The Endangered Species Act and how it affects reef keeping

[seabass]

In this video, Julian Sprung talks about the potential impact of the Stony Coral Endangered Species Act on our hobby. I know this has been discussed before; however, I'll bring it up once again just for general awareness. Here is his break out session (and round table discussion) at the 2014 MACNA conference:

 

We should at least be aware of the potential effects of these regulations, which many feel are destined to be enacted in the future.

 

Edit: Currently, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is considering proposing protective regulations under Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for the 20 coral species recently listed as threatened last August.

 

PIJAC, Coral Restoration Foundation, SECORE

[k4ndyk1ng]

Most the corals i have ever got have been from mother colonies in peoples tanks

[seabass]

Most the corals i have ever got have been from mother colonies in peoples tanks

We're not just talking about wild collection. If the status of these corals were to change, it would include cultured/propagated corals as well (even species of fish that are commonly tank bred like the percula clownfish, Amphiprion percula).

[k4ndyk1ng]

We're not just talking about wild collection. Once enacted, it would include propagated corals as well (even species of fish that are commonly tank bred).

i dont see the point because it isnt harming the envirnment

[CronicReefer]

Are we not preserving coral by growing them in our tanks? The law is so ridiculous we may as well ban the freshwater trade to promote preservation of the wild goldfish.

[k4ndyk1ng]

those wild inbread fantails

[lakshwadeep]

i dont see the point because it isnt harming the envirnment

 

But, there is always the issue of poaching and people claiming wild-caught animals are aquacultured. There has to be a balance. It's no different than the challenges of buying/selling ivory or other exotic pets.

[Nightstar]

But, there is always the issue of poaching and people claiming wild-caught animals are aquacultured. There has to be a balance. It's no different than the challenges of buying/selling ivory or other exotic pets.

So balance is making a legitimate activity illegal rather than catching those who actually violate the law? Interesting perspective.

 

Following that logic we should outlaw the sale of used cars since some used cars sold are stolen...

 

Test the logic to see if a proposal is reasonable.

'

[seabass]

So balance is making a legitimate activity illegal rather than catching those who actually violate the law?

Laks is echoing the government's point of view.

 

 

Personally, I'm in favor of just regulating the importation of threatened, wild collected species. US customs could perform this function. However, I feel that imports should still be allowed from confirmed aquaculture and mariculture producers. Unfortunately, the ESA does not just limit imports of protected wild species.

 

Import restrictions on wild specimens would go a long way to improve our "public image". Our industry poses a relatively small threat to these species; and regulating wild imports could further reduce the environmental impact while allowing possession and unrestricted trade within the states (protecting the reefs as well as the aquarium, aquaculture, and mariculture industries).

[Smithjm5]

I love how the video just cuts off lol, nice discussion though. Thanks for posting!

[lakshwadeep]

So balance is making a legitimate activity illegal rather than catching those who actually violate the law? Interesting perspective.

 

Following that logic we should outlaw the sale of used cars since some used cars sold are stolen...

 

Test the logic to see if a proposal is reasonable.

'

If there's is one thing I love more than anything is testing logic. In the words of Leibniz, let us calculate and see who is right.

 

Cars are not living beings. They can never be endangered because they can always be remade, and even if they can't be remade, it doesn't affect any species besides humans. The same can't be said for the coral species that has survived for millions of years, maybe older than the dinosaurs, having made symbiotic relationships with fish, shrimp, crabs, trilobites, what-have-you, only to be threatened with extinction due to a group of clever hairless apes who want to look at the pretty colors inside glass boxes.

 

We have no right to take these animals. But, we are just stronger/smarter than them and have the ability to do that. With great power comes great responsibility. We are the only species who can save the Earth from total destruction, as long as we don't destroy it ourselves. If you can prove 100% the frag you last bought from a dealer is not from a wild-caught endangered species, then carry on. If not, then you are saying regulators should trust your claim (and the dealer's/wholesaler's claims), which may have varying degrees of certainty. That is fuzzy logic.

