The Reef Hobby- An Endangered Species?

[Nano sapiens]

One of the interesting facts is that we, the aquarists, collectively have the largest colllection and widest distribution of corals species outside of nature. Think about the number of reef tanks worldwide and the number of different genera/species/morphs contained therein.

 

Wouldn't it be a crying shame if ill-conceived legislation were to threaten this treasure trove of genetic material and one that scientists may one day need to study and/or collect samples from?

 

Perhaps PIJAC should petiton the NOAA to add all our tanks as 'threatened' due to the valuable species contained therein?

[Apexlaxfrog]

This isn't remotely true. The majority of scientists now agree that climate change is occurring and is largely due to humans...

^ you said it yourself, they DO know what is contributing to population declines.

 

But knowing the cause and knowing the solution are two different things. You know your password/money were taken... but, with that said, you can't necessarily 'fix' it just because you know it's happening. I apologize for the opinion tennis, I'm not trying to argue... Just providing my nanobyte of knowledge.

[Apexlaxfrog]

One of the interesting facts is that we, the aquarists, collectively have the largest colllection and widest distribution of corals species outside of nature. Think about the number of reef tanks worldwide and the number of different genera/species/morphs contained therein.

 

Wouldn't it be a crying shame if ill-conceived legislation were to threaten this treasure trove of genetic material and one that scientists may one day need to study and/or collect samples from?

 

Perhaps PIJAC should petiton the NOAA to add all our tanks as 'threatened' due to the valuable species contained therein?

 

Even better... what if we could selectively-breed more warm-tolerant cultivars?! Then we could re-seed the oceans!!! It would require sexual reproduction of course

[tibbsy07]

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

^ you said it yourself, they DO know what is contributing to population declines.

 

But knowing the cause and knowing the solution are two different things. You know your password/money were taken... but, with that said, you can't necessarily 'fix' it just because you know it's happening. I apologize for the opinion tennis, I'm not trying to argue... Just providing my nanobyte of knowledge.

Sure, but in both cases, you argument has been to not label it as anything and just go forth. Is it not better to do something that offers some level of protection (making sure people can't take them, making sure people are more aware when swimming on a reef to not touch coral, etc.) while working towards a solution than to just let it all go and try and find a solution? I think you raise a good concern, but I don't think the ultimate solution is as easy as either of us are thinking about it.

[Nano sapiens]

Even better... what if we could selectively-breed more warm-tolerant cultivars?! Then we could re-seed the oceans!!! It would require sexual reproduction of course

 

Or cultivate corals that are tolerant of more acidic condition. Oh wait, don't we have some reefers with low pH systems and corals that have adapted?

[Apexlaxfrog]

^ LMAO, exactly! See? It's feasible

 

Re. your rebuttal Tibbsy, I did not advocate NOT labeling them. I am for labeling them. All I'm saying is that uplisting them to endangered will not make things better. I completely agree with your last post though, the solution is not simple. That's why I am for placing them under ESA protection. It provides for more transparent, regular, and more importantly, less biased research.

 

Anyway, I think it is truly amazing that PIJAC could aid us in vocalizing our concerns. We all do soooo much great research, data-logging, and observation that, collectively, we would be a force to be respected. But it's going to be difficult for us hobbyists to band together well/long enough to actually fight THE MOST vocal of all interests groups: animal rights activists. I don't solely blame them of course... but they put a lot of resources into politicking. I, for one, will be supporting them (PIJAC). I can't say I provide much, but if everyone does...

 

Editted to add:

If anyone else is truly interested in helping, one option is to read the letter to MASNA and then donate to the Aquatic Defense Fund. I don't know if the link Mustangboy provided is the same (haven't looked into the ornamental fund thing), but I'm sure everything helps!

[Chris!]

Or cultivate corals that are tolerant of more acidic condition. Oh wait, don't we have some reefers with low pH systems and corals that have adapted?

 

Science doesnt understand things like common sense, or things they don't know how to do themselves lol

 

All I'm saying is that uplisting them to endangered will not make things better.

 

Clearly it wouldnt... it would even prohibit aquaculture of those corals other then possibly in research facilities, which are far less then hobbyist do

[markalot]

 

 

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.

 

 

You're still incorrect, and looking more and more close minded. There is a LOT of history to the ivory trade and trade in other rare animal parts. I don't think anyone is going to use live corals as currency for weapons, for example. Don't know what I'm talking about? Look it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory_trade

 

Poachers poach because there are people who will pay big money for what they poach. Ivory is a good example of this. I don't see someone poaching corals and then trading bags of browned out acros for cash on the black market. I stand by my opinion that an ESA listing of endangered would effectively eliminate demand from the US if not other countries as well, especially if the drop in demand made collection, holding, and delivery of live corals uneconomical.

