Jump to content
ReefCleaners.org

The Reef Hobby- An Endangered Species?


Spiderguardnano

Recommended Posts

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.

 

No, Mustang Boy, if I thought is was moronic I would not have posted it. Fast or slow, flying or swimming or stationary, does not matter. The ESA actually works better for corals since they are stationary and there is a market for them that would dry up if these corals were listed.

 

Closing commercial aquaculture facilities is not important as it applies to species protection and by law, in the ESA, no one is allowed to look at the financial harm any regulation might inflict. You can read it, it's online and a key part of the ESA. I was specifically responding to the point that somehow the ESA would harm restoration, as if commercial aquaculture facilities are somehow aiding in restoration and somehow new regulation would kill this effort. It would not, it would only adversely effect the hobby / industry.

Link to comment
  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

No, Mustang Boy, if I thought is was moronic I would not have posted it. Fast or slow, flying or swimming or stationary, does not matter. The ESA actually works better for corals since they are stationary and there is a market for them that would dry up if these corals were listed.

 

Closing commercial aquaculture facilities is not important as it applies to species protection and by law, in the ESA, no one is allowed to look at the financial harm any regulation might inflict. You can read it, it's online and a key part of the ESA. I was specifically responding to the point that somehow the ESA would harm restoration, as if commercial aquaculture facilities are somehow aiding in restoration and somehow new regulation would kill this effort. It would not, it would only adversely effect the hobby / industry.

 

You have a fundamental lack of understanding between supply and demand - ESA can not and will not kill demand. This is why there is still a giant market for Ivory and Rhino horn. Same reason people still buy drugs even though it is illegal - laws can't remove demand.

 

Also, the ESA does not prohibit ownership as long as you owned it before it was listed and have proof - but it removes the ability to transfer it without a LOT of red tape.

 

BTW I wasn't referring to commercial aquaculture facilities for restoration, I was speaking specifically about two of the species on that list and the massive non-profit mariculture and aquaculture restoration work... However since you brought that up, commercial aquaculture facilities contribute a lot of research - which is just as important as restoration. Removing the financial incentive effectively removes them from the equation.

Link to comment

You have a fundamental lack of understanding between supply and demand - ESA can not and will not kill demand. This is why there is still a giant market for Ivory and Rhino horn. Same reason people still buy drugs even though it is illegal - laws can't remove demand.

 

Also, the ESA does not prohibit ownership as long as you owned it before it was listed and have proof - but it removes the ability to transfer it without a LOT of red tape.

 

BTW I wasn't referring to commercial aquaculture facilities for restoration, I was speaking specifically about two of the species on that list and the massive non-profit mariculture and aquaculture restoration work... However since you brought that up, commercial aquaculture facilities contribute a lot of research - which is just as important as restoration. Removing the financial incentive effectively removes them from the equation.

well the fact that less and less advertising and marketing will inevitably be caused by any regulations ultimately will make the demand less.

Link to comment

well the fact that less and less advertising and marketing will inevitably be caused by any regulations ultimately will make the demand less.

Look how well that worked out for Heroin.... Bayer stopped marketing that in the early 1900s and it was completely outlawed with the avalanche of drug laws that followed and it's market today is bigger than ever.

 

And just because 20 corals get regulated with ESA isn't going to stop a major industry...

Link to comment

Look how well that worked out for Heroin.... Bayer stopped marketing that in the early 1900s and it was completely outlawed with the avalanche of drug laws that followed and it's market today is bigger than ever.

 

And just because 20 corals get regulated with ESA isn't going to stop a major industry...

Corals don't make you go crazy, feel the worst depression in the world when you don't have it, or make your body feel too good to handle when you do, just FYI...

Link to comment

You have a fundamental lack of understanding between supply and demand - ESA can not and will not kill demand. This is why there is still a giant market for Ivory and Rhino horn. Same reason people still buy drugs even though it is illegal - laws can't remove demand.

 

Ok. :)

Link to comment

I am just glad to hear that PIJAC has made a public statement on the matter, which I hope some major news sources will pick up. The marine aquarium hobby is one side of this debate that the general public has not heard from, which means that public opinion about our hobby in relation to conservation efforts is informed solely by the propaganda that NWFS and conservationist organizations put out about the hobby. It is high time that the other side of the story got heard by a wider audience. Hopefully, that will discourage polarization and discourage the stereotype that aquarists and collectors "only care about the money, not the fish/corals/etc". Right now PIJAC is preaching to the choir, so to speak, but I hope that the letter and the article from CORAL Magazine will get a wider audience sometime soon.

