seabass Posted January 15, 2015 Author Share Posted January 15, 2015 ... import laws on wildlife would be more likely than some vast use of the similar appearance section of the ESA... I hope you're right. Regulating imports of wild specimens would be as effective, easier to enforce, and [with an exemption in the ESA for coral within the US, it] wouldn't affect possession or trade of aquacultured species. A win win. But this isn't currently in the works. Link to comment
CrazyCarl Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 While I do not think the ESA would purposefully use the rule in a way it has never been used, I do not see how the use of similar appearance wouldn't come into play with some of those acropora species (should they one day be listed as endangered), since some scientists even have a hard time distinguishing them. I think seabass is actually trying to be objective here, but we are on a reef keeping site after all lol. Link to comment
GHill762 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 There aren't any you should worry about. But in seabass's vast ocean of hypotheticals, import laws on wildlife would be more likely than some vast use of the similar appearance section of the ESA in a way its never been used before to destroy hobbyist reef keeping lol reefbuilders just posted a story saying they are now considering the 4(d) ruling, making it illegal to sell, transport, own, etc any coral on the list. http://reefbuilders.com/2015/01/14/national-marine-fisheries-service-requests-comments-public-ascertain-potential-4d-ruling-threatened-corals/ http://reefbuilders.com/2015/01/14/national-marine-fisheries-service-requests-comments-public-ascertain-potential-4d-ruling-threatened-corals/ Link to comment
HecticDialectics Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 There we go. You're all screwed. Your endangered animal trade is about to end. Link to comment
GHill762 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 who let HD out of the lounge anyway? Link to comment
charnelhouse Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 I figured rather than start a new thread for this I'd post it here as it is somewhat apropo: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/01/151015/coral-reef-death-climate-change-science-animals/ Interesting article, but the video clip on re-"planting" corals was the best part... Link to comment
seabass Posted January 15, 2015 Author Share Posted January 15, 2015 reefbuilders just posted a story saying they are now considering the 4(d) ruling, making it illegal to sell, transport, own, etc any coral on the list. National Marine Fisheries Service requests Comments from public to ascertain a potential 4(d) ruling on threatened corals Thanks GHill. While much of the following information has already been discussed in this thread, the links at the end of that article are still relevant to this discussion: Endangered versus Threatened: Why should you be concerned? Breaking: NOAA announces the proposal to list 66 stony coral species as endangered or threatened USFWS Los Angeles: It is now illegal to import frogspawn & certain deepwater acro species Reef Hobby needs YOU: call for comments regarding ESA coral listing PNG National Fisheries Authority responds to suit filed by EcoEZ regarding the SEASMART program USFWS Los Angeles: We are now advising the trade of coming ESA listings Clownfish could be declared an endangered Species Link to comment
kimberbee Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Just as I am getting into this hobby... Looks like I have some reading and writing to do when I get home tonight. Link to comment
seabass Posted January 15, 2015 Author Share Posted January 15, 2015 I figured rather than start a new thread for this I'd post it here as it is somewhat apropo: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/01/151015/coral-reef-death-climate-change-science-animals/ Interesting article, but the video clip on re-"planting" corals was the best part... Chris Langdon's lab experiment was interesting. They tried to induce bleaching in corals by increasing the temperature up to 30 to 31°C (86 to 87.8°F) for two months, but that didn't cause bleaching. It just shows us that we do not fully understand why mass die offs seem to be occurring. Link to comment
CronicReefer Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Chris Langdon's lab experiment was interesting. They tried to induce bleaching in corals by increasing the temperature up to 30 to 31°C for two months, but that didn't cause bleaching. It just shows us that we do not fully understand why mass die offs seem to be occurring. Its the cows maaaaan. http://www.nano-reef.com/topic/353869-the-secret-to-sustainability/ But seriously...it really is. Link to comment
charnelhouse Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Its the cows maaaaan. http://www.nano-reef.com/topic/353869-the-secret-to-sustainability/ But seriously...it really is. Mooooooooooooooo........ Link to comment
lakshwadeep Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 There's that agenda. The agenda of truth. Link to comment
seabass Posted January 16, 2015 Author Share Posted January 16, 2015 Mooooooooooooooo........ Link to comment
HecticDialectics Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 They're so cute! Link to comment
Nightstar Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 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. I assure you that rights are indeed confered by power. Privliges are granted, rights are taken. My logic is not fuzzy. Regulation of captive grown specimens is pointless, not regulation of collection or regulation in general. Try to stay within the context of a statement when attempting rebuttal. Humans are no better than any other animal. Such notions are the product of religion and other fairy tails. Regarding entropy you can google it if you like. Entropy is an eventuality whether you believe so or otherwise. I wasn't lecturing you, just pointing out the obvious. Link to comment
GHill762 Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Humans are no better than any other animal. Such notions are the product of religion and other fairy tails. depends on your definition of "better".. better at what? tennis? breathing under water? Link to comment
