NMFS Petition on A. percula, etc.

[nlm2889]

Good evening everyone!

I'm writing a small paper regarding the current petition to the National Marine Fisheries Service to ban Amphiprion percula and several other species of commonly collected aquarium fish. If you're not familiar with it, the petition can be viewed here: https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...acific-species

Part of my paper is collecting information/data on how this would affect the (aquarium) community. I have a few different questions of which I would greatly appreciate your opinion and thoughts.

First off, do you own any of the following fishes: Amphiprion percula, Dascyllus albiesella, Plectroglyphidodon johnstonianus, Chromis atripectoralis, Chromis viridis, Dascyllus reticulatus and Microspathodon chrysurus. These are all fairly common fish within the community, especially A. percula and C. viridis.

If these fishes were listed as endangered, how do you think this would affect the community as a whole? How would this affect you on a personal level?

Given the current state of our oceans, do you think such action is warranted?

Looking at these fish, I notice that several of these are sold as beginner fish and are often recommended to cycle a tank. Do you think this could have some affect on current population levels?

I look forward to reading any input provided and appreciate your thoughts!

I googled some images to help IDs

 

A. percula


Juvenile D. albisella


P. johnstonianus


C. atripectoralis


C. viridis


D. reticulatus


M. chrysurus

[NorthGaHillbilly]

without going into a long rant, my main problem with engendered species designation is that it is often used as a social statement more then a representation of actual wild populations. In the case of perculas, if they get on the list than the hundreds of people breeding them in captivity will not be able to grow their businesses and provide completely guilt free fish.

 

If these fish are indeed on the brink then I would understand their being put on the list, but more often than not it seems thats not the case

[nlm2889]

NorthGaHillbilly, rants are more than welcome! The more opinions I can gather, the better! I appreciate your thoughts!

[jestep]

Here's the question I would ask. How would having a fish placed on the endangered or threatened list, affect commerce of stock that already exists in captivity and captive bred stock?

 

I ask, because perculas specifically are widely bred in captivity, and if them being listed as endangered prohibits commerce, it would be extremely disruptive and completely unproductive towards preventing them from being collected in the wild. Secondly, I would be willing to bet that captive perculas are so far removed from their wild counterparts that they wouldn't be able to survive in the wild anymore. Most have lost their instinct to host anemones. They could probably be classified as a sub-species such as the case with domestic dogs, canis lupus familiaris.

 

The black axil and green chromis would almost instantaneously remove them from the hobby. There's no legitimate captive breeding of these species. They would effectively be non existent in the hobby in 10 years.

 

The other damsels would suffer the same fate, but they are much less prevalent in the hobby due to their size and temperaments.

 

Personally, I feel that if a fish is legitimately threatened or endangered, it's our responsibility to do what we can to ensure their survival, regardless of our personal feelings towards the fish species itself. Side not, cycling a tank with a fish is a sick thing to do and should be discouraged no matter what species we're talking about.

[nlm2889]

Here's the question I would ask. How would having a fish placed on the endangered or threatened list, affect commerce of stock that already exists in captivity and captive bred stock?

 

I ask, because perculas specifically are widely bred in captivity, and if them being listed as endangered prohibits commerce, it would be extremely disruptive and completely unproductive towards preventing them from being collected in the wild. Secondly, I would be willing to bet that captive perculas are so far removed from their wild counterparts that they wouldn't be able to survive in the wild anymore. Most have lost their instinct to host anemones. They could probably be classified as a sub-species such as the case with domestic dogs, canis lupus familiaris.

 

The black axil and green chromis would almost instantaneously remove them from the hobby. There's no legitimate captive breeding of these species. They would effectively be non existent in the hobby in 10 years.

 

The other damsels would suffer the same fate, but they are much less prevalent in the hobby due to their size and temperaments.

 

Personally, I feel that if a fish is legitimately threatened or endangered, it's our responsibility to do what we can to ensure their survival, regardless of our personal feelings towards the fish species itself. Side not, cycling a tank with a fish is a sick thing to do and should be discouraged no matter what species we're talking about.

 

From my understanding, it would depend on exactly what restrictions NMFS placed on the species if it were deemed Threatened or Endangered. If it were deemed Endangered, it would be illegal to trade the species, regardless from where the organism originated. It could be listed as Endangered with Section 4 (d) rules applied, making trade illegal.

 

Do you think the threat of restrictions like these will help promote awareness within the hobby and a push for more captive breeding programs, or do you think it will further divide politicians and hobbyists?

 

Also, thank you for your input, this was exactly the kind of response I need!

[farkwar]

I went fishing a few years ago.

 

Off shore for king salmon.

 

We need to use barbless hooks in case we accidently caught silver salmon. Silver salmon are/were endangered.

 

Anyway, we caught 20 silver salmon to each king salmon that we brought in. Not to mention all the silver salmon that just stole the bait from the hook. Silver salmon are smaller, so that was easy for them. Doing so would still cause the downrigger to trip requiring a rereel and rebait.

 

Our time fishing was predicated by how much bait was used, and the vast majority of the sardines used went to feed the multitudes of silver salmon in the waters. When we ran out of the cases if sardines, it was time to go back in.

