And they cut into the reef budgetDoes anybody have a stash of Surge from the late 90's. That stuff was legal speed.

[Mustang Boy]

Can this happen sure, will it happen no. This argument has gone on for years and always the same outcome. It's a handful of extremists who moan and wail and cry about the injustice happening to the planet. Bottom line mariculture and off shore coral farms are saving reefs. International hobbyists make up a huge amount of money that pours into otherwise third world island economy's. All the while why collection is happening money from these collectors are pouring money back into conservation efforts. That list of acros that is confusing at best, how can they actually be certain what each acro is that is collected when even the seasoned marine biologist has trouble identifying sub species. I attribute these latest efforts to all these "water related" documentaries. A handful of uneducated watch these and say " I'm an expert because I watched this now, I need to make a difference". This will die down in legal channels and in the mean time a new documentary about the effects of caffeine will trigger a new out cry of experts saying that caffeine causes low sperm count and we should only drink water.

 

I agree and wish this were the case, but like you said since these corals are so indistinguishable I fear the enforcing forces will just stop any that even remotely resemble the banned corals. I fear it will get to a point where those importing won't even attempt to import or aquaculture any corals that could be confused with those that are banned since they may have issues trying to sell them. I feel this way because prominent names in the reef hobby are freaking out for lack of a better term, the Julian Sprungs and Tony Vargas' of our hobby scrambling because they are seeing the writing on the wall if these corals are banned to the same extent as corals like Staghorn and Elkhorn.

[atrox]

These fools just need to watch this.

 

[markalot]

I am a little surprised UniqueCorals posted this. Coral Magazine has a better writeup and basically out of all the things NOAA could have done they picked the least intrusive.

 

Because the 20 species, including several popular aquarium corals, are listed as “threatened” as opposed to “endangered,” NMFS says there will be no new prohibitions placed on conduct related to corals, including the trade in either wild-harvested or aquacultured specimens belonging to the newly listed species.

 

http://www.reef2rainforest.com/2014/08/29/implications-of-esas-new-threatened-coral-listing-for-the-marine-aquarium-trade/

 

Despite holding this unenthusiastic view of the marine aquarium trade, NMFS still concludes in the document that the “extinction risk as a result of collection and trade activities” is “low,” especially when compared to other stressors like ocean acidification, sea surface temperature change, disease, terrestrial runoff and destructive commercial food fishing techniques.

[hey]

I am a little surprised UniqueCorals posted this. Coral Magazine has a better writeup and basically out of all the things NOAA could have done they picked the least intrusive.

 

Because the 20 species, including several popular aquarium corals, are listed as “threatened” as opposed to “endangered,” NMFS says there will be no new prohibitions placed on conduct related to corals, including the trade in either wild-harvested or aquacultured specimens belonging to the newly listed species.

 

http://www.reef2rainforest.com/2014/08/29/implications-of-esas-new-threatened-coral-listing-for-the-marine-aquarium-trade/

 

Despite holding this unenthusiastic view of the marine aquarium trade, NMFS still concludes in the document that the “extinction risk as a result of collection and trade activities” is “low,” especially when compared to other stressors like ocean acidification, sea surface temperature change, disease, terrestrial runoff and destructive commercial food fishing techniques.

 

NMFS seems to be focused more on stricter policy against poaching when it comes to the trade aspect of the hobby from what they are quoted as saying.

 

There was quite a thread on this recently wasn't there of a well known guy getting some sentence for poaching. I wasn't familiar with the name but it was quite a long thread on it.

[markalot]

I should add, there is a little bit of deeply buried history here between NOAA and the hobby.

 

http://www.nano-reef.com/topic/116846-eric-borneman-coral-controversy/

 

Always a fun read.

[jservedio]

The problem with the ESA is that it makes no distinction between wild caught and captive bred and it isn't suited to species that can be propagated like corals. Corals like Acropora Palmata and Acropora Cervicornis absolutely need to be protected, and I am incredibly surprised they aren't already protected,no doubt about it. However, the success they have protecting them is drastically helped out by the fact that they are being propagated on a massive scale.