 

I also agree that environmental degradation is the biggest factor in coral decline and aquaculture facilities could help. Funny thing is NOAA apparently agrees with this as well.

[Chris!]

You're still incorrect, and looking more and more close minded. There is a LOT of history to the ivory trade and trade in other rare animal parts. I don't think anyone is going to use live corals as currency for weapons, for example. Don't know what I'm talking about? Look it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory_trade

 

Poachers poach because there are people who will pay big money for what they poach. Ivory is a good example of this. I don't see someone poaching corals and then trading bags of browned out acros for cash on the black market. I stand by my opinion that an ESA listing of endangered would effectively eliminate demand from the US if not other countries as well, especially if the drop in demand made collection, holding, and delivery of live corals uneconomical.

 

Making them illegal will not drop demand.

 

Richard "Dick" Perrin recently was caught and plead guilty in connection to his poaching of sea life in a protected national reserve in FL and sold them at the Tropicorum (LFS) here in MI. He had a van fully outfitted to collect, and bring them back to MI in Others in other states have been convicted as well for illegally collecting sharks, corals, fish, and inverts Hell he was a "pioneer" in the hobby and one of the key pieces to aquaculture itself lol

 

http://www.justice.gov/usao/fls/PressReleases/140326-01.html

 

The "operation" that busted Dick caught a fairly good sized network of poachers, illegal transporters, collectors and distributors.... that despite being illegal not only existed but thrived

 

 

I also agree that environmental degradation is the biggest factor in coral decline and aquaculture facilities could help. Funny thing is NOAA apparently agrees with this as well.

 

And yet, listing them as endangered would kill the biggest source of aquaculture there is for coral.... hobbyist and industry related businesses

[tibbsy07]

 

Science doesnt understand things like common sense, or things they don't know how to do themselves lol

 

 

 

Clearly it wouldnt... it would even prohibit aquaculture of those corals other then possibly in research facilities, which are far less then hobbyist do

QFT

[markalot]

Making them illegal will not drop demand.

 

Richard "Dick" Perrin recently was caught and plead guilty in connection to his poaching of sea life in a protected national reserve in FL and sold them at the Tropicorum here in MI. He had a van fully outfitted to collect, and bring them back to MI in Others in other states have been convicted as well for illegally collecting sharks, corals, fish, and inverts

 

Come on now, why do you think this. If they become illegal I'm not going to risk my livelihood and family buying corals, I'm out, as are the vast majority of hobbyists. So where will this demand come from, and please talk me through how someone is going to smuggle a live coral from the reef to your home without anyone noticing AND keeping the coral alive. If we were talking dead coral skeletons then perhaps you have a point, but probably not in the US.

 

The example you give is illegal collection. If corals are listed endangered it is illegal collect, sell, and buy them, which is quite different.

 

Look at the difference is sentencing between illegal collection and dealing in prohibited species.

 

http://blog.aquanerd.com/2014/04/operation-rock-bottom.html

[Apexlaxfrog]

But Tropicorum wouldn't be there if they were illegal. He was collecting illegally... but not having a lfs or LA.com to run to is the issue. Instead you'd end up having to go to the shady guy on the corner whos growing corals next to his weed plants. Illegal may not eliminate demand, but who wants to pay $1000 for green shwag polyps? The risk-reward ratio isn't good...

 

Also, I really think it's worth tossing names like Julian Sprung, Dustin Dorton, and Chris Bruerner into the mix 'cause they're on the committee to help us!

[Chris!]

But Tropicorum wouldn't be there if they were illegal. He was collecting illegally... but not having a lfs or LA.com to run to is the issue. Instead you'd end up having to go to the shady guy on the corner whos growing corals next to his weed plants. Illegal may not eliminate demand, but who wants to pay $1000 for green shwag polyps? The risk-reward ratio isn't good...

 

Also, I really think it's worth tossing names like Julian Sprung, Dustin Dorton, and Chris Bruerner into the mix 'cause they're on the committee to help us!

 

The store was saved because of the business structure and the fact Dick copped a deal

 

Come on now, why do you think this. If they become illegal I'm not going to risk my livelihood and family buying corals, I'm out, as are the vast majority of hobbyists. So where will this demand come from, and please talk me through how someone is going to smuggle a live coral from the reef to your home without anyone noticing AND keeping the coral alive. If we were talking dead coral skeletons then perhaps you have a point, but probably not in the US.