 

I am very skeptical when someone states that some animal is threatened or endangered (see also Bald Eagle in Homer Alaska). It appears more to be some form of social engineering, rather than true.

[cju84]

Who recommends using a fish to cycle a tank? I've never seen that on this forum.

[CronicReefer]

In my opinion, if we are more worried about being able to buy any fish we want rather than trying to determine if those fish are truly endangered then we as a community are failing the ecosystem and wildlife we claim to care so much about.

[farkwar]

Who recommends using a fish to cycle a tank? I've never seen that on this forum.

 

I see posts all the time to cycle tanks with wild caught clownfish, you mean you havent?

 

I thought it was the norm.

[jestep]

 

Do you think the threat of restrictions like these will help promote awareness within the hobby and a push for more captive breeding programs, or do you think it will further divide politicians and hobbyists?

 

Also, thank you for your input, this was exactly the kind of response I need!

 

It definitely helps awareness but probably also furthers divisions in certain areas.

 

If they only way the regulations can exist is by blanket banning trade once something is listed as endangered, it's an illogical and paradoxical policy. It pushes trade underground and would disincentivize people and companies that work on captive breeding programs. Who would want to put in the cost and effort to captive breed a species, which can be substantial for marine fish, if they can't trade it if the fish becomes endangered. Obviously this issue shouldn't be studied in a vacuum, which seems to often be the case. There's many more impacting factors than just the aquarium trade, especially with warming and acidifying ocean conditions, it wouldn't surprise me to see a substantial jump in the number of threatened or endangered species in the next 30 - 50 years at obviously no direct fault to the aquarium trade.

 

There should at least be policy promoting the furthering of captive breeding and some sort of regulatory mechanism that allows people to continue trading captive species if they become endangered in the wild.

[afyounie]

So reading through the petition, it says that only A. percula is really being considered for protection under the ESA and only because of the arguments given under Factor A: Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or Range. And the only reason A. percula is in some sort of danger isn't because they are dying, but because their anemones are under threat due to the increasingly frequent bleaching events. So, yes, I agree that its probably a good idea to protect them, but isn't this more about the anemones health than the clowns? Shouldn't we setup a facility to help breed the anemones and clowns to ensure that their population survives? I'd say that for larger breeding facilities, they should setup a system to breed the clownfish with their natural anemones and hopefully this same system can help breed the anemones as well.

 

As for anything about population, not a single bit of information was given on the current population in the wild for any of these fish. Only the amount that are being harvested. Which for A.percula was around 400,000 a year.

 

I wish the petition was more forward that this isn't the fault of the aquarium industry, but the fault of natural and unnatural causes of increasing global temperatures. Everything I have read on forums has been people thinking the petition is blaming the aquarium industry and NMFS has written that this isn't the cause for their decision but only after really reading into the meat of the document.

[nlm2889]

I see posts all the time to cycle tanks with wild caught clownfish, you mean you havent? I thought it was the norm.

 

Not specifically this forum, but in the community in general. Unfortunately, I have to include advice given from retail stores. Not particularly clownfish, but we're all aware that using damsels to cycle tank is an outdated and cruel method that used to be (and is still occasionally) recommended to beginners.

 

I will say that the aggressive responses to that statement helps to defend the community.

[CronicReefer]

It definitely helps awareness but probably also furthers divisions in certain areas.

 

If they only way the regulations can exist is by blanket banning trade once something is listed as endangered, it's an illogical and paradoxical policy. It pushes trade underground and would disincentivize people and companies that work on captive breeding programs. Who would want to put in the cost and effort to captive breed a species, which can be substantial for marine fish, if they can't trade it if the fish becomes endangered. Obviously this issue shouldn't be studied in a vacuum, which seems to often be the case. There's many more impacting factors than just the aquarium trade, especially with warming and acidifying ocean conditions, it wouldn't surprise me to see a substantial jump in the number of threatened or endangered species in the next 30 - 50 years at obviously no direct fault to the aquarium trade.

 

There should at least be policy promoting the furthering of captive breeding and some sort of regulatory mechanism that allows people to continue trading captive species if they become endangered in the wild.

+1 to this. The aquarium trade has little or no negative impact on the oceans according to many research and environmental groups. The true threat concerning our oceans is commercial fishing where up to 5 pounds of fish is caught for every 1 pound of fish that is sold on the market. However, if a fish species is endangered then it is our responsibility to not allow these fish to be harvested for aquariums. Captive bred is one thing that is difficult to do with many fish and should be promoted among as many species as possible.

[nlm2889]

So reading through the petition, it says that only A. percula is really being considered for protection under the ESA and only because of the arguments given under Factor A: Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or Range. And the only reason A. percula is in some sort of danger isn't because they are dying, but because their anemones are under threat due to the increasingly frequent bleaching events. So, yes, I agree that its probably a good idea to protect them, but isn't this more about the anemones health than the clowns? Shouldn't we setup a facility to help breed the anemones and clowns to ensure that their population survives? I'd say that for larger breeding facilities, they should setup a system to breed the clownfish with their natural anemones and hopefully this same system can help breed the anemones as well.