 

They really need to separate out protection of animals that are being poached, like Elephants, Rhinos, and Tigers from those that just need environmental protection like ALL coral reef ecosystems. If they made that distinction and put incredibly tight quotas on wild collection to ensure new species enter the hobby and research facilities while stopping it's impact, this hobby would have absolutely no problem continuing on as aquaculture only. Sure, the impact is relatively small, but considering how much we care about the reef, that is still important. Unfortunately, the ESA doesn't care about any of that and makes no distinction between helping and harming a species.

[markalot]

Unfortunately, the ESA doesn't care about any of that and makes no distinction between helping and harming a species.

 

The best system that works is one that kills the demand. You don't have to like it, but you can't claim the ESA doesn't work. In this case there is no change other than scare the crap out of the supply chain and make them think about improving their processes.

[jservedio]

The best system that works is one that kills the demand. You don't have to like it, but you can't claim the ESA doesn't work. In this case there is no change other than scare the crap out of the supply chain and make them think about improving their processes.

 

My point is not that the ESA doesn't work - it is that it isn't well suited for species like coral. Also - the ESA does NOT remove demand, it simply reduces the supply with red tape.

[Mustang Boy]

PIJAC has come out with a letter that tells the possible outcomes.

 

 

http://rettalbot.wordpress.com/2014/09/09/pijac-goes-public/

[markalot]

My point is not that the ESA doesn't work - it is that it isn't well suited for species like coral. Also - the ESA does NOT remove demand, it simply reduces the supply with red tape.

 

I disagree with that point. The ESA is perfectly suited for this because if listed no one, even licensed, can sell any of the corals listed and it also becomes illegal to own them (if my reading is correct). This effectively kills demand from the US and possibly other locations. This should reduce the pressure on the corals due to wild collection since there is less demand.

 

In my opinion the rest of what we think we know is nothing more than lobbying and propaganda designed prevent any further regulation and scare people into action. Could do this, might do that, may limit restoration. It's all BS. Concerned scientists and organizations have been doing reef restorations for a good while now and any additional regs will not stop this work. It's akin to saying the Bald Eagle went extinct because concerned unlicensed individuals were not allowed to keep them as pets, or breed them in captivity and sell them as pets.

[Apexlaxfrog]

I disagree with that point. The ESA is perfectly suited for this because if listed no one, even licensed, can sell any of the corals listed and it also becomes illegal to own them (if my reading is correct). This effectively kills demand from the US and possibly other locations.

 

That is correct. Threatened species are just monitored regularly and, depending on the populations, can be upgraded to endangered or be removed from the list. A threatened listing doesn't require regulation. Just enables it. I doubt they'll ever be de-listed because factors like ocean acidification and warming will always be perceived as a threat to the species. And I doubt they'll regulate them due to difficulties in identification. Once endangered though they are purely off-limits (even to posses). I HIGHLY doubt any coral species will ever be listed endangered though.

[Mustang Boy]

I disagree with that point. The ESA is perfectly suited for this because if listed no one, even licensed, can sell any of the corals listed and it also becomes illegal to own them (if my reading is correct). This effectively kills demand from the US and possibly other locations. This should reduce the pressure on the corals due to wild collection since there is less demand.

 

In my opinion the rest of what we think we know is nothing more than lobbying and propaganda designed prevent any further regulation and scare people into action. Could do this, might do that, may limit restoration. It's all BS. Concerned scientists and organizations have been doing reef restorations for a good while now and any additional regs will not stop this work. It's akin to saying the Bald Eagle went extinct because concerned unlicensed individuals were not allowed to keep them as pets, or breed them in captivity and sell them as pets.

 

Making these corals illegal would severly damage this hobby since some of those are fairly popular corals. This would also mean that everyone that currently aquacultures them would no longer be able to, now what is the sense in killing off the aquaculture side of the hobby since they won't be taking anything from the wild, at the most I can see making it so that wild collection would be illegal but still allow aquaculture of these corals.

 

Your comparison to the Bald Eagle is freaking moronic and you know it, you are comparing a huge wild bird to a coral, a coral that can be grown in large numbers in relatively small systems and can be grown very quickly under the right conditions.