[CrazyCarl]

It would be no different than any other endangered species if classified as such. All trade would be outlawed. At least that is the way I would interpret it. It would be impossible for the government to monitor which is wild caught and which is aquacultured as stated before. There is a lot of politics involved in this issue. I went to a seminar given by Rhet Talbot a few months ago. There is science on both sides to substantiate the claims. Even in the studies done by the government, collection is listed as one of the lowest threats to reefs, and it sustains entire economies in some remote areas. However the law is the law. It only makes sense if the point is to preserve the species to take every possible action to do so. The truth is that the reefs are dying, just at what rate and how critical a point we are currently at. I believe that this unfortunately is inevitable, that many species we collect will be listed as endangered, just a matter of when. Hopefully, since this is a hobby that could actually save and preserve species, maybe exceptions or regulations can be made to allow trade or captive bred, aqua cultured animals. Just my .02

[NorthGaHillbilly]

At the end of the day there is a political agenda at work that will over shadow any logic we try to inject into the conversation. Collecting CAN represent a problem, but collection is a reaction to the demand, and the US market, the only market likely able to strictly enforce any restrictions, is far from the only source of demand.

[CrazyCarl]

At the end of the day there is a political agenda at work that will over shadow any logic we try to inject into the conversation. Collecting CAN represent a problem, but collection is a reaction to the demand, and the US market, the only market likely able to strictly enforce any restrictions, is far from the only source of demand.

Unfortunately I think you are right, and not enough people will educate themselves to understand the actual science or be motivated enough to fight for and present the truth that would overpower the political agendas and get public support. This statement can be made for many regulations and laws already in place unrelated to our hobby.

[hypostatic]

Wow, I watched the whole video.

 

So apparently, if this goes through, it'll be illegal to trade basically any tank-raised frags of SPS across state lines. And I guess also even owning frags.

 

Oh, also tank-bred clowns...

 

Crazy stuff.

 

Crazier still, is that from what I understood from the video, is that it's all extremely unscientific and not based on any actual DATA....

[Nightstar]

If there's is one thing I love more than anything is testing logic. In the words of Leibniz, let us calculate and see who is right.

 

Cars are not living beings. They can never be endangered because they can always be remade, and even if they can't be remade, it doesn't affect any species besides humans. The same can't be said for the coral species that has survived for millions of years, maybe older than the dinosaurs, having made symbiotic relationships with fish, shrimp, crabs, trilobites, what-have-you, only to be threatened with extinction due to a group of clever hairless apes who want to look at the pretty colors inside glass boxes.

 

We have no right to take these animals. But, we are just stronger/smarter than them and have the ability to do that. With great power comes great responsibility. We are the only species who can save the Earth from total destruction, as long as we don't destroy it ourselves. If you can prove 100% the frag you last bought from a dealer is not from a wild-caught endangered species, then carry on. If not, then you are saying regulators should trust your claim (and the dealer's/wholesaler's claims), which may have varying degrees of certainty. That is fuzzy logic.

I'd hoped for a test of logic. I got an impassioned plea.

 

Rights are confered by power. Those with more power have more rights which is precisely what confers the right to put a coral in an aquarium or say... eat a fish.

 

Regulating trade of captive grown specimens is pointless. It doesn't serve to protect wild coral reefs, just the opposite if anything.

 

Treating everyone as a criminal unless they can demonstrate innocence is putting the cart before the horse.

 

Last, nobody and nothing can save the earth from total destruction. Entropy (thermodynamic) can not be stopped. Everything comes with an expiration date.

[lakshwadeep]

I'd hoped for a test of logic. I got an impassioned plea.

 

Rights are confered by power. Those with more power have more rights which is precisely what confers the right to put a coral in an aquarium or say... eat a fish.

 

Regulating trade of captive grown specimens is pointless. It doesn't serve to protect wild coral reefs, just the opposite if anything.

 

Treating everyone as a criminal unless they can demonstrate innocence is putting the cart before the horse.

 

Last, nobody and nothing can save the earth from total destruction. Entropy (thermodynamic) can not be stopped. Everything comes with an expiration date.

 

Rights are not conferred by power. They are done by deliberation and consensus. If we followed your fuzzy logic, the civil rights acts of the 1960s should not have been approved because it didn't appear to benefit those with more political power.