Link to comment

In anyone's readings can you find who the congressmen are on the congressional pannel? Or the head of the congressional pannel?

 

I am asking because a simple letter writing cameign that specifically targets those individuals is key. I feel like the argument is simple. The simple fact is that reefs are dying. And dying rapidly. The only place some of the a lot of those endangered corals will be living in 30 years is in captivity. This is not because they are being overfished or hunted, but due to loss of habitat. Forcing them to stay in a habitat that is disappearing is a sure way to loose them -it is a death sentence not a rescue. I am all for tackleing the pollution issues, over harvesting issues, sunscreen in sensitive habitat issues ( positively linked to coral death through virus), boating damage etc... But thanks to major lobbies we have no intent to do anything about them... So instead we ensure the animals will never leave their habitat as we destroy it and them together?

 

Can anyone dig up actual the actual names for the folks on the congressional pannel (which is required to add them to the ESL)?

Link to comment

Another note & another call to action:

 

While I clearly disagree with the restrictions being proposed for these species (which I have no doubt are endangered). I do hope that even the threat and publicity of such serious restrictions gets people to question the image this hobby has. It is up to us as to whether or not we will be conscience of who we buy from and what their practices are!

 

I can promise that if we continue to purchase fish collected with dynamite or and poisons we will find our days are numbered. While frustrated and angered by the proposal, we do have to realize that our industry has a bad rap for a reason. There are hundreds and hundreds of reefs that have been blown up to collect fish and live rock (a staple in our trade). There are many more that have been poisoned for fish collection. I am not saying that we do the most damage -as I think the tourism industry wins hands down in that category- but our impact can be mitigated by simply being conscience consumers. If we can take our industry in a clean safe direction we can continue this hobby past the days of abundant natural coral reefs. If we simply continue to support the "cheaply caught" fish and corals our hobby will -without a doubt- be short lived... As there will be more and more laws created as a last ditch effort to save the reefs.

Link to comment

Corals don't make you go crazy, feel the worst depression in the world when you don't have it, or make your body feel too good to handle when you do, just FYI...

 

You're at least semi-close with the description, but I can think of dozens of outlawed substances, resources, animals, etc. that still have just as big of a market now that they are outlawed and aren't being advertised and have no chemical effect on your body...

 

Tiger parts for medicine and pelts for decoration, elephant ivory, turtle shell, rhino horn, other endangered animals in "alternative" medicine, blood diamonds, every type of drug - addictive or not, pirhannas, venemous snakes (ever met a herp nut?), black coral, and on and on and on.

 

Regulation doesn't doesn't effect demand, it simply shifts the cost-benefit-risk analysis that goes on for any purchase. Lack of advertising may keep those without knowledge uninformed, but adding "endangered" in front of an easily accessible species is going to attract an entirely new subset of people who want to keep it just because of it's status.

 

Edited to Add: The de-facto penalty for being caught poaching a tiger is instant death. The rangers that manage the tiger preserves look more like the military and basically shoot on site. Yet, poaching is still the biggest threat even though there are dozens of international laws AND it is near universally socially unacceptable in nearly all cultures. If that isn't proof that demand can't be legislated, I don't know what is.

Link to comment

adding "endangered" in front of an easily accessible species is going to attract an entirely new subset of people who want to keep it just because of it's status.

 

^while that is true, I really don't think any coral species will hit the ESA endangered list. It would have to be a genus-wide listing because most FWS/NPS/NFS/EPA/NOAA personnel couldn't even tell you what genus a given coral is in, let alone down to a species... Furthermore, listing any coral species/genera as endangered would effectively shutdown all mariculture/aquaculture facilities in addition to severely diminishing (if not altogether extirpating) tourism to many coral-heavy areas.

 

I am guessing that NOAA is just juicing the proverbial 'squeaky wheel' with a shot of lube. They're just trying to get lobbyists like CBD to shut up lol

Link to comment

If the science says that something is endangered, then it should be protected. Hands down. If that costs me coral or fish for my tank, so be it. I'd rather the oceans be alive and healthy than me have a tank. I love my tank, but I love the ocean and its inhabitants more. My tank has no benefit other than to me. The ocean and its ecosystem, however... Well, there is a lot that depends on that.

 

Great summarizing paragraph by Advanced Aquarist (http://www.advancedaquarist.com/blog/nmfs-seeks-public-comments-for-status-review-of-percula-clownfish-for-esa-listing):

 

Respect(ing data) is a two way street

Aquarist must also respect data, even if it means it harms our hobby. Good policy is based on good information, not agenda. The ultimate goal is not about the defense of our hobby. It's about the defense of science and the sustainability of the animals we are privileged enough to care for. If data tells us species are under threat, we should not obstruct conservation to protect our self-interests.