 

The example you give is illegal collection. If corals are listed endangered it is illegal collect, sell, and buy them, which is quite different.

 

Look at the difference is sentencing between illegal collection and dealing in prohibited species.

 

http://blog.aquanerd.com/2014/04/operation-rock-bottom.html

 

If they are illegally collected they are illegal to own, sell, transport etc.... Dick and others did it for years without being caught... within the US... Hell Dick used to post pictures of the items after mentioning trips to FL on the local boards lol. Also, Dick is an 80+ yr old millionaire rocket scientist (yes literally) I wouldn't be surprised if he he tossed around some cash to keep his final years out of federal prison... also his partner in crime is serving an actual prison sentence despite being caught for the same thing, just plead to the alligators, although the article I read before said they had the same charges.... but yeah he got 2 yrs. He was 35 and not a millionaire. He was more of the low guy on the totem pole compared to the others as he was just an employee of Tropicorum.. yet got one of the harsher sentences.

 

But Tropicorum wouldn't be there if they were illegal. He was collecting illegally...

 

It is illegal to posses, sell, trade goods knowingly obtained illegally

[Chris!]

QFT

 

Awww did the scientist get his thong in a twist because he knows I'm right. Science doesn't understand common sense, if its all illegal to own "to protect it" the largest source of aquaculture (hobbyists) will be gone and all will be lost.... there would be no advancing and expanding aquaculture it would be shutting it down and letting it all die with the natural reefs when they are gone.

 

 

Plus you've said it yourself the worlds reefs are on such a decline it is only a matter of time before they are all dead and there doesn't seem to be anything we can do to save them.... if thats the case whats the point in "protecting them" from being removed from certain death to potentially be propagated and enjoyed for years to come elsewhere?

[markalot]

Hey Chris,

 

stfu would ya. Why are you attacking people?

 

and as to your reply to me ... people that bought them had no idea they were collected illegally so they would not be held responsible. It's quite different when it's listed illegal to own something regardless of how it's collected.

 

 

Awww did the scientist get his thong in a twist because he knows I'm right.

 

I always thought QFT meant quite ####ing true or quoted for truth so I'm really confused as to why you're being an ass.

[Chris!]

Hey Chris,

 

stfu would ya. Why are you attacking people?

 

Not attacking anyone. Tibbsy seemed like his thong was twisted, maybe not I dunno internet isn't easy to get emotions n shit through lol

 

 

and as to your reply to me ... people that bought them had no idea they were collected illegally so they would not be held responsible. It's quite different when it's listed illegal to own something regardless of how it's collected.

 

Ignorance does not exempt you from laws....

 

I always thought QFT meant quite ####ing true or quoted for truth so I'm really confused as to why you're being an ass.

 

I figured it was along your lines of STFU as being Quit ####ing Talking.... he seems to like to go back to science but science isn't always right sometimes ya just need some common sense

 

If he meant it as the shit you said it stands for then hey I apologize, otherwise I stand by it Sorry I'm not up on 1000% of the abbreviations you young wippersnappers come up with lol

[markalot]

lol, I'm 51, you older than me kid? I'm hip with the lingo

 

-or-

 

I can use the google.

 

Ignorance does not exempt you from laws....

 

It does when a person has no reasonable way to tell if the product being purchased was "stolen". If the product that is legal to sell in a store where you would expect it to be collected legally, for example. (well, I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds good doesn't it?) Now if it was listed as endangered and was illegal to sell and own then ignorance of the law is no excuse.

[hey]

QFT

This either means quoted for truth or quit f'in talking, not sure but chris may, or may not have taken this out of context.

[tibbsy07]

Qft is quit ####ing trolling, at least I've only ever seen it that way but it seems it has many meanings according to the Google.

 

Sorry, just had to get my thong out of my ass. I was trying to find my common sense, but it got all lost. Then i was trying to make policies with all the scientists who apparently control law-making abilities. Using no logic or facts, just doing whatever we feel. Ya know.

 

Ad hominem, straw man fallacy, non sequitur, and some good ol' false dichotomy arguments from the troll. My common sense, or lack thereof, is no match.

[hey]

this thread delivers

[markalot]

Damn, so much for being hip with the lingo.

[tibbsy07]

this thread delivers

I aim to please

Damn, so much for being hip with the lingo.

Nah, we were all correct. These damn kids and all their intarwebz lingo...

[Chris!]

logic or facts,

 

Logic and fact rolled into one....