 

Regulation is not pointless. If you're regulated, it does not mean you're a criminal. Or, maybe you should start driving around without car insurance or a license. The fact that you even insinuate criminality shows an anti-government bias.

 

If we are to say humans are better than all other animals, we better start acting like that. Also, save the lecture about entropy, unless you can give me the actual formula for it. Humans and other living animals are actually islands of low entropy because our molecules are so highly and precisely ordered.

[NorthGaHillbilly]

 

Rights are not conferred by power. They are done by deliberation and consensus. If we followed your fuzzy logic, the civil rights acts of the 1960s should not have been approved because it didn't appear to benefit those with more political power.

 

Regulation is not pointless. If you're regulated, it does not mean you're a criminal. Or, maybe you should start driving around without car insurance or a license. The fact that you even insinuate criminality shows an anti-government bias.

 

If we are to say humans are better than all other animals, we better start acting like that. Also, save the lecture about entropy, unless you can give me the actual formula for it. Humans and other living animals are actually islands of low entropy because our molecules are so highly and precisely ordered.

There's that agenda.

[Mustang Boy]

I actually got to talk with Julian today and got to watch him give a very similar demonstration as this one at WWC today. Not only would listing those specified corals on the endangered species act make it illegal to import, sell, trade, and possess(just like all other animals currently on the endangered species act) the endangered species act apparently outlaws all look-a-like animals(forget what terminology Julian used earlier today), his example was "Since Pandas are endangered and you are not allowed to own them, if there is another bear that was black and white and looked similar to a panda they would also be outlawed from being owned also" so what this would mean is if a few acro species were outlawed then all of them would be outlawed since even most scientists have a hard time distinguishing them much-less a FWC officer.

[amphipod]

Why don't they just let us keep our creatures, we aren't destroying the environment fragging our corals in our houses, if they are so concerned, they should fund us to grow more in our houses.

[scottsdale454ss]

I just watched that video last night.Thats bureaucracy for you.

 

Just like hunting and fishing, the desire for coral and the money it creates can actually be beneficial.

 

The real threat to the coral reefs is human pollution.

[HecticDialectics]

If they're listed you can't just throw them away... FYI that'd be a violation of section 9.

 

Let's be real tho. Y'all honestly don't care do you? Because this hobby does have a pretty tremendous impact on things...

 

Anyone have a link or something to the actual bill or regulation? I don't care to waste time watching someone talk. Gimme the facts.

[seabass]

If they're listed you can't just throw them away... FYI that'd be a violation of section 9.

Section 9 protects the endangered (or threatened) species, not people's rights to possess or sell them.

 

Let's be real tho. Y'all honestly don't care do you? Because this hobby does have a pretty tremendous impact on things...

The impact of wild collection is real, but relatively small (and the impact of aquaculture and mariculture activities are virtually negligible). Plus, regulating wild imports would significantly lessen the ecological impact to the reefs.

 

"Some of the most serious threats include impacts related to climate change (rising ocean temperatures, ocean acidification and disease), ecological effects of fishing, and poor land-use practices."

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2014/20140827_corallisting.html

 

Anyone have a link or something to the actual bill or regulation? I don't care to waste time watching someone talk. Gimme the facts.

--------------------------

"Listing species as endangered does not prohibit activities like fishing or diving, but prohibits the specific 'take' of those species, including harming, wounding, killing, or collecting the species. It also prohibits imports, exports, and commercial activities dealing in the species. These protections are not automatic for species listed as threatened, but can be established for them as well."

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2012/20121130_coralspecies.html

--------------------------

September 2011

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS‐PIFSC‐27

Status Review Report of 82 Candidate Coral Species

Petitioned Under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

 

From page 35 of this report (BRT stands for the Biological Review Team),

"In the absence of species-specific abundance and trend information, BRT members relied heavily upon the best available information on the spatial extent of the species ranges and on their understanding of the likely impacts of the suite of threats on each of the individual coral populations over the period until 2100. The lack of adequate information on complex coral ecology and interactions between threats made the assessment of extinction risk for each of the 82 nominal coral species extremely challenging and uncertain."