Link to comment

Corals don't make you go crazy, feel the worst depression in the world when you don't have it, or make your body feel too good to handle when you do, just FYI...

 

Says someone whos not addicted lol

Link to comment

^while that is true, I really don't think any coral species will hit the ESA endangered list. It would have to be a genus-wide listing because most FWS/NPS/NFS/EPA/NOAA personnel couldn't even tell you what genus a given coral is in, let alone down to a species... Furthermore, listing any coral species/genera as endangered would effectively shutdown all mariculture/aquaculture facilities in addition to severely diminishing (if not altogether extirpating) tourism to many coral-heavy areas.

 

I am guessing that NOAA is just juicing the proverbial 'squeaky wheel' with a shot of lube. They're just trying to get lobbyists like CBD to shut up lol

 

Yeah I agree with a lot of this. I really wish they would craft a new piece of legislation specifically for protecting the reefs that acknowledges that corals can be sustainably farmed and aims for the real threats to reefs.

 

People know reefs can be kept in captivity and there is a clear demand for aquariums - if aquaculture and mariculture facilities are shut down that will lead to poaching to meet that demand, there is no question about that. If wild collection were shut down or massively clamped down on - aquaculture and mariculture could meet the demand while disincentivizing poaching through competition. Not to mention the research by these facilities, look at ORA, is a huge boon to conservation efforts and may one day be a last source for these animals (look at the Mangarahara cichlid - they are only left in captivity and they turned to the cichlid community to try and find a mate to save the species).

 

Added: I read an article not too long ago in NatGeo talking about a man sustainably farming Black Rhino horn for use in eastern traditional medicine since Rhino horns grow back in a few years (unlike Elephant ivory) and is able to provide the horn at a fraction of the price poachers charge (Rhino poachers aren't like Elephant poachers and are typically highly trained snipers with massive amounts of gear). This, coupled with stringent enforcement of the poaching laws lead to a decrease in dead Rhinos locally. This is why aquaculture and mariculture are so important when wild collection is eventually banned.

Link to comment

Furthermore, listing any coral species/genera as endangered would effectively shutdown all mariculture/aquaculture facilities in addition to severely diminishing (if not altogether extirpating) tourism to many coral-heavy areas.

 

In the US yes, I don't believe it would shut down the mariculture facilities in other countries as long as Japan is importing like crazy (Asias market is way bigger and way more expensive then ours). There is already alot of regulation on what can and cannot be imported (internationally) and the #s that can be imported/ exported per CITES, our hobby isn't the problem and stopping us from importing the limited numbers of anything even remotely scarce in the wild is already done, further stopping it isn't going to be a solution just ensures no one will get to enjoy them in nature or from the comfort of your couch.... which more people will be on because they will be out of a job.

 

If the science says that something is endangered, then it should be protected. Hands down. If that costs me coral or fish for my tank, so be it. I'd rather the oceans be alive and healthy than me have a tank. I love my tank, but I love the ocean and its inhabitants more. My tank has no benefit other than to me. The ocean and its ecosystem, however... Well, there is a lot that depends on that.

 

For every scientists that says the reefs are dying, there is global warming, climate change, whatever you can find one that will say bs too if you look hard enough. Hell I remember reading a report once that ciggarettes really aren't bad for you. Cholesterol was bad, then it was good, now its good and bad........

 

Link to comment

If the science says that something is endangered, then it should be protected. Hands down. If that costs me coral or fish for my tank, so be it. I'd rather the oceans be alive and healthy than me have a tank. I love my tank, but I love the ocean and its inhabitants more.

 

I agree... to an extent. But if the EPA cannot pinpoint the mechanism for the decline in natural populations, it would be asinine to place it on the endangered species list. If I'm not mistaken, any species that has gained endangered status mandates that FWS/NOAA work-up (and adhere to) an action plan. A plan to recover the natural populations... well, if they can't reverse ocean acidification/warming/eutrophication then they'd be mad to attempt to 'save' ANY coral species. The very best that they could do is to designate the area(s) in danger as National Wildlife Refuge(s). But still, it wouldn't reverse the core causes of our reefs' decline.

Link to comment

Yeah I agree with a lot of this. I really wish they would craft a new piece of legislation specifically for protecting the reefs that acknowledges that corals can be sustainably farmed and aims for the real threats to reefs.

 

Goodluck....