 

If the ESA's go into effect with corals on the endangered list those corals are illegal to own. If they are illegal to own they are illegal to aquaculture at the most widespread level (hobby) there is. You keep saying we need to expand aquaculture (which I fully agree needs to be done for a multitude of reasons) but if they make it illegal to own these corals it will do more damage to aquaculture then good. Yes public aquaria and research facilities may be able to still own/ obtain some but they aren't really set up or as diverse as hobbyist are to do so. Also limiting what species can be brought in only hinders further research and aquaculturing and captive breeding projects as well...

 

You've said everything in the ocean is dying and will die, if thats the case banning owning things is the equivilent of sitting around doing nothing IMO. Leaving something where it is to face certain death isn't protecting it

 

 

 

Like I have said before CITES (and all the major players are part of CITES) are in place to regulate what can and cannot be imported/exported already there is no real need for the US government to step in and try to regulate even further. The ESA's will not stop many of larger threats like ships, and dredging, pollution and contamination of runoff water, etc. Look at the GBR, its in decline but they are still running ships through it, dredging it, and all kinds of shit you think thats going to stop because the US says certain corals there are endangered, I highly doubt it. The US has so many other problems at home that it should focus on and let international issues be handled by the countries it effects the most, they probably aren't going to stop doing dumb shit because we said so anyways.... otherwise we wouldn't still be ####in around in iraq, they would all just comply

 

 

If anyone would like to see the list of countries that follow CITES you can go here... http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/parties/alphabet.php, and obviously learn more about CITES and what it is/does to protect animals in general not just sea animals through the various links on the site

[tibbsy07]

Well, I didn't say you had no logic or facts, but, ok.

 

How do you know public aquariums and research facilities aren't set up for aquaculture or to be as diverse as the hobby? Every public aquarium I have been to has everything hobbyists have and more, including money. Research labs not only have plethora of corals, they also have cell cultures of the corals that can be seeded and grown. They also have grant funding to continue. How many hobbyists raise and breed bobtail squids? I know 3 microbiologists, not even marine biologists, who breed and raise bobtail squids. There are also many researchers who breed and use zebra fish in huge housing set ups.

 

Maybe the answer is not to ban all endangered marine life from aquaculture? Maybe we need to push for better policies overall? Not black or white but a grey scale... Researchers, public aquariums, licensed/legit aquaculture facilities can do their thing and can sell/ship. No large scale collecting, etc. coral hunters shift to licensed aquaculture facilities, etc.

[jservedio]

You're still incorrect, and looking more and more close minded. There is a LOT of history to the ivory trade and trade in other rare animal parts. I don't think anyone is going to use live corals as currency for weapons, for example. Don't know what I'm talking about? Look it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory_trade

 

Poachers poach because there are people who will pay big money for what they poach. Ivory is a good example of this. I don't see someone poaching corals and then trading bags of browned out acros for cash on the black market. I stand by my opinion that an ESA listing of endangered would effectively eliminate demand from the US if not other countries as well, especially if the drop in demand made collection, holding, and delivery of live corals uneconomical.

 

I also agree that environmental degradation is the biggest factor in coral decline and aquaculture facilities could help. Funny thing is NOAA apparently agrees with this as well.

 

1. Ivory was a single example out of a long list... Just because there is a long history of ivory trade and the fact it is essentially fungible with cash doesn't mean items with less demand to begin with won't have a flourishing black market. Coral may not be as desirable as ivory because the market is smaller and has less history, but to think you can eliminate a thriving market through legislation is extremely naive.

 

2. People have dedicated their entire lives to keeping corals in captivity and researching them - you think if the hammer was dropped overnight, they would simply throw their hands up and say "it was fun while it lasted". Sure, you may give in but I guarantee there will be a thriving coral market. Keep in mind that there are countries where mariculture literally makes up multiple percentage points of their GDP - you think they are going to throw in the towel just cause the US government said so?

 

You seem to have this idea that just because something is illegal, people aren't going to trade in it or be a part of it. You do realize 1 in 100 adults in the US is in prison right now - and those are only the ones who got caught and nearly 1 in 4 under 30 have been jailed. Clearly our country doesn't have a problem with breaking the laws...

 

Yet I'm the closed minded one for thinking that people are willing to break the law for something they care dearly about... Just because you with your infinite wisdom don't see people illegally collecting coral doesn't mean they aren't already doing it even though they have to compete with the legitimate market. Just look to hunting and fishing if you want to see how well legislating out a market, however small, works.