http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/library/pubs/tech/NOAA_Tech_Memo_PIFSC_27.pdf

--------------------------

December 7, 2012

"We, NMFS, have completed comprehensive status reviews under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 82 reef-building coral species in response to a petition submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) to list the species as either threatened or endangered. We have determined, based on the best scientific and commercial data available and efforts being made to protect the species, that 12 of the petitioned coral species warrant listing as endangered (five Caribbean and seven Indo-Pacific), 54 coral species warrant listing as threatened (two Caribbean and 52 Indo-Pacific), and 16 coral species (all Indo-Pacific) do not warrant listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA. Additionally, we have determined, based on the best scientific and commercial information available and efforts undertaken to protect the species, two Caribbean coral species currently listed warrant reclassification from threatened to endangered. We are announcing that 18 public hearings will be held during the public comment period to provide additional opportunities and formats to receive public input."

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-12-07/html/2012-29350.htm

--------------------------

August 27, 2014

NOAA list 20 new coral species as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)

"In total, 22 species of coral are now protected under the Endangered Species Act, including the two corals (elkhorn and staghorn) listed as threatened in 2006. Fifteen of the newly listed species occur in the Indo-Pacific and five in the Caribbean (see table below)."

 

Caribbean Waters:

Acropora cervicornis (Staghorn)

Acropora palmata (Elkhorn)

Mycetophyllia ferox

Dendrogyra cylindrus

Orbicella annularis

Orbicella faveolata

Orbicella franksi

 

Pacific Waters:

Acropora globiceps

Acropora jacquelineae

Acropora lokani

Acropora pharaonis

Acropora retusa

Acropora rudis

Acropora speciosa

Acropora tenella

Anacropora spinosa

Euphyllia paradivisa

Isopora crateriformis

Montipora australiensis

Pavona diffluens

Porites napopora

Seriatopora aculeata

http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/stories/2014/08/corals_listing.html

(These include Acropora, Montipora, Euphyllia, Pavona, Porites, and Seriatopora.)

--------------------------

Endangered Species Act | Section 4

"( e ) SIMILARITY OF APPEARANCE CASES. The Secretary may, by regulation of commerce or taking, and to the extent he deems advisable, treat any species as an endangered species or threatened species even though it is not listed pursuant to section 4 of this Act if he finds that ( A ) such species so closely resembles in appearance, at the point in question, a species which has been listed pursuant to such section that enforcement personnel would have substantial difficulty in attempting to differentiate between the listed and unlisted species; ( B ) the effect of this substantial difficulty is an additional threat to an endangered or threatened species; and ( C ) such treatment of an unlisted species will substantially facilitate the enforcement and further the policy of this Act."

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/laws-policies/section-4.html

--------------------------

 

SUMMARY (of the above links and video):

Similar looking corals (and fish) could be treated as threatened or endangered species. In essence, making all species of Acropora, Montipora, Euphyllia, Pavona, Porites, and Seriatopora treated as threatened (which can be awarded the same protections as endangered species, as is currently being evaluated). This is the list at the moment, but there are more listings which have been proposed. Even species of fish that can be captive bred (like the Banggai Cardinal) could be classified as endangered.

 

The selection process/criteria isn't based on the actual size or number of colonies in the wild, but rather on estimates and modeling tools. And while threatened species are not currently being treated as endangered, it is within their rights to do so (making it illegal to collect, import, sell, or possess). The potential regulation changes and expansion of species in the future could have a substantial impact on our hobby (changing reef keeping as we know it).

[amphipod]

We all hope that doesn't happen for the sake of our hobby, anyways how could they regulate the hundreds of thousands of already traded frags? Do we just all kill them, that's not beneficial to the species listed.

[CrazyCarl]

Seabass. In the last 2 paragraphs, it states that threatened species can be treated as endangered, are they actually considering doing that, or is it just from a source with an agenda, fear mongering to gain support? According to NMFS, threatened species are not illegal to import or trade. Those species above are already listed as threatened and are currently being imported and traded legally. A different agency is responsible for species native to the US that enforces the law differently, and does not allow collection, or trade for any threatened species, that's why those carribean species are illegal. That is at least how I understood it, is that correct.