 

People know reefs can be kept in captivity

 

Not really based on the numbers the antiaquarium groups put out there and give to the government to form these regulations. They use old data that looks like we kill most everything that comes in.... and we don't really have a big voice out there in the media saying hey look we just aquacultured a new type of coral... check this out just captive bred this rare or delicate fish.... hopfully PIJAC can help with this as I know there are some "big names in the hobby" associated with it. We really need to get the word out that we are capable of these great things and get people excited and interested about it!

 

Like this, yeah its fairly big news in the hobby but I haven't heard of anything on the national "regular world" scene:

 

http://reefbuilders.com/2014/08/30/captive-bred-genicanthus-personatus-debuts-macna-2014/

Link to comment

Corals don't make you go crazy, feel the worst depression in the world when you don't have it, or make your body feel too good to handle when you do, just FYI...

speak for yourself, I have a problem.

Link to comment

For every scientists that says the reefs are dying, there is global warming, climate change, whatever you can find one that will say bs too if you look hard enough. Hell I remember reading a report once that ciggarettes really aren't bad for you. Cholesterol was bad, then it was good, now its good and bad........

This isn't remotely true. The majority of scientists now agree that climate change is occurring and is largely due to humans. In 2013 there were 2258 papers published on it in peer-reviewed journals, meaning scientists read it and try and poke holes in the papers. Of those, 2257 concluded, based on legitimate data that anthropogenic climate change is real - only 1 paper disagreed (http://www.popsci.com/article/science/infographic-scientists-who-doubt-human-caused-climate-change). Not only that - of the 2258 papers, there were a total of 9,136 authors. There was 1 paper with 1 author who disagreed. That means that there was 4.4x10-4 or .04% of papers disagreeing. There was 0.01% if you look at authors. That's not an equal ratio by any means. The science overwhelmingly states that anthropogenic climate change is VERY VERY real. The only people who disagree at this point are politicians, and a handful of "independent scientists funded by think tanks" which is basically saying that a politically charged group is funding private research into the matter to give them the answer they want. There is a reason their data is never published in reputable journals - because the science, conclusions, and overall work is poor and biased. It's junk science that can simply be disproven with a single good experiment (and often is). Then there are people who were skeptics and were funded by think tanks, and who switched sides because the data said that their skepticism was incorrect (Professor Richard Muller is the best known for this). The world's greatest scientific minds are pretty much all in agreement at this point. We can go on about this all day - I'm a scientist.

 

But we aren't here to debate this. We are here to talk about our hobby and whether it will last or not. For me, I love the hobby, but if the scientific data says that something is endangered or threatened, I believe it is our job to protect those things. Even if it costs me my hobby.

 

Cigarettes are absolutely bad for you, no one actually disagrees with this - the "study" was published by cigarette companies. As for cholesterol, there is still some debate because the data conflicts and it depends on the model they are using, the cholesterol type, etc. But in general, we keep adapting our understanding of cholesterol and its role in health. Scientists aren't saying that it's BAD or GOOD, we discuss the data and what it could mean. The media takes it and goes haywire.

Link to comment

I agree... to an extent. But if the EPA cannot pinpoint the mechanism for the decline in natural populations, it would be asinine to place it on the endangered species list. If I'm not mistaken, any species that has gained endangered status mandates that FWS/NOAA work-up (and adhere to) an action plan. A plan to recover the natural populations... well, if they can't reverse ocean acidification/warming/eutrophication then they'd be mad to attempt to 'save' ANY coral species. The very best that they could do is to designate the area(s) in danger as National Wildlife Refuge(s). But still, it wouldn't reverse the core causes of our reefs' decline.

What? If it's endangered, it's endangered - so it goes on the list. If you don't know the cause, you don't just let it keep happening while you try and figure it out... You put things into place to protect it and then try and figure it out.

Link to comment

What? If it's endangered, it's endangered - so it goes on the list. If you don't know the cause, you don't just let it keep happening while you try and figure it out... You put things into place to protect it and then try and figure it out.

Here is where I disagree, if it is flourishing in aquaculture facilities but dying off in the wild, why would you stop collection when it is shown the it isn't the collection destroying it but the changes in its natural environment wiping it out. I am not saying quick grab it all and put it in an aquarium facility but I am saying banning any collection could lead to possible extinction of a species. Stop all boats from going in the ocean, stop agriculture anywhere remotely close to the ocean, stop anyone from polluting the atmosphere, stop dumping trash in the ocean, and stop any sort of runoff making its way to the ocean.

 

If you can stop all of that then maybe it won't go extinct but just stopping collection guarantees it's extinction unless you can foresee a solution to all these other issues we already know exist.