 

As for anything about population, not a single bit of information was given on the current population in the wild for any of these fish. Only the amount that are being harvested. Which for A.percula was around 400,000 a year.

 

I wish the petition was more forward that this isn't the fault of the aquarium industry, but the fault of natural and unnatural causes of increasing global temperatures. Everything I have read on forums has been people thinking the petition is blaming the aquarium industry and NMFS has written that this isn't the cause for their decision but only after really reading into the meat of the document.

 

 

It definitely helps awareness but probably also furthers divisions in certain areas.

 

If they only way the regulations can exist is by blanket banning trade once something is listed as endangered, it's an illogical and paradoxical policy. It pushes trade underground and would disincentivize people and companies that work on captive breeding programs. Who would want to put in the cost and effort to captive breed a species, which can be substantial for marine fish, if they can't trade it if the fish becomes endangered. Obviously this issue shouldn't be studied in a vacuum, which seems to often be the case. There's many more impacting factors than just the aquarium trade, especially with warming and acidifying ocean conditions, it wouldn't surprise me to see a substantial jump in the number of threatened or endangered species in the next 30 - 50 years at obviously no direct fault to the aquarium trade.

 

There should at least be policy promoting the furthering of captive breeding and some sort of regulatory mechanism that allows people to continue trading captive species if they become endangered in the wild.

 

 

Both of these arguments I feel move in the same direction: the policy-making and regulating of potentially endangered species is outdated and inefficient. How can we as hobbyists help to refurbish the system? What we require today is a more transparent, flexible and direct solution to this problem. When this system was originally in place, captive breeding was a rare occurence; not so today, where tens of thousands of fish are raised and reared in capitivity.

[nlm2889]

So reading through the petition, it says that only A. percula is really being considered for protection under the ESA and only because of the arguments given under Factor A: Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or Range. And the only reason A. percula is in some sort of danger isn't because they are dying, but because their anemones are under threat due to the increasingly frequent bleaching events. So, yes, I agree that its probably a good idea to protect them, but isn't this more about the anemones health than the clowns? Shouldn't we setup a facility to help breed the anemones and clowns to ensure that their population survives? I'd say that for larger breeding facilities, they should setup a system to breed the clownfish with their natural anemones and hopefully this same system can help breed the anemones as well.

 

As for anything about population, not a single bit of information was given on the current population in the wild for any of these fish. Only the amount that are being harvested. Which for A.percula was around 400,000 a year.

 

I wish the petition was more forward that this isn't the fault of the aquarium industry, but the fault of natural and unnatural causes of increasing global temperatures. Everything I have read on forums has been people thinking the petition is blaming the aquarium industry and NMFS has written that this isn't the cause for their decision but only after really reading into the meat of the document.

 

I know we've had great success breeding various fish and we've been able to grow tons of different invertebrates and coral, but I'm unaware of any programs to reintroduce animals back into the ocean. One of the best reasons to purchase captive grown fish and invertebrates is because they're promoted to be more resilient and suited to aquarium life. I know of a few programs to help rebuild reefs using maricultured corals, but I don't know of any using fish and/or anemones. Perhaps the benefit is in the supposed reduction of individuals collected?

 

Sidebar: it's becoming increasingly clear that all parties need more data to get a better picture of the current state of our oceans...

[afyounie]

I believe the main reason fish and inverts are not bred for reintroduction is due to pests and diseases spreading to the wild populations. But if the wild populations are shrinking more and more per what all these environmentalists keep spouting, then maybe we should step in to ensure that the species survive. We are past the point of allowing nature to control evolution. We can now use technology to speed it up. Like for the anemones, why not collect a few specimens that are showing resistance to bleaching and increased water temperatures and breed them for reintroduction. We can even push the limits on these collected organisms and help them evolve to handle even warmer ocean temps.

 

I definitely agree that more information needs to be collected which is why I advocate the US setting up a system very similar to how Australia's aquarium trade fishery is set up. Those that harvest also take stock of the environment and keep a record on populations and work in concert with the regulatory body to ensure the survival of aquatic species. This would help bring in more info on actual population numbers and help reduce the speculation done by those who see the aquarium trade as nothing more than an environment wrecking machine.

[farkwar]

Sidebar: it's becoming increasingly clear that all parties need more data to get a better picture of the current state of our oceans...

No, they dont need that.

FUD

Emotionalism

Hyperbole

Irrationality

Spurious Statistics.

 

Is all they need

 

Do It For The Children, Now Before It's Too Late!

 

And Disney Anthropomorphism, helps a LOT.

[1.0reef]

without going into a long rant, my main problem with engendered species designation is that it is often used as a social statement more then a representation of actual wild populations. In the case of perculas, if they get on the list than the hundreds of people breeding them in captivity will not be able to grow their businesses and provide completely guilt free fish.

 

If these fish are indeed on the brink then I would understand their being put on the list, but more often than not it seems thats not the case

Also, as long as it doesn't affect fishes already in captivity and the captive breeding of these fish, I couldn't care less.

Plus, your picture of A. percula is actually an Ocellaris clown.