charnelhouse Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 depends on your definition of "better".. better at what? tennis? breathing under water? Typing. Link to comment
HecticDialectics Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Regulation of captive grown specimens is pointless, not regulation of collection or regulation in general. Try to stay within the context of a statement when attempting rebuttal. You can't tell the difference between a wild and captive grown specimen. What are you going to show an agent trying to determine if you're breaking the law? Your printed out certificate? Lmfao Link to comment
lakshwadeep Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 I assure you that rights are indeed confered by power. Privliges are granted, rights are taken. My logic is not fuzzy. Regulation of captive grown specimens is pointless, not regulation of collection or regulation in general. Try to stay within the context of a statement when attempting rebuttal. Humans are no better than any other animal. Such notions are the product of religion and other fairy tails. Regarding entropy you can google it if you like. Entropy is an eventuality whether you believe so or otherwise. I wasn't lecturing you, just pointing out the obvious. Rights are not taken, they are made. If you can prove from a photograph a specimen is captive grown or wild-collected, then you have nothing to worry about. In my experience with the hobby, people can barely get zoanthid color morphs right, and even then it's based on hearsay ("I got it from X, who got it from Y, who got it from Steve Tyree himself..."). If humans are no better, then why are you living in a home constructed largely of "manmade" materials, writing on a phone or computer or tablet made by humans and their machines, thinking the words I'm writing that you've read through your eyes, etc. Those are all things that even a chimpanzee has not done. I took 2 college courses on physics, 3 on physical chemistry, so I know more than enough about entropy, thank you very much. Link to comment
seabass Posted January 17, 2015 Author Share Posted January 17, 2015 You can't tell the difference between a wild and captive grown specimen. What are you going to show an agent trying to determine if you're breaking the law? Yeah, you can't differentiate between wild and captive grown coral. That's why you couldn't just rely on exceptions for cultured specimens. Again, that's the beauty of regulating imports of wild specimens (as customs could check the paperwork when it arrives). If it's not coming from a verified aquaculture or mariculture company, the shipment would be in violation. [With an exemption in the ESA for protections of coral within the US] This would still allow ownership and interstate commerce, while protecting the reefs just as good as listing all coral under the ESA would. In the future, NOAA would likely still list reef building coral as endangered (for other reasons), but at least then it wouldn't be necessary to police corals that are already within the US. This would also: deal with what to do with all those endangered specimens that people already own, protect the various aquatic industries, and allow agents to focus on illegal wild collection (which they would have had to do anyway). It might seem counter-intuitive, but nothing would protect reef keeping more than the restricting imports of wild collected coral (as long as they allow exceptions in the ESA for coral within the US). In theory, you could ban all coral imports (which would limit trade to US cultured coral). I wonder if contacting the senators from my state would help (as it would protect the environment and jobs), or if PIJAC would want to get on board. Link to comment
HecticDialectics Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Spoiler alert: They aren't going to list only a wild specimen. Link to comment
GHill762 Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 http://reefbuilders.com/2015/01/23/saltwater-aquatics-industry-major-jeopardy/ regulation here: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014-0158-0001 submit comments here: http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=NOAA_FRDOC_0001-3274 Link to comment
hypostatic Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 I believe this is of relevance: First 2015 Hawaii Aquarium Bill Introduced Selling of aquatic life for aquarium purposes prohibited; penalties; fines. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person at any time to knowingly or intentionally sell or offer to sell, for aquarium purposes, aquatic life taken from any of the waters within the jurisdiction of the State. Link to comment
GHill762 Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 I believe this is of relevance: First 2015 Hawaii Aquarium Bill Introduced "The bill seeks to criminalize the sale of aquatic life for aquarium use and establishes penalties for first and subsequent violations" These live yellow tangs I'm selling you are to be eaten only, do not look at them as pets. Link to comment
seabass Posted January 23, 2015 Author Share Posted January 23, 2015 Yo, seabass, what can we DO about it? "If you’re a hobbyist reading this now—head on over and write something up regarding the twenty corals. If you’re a professional aquarist—head on over and write something regarding the twenty corals. If you’re a wholesaler, importer, distribution or a consumer packaged goods company who profits on the industry—head on over and write something regarding the twenty corals. All of you will be glad you did several years from now." - http://reefbuilders.com/2015/01/23/saltwater-aquatics-industry-major-jeopardy/ Edit: General comments might show that people care, or are concerned, but they don't support why a species should or shouldn't be listed (which is primarily what they are evaluating). submit comments here: http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=NOAA_FRDOC_0001-3274 This thread is only a week old and a lot has happened during this time which directly threatens our hobby. You can be skeptical if you wish; but once it's in place it will be even more difficult to reverse, it will set a precedent of more things to come, and it might just be too late to do anything about it. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.