 

Supposedly palau nepthea hasn't been able to be found in the wild in a long time, I have a chunk in my tank obtained from a guy who has had a colony of it for a very long time. If they can ever get palau back to where it could support the nepthea again guess what I would love to donate. (as far as I can find on limited info on the subject the nepthea is gone from a pollution issue)

 

I think what I am trying to say here is coral may be an exception to the thought you had on the protection of it, where if a tiger is going extinct people cannot collect them and have them flourish/breed in capitivity in a practical manner, coral on the other hand can be saved by aquaculture imo.

Link to comment

If the science says that something is endangered, then it should be protected. Hands down. If that costs me coral or fish for my tank, so be it. I'd rather the oceans be alive and healthy than me have a tank. I love my tank, but I love the ocean and its inhabitants more. My tank has no benefit other than to me. The ocean and its ecosystem, however... Well, there is a lot that depends on that.

 

Great summarizing paragraph by Advanced Aquarist (http://www.advancedaquarist.com/blog/nmfs-seeks-public-comments-for-status-review-of-percula-clownfish-for-esa-listing):

 

Respect(ing data) is a two way street

'Aquarist must also respect data, even if it means it harms our hobby. Good policy is based on good information, not agenda. The ultimate goal is not about the defense of our hobby. It's about the defense of science and the sustainability of the animals we are privileged enough to care for. If data tells us species are under threat, we should not obstruct conservation to protect our self-interests.'

 

Absolutely agree with this statement. The moment when a group tries ignores or tries to fudge peer reviewed scientific fact to benefit their own interests is when all credability is lost. Loose credibility and you loose support...and the chance to win future battles.

Link to comment

Here is where I disagree, if it is flourishing in aquaculture facilities but dying off in the wild, why would you stop collection when it is shown the it isn't the collection destroying it but the changes in its natural environment wiping it out. I am not saying quick grab it all and put it in an aquarium facility but I am saying banning any collection could lead to possible extinction of a species. Stop all boats from going in the ocean, stop agriculture anywhere remotely close to the ocean, stop anyone from polluting the atmosphere, stop dumping trash in the ocean, and stop any sort of runoff making its way to the ocean.

 

If you can stop all of that then maybe it won't go extinct but just stopping collection guarantees it's extinction unless you can foresee a solution to all these other issues we already know exist.

 

Supposedly palau nepthea hasn't been able to be found in the wild in a long time, I have a chunk in my tank obtained from a guy who has had a colony of it for a very long time. If they can ever get palau back to where it could support the nepthea again guess what I would love to donate. (as far as I can find on limited info on the subject the nepthea is gone from a pollution issue)

 

I think what I am trying to say here is coral may be an exception to the thought you had on the protection of it, where if a tiger is going extinct people cannot collect them and have them flourish/breed in capitivity in a practical manner, coral on the other hand can be saved by aquaculture imo.

I would absolutely agree that aquaculture is a great thing for our hobby, and I am 100% on board with expanding our practices. I'd prefer if we all bought aquacultured stuff. I was simply saying that Apexlaxfrog's argument that if they don't know what the cause of death is, it shouldn't be listed as endangered was a poor argument, in my opinion. I disagree in that, if someone is stealing my bank password and my money, I'm not going to NOT change my password every time because I don't know if the thief is accessing my account on the bank's end or mine. I would continue to try and figure out the problem all the while taking steps to ensure that I was doing everything I could to protect myself in the meantime. You have to make positive steps while trying to figure out the answer.

Link to comment

What? If it's endangered, it's endangered - so it goes on the list. If you don't know the cause, you don't just let it keep happening while you try and figure it out... You put things into place to protect it and then try and figure it out.

 

Do you know who decides when/how/why it's endangered? Sorry, but the term 'endangered' is relative.

 

The purpose of putting it in the threatened list (I'm sure) was specifically so that they could monitor the populations. Placing it under ESA jurisdiction promotes more thorough research and slashes some of the red-tape associated with funding said research. In addition to government-sponsored population research, public opinion IS solicited when making regulations. While getting a BS in Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, I was lucky enough to take part in the interview process for ORV access on NC's Cape Hatteras National Seashore... we interviewed EVERYONE!!! ORV owners, beach goers, bird watchers, fishermen, pro-wildlife lobbyists, locals... it's ALL taken into consideration when designing regulations.

 

But when you boil it down, you're right. They ARE doing something to, as you so eloquently put it, "try and figure it out". They put it on the threatened list so they can watch it ;)

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recommended Discussions


×
×
  • Create New...